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.

Happyjew wrote: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?

If it isn't treated as a Battle brother in the above scenario, then it does not have permission to be attached to the other squad at all.

but to answer your questions specifically:
a) It doesn't matter if it's a normal member of the unit or not. It's still subject to it's own additional benefits and restrictions as indicated in the rules text of the model itself, and any relevant rules directly pursuant thereto. (in this instance including but not limited to the IC rules, and the Allies rules)

b) Allies are defined on page 109 as chosen in the same way as your primary army with a couple of exceptions. If the model in question was selected for your list using those rules, it is considered a 'friendly unit' as part of their resolution. Can you indicate what specific part of the IC rules you feel overwrites this?

And once again at the risk of sounding redundant, if the Battle Brother Psyker in the OPs scenario is 'not' counted as such while it is part of another unit, how do you believe you have permission to ignore: "...If an Independent Character... ...(or cannot) join a unit, it must (where possible) remain more than 2" away from it at the end of the Movement phase..."




Also this may help. There are several instances where the Independent character is referenced uniquely from another unit it is otherwise subject to the rules of.

In the context of a unit with the 'Brotherhood of Psykers' special rule for Psychic tests.
in the context of a unit with the 'Infiltrate' special rule relative to joining said unit during deployment
When joining an Artillery unit, regarding whether or not they enable firing of the artillery itself by their presence in the unit
When in reserves: "...Independent Characters are also counted as a single unit regardless of whether they have joined another unit or not..." for the purposes of counting how many units are in reserves
From the mission objective rules of the 'Purge the Alien' ruleset: "...Remember that Independent Characters... ... are individual units..."

the problem with rigeld2's argument at this point is that he is asking for people to provide proof of a denial that does not need to exist.

If you were to remove the allies section of the BRB entirely, then there is no rule that allows an IC to join an allied unit, simply because there would be no such thing as an allied unit. Furthermore, all ally rules, with the exception of Battle Brothers, state that allied units are treated as enemy units in most cases.. further preventing an IC from joining one of those allied units, since there is no rule granting an IC permission to join an enemy unit. Therefore, it is, in fact, the Battle Brothers rule, solely, that allows an IC to join an allied unit. If you want to argue that the IC somehow loses its BB status by joining that unit, then you must also concede that in that state he would not be allowed to join the unit at all. For an IC to be joined to an allied unit he must be considered a Battle Brother. Therefore, he can not embark in allied transports.

CanisLupus518 wrote:
the problem with rigeld2's argument at this point is that he is asking for people to provide proof of a denial that does not need to exist.

If you were to remove the allies section of the BRB entirely, then there is no rule that allows an IC to join an allied unit, simply because there would be no such thing as an allied unit.

That's simply not true. Units from your army list would be considered friendly units. Page 39 gives permission for ICs to join friendly units.
Hell, the non-BB allies have a redundant statement (that they can't be joined by allied characters) because they're already not a friendly unit.

Cite where allied units are - by default - not friendly units. You have to prove that for page 39 not to apply.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Neorealist wrote:

Happyjew wrote: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?

If it isn't treated as a Battle brother in the above scenario, then it does not have permission to be attached to the other squad at all.

Incorrect. Page 39 gives it that permission.

And once again at the risk of sounding redundant, if the Battle Brother Psyker in the OPs scenario is 'not' counted as such while it is part of another unit, how do you believe you have permission to ignore: "...If an Independent Character... ...(or cannot) join a unit, it must (where possible) remain more than 2" away from it at the end of the Movement phase..."

I'm confused. Why can an IC not join a friendly unit? Are allies somehow default non-friendly units? If you can prove that I'd love it.

rigeld2 wrote:

CanisLupus518 wrote:
the problem with rigeld2's argument at this point is that he is asking for people to provide proof of a denial that does not need to exist.

If you were to remove the allies section of the BRB entirely, then there is no rule that allows an IC to join an allied unit, simply because there would be no such thing as an allied unit.

