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.

That's is a horrid comparison and does not justify the OP's interpretation. There are few things that sensibly or by RAW break the rules in sixth edition.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
That's is a horrid comparison and does not justify the OP's interpretation. There are few things that sensibly or by RAW break the rules in sixth edition.

What happens when a squad has to take a leadership check inside of a transport from overheating plasma weapons? What happens when a non-vehicle model without eyes needs to draw line of sight?

Just two examples off the top of my head.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
That's is a horrid comparison and does not justify the OP's interpretation. There are few things that sensibly or by RAW break the rules in sixth edition.

What happens when a squad has to take a leadership check inside of a transport from overheating plasma weapons?

Nothing, as the rules tell us that units in transports are fearless therefore no game breakage. (This was not the case in 5th as they did not clarify what happened).

What happens when a non-vehicle model without eyes needs to draw line of sight?

Strict RAW non-vehicle models without eyes can not shoot or assault. No one plays it this way though.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Yes to both, because that distinction matters for certain abilities.

You've argued in this thread (and others) that you can't pick and choose how to apply rules based on circumstances. So again, why?

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
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?

We'll get to the distinction argument later. First, what makes a Kroot model/unit a Tau Empire model/unit? What makes the Hellbrute a Chaos Space Marine model/unit? Since you apparently don't have the answer, its on Page 3 of each of the respective Codexes. Left hand column, in a handy box.

"This codex allows you to turn your collection of Tau Empire models into a Hunter Cadre ready to do battle for the Greater Good." is the only text in the entirety of Codex: Tau Empire that comes close to explicitly defining a "Tau Empire model". The notion that all the models in Codex: Tau Empire are Tau Empire models is reinforced with the rules for Failure Is Not An Option found on Page 35. There, the rules state that "All friendly models from this codex..." are affected. When you get to the Reference section that turns into "All friendly Tau Empire models...".

Codex: Chaos Space Marines doesn't even have that much really. It doesn't come anywhere near as explicit to describing the models from that Codex as "Chaos Space Marine models". In fact, that phrase never appears as far as I can tell. There are plenty of phrases such as "Nurgle models" though. A term that is never defined but logically within the context of the Codex must mean any model with the Mark of Nurgle.

There is nothing in the game that appears to remove designations from a unit or model. Units from Codex: Tau Empire are always Tau Empire units, and the models that make them up are always Tau Empire models.

The point in highlighting all this is that the rules are not always going to explicitly say something, and that some things are permanent. You are going to have to make a few logical and contextual leaps in order for the game to work and some things, such as anything that describes a model/unit in the context of the game (stats, type, etc.) cannot change without a clear exception being spelled out.

Page 109 tells us that for every Primary Detachment we may take a single Allied Detachment. We are then told that the Allied Detachment must be made up of forces chosen entirely from a single Codex, and that that Codex must be different than the one used by the Primary Detachment. How these Allies interact with our Primary Detachment is of course described on Page 112. We have 3 levels of (playable) Allies with many rules and restrictions for each.

"Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units'" is the only definition we are given for "Battle Brothers". What is a "Friendly Unit"? It is never defined explicitly. Not once in the BRB is it defined. How about "Friendly Models"? Likewise, that is never defined. We're left having to determine what those terms mean based on the context of the rules. Are models that are part of a "Friendly Unit" also "Friendly Models"?

If that is true, why are things being applied differently just because that "friendly unit" happens to be a Battle Brother grade Allied unit? If being a part of a "Friendly Unit" makes you a "Friendly Model", then being a part of a unit that is a "Battle Brother" makes you a "Battle Brother" as well. There is nothing RAW, and definitely nothing RAI IMO, that explicitly states you lose your "Battle Brother" status ever. Just like there is nothing that makes you lose your "Friendly Unit" status.

These things are apples and apples, not apples and oranges.

Page 39 gives us "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." Obviously, with the rules for Independent Characters there are exceptions to the part where it says "he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes". He can leave coherency for one. He counts as a separate Victory Point for two.

