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.

Can a SW Rune Priest join a squad of 5tacs in a droppod?
they are battlebrothers
just a question.
ik that like guardsmen cant steal a droppod but can a IC join the squad?
rulebook pages would be appreciated!

page 112 under battle brothers.

Battle Brothers can not embark in allied transport vehicles.

It is right there in the allies section that you're trying to have him join, the matter of battle brothers.

"Not even battle brothers IC's may embark on each other's transports." That includes drop pods.

Dang! thank you guys!

Here's some background on this very question.

Kommissar Kel brought this issue up some time ago. Technically, according to the way the IC and Allies rules are written, he (and a total of 18% of poll respondents) agree that ICs can board an allied transport. A larger number (80%) felt that the conventionally accepted interpretation of the rules (that they cannot) is correct.

Here's Kel's original, 14 page thread on the topic. And this is my own poll trying to gather some data on where people stood.

Personally, I feel that many people supporting the majority opinion are doing so either A) because of dogged opposition to the allies rules in general, or B) because of a refusal to re-examine the conventionally accepted theory. (Of course, I play it according to the popular view, because who wants to be the stick-in-the-mud insisting everyone read their book wrong every week? )

Nevertheless, I encourage you to read the arguments presented in the thread and to come to your own conclusion. (And I encourage you to get your group to do likewise.)

Qui-Gon Jinn wrote:
It is right there in the allies section that you're trying to have him join, the matter of battle brothers.

"Not even battle brothers IC's may embark on each other's transports." That includes drop pods.

Please don't misquote rules. It doesn't help in any way.

"However, note that not even Battle Brothers can embark in allied transport vehicles." BRB Pg 112

I can't see any other way to interpret this rule.

 Zagman wrote:
"However, note that not even Battle Brothers can embark in allied transport vehicles." BRB Pg 112

I can't see any other way to interpret this rule.

Welp, the link's have been provided.

You claim that the Battle Brothers rule disallows it. I claim the IC rule (normal member of the unit for all rules purposes) overrides that restriction (especially since they made very clear the few times an IC does not count as part of the unit).

As a summation of the link Jimsolo put in, the argument for them being able to go in is that when ICs join the squad they become part of that squad and cease to be their own unit until they leave or the rest of the unit is destroyed.

 Zagman wrote:
"However, note that not even Battle Brothers can embark in allied transport vehicles." BRB Pg 112

I can't see any other way to interpret this rule.

Then you're refusing to read the linked thread that proves why it works.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CrashCanuck wrote:
As a summation of the link Jimsolo put in, the argument for them being able to go in is that when ICs join the squad they become part of that squad and cease to be their own unit until they leave or the rest of the unit is destroyed.

Which must be true - pretty much unarguable.

And causes several subsequent rules headaches about things like codex specific abilities.

Happyjew wrote:

 Zagman wrote:
"However, note that not even Battle Brothers can embark in allied transport vehicles." BRB Pg 112

I can't see any other way to interpret this rule.

Welp, the link's have been provided.

You claim that the Battle Brothers rule disallows it. I claim the IC rule (normal member of the unit for all rules purposes) overrides that restriction (especially since they made very clear the few times an IC does not count as part of the unit).

CrashCanuck wrote:As a summation of the link Jimsolo put in, the argument for them being able to go in is that when ICs join the squad they become part of that squad and cease to be their own unit until they leave or the rest of the unit is destroyed.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Zagman wrote:
"However, note that not even Battle Brothers can embark in allied transport vehicles." BRB Pg 112

I can't see any other way to interpret this rule.

Then you're refusing to read the linked thread that proves why it works.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CrashCanuck wrote:
As a summation of the link Jimsolo put in, the argument for them being able to go in is that when ICs join the squad they become part of that squad and cease to be their own unit until they leave or the rest of the unit is destroyed.

Which must be true - pretty much unarguable.

Wow, that was extr'emely quick. I have read a good portion of that thread and counter with this.

BRB PG 123
"Independent Characters are also counted as a single unit regardless of whether they have joined another unit or not."

