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.

Oh and @OP

Before you dismiss this as irrelevant to the subject again I'll point out that it is in direct conflict with this part your original claim.

"- At this point the [independent character] +[unit] exists as unit. The independent character is subsumed in the sub universe of the unit and does not exist as a whole entity, but only as a subpart of the bigger unit. It is legal for unit to be embarked upon/embark the transport vehicle. "

As the unit as a whole is both army types it cannot therefore be embarked on either's transports.

That is, unless you want to argue that 'source codex' is not a characteristic that models posses...

rigeld2 wrote:

 WarOne wrote:
I believe we had an exhaustive, constructive debate about the subject am I agree that the RAW interpretation would probably not work with a RAI ruling so to that point we can shift the debate to another area.

Your interpretation has no basis in rules and cannot be considered RAW.

And in summation, I do appreciate your critique on my interpretation.

 Abandon wrote:
That is, unless you want to argue that 'source codex' is not a characteristic that models posses...

Since that's a fact I'm not sure what your point is..,

 Abandon wrote:
Oh and @OP

Before you dismiss this as irrelevant to the subject again I'll point out that it is in direct conflict with this part your original claim.

"- At this point the [independent character] +[unit] exists as unit. The independent character is subsumed in the sub universe of the unit and does not exist as a whole entity, but only as a subpart of the bigger unit. It is legal for unit to be embarked upon/embark the transport vehicle. "

As the unit as a whole is both army types it cannot therefore be embarked on either's transports.

That is, unless you want to argue that 'source codex' is not a characteristic that models posses...

Actually I will dismiss people who reply without reading, you did this when I originally responded and it seems you have not improved your habits since. And yes, I am interested in the rules debate, if you think otherwise you really need to read what is in front of you, not what you assume is in front of you. Rehashing what other people have said(as you have been doing repeatedly now) is not a rules debate, it is kindergarden arguing "If I say it one more time then the other kid I will have won the argument", please stop doing this so the rest of us can actually get on with the discussion.

As I have said before(go read the previous post if that isn't too daunting a task for you) I have put out my thoughts, got some good responses to it, rephrased some parts to be in correct wording and seen the argument from both RAW and RAI. I have my answers and I am not going to repeat it here as it has been posted earlier, go put in some effort for a change. And if you still don't get the rules, well...enjoy your game while the rest of us go play actual warhammer 40.000

If you think this is harsh, it is also true. I am not interested in mudflinging and hope you can behave properly from now on, nobody likes a troll. I await your actual and original own reply to the rules debate eagerly and if this is not an acceptable option for you please consider my further lack of response to your posts as evidence that you are truly the emperor's gift to mankind in whatever universe you may be existing and greetings from planet earth.

Edit: saw the reply. You have clearly made your decision.

rigeld2 wrote:
Edit: never mind, not worth it.
Welcome to ignore. Thanks for trolling.

What he said, may you live in interesting times

rigeld2 wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
I've cited rules for my arguments though none have been asked for as the rules surrounding this issue are well known by the relevant parties.

You've cited rules. They don't actually support your argument.

Not as you read them I'm sure.

rigeld2 wrote:

Abandon wrote:
"In most cases, it will be fairly obvious which unit type category a model falls into, but as unit type is essentially an extension of the characteristic profile, you'll be able to find that information in the relevant codex." page 44, BRB (emphasis mine)

So as far as we can tell a unit by itself is only defined essentially as a group of models. Not a group belonging to a specific codex, not of a specific characteristic, etc. So a unit of Space Marines is such not by default or because you purchased the unit that way but because it contains Space Marines. In light of that fact a unit that contains more than just Space Marines will be more than just a unit of Space Marines.

As far as the rules for embarking are concerned that's an irrelevant distinction.

Except that if a unit is both Tau and SM it would then be treated as BB to both and not allowed on any transport.

rigeld2 wrote:

Abandon wrote:
"While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes"

Here it is made clear the IC is as much a part of the unit as every other member of that unit and therefore it's own characteristics are also taken into consideration for the unit as a whole just like every other models characteristics in the unit.

