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.

 mortetvie wrote:
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:/.

Dude, you are in the majority. They have an interpretation that they think is valid. The poll on this showed they are in the minority (about an 80/20 split against them). If you really want to see their reasoning, then read the entire thread. You aren't saying anything here that hasn't been said many many time in the last 11 pages...

On ICs joining units: While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters.
On Dedicated Transports: The only limitation of a Dedicated Transport is that when it is deployed, it can only carry the unit it was selected with (plus any Independent Characters that have joined it).
On Battle Brothers: Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units' from all points of view. This means, for example, that Battle Brothers:
• Can be joined by allied Independent Characters.
• Are counted as being friendly units for the targeting of psychic powers, abilities and so on.
• However, note that not even Battle Brothers can embark in allied transport vehicles.

I haven't found a single thing in the BRB that states that an IC loses its "Battle Brother" status just because he joined up with an Allied Friendly Unit. Also the last bullet point is pretty clear. The "Allied Battle Brothers can Embark" side of things can't be right, especially since this rule would be useless then (and I've seen some of the people arguing for that side use the 'useless rule' argument to invalidate someone else's argument before so it makes me wonder what the troll level is here and how many people are serious lol).

I don't buy that "he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" is enough to make him also no longer a Battle Brother. You have to have something explicitly remove the Battle Brother status from the model for this to work. Nothing of that nature exists, so the answer has to be "no". An allied IC cannot embark on a BB transport.

"Battle Brothers Status" is a made up term.

"Battle Brothers Unit" is a redundant term.

"Battle Brothers Model" is a made up term.

A Battle brothers is defined as a Friendly unit. This definition is found on page 112 of the BRB.

Battle Brothers designation is decided via the Allies matrix on page 113 per the level pf alliance rules on page 112.

You read the alliance rules to find that you may have an allied detachment using the Allies detachment FOC chart.

You then read the rules on Levels of alliance to find out that the matrix designate how your alliance and you primary detachment relate to eachother.

You find that your allies and Primary detachment are battle brothers to each-other so you read the Battle Brothers rules.

The battle brothers rules define battle brothers as friendly units.

The battle brothers rules then go on to give some examples of what being friendly units mean and give the exception that these particular friendly units cannot embark on transports from the allied codex.

An IC joined to a unit is not a unit in and of itself anymore, it is fully part and parcel to the unit it has joined.

Therefore an IC chosen from a Codex other than the unit he is joining becomes a member of the unit from that codex. The unit as a whole may then enter a transport from their own codex as the permissions are all there and no restrictions exist(There is no Battle brother because there is no unit from the other codex).

I really wish people would stop spinning the windmill for Don Quixote to tilt at... You aren't going to convince him to change his mind despite the hugely overwhelming mass of people who disagree with the tortured interpretation of RAW that he is using.

Edit for politeness...

Ehhhhh... honestly I agree with him. The word "unit" in the definition of Battle Brother is quite obviously there...

...and ICs aren't "units" when they're joined to a unit (lest you have two units in one unit, which is ... silly. And also wrong). So they cannot be a Battle Brother, as being a unit is a prerequisite for being a Battle Brother.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
"Battle Brothers Status" is a made up term.
...

Battle Brothers designation is decided via the Allies matrix on page 113 per the level pf alliance rules on page 112.

That's just pedantry. I gave the word "status" an unnecessary capitalization. My term and your term are synonymous.

While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters.

Quoted is the only text I have found regarding an IC joining a unit and what happens to the IC. I don't see it as explicitly removing the Battle Brothers "designation" (as you prefer it) from the IC.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
An IC joined to a unit is not a unit in and of itself anymore, it is fully part and parcel to the unit it has joined.

Therefore an IC chosen from a Codex other than the unit he is joining becomes a member of the unit from that codex. The unit as a whole may then enter a transport from their own codex as the permissions are all there and no restrictions exist(There is no Battle brother because there is no unit from the other codex).

And several leaps are being made here under a few bad assumptions.

