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.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 Timmy149 wrote:
It states that Battle Brothers cannot embark upon allied transport vehicles. This includes ICs

And As demonstrated: "Battle Brothers" is defined as a friendly unit. An IC within a unit is not a unit in and of itself.
Therefore an IC in an allied unit is not a "Battle Brother".

An IC is a single model unit with the "Independent Character" Special Rule. Thus, as a full unit, albeit one that can join other units, he can join Battle Brother units, but, as a battle brother, he cannot embark on allied transport vehicles. He does not cease to be a unit when he joins a unit. Like Wolf Guard, except that Wolf Guard cannot leave their unit of choice. The IC is "assimilated" into the unit until he chooses to leave, at which point he becomes another unit again. Thus, as a unit that can become part of other units, you cannot embark upon allied transport vehicles.

 Timmy149 wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 Timmy149 wrote:
It states that Battle Brothers cannot embark upon allied transport vehicles. This includes ICs

And As demonstrated: "Battle Brothers" is defined as a friendly unit. An IC within a unit is not a unit in and of itself.
Therefore an IC in an allied unit is not a "Battle Brother".

An IC is a single model unit with the "Independent Character" Special Rule. Thus, as a full unit, albeit one that can join other units, he can join Battle Brother units, but, as a battle brother, he cannot embark on allied transport vehicles. He does not cease to be a unit when he joins a unit. Like Wolf Guard, except that Wolf Guard cannot leave their unit of choice. The IC is "assimilated" into the unit until he chooses to leave, at which point he becomes another unit again. Thus, as a unit that can become part of other units, you cannot embark upon allied transport vehicles.

No it is not.

A SW Wolf lord with Fenrisian Wolves is a model with the IC special rule in a unit of 3 models, that has special rules allowing it to Join and leave units under certain circumstances.

A More up to date version is almost any Tau IC; they can be joined by Drones of various sorts making them multi model units where the Commander/ethereal has the IC rules, and there are special rules/allowances for the drones to come with him.

The second example there is really the more important one because the drones are absolutely not wargear and are even still a unit on their own(but now without the IC rules) if the IC were to die before they do(and they are stuck in the unit if the IC dies while attached).

If this argument was not so absurd it would be amusing...but alas it is not.
Okay lets look at the page about Characters. It specifically states that some units have characters (like a squad sgt) and they have a seperate profile, they do not have a seperate entry and are considered just another member of the unit. However some characters are so mighty like Mephiston yada yada yada they fight as units on their own, have a serperate entry and regardless of potentcy follow all the rules for characters.

Under "Characters"
IC- some models have this rule and it allows them to join other units (rule that allows them to join units - again the word other, identifying the IC as a unit of one on his own)
Now lets go to the page they tell us to look at for IC (pg 39 in mini book), read read read lots of talk here about how to declare the IC becomes "joined to the unit", and Kels favorite line "While an IC is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes," wait wait wait <-------- thats a comma, oh wait theres more "though he still follows the rules for characters". nowhere does say he becomes one of the unit (no IC can do that, it would require him to lose his IC rule, and if he lost that he would no longer be able to JOIN an unit anyway) Okay back to characters we go....
Characters section says IC allows them to JOIN another unit....
so lets look at shooting, you pick a target unit (IC is now part of the unit for all rules purposes)....
you roll to hit and to wound and then go to wound allocation, to be allocated to the closest model to the firing unit.
then you look at look out sir and it addresses when a wound is allocated to a character in the unit blah blah blah we all know how look out sir works.

Nowhere in all that does it state that the IC ever loses the IC rule, in fact it specifically states that he still follows the rules for characters under which IC is a type. Each IC has his own entry in his own codex (let say Coteaz), nowhere does it say that he loses his entry under Codex:Grey Knights and becomes part of Codex: Eldar. So the only way to include him in your battle is as an ally. Okay so off we go..okay Kels getting excited again. "Battle brothers are treated as friendly units from all points of view".

