An explaination as to my claim that an Allied IC may embark on a BB transport

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.

**Timmy149**

quickfuze wrote:
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.

Depends really on who you play against. Tourneys wouldn't let you, but some people at your FLGS may, but from a rules perspective, I rule it as not being legit.

**Dozer Blades**

Lock the thread.

**Happyjew**

quickfuze wrote:
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.

Just to point out, that Adepticon and Nova are free to make rules for their own tournaments. Such as this little gem from NOVA:

Round fractions down for purposes of “Where is it?” when attempting to shoot at the Deathleaper.

And of course both NOVA and Adepticon ruled differently on RFP v RFPaaC.

**Kommissar Kel**

Timmy; My whole point is that an IC joined to a unit ceases to be a unit himself.

If the IC ceases to be a unit then he loses the property that makes him a battle brother.

You cannot argue that an IC remains a separate unit while attached to a unit because that would make the IC separately targetable.

**Timmy149**

Kommissar Kel wrote:
Timmy; My whole point is that an IC joined to a unit ceases to be a unit himself.

If the IC ceases to be a unit then he loses the property that makes him a battle brother.

You cannot argue that an IC remains a separate unit while attached to a unit because that would make the IC separately targetable.

I never said that the IC is still a seperate unit when he is joined to another unit. He still has the property that makes him a battle brother, in the same way hellfire rounds do not cease to fire standard bolter round (albeit ones that have poisoned 2+). You cannot lose said properties.

**BetrayTheWorld**

Timmy149 wrote:

I never said that the IC is still a seperate unit when he is joined to another unit. He still has the property that makes him a battle brother, in the same way hellfire rounds do not cease to fire standard bolter round (albeit ones that have poisoned 2+). You cannot lose said properties.

A battle brother is defined as an allied unit, not an allied model. That's where this argument originated.

**Happyjew**

KK, just out of curiosity, do you and your group play that an attached allied IC can embark? This hasn't come up yet with my group, but I'm sure most would at least play that they cannot.

**BetrayTheWorld**

Happyjew wrote:
KK, just out of curiosity, do you and your group play that an attached allied IC can embark? This hasn't come up yet with my group, but I'm sure most would at least play that they cannot.

Hasn't really come up yet. I'll probably bring it up next time we play and see what people's thoughts are. I'm for it, really. Primarily because I think battle-brothers not being able to use each other's vehicles is ridiculous to begin with, not so much because GW writes rules poorly. Although, they really are bad at it.

**Farseer Faenyin**

My interpretation of the ruling is that he is still a Battle Brother, and cannot ride in the transport. Else if you joined your Warlord to a unit, would he stop being a Warlord then? Since he is no longer a unit in and of himself, and HIS unit gives Warlord...

An IC retains itself as a unit when it joins another. I rule this way because we also rule that if you kill an IC, you get a Killpoint and Warlord traits still work when joined to a non-Warlord unit.

**Kommissar Kel**

Happyjew wrote:
KK, just out of curiosity, do you and your group play that an attached allied IC can embark? This hasn't come up yet with my group, but I'm sure most would at least play that they cannot.

It honestly has not come up yet.

I also have not found any serious reason for it to be done now that Storm Ravens are also in the basic Space Marine army(Shrike out of a Storm raven would be nice).

I would absolutely let my opponent do this, but I generally run a guard list with no ICs, and when I do add Allies the HQ is usually purchased with joining one of the other squads in mind(JP Captain with an assault squad, MotF with a Las/Plas squad, or similar).

Farseer Faenyin wrote:
My interpretation of the ruling is that he is still a Battle Brother, and cannot ride in the transport. Else if you joined your Warlord to a unit, would he stop being a Warlord then? Since he is no longer a unit in and of himself, and HIS unit gives Warlord...

An IC retains itself as a unit when it joins another. I rule this way because we also rule that if you kill an IC, you get a Killpoint and Warlord traits still work when joined to a non-Warlord unit.

I have already explained several times that your models do not lose their special rules, the lose the status of being an individual unit(and thus battle brothers); your Warlord is the model with the highest LD from your HQ choices. My Company Commander is my warlord, but he is just a member of the Company command squad, Never a unit himself, never an IC.

Warlord is decided pregame, nothing changes that, it is a rule applied to the model.

ICs giving kill points is part of the Kill point rules; again if he is a separate unit are you saying I can shoot at his single model unit?