That's simply not true. Units from your army list would be considered friendly units. Page 39 gives permission for ICs to join friendly units.
Hell, the non-BB allies have a redundant statement (that they can't be joined by allied characters) because they're already not a friendly unit.

Cite where allied units are - by default - not friendly units. You have to prove that for page 39 not to apply.

At no point am I saying that pg 39 does not apply. If anything I am arguing that even after an IC joins an allied unit it also still considered an ally.

I do not need to cite a default state for allies. Without the allies section of the BRB, if my army list included units from two different codexes it would be considered an illegal list (with some house rule exceptions). Thus in that case an IC from one codex would never be allowed to join a unit from another. It is the ally rules that allow such a list to be legal. So now that your list includes a detachment that is considered Battle Brothers, you may now have permission for your IC from one codex to join a unit from the other. Simply put, it is not simply that the Battle Brother rule allows you to treat allied units as "friendly", it is the existence of the rule in the first place that allows the IC to join such a unit. If at any point the BB rule ceases to apply\exist, then the IC could not join the unit in the first place.

So you are indeed asserting that allies by default are not friendly, and that it's the BB rules that make them friendly (and allow ICs to join).

And you have zero rules to back that up. Are you arguing for intent?

rigeld2 wrote:
So you are indeed asserting that allies by default are not friendly, and that it's the BB rules that make them friendly (and allow ICs to join).

And you have zero rules to back that up. Are you arguing for intent?

I am asserting that allies, by default, do not exist, and that its the BB rules that make them friendly (and allow ICs to join). I am also looking at the same rules you are for backing up my assertion.

I'm not sure why you hang on the idea of a default state. There is a general rule of allies, and a specific one of Battle Brothers. It is these two things together that allow an IC to join an allied unit, as there is no such thing as allies without the former, and they are not defined as friendly without the latter. No citation or argument of default state is necessary.

rigeld2 wrote:
So you are indeed asserting that allies by default are not friendly, and that it's the BB rules that make them friendly (and allow ICs to join).

Sure!

The only location that specifies wether or not an allied IC can join units from a different army and/or that they count as friendly units at all to each other for that matter is the allies ruleset in the first case and the battle brothers sub-section specifically in the latter case.

There is no default rule which allows ICs and units from two different armies to join each other.

Lets go at this another way.

You have a no allies army. How do you know (using rules) that all units in your army are friendly?

The SW Runepriest is still a SW Model, but is no longer a SW Unit when joined to the Tacs.

In a similar vein a FW team is still a FW Unit when either a) an ethereal, or b) a Farseer joins the unit. It can therefore still have a Fireblade join the unit legally.

ICs joining a unit retain all their special rules, stats, and wargear.

This is how the IC rules work.

And while the 1 bullet point does say that "not even Battle Brothers can embark on allied transports"; you have to take that in the context of the paragraph, whose first sentence tells you that BB are Friendly units.

An IC that joins the unit becomes a part of that unit with granted allowances to leave it again; and thus ceases to be a unit in and of itself.

Kommissar Kel wrote: An IC that joins the unit becomes a part of that unit with granted allowances to leave it again; and thus ceases to be a unit in and of itself.

While it may cease to be a unit in it's own right. (which is debatable given how many different examples there are referring to ICs as exactly that within the context of one rule or another) that doesn't matter. At no point does it ever cease to be a 'battle brother' and therefor at no point does it stop being effected by that ruleset.

Why on earth would it matter wether or not it's a discrete unit for the purposes of applying the battle brother rules?

rigeld2 wrote:
Lets go at this another way.

You have a no allies army. How do you know (using rules) that all units in your army are friendly?

I think I see where you are going with this. You want to point out that it is implied that models in your own list are friendly. I'm sure you'll quote it if it's in there, but I'll guess there is no explicit rule stating it. In which case your argument is as good as mine.

 Neorealist wrote:

Kommissar Kel wrote: An IC that joins the unit becomes a part of that unit with granted allowances to leave it again; and thus ceases to be a unit in and of itself.

