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.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Even if the IC is a member of a unit that doesn't make him suddenly no longer a BB.

Except BB status is unit based.

I have cited rules that say that an IC is still a Battle Brother.

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."

That quote tells us what allies are Battle Brothers. We know that an Independent Character counts as a normal member of the unit he joins for all rules purposes, though he still follows all the rules for characters, but nothing makes him no longer a battle brother as far as the level of alliance is concerned. Therefore he can not embark.

These categories of alliance impose certain effects on the game, one of them being that BB's can not embark on other allied transports.

Absolutely wrong.

Those categories have defined effects. Where are those effects defined? Oh, where battle brothers are defined as friendly units.
If he's not a unit, no battle brother rules can apply.

Your assessment is incorrect. He is still a Battle brother because "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." 112

If GW wanted it as such then the rules would have specifically stated it.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Your assessment is incorrect. He is still a Battle brother because "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." 112

And what effects do Battle Brothers impose on the game?

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
DR: the definition is that singular.

Battle brothers rules are entirely on page 112, when you get to the actual rules you get the definition(a friendly unit)

Where exactly are you finding a second definition?

On Page 112, I quoted it earlier.

 DeathReaper wrote:
The second Battle Brothers definition is a Category of Alliance/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."

That is not a definition of what battle brothers are, that is how you determine what the level of alliance is; in fact that entire paragraph does not mention Battle brothers 1 time.

So you are taking a rule that tells you to determine the level of alliance and declaring that rule to be the definition of Battle Brothers because Battle brothers is a level of alliance. That is just... I cannot even begin to describe what that is.

The Levels of alliance rules tell you to determine the level of alliance with the Allies matrix, then you have to look back to the rules under levels of alliance that pertain to the level of alliance held between your 2 codices(Battle brothers in this case), this is where you find the rules and definition for the chosen level of alliance(battle brothers are treated as friendly units, can be joined by ICs, count as friendlies for Psychic powers and special rules, Cannot enter allied transports).

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Your assessment is incorrect. He is still a Battle brother because "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." 112

And what effects do Battle Brothers impose on the game?

The bulletpoints, yet the third bulletpoint does not take away BB as the Level of alliance therefore if an IC is a BB on its level of alliance he can not ride in an allied transport.

Nobody plays it that way and there is a good reason why.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The second Battle Brothers definition is a Category of Alliance/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."

That is not a definition of what battle brothers are, that is how you determine what the level of alliance is; in fact that entire paragraph does not mention Battle brothers 1 time.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Your assessment is incorrect. He is still a Battle brother because "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." 112

And what effects do Battle Brothers impose on the game?

The bulletpoints, yet the third bulletpoint does not take away BB as the Level of alliance therefore if an IC is a BB on its level of alliance he can not ride in an allied transport.

The bullet points that are explicitly examples of how battle brother units are effected by the rules?

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Your assessment is incorrect. He is still a Battle brother because "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." 112

And what effects do Battle Brothers impose on the game?

The bulletpoints, yet the third bulletpoint does not take away BB as the Level of alliance therefore if an IC is a BB on its level of alliance he can not ride in an allied transport.

The bullet points that are explicitly examples of how battle brother units are effected by the rules?

Notice how the third does not say Battle Brother units, but simply Battle brothers.

The second Bulletpoint specifically says "Are counted as being friendly units" why, when talking about units, do you need to say units again? there is a clear difference between the two bulletpoints.

A) the matrix is on page 113, do you often read the next page before finishing the page you are on?

B) the rule you are quoting has you cross referencing a matrix to determine what level of alliance your codices are, you then find the rules for those levels in the subheadings that are named for the levels themselves(and defines those terms).

C)The first bullet point doesn't say anything about battle brother units. The second bullet point doesn't say anything about battle brother units. The paragraph is talking about Battle brother units. The sentence that contains the list(this is what the little ":" punctuation means) refers to "Battle Brothers" without the unit designation, but that was already covered in the definition in the first sentence, we know exactly they mean by battle brothers.