Similarly, Page 112 gives us "[i]Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units' from all points of view. . . . However, note that not even Battle Brothers can embark in allied transport vehicles." We are given a clear exception to the case of how these Battle Brothers can interact.

So your IC joins a unit who happens to be Allied Battle Brothers. Both units on their own are considered "Friendly Units". Together they form a "Friendly Unit". One model in the unit is a "Battle Brother". It is from the Allied Detachment. It is not allowed to join a transport from the Primary Detachment.

The disconnect it takes to make the leap that your "Levels of Alliance" can somehow be lost I just don't get. Apparently most others don't get either. History shows that the majority does not equal right, but at some point you have to step back and honestly re-examine what you worked out previously. The context of the rules is fairly clear to me, and others. I might wish Games Workshop had stated that "all units from an Allied Detachment have the Battle Brother special rule" was what happened if your Level of Alliance was Battle Brother, but somehow I think you'd be trying to argue about this anyways. I hope I'm wrong, since that one is more of an open and shut case than this, but I have to wonder at this point.

"Levels of alliance" are rules; those rules are found on page 112. Those rules contain the rules for Battle Brothers, allies of convenience, Desperate Allies, and Come the apocalypse. You should read that page before posting here.

I am not even going to bother picking apart your citation of the definition and then stating once again that the definition does not apply.

Do you really need the rulebook to tell you what a friendly or and enemy unit is? The book assumes you can figure that out on your own. It does tell you on page 3 what a unit is though, and units and models are different terms to denote how "zoomed in" an effect is.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
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.

I was pointing out what is obviously implied or extrapolated by the logic of the allies matrix and the battle brothers rule (you know, that thing you said later about the rulebook assuming you can figure things out?)..So you have still not addressed nor refuted my previous statement nor are you capable because it seems that anything logical goes over your head and you just disregard anything that other people say that makes your argument inconsistent...

Your line of reasoning violates rules of logic (the rule of non-contradiction): "Something cannot be both true and false in the same way and sense at the same time"... Your interpretation is assuming something can both be a battle brother unit and not be a battle brother unit in that it is the battle brother rules that allow an IC to join an allied unit and also the battle brother rules that prevent it from embarking on an allied transport...You are saying "the IC stops being a battle brother unit the moment it joins an allied unit" and if that were the case, the embarkation rule stops affecting it...But then SO DOES THE RULE THAT ALLOWS IT TO JOIN AN ALLIED UNIT IN THE FIRST PLACE... Consequently you are left with a logical fallacy and you refuse to acknowledge what the basic laws of logic tell you. You can't have it both ways, you can't benefit from the battle brothers rules by joining an allied IC to a unit but then say "its not a battle brother unit anymore" and then not have to deal with the restrictions of that same rule that allowed you to join the IC in the first place, that is a double standard...

The moment a model stops being a battle brother unit, it stops being affected by all battle brother related rules and it is the battle brother rules that allow the model to join in the first place, so according to your reasoning, an IC can NEVER join an allied unit because it stops being a battle brother (which is the only way it could join in the first place) the moment it tries to join the unit in the first place...

But anyway, you will try to refute this argument by plugging your ears to logic and going "na-uh" because you are essentially rejecting the basic laws of logic and therefore your arguments make no sense and are simply wrong.

Anyway, I bet you probably think something can be both true and false at the same time or that there are no absolutes in life, eh?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
"Levels of alliance" are rules; those rules are found on page 112. Those rules contain the rules for Battle Brothers, allies of convenience, Desperate Allies, and Come the apocalypse. You should read that page before posting here.

I am not even going to bother picking apart your citation of the definition and then stating once again that the definition does not apply.

Do you really need the rulebook to tell you what a friendly or and enemy unit is? The book assumes you can figure that out on your own. It does tell you on page 3 what a unit is though, and units and models are different terms to denote how "zoomed in" an effect is.