While it may cease to be a unit in it's own right. (which is debatable given how many different examples there are referring to ICs as exactly that within the context of one rule or another) that doesn't matter. At no point does it ever cease to be a 'battle brother' and therefor at no point does it stop being effected by that ruleset.

Why on earth would it matter wether or not it's a discrete unit for the purposes of applying the battle brother rules?

What is a Battle Brother?

Can you find the definition?

I can give you a hint: its in the same paragraph as the bullet point.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 Neorealist wrote:

Kommissar Kel wrote: An IC that joins the unit becomes a part of that unit with granted allowances to leave it again; and thus ceases to be a unit in and of itself.

While it may cease to be a unit in it's own right. (which is debatable given how many different examples there are referring to ICs as exactly that within the context of one rule or another) that doesn't matter. At no point does it ever cease to be a 'battle brother' and therefor at no point does it stop being effected by that ruleset.

Why on earth would it matter wether or not it's a discrete unit for the purposes of applying the battle brother rules?

What is a Battle Brother?

Can you find the definition?

I can give you a hint: its in the same paragraph as the bullet point.

A Battle Brother is a member of an allied detachment that is treated as a "friendly unit"

Now you tell me how the IC rule ever stops the above from being true? You have an IC join an allied unit, something allowed only by the BB rule, and then you say he ceases to be an allied unit and becomes part of the unit. At that moment, if he does in fact cease to be a Battle Brother, then he also loses the ability to join the unit in the first place. There is a big difference between "is a friendly unit" and "treated as a friendly unit". The definition of Battle Brother is not the first sentence of the rule, but rather the entire paragraph taken as a whole. The third bullet point applies in all cases, to all models of one detachment attempting to embark on a transport from another. The IC rule does not override this.

rigeld2 wrote:You have a no allies army. How do you know (using rules) that all units in your army are friendly?

Here you go:

A) (page 109 - Primary Detachments) "...It dictates the units you can take in the main body of your army. All of the units in your primary detachment must be chosen from the same codex...
B) (page 121 - Deploy Forces) "...Armies are placed within the owning player's deployment zone..."
C) (page 8 - Controlling Player vs Opposing Player) "...The controlling player is always the player who 'owns' the model in question...
D) (page 8 - Line Of Sight) "...line of sight determines what a model can 'see'... ...line of sight literally represents your warriors' view of the enemy - they must be able to see their foes through, under or over the battlefield terrain and other models (whether friendly or enemy)....


By the Transitive Property:
Units selected from a single codex = Primary Detachment
Units selected from a single codex = Army (when ignoring the allies rules)
Army = 'Objects' which are placed in the owning players deployment zone
'Objects' which are placed in the owning players deployment zone = Models owned by the controlling player
Models owned by the controlling player = 'not' enemy models or battlefield terrain
'not' enemy models or battlefield terrain = friendly models

Therefore
Primary Detachment (when ignoring the allies rules) = Friendly models

Kommissar Kel wrote:
What is a Battle Brother?

Can you find the definition?

I can give you a hint: its in the same paragraph as the bullet point.

This is what battle brothers are: (page 109 - Allied Detachment) "...units in the allied detachment must be chosen from the same codex, and this must be a different codex to the one used for the primary detachment..."

it is further more explicitly defined in the allies section with a couple of permissions and an exception but at it's most fundamental? a battle brother is one possible type of allied detachment

You'll note it is 'not' even on the same page, let alone the same paragraph as you'd presume.

 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 +.

rigeld2 wrote:
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.

If battle brother status did not exist, all allies would be enemy units, that is clear and yet you say its untrue!
I must be lying again!

What leap?

Without the allies rules (or house rules), that model cannot join one of my units.

P112, allies of convenience, "enemy units" and "cannot be joined by allied ic's."

Its really quite simple, for allies to exist, you need the allies rules.
In rule terms, you need the battle brothers rules to state that an allied unit is a friendly unit.
You need 112 AND 39.
Your claim is groundless.

rigeld2 wrote:
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.

