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.

Nothing in the existing rules support the case for the topic of the debate. It cannot be denied no matter how hard you try to bend the rules with your futile search for this missing Easter egg, It is there nor is their any substantial evidence,

Saying you don't play such an army is a cop out, no one in their right nine would ever support it. You knows this iCard.

Just wondering, what would be the worst case scenario of potential shenanigans? Tau ethereals riding in Land Raiders due to having an entourage of scouts?

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Nothing in the existing rules support the case for the topic of the debate. It cannot be denied no matter how hard you try to bend the rules with your futile search for this missing Easter egg, It is there nor is their any substantial evidence,

Saying you don't play such an army is a cop out, no one in their right nine would ever support it. You knows this iCard.

Hi Dozer Blades,

I've read through all of your posts in this thread just now. Did you know your longest post here (the one quoted) was 72 words? Most are one liners disparaging people who disagree with your interpretation of the rules. Did you know that none of your posts brought any rules to bare to prove your assertion is correct? The closest thing I can find is " The IC is always a Battle Brother. The wording is explicit and there's no getting around it. " which has been explicitly disproved in multiple posts. I'm tempted to link everything you've "contributed" in one small post so that a MOD might see how you're the one trolling this topic. Please compose an actual argument next time you reply here. Harping about how wrong people are without disproving anything they've said really hurts your, already limited, credibility


sincerely,

-From


Back on topic!

I've been reading this thread since last Friday and haven't posted yet as I've been looking for something to disprove Kel's assertion. So far there is nothing disproving that the "treated as a part of that unit for all rules purposes." doesn't change the IC BB to a part of that unit which is then, apparently, no longer a battle brother due to being a part of the unit. Though nothing in the rules tells us what to do with the BB status after the IC has joined other than "treat it as a part of the unit for all rules purposes." it doesn't explicitly say to drop battle brother status word for word nor does it say we should keep it.

That said, I've never once had this come up in a single game of 6th. The large majority of people are under the assumption that a battle brother is a battle brother whether he is by himself or hanging out wit his bros. Would I let some one play it this way if they brought it up? I'd ask for a dice off because I don't believe it's RAI. Do I think GW would write an FAQ proving Kel wrong? Not really because this is the only instance of this argument on the internet in the English language I'm aware of and the majority of people already play it opposite to Kel's belief.

From wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Nothing in the existing rules support the case for the topic of the debate. It cannot be denied no matter how hard you try to bend the rules with your futile search for this missing Easter egg, It is there nor is their any substantial evidence,

Saying you don't play such an army is a cop out, no one in their right nine would ever support it. You knows this iCard.

Hi Dozer Blades,

I've read through all of your posts in this thread just now. Did you know your longest post here (the one quoted) was 72 words? Most are one liners disparaging people who disagree with your interpretation of the rules. Did you know that none of your posts brought any rules to bare to prove your assertion is correct? The closest thing I can find is " The IC is always a Battle Brother. The wording is explicit and there's no getting around it. " which has been explicitly disproved in multiple posts. I'm tempted to link everything you've "contributed" in one small post so that a MOD might see how you're the one trolling this topic. Please compose an actual argument next time you reply here. Harping about how wrong people are without disproving anything they've said really hurts your, already limited, credibility


sincerely,

-From


Back on topic!

I've been reading this thread since last Friday and haven't posted yet as I've been looking for something to disprove Kel's assertion. So far there is nothing disproving that the "treated as a part of that unit for all rules purposes." doesn't change the IC BB to a part of that unit which is then, apparently, no longer a battle brother due to being a part of the unit. Though nothing in the rules tells us what to do with the BB status after the IC has joined other than "treat it as a part of the unit for all rules purposes." it doesn't explicitly say to drop battle brother status word for word nor does it say we should keep it.

That said, I've never once had this come up in a single game of 6th. The large majority of people are under the assumption that a battle brother is a battle brother whether he is by himself or hanging out wit his bros. Would I let some one play it this way if they brought it up? I'd ask for a dice off because I don't believe it's RAI. Do I think GW would write an FAQ proving Kel wrong? Not really because this is the only instance of this argument on the internet in the English language I'm aware of and the majority of people already play it opposite to Kel's belief.

I think I provided more then a valid argument against it and like you I pretty much waited until today to put forth the bulk of my argument.

The one point of your post I will bring up is that you say that the rules don't explicitly say to drop the BB status word for word, but neither does it say to we should keep it. In this matter though, with the ruleset methodology as it is, we are inclined to keep the Battle Brother status in the abscence of any rules telling us to drop it. The RAW must direct us to remove a condition once it has been established. That is how the ruleset is written and how they work.