Can be joined by allied IC (okay good so far he gets all the benefits of a IC JOINED to a friendly unit - see above)
Are considered friendly for psychic blah blahwho cares
However, not even Battle brothers may embark upon allied transports ......okay so back up two lines, is he still an IC when he JOINS the unit? yep, nothing gets rid of that, he is joined but stll has the rule. Is he (lets say coteaz, I know they arent BB on the chart, I dont care) a battle brother? looking through the eldar codex....nope no entry for Coteaz, so he must be in my ALLIES codex Grey Knights....yep there he is...
So an allied battle brother joined to my eldar squad is still an allied IC and as such there it is written in the book "cannot embark upon allied transports". What you are asking people to infer permissions that are not written versus actual rules that are written.

In closing all I can say is thank god I dont actually have to deal with anyone like this in my gaming group.....

Just to throw in the obvious-- IC are counted as the unit but still follow the rules for that character... That includes the rules for BB... As I said pretty obvious.. No grammar/ discussion needed..


Automatically Appended Next Post:
TBH, it's pretty sad this convo went for as long as it did.. I don't think we're going to talk sense into the OP guys.. As they say continuing to argue against a fool makes you a fool

Quickfuze and Spazamataz, there is absolutely no reason to be so rude. This is a forum for the purpose of DEBATING rules as they are present in the rules. Your comments are also in violation of one of Dakka's tennants; under no reason are you to question another users intentions or playstyle. It speaks negatively of your character, and casts any authority you may or may not have into question.
Also, both of your posts need citations. Its not enought to talk rules, you must prove rules.

 Spazamataz wrote:
Just to throw in the obvious-- IC are counted as the unit but still follow the rules for that character... That includes the rules for BB... As I said pretty obvious.. No grammar/ discussion needed..


Automatically Appended Next Post:
TBH, it's pretty sad this convo went for as long as it did.. I don't think we're going to talk sense into the OP guys.. As they say continuing to argue against a fool makes you a fool

That is pretty much what I said... but then again, he does have a slight point, as many times as that has been disproved.

 quickfuze wrote:
If this argument was not so absurd it would be amusing...but alas it is not.

You are correct, your argument here is absurd.

Okay lets look at the page about Characters. It specifically states that some units have characters (like a squad sgt) and they have a seperate profile, they do not have a seperate entry and are considered just another member of the unit. However some characters are so mighty like Mephiston yada yada yada they fight as units on their own, have a serperate entry and regardless of potentcy follow all the rules for characters.

Yes, this is exactly what the first paragraph of Caracters, the subsection of "Character types" says.

Under "Characters"
IC- some models have this rule and it allows them to join other units (rule that allows them to join units - again the word other, identifying the IC as a unit of one on his own)

Yes, while the IC is a unit himself he can join another unit

Now lets go to the page they tell us to look at for IC (pg 39 in mini book), read read read lots of talk here about how to declare the IC becomes "joined to the unit", and Kels favorite line "While an IC is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes," wait wait wait <-------- thats a comma, oh wait theres more "though he still follows the rules for characters". nowhere does say he becomes one of the unit (no IC can do that, it would require him to lose his IC rule, and if he lost that he would no longer be able to JOIN an unit anyway)

See this is where you lose all traction. You first quote the rule that says the IC becomes part of the unit and then you say nowhere does it say he becomes part of the unit. Think about that for just a minute.

Now that that has set in we can go to the second part which I myself have quoted several times, that the IC as part of the unit still follows the rules for characters. Those rules would be pages 63 through 65 of the BRB. The IC still falls under the definition of character while joined to the unit as both having a unit type"(character)", and being now a another member of the unit. He also follows the Characters as leaders rule, the Characters moving Rules, The Characters shooting(including precision strikes) rules, the Characters and assaults(again, including precision strikes) rules, and all of the challenges rules.

Okay back to characters we go....
Characters section says IC allows them to JOIN another unit....
so lets look at shooting, you pick a target unit (IC is now part of the unit for all rules purposes)....
you roll to hit and to wound and then go to wound allocation, to be allocated to the closest model to the firing unit.
then you look at look out sir and it addresses when a wound is allocated to a character in the unit blah blah blah we all know how look out sir works.

Nowhere in all that does it state that the IC ever loses the IC rule, in fact it specifically states that he still follows the rules for characters under which IC is a type. Each IC has his own entry in his own codex (let say Coteaz), nowhere does it say that he loses his entry under Codex:Grey Knights and becomes part of Codex: Eldar. So the only way to include him in your battle is as an ally. Okay so off we go..okay Kels getting excited again. "Battle brothers are treated as friendly units from all points of view".