You have not "corrected" me, you have failed to change my mind, two very different things.

It seems yet again a little of your character is leaking onto these pages. I am beginning to believe this is what you would do in these circumstances you invent, nothing to do with me at all.

 fuusa wrote:
[Then all of the rules for my space wolf rune priest will be conveniently found in the space marine codex then.
Absurd.

rigeld2 wrote:
No, that's not what I said nor what you asked. Don't put words in my mouth please.

So, let me get this straight.
According to you, a unit that consists of a (space wolf) rune priest and (ultramarine) tacticals, is not a unit comprised of battle brothers, its a unit of ultra marines???
That is what you said, isn't it?

Where are the rules for ultramarines and where are the rules for space wolves?
Answer = in 2 different codexes.

Without the allies rules, there would be no-unit like that, p39 can't justify it. You say it can, but that's demonstrably inaccurate.
The existence of allies and battle brother status allows it.

Are you really claiming that this unit, does not contain battle brothers?
Are ultramarines and space wolves not battle brothers?

 Neorealist wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:You have a no allies army. How do you know (using rules) that all units in your army are friendly?

Here you go:

A) (page 109 - Primary Detachments) "...It dictates the units you can take in the main body of your army. All of the units in your primary detachment must be chosen from the same codex...[/color]
B) (page 121 - Deploy Forces) "...Armies are placed within the owning player's deployment zone..."[/color]
C) (page 8 - Controlling Player vs Opposing Player) "...The controlling player is always the player who 'owns' the model in question...[/color]
D) (page 8 - Line Of Sight) "...line of sight determines what a model can 'see'... ...line of sight literally represents your warriors' view of the enemy - they must be able to see their foes through, under or over the battlefield terrain and other models (whether friendly or enemy)....[/color]


By the Transitive Property:
Units selected from a single codex = Primary Detachment
Units selected from a single codex = Army (when ignoring the allies rules)
Army = 'Objects' which are placed in the owning players deployment zone
'Objects' which are placed in the owning players deployment zone = Models owned by the controlling player
Models owned by the controlling player = 'not' enemy models or battlefield terrain
'not' enemy models or battlefield terrain = friendly models

Therefore
Primary Detachment (when ignoring the allies rules) = Friendly models

Now - add allies into that.
Are allies objects placed in your deployment zone?
Are they owned by the controlling player?
Are they "not enemy models or battlefield terrain"?

This is what battle brothers are: (page 109 - Allied Detachment) "...units in the allied detachment must be chosen from the same codex, and this must be a different codex to the one used for the primary detachment..."[/color]

it is further more explicitly defined in the allies section with a couple of permissions and an exception but at it's most fundamental? a battle brother is one possible type of allied detachment

You'll note it is 'not' even on the same page, let alone the same paragraph as you'd presume.

That's a cool definition. It means literally nothing, but it's nice.
Hint: what game effect does the rule you quoted have?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CanisLupus518 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Lets go at this another way.

You have a no allies army. How do you know (using rules) that all units in your army are friendly?

I think I see where you are going with this. You want to point out that it is implied that models in your own list are friendly. I'm sure you'll quote it if it's in there, but I'll guess there is no explicit rule stating it. In which case your argument is as good as mine.

Neo proved it well enough. Perhaps you'd like to argue with his post?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 fuusa wrote:

If battle brother status did not exist, all allies would be enemy units, that is clear and yet you say its untrue!

Neorealist proved it wrong.

Without the allies rules (or house rules), that model cannot join one of my units.

P112, allies of convenience, "enemy units" and "cannot be joined by allied ic's."

It's almost like that's a redundant rule because AoC are enemy units (with some exceptions). Oh, that's exactly the case.

Its really quite simple, for allies to exist, you need the allies rules.
In rule terms, you need the battle brothers rules to state that an allied unit is a friendly unit.
You need 112 AND 39.
Your claim is groundless.

Proven incorrect. Models which are owned by the controlling player are friendly models.

rigeld2 wrote:
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.

