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.

Personally what he is saying makes complete sense and this would help elder become a real army. I even looked at the rules the same way first few times around but people at my store hate the allies thing so they just said that couldn't be what GW meant and didn't want to read into it. It makes complete sence that an IC can jump in an allied transport. I run Grey Knights so i cant afford to run allies even if i wanted to, but it does make sense and anyone that is shooting him down is overlooking the fact that some rules are very open to interpretation.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
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).

I have a 100 percent track record on the big ones that have been discussed here for sixth edition. That is nothing to sneeze at. I can tell you with absolute certainty you are wrong.

No, you can feel certain that the FAQ will state I am wrong.

As the RAW stands now I am absolutely 100% correct.

If/When the FAQ states otherwise I will be wrong and follow the FAQ ruling, until then I am completely correct.

Do you try to make your opponents play it your way?

Separate unit or not, nothing says he loses his Battle Brother status.

You have zero quotes that say that the character is no longer a battle brother.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Separate unit or not, nothing says he loses his Battle Brother status.

You have zero quotes that say that the character is no longer a battle brother.

A battle brother is a friendly unit.

Is an IC joined to a unit still a unit on his own?

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
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.

Since you will not retract, I have no choice but to put you on ignore. I do not want to as I think you have a valid argument, as you have in the past. It is a shame that it has come to this. Sorry.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Separate unit or not, nothing says he loses his Battle Brother status.

You have zero quotes that say that the character is no longer a battle brother.

As I've said - that's irrelevant, as the restriction only applies to Battle Brother units.
We know this because the entire bulleted list is read in context with the heading which talks about Friendly Units.

Is an IC that is joined to an allied unit still a Battle Brother unit?

It is still a Battle Brother, and that is what matters as " However, note that not even Battle Brothers can embark in allied transport vehicles." 112

At this point I think it would be better to discuss it with your respective gaming groups and play it as the least advantageous interpretation which would not let the IC's ride in allied transports. If they FaQ it they will probably rule it like this anyway.

 DeathReaper wrote:
It is still a Battle Brother, and that is what matters as " However, note that not even Battle Brothers can embark in allied transport vehicles." 112

It's like you are ignoring my posts.
That restriction is on units. I've proven that. Multiple times. As has Kel. You've ignored his posts as well (literally now).
You've posted absolutely nothing that disagrees with our proofs, you just continue to assert otherwise. Please post evidence supporting your claim or concede.

What I want to know if KK or rigfelf2 try to make their opponents play this way.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
No, you can feel certain that the FAQ will state I am wrong.

As the RAW stands now I am absolutely 100% correct.

If/When the FAQ states otherwise I will be wrong and follow the FAQ ruling, until then I am completely correct.

So you are going to pull the whole,

"I am right, GW,is using the FAQ to break RAW."

 Dozer Blades wrote:
What I want to know if KK or rigfelf2 try to make their opponents play this way.

I can't answer for KK, but I know rigeld plays Tyranids. Ask him again once Tyranids have BB level allies. As for me, except when 6th edition first came out nobody uses allies anymore (at least not BB level). And I've stated he way I play it.

It's like I haven't said that multiple times in this thread.
OhwaitItotallyhave.

So do you or would you try to force an opponent to play that way? Would you insist if they said no?

 Dozer Blades wrote:
So do you or would you try to force an opponent to play that way? Would you insist if they said no?

I'm confused on what you are asking here. Are you asking rigeld if he forces his opponents to allow Tyranid BBs into Tyranid transports, or if he forces his opponent to allow his opponents attached BB ICs to embark?

What a cop out.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
What a cop out.

I know Rig will play it however his opponent wishes to play it.

Rig, in person, likes to PLAY 40k not debate it. Oh he will engage a deabte with anyone but he would rather have fun play the game than argue about rules.

He does his debating here on this forum.

I'm convinced he's just resorted to attempting to troll. I've ignored and reported him.

In case he's being honest - as Happy said, I'm a Tyranid player so I don't "force" my opponents to accept anything.
If they want to embark their IC onto an allied transport I don't object.
If they don't want to, I don't care.
It rarely comes up because I play at tournaments 99% of the time and there I'd just get the TO's ruling.

So what about KK? I really want to know.

I am looking at the arguments being made here and keep wondering where the condition of being an IC joined to an allied unit overrides the Battle Brothers condition.

IC still follow the rules for an IC when joined to a unit. Yes they are treated as the unit for all rules purposes, but they still follow the rules for being and IC. So while Battle Brothers are treated as friendly units, like an IC, they are still Battle Brothers and thus required to follow the rules for Battle Brothers. Just like an IC is treated as a member of the unit he joins for all rules purposes, nothing removes his rules for being and IC.