First, come the apocalypse is not a level of alliance between two armies that can be fielded together, no army can ever be taken as an ally with that level and so you'll never have any interaction as allies between them and therefore this discussion doesn't need to address them.

Second, I agree when you say the book assumes you can figure things out on your own yet you apparently are not able to, or willfully choose not to, accept what is logically inferred from the rules.

Your interpretation basically leads to this scenario:

Allied IC: Hey guys, I am a battle brother unit, can I join you guys?
Allied unit: sure, battle brother units can join us!
Allied IC: Sweet, now that I joined you I am no longer an allied battle brother unit, therefore, I can also embark with you guys, cool huh?
Allied unit: wait, you are no longer an allied battle brother unit? Get out of our unit you cannot join us!

So, the moment an IC stops being an allied battle brother unit, it stops being able to be a part of an allied unit because only allied battle brother units can join allied units...Therefore, an IC in an allied unit is still considered a battle brother unit from all points of view. Notice how the battle brothers rule says for "all points of view?" It is asking you to draw some abstractions here because even though an IC in a unit is not a separate unit, it is still a unit for rules purposes and how it is affected by abilities/powers and so on-INCLUDING the battle brother unit rules.

oh well, there really is no point in going on, my windmill has given me all the grains I can stand!

 mortetvie wrote:
Second, Note that the Battle Brothers rules says they are treated as 'friendly units,' not that they ARE friendly units...two different things that you ignore.!

Except from a rules standpoint they must mean the same thing.

 Happyjew wrote:

 mortetvie wrote:
Second, Note that the Battle Brothers rules says they are treated as 'friendly units,' not that they ARE friendly units...two different things that you ignore.!

Except from a rules standpoint they must mean the same thing.

Ok, since that line of reasoning doesn't really change anything, I deleted it from my post...Now how about you actually deal with the logical fallacy of Kel's claim rather than picking a weak and unimportant part of my post?

The problem is your claiming that the moment an IC joins a unit it is no longer eligible to join the unit.

 Happyjew wrote:
The problem is your claiming that the moment an IC joins a unit it is no longer eligible to join the unit.

Its not what I am claiming, I am pointing out that that is the logical import of what Kel is saying. Kels position is saying that the moment a battle brother IC joins an eligible allied unit, the IC stops being a battle brother unit and if that is the case, the eligibility to join the unit in the first place expires as well and you are left with a logical contradiction. Therefore, any proposition that contradicts itself is false and Kel's position is false.

I'll ignore your rude attempt to tell me to go away. If that comment wasn't meant for me then I suggest you be more careful in your writing.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
I am not even going to bother picking apart your citation of the definition and then stating once again that the definition does not apply.

Do you really need the rulebook to tell you what a friendly or and enemy unit is? The book assumes you can figure that out on your own. It does tell you on page 3 what a unit is though, and units and models are different terms to denote how "zoomed in" an effect is.

Apparently we do! Otherwise arguments like this wouldn't happen.

The rules on Page 3 simply tell us that your army is made up of 'models' and that your 'models' have to be grouped up into 'units' and that all 'models' in a 'unit' have to stay in coherency. That's it. The rest of the text in that section is just about the stat line.

You apparently didn't grasp what I was getting at. I'm skeptical you read the post as it was largely boring. I'll repeat myself more clearly:

What makes a model a "Friendly" model? "Friendly" is not defined anywhere. Same with "Friendly" units. If a model is part of a "friendly" unit it must be a "friendly" model, no? According to the rules, this must be the case or else things start to fall apart rather quickly.

So we have Allied Detachments. They can be Battle Brothers, Allies of Convenience, or Desperate Allies. Arguing about "Come the Apocalypse" is pointless pedantry so stop it. It is irrelevant to the discussion.

So we have a unit from the Allied Detachment. The chart says the unit and the rest of the Army are to be considered "Battle Brothers". All well and good.

My point starts here. We have a model that is part of that Allied unit. Because that model is part of the "Allied" unit, it is an "Allied" model. Exactly like a model part of a "friendly" unit is a "friendly" model. If the model is an "Allied" model, it is also a Battle Brother.