You haven't established that its not tied to a unit.
I have established that it is.

Once the unit ceases to exist, there's no tie to being a Battle Brother.

rigeld2 wrote:
You haven't established that its not tied to a unit.
I have established that it is.

Once the unit ceases to exist, there's no tie to being a Battle Brother.

No you have not. All you have is that a Battle Brother is a friendly unit. You have an instance when the IC is part of an allied unit for all intents and purposes, but absolutely nothing to tell you that it causes the IC to no longer be a Battle Brother. You might have a leg to stand on if it said,

"Battle Brothers must be friendly units."

or

"Only friendly units can be Battle Brothers."

or

"Battle Brothers can only be friendly units.:

However you do not and you do not have any permission or direction to make the Battle Brother stop being a Battle Brother when he joins an allied unit. My argument completely works within the rules as written. I do not need to make an unfounded assumption that Battle Brother is intrinsically linked to friendly unit for my argument to work. Keep repeating your mantra if it makes you feel better, but it doesn't defeat my argument in the slightest.

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
You haven't established that its not tied to a unit.
I have established that it is.

Once the unit ceases to exist, there's no tie to being a Battle Brother.

No you have not. All you have is that a Battle Brother is a friendly unit. You have an instance when the IC is part of an allied unit for all intents and purposes, but absolutely nothing to tell you that it causes the IC to no longer be a Battle Brother. You might have a leg to stand on if it said,

"Battle Brothers must be friendly units."

or

"Only friendly units can be Battle Brothers."

or

"Battle Brothers can only be friendly units.:

However you do not and you do not have any permission or direction to make the Battle Brother stop being a Battle Brother when he joins an allied unit. My argument completely works within the rules as written. I do not need to make an unfounded assumption that Battle Brother is intrinsically linked to friendly unit for my argument to work. Keep repeating your mantra if it makes you feel better, but it doesn't defeat my argument in the slightest.

Actually, the latter is exactly what the rule says.

BRB 112 wrote:Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units' from all points of view.

Period. That's the end of the definition. In 40k, we know that "treated as" is the same thing as "is". So that sentence is exactly the same as saying:

Battle Brothers are 'friendly units' from all points of view.

Does that leave any wiggle room for something that isn't a unit to be a Battle Brother? No - because we know that every Battle Brother is a friendly unit.
If something isn't a unit, it cannot meet that definition. You're missing that a unit is not a Battle Brother and a friendly unit - it's a friendly unit because it's a Battle Brother.

rigeld2 wrote:

He has never gained that status.

Rigeld, this was your stance like 5 posts ago when I mentioned that you have no right to remove the Battle Brother status. I proved you absolutely wrong in that aspect and in this argument that Battle Brother and friendly unit are linked is wrong as well.

Battle Brothers are treated as "friendly units" from all points of view.

Is just that and only that. It tells you how to treat them, that is it. The IC becoming part of an allied unit for all intents and purposes does not remove the Battle Brother status because being a Battle Brother is not dependent on being a friendly unit. Treating them as a friendly unit is only an instruction on how to treat them, period. In fact, being a Battle Brother is what allows you to treat them as a friendly unit. That is not how the rule is written and the other bullet points do not support your stance either.

I laid out a great little scenario for you regarding Space Wolves and Blood Angels to show you that you were wrong about the Battle Brother status. I also asked you to then explain how you do anything beyond deployment if the IC does not remain a Battle Brother to which you unsurprisingly cannot answer without killing your own argument. Besides using an assumption of intent to back your argument, use the rules as written.

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

He has never gained that status.

Rigeld, this was your stance like 5 posts ago when I mentioned that you have no right to remove the Battle Brother status. I proved you absolutely wrong in that aspect and in this argument that Battle Brother and friendly unit are linked is wrong as well.

You didn't really. I asked you to prove it but I must have missed the post where you quoted rules proving it.

Battle Brothers are treated as "friendly units" from all points of view.

Is just that and only that. It tells you how to treat them, that is it.

It tells you what they are. There's a difference.

The IC becoming part of an allied unit for all intents and purposes does not remove the Battle Brother status because being a Battle Brother is not dependent on being a friendly unit.

Have a rules quote for that yet?

Treating them as a friendly unit is only an instruction on how to treat them, period. In fact, being a Battle Brother is what allows you to treat them as a friendly unit. That is not how the rule is written and the other bullet points do not support your stance either.