So here's the rub for me: "Friendly Unit". This is not defined anywhere explicitly. Point in fact, the first usage of the phrase in the BRB is in the rules for Independent Characters. Battle Brothers are "friendly units" as opposed to "enemy units" (as with Allies of Convenience and Desperate Allies). Most abilities that affect "friendly units" have been changed in the FAQ/Errata updates to also include "chosen from this Codex" or "in Codex: X" so that they do not affect Battle Brothers.

It seems that ICs can join with Battle Brother units simply because they are all "friendly units" and the rules for IC's allow for them to join any/all "friendly units" in the movement phase.

But then, oddly, you get one restriction. Its listed as an 'example' but must be a rule since no other place in the rules would forbid it from happening: "...not even Battle Brothers can embark in
allied transport vehicles."

Any model or unit taken as part of an "Allied Detachment" is an "Ally". Whether or not its a "friendly unit" depends on the grade of allegiance. Just because your allied detachment counts as "friendly units" does not mean they ever stopped being an "allied detachment". To me this means that any models taken as part of an allied detachment are always Battle Brothers or always Allies of Convenience or always Desperate Allies. They may be treated as "friendly" or "enemy" models as per their "Level of Allegiance" on Page 112, but there is not anything in the game that revokes this status.


Since the rules are written as they are, you'll either see things my way or see them your way. We'll just have to agree to disagree. Only a FAQ/Errata update will be able to fix it, which means you have a 50% chance of it working best case ("most important rule" and all). So if it were me I wouldn't bank on being able to do it in a game when it comes time to make my list.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I would like to add that the rules for Allies seem to be very much arbitrary and in flux:

Q: Can models from an Allied Detachment that have the ability to repair Hull Points or Immobilised/Weapon Destroyed results from the Vehicle Damage Table use this ability on Allied vehicles? (p112)
A: No.

Q: Do modifiers that apply to such things as Reserve rolls, apply to units from an allied detachment? (p124)
A: No.

With the way the rules are written, there wasn't anything preventing either of these from happening. GW appears to be drawing a line in the sand regarding what exactly Allies can even offer you. They definitely seem to be against the idea that your Primary and Allied Detachment can operate fully as if from a single Codex. So RAI is definitely against the idea, though I understand you are arguing RAW.

Once again, simply because an allied model joins a unit, it does not automatically stop being an allied model and allied models are not allowed to embark on allied transports, pretty cut and dry. Sure an IC counts as being a part of the unit, but its the status of being from an allied detachment that prevents the embarkation, not being a unit in and of itself...the minority ar simply twisting words and grasping at straws.

 mortetvie wrote:
Once again, simply because an allied model joins a unit, it does not automatically stop being an allied model and allied models are not allowed to embark on allied transports, pretty cut and dry. Sure an IC counts as being a part of the unit, but its the status of being from an allied detachment that prevents the embarkation, not being a unit in and of itself...the minority ar simply twisting words and grasping at straws.

I think the crux of their argument is that nowhere in the BRB it defines a "Battle Brother" as a model, only as a unit. If that is the case, the IC rule would allow this since it would be defined as part of the joined unit for all cases and no longer the original unit. However, I think it would need to be redefined in the FAQ as models, because it would probably lead to exploits.

If there is any place in the BRB that refers to a "Battle Brother Model" or defines "Battle Brothers" as a model, should put a nail in the coffin of this. I must clarify though, it can't be a vague connection, but literally read to the extent of "A Battle Brother Model." Anything that could be subjective in that regard can't be used as evidence, as it would only lead to more arguments of interpretation.

Edit: Spelling

Exactly; there's no such thing as "an allied model" as far as the Battle Brothers rating is concerned - it's either a unit or it isn't allied.

First off, we need to define terms.

Allies are set up in 3 basic categories and are anything taken in an allied detachment. These are either (1) battle brother; (2) ally of convenience; (3) desperate ally. All 3 categories are still allies from an allied detachment. (Pg 112 of big rule book).

Therefore, an IC from an allied detachment NEVER stops being a model from an allied detachment nor does it ever cease being an allied model/unit.

The minority are leaping to a conclusion not supported by the rules. For example, they are pointing out that an IC ceases to be a separate unit when it joins another one but fail to consider the implications of it still being an allied model.


