Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Clearly an English lesson is required here.

When you have a sentence that ends in a colon(The following symbol ":") with bullet points following it, those bullet points are an extension of that sentence.

When a sentence is part of the body of a paragraph, the first sentence in the paragraph defines the subject of that paragraph.

Now those 2 rules of the English language alone tell you that the bullet points are part of the paragraph and the the paragraph is discussing Battle brothers as friendly units.

But more importantly we have the sentence that the bullet points belongs to: "This means, for example, Battle Brothers:". Example of what means? This means is in regard to the preceding sentence: "Battle brothers are treated as friendly units from all points of view." That is what "this means", that battle brothers as friendly units means...

This is also a theme that continues throughout the Bullet points. Does it say that a Battle brother IC can Join an allied unit? No it says "This Means that Battle Brothers: Can be joined by allied Independent Characters.". Does it say That Battle Brothers can be the target of Psychic powers, Abilities, and so on? Yes, yes it does, and most powers, abilities and what have you are based on units.

The third bullet point is poorly worded(worded as a complete sentence); but it must still be taken in context of its containing sentence.

So sure, the RAW read as anything that is drawn from a battle brothers ally; if yoiu completely ignore the English language and context of the rules

Why don't we ignore the context of Preferred enemy as well?

Or how about Vector Strike? Why can't a gliding FMC use vector strike? If we can ignore the first sentence in the paragraph about Battle brothers I should be able to take a FMC and vector strike while gliding by ignoring the first sentence of the paragraph and ignoring the context of the rest of the rules.

So yeah, the RAW of the rule is that Battle Brothers are friendly units and those units cannot embark on allied transports.

ICs joined to a unit are no longer units on their own, but are instead members of the unit they have joined for all rules purposes.

An Eldar farseer that joins a unit of Fire Warriors is still an Eldar Farseer, but is no longer and Eldar Farseer Unit, he is now just a member of the Tau Firewarrior unit. A Cadre Fireblade is still able to join that unit(ICs joining units does not change the unit, only the IC), and Preferred enemy(Eldar) will not effect that unit.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
PR - so you disagree that the definition only stalks about units? P39 also tates an IC is no longer a unit when joined - sol your a) is false as well.

So far a) and b) are wrong, and c) is an unsupported leap given the rules for BB define them as being units. So QED you are wrong

Page 39 says it is counted as part of the unit for all purposes, not that it stops being a unit, do you believe a Farseer joined to a squad of Fire Warriors is no longer a Farseer unit?

Saying that the "Battle Brothers are treated as friendly units" rule means that only units are defined as Battle Brothers is also an unsupported leap.

Yes. Otherwise I can shoot at, and assault, that farseer unit. If you believe there is still aunit there, then under the rules for shooting at units your IC has NO protection from being shot at. Agreed?

To your second point - no, it is literally what that sentence means. The only rules for Battle Brothers that we have apply to units, and units alone. Saying anything else shows you have a poor understanding of English sentence construction, as saying anything else requires you to ignore the colon AND the explicit linkage of subject being "Battle Brother units"

Plesae, show rules pertaining to Battle Brother models. Page and graph. Until you can your concession is accepted.

Unit can be taken either way on that one.. And Special rules are given to models - but only that are in the unit.
Codexs..

1. Unit Name
...

2. Unit Profile
...

3. Unit type
...
..
..

6. Special rules
Any special rules that apply to the models in the unit are listed here.......

I picked on Tau codex for that but believe all new codex's are a copy / paste of the same. Tau codex pg 94.


Of course, this is because unit means 2 different things. It's quite easy to come out with yes they can, or no they can't depending which 'unit' you choose. It's quite easy to say a 'Battle brother unit' is a unit taken as an allied detachment where the relationship is 'Battle Brother', in which case that model will never not be one. As I believe we all agree IC's retain Unit rule tags when joined to another unit.

Evidence of this in work, in the rule set is things like IC's still counting as unit kills. They are not a 'unit' at that point par sey, but they are still a 'unit'. yay.

 Nem wrote:
Unit can be taken either way on that one.. And Special rules are given to models - but only that are in the unit.
Codexs..