You are almost purposely failing to read the rule correctly.

So he made a simple mistake in regards to the page. I knew what he meant.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
A) the matrix is on page 113, do you often read the next page before finishing the page you are on?

Not sure what you are getting at with this.

B) the rule you are quoting has you cross referencing a matrix to determine what level of alliance your codices are, you then find the rules for those levels in the subheadings that are named for the levels themselves(and defines those terms).

And there we go (Emphasis mine) Levels of alliance is Battle Brothers? Yes, then you follow the rules for battle brothers which do not allow Battle Brothers to embark on allied transports.

C)The first bullet point doesn't say anything about battle brother units. The second bullet point doesn't say anything about battle brother units. The paragraph is talking about Battle brother units. The sentence that contains the list(this is what the little ":" punctuation means) refers to "Battle Brothers" without the unit designation, but that was already covered in the definition in the first sentence, we know exactly they mean by battle brothers.

(the orange and underscore are my emphasis).

The sentence does contain the list. see below for the context of the sentence. (Note it is not friendly units, it is Battle Brothers).

The Orange is sort of correct. The bulletpoints are talking about Battle Brothers "This means, for example, that Battle Brothers:" 112 This is the context of the bullet points.

The underlined is not correct, the second bullet point most definitely states units...

"Are counted as being friendly units for the targeting of psychic powers abilities and so on." 112 Remember that this section says "This means, for example, that Battle Brothers:" 112

Therefore Battle Brothers: Are counted as being friendly units for the targeting of psychic powers abilities and so on. It is all right there on page 112

"Level of alliance is battle brothers" does not in any way define battle brothers, it defines what level of alliance you have.

And; if you are following the rules for Battle brothers, then you see that battle brothers are friendly units. So follow the rules for battle brothers.

Second Bullet point: "Are counted as being friendly units for the targeting of psychic powers, abilities and so on."

Does it say battle brothers units there anywhere?

So What are? Oh, that would be Battle brothers, but what are battle brothers? Oh, those are friendly units.

Dozerblades: he didn't make any mistakes on the page, he was stating that you do not know what a battle brother is from the matrix which is on the page after the rules and definition of Battle brothers(which is itself a sub heading of Levels of alliance).

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Your assessment is incorrect. He is still a Battle brother because "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." 112

And what effects do Battle Brothers impose on the game?

The bulletpoints, yet the third bulletpoint does not take away BB as the Level of alliance therefore if an IC is a BB on its level of alliance he can not ride in an allied transport.

The bullet points that are explicitly examples of how battle brother units are effected by the rules?

Notice how the third does not say Battle Brother units, but simply Battle brothers.

The second Bulletpoint specifically says "Are counted as being friendly units" why, when talking about units, do you need to say units again? there is a clear difference between the two bulletpoints.

It isn't necessary for them to say units again. That there is a clear difference is irrelevant - it could speak to intent, but has nothing to do with how the list has been declared to be about Battle Brother units.
It's indisputable that the bulleted list is examples of how rules interact with Battle Brother units. Pretending otherwise has no rules basis.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
And; if you are following the rules for Battle brothers, then you see that battle brothers are friendly units. So follow the rules for battle brothers.

Yes, "Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units' from all points of view." P.112 But what does that mean?

Well the next sentence tells you what the previous sentence means "This means, for example, that Battle Brothers:" and gives a list of rules.

Rule 1 "Can be joined by allied Independent Characters." ok that is kind of unclear, Who can be joined by allied IC's? Wait, we need to add the "This means, for example, that Battle Brothers:" onto it to make sense of the rule. Therefore this bullet point should read like this to make sense (Battle Brothers: Can be joined by allied Independent Characters.) okay now we are getting somewhere. and now the rule is clear.