Specifically, according to their logic (which is self refuting as will be shown below) a battle brother IC which is a battle brother unit on it's own, ceases to become a battle brother unit when it joins an allied unit, it just becomes a part of that unit. However, if that is the case, then it should also lose its battle brother status at that point and then automatically lose its eligibility to join the unit in the first place! How do you reconcile that line of reasoning?

Ultimately, it breaks down as such:

(1) Allies chosen from the battle brothers category of allies are all allied models (that is as obvious as saying all models from the Eldar codex count as being Eldar models).

(2) Therefore, all allied models chosen from the battle brothers category of allies count as being battle brothers.

(3) allied battle brothers are not allowed to embark on primary detachment transports.

At this point, the minority would like us to believe that an allied IC joining a unit from the primary detachment somehow loses its battle brother status and is suddenly able to overcome the explicit restriction in the BRB and that is not allowed as there is nothing that says this is possible in the rules themselves. The IC rules they refer to contradict the allies rules under their interpretation an that is now allowed.


The logical next step SHOULD be:
(4) an allied IC that joins a unit does not lose its status of being an allied model for purposes of overcoming the embarkation restriction.

(5) any unit from the primary detachment that has an IC from an allied detachment (and visa versa) can never embark on a transport.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
A real world example is that an American citizen does not cease being an American citizen simply because they go to Canada to visit, no matter how close the countries are!

Likewise, an IC from an allied detachment does not stop being an ally for the purposes of embarkation rules simply because he joins that unit.

He does not all of a sudden become a member of the primary detachment by joining a unit of that detachment.

That is exactly where you are wrong.

There 4 Levels of alliance, this is determined via the Allies Matrix and are Battle Brothers, Allies of convenience, Desperate Allies, and Come the apocalypse.

The definition for each of those levels of alliance is found under their respective headings, which you actually have to read; BB are friendly units. Allies of Convenience are enemy units with some special rules. Desperate Allies are enemy units with more special rules. Come the apocalypse cannot be fielded together without a good backstory.

Now when you are reading the BB rules you will first see the term defined in the first sentence then see the term again in the second sentence that can only make sense when read as "These friendly units" which then have the three bullet points which also must be read with the definition in mind.

Frankly, the only way to keep harping on the "But it says battle brothers" argument is to either willfully misread the bullet points or to simply fail at reading them.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
That is exactly where you are wrong.

There 4 Levels of alliance, this is determined via the Allies Matrix and are Battle Brothers, Allies of convenience, Desperate Allies, and Come the apocalypse.

The definition for each of those levels of alliance is found under their respective headings, which you actually have to read; BB are friendly units. Allies of Convenience are enemy units with some special rules. Desperate Allies are enemy units with more special rules. Come the apocalypse cannot be fielded together without a good backstory.

Now when you are reading the BB rules you will first see the term defined in the first sentence then see the term again in the second sentence that can only make sense when read as "These friendly units" which then have the three bullet points which also must be read with the definition in mind.

Frankly, the only way to keep harping on the "But it says battle brothers" argument is to either willfully misread the bullet points or to simply fail at reading them.

Pardon me but who are you referring to and what is your position? If you are claiming that I am wrong, how have you demonstrated that I am wrong (or how anyone else is wrong)?

First off, come the apocalypse cannot be taken as allies regardless (BRB says "this kind of alliance cannot occur"), so there are in fact only 3 levels of playable allies as per my previous post.

Second, BRB says "battle brothers are treated as 'friendly units' from all points of view" and goes on in a bullet point to say that battle brothers may not embark in allied transport vehicles.

So, how does it make sense that in a situation where Space Marines ally with Imperial Guard, that a Space Marine Captain taken as the HQ for the allied detachment cannot embark on a Chimera by himself but if he joins a IG Vet squad he magically is able to embark? This is a rhetorical question because the answer is it obviously does not make sense!

anything taken as an allied detachment is either (1) a battle brother, (2) an ally of convenience or (3) a desperate ally and they all follow the respective rules regardless of having joined another unit via the IC rule or not. Therefore, the rule that says allied battle brother ICs cannot embark onto transports from the primary detachment does not magically disappear or stop working when an allied IC joins a unit from the primary detachment. That is why the argument that they can embark is baseless and unfounded by sound logic, reasoning and rule reading...