First; Independent charachter is not a rule in characters, nor a type of character, Independent Character has its own heading after Character Types. Even there it states that an independent character is a character with the IC rule(a special rule).

Second; I have never said ICs joined to the unit loses the IC rule, you are purely making that up, I explained on the first page to 40k noob that the model will retain his stats, wargear, and special rules. IC is a special rule, stop making things up.

An IC joins a unit. A Chaplain joining a Platoon infantry squad becomes a member of the platoon infantry squad. This is exactly what the rules say. The Platoon infantry squad is an Imperial guard unit, with or without the IC joined. The same can be done in codex with Eldar: Can I join Asuraman to a unit of Striking scorpions with a farseer joined? The same can be done from the opposite end in the Tau codex: can darkstrider join a unit of firewarriors with an ethereal attached? Whith the eldar, no Asuraman cannot because the unit is a Striking scorpions unit. For Darkstrider, yes he can because the unit is still a Firewarrior unit.

Can be joined by allied IC (okay good so far he gets all the benefits of a IC JOINED to a friendly unit - see above)
Are considered friendly for psychic blah blahwho cares
However, not even Battle brothers may embark upon allied transports ......okay so back up two lines, is he still an IC when he JOINS the unit? yep, nothing gets rid of that, he is joined but stll has the rule. Is he (lets say coteaz, I know they arent BB on the chart, I dont care) a battle brother? looking through the eldar codex....nope no entry for Coteaz, so he must be in my ALLIES codex Grey Knights....yep there he is...
So an allied battle brother joined to my eldar squad is still an allied IC and as such there it is written in the book "cannot embark upon allied transports". What you are asking people to infer permissions that are not written versus actual rules that are written.

So we are now ignoring the definition of a term when you wanted to jump all over my case with the definition of a character, totally not an absurd argument.

In closing all I can say is thank god I dont actually have to deal with anyone like this in my gaming group.....

Me too, I like playing by the rules with players who can read and follow logic.

Nowhere does it state that the rule of 'Battle Brother' is removed. So I, along with everybody I know (thank the Emperor), would rule that just because of a 'non-specific' rule saying "all rules purposes" doesn't deny the 'more-specific' rule saying "battle brothers CANNOT".

Specific RAW seems to override non-specific RAW as a general rule...right?

 Farseer Faenyin wrote:

Specific RAW seems to override non-specific RAW as a general rule...right?

No, there is no such rule. There is only "General vs. Advanced", and the general rules are specified to be a very small set of rules cove3ring about 20 pages of the BRB. All other rules in the BRB are advanced.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 Farseer Faenyin wrote:

Specific RAW seems to override non-specific RAW as a general rule...right?

No, there is no such rule. There is only "General vs. Advanced", and the general rules are specified to be a very small set of rules cove3ring about 20 pages of the BRB. All other rules in the BRB are advanced.

You're failing at a basic understanding of a permissive rule system - and that is that a specific rule "overrides" a more general one.

Using your assertion, Terminators coming out of a Land Raider that came from Reserves could assault the turn they come on.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 Timmy149 wrote:
It states that Battle Brothers cannot embark upon allied transport vehicles. This includes ICs

And As demonstrated: "Battle Brothers" is defined as a friendly unit. An IC within a unit is not a unit in and of itself.
Therefore an IC in an allied unit is not a "Battle Brother".

So, if it's not a battle brother when joined to a unit then how is it in your army at that point? You are only allowed Primary and Allied detachments on the field and those allies must be one of the three levels allowed. Battle brothers being the only one that allows IC's to join ally units, if that IC stops being a battle brother when it joins the unit then can you show me where in your primary codex does it list that model? If you can't, and he's not a battle brother, he must be removed as an invalid model on the field.

You can not ever "stop being" a battle brother no more than you can "stop being" jump infantry when joined with jetbikes.

 Kevin949 wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 Timmy149 wrote:
It states that Battle Brothers cannot embark upon allied transport vehicles. This includes ICs

And As demonstrated: "Battle Brothers" is defined as a friendly unit. An IC within a unit is not a unit in and of itself.
Therefore an IC in an allied unit is not a "Battle Brother".

