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.

 Neorealist wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:In addition the fact that the rules spell out they're worth separate VP.

At the risk of sounding quite redundant at this point, the rules also say quite clearly that "...However, note that not even Battle Brothers can embark in allied transport vehicles..."
Your argument seemingly hinges on ignoring that fairly clear bit of rules-text above in favour of presuming that counting as part of the unit somehow overwrites it?

Battle Brothers are friendly units, correct?
If an IC joins a unit it counts as a normal member of that unit for all rules purposes, correct?
GW specifically mentions when an IC does not count as a normal member of the unit, correct?
Battle brother restrictions is not part of that list, correct?

 Neorealist wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:In addition the fact that the rules spell out they're worth separate VP.

At the risk of sounding quite redundant at this point, the rules also say quite clearly that "...However, note that not even Battle Brothers can embark in allied transport vehicles..."
Your argument seemingly hinges on ignoring that fairly clear bit of rules-text above in favour of presuming that counting as part of the unit somehow overwrites it?

No, that's not my argument at all. Please actually read what I've said instead of pretending I've said something different.

Happyjew wrote:Battle Brothers are friendly units, correct?
1) If an IC joins a unit it counts as a normal member of that unit for all rules purposes, correct?
2) GW specifically mentions when an IC does not count as a normal member of the unit, correct?
3) Battle brother restrictions is not part of that list, correct?

1) Normal ICs do not have permission to join Allied units at all, apart from utilizing the battle brother rules. If you choose not to follow those rules, you lack permission to join the IC and the unit altogether let alone have it count as part of the unit for 'all rules purposes'. Following only 'part' of the battle brother rules and restrictions does not do the whole rule-set justice.

2) Yes, for example, when GW indicates that Battlebrothers ICs (or are you disputing that as well?) cannot embark on allied transports?

3) Allied ICs are definitely a part of the allied detachment, so they are definitely subject to 'all' the Battlebrother rules.

 Neorealist wrote:

Happyjew wrote:Battle Brothers are friendly units, correct?
1) If an IC joins a unit it counts as a normal member of that unit for all rules purposes, correct?
2) GW specifically mentions when an IC does not count as a normal member of the unit, correct?
3) Battle brother restrictions is not part of that list, correct?

1) Normal ICs do not have permission to join Allied units at all, apart from utilizing the battle brother rules. If you choose not to follow those rules, you lack permission to join the IC and the unit altogether let alone have it count as part of the unit for 'all rules purposes'. Following only 'part' of the battle brother rules and restrictions does not do the whole rule-set justice.

2) Yes, for example, when GW indicates that Battlebrothers ICs (or are you disputing that as well?) cannot embark on allied transports?

3) Allied ICs are definitely a part of the allied detachment, so they are definitely subject to 'all' the Battlebrother rules.

It's awesome how you ignored a very important part of his post. You do that often it seems.

Still say no, no matter how much ya wanna bend the rule.

92% of people agree with you according to the poll.

Rules lawyering won't change that.

rigeld2 wrote:
You're saying that I'm ignoring "from all points of view". Please point out how it affects my argument.
Once the IC has joined the allied unit the BB rules cease to apply - all of them. Not a single one applies. Therefore, once he's joined the unit "from all points of view" means literally nothing.

You seem to be saying, that the very rule that allows the ic to not-only join, but be a part of a unit, does not apply?
The battle brother rules and, by extension, allies, is what does this, that status never changes, you are trying to remove battle brother status with no rules basis at all.

rigeld2 wrote:
Even if he's also considered part of the allied unit, these issues come up.

How can he not be part of the allied unit when he joins it?

 Happyjew wrote:
Because the rules specifically state that while the IC is a member of the unit for all rules purposes, he counts as a separate unit for reserve purposes, KPs, and VPs.

Notice how their is no mention of Battle Brothers.

Why would there be?
Aren't the specifics for battle brothers detailed in the battle brothers section?