The part you seem hung up on is the IC rules that state "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."

You seem to think that because the IC moves, shoots, and assaults as part of the unit he joins that this can somehow remove the fact it is an "Allied" model. I'm saying this is a logical fallacy. The IC will always be an "Allied" model, simply because he exists in the "Allied" detachment of your Army FOC and, more importantly, belongs to a different Codex than your 'Primary' detachment.

This is important. Under your interpretation of the rules, you are saying that if you have a Tau IC join a Space Marine Tactical squad he is no longer a "Battle Brother", is no longer an "Allied" model, and is no longer a "Tau Empire" model. If you say otherwise, you are being inconsistent. What happens if that Tau IC is no longer a "Tau Empire" model? Well, special rules such as Failure Is Not An Option would no longer have any effect on the model. There are examples in every Codex of abilities that would cease to function for any IC that joined an Allied unit.

Your argument causes more problems than you realize.

Indeed, Cowmonaut, his argument is self-contradictory and you seem to be going down the same path I did lol...He won't listen but its fun to see what silly idea he comes up with to justify his position.

Ultimately, the laws of logic say he is wrong and that is that, we've just been trying to enlighten him to that fact.

Its like one of those guys loaded on PCP and are running from the police...They are shot up and jump out of windows and break both legs but still run their little hearts out until they succumb to their wounds. In essence, they don't know they are already dead and keep running until their bodies can't sustain them anymore.

Well, Kel and friends are running from the logic police and don't realize they are wrong but are going to keep running with their idea until they die, a TO calls them on it or GW officially points out they are wrong...But there is still no guarantee then that they will change their minds =).

 mortetvie wrote:
Indeed, Cowmonaut, his argument is self-contradictory and you seem to be going down the same path I did lol...He won't listen but its fun to see what silly idea he comes up with to justify his position.

Ultimately, the laws of logic say he is wrong and that is that, we've just been trying to enlighten him to that fact.

Its like one of those guys loaded on PCP and are running from the police...They are shot up and jump out of windows and break both legs but still run their little hearts out until they succumb to their wounds. In essence, they don't know they are already dead and keep running until their bodies can't sustain them anymore.

Well, Kel and friends are running from the logic police and don't realize they are wrong but are going to keep running with their idea until they die, a TO calls them on it or GW officially points out they are wrong...But there is still no guarantee then that they will change their minds =).

Why would a TO tell us we are wrong? Of the three people (I know of) arguing for, one plays Tyranid, and so will not be affected; and one has claimed while he believes this is what the rules says he doesn't play it like that. I have no idea how KK pays it.

 mortetvie wrote:

Your interpretation basically leads to this scenario:

Allied IC: Hey guys, I am a battle brother unit, can I join you guys?
Allied unit: sure, battle brother units can join us!
Allied IC: Sweet, now that I joined you I am no longer an allied battle brother unit, therefore, I can also embark with you guys, cool huh?
Allied unit: wait, you are no longer an allied battle brother unit? Get out of our unit you cannot join us!

So, the moment an IC stops being an allied battle brother unit, it stops being able to be a part of an allied unit because only allied battle brother units can join allied units...Therefore, an IC in an allied unit is still considered a battle brother unit from all points of view. Notice how the battle brothers rule says for "all points of view?" It is asking you to draw some abstractions here because even though an IC in a unit is not a separate unit, it is still a unit for rules purposes and how it is affected by abilities/powers and so on-INCLUDING the battle brother unit rules.

oh well, there really is no point in going on, my windmill has given me all the grains I can stand!

So do you have me on ignore? I've explained at least twice why you're absolutely wrong with this entire situation and that you're inventing a conflict where there is none.

And no, an IC is not a unit for any rules purposes after it's attached - reference Dark Eldar models benefitting from Fortune.

Rigeld, I don't have you on ignore, you just really have not explained anything...I don't think you realize that what you've been posting is not an explanation at all but simply your own opinion not based on appropriate authority.