So, if it's not a battle brother when joined to a unit then how is it in your army at that point? You are only allowed Primary and Allied detachments on the field and those allies must be one of the three levels allowed. Battle brothers being the only one that allows IC's to join ally units, if that IC stops being a battle brother when it joins the unit then can you show me where in your primary codex does it list that model? If you can't, and he's not a battle brother, he must be removed as an invalid model on the field.

You can not ever "stop being" a battle brother no more than you can "stop being" jump infantry when joined with jetbikes.

Where did you read this? Page numbers and and quotations please, because as far as i understand, jump infantry is a unit type. If dante joins a unit of bikes, the unit of bikes are still bikes, dante didn't change that.

Neronoxx wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 Timmy149 wrote:
It states that Battle Brothers cannot embark upon allied transport vehicles. This includes ICs

And As demonstrated: "Battle Brothers" is defined as a friendly unit. An IC within a unit is not a unit in and of itself.
Therefore an IC in an allied unit is not a "Battle Brother".

So, if it's not a battle brother when joined to a unit then how is it in your army at that point? You are only allowed Primary and Allied detachments on the field and those allies must be one of the three levels allowed. Battle brothers being the only one that allows IC's to join ally units, if that IC stops being a battle brother when it joins the unit then can you show me where in your primary codex does it list that model? If you can't, and he's not a battle brother, he must be removed as an invalid model on the field.

You can not ever "stop being" a battle brother no more than you can "stop being" jump infantry when joined with jetbikes.

Where did you read this? Page numbers and and quotations please, because as far as i understand, jump infantry is a unit type. If dante joins a unit of bikes, the unit of bikes are still bikes, dante didn't change that.

That's what he said. He means that Dante does not become a bike if he joins a unit of bikes, as an analogy.

 Timmy149 wrote:

Neronoxx wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 Timmy149 wrote:
It states that Battle Brothers cannot embark upon allied transport vehicles. This includes ICs

And As demonstrated: "Battle Brothers" is defined as a friendly unit. An IC within a unit is not a unit in and of itself.
Therefore an IC in an allied unit is not a "Battle Brother".

So, if it's not a battle brother when joined to a unit then how is it in your army at that point? You are only allowed Primary and Allied detachments on the field and those allies must be one of the three levels allowed. Battle brothers being the only one that allows IC's to join ally units, if that IC stops being a battle brother when it joins the unit then can you show me where in your primary codex does it list that model? If you can't, and he's not a battle brother, he must be removed as an invalid model on the field.

You can not ever "stop being" a battle brother no more than you can "stop being" jump infantry when joined with jetbikes.

Where did you read this? Page numbers and and quotations please, because as far as i understand, jump infantry is a unit type. If dante joins a unit of bikes, the unit of bikes are still bikes, dante didn't change that.

That's what he said. He means that Dante does not become a bike if he joins a unit of bikes, as an analogy.

Correct, Dante's unit type is still JI. however, the unit is a Bikes unit.

Yes timmy, happyjew is correct. Dante does not stop being a jump infantry, but the unit stays as it was, and dante now counts as a member of the unit "for all purposes."

Neronoxx wrote:
Yes timmy, happyjew is correct. Dante does not stop being a jump infantry, but the unit stays as it was, and dante now counts as a member of the unit "for all purposes."

A "member of the unit" yes, but he is still not from the codex of that unit.

This has got to be a 'no' from me. The IC for the purpose of deployment is treated as its own unit. This is shown when counting units you can keep in reserve, you always count the IC as his own unit even if he has joined another. Fallowing that logic for determining context the IC would still be a BB unit and thus cannot embark an allied transport.

It seems to me like the term Battle Brother is one that is defined solely as a relationship. It isn't a USR that is always on.

Kel's argument seems to be that when an Allied IC joins the unit, his relationship with that unit is no longer Battle Brother, Ally of Convenience, or Desperate Ally, but rather, part of the unit. And that argument makes complete sense to me. Those terms are dependent on a relationship between two separate units. Once those units join one another (such as an IC joining another unit) then they stop having an external relationship, because the rules tell us that they are considered to be a single unit.

I only mention this because there seems to be a couple of posters that don't seem to have understood the basic premise of the argument, which is understandable because it's a little complicated. I thought a little reframing might help to bring a little clarity to the discussion. I understand that it's a very weird way to look at the rules in the way we have conventionally accepted them, but I think that with the rules as they are currently written, his argument is sound.