BRB Pg 112
"However, note that not even Battle Brothers can embark in allied transport vehicles."

For example a Drop Pod or any other reserve of an IC and a Battle Brother unit in a Transport you must consider the IC a separate unit. At least as far as reserve embarkation in either a Drop Pod, Flyer, or reserved Transport the IC rules certainly do not override the prohibition of Battle Brothers embarking in allied transports.


I believe you can make a case for an IC embarking in an allied transport that starts on the board, but I can't see how this can be transferred to Reserves ie Drop Pod.


Edit: The simplest parallel I can think of is trying to reserve a rhino and small tac squad with an attached TDA IC. When declaring reserves you attach the IC in TDA, this now makes it impossible to embark the rhino. Rhinos explicity deny embarkation to Bulky Models as the Battle Brothers rules prohibit an allied unit from embarking in their transport.

 Zagman wrote:
For example a Drop Pod or any other reserve of an IC and a Battle Brother unit in a Transport you must consider the IC a separate unit. At least as far as reserve embarkation in either a Drop Pod, Flyer, or reserved Transport the IC rules certainly do not override the prohibition of Battle Brothers embarking in allied transports.

Except that the quoted "separate unit" rule only applies to calculating the number of units in reserve. You're taking that sentence out of context.

Edit: The simplest parallel I can think of is trying to reserve a rhino and small tac squad with an attached TDA IC. When declaring reserves you attach the IC in TDA, this now makes it impossible to embark the rhino. Rhinos explicity deny embarkation to Bulky Models as the Battle Brothers rules prohibit an allied unit from embarking in their transport.

And after an allied IC joins a main force unit, there is no longer an allied unit attempting to embark.
After a TDA IC joins a PA unit, there is still a Bulky model in the unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jefffar wrote:
And causes several subsequent rules headaches about things like codex specific abilities.

It really doesn't, but that keep tilting at that windmill like it matters.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Zagman wrote:
For example a Drop Pod or any other reserve of an IC and a Battle Brother unit in a Transport you must consider the IC a separate unit. At least as far as reserve embarkation in either a Drop Pod, Flyer, or reserved Transport the IC rules certainly do not override the prohibition of Battle Brothers embarking in allied transports.

Except that the quoted "separate unit" rule only applies to calculating the number of units in reserve. You're taking that sentence out of context.

I'm sorry, I thought this was turning into a thread about using rules out of context to further your own agenda.

Edit: The simplest parallel I can think of is trying to reserve a rhino and small tac squad with an attached TDA IC. When declaring reserves you attach the IC in TDA, this now makes it impossible to embark the rhino. Rhinos explicity deny embarkation to Bulky Models as the Battle Brothers rules prohibit an allied unit from embarking in their transport.

And after an allied IC joins a main force unit, there is no longer an allied unit attempting to embark.
After a TDA IC joins a PA unit, there is still a Bulky model in the unit.

So, what exactly about gives you permission to no longer count an allied IC as a Batttle Brother? Is he no longer part of your Allied Detachment? Does that make your list illegal? This line of thinking is pretty ridiculous. Nothing, gives you permission to remove the status of Battle Brother from the IC. Therefore, you are attempting to embark a Battle Brother in an Allied Transport which is strictly prohibited on pg 112?

Yes, thanks to the IC rules on pg 39 he is indeed part of that unit and "counts as part of unit for all rules purposes", but that does not change the fact that he is still a Battle Brother, that he was purchased in an Allied Detatchment, and that he is strictly prohibited from embarking on an allied Transport. For your argument to have legs to stand on you would have to supply a rule which gives you permission to remove the status of Battle Brother from the IC. None exists.

 Zagman wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Zagman wrote:
For example a Drop Pod or any other reserve of an IC and a Battle Brother unit in a Transport you must consider the IC a separate unit. At least as far as reserve embarkation in either a Drop Pod, Flyer, or reserved Transport the IC rules certainly do not override the prohibition of Battle Brothers embarking in allied transports.

Except that the quoted "separate unit" rule only applies to calculating the number of units in reserve. You're taking that sentence out of context.