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nilok wrote:


I think the crux of their argument is that nowhere in the BRB it defines a "Battle Brother" as a model, only as a unit. If that is the case, the IC rule would allow this since it would be defined as part of the joined unit for all cases and no longer the original unit. However, I think it would need to be redefined in the FAQ as models, because it would probably lead to exploits.

And to address this point, any model in an allied unit is an allied model by definition... its such an obvious and simple point that it doesn't NEED to be addressed or defined. A battle brother IC is both an allied battle brother unit and an allied battle brother model (just as any model in an allied battle brother unit is an allied battle brother model). That is just basic logic and common sense so the nail should be already in the coffin on that regard, its just that some people don't realize it.

The argument that an allied IC can embark on a primary detachment transport is like saying that a psychic power that ONLY affects friendly Eldar units cannot work on an Eldar IC once he joins a non-Eldar unit because he ceases to be an Eldar unit and turns into simply an Eldar model in a non-Eldar unit..That doesn't make sense nor does it comport with sound logic or reasoning.

Just like how Eldrad can still cast Fortune on himself while he is in a Tau Fire Warrior unit (despite not being a separate Eldar unit), an allied IC can never embark on a transport from a primary detachment (because he is still a battle brother)...

Finally, how can they not understand that their argument is self refuting? An IC from an allied detachment joining a unit from a primary detachment does not stop following any of the rules under the battle brother bullet points...If you are going to say the embarkation restriction no longer applies because it stops being a battle brother "unit" (which is a twisted semantics argument), then the rule that allows the IC to join the unit in the first place can also be said to cease working and you are left with a nonsensical interaction of rules. This is because only a battle brother IC can join primary detachment units and if it stops being considered a battle brother unit, it loses the ability to benefit from the battle brother rules all together! The "semantics" argument fails because a battle brother unit that consists of a single model, it by definition is a battle brothers model as is any single model in a battle brothers unit, that is just simple logic and the argument against my position is based on illogical reasoning by people who don't know logic very well (or are choosing not to apply it in this case).

 mortetvie wrote:

First off, we need to define terms.

Allies are set up in 3 basic categories and are anything taken in an allied detachment. These are either (1) battle brother; (2) ally of convenience; (3) desperate ally. All 3 categories are still allies from an allied detachment. (Pg 112 of big rule book).

Therefore, an IC from an allied detachment NEVER stops being a model from an allied detachment nor does it ever cease being an allied model/unit.

Can you quote me the rule that applies this designation to models? You keep asserting that it does, so obviously it's there.

The minority are leaping to a conclusion not supported by the rules. For example, they are pointing out that an IC ceases to be a separate unit when it joins another one but fail to consider the implications of it still being an allied model.

That's because there are no implications to it being an allied model - you've invented that.

Specifically, according to their logic (which is self refuting as will be shown below) a battle brother IC which is a battle brother unit on it's own, ceases to become a battle brother unit when it joins an allied unit, it just becomes a part of that unit. However, if that is the case, then it should also lose its battle brother status at that point and then automatically lose its eligibility to join the unit in the first place! How do you reconcile that line of reasoning?

It's been addressed.
The permission to join a friendly unit is given in the IC rules. The Battle Brother "permission" doesn't mean anything.

(1) Allies chosen from the battle brothers category of allies are all allied models (that is as obvious as saying all models from the Eldar codex count as being Eldar models).

Sure, but irrelevant.

(2) Therefore, all allied models chosen from the battle brothers category of allies count as being battle brothers.

Battle Brothers are defined as friendly units. Applying a unit based rule to individual models is wholly incorrect and any conclusions drawn from that cannot be correct.

At this point, the minority would like us to believe that an allied IC joining a unit from the primary detachment somehow loses its battle brother status and is suddenly able to overcome the explicit restriction in the BRB and that is not allowed as there is nothing that says this is possible in the rules themselves. The IC rules they refer to contradict the allies rules under their interpretation an that is now allowed.

It'd be great if you'd read the thread and understand the argument rather than make assumptions. Thanks.

(4) an allied IC that joins a unit does not lose its status of being an allied model for purposes of overcoming the embarkation restriction.

