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.

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.

"Battle Brother status" is not unit based.

Page 113 "Find the row for the codex of your primary detachment on the left side of the matrix. Then find the column for the codex of your potential allies at the top of the matrix. you'll find the level of alliance at the intersection of the row and column."

For example, Codex Blood Angels and Codex Black Templars are Battle Brothers. so anything from Codex Blood Angels can not ride in a transport from Codex Black Templars.

Pretty clear wording there.

rigeld2 wrote:

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.

Not really. Battle brothers may not embark on allied transports.

Was your IC purchased as a battle brother ally? Does a rule explicitly remove that status at any point in the game? Does a rule explicitly allow battle brothers to embark allied transports if...?

No? Then you're using loopholes to bypass an explicit restriction without explicit permission.

 DeathReaper wrote:

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.

"Battle Brother status" is not unit based.

Page 113 "Find the row for the codex of your primary detachment on the left side of the matrix. Then find the column for the codex of your potential allies at the top of the matrix. you'll find the level of alliance at the intersection of the row and column."

For example, Codex Blood Angels and Codex Black Templars are Battle Brothers. so anything from Codex Blood Angels can not ride in a transport from Codex Black Templars.

Pretty clear wording there.

A "Battle brothers are treated as friendly units" is pretty pretty clear wording as well.

So, for example Codex Blood Angels and Codex Black Templars are Battle Brothers. so anything from Codex Blood Angels and from Codex Black Templars is a friendly unit, everything right?

The BT Neophyte is now his own friendly unit, as is the Blood Angles Sgt.


There are actual rules as to what a battle brother is; ignoring those rules and making up your own is not me refusing to follow the rules

 DeathReaper wrote:

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.

"Battle Brother status" is not unit based.

For example, Codex Blood Angels and Codex Black Templars are Battle Brothers. so anything from Codex Blood Angels can not ride in a transport from Codex Black Templars.

That's your example, not a citation.

Pretty clear wording there.

So is the wording "Battle brothers are treated as friendly units". I bolded the important word there because you seem to keep missing it. And unlike your example, mine is a quote from the rules.

Which really does not matter, as I quoted the rulebook by saying Page 113 "Find the row for the codex of your primary detachment on the left side of the matrix. Then find the column for the codex of your potential allies at the top of the matrix. you'll find the level of alliance at the intersection of the row and column." (Thus the Quotation marks.Nothing outside the quotation marks is a quote, never said it was, it was not even implied).

The level of alliance is what we are working with.

a battle brother unit, that is an IC can be joined to a unit from an allied codex, but he is still a selection from the primary detachment and a battle brother to the "potential allies" that were chosen from a different codex.

The "Level of alliance" for a primary detachment of Blood Angels and an allied detachment of Black Templars is noted as being battle brothers. Thus they are battle brothers and they can not ride in each others transports as nothing says they are no linger battle brothers when joined to a unit from the allied codex.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Which really does not matter, as I quoted the rulebook by saying Page 113 "Find the row for the codex of your primary detachment on the left side of the matrix. Then find the column for the codex of your potential allies at the top of the matrix. you'll find the level of alliance at the intersection of the row and column." (Thus the Quotation marks.Nothing outside the quotation marks is a quote, never said it was, it was not even implied).

The level of alliance is what we are working with.

a battle brother unit, that is an IC can be joined to a unit from an allied codex, but he is still a selection from the primary detachment and a battle brother to the "potential allies" that were chosen from a different codex.

The "Level of alliance" for a primary detachment of Blood Angels and an allied detachment of Black Templars is noted as being battle brothers. Thus they are battle brothers and they can not ride in each others transports as nothing says they are no linger battle brothers when joined to a unit from the allied codex.

A Blood Angel unit cannot ride in a Black Templar vehicle. No one has said otherwise.
A Black Templar unit, however, can embark on a Black Templar vehicle.
Since an IC is a member of the unit for all rules purposes it's a Black Templar unit attempting to embark.
I understand how you're finding the level of alliance - that's not in dispute. It's also meaningless as the function of being Battle Brothers is defined as being unit based.

rigeld2 wrote:

A Blood Angel unit cannot ride in a Black Templar vehicle. No one has said otherwise.
A Black Templar unit, however, can embark on a Black Templar vehicle.
Since an IC is a member of the unit for all rules purposes it's a Black Templar unit, with a Battle brother IC attempting to embark.
I understand how you're finding the level of alliance - that's not in dispute. It's also meaningless as the function of being Battle Brothers is defined as being unit based.