Relevancy? Codex membership isn't a characteristic.

So your claiming that models don't have codex affiliations? Really? I can work with that but I want to be clear on your statement here.

rigeld2 wrote:

I'll add another citation though I really did not think it necessary "Independent Characters can join other units." page 39, BRB

IC's join units. They do not disappear into them. They are not subsumed or absorbed into them. They are joined which signifies nothing more than an attachment, a connection or link causing them to be considered one unit instead of two. Joining is a two way relationship indicating each side is attached to the other. How you may have twisted this around to mean something other than two entities being connected together to form a new whole is unclear to me.

Have I said it isn't a two way relationship?
Have you cited what rule keeps him being a unit? No? So what is your actual point?

You views indicate that you do not treat the (IC) + (Other unit) reaationship as a simple joining but rather as the IC being absorbed into the other unit and having it's characteristics obscured within it.

Your question makes no sense, an IC is always a member of unit, even when it is the only member.

I highly doubt you cannot see my point so I take this as an attempt, pure in its intent, to dismiss my comments as pointless without actually making an argument. I will ignore this faux pas and assume you have no real argument.

Edit: never mind, not worth it.
Welcome to ignore. Thanks for trolling.

 Xarin wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
Oh and @OP

Before you dismiss this as irrelevant to the subject again I'll point out that it is in direct conflict with this part your original claim.

"- At this point the [independent character] +[unit] exists as unit. The independent character is subsumed in the sub universe of the unit and does not exist as a whole entity, but only as a subpart of the bigger unit. It is legal for unit to be embarked upon/embark the transport vehicle. "

As the unit as a whole is both army types it cannot therefore be embarked on either's transports.

That is, unless you want to argue that 'source codex' is not a characteristic that models posses...

Actually I will dismiss people who reply without reading, you did this when I originally responded and it seems you have not improved your habits since. And yes, I am interested in the rules debate, if you think otherwise you really need to read what is in front of you, not what you assume is in front of you. Rehashing what other people have said(as you have been doing repeatedly now) is not a rules debate, it is kindergarden arguing "If I say it one more time then the other kid I will have won the argument", please stop doing this so the rest of us can actually get on with the discussion.

As I have said before(go read the previous post if that isn't too daunting a task for you) I have put out my thoughts, got some good responses to it, rephrased some parts to be in correct wording and seen the argument from both RAW and RAI. I have my answers and I am not going to repeat it here as it has been posted earlier, go put in some effort for a change. And if you still don't get the rules, well...enjoy your game while the rest of us go play actual warhammer 40.000

If you think this is harsh, it is also true. I am not interested in mudflinging and hope you can behave properly from now on, nobody likes a troll. I await your actual and original own reply to the rules debate eagerly and if this is not an acceptable option for you please consider my further lack of response to your posts as evidence that you are truly the emperor's gift to mankind in whatever universe you may be existing and greetings from planet earth.

I have not flung any 'mud' in your thread nor do I wish to. I also really don't care about harsh sounding words though I do feel it is not justified. Especially since I indeed did read the entire thread before commenting and have continued to keep up with it.

-I noted a lack of rules support for you counter arguments pertaining to my points so I went ahead a made them and referenced the proper BRB passages to my support my viewpoint.
-You immediately (you've said almost nothing else to me) accused me of not having read the thread, polluting an otherwise decent thread with irrelevant arguments and now trolling.
-I assume you reasoned that if I had read your posts I would agree with your counter-arguments and say nothing about it but this is not the case and I have continually put forth my argument with rules backing only to find non-rule based dismissal and 'we already cover that' as a reply.
-I attempted to demonstrate that you had not made a rules based argument sufficient to counter those points (I did not want encourage obstinacy by criticizing your argument as much as support my own)
-"emperor's gift to mankind"? I have no idea where you get this from. Do my words com across as arrogant or elitist? If so, that is not my intent. I am however, confident in my viewpoint and will express it as such.
-I await your rules based thoughts on why units are static and unchanging as that is the area I call into question.