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
I am looking at the arguments being made here and keep wondering where the condition of being an IC joined to an allied unit overrides the Battle Brothers condition.

IC still follow the rules for an IC when joined to a unit. Yes they are treated as the unit for all rules purposes, but they still follow the rules for being and IC. So while Battle Brothers are treated as friendly units, like an IC, they are still Battle Brothers and thus required to follow the rules for Battle Brothers. Just like an IC is treated as a member of the unit he joins for all rules purposes, nothing removes his rules for being and IC.

You're missing the argument. The Battle Brothers condition is tied to being a unit. An IC that is attached to an allied unit is no longer a Battle Brother - or at least is no longer restricted the same way a BB unit is.

If by cited rules and explanation of how paragraph and sentence structure works "waving hands and smoke and mirrors", then yes that is exactly what we have been doing.

You on the other hand have not added anything to this debate.

And I have weighed in on HIWPI: As the rules are written.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
I am looking at the arguments being made here and keep wondering where the condition of being an IC joined to an allied unit overrides the Battle Brothers condition.

IC still follow the rules for an IC when joined to a unit. Yes they are treated as the unit for all rules purposes, but they still follow the rules for being and IC. So while Battle Brothers are treated as friendly units, like an IC, they are still Battle Brothers and thus required to follow the rules for Battle Brothers. Just like an IC is treated as a member of the unit he joins for all rules purposes, nothing removes his rules for being and IC.

You're missing the argument. The Battle Brothers condition is tied to being a unit. An IC that is attached to an allied unit is no longer a Battle Brother - or at least is no longer restricted the same way a BB unit is.

An IC attached to an allied unit is part of that unit for all intents and purposes, and without the caveat of Battle Brothers not being able to embark upon allied transports, by all rights you would be able to do so. You and Kel are driving the, "It doesn't say I can't so I can" bus pretty hard in this one because you are proposing the loss of Battle Brother status due to joining the allied unit when it does not exist. You can say that it seems apparent that when joining an allied unit that he loses Battle Brother status because he becomes part of the unit for all intents and purposes, but absolutely nothing tells you that he actually does. In fact while the IC rules tell you that he becomes part of the unit for all intents in purposes, the rules for Battle Brothers then makes the point of removing one of the perks associated with being part of the unit for all intents and purposes.

So while you want to take what seems to be a fluff based logical leap to allow an allied IC to embark on an allied transport, the rules give you no permission to remove Battle Brother status and the Battle Brothers rule goes out of the way to specifically exclude the an ability normally associated with being part of a unit for all intents and purposes.

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
You and Kel are driving the, "It doesn't say I can't so I can" bus pretty hard in this one because you are proposing the loss of Battle Brother status due to joining the allied unit when it does not exist.

That's not even close to the argument - please don't misrepresent it. If you honestly think that's a fair summation then you have not read the thread.

You can say that it seems apparent that when joining an allied unit that he loses Battle Brother status because he becomes part of the unit for all intents and purposes, but absolutely nothing tells you that he actually does. In fact while the IC rules tell you that he becomes part of the unit for all intents in purposes, the rules for Battle Brothers then makes the point of removing one of the perks associated with being part of the unit for all intents and purposes.

Being a Battle Brother is predicated on being a member of a unit - we've proven that.
An IC is not a member of a separate unit when he joins an allies unit - we've proven that.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
You and Kel are driving the, "It doesn't say I can't so I can" bus pretty hard in this one because you are proposing the loss of Battle Brother status due to joining the allied unit when it does not exist.

That's not even close to the argument - please don't misrepresent it. If you honestly think that's a fair summation then you have not read the thread.

You can say that it seems apparent that when joining an allied unit that he loses Battle Brother status because he becomes part of the unit for all intents and purposes, but absolutely nothing tells you that he actually does. In fact while the IC rules tell you that he becomes part of the unit for all intents in purposes, the rules for Battle Brothers then makes the point of removing one of the perks associated with being part of the unit for all intents and purposes.

Being a Battle Brother is predicated on being a member of a unit - we've proven that.
An IC is not a member of a separate unit when he joins an allies unit - we've proven that.

Predicated on being a unit, when?

Let's look at the IC in question. When the army and allied detachment is created, the IC in the allied detachment is a unit on his own. He is therefore both a friendly unit and Battle Brother to the primary detachment. Now you attach him to a unit in your primary army and he becomes part of that unit for all intents and purposes, but at what point did he lose his status gained at creation of being a Battle Brother? Absolutely NOTHING directs you to lose the Battle Brother status the IC is granted as being a separate unit of an allied detachment upon army/allied detachment creation.