FTFY.

Why are you treating him separately? He's a member of the unit for all rules purposes and since the rules define Battle Brother status on the unit level those restrictions cannot apply to him.

He is a member of the unit for all rules purposes, but he does not lose his own rules.

There needs to be an exception that makes him no longer a battle brother. There has been nothing quoted that shows that.

 DeathReaper wrote:
He is a member of the unit for all rules purposes, but he does not lose his own rules.

There needs to be an exception that makes him no longer a battle brother. There has been nothing quoted that shows that.

DR, is an IC (any IC does not matter) joined to a unit still a unit (barring certain exceptions which specify that the IC counts as a unit)?

If no, then why does battle brothers (which is an allied unit) still apply?

If yes, why can I not target the IC unit?

Wow wow wow... I can't believe you guys are still bickering about something so obviously obvious.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Wow wow wow... I can't believe you guys are still bickering about something so obviously obvious.

Obviously it is not obviously obvious.

SIde A claims that the wording for Battle Brothers refers to allied units. Since an IC who is joined to a unit counts as a normal member for all rule purposes (with certain exceptions that specify), then a BB IC joined to an allied unit can embark into a transport.

Side B claims that unless something specifically takes away the BB "rule' (status, or whatever you want to call it), then when the unit it is attached to tries to embark, you are trying to embark a BB which is illegal.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Wow wow wow... I can't believe you guys are still bickering about something so obviously obvious.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
+1 to lock the thread now. Pretty please with sugar on top.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
So how much longer does this have to continue? I see nothing constructive.

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

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Lock the thread.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
A poll will show exactly how few agree with you. There is nothing here to discuss.

Here's a selection of your posts in this thread, can you post something useful instead of repeating what has already been stated by others or complaining about the discussion happening in the first place? This forum is for rules discussion, not just discussion you deem valid.

edit: formatting

 DeathReaper wrote:
He is a member of the unit for all rules purposes, but he does not lose his own rules.

There needs to be an exception that makes him no longer a battle brother. There has been nothing quoted that shows that.

Cite the rule for a Librarian that tells you the model (not unit) is a battle brother.

Using the reasoning that "for all rules purposes, they become a normal member of the unit"...

... A warlord (say SM Libby) joining a unit of fire warriors ceases to be a warlord, as he becomes a normal member of a troop unit (which cannot be warlord) of the allied detachment (which cannot be warlord) and thus loses his warlord trait while attached?

This is the same argument the pro-embark side is making since a warlord can be a unit (CCS, Bjorn) not just a model, and if "all rules purposes" means they stop being a battle brother, then they stop being warlord also.

I think people are taking that line in the IC rules too far. It could be RAW, but certainly not RAI IMO. Hence why they state battle brothers may not embark an allied transport, not "unless they're attached to an allied unit".

Hvy3mynd; reread the rules for warlord. Warlord is a special rule applied to the single model with the highest Ld value from your HQ choices. Unit is never mentioned in Warlord.

ICs joining units do not lose their Stats, Wargear, nor Special rules, just the status of being a unit themselves

I have already said this 2 or three times btw, but I do realize 6 pages is a lot to read.

 hyv3mynd wrote:
Using the reasoning that "for all rules purposes, they become a normal member of the unit"...

... A warlord (say SM Libby) joining a unit of fire warriors ceases to be a warlord, as he becomes a normal member of a troop unit (which cannot be warlord) of the allied detachment (which cannot be warlord) and thus loses his warlord trait while attached?

"When choosing your army, you must nominate one model to be your Warlord." Page 111.
No, the model doesn't lose any of his special rules - he just stops being his own unit.

rigeld2 - The Warlord simply has a special trait and gives up a victory point if destroyed. Don't make it more than it is.

I... I didn't. My point is that the Warlord is a model, not a unit.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
He is a member of the unit for all rules purposes, but he does not lose his own rules.

There needs to be an exception that makes him no longer a battle brother. There has been nothing quoted that shows that.

Cite the rule for a Librarian that tells you the model (not unit) is a battle brother.

I already did. the allies matrix page tells us who are Battle Brothers to whom. It is all covered on Page 113

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
He is a member of the unit for all rules purposes, but he does not lose his own rules.

There needs to be an exception that makes him no longer a battle brother. There has been nothing quoted that shows that.