I laid out a great little scenario for you regarding Space Wolves and Blood Angels to show you that you were wrong about the Battle Brother status. I also asked you to then explain how you do anything beyond deployment if the IC does not remain a Battle Brother to which you unsurprisingly cannot answer without killing your own argument. Besides using an assumption of intent to back your argument, use the rules as written.

Acutally I can answer it - I must've missed the post. My apologies.
The first bullet point is not what allows an IC to join a unit. That'd be the IC rules because he's an independent character and there's no rule denying his permission (page 39 for reference).
So go ahead - revoke the first bullet point. Since he still has permission (per page 39) there's no issue.

rigeld2 wrote:

Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units' from all points of view.

Period. That's the end of the definition. In 40k, we know that "treated as" is the same thing as "is"

Yea that is not the whole quote. The next part tells you exactly what that sentence means.

"This means, for example, that Battle Brothers:"

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units' from all points of view.

Period. That's the end of the definition. In 40k, we know that "treated as" is the same thing as "is"

Yea that is not the whole quote. The next part tells you exactly what that sentence means.

"This means, for example, that Battle Brothers:"

Close. It means that what follows is examples of what being a friendly unit means.
It's absolutely not an exhaustive list - because it says what follows is examples.

Which doesn't change my statement whatsoever.

Regi and Kel have quoted actual rules that make the dissolution of BB possible. The IC stops being a unit of its own and there's no further ruling telling us to keep BB status. He's a model in a unit of your primary detachment, thus no longer a Battle Brother. It's similar to the Eldar FAQ that specifically tells you Eldar Psychic powers do not work on Dark Eldar units, but when a Dark Eldar IC joins a unit of normal Eldar, what happens? He apparently benefits because at the time he's actually not a Dark Eldar unit at all, he's a member of an Eldar unit.

There's really no more reason to argue. If your jimmies have been rustled by the rules being read in this way -- Don't worry. I can say with the utmost confidence that most TOs will rule against this reading and will have everyone play the way most people have been already -- with a Battle Brother counting as one regardless of what squad he is attached to.

I know plenty of TO's lurk here regularly, maybe getting a poll up to see who plays which way or having Yak step in and give his opinion on the subject can quietly resolve this thread without further bickering.

When a Battle Brother IC join a friendly unit that he is Battle Brothered with, he becomes a member of that unit. Does that mean he loses his unit status as a Battle Brother even though the rules state he is treated as a friendly unit?

What rule makes him cease existing as a Battle Brother? In short, can a Battle Brother IC be considers more that one unit at the same time as being attached to an allied unit he is Battle Brothered with?

 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.

Exactly. Quote from the BRB the bit that says "and IC loses his BB status when he joins an allied unit"

 Timmy149 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.

Exactly. Quote from the BRB the bit that says "and IC loses his BB status when he joins an allied unit"

The IC rules. While an independent character is attached to a unit he is treated as a member of that unit for all rules purposes.

The IC is no longer a Unit himself, and therefore no longer treated as a friendly unit on his own, he is entirely a part of the unit he joins.

If the unit joined is not a battle brother to the transport; then the IC is not a Battle brother to the transport because he is part of the attached unit in whole.

Does losing Battle Brother status also affect other rules aside from being able to enter transports? Also, what would happen if the IC somehow is separated from the unit while in a transport?

For those who are still contributing, or at least following along, please take a moment to make your opinions known here, where I am gathering some numbers just to get the lay of the land.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 Timmy149 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.

Exactly. Quote from the BRB the bit that says "and IC loses his BB status when he joins an allied unit"

The IC rules. While an independent character is attached to a unit he is treated as a member of that unit for all rules purposes.

The IC is no longer a Unit himself, and therefore no longer treated as a friendly unit on his own, he is entirely a part of the unit he joins.

If the unit joined is not a battle brother to the transport; then the IC is not a Battle brother to the transport because he is part of the attached unit in whole.

Being a Battle Brother is not dependent on being a friendly unit. In fact, a Battle Brother is only treated as a friendly unit with the exception given that he cannot embark in an allied transport.

I have asked Rig over and over to show me the rules that says, "If you are not a friendly unit, you are not a Battle Brother", or something to that affect. He did the same thing that you have done, point to a rule that does not contain the text and say,

"It's right there!"

Except it isn't there and it never will be unless you make the faulty assumption that no longer being treated as a friendly unit suddenly dissolves the Battle Brother status. Since Rig wont answer the question regarding this scenario, I pass it along to you;

A wolf priest joins a unit of Death Company at deployment. According to you, he is no longer a Battle Brother because he is no longer treated as a friendly unit having become part of the Death Company unit for all intents and purposes.