 Happyjew wrote:


Battle Brothers are friendly units, correct?
If an IC joins a unit it counts as a normal member of that unit for all rules purposes, correct?
GW specifically mentions when an IC does not count as a normal member of the unit, correct?
Battle brother restrictions is not part of that list, correct?

Battle Brothers are friendly units, correct?
Even your argument claims that that can change.
So, you are saying, that they are treated as "friendly units" except when they are not, correct?

But, what does that mean?
The "unit" is no-longer a unit, or the "unit" is no-longer a battle brother, or both?
Its only part of the unit because it is a battle brother, not was, this is fine if you accept the ic may not always be an independent unit, which you already have. It can only be part of the unit if it is a battle brother, that status does not change, it cannot.

If an IC joins a unit it counts as a normal member of that unit for all rules purposes, correct?
No.
He "follows the rules for characters." He remains an independent character.

GW specifically mentions when an IC does not count as a normal member of the unit, correct?
Such as when its an ic?

Battle brother restrictions is not part of that list, correct?
What list?

In summary, the ic is a battle brother and remains a battle brother, because bb ic's unit status can change, but only because its a battle brother (assuming joining an allied unit).

The alternative to this, is they are friendly units from all points of view, ie always.
All points of view vs. all rules purposes = contradiction = specific vs general = all points of view winning = 2 units in 1 = mess.

Strict RAW I think you are technically correct that an allied IC can get in with the unit.

But can we stop saying normal member for ICs that's not the rules. Being a member for all rules purposes, doesn't make an IC a normal member. Nor does it stop him from being any thing that doesn't directly violate him being a member of the unit he joined. In this case the IC staying a BB does create a problem with the core mechanics of the game as you would then being able to target him separately and that breaks the effect created by joining. Therefore joining and making him a member for all rules purposes actually has to stop him from being a battle brother while joined. It's not a specific vs general problem it's that the mechanics of the game don't allow you to treat an attached IC as a friendly unit so he must not be.

The independent characters rules in the transport section create additional complications going by this strict RAW as the unit can get out while the IC stays in but even that's not a direct conflict as it only prevents him from embarking

 fuusa wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
You're saying that I'm ignoring "from all points of view". Please point out how it affects my argument.
Once the IC has joined the allied unit the BB rules cease to apply - all of them. Not a single one applies. Therefore, once he's joined the unit "from all points of view" means literally nothing.

You seem to be saying, that the very rule that allows the ic to not-only join, but be a part of a unit, does not apply?

The IC rules on page 39 allow him to join the unit. The BB rules just reinforce that. But when the BB rules no longer apply (because he's not a separate unit anymore) there is no rule denying the permission the IC rules give.

The battle brother rules and, by extension, allies, is what does this, that status never changes, you are trying to remove battle brother status with no rules basis at all.

Why do people keep saying this?
I've cited rules. Multiple times. All I get back is people repeating this with no citations. Please adhere to the tenets of the forum.

rigeld2:

I think there are two things that are missing in your interpretation of the rule.

1) You seem to treat the Battle Brother rule and the IC rule as being mutually exclusive. Which means you feel one rule is more specific then the other, and are therefore saying the more specific rule takes precedence. I challenge you to prove the level of specificity of either rule.

2) The Battle Brother rule does not use the word "unit" or "model" in the wording that restricts them from embarking in allied transports. As an example if the rule said that Battle Brother Units could not embark in allied transports, I would say your argument was quite compelling. However, the wording is more encompassing and applies to all members of the detachment whether they could be considered a unit of that detachment or not by your interpretation.

CanisLupus518 wrote:
rigeld2:

I think there are two things that are missing in your interpretation of the rule.

1) You seem to treat the Battle Brother rule and the IC rule as being mutually exclusive. Which means you feel one rule is more specific then the other, and are therefore saying the more specific rule takes precedence. I challenge you to prove the level of specificity of either rule.

Neither is more specific and there's no conflict here. They are not mutually exclusive and I've never said they are.