Cite the rule for a Librarian that tells you the model (not unit) is a battle brother.

I already did. the allies matrix page tells us who are Battle Brothers to whom. It is all covered on Page 113

And what is the definition of Battle Brother?

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
He is a member of the unit for all rules purposes, but he does not lose his own rules.

There needs to be an exception that makes him no longer a battle brother. There has been nothing quoted that shows that.

Cite the rule for a Librarian that tells you the model (not unit) is a battle brother.

I already did. the allies matrix page tells us who are Battle Brothers to whom. It is all covered on Page 113

It tells us what units are Battle Brothers to what other units.
Because the rules for Battle Brothers are unit based. So your citation doesn't say what you pretend it says.

I am not pretending anything. Here is what the rules for figuring out if an allied army is a Battle Brother:

Page 113 "Find the row for the codex of your primary detachment on the left side of the matrix. Then find the column for the codex of your potential allies at the top of the matrix. you'll find the level of alliance at the intersection of the row and column."

Blood Angels are Battle Brothers with Black Templars, and as such no BA's are allowed to ride in any BT transports as per the clause on page 112.

Note the clause does not mention Battle brother units, just Battle Brothers "However, note that not even Battle Brothers can embark in allied transport vehicles." P. 112

And you still have not answered my question.

What is the definition of Battle Brothers?

 DeathReaper wrote:
I am not pretending anything. Here is what the rules for figuring out if an allied army is a Battle Brother:

Page 113 "Find the row for the codex of your primary detachment on the left side of the matrix. Then find the column for the codex of your potential allies at the top of the matrix. you'll find the level of alliance at the intersection of the row and column."

Correct, you've quoted that three times now - it doesn't say what you're saying it says.

Blood Angels are Battle Brothers with Black Templars, and as such no BA units are allowed to ride in any BT transports as per the clause on page 112.

FTFY.

Note the clause does not mention Battle brother units, just Battle Brothers "However, note that not even Battle Brothers can embark in allied transport vehicles." P. 112

Correct. Could you read the bold sentence in the header above those bullet points for me, and then explain how the bullet points apply to models and not units? Since that's what I've been referring to, and you've been ignoring.

What is a Battle Brother?

I have not been ignoring it. the bullet point before the one I quoted says "Are counted as being friendly units for the targeting of psychic powers abilities and so on." 112.

This specifically mentions friendly units. The next bullet point does not. It simply says "not even Battle Brothers can embark in allied transport vehicles." 112

This notes that they are not specifically talking about BB units, but BB's in general, as in any models from the detachment that are battle brothers.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Blood Angels are Battle Brothers with Black Templars, and as such no BA units are allowed to ride in any BT transports as per the clause on page 112.

FTFY.

yea, that fix was not needed, as that is not what the bullet point says.

 DeathReaper wrote:
I have not been ignoring it. the bullet point before the one I quoted says "Are counted as being friendly units for the targeting of psychic powers abilities and so on." 112.

This specifically mentions friendly units. The next bullet point does not. It simply says "not even Battle Brothers can embark in
allied transport vehicles." 112

This notes that they are not specifically talking about BB units, but BB's in general, as in any models from the detachment that are battle brothers.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Blood Angels are Battle Brothers with Black Templars, and as such no BA units are allowed to ride in any BT transports as per the clause on page 112.

FTFY.

yea, that fix was not needed, as that is not what the bullet point says.

I'm curious DR, why is it you seem to be dodging the question? It's rather simple, What is the rulebook definition of a Battle Brother?

 DeathReaper wrote:
I have not been ignoring it. the bullet point before the one I quoted says "Are counted as being friendly units for the targeting of psychic powers abilities and so on." 112.

This specifically mentions friendly units. The next bullet point does not. It simply says "not even Battle Brothers can embark in
allied transport vehicles." 112

This notes that they are not specifically talking about BB units, but BB's in general, as in any models from the detachment that are battle brothers.

Yeah, neither of those is the heading in bold before the bullet points. Keep dodging though, it's cute.

You've quoted zero (as in - zero support for your assertion) rules that say BB status is model based, and page 112 shows that it is unit based.

The heading does not matter as the bullet points specify what they are talking about.

"What is the rulebook definition of a Battle Brother?"

It is a level of alliance as per page 112 Levels of alliance section"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."

a Battle brother, as defined by the rulebook, is a "categor[y] of alliance" 112