Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

rigeld2 wrote:
Then you've failed to read. I'll post it - again. Third time this thread if I'm counting right.

No, you've failed to understand that I still haven't seen permission to remove Battle Brother. Haven't failed to read...and implying I have is a strawman comment to boost your ego. Be nice, don't post or be reported.

rigeld2 wrote:

Battle Brothers is defined as being a friendly unit.
An IC that joins a unit is no longer a unit on his own.
If something is not a unit, it cannot be a friendly unit.
Therefore if an IC joins a unit it cannot be a Battle Brother.

I see where the disconnect is between my understanding and yours, probably why you falsely think I didn't read due to your terrible ego.

It does say that a Battle Brother is a friendly unit. But I still don't see where you remove the Battle Brother when you move it from a friendly unit to be included with another unit.(A thumb is a finger, but a finger is not always a thumb idea...)

I see permission to count a Battle Brother as a Friendly Unit.
I see permission to change friendly unit to part of the unit.
I do not see permission to remove Battle Brother.

 Farseer Faenyin wrote:
I see permission to count a Battle Brother as a Friendly Unit.
I see permission to change friendly unit to part of the unit.
I do not see permission to remove Battle Brother.

Do you see permission to count a Battle Brother as anything but a friendly unit?
Do you see rules definitions applied to anything but Friendly Unit Battle Brothers?

The sentence before the bullet points means that they are literally tied to the fact that Battle Brothers are Friendly Units. ("This means, for example" - what is "This"? Oh, that Battle Brothers are 'friendly units')

There is no - zero, nada, none, literally cannot be - a restriction tied to a Battle Brother model with the rules as they are written.

rigeld2 wrote:

There is no - zero, nada, none, literally cannot be - a restriction tied to a Battle Brother model with the rules as they are written.

except pg 112 says there most certainly IS a restriction on BB's by name, not by unit or model, but by NAME... be it BB units, or models.

you keep ignoring that BY NAME BB's cannot enter allied transports.
pg 112 "note, not even BB:s can enter allied transports"


there is the restriction right there... its says BB's can join units, then says the same BB cannot enter transports. yet your argument is that BB can enter allied transports, because the BB rule "dissapears" because you say it does. the rules however, never say the BB rule goes away.

rigeld2 wrote:

The sentence before the bullet points means that they are literally tied to the fact that Battle Brothers are Friendly Units. ("This means, for example" - what is "This"? Oh, that Battle Brothers are 'friendly units')

right, so even when in a squad we treat them as friendly units, or is that another one of the rules we get to selectively ignore? cause now you have two units in a transports, or the BB stops being a unit, and is now no longer a BB, and therefore ILLEGALLY in an allied unit.

which is it? are they always units or not?


at NO point, do the rules say that something chosen from codex Y becomes something chosen from codex X... a BB is a BB, period.


counting as part of a unit, or as a friendly unit,

does not mean you count as part of that CODEX.

nor does it necessitate the removal of the BB rule,

and even if it DID, we now have a shrodingers IC, who lacks the BB rule needed to be part of the allied unit in the first place.

so yes rigel, its very far from proven that joining a unit removes the BB rule, as all your theorys have rules contradictions in them.


my theory, that pg 112, when it says "not even BB's can enter allied transports" actually MEANS no BB's in allied transports, has no such contradictions, and has actual rules backing.

so while I know my one sentence in the BRB isnt as long as the 20+ pages on dakka about this, it is none the less correct in it brevity, and is actual proof.






at not point, is it necessary to remove the BB rule from an allied IC... there is no need to do it, nor is it spelled out in the BRB that we are to do it.

Your INFERENCE that we are to remove the BB rule, is wrong... you are not allowed to have a non BB IC in an allied unit, the BB rule MUST by necessity stay on the IC.

 easysauce wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

There is no - zero, nada, none, literally cannot be - a restriction tied to a Battle Brother model with the rules as they are written.

except pg 112 says there most certainly IS a restriction on BB's by name, not by unit or model, but by NAME... you keep ignoring that BY NAME BB's cannot enter allied transports.
pg 112 "note, not even BB:s can enter allied transports"

Question:

Is that restriction by itself, or part of a bulleted list?
If it's part of a bulleted list, what does that list apply to?

there is the restriction right there... its says BB's can join units, then says the same BB cannot enter transports. yet your argument is that BB can enter allied transports, because the BB rule "dissapears" because you say it does. the rules however, never say the BB rule goes away.