2) The Battle Brother rule does not use the word "unit" or "model" in the wording that restricts them from embarking in allied transports. As an example if the rule said that Battle Brother Units could not embark in allied transports, I would say your argument was quite compelling. However, the wording is more encompassing and applies to all members of the detachment whether they could be considered a unit of that detachment or not by your interpretation.

The bolded is false. By equating "Battle Brothers" and "friendly units" the rules tell us they are interchangeable. This means that when they say "Battle Brothers" they are referencing a unit.

Why is this 4 pages long? RAW. No.

 doktor_g wrote:
Why is this 4 pages long? RAW. No.

Why do people refuse to read the thread and still feel their marvelous insight is worth commenting? RAW you're incorrect.

rigeld2 wrote:

CanisLupus518 wrote:
rigeld2:

I think there are two things that are missing in your interpretation of the rule.

1) You seem to treat the Battle Brother rule and the IC rule as being mutually exclusive. Which means you feel one rule is more specific then the other, and are therefore saying the more specific rule takes precedence. I challenge you to prove the level of specificity of either rule.

Neither is more specific and there's no conflict here. They are not mutually exclusive and I've never said they are.

2) The Battle Brother rule does not use the word "unit" or "model" in the wording that restricts them from embarking in allied transports. As an example if the rule said that Battle Brother Units could not embark in allied transports, I would say your argument was quite compelling. However, the wording is more encompassing and applies to all members of the detachment whether they could be considered a unit of that detachment or not by your interpretation.

The bolded is false. By equating "Battle Brothers" and "friendly units" the rules tell us they are interchangeable. This means that when they say "Battle Brothers" they are referencing a unit.

You are certainly treating them as one overrides the other, otherwise your argument wouldn't make sense. Therefore, the overriding rule must, in some way, be more specific.

The rule states that Battle Brothers are treated as friendly units. It is not defining the term Battle Brothers in that statement, just stating one of the rules. Also, it does not say "Battle Brother Units" are treated as friendly units. Which means it is not specific to what you would consider a unit. In fact, the way its worded seems to imply that a Battle Brother IC must always be treated as a "friendly unit", which means even though an IC has joined an allied unit and is considered a part of that unit for all rules purposes, the Battle Brother rule still puts a label of "friendly unit" on the IC. Which , in turn, would disallow him from embarking in a transport from an allied detachment.

CanisLupus518 wrote:
You are certainly treating them as one overrides the other, otherwise your argument wouldn't make sense. Therefore, the overriding rule must, in some way, be more specific.

No, I'm not. Page 39 and 112 both allow the IC to join an allied unit. Once he does he ceases to be a separate unit so page 112 no longer applies. See how nothing overrides?

The rule states that Battle Brothers are treated as friendly units. It is not defining the term Battle Brothers in that statement, just stating one of the rules. Also, it does not say "Battle Brother Units" are treated as friendly units. Which means it is not specific to what you would consider a unit. In fact, the way its worded seems to imply that a Battle Brother IC must always be treated as a "friendly unit", which means even though an IC has joined an allied unit and is considered a part of that unit for all rules purposes, the Battle Brother rule still puts a label of "friendly unit" on the IC. Which , in turn, would disallow him from embarking in a transport from an allied detachment.

The rule literally equates BB to friendly unis. That means they're interchangeable. (Much like 4 is interchangeable with 2+2)
If you take away part of the equation (the unit part) they're no longer interchangeable (4 is not interchangeable with 2).
The Battle Brother rules aren't overridden or ignored or conflicted or anything like that - they simply cease applying.

I'm not sure how much simpler I can make it.


Is the IC allowed to join the allied unit?
Do you agree that the IC ceases to be a separate unit after join a unit?
Do you agree that Battle Brothers is defined as (or equated to) a friendly unit?
Do you agree that something that is not a friendly unit cannot be a Battle Brother?