1. Unit Name
...

2. Unit Profile
...

3. Unit type
...
..
..

6. Special rules
Any special rules that apply to the models in the unit are listed here.......

I picked on Tau codex for that but believe all new codex's are a copy / paste of the same. Tau codex pg 94.


Of course, this is because unit means 2 different things. It's quite easy to come out with yes they can, or no they can't depending which 'unit' you choose. It's quite easy to say a 'Battle brother unit' is a unit taken as an allied detachment where the relationship is 'Battle Brother', in which case that model will never not be one. As I believe we all agree IC's retain Unit rule tags when joined to another unit.

Evidence of this in work, in the rule set is things like IC's still counting as unit kills. They are not a 'unit' at that point par sey, but they are still a 'unit'. yay.

Great points!

 Nem wrote:
Unit can be taken either way on that one.. And Special rules are given to models - but only that are in the unit.
Codexs..

1. Unit Name
...

2. Unit Profile
...

3. Unit type
...
..
..

6. Special rules
Any special rules that apply to the models in the unit are listed here.......

I picked on Tau codex for that but believe all new codex's are a copy / paste of the same. Tau codex pg 94.


Of course, this is because unit means 2 different things. It's quite easy to come out with yes they can, or no they can't depending which 'unit' you choose. It's quite easy to say a 'Battle brother unit' is a unit taken as an allied detachment where the relationship is 'Battle Brother', in which case that model will never not be one. As I believe we all agree IC's retain Unit rule tags when joined to another unit.

Evidence of this in work, in the rule set is things like IC's still counting as unit kills. They are not a 'unit' at that point par sey, but they are still a 'unit'. yay.

Poor points all.

Unit Name, ok that is fine, the model ceases being a unit when they join another unit; all the Ic's in the tau codex(and I am pretty sure all codices) have the same model name as the unit name, and all abilities/special rules are tied to the model name.

Unit Type: This has always been a misnomer, A SM Bike Captain does not stop being a Bike because he joined an Assault squad. Similarly a Riptide does not stop being a MC, nor does the Drones bought for him become MCs when drones are bought for him(since we are using t6he Tau codex).

Special rules: You posted the relevant rules yourself, These are the rules given to the models when you buy the unit. The IC ceases being a unit when brought to the table and joined to a Unit.

And as to the IC counting as a destroyed unit, that falls back to the IC rules as well. It is only while attached to the unit that he is a member of the unit, when he is destroyed he is no longer part of the unit and dies as a Unit himself.

Can someone actually quote the rule that says an Independent Character ceases being a unit when joined to another unit?

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Can someone actually quote the rule that says an Independent Character ceases being a unit when joined to another unit?

Unfortunately it cant be produced because it does not exist. That is why IC cannot use an allied DT

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

An Eldar farseer that joins a unit of Fire Warriors is still an Eldar Farseer, but is no longer and Eldar Farseer Unit, he is now just a member of the Tau Firewarrior unit.

Where do you receive permission to not count the Farseer's codex of origin for embarking purposes? He doesn't stop being an Eldar model just because he is joined to a unit of fire warriors.

I think the crux boils down to whether or not you think the IC counts as being absorbed by the parent unit he joins. If you do, then you think that Unit A + IC B = Unit A for all rules purposes, to include embarking on transports. If you think the IC counts as being joined for all rules purposes, then you think at Unit A + IC B = Unit (A+B) and so the unit as a whole no longer has permission to embark on transports because no matter which detachment the model is from (A or B), another model in the unit invokes the BB restriction.

BRB Page 39, ICs, first column, last paragraph: "While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PanzerLeader wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

An Eldar farseer that joins a unit of Fire Warriors is still an Eldar Farseer, but is no longer and Eldar Farseer Unit, he is now just a member of the Tau Firewarrior unit.

Where do you receive permission to not count the Farseer's codex of origin for embarking purposes? He doesn't stop being an Eldar model just because he is joined to a unit of fire warriors.

Did you read my whole post, it explains this pretty well.