I, on the other hand, have been pointing out that the basic laws of logic demonstrate the argument is wrong. Plain and simple, you can't really argue against that...

Basically, you keep neglecting the fact that the IC rules don't change the fact that the allied IC is still a battle brother subject to the battle brother rules even when it joins an allied unit and if that were not the case, then it's eligibility to join the unit vanishes the moment it attempts to join the unit and therefore the position contradicts itself...

Again, an allied IC joining an allied unit does not cease to follow the battle brother rules. If it did, the same rules that allowed it to join and be a member of the unit cease to function as well and you are left with a rules violation (because only allied ICs that are battle brothers can join allied units and if it ceases to be an allied battle brother IC, it loses the eligibility to join the unit).

Does the book explicitly state somewhere that Independent Characters stop being their own units once they join another unit?

Page 3 of the BRB brings up this quote... "A unit usually consists of several models that have banded together. but a single, powerful model, such as a lone character, a tank, a war engine, or a rampaging monster, is also considered to be a unit in its own right."

I'm trying to find further in the book where an IC that joins another unit also stops being a unit in its own right. In the description for ICs joining units, they do not explicitly state that joining a unit nulls the IC being a unit in its own right. So while he is a part of a unit, an IC is still also treated as a unit in its own right.

 mortetvie wrote:
Rigeld, I don't have you on ignore, you just really have not explained anything...I don't think you realize that what you've been posting is not an explanation at all but simply your own opinion not based on appropriate authority.

I've explained why the example I quoted is not how the rules actually work - you're inventing that.

I, on the other hand, have been pointing out that the basic laws of logic demonstrate the argument is wrong. Plain and simple, you can't really argue against that...

No, you haven't.

Basically, you keep neglecting the fact that the IC rules don't change the fact that the allied IC is still a battle brother subject to the battle brother rules even when it joins an allied unit and if that were not the case, then it's eligibility to join the unit vanishes the moment it attempts to join the unit and therefore the position contradicts itself...

That's a lie.
An IC does not get permission solely from the definition of a Battle Brother - as I've explained and you've ignored.
It helps you make your point to pretend I'm foolish for "overlooking" this contradiction, and so you continue saying its true when I've demonstrated multiple times it is not. Please stop pretending it is.

Again, an allied IC joining an allied unit does not cease to follow the battle brother rules. If it did, the same rules that allowed it to join and be a member of the unit cease to function as well and you are left with a rules violation (because only allied ICs that are battle brothers can join allied units and if it ceases to be an allied battle brother IC, it loses the eligibility to join the unit).

No, false, wrong, incorrect - do I need to use another language perhaps?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 WarOne wrote:
Does the book explicitly state somewhere that Independent Characters stop being their own units once they join another unit?

Page 3 of the BRB brings up this quote... "A unit usually consists of several models that have banded together. but a single, powerful model, such as a lone character, a tank, a war engine, or a rampaging monster, is also considered to be a unit in its own right."

I'm trying to find further in the book where an IC that joins another unit also stops being a unit in its own right. In the description for ICs joining units, they do not explicitly state that joining a unit nulls the IC being a unit in its own right. So while he is a part of a unit, an IC is still also treated as a unit in its own right.

So you can shoot an IC that is attached to a unit?

rigeld2 wrote:

So you can shoot an IC that is attached to a unit?

If it gets subsumed into a unit and counts as being a part of that unit for all intents and purposes (page 39 BRB), does it lose his ability to be a unit all on its own while attached to said unit?

It is moot because you have are forced to count the IC as being a part of that unit for all rules purposes. So you still wouldn't be able to target it except through rules (characters, ect.).

Except you could if it was its own unit...

Regardless, the fact that its part of the parent unit for all rules purposes means its not its own unit - parent units can't have child units.

rigeld2 wrote:
Except you could if it was its own unit...

Regardless, the fact that its part of the parent unit for all rules purposes means its not its own unit - parent units can't have child units.