If you don't answer yes to all of those questions I'd rather see actual rules citations rather than a roundabout explanation of what my point is (incorrectly) and then arguing against that (ever heard of a straw man argument?)

It's not just the Battle Brothers are treated as friendly units that's a problem.
The first two bullet points are also an issue.
Can be joined be an allied IC: false as a member if another unit this isn't possible.
Is considered a friendly unit for psychic powers etc: false the rules for a attached IC overwrite this mechanic.

So in this case, once an allied IC joins a unit he cannot be treated as a battle brother with the mechanics of the game it just has to be FAQ'd to have that additional requirement. Most tournaments do have that additional FAQ saying that allied IC prevent the embarkation while joined. That's what you have to have.

Kisada II wrote:
It's not just the Battle Brothers are treated as friendly units that's a problem.
The first two bullet points are also an issue.
Can be joined be an allied IC: false as a member if another unit this isn't possible.
Is considered a friendly unit for psychic powers etc: false the rules for a attached IC overwrite this mechanic.

You're looking at this backwards - the BB rules actually add nothing - they're purely reminders with a single restriction.

Find denial for an IC to join an allied unit.
Find denial for units in your army to benefit from friendly psychic powers.

This has been argued to death before. The correct and most common consensus is no.

rigeld2 wrote:
The IC rules on page 39 allow him to join the unit. The BB rules just reinforce that. But when the BB rules no longer apply (because he's not a separate unit anymore) there is no rule denying the permission the IC rules give.

P39 along with the allies rules do that, not p39 alone.
If there were no-such status as battle brothers, no allied ic would be able to join.

rigeld2 wrote:
Why do people keep saying this?
I've cited rules. Multiple times. All I get back is people repeating this with no citations. Please adhere to the tenets of the forum.

Because its true.
You have cited half-rules and made groundless assumptions, based on faulty logic.

The battle brothers rule is encompassing of ic's and their changeable unit status, if it wasn't it would be noted.
Therefore the "friendly unit" status of an allied ic is exactly that, until its not a unit in of its own right (joined), but remains a battle brother, which is expressly forbidden to embark.

The model is a bb when the game begins, it will be when the game ends, nothing in the actual rules contradicts this.

]

rigeld2 wrote:
The IC rules on page 39 allow him to join the unit. The BB rules just reinforce that. But when the BB rules no longer apply (because he's not a separate unit anymore) there is no rule denying the permission the IC rules give.

P39 along with the allies rules do that, not p39 alone.
If there were no-such status as battle brothers, no allied ic would be able to join.

rigeld2 wrote:
Why do people keep saying this?
I've cited rules. Multiple times. All I get back is people repeating this with no citations. Please adhere to the tenets of the forum.

Because its true.
You have cited half-rules and made groundless assumptions, based on faulty logic.

The battle brothers rule is encompassing of ic's and their changeable unit status, if it wasn't it would be noted.
Therefore the "friendly unit" status of an allied ic is exactly that, until its not a unit in of its own right (joined), but remains a battle brother, which is expressly forbidden to embark.

The model is a bb when the game begins, it will be when the game ends, nothing in the actual rules contradicts this.

 fuusa wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
The IC rules on page 39 allow him to join the unit. The BB rules just reinforce that. But when the BB rules no longer apply (because he's not a separate unit anymore) there is no rule denying the permission the IC rules give.

P39 along with the allies rules do that, not p39 alone.
If there were no-such status as battle brothers, no allied ic would be able to join.

Cite the denial. Page 39 alone does allow it.

rigeld2 wrote:
Why do people keep saying this?
I've cited rules. Multiple times. All I get back is people repeating this with no citations. Please adhere to the tenets of the forum.

Because its true.
You have cited half-rules and made groundless assumptions, based on faulty logic.

No, I haven't cited half rules. Stop lying please.

The battle brothers rule is encompassing of ic's and their changeable unit status, if it wasn't it would be noted.
Therefore the "friendly unit" status of an allied ic is exactly that, until its not a unit in of its own right (joined), but remains a battle brother, which is expressly forbidden to embark.