Rule 2 "Are counted as being friendly units for the targeting of psychic powers, abilities and so on." ok that is kind of unclear as well, Who are counted as being friendly units for the targeting of psychic powers etc Wait, we need to add the "This means, for example, that Battle Brothers:" onto it to make sense of the rule. Therefore this bullet point should read like this to make sense (Battle Brothers: Are counted as being friendly units for the targeting of psychic powers, abilities and so on.) okay this one mentions units. and now the rule is clear.

Rule 3 ". However, note that not even Battle Brothers can embark in allied transport vehicles." Well that is clear. no need to add the Battle Brothers: in front of it.

Basically "Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units' from all points of view." all this sentence means is Battle Brothers: etc. No mention of units in Rule 1, or rule 3 if you parse the sentences and follow the context correctly.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
I am honest and understand the rules.

Also I do not want a poll; I want a discussion.

I had a friend who moved down from Canada, who I used to game with (D&D, BFG, Magic, Hero Clix, 40K, White Wolf's list of games) put it this way. "You can tell the difference in where a game is from, US or England, by how it's written. US writers tell you what you can't do, British writers tell you what you can do."
As in, if GW wrote the rules for American's by Americans, it would say "X Unit has this and does this, but can not do this, this or this" but as it is now, it's set with "This is what X does" and then they assume you will follow the rules they wrote, and that unit will ONLY do what they just said it could do. So I play GW games with that in mind. If GW didn't say I could twist the rules so I can or can not do something, I only do what they wrote down for me.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Rule 3 ". However, note that not even Battle Brothers can embark in allied transport vehicles." Well that is clear. no need to add the Battle Brothers: in front of it.

So we know that Battle Brothers are defined as friendly units. So this can be rewritten as "However, note that not even friendly units can embark in allied transport vehicles."
Especially in the context of the bulleted list which we're told is examples of what being a friendly unit means.

Basically "Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units' from all points of view." all this sentence means is Battle Brothers: etc. No mention of units in Rule 1, or rule 3 if you parse the sentences and follow the context correctly.

No, absolutely wrong.
With a bulleted list taking the bullets separately and not accounting for the sentence in the heading is the wrong way to parse them. You're trying to read them like a normal paragraph which is incorrect.

He's not even trying to read them as a normal paragraph; which is my whole point.

In any paragraph the first sentence tells you what the subject for that paragraph is(either the action, or the subject of that first sentence); the first sentence has no action, only a subject and a definition for what that subject is.

Ricblasco: I am speaking of what is allowed; Units are allowed to embark on transports. It gives an exception; Battle brothers(already defined within the paragraph as units) cannot embark on allied transports. This denial is required because the allowance for Friendly Units to embark is already within the rules.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Basically "Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units' from all points of view." all this sentence means is Battle Brothers: etc. No mention of units in Rule 1, or rule 3 if you parse the sentences and follow the context correctly.

No, absolutely wrong.
With a bulleted list taking the bullets separately and not accounting for the sentence in the heading is the wrong way to parse them. You're trying to read them like a normal paragraph which is incorrect.

Only if you ignore the sentence "Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units' from all points of view. This means, for example, that Battle Brothers:" 112

The first sentence means the second sentence. they literally tell us what "Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units' from all points of view." means.

"Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units' from all points of view." Means " This means, for example, that Battle Brothers:" this.

Yes, this means, for example, that Battle Brothers (previously defined as friendly units):

3 things, including the thing you're asserting must not apply only to units, despite the heading to the bullet points telling you that it's unit based.

DR; you have a paragraph made up of 2 sentences.

The first sentence defines Battle brothers both as the core term and for the purposes of this paragraph.

The second sentence tells you that "this means" and leaves it open ended into bullet points.

