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.

rigeld2 wrote:
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.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

DeathReaper wrote: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.

I did not quote anything, it was more of a paraphrase.

Then please quote the entire rule - your paraphrase incorrectly "summarizes" the rules at hand and is leading to your misunderstanding.

 Lord Magnus wrote:

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.)

My $0.02:

Does the IC count at part of the unit for all rules purposes? Yes.
Is the IC still a Battle Brother? Yes.

Although the IC is part of the unit, it is still a Battle Brother. Nothing in the IC rules remove this.

So, the IC can deploy with them.. just not in the transport.

clively wrote:
Is the IC still a Battle Brother? Yes.

The rules on page 112 disagree with this.

Is the rule that forbids BB from entering transports a rule? Yes.
Do ICs count as being a normal member of the squad for all rules purposes? Yes.
Is the IC a member of a squad that can join a transport? Yes.

clively wrote:

 Lord Magnus wrote:

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.)

My $0.02:

Does the IC count at part of the unit for all rules purposes? Yes.
Is the IC still a Battle Brother? Yes.

Although the IC is part of the unit, it is still a Battle Brother. Nothing in the IC rules remove this.

So, the IC can deploy with them.. just not in the transport.

It certainly does not remove it. However, by being part of the unit for all rules purposes, I believe that the effect of being an "allied unit" (Which, without being an allied unit, there is no such thing as a Battle Brother) would be overridden until he leaves the unit or the unit is destroyed, leaving only the IC.

It is very noteworthy to recognize that Independent Character does bot REMOVE anything from the status, but joining a unit, and losing you allied unit status (Because you are part of the unit for ALL rules purposes, would nullify the effects of being a "Battle Brother" until the character is on his own again.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

DeathReaper wrote: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.

I did not quote anything, it was more of a paraphrase.

Then please quote the entire rule - your paraphrase incorrectly "summarizes" the rules at hand and is leading to your misunderstanding.

I did not misunderstand anything, nothing takes away the fact that the IC is still chosen from the BB's section of the Allies matrix.

rigeld2 wrote:

clively wrote:
Is the IC still a Battle Brother? Yes.

The rules on page 112 disagree with this.

They really do not disagree, nothing there states that the BB IC is no longer a BB.

rigeld2 wrote:

clively wrote:
Is the IC still a Battle Brother? Yes.

The rules on page 112 disagree with this.

To be precise (which we are clearly doing in this thread): You disagree with it and think the rules on page 112 support that view.
We friendly disagree with that.

 DeathReaper wrote:
They really do not disagree, nothing there states that the BB IC is no longer a BB.

That is my view too..
When you want to remove his 'BB-status', you'd need clear permission to do that.
The BRB doesn't give that permission anywhere.

It explicitly does when it defines BB as a friendly unit.
Your assertion leads to the IC still being a unit (with all that entails). That cannot be correct.

At this point the argument seems to have devolved from "Can an IC from an allied detachment join a unit in a transport" to "Does a character chosen as part of an allied detachment count as a member of the allied detachment or as a member of the unit he has joined" The latter seems to be the real question.

If a BB IC joins a primary detatchment he counts as being chosen from a primary detatchment for all rules purposes

 A GumyBear wrote:
If a BB IC joins a primary detatchment he counts as being chosen from a primary detatchment for all rules purposes

I agree, he counts as being from the primary detachment because he is a member of the unit from the primary detachment, which is a piece of the primary detachment.

Hypothetical situation for you:

For the purposes of this situation we are assuming that your side is true rig and a BB IC can embark on a transport. (This is the contested issue).

What happens when a IC and a unit consisting on 1 member embarks on a rhino. then in the shooting phase the non IC member of the unit shoots his plasma gun and rolls a 1 and fails his save and dies.

Now what? (Rules citations for what happens would be great, thanks).

 DeathReaper wrote:
Hypothetical situation for you:

For the purposes of this situation we are assuming that your side is true rig and a BB IC can embark on a transport. (This is the contested issue).

What happens when a IC and a unit consisting on 1 member embarks on a rhino. then in the shooting phase the non IC member of the unit shoots his plasma gun and rolls a 1 and fails his save and dies.

Now what? (Rules citations for what happens would be great, thanks).

There isn't one.
It's not covered by the rules. I've said as much every time. That doesn't mean your side is correct - it just means GW has failed to cover every aspect of the rules (shocker).
Hell - I'll even say it's probably not intended. That's irrelevant.

HIWPI in your example is he is forced to disembark on his next movement phase.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Hypothetical situation for you:

For the purposes of this situation we are assuming that your side is true rig and a BB IC can embark on a transport. (This is the contested issue).

