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.

Beast wrote:
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...

You are making a distinction between "Battle brother", and "Battle brother unit".

The rules for "Battle brothers" are that Battle brothers are units.

So the term Battle brother unit(which has been entirely made up in this debate) is just as redundant as ATM Machine.

A Battle Brother is treated as a friendly unit and you are creating a connection that one cannot exist without another. Nothing tells you to create that connection.

I know that you have already said that in your opinion if something is said to be treated as X then it is X. However that is not the case because a Battle Brother is not created by being treated as a friendly unit or by being a friendly unit. A Battle Brother is created by the Allies Matrix. Nothing removes the Battle Brother status granted by the Allies Matrix.

Since both you and Kel ignored the scenario I posted (and you saying you addressed it already by parroting the same rules fallacy that is the basis of your argument does not count), I am going to ask anyone that agrees with you to address it.

If an allied IC joins a unit and loses Battle Brother status by no longer being a friendly unit, then how does he continue to remain part of the allied unit beyond deployment?

Despite being treated as a member of the unit for all intents and purposes, he remains an IC so must follow the rules for coherency in joining/leaving a unit. If he is no longer a friendly unit and in turn no longer a Battle Brother, he cannot join or remain part of the unit. The ONLY possible way he is allowed to remain part of the unit after deployment is if he retains his Battle Brother status which in turn prohibits him from entering an allied transport.

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
Since both you and Kel ignored the scenario I posted (and you saying you addressed it already by parroting the same rules fallacy that is the basis of your argument does not count), I am going to ask anyone that agrees with you to address it.

That's a lie. Here, let me quote where I addressed it.

rigeld2 wrote:

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.

There's no rules fallacy at all. It's you making an assumption without basis that's the problem. You've agreed (I even quoted you) that a Battle Brother is a friendly unit.
That means that if you take away the friendly unit, it cannot be a Battle Brother.

A Battle Brother is a friendly unit in as far as how he interacts with your allied force. That is what is expressed by the rule that you are then extending on your own, with zero rules support, to create the scenario needed that with removal of the friendly unit status, so goes the Battle Brother status. This is false as being a friendly unit or being treated as a friendly unit does not establish the Battle Brother status. You would have better luck proving that by joining the allied unit, the IC somehow no longer falls under the Allies Matrix and thus loses being a Battle Brother.

The first bullet point is what allows an IC to join and allied unit otherwise you have zero permission to join an IC from one army to a unit of another. Without the Allies Matrix granting Battle Brother status, you cannot join the wolf priest in the previous scenario to the Death Company. Without Battle Brother status as granted by the Allies Matrix being continuous, the wolf priest cannot remain attached to the Death Company beyond deployment.

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
A Battle Brother is a friendly unit in as far as how he interacts with your allied force. That is what is expressed by the rule that you are then extending on your own, with zero rules support, to create the scenario needed that with removal of the friendly unit status, so goes the Battle Brother status. This is false as being a friendly unit or being treated as a friendly unit does not establish the Battle Brother status. You would have better luck proving that by joining the allied unit, the IC somehow no longer falls under the Allies Matrix and thus loses being a Battle Brother.

So according to you, there's another rules source where Battle Brother is applied to a model.
Please cite it.

The first bullet point is what allows an IC to join and allied unit otherwise you have zero permission to join an IC from one army to a unit of another. Without the Allies Matrix granting Battle Brother status, you cannot join the wolf priest in the previous scenario to the Death Company. Without Battle Brother status as granted by the Allies Matrix being continuous, the wolf priest cannot remain attached to the Death Company beyond deployment.

Read the IC rules.
Now find denial of permission to join units.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
A Battle Brother is a friendly unit in as far as how he interacts with your allied force. That is what is expressed by the rule that you are then extending on your own, with zero rules support, to create the scenario needed that with removal of the friendly unit status, so goes the Battle Brother status. This is false as being a friendly unit or being treated as a friendly unit does not establish the Battle Brother status. You would have better luck proving that by joining the allied unit, the IC somehow no longer falls under the Allies Matrix and thus loses being a Battle Brother.

So according to you, there's another rules source where Battle Brother is applied to a model.
Please cite it.