The restriction that demonstrably applies to unit and not models? Is that the one you're referring to?
Or is there another restriction that I'm missing?

A real world example is that an American citizen does not cease being an American citizen simply because they go to Canada to visit, no matter how close the countries are!

Real world examples are bad ideas, and you'd be incorrect with this one just like you're incorrect with the actual rules.
Premise 1) Only people inside the US are American Citizens. (I know that's not "real world accurate", but I'm trying to make the rules match up with the example)
Premise 2) individuals can travel to Canada freely
Premise 3) American Citizens cannot buy maple syrup.

Question 1) If you travel to Canada are you still an American Citizen?
Question 2) If you travel to Canada can you buy maple syrup?

He does not all of a sudden become a member of the primary detachment by joining a unit of that detachment.

No one has said that he does. He's just no longer a Battle Brother unit.

First of all, my refrence to an allied model or battle brother model does not need a specific rule, it comes from simple logical inferences. All models/units/vehicles taken from an allied army that is considered a battle brother on the allies chart is a battle brother. This is just like pointing out that every model/unit/vehicle in an Eldar codex is an Eldar one...

Specifically, any model in an Allied battle brother unit is by defenition an allied battle brother model... That is like drawing the inference that every model in an Eldar pathfinder unit is an Eldar model, even though there is no rule that explicitly says this. Games workshop does not need a rule in the BRB to say that models from a specific codex count as being models from that codex, that would be a waste of space because its assumed.

Second, the battle brothers rule only says "battle brothers are treated as 'friendly units'" not that they are friendly units. Therefore, a battle brother IC will always be treated as a friendly unit, even if it joins another unit... look at the whole rule:

The first part of the rule says how battle brothers interact with allies in terms of unit interaction and goes on to clarify that this interaction allows the following:
(1) Allied ICs can join each other's units
(2) they are counted as friendly units for targeting of powers/abilities
(3) battle brothers may not embark on allied transports

Now, according to the second bullet, an allied IC (who is a battle brother by virtue of the allies chart) is considered a friendly unit for purposes of powers or abilities...logically this wording still applies if the IC is in an allied unit (otherwise it would not benefit from the powers or abilities). Therefore, the third bullet should still apply because an IC joining an allied unit never stops being counted as a battle brother..

Third, the IC rules and the allies rules are two different set of rules. One talks about how ICs interact with units and the other talks about how units(including models) from different codices interact with each other.

rigeld2
He does not all of a sudden become a member of the primary detachment by joining a unit of that detachment.
No one has said that he does. He's just no longer a Battle Brother unit.

but is he still a battle brother? If not, then how can he be a part of the unit (it is, after all, the battle brother status that allows him to join the unit in the first place), if he is still a battle brother, then logically all of the bonuses and restrictions should still apply...

 mortetvie wrote:
First of all, my refrence to an allied model or battle brother model does not need a specific rule, it comes from simple logical inferences.

Specifically, any model in an Allie battle brother unit is by defenition an allied battle brother model... That us like drawing the inference that every model in an Eldar pathfinder unit is an Eldar model, even though there is no rule that explicitly says this.

Second, the battle brothers rule only says "battle brothers are treated as 'friendly units'" not that they are friendly units. Therefore, a battle brother IC will always be treated as a friendly unit, even if it joins another unit...

The first part of the rule says how battle brothers interact with allies in terms of unit interaction and goes on to clarify that this interaction allows the following:
(1) Allied ICs can join each other's units
(2) they are counted as friendly units for targeting of powers/abilities
(3) battle brothers may not embark on allied transports

Now, according to the second bullet, an allied IC (who is a battle brother by virtue of the allies chart) is considered a friendly unit for purposes of powers or abilities...logically this wording still applies if the IC is in an allied unit (otherwise it would not benefit from the powers or abilities). Therefore, the third bblet should still apply because an IC joining an allied unit never stops being counted as a battle brother..