What happens when a IC and a unit consisting on 1 member embarks on a rhino. then in the shooting phase the non IC member of the unit shoots his plasma gun and rolls a 1 and fails his save and dies.

Now what? (Rules citations for what happens would be great, thanks).

There isn't one.
It's not covered by the rules. I've said as much every time. That doesn't mean your side is correct - it just means GW has failed to cover every aspect of the rules (shocker).
Hell - I'll even say it's probably not intended. That's irrelevant.

HIWPI in your example is he is forced to disembark on his next movement phase.

Since this is not covered in the rules, and creates a situation that is not legal then this interpretation can not be correct.

The other side's interpretation creates no such inconsistencies within the rules.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Hypothetical situation for you:

For the purposes of this situation we are assuming that your side is true rig and a BB IC can embark on a transport. (This is the contested issue).

What happens when a IC and a unit consisting on 1 member embarks on a rhino. then in the shooting phase the non IC member of the unit shoots his plasma gun and rolls a 1 and fails his save and dies.

Now what? (Rules citations for what happens would be great, thanks).

There isn't one.
It's not covered by the rules. I've said as much every time. That doesn't mean your side is correct - it just means GW has failed to cover every aspect of the rules (shocker).
Hell - I'll even say it's probably not intended. That's irrelevant.

HIWPI in your example is he is forced to disembark on his next movement phase.

I thought of this example, where his squad somehow died out from under him in a vehicle (not the plasma part, but oh well) And as rigeld2 said, there really isn't an answer. Just because you CAN do what we propose doesn't mean you should, or that it is a good idea, or that it can be well applied to other places in the rule, and rigeld2 suggests a good way to play it, however, as the situation is already extremely sketchy, I would simply destroy the model, he is in a place that he CANNOT exist, and so, therefore, ceases to exist. I am not sure what rules apply what way for a unit being where it isn't supposed to be (impassible terrain, for example) but that is how I would treat this situation, as if the character somehow was inside impassible terrain, and the most simple solution, in my opinion,is to simply destroy the character.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Since this is not covered in the rules, and creates a situation that is not legal then this interpretation can not be correct.

That's simply not true. It leads to an understanding of what is very likely intended, but there is nothing illegal happening.

The other side's interpretation creates no such inconsistencies within the rules.

Irrelevant. What do the rules actually say? They say that the BB unit ceases to exist.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Hypothetical situation for you:

For the purposes of this situation we are assuming that your side is true rig and a BB IC can embark on a transport. (This is the contested issue).

What happens when a IC and a unit consisting on 1 member embarks on a rhino. then in the shooting phase the non IC member of the unit shoots his plasma gun and rolls a 1 and fails his save and dies.

Now what? (Rules citations for what happens would be great, thanks).

There isn't one.
It's not covered by the rules. I've said as much every time. That doesn't mean your side is correct - it just means GW has failed to cover every aspect of the rules (shocker).
Hell - I'll even say it's probably not intended. That's irrelevant.

HIWPI in your example is he is forced to disembark on his next movement phase.

Since this is not covered in the rules, and creates a situation that is not legal then this interpretation can not be correct.

The other side's interpretation creates no such inconsistencies within the rules.

This inconsistency is ENTIRELY based on player choice, you can choose to simply not shoot if the only model left is one with the plasma gun, avoiding the illegal situation completely, so you could argue that the chance of creating the rule inconsistency means you cannot shoot, rather than the character cannot join or ride along. It is always a really sketchy situation.

rigeld2 wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:The other side's interpretation creates no such inconsistencies within the rules.

Irrelevant. What do the rules actually say? They say that the BB unit ceases to exist.

Regarding the IC unit, the rule on 39 says that it still has to follow the rules for characters after joining a unit. Those rules are on page 63; which allows it to remain an IC. The unit doesn't "cease to exist" as a separate entity. Rather it takes on the rules for being part of the joined unit as well as retains it's own IC status - meaning it has a dual personality. If it did "cease to exist" then it could never leave the unit as those rules are part of it being an IC.

Getting back to the BB status, the rules are silent. Therefore the correct interpretation is to preserve it as we have no permission to remove it.

clively wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:The other side's interpretation creates no such inconsistencies within the rules.

Irrelevant. What do the rules actually say? They say that the BB unit ceases to exist.

Regarding the IC unit, the rule on 39 says that it still has to follow the rules for characters after joining a unit. Those rules are on page 63; which allows it to remain an IC. The unit doesn't "cease to exist" as a separate entity. Rather it takes on the rules for being part of the joined unit as well as retains it's own IC status - meaning it has a dual personality. If it did "cease to exist" then it could never leave the unit as those rules are part of it being an IC.