The first bullet point is what allows an IC to join and allied unit otherwise you have zero permission to join an IC from one army to a unit of another. Without the Allies Matrix granting Battle Brother status, you cannot join the wolf priest in the previous scenario to the Death Company. Without Battle Brother status as granted by the Allies Matrix being continuous, the wolf priest cannot remain attached to the Death Company beyond deployment.

Read the IC rules.
Now find denial of permission to join units.

Read the rules for allies.

Show me where the rules are for an IC joins an allied unit.

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
A Battle Brother is a friendly unit in as far as how he interacts with your allied force. That is what is expressed by the rule that you are then extending on your own, with zero rules support, to create the scenario needed that with removal of the friendly unit status, so goes the Battle Brother status. This is false as being a friendly unit or being treated as a friendly unit does not establish the Battle Brother status. You would have better luck proving that by joining the allied unit, the IC somehow no longer falls under the Allies Matrix and thus loses being a Battle Brother.

So according to you, there's another rules source where Battle Brother is applied to a model.
Please cite it.

The first bullet point is what allows an IC to join and allied unit otherwise you have zero permission to join an IC from one army to a unit of another. Without the Allies Matrix granting Battle Brother status, you cannot join the wolf priest in the previous scenario to the Death Company. Without Battle Brother status as granted by the Allies Matrix being continuous, the wolf priest cannot remain attached to the Death Company beyond deployment.

Read the IC rules.
Now find denial of permission to join units.

Read the rules for allies.

Show me where the rules are for an IC joins an allied unit.

Hello Tyr,

I would like to try an exercise with you when you have your rulebook handy and are able to post. I don't have mine handy (I'm posting from work) but I can tell you that the rules for IC's are under the universal special rules and the rules for battle brothers can be found close to the allies matrix just before missions.

What I would like to ask you to do is to read allowed the rules to yourself, start with battle brothers for this example, and then go on to the rules for independent characters as listed in the USR section. You will see that the rules clearly define a battle brother as a unit you will then see that when that unit attaches himself to a separate unit from your primary detachment he ceases to be a unit unto himself and is instead a part of the joined unit for all rules purposes.

This can be further expounded upon if you look up what defines a unit in the beginning of the book.

If you read the words and follow them exactly as you've spoken them allowed you will find that, as silly as it is, your battle brother unit of one IC is no longer a unit, he is a model in a unit of your primary detachment for all rules purposes and as such is no longer a battle brother.

You're injecting things you believe that are written nowhere in the rulebook because you believe so strongly that this is not the case. I implore you to try this exercise and maybe you will understand that, as silly as this is, if you follow the strictest reading of the rules what Kel has been saying is absolutely true.

-From

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
A Battle Brother is a friendly unit in as far as how he interacts with your allied force. That is what is expressed by the rule that you are then extending on your own, with zero rules support, to create the scenario needed that with removal of the friendly unit status, so goes the Battle Brother status. This is false as being a friendly unit or being treated as a friendly unit does not establish the Battle Brother status. You would have better luck proving that by joining the allied unit, the IC somehow no longer falls under the Allies Matrix and thus loses being a Battle Brother.

So according to you, there's another rules source where Battle Brother is applied to a model.
Please cite it.

The first bullet point is what allows an IC to join and allied unit otherwise you have zero permission to join an IC from one army to a unit of another. Without the Allies Matrix granting Battle Brother status, you cannot join the wolf priest in the previous scenario to the Death Company. Without Battle Brother status as granted by the Allies Matrix being continuous, the wolf priest cannot remain attached to the Death Company beyond deployment.

Read the IC rules.
Now find denial of permission to join units.

Read the rules for allies.

Show me where the rules are for an IC joins an allied unit.

The very first bullet point.

Page 39 of the BRB permits an IC to join a unit.

Page 112 explains the interactions between allies.

The battle brothers rules on page 112 inform us that battle brothers are friendly units.

The bullet points explain that those friendly units(known as battle brothers) can be joined by Allied independent characters

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
Read the rules for allies.

Show me where the rules are for an IC joins an allied unit.

So you don't understand how a permissive rule set works?
That's fine.

When you're granted permission to do something, you have to have something else remove that permission.
The IC rules grant permission for an IC to join a unit.
Find a rule that denies that permission. I can tell you that unless you're an Ally of Convenience unit or Desperate Ally unit, you can join (and be joined) freely.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
Read the rules for allies.