You have not "corrected" me, you have failed to change my mind, two very different things.

No - you asserted a fact (that I was half quoting a rule). I corrected you - I was and did not, and you did not prove I was. I don't care that you still disagree with me, I have not misquoted a rule. Your impugning my integrity and I won't have that.

It seems yet again a little of your character is leaking onto these pages. I am beginning to believe this is what you would do in these circumstances you invent, nothing to do with me at all.

What?

According to you, a unit that consists of a (space wolf) rune priest and (ultramarine) tacticals, is not a unit comprised of battle brothers, its a unit of ultra marines???
That is what you said, isn't it?

Yes.

Where are the rules for ultramarines and where are the rules for space wolves?
Answer = in 2 different codexes.

Irrelevant.

Without the allies rules, there would be no-unit like that, p39 can't justify it. You say it can, but that's demonstrably inaccurate.
The existence of allies and battle brother status allows it.

Proven incorrect.

Are you really claiming that this unit, does not contain battle brothers?
Are ultramarines and space wolves not battle brothers?

They are. That's irrelevant to the question at hand however.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 Neorealist wrote:

Kommissar Kel wrote: An IC that joins the unit becomes a part of that unit with granted allowances to leave it again; and thus ceases to be a unit in and of itself.

While it may cease to be a unit in it's own right. (which is debatable given how many different examples there are referring to ICs as exactly that within the context of one rule or another) that doesn't matter. At no point does it ever cease to be a 'battle brother' and therefor at no point does it stop being effected by that ruleset.

Why on earth would it matter wether or not it's a discrete unit for the purposes of applying the battle brother rules?

What is a Battle Brother?

Can you find the definition?

I can give you a hint: its in the same paragraph as the bullet point.

It is also a level of alliance,

rigeld2 wrote:Now - add allies into that.
Are allies objects placed in your deployment zone?
Are they owned by the controlling player?
Are they "not enemy models or battlefield terrain"?

Figured you'd say that. Adding the text from the Allied Detachment section into the above but ignoring the battle brother rules leaves you with two (or more) distinct armies; with individual models in each army only counting as friendly to other models within that Detachment.

You are advised to review the Allies matrix and rules: "...Bear in mind that some combinations of armies and allies are more effective (and more eagerly entered into) than others - this is covered in detail later in the section (see page 112)..." in order to determine how they actually interact.

rigeld2 wrote:

That's a cool definition. It means literally nothing, but it's nice.
Hint: what game effect does the rule you quoted have?

Make up your mind (see below).

 fuusa wrote:

If battle brother status did not exist, all allies would be enemy units, that is clear and yet you say its untrue!

rigeld2 wrote:
Neorealist proved it wrong.

Nope and you either are horribly mistaken to think that, or its a dishonest post.
If I were to adopt one of your character traits here, I (you) would ask, "which one is correct?"

If you mean this ...

 Neorealist wrote:

Therefore
Primary Detachment (when ignoring the allies rules) = Friendly models

That was his conclusion, please if you reply to this, understand that it is true what he said and that what he said is Primary Detachment (when ignoring the allies rules) = Friendly models.

Once again for clarity, Primary Detachment [(when ignoring the allies rules)= Friendly models

 fuusa wrote:
Without the allies rules (or house rules), that model cannot join one of my units.

P112, allies of convenience, "enemy units" and "cannot be joined by allied ic's."

rigeld2 wrote:
It's almost like that's a redundant rule because AoC are enemy units (with some exceptions). Oh, that's exactly the case.

You said that p112 did not prevent allied ic's joining primary units, that is proof of your error.

 fuusa wrote:
Its really quite simple, for allies to exist, you need the allies rules.
In rule terms, you need the battle brothers rules to state that an allied unit is a friendly unit.
You need 112 AND 39.
Your claim is groundless.

rigeld2 wrote:
Proven incorrect. Models which are owned by the controlling player are friendly models.

Yet again, you are typing half truths.