I think the crux boils down to whether or not you think the IC counts as being absorbed by the parent unit he joins. If you do, then you think that Unit A + IC B = Unit A for all rules purposes, to include embarking on transports. If you think the IC counts as being joined for all rules purposes, then you think at Unit A + IC B = Unit (A+B) and so the unit as a whole no longer has permission to embark on transports because no matter which detachment the model is from (A or B), another model in the unit invokes the BB restriction.

This is pretty much the crux of the issue, yes.

PanzerLeader wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

An Eldar farseer that joins a unit of Fire Warriors is still an Eldar Farseer, but is no longer and Eldar Farseer Unit, he is now just a member of the Tau Firewarrior unit.

Where do you receive permission to not count the Farseer's codex of origin for embarking purposes? He doesn't stop being an Eldar model just because he is joined to a unit of fire warriors.

I think the crux boils down to whether or not you think the IC counts as being absorbed by the parent unit he joins. If you do, then you think that Unit A + IC B = Unit A for all rules purposes, to include embarking on transports. If you think the IC counts as being joined for all rules purposes, then you think at Unit A + IC B = Unit (A+B) and so the unit as a whole no longer has permission to embark on transports because no matter which detachment the model is from (A or B), another model in the unit invokes the BB restriction.

If he's simply "joined" what is stopping me from selecting his unit to target? According to that position, the unit still exists. I have permission to target a unit. Where's the denial?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Can someone actually quote the rule that says an Independent Character ceases being a unit when joined to another unit?

Asking to prove a negative?

How about you prove that he's still a separate, individual unit?
Does this question mean you've accepted you were wrong about how to read the rules on page 112?

I was waiting for the response about the IC rule as not meaning the IC Ceases being a unit to pull that out Rigeld.

PanzerLeader wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

An Eldar farseer that joins a unit of Fire Warriors is still an Eldar Farseer, but is no longer and Eldar Farseer Unit, he is now just a member of the Tau Firewarrior unit.

Where do you receive permission to not count the Farseer's codex of origin for embarking purposes? He doesn't stop being an Eldar model just because he is joined to a unit of fire warriors.

I think the crux boils down to whether or not you think the IC counts as being absorbed by the parent unit he joins. If you do, then you think that Unit A + IC B = Unit A for all rules purposes, to include embarking on transports. If you think the IC counts as being joined for all rules purposes, then you think at Unit A + IC B = Unit (A+B) and so the unit as a whole no longer has permission to embark on transports because no matter which detachment the model is from (A or B), another model in the unit invokes the BB restriction.

And in the BRB is says ic's "join" or "attach" to a unit. it never once has said absorbed into a unit.

No it says he is "part of" the unit.

Ok guys. I think this needs to end. I think both sides of the argument have valid points. The way I would've liked it to go was that they can join units in transports. But this is why I put a poll up. And I'm going to go with majority decision. I will obviously ask each TO as to how they will play it. In the hope that some sway towards the way I want. But I'll assume majority won't.

Point to note. I am categorically NOT stating that one side if the argument is wrong. I'm simply stating I'm going to go by majority democratic vote. I appreciate all the comments. I do like the fact that people are passionate enough about this game to argue as such. But it is a game. And I play cos it's fun. So I won't spit my dummy if I can't get my way.

I just hope that 7th addresses these issues. And for that reason I'll be sticking to my kill team for now and waiting to build my new imperial army...

rigeld2 wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Can someone actually quote the rule that says an Independent Character ceases being a unit when joined to another unit?

Asking to prove a negative?

How about you prove that he's still a separate, individual unit?
Does this question mean you've accepted you were wrong about how to read the rules on page 112?

I can prove that Farseer units are indeed units, yes.

"Unit composition: 1 Farseer" - page 97 of the Eldar codex.

It means that arguing about page 112 is pointless because of fundamental differences in how we read the rules based on their structure. Neither of us will be able to convince the other on this issue so I'm trying a different tact.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
I can prove that Farseer units are indeed units, yes.

"Unit composition: 1 Farseer" - page 97 of the Eldar codex.

It means that arguing about page 112 is pointless because of fundamental differences in how we read the rules based on their structure.

Yep the Unit Composition of a Farseer Unit is 1 Farseer model, congratulations.

When that Farseer joins a Guardian unit he sttops being a Farseer Unit(but remains being a Farseer model).