Pleas provide actual rules quotes supporting your statements. I have done so.

The model is a bb when the game begins, it will be when the game ends, nothing in the actual rules contradicts this.

Funny. Another post of yours that contains an assertion with no rules to support that assertion. Would you mind adhering to the tenets of the forum and citing some support?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 fuusa wrote:
So, if I join the rune priest with the (ultramarine) tacticals, I don't have a unit comprised of battle brothers then?

No, you have a unit of Ultramarines.

rigeld2 wrote:
Cite the denial. Page 39 alone does allow it.

P112 (that's a surprise, isn't it?
If battle brothers didn't exist, they would be allies of a different type, therefore enemy units +.

rigeld2 wrote:
Why do people keep saying this?
I've cited rules. Multiple times. All I get back is people repeating this with no citations. Please adhere to the tenets of the forum.

Because its true.
You have cited half-rules and made groundless assumptions, based on faulty logic.

the rules also say quite clearly that "...However, note that not even Battle Brothers can embark in allied transport vehicles..."

IC's that are BB's are still battle brothers in a unit, just like they are still ICs and retain other rules/restrictions.

the opposing argument, that somehow a battle brother can enter an allied transport, would need a specific permission, that overides this restriction on all BB's, which is NOT given by the IC rule that they are treated as part of the unit they join. Just how Being treated as part of a unit wont change your unit type from bike to infantry, neither does it change you from a battle brother to primary detachment. you can be treated as part of the unit for all purposes, and still be subject to additional permissions/restrictions, like with BB's+ allied transports.

the identity of the "unit" an BB ic joins, doesnt change that he is a BB and subject to the RAW restriction on such.

 fuusa wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Cite the denial. Page 39 alone does allow it.

P112 (that's a surprise, isn't it?
If battle brothers didn't exist, they would be allies of a different type, therefore enemy units +.

That's simply not true. You're making a leap with no support.
How about actually citing the denial - there isn't a single rule on page 112 saying an IC cannot join an allied unit.

Its clear that you have, I am not the only one to mention this.

Any number of people can say something, that doesn't make it true. I've asked you to prove it in the past and you failed.

I am not lying, why would expressing my genuine opinion be considered lying?

Saying I've half quoted rules (with the implication that a full quote would prove me wrong) isn't an opinion - you're asserting (incorrectly) a fact. Doing so while knowing its incorrect (which you should - I've corrected you before) is lying.

A groundless accusation like that is offensive and offers more of an insight into your character than mine, imo.

It's not groundless. You've stated it, I asked you to defend it, you failed, and you continue to say it. Reported.

Already done, multiple times.

Please link the posts where you have - apparently I've missed them. You've given page numbers but no actual rules.

Then all of the rules for my space wolf rune priest will be conviniently found in the space marine codex then.
Absurd.

No, that's not what I said nor what you asked. Don't put words in my mouth please.

easysauce wrote:the opposing argument, that somehow a battle brother can enter an allied transport, would need a specific permission, that overides this restriction on all BB's, which is NOT given by the IC rule that they are treated as part of the unit they join. Just how Being treated as part of a unit wont change your unit type from bike to infantry, neither does it change you from a battle brother to primary detachment. you can be treated as part of the unit for all purposes, and still be subject to additional permissions/restrictions, like with BB's+ allied transports.

the identity of the "unit" an BB ic joins, doesnt change that he is a BB and subject to the RAW restriction on such.

Exactly. By virtue of being a model from the allied detachment, the IC is subject to 'all' the battle brother rules including the one stopping them from embarking on an allied transport. There is nothing in the normal rules for how an IC may join a unit which overrides this.