 Xarin wrote:
actually it says Unit type: infantry. What this unit consists of is described in the codex entry. When you field this entry in your armylist you are fielding 1 unit with a specified type, stats, members, wargear and optional wargear. It is easier to refer to this unit by the name described in the codex, but the actual name does not matter, you could call your unit banana if you want to as long as it's clear what's in it.
A unit of space marines consists of space marines models, unit type infantry, has x models with y wargear and x special rules, with possibly z upgrades
and independent character consists of an independent character model, unit type infantry(character), has 1 model with y wargear and x special rules, with possibly z special upgrades

When an independent character joins another unit he becomes part of that unit as outlined by the independent character rules. Part of the unit does not create a new unit, just a new situation for the existing unit. This new unit has the same qualities as before, only now with the IC added to its roster and models. it is simply a new situation for an old unit, not a whole new unit(in which case your argument would be entirely valid). They are still part of the same detachment as they were before, otherwise they would be an enemy unit to all other units around them that were friendly before the merger. Not to mention an illegal unit as they are on the table without being part of an armylist or scenariorule

Specifically your claims in this post. So far you have only refereed to the BRB page 3 to support this but I do not anything even close in that section to covering all of the claims here.

Oh, also if you could point out where you feel I was 'flinging mud' I'd appreciate it. TY.

Abandon, when did anyone say units don't have a codex affiliation? The claim is that codex affiliation is not a characteristic. Which is true, unless you can cite a rule otherwise?

As above - Abandon, your rules argument fails because you have decided "space marine" is a characteristic, or even unit type, it is neither, as the rule book gives an exhaustive description of these. Hence, your quotes ARE IRRELEVANT.

I ask you to point at the space marine unit, for a rules purpose. Thus the Tau IC is a space marine, as this is a rules purpose.

As battle brothers are defined as being units, and we know there is only a SM unit, and the Tau IC unit does not exist - unless you have a chronic inability to understand the plural used on page three, you understand there is no permission to be a member if two units at once - then the SM Unit can embark on their transport.

He's saying there are no rules that say 'Codex' is set by unit, he is saying 'Codex' the unit is from, is set by the models in the unit. It is one unit. SM unit doesn't have permission to embark - this doesn't exist in the rules. A unit has permission to embark, if it's models do.

'Space Marine' ect in codex's and BRB is a term used to describe models, units and detachment from that 'army'. There is nothing actually linking it to unit and unit only designation.


The best link is 'units' are chosen for the FOC, but during play how do we know if any of this matters? Considering once a IC is part of the unit, the 'unit' of centurions' is no longer is as a 'unit of centurions' is defined by the rules, a 'unit of centurions' is defined as X to X number of centurion models, the models in the unit is what determines what the unit 'IS', even for codex rules.


BRB definition of what a unit is for the rules contained in the BRB is a group of models.

 Nem wrote:
He's saying there are no rules that say 'Codex' is set by unit, he is saying 'Codex' the unit is from, is set by the models in the unit. It is one unit. SM unit doesn't have permission to embark - this doesn't exist in the rules. A unit has permission to embark, if it's models do.

'Space Marine' ect in codex's and BRB is a term used to describe models, units and detachment from that 'army'. There is nothing actually linking it to unit and unit only designation.

Is the embarkation restriction on a unit or model? If the thing it's restricting doesn't exist, how are you applying it?

Nem - and BB definition is a UNIT, not a model. The Tau IC is not a unit, therefore no longer a BB, and so can embark

To disagree you have to prove BB is by model - when the proof has already benn given otherwise - or prove the ICZ unit still exists. To do that you have to show permission to be a member of more thn one unit, and page three gives no such permission

nosferatu1001 wrote:
As above - Abandon, your rules argument fails because you have decided "space marine" is a characteristic, or even unit type, it is neither, as the rule book gives an exhaustive description of these. Hence, your quotes ARE IRRELEVANT.