That being said, if you want to argue the way the rules were intended to work, I can honestly see this working either way. Allowing an IC to join a unit (and get in their transport) is a much smaller step than allowing whole units of guys to ride around in the transports of their allies.

I do not think the intent of the rule is clear at all, and would love some further clarification on the issue. If Games Workshop were to add this to the FAQs, I would not be surprised no matter which way they ruled on it, which to my mind means it's exactly the sort of thing which needs to be added. Hopefully we can get some kind of clarity from GW in the future.

 Jimsolo wrote:
It seems to me like the term Battle Brother is one that is defined solely as a relationship. It isn't a USR that is always on.

Kel's argument seems to be that when an Allied IC joins the unit, his relationship with that unit is no longer Battle Brother, Ally of Convenience, or Desperate Ally, but rather, part of the unit. And that argument makes complete sense to me. Those terms are dependent on a relationship between two separate units. Once those units join one another (such as an IC joining another unit) then they stop having an external relationship, because the rules tell us that they are considered to be a single unit.

I only mention this because there seems to be a couple of posters that don't seem to have understood the basic premise of the argument, which is understandable because it's a little complicated. I thought a little reframing might help to bring a little clarity to the discussion. I understand that it's a very weird way to look at the rules in the way we have conventionally accepted them, but I think that with the rules as they are currently written, his argument is sound.

That being said, if you want to argue the way the rules were intended to work, I can honestly see this working either way. Allowing an IC to join a unit (and get in their transport) is a much smaller step than allowing whole units of guys to ride around in the transports of their allies.

I do not think the intent of the rule is clear at all, and would love some further clarification on the issue. If Games Workshop were to add this to the FAQs, I would not be surprised no matter which way they ruled on it, which to my mind means it's exactly the sort of thing which needs to be added. Hopefully we can get some kind of clarity from GW in the future.

So...if we're friends and then put on the same basketball team that means we're not friends anymore? I'm not using a real life scenario here but a more understandable analogy for some.

Nothing makes them stop being battle brothers when an IC is joined. Their relationship may have changed but it was only compounded on, not replaced by.

Epic troll thread in progress. Amazing.

 Kevin949 wrote:

So...if we're friends and then put on the same basketball team that means we're not friends anymore? I'm not using a real life scenario here but a more understandable analogy for some.

Nothing makes them stop being battle brothers when an IC is joined. Their relationship may have changed but it was only compounded on, not replaced by.

Your analogy is flawed, it is not a relationship of friends joining together.

It is more of a marriage.

Or in sci-fi fair an intermingling of 2 separate entities.

You have the definition of Battle brothers as a friendly unit.

You have an IC as that Battle brother.

The IC joins the unit and the unit remains the same, but the IC is no longer a separate unit, and therefore is not a battle Brother as defined(he is no longer a friendly unit separate from the joined unit).

Battle brothers as defined only matters for:
The purposes of an IC joining the unit(the unit is battle brother to the IC, per the rule)
The effects of Psychic powers and special abilities.
Embarking on a transport.

These are the only times the Battle brothers rule comes up and the only way it effects any units.

As far as How the IC is in your army; that was done at List creation. A Wolf guard squad is purchased at list creation, and then Parceled out, if you send every Wolfguard member to a different unit pre game you have not suddenly "Gained back" the Elites choice they took up. Same concept here.

I get what your trying to argue I really do, but lets just put it this way....you and your gaming club play it that way. Great for you, you have used one of the basic principles of the game to begin with in that its a permissive rule set designed so you and you friends can have "cinematic" engagements on the table top and have fun. That being said, I promise you that if you show up at any major tournament (i.e. Adepticon style events) your going to get your dreams crushed. The T.O.'s will rule against you I promise. Until a FAQ or actual Errata is released by GW that rules this in your favor (or even the INAT FAQ for that matter) (which btw I would be willing to bet doesnt happen in your favor), its never going to fly in a tournament setting. Still, keep rolling dice....after all thats what its all about.

Edited for violating rules #1 and #3. Do not circumvent the language filter.
MT11

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Epic troll thread in progress. Amazing.

Are you referring to OP or someone else here?

 Azrell wrote:
This entire discussion is "pants on head" re tarded.

So because somebody reads the rules one way, others disagree and both sides have a civil discussion regarding the topic (extremely rare on YMDC, I know), the discussion is slowed? If people were to discuss different readings of say shooting through the gap of another unit would you claim that is "pants on head" re tarded?