**Timmy149**

As many people have said, many dozens of times, you cannot cease to be a battle brother. You join an allied unit, but you do not lose the BB properties. Lock The Thread.

**Dozer Blades**

+1 to lock the thread now. Pretty please with sugar on top.

**Kommissar Kel**

Timmy149 wrote:
As many people have said, many dozens of times, you cannot cease to be a battle brother. You join an allied unit, but you do not lose the BB properties. Lock The Thread.

saying without any proof, or even explaining why you think this really doesn't add anything to the discussions.

It has been said dozens of times, and dozens of times I have explained why that assertion is wrong.

Dozerblades: think you could post something useful in this thread or are you just enjoying your +1 postcount?

Timmy, Let me ask you; What is a battle brother(Page and quotes would be nice)?

**Kevin949**

Jimsolo 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.

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.

Funny, my wife became a denny-gillum, a hybrid.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

BetrayTheWorld wrote:
Timmy149 wrote:

I never said that the IC is still a seperate unit when he is joined to another unit. He still has the property that makes him a battle brother, in the same way hellfire rounds do not cease to fire standard bolter round (albeit ones that have poisoned 2+). You cannot lose said properties.

A battle brother is defined as an allied unit, not an allied model. That's where this argument originated.

Is it really?

"Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units'"

That statement right there tells me that being friendly units and battle brothers are separate things.

"Battle brothers" are allied ARMIES, not units and not models.

"To represent this, we have several categories of alliances,
each of which imposes certain effects on the game. The Allies
Matrix shows the levels of potential alliance between each army."

This category covers the strongest of alliances, two or more
armies striving for a common goal.

So I'm sorry, but no, there is zero definition that a battle brother is an allied unit.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kommissar Kel wrote:
Timmy149 wrote:
As many people have said, many dozens of times, you cannot cease to be a battle brother. You join an allied unit, but you do not lose the BB properties. Lock The Thread.

saying without any proof, or even explaining why you think this really doesn't add anything to the discussions.

It has been said dozens of times, and dozens of times I have explained why that assertion is wrong.

Dozerblades: think you could post something useful in this thread or are you just enjoying your +1 postcount?

Timmy, Let me ask you; What is a battle brother(Page and quotes would be nice)?

Kel - Not wanting to see the proof and having no proof are not the same thing, and I'm sorry bud but you're just not seeing the proof. It's there though.

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)

That is your key mistake, you are missing the words "are treated as friendly units". As I said in my earlier post, the statement makes Battle Brothers and Friendly Units two separate things. There's also much evidence in the precluding rules that Allies are formed from Army to Army, not unit to unit or model to model.

**Happyjew**

So I asked the only two guys who know the rules as well as I do. I explained my position as well as the counter-arguments. Surprisingly, one agreed with me.

**Mannahnin**

Nothing in the phrasing of Battle Brothers explicitly limits it to only units of Battle Brothers. Everything from your allied detachment is an ally, and thus either a Battle Brother, an Ally of Convenience, or a Desperate Ally. No rule states that only homogenous units of allies are treated as allies.

**DeathReaper**

Mannahnin wrote:
Nothing in the phrasing of Battle Brothers explicitly limits it to only units of Battle Brothers. Everything from your allied detachment is an ally, and thus either a Battle Brother, an Ally of Convenience, or a Desperate Ally. No rule states that only homogenous units of allies are treated as allies.

100% this.

There are no rules that take away the BB status.

**Timmy149**

DeathReaper wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:
Nothing in the phrasing of Battle Brothers explicitly limits it to only units of Battle Brothers. Everything from your allied detachment is an ally, and thus either a Battle Brother, an Ally of Convenience, or a Desperate Ally. No rule states that only homogenous units of allies are treated as allies.

100% this.

There are no rules that take away the BB status.

Exactly. Like I have said, many times previously, you DO NOT CEASE TO BE A BATTLE BROTHER BECAUSE YOU JOIN A UNIT!

**grrrfranky**

@ OP, The burden of proof is on you to find something that makes an IC lose Battle Brother status, rather than others to find something that says he remains as such. Nothing you've posted so far has shown this.

**Kommissar Kel**

Mannahnin wrote:
Nothing in the phrasing of Battle Brothers explicitly limits it to only units of Battle Brothers. Everything from your allied detachment is an ally, and thus either a Battle Brother, an Ally of Convenience, or a Desperate Ally. No rule states that only homogenous units of allies are treated as allies.