I'm sorry, I thought this was turning into a thread about using rules out of context to further your own agenda.

Edit: The simplest parallel I can think of is trying to reserve a rhino and small tac squad with an attached TDA IC. When declaring reserves you attach the IC in TDA, this now makes it impossible to embark the rhino. Rhinos explicity deny embarkation to Bulky Models as the Battle Brothers rules prohibit an allied unit from embarking in their transport.

And after an allied IC joins a main force unit, there is no longer an allied unit attempting to embark.
After a TDA IC joins a PA unit, there is still a Bulky model in the unit.

So, what exactly about gives you permission to no longer count an allied IC as a Batttle Brother? Is he no longer part of your Allied Detachment? Does that make your list illegal? This line of thinking is pretty ridiculous. Nothing, gives you permission to remove the status of Battle Brother from the IC. Therefore, you are attempting to embark a Battle Brother in an Allied Transport which is strictly prohibited on pg 112?

Page 112 defines Battle Brothers as friendly units. If the IC is not a unit anymore he cannot be a friendly unit and therefore is not governed by the Battle Brother rules.
Seriously - read the linked thread. This was covered there so your question here proves you haven't read it.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Zagman wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Zagman wrote:
For example a Drop Pod or any other reserve of an IC and a Battle Brother unit in a Transport you must consider the IC a separate unit. At least as far as reserve embarkation in either a Drop Pod, Flyer, or reserved Transport the IC rules certainly do not override the prohibition of Battle Brothers embarking in allied transports.

Except that the quoted "separate unit" rule only applies to calculating the number of units in reserve. You're taking that sentence out of context.

I'm sorry, I thought this was turning into a thread about using rules out of context to further your own agenda.

Edit: The simplest parallel I can think of is trying to reserve a rhino and small tac squad with an attached TDA IC. When declaring reserves you attach the IC in TDA, this now makes it impossible to embark the rhino. Rhinos explicity deny embarkation to Bulky Models as the Battle Brothers rules prohibit an allied unit from embarking in their transport.

And after an allied IC joins a main force unit, there is no longer an allied unit attempting to embark.
After a TDA IC joins a PA unit, there is still a Bulky model in the unit.

So, what exactly about gives you permission to no longer count an allied IC as a Batttle Brother? Is he no longer part of your Allied Detachment? Does that make your list illegal? This line of thinking is pretty ridiculous. Nothing, gives you permission to remove the status of Battle Brother from the IC. Therefore, you are attempting to embark a Battle Brother in an Allied Transport which is strictly prohibited on pg 112?

Page 112 defines Battle Brothers as friendly units. If the IC is not a unit anymore he cannot be a friendly unit and therefore is not governed by the Battle Brother rules.
Seriously - read the linked thread. This was covered there so your question here proves you haven't read it.

No, not quite. Battle Brothers are strictly an Allied Detachment that falls under the Battle Brother level of Allegiance. They are "treated as 'friendly units'". Nothing removes the fact the IC was chosen from an Allied Detatchment. And that the allied force are Battle Brothers. In the OP example, joining the SW IC Rune Priest to the SM tac squad does not stop the rune priest from being a SW. Though if we applied the IC rules, he would now be a SM as he is part of the tac squad for all rules purposes. SW are Allied Battle Brothers.

Yes counts as part of that unit, but is still an Allied Battle Brother. Counting as part of a unit does not remove the fact that he is part of an allied detachment and a Battle Brother.

 Zagman wrote:
No, not quite. Battle Brothers are strictly an Allied Detachment that falls under the Battle Brother level of Allegiance.

Now - define what that means during the game, not during list building.

They are "treated as 'friendly units'". Nothing removes the fact the IC was chosen from an Allied Detatchment. And that the allied force are Battle Brothers. In the OP example, joining the SW IC Rune Priest to the SM tac squad does not stop the rune priest from being a SW. Though if we applied the IC rules, he would now be a SM as he is part of the tac squad for all rules purposes. SW are Allied Battle Brothers.