 Neorealist wrote:

easysauce wrote:the opposing argument, that somehow a battle brother can enter an allied transport, would need a specific permission, that overides this restriction on all BB's, which is NOT given by the IC rule that they are treated as part of the unit they join. Just how Being treated as part of a unit wont change your unit type from bike to infantry, neither does it change you from a battle brother to primary detachment. you can be treated as part of the unit for all purposes, and still be subject to additional permissions/restrictions, like with BB's+ allied transports.

the identity of the "unit" an BB ic joins, doesnt change that he is a BB and subject to the RAW restriction on such.

Exactly. By virtue of being a model from the allied detachment, the IC is subject to 'all' the battle brother rules including the one stopping them from embarking on an allied transport. There is nothing in the normal rules for how an IC may join a unit which overrides this.

Is an IC attempting to embark a rules purpose?
Are ICs members of their unit for all rules purposes or some?

rigeld2 wrote:Are ICs members of their unit for all rules purposes or some?

You seem to feel the above is inclusive. It is not. In other words the IC can be a member of a unit for 'all rules purposes' and still be subject to additional rules, for example: Those unique to being an IC, Those unique to being a Battle Brother, or anything specific to that model rather than generic to the unit as a whole really. (Wargear comes to mind, as often being different on ICs than those they accompany)

To provide a hypothetical example: A Rune Priest joins an Ultramarine combat squad-ed unit of 5 marines. Does the rune priest stop being an IC, or a Psyker, or an Ally for that matter because it is now a member of that squad? Why then would it stop being a Battle Brother?

My question is what exactly is encompassed by "a part of the unit". There are plenty of rules that govern single models within a unit but those models are still a "part of the unit".

 Neorealist wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Are ICs members of their unit for all rules purposes or some?

You seem to feel the above is inclusive. It is not. In other words the IC can be a member of a unit for 'all rules purposes' and still be subject to additional rules, for example: Those unique to being an IC, Those unique to being a Battle Brother, or anything specific to that model rather than generic to the unit as a whole really. (Wargear comes to mind, as often being different on ICs than those they accompany)

To provide a hypothetical example: A Rune Priest joins an Ultramarine combat squad-ed unit of 5 marines. Does the rune priest stop being an IC, or a Psyker, or an Ally for that matter because it is now a member of that squad? Why then would it stop being a Battle Brother?

No, I don't think its inclusive.
Nothing iin any rule changes model type or wargear based on unit membership. Since BB is defined as a friendly unit and the IC is no longer a unit, he cannot be a Battle Brother.

rigeld2 wrote:Nothing iin any rule changes model type or wargear based on unit membership. Since BB is defined as a friendly unit and the IC is no longer a unit, he cannot be a Battle Brother.

So, the IC is no longer '...treated as friendly units...' when it is joined to the other unit? At that point, how do you still have permission for the IC to be attached in that situation? Your interpretation needs a bit of work, since it seemingly leads to Schrödinger's IC: where it both can and cannot be in the unit at the same time.

 Neorealist wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Nothing iin any rule changes model type or wargear based on unit membership. Since BB is defined as a friendly unit and the IC is no longer a unit, he cannot be a Battle Brother.

So, the IC is no longer '...treated as friendly units...' when it is joined to the other unit? At that point, how do you still have permission for the IC to be attached in that situation? Your interpretation needs a bit of work, since it seemingly leads to Schrödinger's IC: where it both can and cannot be in the unit at the same time.

The unit "X" (which consists of an IC) does not exist as itself when attached to a unit, so no it is not a friendly unit. The rules for ICs tells us this as it is a normal member of the unit. Furthermore, every time GW wants an IC to be treated as its own unit while attached to another unit, such as for VPs, or Reserves, they specifically say "Yo! Even though the IC is normally a normal member for all rules purposes, for this purpose it is not.". Ok maybe not quite in those words, but still. So, I ask again. Where in the rules does it specifically state that while a BB IC is attached to a unit, it is a) not a normal member of the unit; and b) is still a friendly unit?

If a SM CM joins a SM Tac squad, is the SM CM still a friendly unit?