I quoted his conclusion above, which you are now trying to use either wrongly or dishonestly.

Without the allies rules, please prove to me how a model is owned by the controlling player and therefore a friendly model (in rules context) when it is from a different codex.
How is a model chosen from a different codex, part of your army???

[

rigeld2 wrote:
Your impugning my integrity and I won't have that.

Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

I am here with an open mind, you are damaging your own integrity.

 fuusa wrote:
According to you, a unit that consists of a (space wolf) rune priest and (ultramarine) tacticals, is not a unit comprised of battle brothers, its a unit of ultra marines???
That is what you said, isn't it?

rigeld2 wrote:
Yes.

Ok, then, I'm playing you, you deploy the tacticals in a rhino along with the rune priest (cue objection, but for arguments sake).
Later, I forget what's in the box and ask you.
If you reply "A unit of ultramarines."

Are you cheating or just wrong (that's you again!)?

 fuusa wrote:
Where are the rules for ultramarines and where are the rules for space wolves?
Answer = in 2 different codexes.
[

rigeld2 wrote:
Irrelevant.

So, without the allies rules, this would be an illegal unit. It would be part of an illegal army.
But, it seems in your mind, that's irrelevant.

 fuusa wrote:
Are you really claiming that this unit, does not contain battle brothers?
Are ultramarines and space wolves not battle brothers?

rigeld2 wrote:
They are. That's irrelevant to the question at hand however.

This is a reeeeaaaallly moment of jim carrey proportions.

CanisLupus518 wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 Neorealist wrote:

Kommissar Kel wrote: An IC that joins the unit becomes a part of that unit with granted allowances to leave it again; and thus ceases to be a unit in and of itself.

While it may cease to be a unit in it's own right. (which is debatable given how many different examples there are referring to ICs as exactly that within the context of one rule or another) that doesn't matter. At no point does it ever cease to be a 'battle brother' and therefor at no point does it stop being effected by that ruleset.

Why on earth would it matter wether or not it's a discrete unit for the purposes of applying the battle brother rules?

What is a Battle Brother?

Can you find the definition?

I can give you a hint: its in the same paragraph as the bullet point.

A Battle Brother is a member of an allied detachment that is treated as a "friendly unit"

Now you tell me how the IC rule ever stops the above from being true? You have an IC join an allied unit, something allowed only by the BB rule, and then you say he ceases to be an allied unit and becomes part of the unit. At that moment, if he does in fact cease to be a Battle Brother, then he also loses the ability to join the unit in the first place. There is a big difference between "is a friendly unit" and "treated as a friendly unit". The definition of Battle Brother is not the first sentence of the rule, but rather the entire paragraph taken as a whole. The third bullet point applies in all cases, to all models of one detachment attempting to embark on a transport from another. The IC rule does not override this.

The BB rules allow for joining, when the IC joins he is a battle brother and thus allowed. Once joined, he is no longer a battle brother because he is joined(and has become part of the unit for all rules purposes). This creates no issue because he is now a part of the unit(not continuously trying to join it) and may leave because the IC rules allow him to leave the unit he is in.

Reaper and Neorealist; the level of alliance is a designation; a term applied through the interaction of 2 entities, it is not in any way a definition of the designation. The definition is in the Battle brothers rules and is a Friendly unit. If you do not fit the definition you are no longer that thing.

Kommissar Kel wrote:The BB rules allow for joining, when the IC joins he is a battle brother and thus allowed. Once joined, he is no longer a battle brother because he is joined(and has become part of the unit for all rules purposes). This creates no issue because he is now a part of the unit(not continuously trying to join it) and may leave because the IC rules allow him to leave the unit he is in.

Reaper and Neorealist; the level of alliance is a designation; a term applied through the interaction of 2 entities, it is not in any way a definition of the designation. The definition is in the Battle brothers rules and is a Friendly unit. If you do not fit the definition you are no longer that thing.

If the IC is no longer a battle brother once it is joined to the unit, what you have at that precise moment is models from two different armies closer than 2 inches from each other that no longer have permission to be joined in a single unit at all.