And what - exactly - does being a BB during the game mean?
It means that BB are treated as (read, are) friendly units. Agreed?
If you are not a unit, you cannot be a friendly unit. Agreed?
If you are not a unit, the rules and restrictions on page 112 cannot apply. Agreed?

An IC will always be an "Allied" model, simply because he exists in the "Allied" detachment of your Army FOC and belongs to a different Codex than your 'Primary' detachment.

But seriously kids, read the linked thread, determine for yourselves.

In the absence of clear rules, or in cases where the rules are completely ambiguous then we should strive to take the least advantageous interpretation as the action taker. In this case, if IC's may or may not be able to embark then, as the action taker, we should not take the action to embark them on an allied transport. It is the ethical and sporting way to play the game.

 DeathReaper wrote:
In the absence of clear rules, or in cases where the rules are completely ambiguous then we should strive to take the least advantageous interpretation as the action taker. In this case, if IC's may or may not be able to embark then, as the action taker, we should not take the action to embark them on an allied transport. It is the ethical and sporting way to play the game.

Agreed, not that this applies here. The rules are clear - people just refuse to accept them.

Battle-brothers can't embark on each others transports, so that seems quite clear to me.

1) Battle Brothers cannot embark on allied transport vehicles.
2) The IC is a Battle Brother.
=> He cannot embark on allied transport vehicles.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
In the absence of clear rules, or in cases where the rules are completely ambiguous then we should strive to take the least advantageous interpretation as the action taker. In this case, if IC's may or may not be able to embark then, as the action taker, we should not take the action to embark them on an allied transport. It is the ethical and sporting way to play the game.

Agreed, not that this applies here. The rules are clear - people just refuse to accept them.

I agree with your assessment, The rules are clear - people just refuse to accept them.

Kangodo wrote:
Battle-brothers can't embark on each others transports, so that seems quite clear to me.

1) Battle Brothers cannot embark on allied transport vehicles.
2) The IC is a Battle Brother.
=> He cannot embark on allied transport vehicles.

Congratulations on not reading the linked thread at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:
I agree with your assessment, The rules are clear - people just refuse to accept them.

Were you able to find any rules other than the ones on page 112 that dealt with defining a Battle Brother in the rules yet?
You've never supplied them, so we can only go with what's on page 112. Which works how I've proven.

No, thank you.
I have better things to do than listen to some rules-lawyers trying to find a way around the clear "Battle Brothers cannot embark on allied transports".

Kangodo wrote:
No, thank you.
I have better things to do than listen to some rules-lawyers trying to find a way around the clear "Battle Brothers cannot embark on allied transports".

And thanks for the insult - perhaps you should read the tenets of the forum? I'm not "trying to find a way around" anything - I play Tyranids and have neither vehicles nor allies.
I'm reading the rules, as they're written. I'm discussing the rules, as they're written. If you had read the threads that were linked you'd know that I couldn't care less how my opponent wanted to play - it wouldn't effect me in the slightest.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
I agree with your assessment, The rules are clear - people just refuse to accept them.

Were you able to find any rules other than the ones on page 112 that dealt with defining a Battle Brother in the rules yet?
You've never supplied them, so we can only go with what's on page 112. Which works how I've proven.

I have, it is in that 14 page thread.

Specifically this: (Not me, but Mannahnin said it best).

Mannahnin wrote:Nothing in the phrasing of Battle Brothers explicitly limits it to only units of Battle Brothers. Everything from your allied detachment is an ally, and thus either a Battle Brother, an Ally of Convenience, or a Desperate Ally. No rule states that only homogenous units of allies are treated as allies.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
I agree with your assessment, The rules are clear - people just refuse to accept them.

Were you able to find any rules other than the ones on page 112 that dealt with defining a Battle Brother in the rules yet?
You've never supplied them, so we can only go with what's on page 112. Which works how I've proven.

I have, it is in that 14 page thread.