So the IC unit still exists?
Cool - I target it when shooting. You cannot LOS! to another model, because you can only do that within your own unit. Coherency is only slightly an issue - you have to think about it when you move through difficult terrain as you'd need to roll two sets of dice (one for each unit). There's more, but that should be enough to prove you wrong.

Getting back to the BB status, the rules are silent. Therefore the correct interpretation is to preserve it as we have no permission to remove it.

No, the rules are not silent. The rules equate BB with a friendly unit.

 Lord Magnus wrote:
This inconsistency is ENTIRELY based on player choice

Which, of course, makes no difference, it has the ability to create an illegal situation and thus the interpretation can not be valid.

, you can choose to simply not shoot if the only model left is one with the plasma gun, avoiding the illegal situation completely, so you could argue that the chance of creating the rule inconsistency means you cannot shoot, rather than the character cannot join or ride along. It is always a really sketchy situation.

No, you can not find any rules to back the " you could argue that the chance of creating the rule inconsistency means you cannot shoot" side of things.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The other side's interpretation creates no such inconsistencies within the rules.

Irrelevant. What do the rules actually say? They say that the BB unit ceases to exist.

It does not matter if his unit ceases to exist, he is still a Battle Brother level of alliance and as such can not embark.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Which, of course, makes no difference, it has the ability to create an illegal situation and thus the interpretation can not be valid.

Well, no - that's not true. The rule itself does not create inconsistencies. There could possibly be fallout if the stars align correctly, but that just means GW failed. I know there are more examples similar to this (and I know you do as well - arguing that here and not other times this comes up is disingenuous at best, and I don't remember you arguing this much at all before)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The other side's interpretation creates no such inconsistencies within the rules.

Irrelevant. What do the rules actually say? They say that the BB unit ceases to exist.

It does not matter if his unit ceases to exist, he is still a Battle Brother level of alliance and as such can not embark.

Define - using rules - what the BB level of alliance means during play. Please actually quote rules, and not paraphrase. You appear to still not be convinced of what the rules actually say.

IC is a member of the unit for all rules purposes = General Rule.

Even Battle Brothers cannot embark on an ally's transport = Specific rule.

Specific overrides General.

 Psienesis wrote:
IC is a member of the unit for all rules purposes = General Rule.

Even Battle Brothers cannot embark on an ally's transport = Specific rule.

Specific overrides General.

And irrelevant to my argument.
And only applies in a conflict - this isn't one.

rigeld2 wrote:
Define - using rules - what the BB level of alliance means during play. Please actually quote rules, and not paraphrase. You appear to still not be convinced of what the rules actually say.

" The Allies Matrix shows the levels of potential alliance between each army." (112)

What is the level of alliance between SW's and Ultramarines? (A: BB's)

It doesn't say battle brother units, if that was the wording I'd have no issue with that as a RAW argument about ICs.

In it's simple terms, is the IC a battle brother? Does he ever cease being one? Is battle brother status linked in the rules to units or is it a blanket thing?

I read it as being a blanket thing.

Or number 3 or C, those in opposition are reading correctly and won't argue silly points when there is clearly a rule that says you cannot embark.

Lungpickle wrote:
Or number 3 or C, those in opposition are reading correctly and won't argue silly points when there is clearly a rule that says you cannot embark.

And then there is another rule that allows ICs to bypass that rule as long as it is in a unit from the primary detatchment

ok so in reading all of this. i think GW needs to FAQ it. because the rule does say BBs cant embark in a allie vehicle but there are ways to get around it.
but the rule was "designed" to be used in such a way that BBs are not suppose to be able to do it.

thank you all for the help and sorry if any bad feelings were made that was not the intent of the post! ty for all who posted!

Cheers!

DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Define - using rules - what the BB level of alliance means during play. Please actually quote rules, and not paraphrase. You appear to still not be convinced of what the rules actually say.

" The Allies Matrix shows the levels of potential alliance between each army." (112)

What is the level of alliance between SW's and Ultramarines? (A: BB's)

So no quote as to what that means during play? Because what you just quoted literally means nothing.

liturgies of blood wrote:It doesn't say battle brother units, if that was the wording I'd have no issue with that as a RAW argument about ICs.

In it's simple terms, is the IC a battle brother? Does he ever cease being one? Is battle brother status linked in the rules to units or is it a blanket thing?

I read it as being a blanket thing.

It does say BB units. Read the heading for that list where it equates BB to friendly units and then defines what that means.