So how does the unit move?

At the end of the movement phase, you are required by the rules for IC to make sure that the wolf priest is still within 2" of a Death Company model to remain attached to the unit. However, because he is no longer a Battle Brother and thus no longer treated as a friendly unit, he cannot join the allied unit.

Congrats, your attempted easter egging has broken the game.

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:


I have asked Rig over and over to show me the rules that says, "If you are not a friendly unit, you are not a Battle Brother", or something to that affect. He did the same thing that you have done, point to a rule that does not contain the text and say,

"It's right there!"

Except it isn't there and it never will be unless you make the faulty assumption that no longer being treated as a friendly unit suddenly dissolves the Battle Brother status.

It's not faulty. If A, B. if not B, you cannot have A.

Since Rig wont answer the question regarding this scenario, I pass it along to you;

A wolf priest joins a unit of Death Company at deployment. According to you, he is no longer a Battle Brother because he is no longer treated as a friendly unit having become part of the Death Company unit for all intents and purposes.

So how does the unit move?

At the end of the movement phase, you are required by the rules for IC to make sure that the wolf priest is still within 2" of a Death Company model to remain attached to the unit. However, because he is no longer a Battle Brother and thus no longer treated as a friendly unit, he cannot join the allied unit.

Perhaps you missed it when I answered this earlier. Please go back and read my post.

Congrats, your attempted easter egging has broken the game.

Bold assertion when you example fails to do that.

 WarOne wrote:
Does losing Battle Brother status also affect other rules aside from being able to enter transports? Also, what would happen if the IC somehow is separated from the unit while in a transport?

No, not at all.

The unit the IC joins is already a friendly unit to the allied Psykers/Bearers of special rules, and they are still BB to units from the same codex as the IC So bullet point 2 is unaffected.

The unit that the IC is attached to can still be joined by other ICs from either codex.

The unit still cannot get into transport belonging to the codex the IC is from.

Nothing about the unit changes, the only thing that is different is that the IC is no longer a unit himself and is thus no longer a battle brother as defined in the Allies rules.

Tyr; Being a battle brother is defined as being a friendly unit. Is the IC within the unit still a unit on his own?

Is Battle Brother a Special Rule or just a term to describe a model?

 WarOne wrote:
Is Battle Brother a Special Rule or just a term to describe a model?

It's a term to describe a unit.

rigeld2 wrote:

 WarOne wrote:
Is Battle Brother a Special Rule or just a term to describe a model?

It's a term to describe a unit.

What would you call a model in a Battel Brother unit?

Beast wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 WarOne wrote:
Is Battle Brother a Special Rule or just a term to describe a model?

It's a term to describe a unit.

What would you call a model in a Battel Brother unit?

... A model in a Battle Brother unit...
Is this a trick question?

Nope, not a trick question, just wanted to clarify. A member of a 'Battle Brother unit' (a collective term) is therefore by definition a Battle Brother...

Except the rules do not say,

"If A,B. If not B, you cannot have A."

That is a figment of you and Kel's imagination that does not exist in the rules.

The state of being Battle Brothers is not conditional on being treated as friendly units. The state of being Battle Brothers is the product of the mechanics of the Allies Matrix. It is not conditional on being treated as a friendly unit and does not disappear when the allied IC joins and allied unit.

So if a member of a Battle Brother unit is by definition a Battle Brother (whether that unit is 1, 10 or 20 members storng), they still can't get into an allied transport becasue they are still a Battle Brother and nothing says they lose that definition- (at least nothing that has been presented in this thread is at all convincing in that regard). Thanks. Later!

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
Except the rules do not say,

"If A,B. If not B, you cannot have A."

That is a figment of you and Kel's imagination that does not exist in the rules.

A Battle Brother is a friendly unit. Agreed?
If it's not a friendly unit, it cannot be a Battle Brother. Agreed?
If it is a friendly unit, it might be a Battle Brother. Agreed?

If it is not a unit, it cannot be a friendly unit, and therefore cannot be a Battle Brother.

The state of being Battle Brothers is not conditional on being treated as friendly units.

Funny, that's not what page 112 says. Let me quote it for you because it's obvious you've missed it:

Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units' from all points of view.

That's the rules definition as it applies to units. There is no definition as it applies to models - unless you'd like to quote one.

The state of being Battle Brothers is the product of the mechanics of the Allies Matrix. It is not conditional on being treated as a friendly unit and does not disappear when the allied IC joins and allied unit.