You seem to be handwaving away the fact that the only thing giving permission for that to occur 'is' those rules that you say no longer apply once it is in a unit.

no, you don't.

You have a model from your army joined to your squad.

The rule that permits him to(adverb) join(modified Verb) does not need to be there when he is already joined.

But that rule is what allows him to be a part of your army. Once that rule is gone, he doesn't have permission to be a part of your army anymore. If he doesn't have permission to be a part of your army, he doesn't have permission to be in one of your army's units.

Does it mean that if my rune priest joined a BA tac squad, he can now benefit from a sanguinary priest and gains FC and FNP? It seems legal because according to this logic now he is part of a BA unit, no longer a BB IC, and sanguinary priest does affect BA unit.

Page 52 – Sanguinary Novitiate, Blood Chalice.
Change this entry to read: “All friendly units chosen from
Code x: Blood Angels within 6" of the Sanguinary Novitiate are
subject to the Furious Charge and Feel No Pain special rules”.

 Neorealist wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Now - add allies into that.
Are allies objects placed in your deployment zone?
Are they owned by the controlling player?
Are they "not enemy models or battlefield terrain"?

Figured you'd say that. Adding the text from the Allied Detachment section into the above but ignoring the battle brother rules leaves you with two (or more) distinct armies; with individual models in each army only counting as friendly to other models within that Detachment.

You are advised to review the Allies matrix and rules: "...Bear in mind that some combinations of armies and allies are more effective (and more eagerly entered into) than others - this is covered in detail later in the section (see page 112)..."[/color] in order to determine how they actually interact.

How does your rules quote support your assertion? I'm not seeing it.

I like how his got all the way onto faeit 212

http://natfka.blogspot.com/2013/09/independent-characters-embarking-into.html?m=1

Keep up the debate guys we got people on both sides

Jefffar wrote:
But that rule is what allows him to be a part of your army. Once that rule is gone, he doesn't have permission to be a part of your army anymore. If he doesn't have permission to be a part of your army, he doesn't have permission to be in one of your army's units.

You buy your army at list creation; Any IC ceases to be a separate unit when joined just like Split-off Wolf Guard or Necron royal court were purchased and are no longer a part of/ a unit at all; but still take up an FOC slot in your army(well, the necron royal court never take up a slot).

Madcamel: yes, because he is a member of a unit chosen from Codex:BA for all rules purposes.

 A GumyBear wrote:
I like how his got all the way onto faeit 212

http://natfka.blogspot.com/2013/09/independent-characters-embarking-into.html?m=1

Keep up the debate guys we got people on both sides

No, I'm pretty close to dropping it due to being insulted repeatedly and misrepresented.

All of the people posting on this thread need to understand that rigeld and the people supporting his view are not fans of this rule. We don't want to shove our IC's in transports or any of that, we want to illustrate an INCONSISTENCY in the rules which allows a loophole, not a definitive rule saying you should do it.

It shows very clearly that the independent character (an allied character attached to the unit) counts as part of the unit for ALL rules purposes. He ceases to be a friendly unit, and become PART OF THE UNIT FOR ALL RULES PURPOSES, with emphasis on the all. You need to recognize this full chain of rules permitting the IC to BECOME PART OF THE UNIT FOR ALL RULES PURPOSES, which makes him no longer an allied unit, which means "Battle Brother" is irrelevant, it has no place to apply. The rules look at the unit and see it as a Space Marine unit, so the Space Marine unit can get in the Space Marine transport. This was obviously not RAI, I am not arguing that it should be played, I don't think it should, however, under the conditions stated above, RAW it is possible.

Please let me know exactly what I am ignoring, if you think that I am.


I also see that people on the side of allowing it by RAW are making huge and complicated rules that form a path to allowance. With a few exceptions, many people on Faeit 212 and here just say "NO THEY ARE BATTLE BROTHERS STILLLLLL". That argument is not valid because the character is part of the unit from Codex:X for all rules purposes.