So you are saying the First sentence in the paragraph "Battle brothers are treated as 'Friendly units' from all points of view." is not the definition of the term?

So we will go by your definition here; Only units chosen from the allied detachment are battle brothers. So according to this, I can Attach an IC from my main army to a battle brother unit and have them get into a battle brother Transport right? After all you do not have any "Battle Brothers" getting in "Allied Transports" do you?

Edit: After thinking about it further I am loving this Concept of "All models(either in the allied detachment, or in the whole army) are Battle Brothers" Because of that oft stated Rule I have above. Now every single Battle brother model is treated as a "friendly unit"; now Tau have no need for target locks when taken with(or as, depending on whose making up the definition of battle brother), each "Friendly unit" model can individually target any enemy unit they want(because that is how the shooting rules work, Units shoot at units); you also no longer have unit coherency to worry about because every model is a unit; of course now you cannot have ICs join those units unless they also have the IC rule, so this whole argument becomes moot.

**Dozer Blades**

So how much longer does this have to continue? I see nothing constructive.

**BetrayTheWorld**

Kel has actually posted a lot of good points, counterpoints, and valid debates. The only reason this thread seems non-productive is because lots of people seem to not have read the entire thread, or simply ignore the fact that whatever disproves or at least provides contention to their point has already been stated.

**Dozer Blades**

That's not true at all.

**BetrayTheWorld**

Dozer Blades wrote:
That's not true at all.

He's had to repost the same points several times in response to people who posted things that were brought into question by those points to begin with. Either people are ignoring the points, not reading them, don't understand them, or...I think those are the only options. The logic is there to be seen.

Now, RAI, it would be a different story. But RAI isn't the foundation of this thread, so far as I understand.

**grrrfranky**

I'm still not seeing anything that tells us that an IC would lose Battle Brother status when he joins an allied unit, and unless he does, he's explicitly barred from embarking on an allied transport.

**rigeld2**

grrrfranky wrote:
I'm still not seeing anything that tells us that an IC would lose Battle Brother status when he joins an allied unit, and unless he does, he's explicitly barred from embarking on an allied transport.

The issue is that "Battle Brother status" is unit based, and the IC's unit disappears when he joins a unit.

**Beast**

BetrayTheWorld wrote:
Kel has actually posted a lot of good points, counterpoints, and valid debates. .

Not sure I would ascribe "good" or "valid" to very much in this thread... Several other words DO come to mind to describe the premise here, but they don't really fall into the good or valid categories IMO... But, that's all it is... JMHO...

**grrrfranky**

rigeld2 wrote:
grrrfranky wrote:
I'm still not seeing anything that tells us that an IC would lose Battle Brother status when he joins an allied unit, and unless he does, he's explicitly barred from embarking on an allied transport.

The issue is that "Battle Brother status" is unit based, and the IC's unit disappears when he joins a unit.

I'm not entirely convinced that the first part of this is true, but I see your point. It doesn't spell out exactly what Battle Brother status is very well, just gives a couple of examples.

**hyv3mynd**

The problem is you have a rule that states battle brothers may not embark on allied transports.

Then you have people trying to claim a battle brother ceases being a battle brother and can in fact embark on allied transports despite lacking explicit exceptions to the first rule, and needing to dig through several pages of rules to create a loophole within the first rule.

I wouldn't allow it and I'm 99% sure our local TO's wouldn't. Like others I'm having a hard time getting past "the book says no, but if you do this and then look at it this way, it could be possible" debate. Clearly easter egging IMO.

**rigeld2**

hyv3mynd wrote:
The problem is you have a rule that states battle brothers may not embark on allied transports.

Then you have people trying to claim a battle brother ceases being a battle brother and can in fact embark on allied transports despite lacking explicit exceptions to the first rule, and needing to dig through several pages of rules to create a loophole within the first rule.

I wouldn't allow it and I'm 99% sure our local TO's wouldn't. Like others I'm having a hard time getting past "the book says no, but if you do this and then look at it this way, it could be possible" debate. Clearly easter egging IMO.

It's not "several pages of rules to create a loophole".
The first rule creates the "loophole" by making Battle Brothers decided per unit.
You're misrepresenting both the intention of the OP and the actual rules.