What - this?
"Page 112 Levels of alliance section: "To represent this, we have several categories of alliances, each of which imposes certain effects on the game. The Allies Matrix shows the levels of potential alliance between each army." "
(If I'm missing the rules you cited, please feel free to correct me. I got this from http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/523666.page?userfilterid=31450)

Yes - the IC was chosen as part of a Battle Brother alliance. Please define what that means.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
I agree with your assessment, The rules are clear - people just refuse to accept them.

Were you able to find any rules other than the ones on page 112 that dealt with defining a Battle Brother in the rules yet?
You've never supplied them, so we can only go with what's on page 112. Which works how I've proven.

I have, it is in that 14 page thread.

What - this?
"Page 112 Levels of alliance section: "To represent this, we have several categories of alliances, each of which imposes certain effects on the game. The Allies Matrix shows the levels of potential alliance between each army." "
(If I'm missing the rules you cited, please feel free to correct me. I got this from http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/523666.page?userfilterid=31450)

Yes - the IC was chosen as part of a Battle Brother alliance. Please define what that means.

Easy it means he can not ride in allies transports. as noted on P112

rigeld2 wrote:
And thanks for the insult - perhaps you should read the tenets of the forum?

Why? Did you rules-lawyer your way around those too with all those comments you're making?

I'm not "trying to find a way around" anything - I play Tyranids and have neither vehicles nor allies.
I'm reading the rules, as they're written. I'm discussing the rules, as they're written. If you had read the threads that were linked you'd know that I couldn't care less how my opponent wanted to play - it wouldn't effect me in the slightest.

Battle Brothers cannot embark an allied transport < Did you miss that written part?

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
I agree with your assessment, The rules are clear - people just refuse to accept them.

Were you able to find any rules other than the ones on page 112 that dealt with defining a Battle Brother in the rules yet?
You've never supplied them, so we can only go with what's on page 112. Which works how I've proven.

I have, it is in that 14 page thread.

What - this?
"Page 112 Levels of alliance section: "To represent this, we have several categories of alliances, each of which imposes certain effects on the game. The Allies Matrix shows the levels of potential alliance between each army." "
(If I'm missing the rules you cited, please feel free to correct me. I got this from http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/523666.page?userfilterid=31450)

Yes - the IC was chosen as part of a Battle Brother alliance. Please define what that means.

Easy it means he can not ride in allies transports. as noted on P112

That's not all page 112 says - please don't misquote.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kangodo wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
And thanks for the insult - perhaps you should read the tenets of the forum?

Why? Did you rules-lawyer your way around those too with all those comments you're making?

I'm not sure what I've done to anger you - but I don't deserve this insulting tone.

I'm not "trying to find a way around" anything - I play Tyranids and have neither vehicles nor allies.
I'm reading the rules, as they're written. I'm discussing the rules, as they're written. If you had read the threads that were linked you'd know that I couldn't care less how my opponent wanted to play - it wouldn't effect me in the slightest.

Battle Brothers cannot embark an allied transport < Did you miss that written part?

Your models are all removed as casualties. Did you miss that written part?

Oh... there's things that come before that. Sorry - the rest of the rulebook actually does matter.

Kangodo wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
And thanks for the insult - perhaps you should read the tenets of the forum?

Why? Did you rules-lawyer your way around those too with all those comments you're making?

I'm not "trying to find a way around" anything - I play Tyranids and have neither vehicles nor allies.
I'm reading the rules, as they're written. I'm discussing the rules, as they're written. If you had read the threads that were linked you'd know that I couldn't care less how my opponent wanted to play - it wouldn't effect me in the slightest.

Battle Brothers cannot embark an allied transport < Did you miss that written part?

Besides the fact that Happyjew and rigeld2 have stated that the IC counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes. I am not an experienced debater of RAW and I USUALLY play with house rules and RAI, but he makes a very good point you cannot ignore. I understand the position you are coming from, but where is your real counter for the evidence that has been given to you. The Independent character IS part of the unit, for ALL rules purposes, which I would be inclined to agree overrides the "Battle Brother" status, as he is now just part of a larger unit.

(And, as he has stated, though he doesn't need my defense, there is nothing particularly demanding for an insulting tone in the situation.)