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.

 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.

You mean the permission in the IC rules that allows him to join a friendly unit?

Could you do me a favor and cite the rule that says allied units are not friendly units?
No one else has been able to yet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 mortetvie wrote:

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.

So... Still nothing that says an allied unit is not a friendly unit aside from your assumption?

rigeld2 wrote:

 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.

You mean the permission in the IC rules that allows him to join a friendly unit?

Could you do me a favor and cite the rule that says allied units are not friendly units?
No one else has been able to yet.

And like in the case of Battle Brothers again, there is nothing stating that an IC ceases to be a unit unto itself (page 3) when joining another unit consisting of several models.

I need a citation of a rule explicitly stating ICs lose their unit status when joining another unit to be convinced that it ceases being a unit in its own right. I have to assume that because the rules do not go out there and explain to me the loss of unit status when an IC unit joins another unit.

I've explained that. A unit is defined as a collection of models.
Does a collection of models include a unit?

The answer is demonstrably no.

rigeld2 wrote:
I've explained that. A unit is defined as a collection of models.
Does a collection of models include a unit?

The answer is demonstrably no.

It has not been demonstrated by a rule explicitly stating this. We are assuming this based on interpretation of a loose definition of units and what comprises a unit from page 3.

 WarOne wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
I've explained that. A unit is defined as a collection of models.
Does a collection of models include a unit?

The answer is demonstrably no.

It has not been demonstrated by a rule explicitly stating this. We are assuming this based on interpretation of a loose definition of units and what comprises a unit from page 3.

It's not a "loose definition".
A unit is composed of one or more models. That's a fact based on the rules on page 3.
Trying to insert other things into a unit that doesn't fit that definition just doesn't work.

rigeld2 wrote:

 WarOne wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
I've explained that. A unit is defined as a collection of models.
Does a collection of models include a unit?

The answer is demonstrably no.

It has not been demonstrated by a rule explicitly stating this. We are assuming this based on interpretation of a loose definition of units and what comprises a unit from page 3.

It's not a "loose definition".
A unit is composed of one or more models. That's a fact based on the rules on page 3.
Trying to insert other things into a unit that doesn't fit that definition just doesn't work.

But yet they do not state what happens to an IC's status as a unit when it joins another unit. The rules for units opens itself up to interpretation by stating "a unit usually consists of several models..."

And on top of it, if it didn't have that usually there and used a more ironclad word for meaning what a unit is, I'd agree with you. But the interpretation itself is left open by leaving the definition hanging in the air.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 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.

You mean the permission in the IC rules that allows him to join a friendly unit?

Could you do me a favor and cite the rule that says allied units are not friendly units?
No one else has been able to yet.

If Battle Brother alliance level confers treatment of units as 'friendly units' (page 112) then the following...

It allows units that are Battle Brothers to have an allied IC join them.

ICs are treated as a part of the unit for all rules purposes (page 39).

However, if an allied IC loses his Battle Brother alliance level, then that means he is not a Battle Brother anymore and therefore where does the book allow permission for non-Battle Brother ICs that are allied to remain joined to a unit?

Is it assumed then that simply being allied allows an IC to remain joined to an allied unit from a different detachment? Such as it is, the alliance levels of Allies of Convenience and Desperate Allies all state that units cannot be joined by allied ICs.

So it has to be that Battle Brothers confers a special permission to allow allied ICs to joined allied units. So somewhere in the book there has to be a rule somewhere that forbids ICs (no matter who they are) to join another unit outside their detachment because why would the alliance system go out of its way to explicitly describe what an Alliance level does for interaction of allied ICs and units that belong to different detachments?

So GW has to go out of their way to describe that the alliance level of Battle Brothers confers the ability for allied ICs and units to be able to join together while on the other hand Allies of Convenience and Allies of Desperation get explicit mention that allied ICs and units cannot be joined to each other.

Losing the alliance level of Battle Brother somewhere means something somewhere because if the unit is still a Battle Brother but the IC is not, what happens in this case? Where do we have a rule that states what happens next?

Such as it is, GW comps out by stating that being a Battle Brother means being a "friendly unit(s)" and then providing examples of interactions of how that rule can be used.

So in the case of ICs joining an allied unit, it provides merely one example of what happens in this event. They give no other examples, leaving the interpretation subject to change based on perception because what is an example other than a

A thing characteristic of its kind or illustrating a general rule.