But how do we know for sure? Do the rules don't explicitly state the end of one unit when an IC joins another unit?

Rigeld, saying that my argument is not based on logic does not make it so...

The rule of non-contradiction shows how you guys are wrong so simply going "no you are wrong" doesn't cut it,

You are failing to regard how battle brothers and IC rules interact between units from different armies...Simply saying what I say is a lie without proving it is just a baseless accusation.

You said

"That's a lie.
An IC does not get permission solely from the definition of a Battle Brother - as I've explained and you've ignored.
It helps you make your point to pretend I'm foolish for "overlooking" this contradiction, and so you continue saying its true when I've demonstrated multiple times it is not. Please stop pretending it is. "

An IC can join a friendly unit as per the IC rules. Allied ICs are considered friendly units for this purpose as long as they are battle brothers. The moment they stop being battle brothers is the moment they are no longer allowed to join the said unit because they cease being treated as friendly units...You are looking at the IC rules and neglecting how the combination of IC and battle brother rules are what allow allied ICs to join units.

Consider this simple flow chart:

(1) Is an allied IC in an allied detachment a battle brother?

If no, then it is unable to join a unit from the primary detachment.

If yes, then it is allowed to join a unit from the primary detachment

(2) Once the IC joins the unit in question, do the battle brother rules stop applying to it?

If yes, it must leave the unit because only ICs benefiting from the battle brother rules can join allied units and if it is no longer a battle brother IC, it is no longer a friendly unit "from all points of view" and is therefore an unfriendly unit..,and you are left with a logical contradiction which means you are wrong.

If no, then it cannot also embark onto a transport and the majority is right.

 mortetvie wrote:
The rule of non-contradiction shows how you guys are wrong so simply going "no you are wrong" doesn't cut it,

Correct. Fortunately for me I've proven, using rules, why there's no contradiction.

You are failing to regard how battle brothers and IC rules interact between units from different armies...Simply saying what I say is a lie without proving it is just a baseless accusation.

I have proven it. You've ignored that proof.

An IC can join a friendly unit as per the IC rules. Allied ICs are considered friendly units for this purpose as long as they are battle brothers. The moment they stop being battle brothers is the moment they are no longer allowed to join the said unit because they cease being treated as friendly units...You are looking at the IC rules and neglecting how the combination of IC and battle brother rules are what allow allied ICs to join units.

Citation needed for them not being friendly units. You've never cited that, only assumed it. The ally rules certainly don't support that statement.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 WarOne wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Except you could if it was its own unit...

Regardless, the fact that its part of the parent unit for all rules purposes means its not its own unit - parent units can't have child units.

But how do we know for sure? Do the rules don't explicitly state the end of one unit when an IC joins another unit?

Because a unit is a collection of models.
A unit is not a collection of units, or a mix of models and units.

rigeld2 wrote:Citation needed for them not being friendly units. You've never cited that, only assumed it. The ally rules certainly don't support that statement.

I was using the language of the battle brother rules and then using something called logic to point out how your position results in a contradiction.. looking at a logical contradiction and saying it isn't ones doesn't make you right, which is all you've done...

If the battle brother rules stop applying to an allied IC when it joins a unit, then it loses its eligibility to be a part of that unit because it is the battle brother rules that allow that IC to join the unit in the first place. You cannot point to the IC rules in and of themselves to aid you because those are not the rules that allow said IC to join in the first place. You need to look at the battle brother rules.

So you don't have a rule supporting your assertion and you're making an argument based on intent?

That's fair. I don't care about intent in this instance.

rigeld2 wrote:

 WarOne wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Except you could if it was its own unit...

Regardless, the fact that its part of the parent unit for all rules purposes means its not its own unit - parent units can't have child units.

But how do we know for sure? Do the rules don't explicitly state the end of one unit when an IC joins another unit?

Because a unit is a collection of models.
A unit is not a collection of units, or a mix of models and units.