I ask you to point at the space marine unit, for a rules purpose. Thus the Tau IC is a space marine, as this is a rules purpose.

As battle brothers are defined as being units, and we know there is only a SM unit, and the Tau IC unit does not exist - unless you have a chronic inability to understand the plural used on page three, you understand there is no permission to be a member if two units at once - then the SM Unit can embark on their transport.

I'm curious about what implications this has elsewhere though (if true, I'm not entirely convinced one way or another). For example: I have Hatred: SM, but not Hatred: Tau. Am I able to benefit from Hatred against the Tau Commander while he is in the "SM" unit? While in a Challenge? Is the "SM" unit + Tau Commander a "...units taken from the following codexes:..." (lists SM codexes)?

Yes and yes. For rules purposes he is a member of the unit. That is a space marine unit.

the arguement for ignoring the BRB rules, that no BB can enter allied transports, relies on this logic train.


1. use the BB rule to join an IC from another codex to a unit from another

2. ignore the BB rule, and throw them into an allied transport.



being PART of a unit, does not mean you lose any special rules that were already on your IC, you dont lose fearless, bulky, ect, and you most certainly do not lose the BB rule

I'm not ignoring anything. Sayin so proves you refuse to read the rules or the thread.

Fearless, Bulky, etc are tied to the model, not the unit. Useless example is useless.
I've proven that an IC that joins a unit is no longer a BB.
You're unable to cite any actual rules that disagree with that and have resorted to straw man arguments and trolling. Well done.

rigeld2 wrote:

I've proven that an IC that joins a unit is no longer a BB.

right, so now you have joined an IC to a cross codex unit, using the BB rule, you assert the BB rule now goes away.

you now have a cross codex IC in a unit, without the BB rule, which is illegal.

again, you apply the BB rules where you see fit, and ignore them as you see fit.

nothing you have cited is actual proof that the specific rule in the BRB pg 112 "note, not even BB's cannot enter allied transports" is overridden. the BRB refers to BB's, you assert without proof, that the BRB is wrong.

your continued lack of any retorts other then "you cant read" "you are trolling" break the forums tenants, and are insulting.

I have CONTINUALLY cited the rule that applies, pg 112, and you have not once had actual RAW backing to overide it.

No, BB are defined as units. You would know this if you had read the thread. This has been pointed out quite a lot

BB are not defined as units... BB are TREATED as friendly units... literally two sentences after the BRB tells you to treat them as friendly units, it tells you they are not allowed in allied transports.

If the BRB didnt have an EXPLICIT and SPECIFIC restriction on BB's entering allied transports, you would be correct.

but since there most certainly IS a restriction on BB's, by name, entering transports, they cannot do so.

Maybe you should read the BRB more, and the internet forums (not official proof) less.


nothing that has been written by random internet people over rides pg 112, wrtitten by GW, that specifically restricts BBs from entering allied transports.

 easysauce wrote:
the specific rule in the BRB pg 112 "note, not even BB's cannot enter allied transports"

I do agree that phrase does not state "unit" and can cover Models & Units both.
The only point against such is the phrase above: "This means, for example, that BB:" where you could say examples don't count, but then you'd actually discard all 3 bullet points...

Or: i thought this thread was solved

that's the thing, without that specific restriction on BB's they would be allowed in transports just fine.

but, whatever a BB is, friendlyunit/model/potatoe, it, by name, cannot go into an allied transport, by RAW. weather its a unit or not, does not matter. It is in fact a BB, it must still be a BB to be in a allied unit as an IC, so the restrictions on BB must still apply.


as it stands, the only way around the BB rule, is to, as rigel and nos have stated, ignore the BB rule itself, by claiming a joined IC is no longer a BB at all. Which means he cannot be in the unit in the first place.

Nem wrote:He's saying there are no rules that say 'Codex' is set by unit, he is saying 'Codex' the unit is from, is set by the models in the unit. It is one unit. SM unit doesn't have permission to embark - this doesn't exist in the rules. A unit has permission to embark, if it's models do.