And that is the argument as you and Kel are proposing because nothing is telling you that you can't just dissolve Battle Brother status, so you can to make a Battle Brother embark in an allied transport.

A Battle Brother is defined as a friendly unit, correct?
The bullet point you're applying applies to said friendly units, correct?

Is an IC a unit after it joins a unit?

rigeld2 wrote:
A Battle Brother is defined as a friendly unit, correct?
The bullet point you're applying applies to said friendly units, correct?

Is an IC a unit after it joins a unit?

I am asking you to tell me where in the BRB do the rules tell you that the IC loses the Battle Brother status he gained at army creation. The rules tell you that once the IC joins an allied unit he becomes part of that unit for all intents and purposes, but nothing tells you that this dissolves his Battle Brother status as granted at army creation. You and Kel feel that the Battle Brother status is dependent on the IC remaining a unit in his own right, throughout the game and it is dissolved upon joining an allied unit. I am asking you to provide the rule verbatim that this is the rule, not tell me that because he becomes part of the unit for all intents and purposes he therefore must lose the status. Verbatim: "When X happens the Battle Brother unit/model/etc loses his Battle Brother status.

As it stands, all you and Kel have done is assume that because the Battle Brother is a friendly unit and then becomes part of the the unit for all intents and purposes [he must then lose his Battle Brother status]. You have not proven anything in the brackets. It is an assumption on your part that is not supported by anything in the RAW.

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
A Battle Brother is defined as a friendly unit, correct?
The bullet point you're applying applies to said friendly units, correct?

Is an IC a unit after it joins a unit?

I am asking you to tell me where in the BRB do the rules tell you that the IC loses the Battle Brother status he gained at army creation.

He has never gained that status.

] The rules tell you that once the IC joins an allied unit he becomes part of that unit for all intents and purposes, but nothing tells you that this dissolves his Battle Brother status as granted at army creation.

Again, you're asserting something that doesn't exist.

You and Kel feel that the Battle Brother status is dependent on the IC remaining a unit in his own right, throughout the game and it is dissolved upon joining an allied unit.

Yea, since thats what the rules actually say.

I am asking you to provide the rule verbatim that this is the rule, not tell me that because he becomes part of the unit for all intents and purposes he therefore must lose the status. Verbatim: "When X happens the Battle Brother unit/model/etc loses his Battle Brother status.

I've quoted rules to support my point.

As it stands, all you and Kel have done is assume that because the Battle Brother is a friendly unit and then becomes part of the the unit for all intents and purposes [he must then lose his Battle Brother status]. You have not proven anything in the brackets. It is an assumption on your part that is not supported by anything in the RAW.

It's not an assumption - I've explained why its supported by rules.
Ill ask again because you neglected to answer - maybe slightly different wording will help:

What is a Battle Brother?
Is an IC still a unit when it's attached to an allied unit?

Rigeld, when are IC attached to units?

I create my army list.

Primary: Space Wolves

Wolf Priest
Grey Hunters x10
Grey Hunters x10

Allied: Blood Angels

Librarian
Death Company x10
Stormraven

The Space Wolves are Battle Brothers to the Blood Angels and thus friendly units. At deployment I take the Wolf Priest and because he is a Battle Brother and a friendly unit, I attach him to the Death Company unit. As an IC, the Wolf Priest becomes part of the Death Company for all intents and purposes.

Now, verbatim, provide me the rules that tells me that the Battle Brother status of the Wolf Priest gained upon army creation is lost when he is attached to the Death Company.

We know that he was a Battle Brother and a friendly unit prior to being attached to the Death Company or else he would not be able to join them. Nothing in the BRB tells us that the Wolf Priest must maintain IC friendly unit status to also maintain Battle Brother status. It is your contention that the Wolf Priest must maintain the friendly unit status to maintain the Battle Brother status granted at army creation, however you have absolutely zero RAW support to make that assumption.

Let me ask the both of you this,

If you maintain that upon joining the Death Company unit in my example, dissolves the Battle Brother status of the Wolf Priest granted by virtue of army composition at creation, then how do you anything with them beyond the first turn?

You check for coherency between the IC and the unit at the end of the Movement Phase. If the IC is no longer a Battle Brother per your argument, then he cannot remain within 2" of the unit as he is no longer a friendly unit and able to remain joined with them. Do you detach the Wolf Priest each Movement Phase from the Death Company thus reestablishing his Battle Brother/friendly unit status and then immediately rejoin them to become part of the Death Company unit for all intents and purposes? Care to find me the RAW on that ludicrous scenario because you continue to bring up that the IC is part of the unit for all intents and purposes which would include the rules for movement?