Unit definition gives leeway to the concept of usually being several models that have banded together and also powerful singular individuals that also consist of one model.

However, the problem still remains that we still do not know if the concept of an IC being a unit unto itself ends with it joining another unit. It joins the unit and shares being a unit with it, but it is still an IC and still a unit in its own right.

No, because there's no permission for a unit to be a member of another unit.
You're chasing for something that isn't there.

rigeld2 wrote:
No, because there's no permission for a unit to be a member of another unit.
You're chasing for something that isn't there.

But it goes back to the argument for Battle Brother definitions to cease being active while joining an allied unit.

If a Battle Brother IC loses his Battle Brother alliance level, doesn't he also lose his allied status as well when joining an allied unit? Even if he counts as being a part of that unit, the clause that allows him to join that unit in the first place would cease to exist.

rigeld2 wrote:
So you don't have a rule supporting your assertion and you're making an argument based on intent?

That's fair. I don't care about intent in this instance.

What? The logical inferences of rules have nothing to do with intent...A logical inference drawn from a rule is just as good as the rule itself so I don't understand how you don't understand.

Either an allied IC joining an allied unit is a battle brother or it isn't... That is like saying either a Space Marine is a Space Marine or it isn't. This is the logical law of identity.

If an IC is a battle brother, it benefits from all of the battle brother rules. If it is not a battle brother, it benefits from none of them, you can't have it somewhere in-between. This is the logical law of excluded middle.

If an IC benefits from the battle brothers rule to be able to join an allied unit but then some of the battle brother rules stop applying to it once it joins the said unit, you immediately have a logical contradiction and this is what you are ignoring, not me.

Logic says you are wrong, its that simple.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 WarOne wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
No, because there's no permission for a unit to be a member of another unit.
You're chasing for something that isn't there.

But it goes back to the argument for Battle Brother definitions to cease being active while joining an allied unit.

If a Battle Brother IC loses his Battle Brother alliance level, doesn't he also lose his allied status as well when joining an allied unit? Even if he counts as being a part of that unit, the clause that allows him to join that unit in the first place would cease to exist.

Exactly!

 WarOne wrote:
If a Battle Brother IC loses his Battle Brother alliance level, doesn't he also lose his allied status as well when joining an allied unit? Even if he counts as being a part of that unit, the clause that allows him to join that unit in the first place would cease to exist.

Exactly the point I was trying to make. If you lose "Battle Brother" status by joining a unit as an IC, then you lose other things as well in ways that severely disrupt/break the game. And that is ignoring the paradox you create (an IC can only join an Allied unit if he is a Battle Brother level ally to that unit, so if he is not a Battle Brother he can no longer be part of that unit, which makes him a Battle Brother to the unit since he is by himself, loop till your head explodes). Too many other rules, usually Codex specific or even unit specific, break if you allow this.

Which is why the argument is flawed unfortunately. I'd love to see 4 of my SW HQs in a Deathstar load out in an allied Stormraven by joining a Blood Angel unit.

Even better, using the same logic it could possibly mean that they'd benefit from FNP from the Sanguinary Priests.

The point does boil down to poor wording from GW on its own rules. While addressing the Alliance system, the way the Battle Brother alliance level plays with models and units is inexcusably and irreversibly written poorly pending any sort of direct FAQ fixing.

Models that could technically lose their Battle Brother alliance status when joining an allied unit suffer from a lack of identity in this case, forced to rely upon the rule making ICs count as being a part of the unit they have joined. But the IC then cannot be with that unit because in and of itself it belongs with a different detachment. You cannot change that. In order for it to exist with another detachment, it must be allied and must be a Battle Brother, otherwise you enter a paradoxical relationship because you must follow all rules (page 39). Losing Battle Brother alliance level means that the allied IC ceases being an allied IC, so how could it maintain being in a unit that now does not consider it an ally?

In short, calling Battle Brothers units but not addressing models opens up a Pandora's Box of various interpretations and rule conflicts when situations arise when the definition of Battle Brother interacts with other rules.