'Space Marine' ect in codex's and BRB is a term used to describe models, units and detachment from that 'army'. There is nothing actually linking it to unit and unit only designation.


The best link is 'units' are chosen for the FOC, but during play how do we know if any of this matters? Considering once a IC is part of the unit, the 'unit' of centurions' is no longer is as a 'unit of centurions' is defined by the rules, a 'unit of centurions' is defined as X to X number of centurion models, the models in the unit is what determines what the unit 'IS', even for codex rules.


BRB definition of what a unit is for the rules contained in the BRB is a group of models.

Ty for seeing my point though it seems many are very resistant to the idea.

nosferatu1001 wrote:As above - Abandon, your rules argument fails because you have decided "space marine" is a characteristic, or even unit type, it is neither, as the rule book gives an exhaustive description of these. Hence, your quotes ARE IRRELEVANT.

I ask you to point at the space marine unit, for a rules purpose. Thus the Tau IC is a space marine, as this is a rules purpose.

As battle brothers are defined as being units, and we know there is only a SM unit, and the Tau IC unit does not exist - unless you have a chronic inability to understand the plural used on page three, you understand there is no permission to be a member if two units at once - then the SM Unit can embark on their transport.

Characteristic was perhaps a poor choice of words as the intended meaning was not the 40k specific definition of characteristic but rather the broader meaning of possessing a quality or trait.

As no rules have been cited as stating a unit, aside from its models, has a codex affiliation I maintain that they do not and that only models carry that 'trait'. I have stated my rules backing for this and if anyone would care to contest it please cite a rule for once that defines a unit a anything beyond a group of models.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Nem - and BB definition is a UNIT, not a model. The Tau IC is not a unit, therefore no longer a BB, and so can embark

To disagree you have to prove BB is by model - when the proof has already benn given otherwise - or prove the ICZ unit still exists. To do that you have to show permission to be a member of more thn one unit, and page three gives no such permission

... or show that the unit is both Tau and SM, which I have done without a rule based counter argument.

easysauce - more misrepresentation from you. Shocked

"as it stands, the only way around the BB rule, is to, as rigel and nos have stated, ignore the BB rule itself, by claiming a joined IC is no longer a BB at all. Which means he cannot be in the unit in the first place. "

No, you dont ignore the BB rule. The BB rule only applies to units, as has been proven, and once joined the Tau IC is no longer a different unit.

IDK. Is a IC a unit from an allied detachment regardless of what 'unit' he joins in game?

For example, the IC doesn't lose his Special Rules from his unit when joined to another unit, nor does he gain the 'units'. (Note; Based on reading newer codex's the Special rules are 'Unit' rules given to models for being in the unit, or being raken as part of that unit, and page 39 which states only SR's such as 'If one of the models in the unit has this rule...' are shared)
Killing a IC while part of a unit, IC 'Unit' still awards a VP.
Even when in a unit, he moves as his unit type rather than the prior 'units' unit type.
The IC 'unit' still goes towards counts of reserves even if he is in a unit.
Even when part of a unit, attacks are differentiated as were told to roll different colored dice for the character.
'Unit' as existed in the detachment structure the IC never loses, even when joined. Then we are back at what 'Part of a unit' actually means. Which 'unit' based rules do or do not apply.



Battle Brothers are friendly units. - I don't really see that as much of a definition. Other than the fact they are friendly, you still don't know what a BB is. They are friendly units of what? From an allied detachment. This would mean everything in that allied detachment carries the Battle Brother ‘statuses. (except fortifications?).

If you claim it is still a unit while joined, you arte happy with me shooting your IC directly?

There are exceptions, otherwise he is a normal member of the unit.

BB are friendly units from allied detachments. THere is nothing stating that individual MODELS are BB - just *units* of models. So once the IC unit goes (the only rules supported interpretation) there is no longer a BB there - as there is no BB unit, just a model.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
If you claim it is still a unit while joined, you arte happy with me shooting your IC directly?