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

So...if we're friends and then put on the same basketball team that means we're not friends anymore? I'm not using a real life scenario here but a more understandable analogy for some.

Nothing makes them stop being battle brothers when an IC is joined. Their relationship may have changed but it was only compounded on, not replaced by.

Your analogy is flawed, it is not a relationship of friends joining together.

It is more of a marriage.

Or in sci-fi fair an intermingling of 2 separate entities.

You have the definition of Battle brothers as a friendly unit.

You have an IC as that Battle brother.

The IC joins the unit and the unit remains the same, but the IC is no longer a separate unit, and therefore is not a battle Brother as defined(he is no longer a friendly unit separate from the joined unit).

Battle brothers as defined only matters for:
The purposes of an IC joining the unit(the unit is battle brother to the IC, per the rule)
The effects of Psychic powers and special abilities.
Embarking on a transport.

These are the only times the Battle brothers rule comes up and the only way it effects any units.

As far as How the IC is in your army; that was done at List creation. A Wolf guard squad is purchased at list creation, and then Parceled out, if you send every Wolfguard member to a different unit pre game you have not suddenly "Gained back" the Elites choice they took up. Same concept here.

Being a unit on it's own or not has nothing to do with being battle brothers. You're looking at it too granular when it is supposed to be a high level view. The alliance is between codex armies, as a whole. The units themselves treat the other units as friendly units. But an IC joining a unit is STILL an IC from that other codex.

There is no relationship on a unit level beyond them being "friendly". The codex army as a whole has the battle brother alliance.

 Kevin949 wrote:
So...if we're friends and then put on the same basketball team that means we're not friends anymore? I'm not using a real life scenario here but a more understandable analogy for some.

Nothing makes them stop being battle brothers when an IC is joined. Their relationship may have changed but it was only compounded on, not replaced by.

No, but when Autumn Winters married Jim Solo, she ceased to be a Winters and became a Solo. I understand where you disagree, Kevin. I can totally see your side of the discussion. Personally, I disagree with your assessment, but I think the issue is murky enough that some official clarification might be nice.

 Azrell wrote:
This entire discussion is "pants on head" re tarded.

This is entirely unacceptable. I'f you've forgotten Dakka's code of conduct, then here's a link to it. There is absolutely no excuse for insults.

 Kevin949 wrote:

Being a unit on it's own or not has nothing to do with being battle brothers. You're looking at it too granular when it is supposed to be a high level view. The alliance is between codex armies, as a whole. The units themselves treat the other units as friendly units. But an IC joining a unit is STILL an IC from that other codex.

There is no relationship on a unit level beyond them being "friendly". The codex army as a whole has the battle brother alliance.

The Alliance follows the rules for Allies, which then contains the rules regarding those Allies that are in Grey in the Allies Matrix(called at this point "Battle Brothers"), you then go down to the battle brothers rules to find out what this means. We find out in the battle brothers rules that this means that "Battle Brothers" are Friendly units; and then goes on to tell you what the friendly units can(and in 1 case cannot) do.

When your IC joins a unit(any unit, allies rules are unnecessary for this portion) you IC stops being a unit of 1 model(with the IC rule), and becomes a full member of the unit he joins(retaining his unit type X(Character)).

Going back to the Allies rules, and the allowances of a "Battle Brother"; Said "Battle brother" can be joined by an allied IC, when the allied IC joins the Battle brother the IC stops being a Unit himself. The IC within the unit can freely get into the Unit he has joined transport because he is not a separate unit, and therefore no longer under the definition of "Battle Brother"

Still being an IC from the allied codex does not matter, what matters is that the IC is no longer a battle brother by definition(a Friendly unit).

As to the assertion that there are no relationships other than friendly; the Allies of convenience and Desperate allies have something different to say(both are enemy units with extra special rules)

 Kevin949 wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
It seems to me like the term Battle Brother is one that is defined solely as a relationship. It isn't a USR that is always on.

Kel's argument seems to be that when an Allied IC joins the unit, his relationship with that unit is no longer Battle Brother, Ally of Convenience, or Desperate Ally, but rather, part of the unit. And that argument makes complete sense to me. Those terms are dependent on a relationship between two separate units. Once those units join one another (such as an IC joining another unit) then they stop having an external relationship, because the rules tell us that they are considered to be a single unit.