So the second sentence says: "This means, for example, that these friendly units(battle brothers as defined in this same paragraph):

Then comes the bullet points; that the first 2 require you to assume that they are talking about Battle brothers, and then to assume that the battle brothers that they are talking about are units selected from a codex that is a battle brother with your other codex as defined via the allies matrix when you have taken an allied detachment. The third bullet point actually says battle brothers within the specific exemption, but this must refer to battle brothers as defined within the paragraph, which is again, a unit(not a model within another unit).

There is no specific denial for a model chosen from a battle brothers codex from embarking on an allied transport, unless that model is part of a battle brothers unit(in comparison to the allied transport).

There is specific denial.

it is in bullet point 3. Notice how they do not mention units in the third bullet point.

I feel like we are saying the same things over again, so I am going to leave it as Play it with the least advantageous interpretation, since it is ambiguous (Which means no embarking) that is the sporting thing to do and if an FaQ comes out follow that.

Cheers gents.

 DeathReaper wrote:
There is specific denial.

it is in bullet point 3. Notice how they do not mention units in the third bullet point.

They don't need to - plain english dictates that you include the heading in how you read the sentence. You are flat out ignoring it.

I feel like we are saying the same things over again, so I am going to leave it as Play it with the least advantageous interpretation, since it is ambiguous (Which means no embarking) that is the sporting thing to do and if an FaQ comes out follow that.

It is not ambiguous and you can pretend the moral high ground all you want. I don't even have allies/vehicles so I have no dog in this fight and implying otherwise is offensive.

Notice how you read a paragraph.

Notice how context absolutely matters.

Notice how the sentence that contains the list is discussing the same term that is defined in the previous sentence.

Notice how you are purposefully failing to understand the basic concepts of reading because the actual rules do not mesh with your view.

There is no other interpretation without isolate a single portion of the paragraph and taking it out of context.

At KK - do you think this was the actual intent of GW ?

When writing in English with English rules of grammar? Yes. It could not be any other way.

Would I be surprised to find it FAQ'd against me? No, but then that is because I have little faith in GW rules writing over 4 editions(although they have been better this edition, and the Crisis suit weapons went exactly as I read).

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
There is specific denial.

it is in bullet point 3. Notice how they do not mention units in the third bullet point.

They don't need to - plain english dictates that you include the heading in how you read the sentence. You are flat out ignoring it.

Did you miss the "This Means" in that sentence. it literally tells us what the first part of the sentence means.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Notice how you are purposefully failing to understand the basic concepts of reading because the actual rules do not mesh with your view.

This is not true at all. Please retract.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
There is specific denial.

it is in bullet point 3. Notice how they do not mention units in the third bullet point.

They don't need to - plain english dictates that you include the heading in how you read the sentence. You are flat out ignoring it.

Did you miss the "This Means" in that sentence. it literally tells us what the first part of the sentence means.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Notice how you are purposefully failing to understand the basic concepts of reading because the actual rules do not mesh with your view.

This is not true at all. Please retract.

Quote A) The term defined in the first sentence is used for what "this Means" it is clearly talking about Battle brothers in the sense defined in the first sentence, and the first 2 bullet points support that reading in that the never talk about "Battle brothers" by name of term(assumed to have been covered by the opening sentence).

Quote B) I cannot retract without breaking tenant 5, I must assume you are being difficult against the 3 pages of clearly spelled out function of reading the English language over the unfortunate alternative.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
There is specific denial.

it is in bullet point 3. Notice how they do not mention units in the third bullet point.

They don't need to - plain english dictates that you include the heading in how you read the sentence. You are flat out ignoring it.

Did you miss the "This Means" in that sentence. it literally tells us what the first part of the sentence means.

BRB page 112 wrote:Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units' from all points of view. This means, for example, that Battle Brothers:

Yes, being Battle Brothers means they're treated as friendly units from all points of view, meaning, for example, that they can be joined by allied characters, that they can be targeted by psychic powers, etc. as friendly units, and that a BB cannot embark on an allied transport.

Note how literally all of those examples are in the context of a unit. We've established that an IC that has joined an allied unit is no longer a separate unit.