There are exceptions, otherwise he is a normal member of the unit.

BB are friendly units from allied detachments. THere is nothing stating that individual MODELS are BB - just *units* of models. So once the IC unit goes (the only rules supported interpretation) there is no longer a BB there - as there is no BB unit, just a model.

Where does it say he is a normal member of the unit for these purposes? The problem is, the rules don't say that. He doesn't become part of the unit. He is not a normal member of the unit, he is simply part of the unit.

And another side is it doesn't say units of models. When referring to units, sometimes in the rules this means Models as part of a unit, sometimes it means the Unit (as a whole, with no model interactions), sometimes it means Unit at detachment.
For example how do we know BB's are friendly units means model interactions between armies are friendly? A grounding test happens for each hit the unit scores, but not hit for each model in the unit scores. If it's defined only as a unit then doesn't that mean only rules on a 'unit' level are applicable at all.

Only friendly while part of a unit - Maybe we can get some examples of other rules that work like that - between the unit and model interations. All I can see is rules attached to the IC ''unit'' remain unchanged, though he is targetted as part of the unit, shoots as part of the unit, charges as part of the unit, we know 'Part of a unit' means you can't shoot him because of the 'Characters' section gives further insight into of what 'part of a unit' might mean(Errr, page 63?).... using this extended to 'All rules purposes' then means no, you can't shoot him directly, though the ''unit'' part of the IC still remains in some way..

If the models do not hold the Alliance status, but knowing what to do with an Allied model is required, If he loses his rules for BB when not part of a full unit of 'BB's what is he? He loses the rule which says he is friendly? Then what? You have a model from an allied detachment you have no rules to tell you how they interact with your army at all.

I would add the argument that:

Depending on how far you insist that the IC is part of a unit for all rules and purposes, when is he not "simply another model in the unit"? (i believe you even stated as such)
If he is, then how is he even considered an IC and not "just another Marine" with a 3+ save and WS 4?
He needs to "stay" differentiated, and "keep" his own SRs, Characteristics, Weapons and BB status.
Dunno if we're on RaW or Rai, but this argument is Rai...

It states "units", with no qualifier. Page 3 is pretty clear on what a unit is. So it is your requirement to show that "BB" means "BB model", and not as the definition states, "unit"

An IC joined to a unit is certainly part of the unit; that is what joined means.

While joined to the unit he is friendly - agaiun, another rules purpose.

Seriously, page 39 is pretty cleaer on how you treat joined ICs.

Blacktalos - dont strawman and say they lose their special rules. A joined IC is NOT A BB because a BB is defined as a UNIT from another codex. While joined the Ic is NOT a unit from another codex.

Again: if youa re claiming you are still a unit while joined, please find permission to do so on page 3. If you cannot find it, your conjecture is wrong.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It states "units", with no qualifier. Page 3 is pretty clear on what a unit is. So it is your requirement to show that "BB" means "BB model", and not as the definition states, "unit"

An IC joined to a unit is certainly part of the unit; that is what joined means.

While joined to the unit he is friendly - agaiun, another rules purpose.

Seriously, page 39 is pretty cleaer on how you treat joined ICs.

Blacktalos - dont strawman and say they lose their special rules. A joined IC is NOT A BB because a BB is defined as a UNIT from another codex. While joined the Ic is NOT a unit from another codex.

Again: if youa re claiming you are still a unit while joined, please find permission to do so on page 3. If you cannot find it, your conjecture is wrong.

Maybe we can backtrack,

What constitutes a unit being a Battle Brother unit then? How do we know what a Battle Brother unit is.

When it is a unit from an allied detachment.

I can guess where you will try to go with this, but it doesnt alter that BB is defined at the unit, not model level. The only way to override that is to consider the IC not to be subsumed byt still its own unit (false) or to decidxe that "are you a space marine, for the rules purpose of embarking a transport" isnt a rules purpose.