And you can provide this rule that says it stops being a Farseer unit?

 PrinceRaven wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Can someone actually quote the rule that says an Independent Character ceases being a unit when joined to another unit?

Asking to prove a negative?

How about you prove that he's still a separate, individual unit?
Does this question mean you've accepted you were wrong about how to read the rules on page 112?

I can prove that Farseer units are indeed units, yes.

"Unit composition: 1 Farseer" - page 97 of the Eldar codex.

That's not what I asked at all.
Prove that, once part of another unit, he's still a separate unit.
And then cite a rule denying me the ability to target that unit.

The Unit Composition is not an immutable fact - we know that because it doesn't list other ICs. Trying to use it to prove your point won't work.

Let's see what page 112 actually says.

Allies - Levels of Alliance - Battle Brothers

Quite clear that Battle Brothers cover everything: Troops, IC, monstrous creatures, etc.

"Battle Brothers have utter trust in their comrades.."

The some examples are listed, which include:

"However, note that not even Battle Brothers can embark in allied transport vehicles."

Cannot really be more clearer than that. I don't see the need tl argue this further.

Naw wrote:
Let's see what page 112 actually says.

Allies - Levels of Alliance - Battle Brothers

Quite clear that Battle Brothers cover everything: Troops, IC, monstrous creatures, etc.

"Battle Brothers have utter trust in their comrades.."

The some examples are listed, which include:

"However, note that not even Battle Brothers can embark in allied transport vehicles."

Cannot really be more clearer than that. I don't see the need tl argue this further.

Congratulations on a failure to actually read the thread and correctly quote rules.
Hint - you left out 2 very important sentences in your attempt to seem correct.
Please don't purposely leave relevant rules text out when discussing rules.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
No it says he is "part of" the unit.

So my Vindicare snipes your IC out during Purge the Alien. Are you saying that i do not get a VP for it?

rigeld2 wrote:

That's not what I asked at all.
Prove that, once part of another unit, he's still a separate unit.
And then cite a rule denying me the ability to target that unit.

The Unit Composition is not an immutable fact - we know that because it doesn't list other ICs. Trying to use it to prove your point won't work.

So you can't actually prove your assertion that it stops being a unit, but you still want me to disprove it?

The Farseer is treated as part of the Fire Warrior unit for all rules purposes, so targeting his unit automatically targets the unit he's joined, as targeting is a rules purpose.

Naw wrote:
Let's see what page 112 actually says.

Allies - Levels of Alliance - Battle Brothers

Quite clear that Battle Brothers cover everything: Troops, IC, monstrous creatures, etc.

"Battle Brothers have utter trust in their comrades.."

The some examples are listed, which include:

"However, note that not even Battle Brothers can embark in allied transport vehicles."

Cannot really be more clearer than that. I don't see the need tl argue this further.

This is exactly correct. There is express denial of ALL models from an allied BB to use an allied DT. ALL models from an allied BB detachment are BB ergo you can't use an allied DT.

Fragile wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
No it says he is "part of" the unit.

So my Vindicare snipes your IC out during Purge the Alien. Are you saying that i do not get a VP for it?

What does page 127 say?
(Hint - ICs always count for VP if they are destroyed)
(In addition, the count happens at the end of the game, and the IC wouldn't be joined except for during the game)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 PrinceRaven wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

That's not what I asked at all.
Prove that, once part of another unit, he's still a separate unit.
And then cite a rule denying me the ability to target that unit.

The Unit Composition is not an immutable fact - we know that because it doesn't list other ICs. Trying to use it to prove your point won't work.

So you can't actually prove your assertion that it stops being a unit, but you still want me to disprove it?

The Farseer is treated as part of the Fire Warrior unit for all rules purposes, so targeting his unit automatically targets the unit he's joined, as targeting is a rules purpose.

So you're attempting to treat the Farseer as something other than part of the Fire Warrior unit (ie - you're trying to treat him as his own unit) for a rules purpose. The IC rules explicitly deny that.
Please cite rules allowing you to do so.