Third, the IC rules and the allies rules are two different set of rules. One talks about how ICs interact with units and the other talks about how units(including models) from different codeci interact with each other.

rigeld2
He does not all of a sudden become a member of the primary detachment by joining a unit of that detachment.
No one has said that he does. He's just no longer a Battle Brother unit.

but is he still a battle brother? If not, then how can he be a part of the unit (it is, after all, the battle brother status that allows him to join the unit in the first place), if he is still a battle brother, then logically all of the bonuses and restrictions should still apply...

And thus you see the tortured nature of their reasoning... I commend you for your logical outlay of the rules, but all this has been said before- they just refuse to accept it or even bother to (apparently) think about the flaws in their logic... Thus, they refuse to change thier view...

 mortetvie wrote:

Pardon me but who are you referring to and what is your position? If you are claiming that I am wrong, how have you demonstrated that I am wrong (or how anyone else is wrong)?

Your last post, and you are wrong. You even go on to show disjointed logic below, but I will get to that.

First off, come the apocalypse cannot be taken as allies regardless (BRB says "this kind of alliance cannot occur"), so there are in fact only 3 levels of playable allies as per my previous post.

Yes "cannot occur" is a level of alliance, we are talking about the rules for levels of alliance, not playable levels off alliance; we must talk about all 4 because we are talking about which level of alliance we are looking at. Battle brothers is one of the 4 levels of alliance, but that is not its definition; its definition is found under its heading.

Second, BRB says "battle brothers are treated as 'friendly units' from all points of view" and goes on in a bullet point to say that battle brothers may not embark in allied transport vehicles.

Welcome to disjointed logic. You quote the rule that defines Battle brothers, you then turn around to say that battle brothers may not embark. If you do not have a battle brother(designated by the Matrix and defined as a unit) attempting to embark the transport, then you may embark onto the transport.

So, how does it make sense that in a situation where Space Marines ally with Imperial Guard, that a Space Marine Captain taken as the HQ for the allied detachment cannot embark on a Chimera by himself but if he joins a IG Vet squad he magically is able to embark? This is a rhetorical question because the answer is it obviously does not make sense!

It makes the same amount of sense that you wouldn't get into your neighbors car without your neighbor. Battle brothers are not exactly "Besties", they are just more than willing to work closely with each other. Think of it more like the Captain doesn't want to get into the chimera without being invited along.

anything taken as an allied detachment is either (1) a battle brother, (2) an ally of convenience or (3) a desperate ally and they all follow the respective rules regardless of having joined another unit via the IC rule or not. Therefore, the rule that says allied battle brother ICs cannot embark onto transports from the primary detachment does not magically disappear or stop working when an allied IC joins a unit from the primary detachment. That is why the argument that they can embark is baseless and unfounded by sound logic, reasoning and rule reading...

First off, welcome back to the unsound argument that every model in both armies are now independent units(friendly or enemy depending on the level of alliance). Second you seem to think that only the allied detachment is the battle brother, so does that mean that my Primary squad can freely enter the battle brothers transport?

You are still firing off the same arguments that were disproved several pages back, and you are showing that you do not understand how to read a paragraph while you are making up rules to apply as you see fit.

Indeed, its like that debate that a drop pod lost a hull point because it started the game immobilized and I told them they were wrong because immobilized result from any rule other than the vehicle damage chart is does not mean a hull point is lost. GW finally confirmed I was right in a recent FAQ so in their faces =).

Kel, you are taking my words and arguments and twisting them or misunderstanding them.

Kel wrote:First off, welcome back to the unsound argument that every model in both armies are now independent units(friendly or enemy depending on the level of alliance). Second you seem to think that only the allied detachment is the battle brother, so does that mean that my Primary squad can freely enter the battle brothers transport?"

For starters, I never said that every model in a battle brother army is an independent unit...only that they count as being a battle brother in the same way every model in an Eldar Pathfinder unit counts as being an Eldar model...this is irrefutable logic so I dunno how you come off denying this? Are you really going to tell me an Eldar Pathfinder is not an Eldar model?

Kel wrote:
You are still firing off the same arguments that were disproved several pages back, and you are showing that you do not understand how to read a paragraph while you are making up rules to apply as you see fit.

I sense a lot of projection here, it seems you are accusing what is true of you as being true of me...but I guess ignorance/delusion is bliss? I mean, you have not, and cannot explicitly or clearly point out what is logical or illogical in my posts...