So in this context, GW still needs to clarify its rules in this case with more stringent testing of their wording as the example lacks clarity in many situations.

So your assertion is that GW never writes redundant rules and therefore if a rule exists then its opposite exists in an unwritten state?

And that's a RAW argument that you feel is tenable?

rigeld2 wrote:
So your assertion is that GW never writes redundant rules and therefore if a rule exists then its opposite exists in an unwritten state?

And that's a RAW argument that you feel is tenable?

It also is unwritten what happens when an allied IC joins an allied unit while losing Battle Brother alliance level and is assumed because the model ceases to be a unit unto itself because it is assumed it loses its unit status because Battle Brothers only exist under unit definitions and not model definitions.

RAW, losing Battle Brother status would leave an ambiguous definition of how a non-Battle Brother allied IC can interact with an allied unit.

EDIT: Hunting down mentions of friendly unit (such as ICs joining friendly units on page 39). There is no dispute that ICs that are friendly can join ICs and that Battle Brothers tell you that your friendly units when applying rules. So what happens when an IC loses Battle Brother alliance level status joining an allied unit? Does he still remain friendly?

Only if you assume that allied units are automatically not friendly units.
Which has no basis in rules, unlike everything I've said.

Edit: You're looking for the wrong thing. You need a definition of friendly unit that excludes allies for your assumptions to be correct.
There isn't one.

rigeld2 wrote:
Only if you assume that allied units are automatically not friendly units.
Which has no basis in rules, unlike everything I've said.

But we need the Battle Brothers rule to claim allies are considered friendly. Do we have a situation clarified by rules when Battle Brothers alliance level is lost?

 WarOne wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Only if you assume that allied units are automatically not friendly units.
Which has no basis in rules, unlike everything I've said.

But we need the Battle Brothers rule to claim allies are considered friendly. Do we have a situation clarified by rules when Battle Brothers alliance level is lost?

No, you do not "need" that. It exists but is redundant.

rigeld2 wrote:

 WarOne wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Only if you assume that allied units are automatically not friendly units.
Which has no basis in rules, unlike everything I've said.

But we need the Battle Brothers rule to claim allies are considered friendly. Do we have a situation clarified by rules when Battle Brothers alliance level is lost?

No, you do not "need" that. It exists but is redundant.

So simply being allied allows units to be friendly?

Friendly unit is not defined anywhere in the BRB.
Since its not defined, the only thing that makes sense is "any unit in your army list, including units that spawn from special rules" unless you're told otherwise.

Limiting it to FOCs doesn't make sense - plenty of units exist outside the FOC.

Since Primary Detachment is just a subsection of FOCs, it doesn't make sense to limit at that level either.

rigeld2 wrote:
Friendly unit is not defined anywhere in the BRB.
Since its not defined, the only thing that makes sense is "any unit in your army list, including units that spawn from special rules" unless you're told otherwise.

Limiting it to FOCs doesn't make sense - plenty of units exist outside the FOC.

Since Primary Detachment is just a subsection of FOCs, it doesn't make sense to limit at that level either.

So what would be the point of introducing the Battle Brother alliance level as the other three levels of Alliance seem to be the only ones that actually do things to prohibit specific unit interactions?

Is this a failure of RAI versus what is actually RAW?

EDIT: Sleep time!

I don't know nor care what the RAI is.

I could see them introducing the Battle Brother level to clarify that these dudes are the same as your normal army - the blue dudes just can't ride in the red tanks. But when a blue IC joins a red unit, he's not a blue dude anymore (as far as the rules are concerned). He's a red dude with spiffy rules.

Yeah, I should go to sleep soon.

rigeld2 wrote:
So... Still nothing that says an allied unit is not a friendly unit aside from your assumption?

An assumption is something taken for granted or something assumed.

A logical Inference is the act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true. In this case, the premises are KNOWN to be true therefore my conclusions ARE true.

If the laws of logic are what they are, then you have violated them with your point of view (which violates the law of identity and excluded middle) and its sad that you can't see it for yourself. You don't need a rule in a rulebook to say that a model in an Eldar unit is an Eldar model, that is a logical inference and that is what people are trying to point out to you.