Show me where the rules are for an IC joins an allied unit.

So you don't understand how a permissive rule set works?
That's fine.

When you're granted permission to do something, you have to have something else remove that permission.
The IC rules grant permission for an IC to join a unit.
Find a rule that denies that permission. I can tell you that unless you're an Ally of Convenience unit or Desperate Ally unit, you can join (and be joined) freely.

When the thing that is defining you as a battle brother ceases to exist you're no longer a battle brother.

Example.

Allied IC by himself. Is a unit and as such is permitted to be a battle brother as defined by the Battle Brothers rule.

Permission to join other units is given to him by the IC USR. He joins a primary detachment unit. He is no longer a unit from an allied detachment, he is a unit from your primary detachment for all rules purposes the definition of battle brother can no longer be applied to him.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

Beast wrote:
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...

You are making a distinction between "Battle brother", and "Battle brother unit".

The rules for "Battle brothers" are that Battle brothers are units.

So the term Battle brother unit(which has been entirely made up in this debate) is just as redundant as ATM Machine.

What? That makes about as much sense as the rest of your propositions in this thread... lol... I don't even know where to begin, your logic is so tortured... But whatever, have fun with the games where you actually manage to get people to play your way...

Where is there a distinction then Beast?

Where in any of the rules does being a battle brother mean anything other than a friendly unit?

Please tell me, Cite some text.

LOL

BB(IC)= FU
[BB(IC)FU] Joins Allied FU
[BB(IC)FU] Loses BB
(IC) Loses FU Because No Longer BB
(IC) Must dis-join(aka Leave) Allied Unit because (IC) No Longer FU Because No Longer BB.


Edit: Key:
BB = Battle Brother
IC = Independent Character
FU = Friendly Unit

At first I thought FU meant something else.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
At first I thought FU meant something else.

LOL yeah, I had to edit and add the key to make sure no one got the wrong impression.

40k-noob wrote:
LOL

BB(IC)= FU
[BB(IC)FU] Joins Allied FU
[BB(IC)FU] Loses BB
(IC) Loses FU Because No Longer BB
(IC) Must dis-join(aka Leave) Allied Unit because (IC) No Longer FU Because No Longer BB.


Edit: Key:
BB = Battle Brother
IC = Independent Character
FU = Friendly Unit

Not quite. He's counted as a part of that friendly unit for all rules purposes and as such is a friendly unit. Nice attempt.

From wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
LOL

BB(IC)= FU
[BB(IC)FU] Joins Allied FU
[BB(IC)FU] Loses BB
(IC) Loses FU Because No Longer BB
(IC) Must dis-join(aka Leave) Allied Unit because (IC) No Longer FU Because No Longer BB.


Edit: Key:
BB = Battle Brother
IC = Independent Character
FU = Friendly Unit

Not quite. He's counted as a part of that friendly unit for all rules purposes and as such is a friendly unit. Nice attempt.

sure. Just show me which rules allow a non friendly IC to be a joined to another non friendly unit.

40k-noob wrote:

From wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
LOL

BB(IC)= FU
[BB(IC)FU] Joins Allied FU
[BB(IC)FU] Loses BB
(IC) Loses FU Because No Longer BB
(IC) Must dis-join(aka Leave) Allied Unit because (IC) No Longer FU Because No Longer BB.


Edit: Key:
BB = Battle Brother
IC = Independent Character
FU = Friendly Unit

Not quite. He's counted as a part of that friendly unit for all rules purposes and as such is a friendly unit. Nice attempt.

sure. Just show me which rules allow a non friendly IC to be a joined to another non friendly unit.

Once he's joined to the unit, he's a member of the unit for all rules purposes including finding out if he has to leave the unit!

Do you have permission to involuntarily remove models from units of which they are a part?

 Jimsolo wrote:
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.

Thats actually really helpful. Thanks for that.

40k-noob wrote:
LOL

BB(IC)= FU
[BB(IC)FU] Joins Allied FU
[BB(IC)FU] Loses BB
(IC) Loses FU Because No Longer BB
(IC) Must dis-join(aka Leave) Allied Unit because (IC) No Longer FU Because No Longer BB.