And what is the definition of a battle brother?

A battle brother is, as I mentioned above, anything taken from an allied army codex that is a battle brother. its pretty obvious and straightforward.

lol... If you keep spinning the windmill, they will keep tilting at it no matter how silly it has become...

Beast wrote:
lol... If you keep spinning the windmill, they will keep tilting at it no matter how silly it has become...

yes but the windmill grinds my morning whole grain bread =). Plus it was a pretty fun scene in the book, no?

 mortetvie wrote:

Beast wrote:
lol... If you keep spinning the windmill, they will keep tilting at it no matter how silly it has become...

yes but the windmill grinds my morning whole grain bread =). Plus it was a pretty fun scene in the book, no?

Well, you have the potential here for a whole bakery of whole grain bread then... Enjoy! Indeed- very fun.

 mortetvie wrote:
A battle brother is, as I mentioned above, anything taken from an allied army codex that is a battle brother. its pretty obvious and straightforward.

And the text for that is?

Because I can quote the Text that says otherwise.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 mortetvie wrote:
A battle brother is, as I mentioned above, anything taken from an allied army codex that is a battle brother. its pretty obvious and straightforward.

And the text for that is?

Because I can quote the Text that says otherwise.

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

Therefore, the level of alliance between anything from one codex to another that is considered a battle brother is one of battle brother. For example, anything taken in an IG codex is a battle brother to anything taken in a Space Marine codex...This statement is what is LOGICALLY inferred from the above rule and there does not need to be any explicit text that says what I just said...

what rule are you going to quote me? This should be good...

That is the level of alliance, not the definition for that level of alliance. That text tells you nothing; or asserts that all models fall under the definition on page 112 should you choose to misread it that way.

The definition is 1 page back, page 112, first sentence of the second paragraph under battle brothers: "Battle brothers are treated as friendly units from all points of view."

That is the definition, battle brothers are treated as friendly units. So in order to be a battle brother, especially for the rules within that paragraph, you must be(or be treated as) a friendly unit.

So going back to your claim that everything is a battle brother; everything is treated as a friendly unit.

Just out of curiosity. Assume you can embark. What happens if the owning player decides to disembark only the original unit and wants to leave the allied IC on the transport and no longer joined. Seems you have just broken the game in one move as you created a situation that can not exist correct?

Boss GreenNutz wrote:
Just out of curiosity. Assume you can embark. What happens if the owning player decides to disembark only the original unit and wants to leave the allied IC on the transport and no longer joined. Seems you have just broken the game in one move as you created a situation that can not exist correct?

By the minority's reasoning it is totally fine... They magically became "not Battle brothers" so they can magically become Battle Brothers again... Of course they just wave their hands and say that "this is not the BB IC you are looking for" as it again magically steps out of the vehicle it could never have been in (by RAW) anyway...

edit spelling

Kommissar Kel, some questions:

1) Would you consider a Hellbrute to be a "Chaos" or "Chaos Space Marine" model?

2) Would you consider a Kroot to be a "Tau Empire" model?

3) If one or both of the above is answered 'yes' can you explain why?

cowmonaut wrote:
Kommissar Kel, some questions:

1) Would you consider a Hellbrute to be a "Chaos" or "Chaos Space Marine" model?

2) Would you consider a Kroot to be a "Tau Empire" model?

3) If one or both of the above is answered 'yes' can you explain why?

Yes to both, because that distinction matters for certain abilities.

The Hellbrute is a Chaos Space Marine Model, and a Chaos space marine unit.

The Kroot is a Tau Empire model, but not a Tau empire unit(unless it is the last one left alive in its unit).

See the distinction?

The definition for battle brothers is a unit, the IC is no longer a unit while attached(P.S. GreenNutz; the IC would immediately have to disembark as well, and end his disembarkation move at least 2" away from the unit that just disembarked), and the rules are refering to battle Brothers as defined within those rules; therefore while joined the IC is not a battle brother(because he is not a friendly unit).

For the people saying "What if this? Because then the game breaks!":

you're not really saying anything. 40k breaks all the time, most glaringly when you try to measure line of sight from a non-vehicle model that has no eyes.