I've shown you a rule to prove my assertion. You've asked for more evidence. I can't provide any so you're attempting to assert I must be wrong - when in fact, you have a burden of proof as well.
Searching for logical fallacies when I've provided everything I've been asked is amusing though - not that it makes you seem smart, but it is amusing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

osirisx69 wrote:
This is exactly correct. There is express denial of ALL models from an allied BB to use an allied DT. ALL models from an allied BB detachment are BB ergo you can't use an allied DT.

This is a lie.
There is no express denial of "ALL models from an allied BB". Please don't misquote rules.

I'm with the 80% of people who are not buying into the rules lawyering on this one. Not that it matters much with new rules about to drop.

rigeld2 wrote:

Fragile wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
No it says he is "part of" the unit.

So my Vindicare snipes your IC out during Purge the Alien. Are you saying that i do not get a VP for it?

What does page 127 say?
(Hint - ICs always count for VP if they are destroyed)
(In addition, the count happens at the end of the game, and the IC wouldn't be joined except for during the game)

pg. 127 Reminds us that IC are individual units. And while PtA is counted at end, First blood is not.

Funny, it's almost as if First Blood has permission to override the normal IC rules.

Does Battle Brothers have the same permission?

osirisx69 wrote:

PanzerLeader wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

An Eldar farseer that joins a unit of Fire Warriors is still an Eldar Farseer, but is no longer and Eldar Farseer Unit, he is now just a member of the Tau Firewarrior unit.

Where do you receive permission to not count the Farseer's codex of origin for embarking purposes? He doesn't stop being an Eldar model just because he is joined to a unit of fire warriors.

I think the crux boils down to whether or not you think the IC counts as being absorbed by the parent unit he joins. If you do, then you think that Unit A + IC B = Unit A for all rules purposes, to include embarking on transports. If you think the IC counts as being joined for all rules purposes, then you think at Unit A + IC B = Unit (A+B) and so the unit as a whole no longer has permission to embark on transports because no matter which detachment the model is from (A or B), another model in the unit invokes the BB restriction.

And in the BRB is says ic's "join" or "attach" to a unit. it never once has said absorbed into a unit.

Kommissar Kel wrote:No it says he is "part of" the unit.

Actually, the IC rules both verbages.

"Independent characters can join other units."
"In order to join a unit, an IC simply has to move..."
"While an IC is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes..."

So in the context of the IC rule, he is described as both "joining" and being "part of" a unit. Again, it boils down to does joining mean Unit A + IC B becomes Unit A or does Unit A + IC B become Unit (A+B).

Rigeld, you don't need rules permission to deny you trying to snipe out an IC without special permission. The IC plus unit always becomes one unit. That is clear in the rules. The question is which detachment does that unit count as for the purposes of embarkation. One side is essentially saying "whatever the unit consisted of prior to the IC is what it remains" and the other side is "the unit now consists of models from two detachments and those can't evade the BB restriction on transports."

Funny I see no such explicit permission on 122.

you make your list, you look at the units chosen in the allied detachment and they are all branded "battle brothers", and they can't go in transports. then you try and put one in a transport - regardless of what with - and you can't, because it can't go in transports.

by your argument, you can put the IC in a unit and then put the unit in a transport, but you can't get the IC into a transport to join the squad that's already inside, because he can't get in. only the first one of these is disputed, so logically it's going to be the same as the second; he can't get into the transport at all.

here's another; you want your ethereal to get a better bunker. so you ally in space marines, and get a landraider. the ethereal can't embark, as per the battle brothers rules, but there's nothing that states he cannot be embarked, meaning you can take him in a squad of marines, then immediately get the marines out of the landraider, leaving the ethereal behind. you just can't do that.


I'm not sure where the dispute is coming from here. the rulebook on page 112 states:

"However, note that not even Battle Brothers can embark on allied transport vehicles."

is the allied IC from a different codex a battle brother? yes.
QED - he can't get in a vehicle.

if you want to argue the "is it a unit" thing, let's do that:
"Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units' from all points of view"

this doesn't say that battle brother units are treated as friendly units, just battle brothers in general. it also states that battle brothers can't get into an allied transport.

so for him to be able to get in, by your method, he is relinquishing his status as a "friendly unit" as he's clearly not a battle brother, and so can't join the unit to embark anyway!

they're either bringing their own transports, or they're walking.