Edit: Key:
BB = Battle Brother
IC = Independent Character
FU = Friendly Unit

Yeah, no. I've addressed that exact example twice now.
You're completely wrong. Have a great day. Maybe read the thread.

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
LOL

BB(IC)= FU
[BB(IC)FU] Joins Allied FU
[BB(IC)FU] Loses BB
(IC) Loses FU Because No Longer BB
(IC) Must dis-join(aka Leave) Allied Unit because (IC) No Longer FU Because No Longer BB.


Edit: Key:
BB = Battle Brother
IC = Independent Character
FU = Friendly Unit

Yeah, no. I've addressed that exact example twice now.
You're completely wrong. Have a great day. Maybe read the thread.

To all of you who have posted here, do you not think this is getting out of hand? This entire thread has turned into a "IC's can! No they can't! They CAN! They can't you "

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
LOL

BB(IC)= FU
[BB(IC)FU] Joins Allied FU
[BB(IC)FU] Loses BB
(IC) Loses FU Because No Longer BB
(IC) Must dis-join(aka Leave) Allied Unit because (IC) No Longer FU Because No Longer BB.


Edit: Key:
BB = Battle Brother
IC = Independent Character
FU = Friendly Unit

Yeah, no. I've addressed that exact example twice now.
You're completely wrong. Have a great day. Maybe read the thread.

Whoa there cowboy...You are breaking one of the Tenets of YDMC. Tenet 1a to be exact.

40k-noob wrote:
Whoa there cowboy...You are breaking one of the Tenets of YDMC. Tenet 1a to be exact.

Except I've cited rules to support my statement. You ignored them and then posted that.
I'm breaking no tenets. Please read the thread before participating. Thanks.
ps. I'll buy you a beer at Alamo.

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
Whoa there cowboy...You are breaking one of the Tenets of YDMC. Tenet 1a to be exact.

Except I've cited rules to support my statement. You ignored them and then posted that.
I'm breaking no tenets. Please read the thread before participating. Thanks.
ps. I'll buy you a beer at Alamo.

Woo hoo!! Free Beer. I have officially changed my position. I am now on the Yes they can side!!

This is actually pathetic.. Where are the mods? It's obvious we won't receive anything substantial that hasn't been shown in page one... And I've seen mods close threads that 'We've seen as much as we're going to' many times..

And the thread was dead before you posted.
"Pathetic" indeed.

I always thought that every unit gets every rule/hinderace/benefit... So a tac squad with a terminator armor in still cannot embark on a rhino...


So why would an ic that is an ally and therefore unable to embark on an Allied transport suddenly able to embark when he joins another unit? I think the rules are pretty clear.

Oops, sorry to contribute to the threadnomancy:(.

 mortetvie wrote:
I always thought that every unit gets every rule/hinderace/benefit... So a tac squad with a terminator armor in still cannot embark on a rhino...

Models in Terminator armor are forbidden from embarking in a Rhino - it's not a unit based rule.

So why would an ic that is an ally and therefore unable to embark on an Allied transport suddenly able to embark when he joins another unit? I think the rules are pretty clear.

Because the restriction is tied to a unit. A IC is demonstrably not a separate unit after he's joined.

 mortetvie wrote:
I always thought that every unit gets every rule/hinderace/benefit... So a tac squad with a terminator armor in still cannot embark on a rhino...


So why would an ic that is an ally and therefore unable to embark on an Allied transport suddenly able to embark when he joins another unit? I think the rules are pretty clear.

Oops, sorry to contribute to the threadnomancy:(.

Wasn't actual threadromancy.

Terminator armor disallows models from embarking, models within units are parts of units, therefore a single disallowed model disallows embarkation.

My whole point to this thread is that battle brothers are units per the rules and an Allied IC joined to an Allied Unit via the battle brothers rule may still allow that unit to get into a transport from that unit's codex because there is no "Battle brother" in the unit belonging to the same codex as the transport.

I don't see how an allied battle brother IC in a unit ceases to be an allied battle brother? Because allied models are not allowed to embark on transports from another detachment, an allied IC In a unit prevents that unit from being able to embark...much like the concept of a terminator armored model preventing a tac squad from embarking on a rhino...

I am afraid you are reading into the rules something that simply is not there and is explicitly not allowed:/.