Funny, I've quoted rules proving otherwise. Perhaps you'd like to actually quote a rule?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Beast wrote:
So if a member of a Battle Brother unit is by definition a Battle Brother (whether that unit is 1, 10 or 20 members storng), they still can't get into an allied transport becasue they are still a Battle Brother and nothing says they lose that definition- (at least nothing that has been presented in this thread is at all convincing in that regard). Thanks. Later!

Perhaps you'd like to read the thread - it's obvious you haven't.
If an IC joins another unit it is no longer a unit in and of itself.
Therefore it cannot be a "friendly unit".
Therefore it cannot be a Battle Brother.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
Except the rules do not say,

"If A,B. If not B, you cannot have A."

That is a figment of you and Kel's imagination that does not exist in the rules.

A Battle Brother is a friendly unit. Agreed? Agreed
If it's not a friendly unit, it cannot be a Battle Brother. Agreed? FALSE! This is your assumption that you keep trying to play off as RAW. Being treated as a friendly unit does not make a Battle Brother. Otherwise, friendly units within your own army would then be considered Battle Brothers which is not the case. Battle Brothers is a product of the Allies Matrix, not a product of being a friendly unit.
If it is a friendly unit, it might be a Battle Brother. Agreed? Maybe or maybe not. A wolf priest in my army is treated as a friendly unit to the Grey Hunters in my army, but that does not make him a Battle Brother.

If it is not a unit, it cannot be a friendly unit, and therefore cannot be a Battle Brother. FALSE! This is the assumption that you continue to press as RAW when absolutely nothing says tells you that being a Battle Brother is dependent on being a treated as a friendly unit. The condition that you believe exists, only exists in your imagination.

The state of being Battle Brothers is not conditional on being treated as friendly units.

Funny, that's not what page 112 says. Let me quote it for you because it's obvious you've missed it:

Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units' from all points of view.

That's the rules definition as it applies to units. There is no definition as it applies to models - unless you'd like to quote one. You keep crying that mantra as your proof when it isn't anything. All that tells you is that the product of the Allies Matrix (Battle Brother) is to be treated as a friendly unit. Being a friendly unit or being treated as a friendly does not make a Battle Brother.

The state of being Battle Brothers is the product of the mechanics of the Allies Matrix. It is not conditional on being treated as a friendly unit and does not disappear when the allied IC joins and allied unit.

Funny, I've quoted rules proving otherwise. Perhaps you'd like to actually quote a rule? You haven't quoted ANY rules that support your claim. You have quoted one rule and then are telling everyone how you think it is supposed to be read and adding conditions that do not exist. People, besides myself have asked you to show us where it says that the Battle Brother status is dissolved, but you keep pointing to a relationship that does not mean what you keep trying to claim it does.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Beast wrote:
So if a member of a Battle Brother unit is by definition a Battle Brother (whether that unit is 1, 10 or 20 members storng), they still can't get into an allied transport becasue they are still a Battle Brother and nothing says they lose that definition- (at least nothing that has been presented in this thread is at all convincing in that regard). Thanks. Later!

Perhaps you'd like to read the thread - it's obvious you haven't.
If an IC joins another unit it is no longer a unit in and of itself.
Therefore it cannot be a "friendly unit".
Therefore it cannot be a Battle Brother.[color=red]Completely made up that has absolutely zero RAW support to back it. Nothing in the rules tells you that no longer being a friendly unit dissolves Battle Brother status.

Enuff, said.

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

A Battle Brother is a friendly unit. Agreed? Agreed
If it's not a friendly unit, it cannot be a Battle Brother. Agreed? FALSE! This is your assumption that you keep trying to play off as RAW. Being treated as a friendly unit does not make a Battle Brother. Otherwise, friendly units within your own army would then be considered Battle Brothers which is not the case. Battle Brothers is a product of the Allies Matrix, not a product of being a friendly unit.
If it is a friendly unit, it might be a Battle Brother. Agreed? Maybe or maybe not. A wolf priest in my army is treated as a friendly unit to the Grey Hunters in my army, but that does not make him a Battle Brother.

If a Battle Brother is a friendly unit (by definition) then how can something that is not a friendly unit be a Battle Brother?
edit: Your response to me is exactly a fallacy of the excluded middle.
A=B. B=C. A does not always equal C.
(Battle Brothers = friendly units. Units in your army = friendly units. Battle Brothers != Units in your army)
The third line I threw in so it would be obvious I'm not performing an excluded middle fallacy - I'm not saying that everything that is a friendly unit is also a Battle Brother - I'm saying that things that are not friendly units cannot be Battle Brothers.