I only mention this because there seems to be a couple of posters that don't seem to have understood the basic premise of the argument, which is understandable because it's a little complicated. I thought a little reframing might help to bring a little clarity to the discussion. I understand that it's a very weird way to look at the rules in the way we have conventionally accepted them, but I think that with the rules as they are currently written, his argument is sound.

That being said, if you want to argue the way the rules were intended to work, I can honestly see this working either way. Allowing an IC to join a unit (and get in their transport) is a much smaller step than allowing whole units of guys to ride around in the transports of their allies.

I do not think the intent of the rule is clear at all, and would love some further clarification on the issue. If Games Workshop were to add this to the FAQs, I would not be surprised no matter which way they ruled on it, which to my mind means it's exactly the sort of thing which needs to be added. Hopefully we can get some kind of clarity from GW in the future.

So...if we're friends and then put on the same basketball team that means we're not friends anymore? I'm not using a real life scenario here but a more understandable analogy for some.

Nothing makes them stop being battle brothers when an IC is joined. Their relationship may have changed but it was only compounded on, not replaced by.

Thus a character joining a unit does not make his unit part of a primary detachment/allied detachment and vice versa.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

Being a unit on it's own or not has nothing to do with being battle brothers. You're looking at it too granular when it is supposed to be a high level view. The alliance is between codex armies, as a whole. The units themselves treat the other units as friendly units. But an IC joining a unit is STILL an IC from that other codex.

There is no relationship on a unit level beyond them being "friendly". The codex army as a whole has the battle brother alliance.

The Alliance follows the rules for Allies, which then contains the rules regarding those Allies that are in Grey in the Allies Matrix(called at this point "Battle Brothers"), you then go down to the battle brothers rules to find out what this means. We find out in the battle brothers rules that this means that "Battle Brothers" are Friendly units; and then goes on to tell you what the friendly units can(and in 1 case cannot) do.

When your IC joins a unit(any unit, allies rules are unnecessary for this portion) you IC stops being a unit of 1 model(with the IC rule), and becomes a full member of the unit he joins(retaining his unit type X(Character)).

Going back to the Allies rules, and the allowances of a "Battle Brother"; Said "Battle brother" can be joined by an allied IC, when the allied IC joins the Battle brother the IC stops being a Unit himself. The IC within the unit can freely get into the Unit he has joined transport because he is not a separate unit, and therefore no longer under the definition of "Battle Brother"

Still being an IC from the allied codex does not matter, what matters is that the IC is no longer a battle brother by definition(a Friendly unit).

As to the assertion that there are no relationships other than friendly; the Allies of convenience and Desperate allies have something different to say(both are enemy units with extra special rules)

The said IC does not lose the properties that make him a battle brother, thus meaning he cannot embark upon an allied transport when joined to an allied unit. You do not lose the properties of being a battle brother when when you join an allied unit. The basketball team analogy is exactly that. In the same way, a character in TEQ armour does not count as being a bike if he is deployed with a unit of bikes. The properties that he has are still retained, so you cannot have a captain in Terminator Armour moving as if he had a bike. It's the same deal.

Also just to point out (and feel free to keep debating this topic), but NOVA and ADEPTICON already ruled against this very argument. Again as the game is meant to be fun, play it how you want to, but from a competitive viewpoint, its not going to happen.

rigeld2 wrote:

Using your assertion, Terminators coming out of a Land Raider that came from Reserves could assault the turn they come on.

No, because the rules specifically tell us that's not the case. I don't recall if this was cleared up in a FAQ or in the book itself, and don't have time to look it up now, but it specifically references that situation. If a rule says "Space Marines move like regular infantry, except when classified as jump infantry," then that is specifically spelling out an exception. The general assertion that people have that "Specific overrides general" is, however, a fallacy. It would not apply if the rules were stated as follows: "Space marines always move as if they were infantry." "A unit with a jump pack always moves as if it were jump infantry."

If the rule were stated as the latter, unless it was addressed by the codex vs brb, or some other override rule, even though one specifically refers to space marines, while the other generally refers to all units with a jump pack, clarification would be required, as no rule in the English language, or within the written rules of 40k would tell us which one of those statements is correct.