Likewise, you don't need a rule to say that a battle brother is a battle brother. You don't need a rule to say that an allied independent character that is a battle brother as per the allies chart must follow the rules for battle brothers. You also don't need a rule to say that a model in a battle brother unit is a battle brother model. All of these things are logically pulled out from the plain and existing battle brother/allies rules.

As I pointed out earlier and you have not addressed, if an allied IC that is a battle brother joins an allied unit, is it still a battle brother? If it is, then it must abide by all of the battle brother rules including not being able to embark. If it is no longer a battle brother, then it does not have any basis for joining that said unit because only a battle brother allied IC can join friendly units. It is not the fact that it is an IC that it can join the unit but the fact that it is a battle brother IC.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:
I don't know nor care what the RAI is.

I could see them introducing the Battle Brother level to clarify that these dudes are the same as your normal army - the blue dudes just can't ride in the red tanks. But when a blue IC joins a red unit, he's not a blue dude anymore (as far as the rules are concerned). He's a red dude with spiffy rules.

Yeah, I should go to sleep soon.

And this is an assumption on your part that is NOT supported by the rules, only a twisting of them because the rules do not say that Eldrad stops being an Eldar model when he joins a Tau Fire Warrior unit. However, according to your interpretation of the rules, Eldrad would become a Tau model when he joins a Tau unit.

So, by that rationale, Eldrad is in the Tau codex?

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
So, by that rationale, Eldrad is in the Tau codex?

who and what is this referring to?

Eldrad is from the Eldar codex but because Eldar and Tau are battle brothers, Eldrad can join Tau units. According to Rigeld2's logic, Eldrad becomes a Tau unit/model when he joins a Tau unit which makes no sense. basically, he is saying that a model from an allied detachment stops being a model from an allied detachment once it joins a unit from the primary detachment. This is against basic logic and is self-refuting logic which means that he is wrong but he can't see it or accept it.

 mortetvie wrote:
Likewise, you don't need a rule to say that a battle brother is a battle brother. You don't need a rule to say that an allied independent character that is a battle brother as per the allies chart must follow the rules for battle brothers. You also don't need a rule to say that a model in a battle brother unit is a battle brother model. All of these things are logically pulled out from the plain and existing battle brother/allies rules.

Please quote the rules that define a Battle Brother. Doing so will force you to read (and hopefully understand instead of ignore) the basis of my argument. You have a rule defining restrictions on Battle Brother units. If something is not a Battle Brother unit, the restriction cannot be applied.

If you'd read the thread you'd also see where I pointed out I'm not making any kind of excluded middle logical failures - but if it makes you feel better to use big words then feel free.

As I pointed out earlier and you have not addressed, if an allied IC that is a battle brother joins an allied unit, is it still a battle brother? If it is, then it must abide by all of the battle brother rules including not being able to embark. If it is no longer a battle brother, then it does not have any basis for joining that said unit because only a battle brother allied IC can join friendly units. It is not the fact that it is an IC that it can join the unit but the fact that it is a battle brother IC.

I have addressed it multiple times - please stop lying. The IC rules permit you being able to join friendly units. This means that you must prove that allied units are by definition not friendly.
You've refused to cite a rule saying that allied units are not friendly units. You've made logical leaps to do so, but those are not rules - they're assumptions.

And this is an assumption on your part that is NOT supported by the rules, only a twisting of them because the rules do not say that Eldrad stops being an Eldar model when he joins a Tau Fire Warrior unit. However, according to your interpretation of the rules, Eldrad would become a Tau model when he joins a Tau unit.

Since he's a member of the unit for all rules purposes then as far as the actual rules are concerned, yes he's a Tau model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 mortetvie wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
So, by that rationale, Eldrad is in the Tau codex?

who and what is this referring to?

Eldrad is from the Eldar codex but because Eldar and Tau are battle brothers, Eldrad can join Tau units. According to Rigeld2's logic, Eldrad becomes a Tau unit/model when he joins a Tau unit which makes no sense. basically, he is saying that a model from an allied detachment stops being a model from an allied detachment once it joins a unit from the primary detachment. This is against basic logic and is self-refuting logic which means that he is wrong but he can't see it or accept it.

It's not, but its cute that you think so.
As far as actual rules and not "mortetvie40k" is concerned, Eldrad would be a member of the primary detachment "for all rules purposes."
It's almost like it says that in the rules or something.

I think after 14 pages we've covered all the relevant ground.