I have not ever said the rule disappears - that'd be you misunderstanding or misrepresenting my argument. Again.

at NO point, do the rules say that something chosen from codex Y becomes something chosen from codex X... a BB is a BB, period.

Again, failure to understand my argument is not permission to misttate it. Please stop.

counting as part of a unit, or as a friendly unit,

does not mean you count as part of that CODEX.

Man it's a good thing I've never said that then. Have you run out of straw men yet?

and even if it DID, we now have a shrodingers IC, who lacks the BB rule needed to be part of the allied unit in the first place.

Evidence that you've failed to read the thread - this has been addressed in every thread about this. Please read.

so yes rigel, its very far from proven that joining a unit removes the BB rule.

Sigh...

rigeld2 wrote:

I have not ever said the rule disappears - that'd be you misunderstanding or misrepresenting my argument. Again.

rigeld2 wrote:

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

yes.. you have...

right there... if its no longer a BB, then the BB rule has dissapeared/been ignored/gone away/ect... and still, no justification is given.

maybe you should actually read what you type, or are you just trolling going on and on accusing others of trolling and using buzz words like straw men to sound like you are actually interested in factual debate?

at this point, when you claim to have NOT said things you have said, and those things directly destroy your argument, and your only retort is "troll" "strawman" you have broken the tenents of YMMDC.

 easysauce wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

I have not ever said the rule disappears - that'd be you misunderstanding or misrepresenting my argument. Again.

rigeld2 wrote:

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

yes.. you have...

right there...

maybe you should actually read what you type, or are you just trolling going on and on accusing others of trolling and using buzz words like straw men to sound like you are actually interested in factual debate?

at this point, when you claim to have NOT said things you have said, and those things directly destroy your argument, and your only retort is "troll" "strawman" you have broken the tenents of YMMDC.

It would be great if you could point out where I said the rule "disappears".
Because that's not what I said. At all. If you think I'm violating tents, please report me. There's a handy triangle at the top right corner of every one of my posts that will alert a mod.

Do you have a rules based argument for me? One that responds to the questions I asked?

yes, rigel, you saying the rule "doesnt apply" or isnt in effect, or whatever you say that equates to "here is why rigel2d thinks it is legal to put an IC BB into an allied transport" or what ever you want to label that as, does equate to you saying the BB rule does not apply or has dissapeared. when you fail to actually follow a rule, it may as well not be there, or "dissapear"


pg 112 still stands as the only rule I need to quote, and it most certainly spells out that no BB's can go into allied transports

since you now agree that the BB rule still exists for the IC, then it must still apply.

the IC is still a BB, glad you have now acknowledged that even after joining an allied unit, a BB is still a BB.


BB cannot enter allied transports. the IC is a BB, therefore, cannot enter allied transports.

pg 112 "note, not even BB can enter allied transports"

please note, I have quoted this rule, and your last 6 posts have 0 rules in them. no actual rule you have quoted takes away the BB rule, and by your own admission (finally) above, the rule does not dissapear.

hence, we must follow the BB rule, and NOT put out BB in allied transports.

Please look up the difference between "does not apply in this situation" and "ignores" or "dissapears"
also look up what a special rule is and what isn't(hint, you can find it several times in this thread)

 easysauce wrote:
yes, rigel, you saying the rule "doesnt apply" or isnt in effect, or whatever you say that equates to "here is why rigel2d thinks it is legal to put an IC BB into an allied transport" or what ever you want to label that as, does equate to you saying the BB rule does not apply or has dissapeared. when you fail to actually follow a rule, it may as well not be there, or "dissapear"

It most certainly doesn't. It simply doesn't apply. Which is what I've said throughout the thread - you'd know if you'd read it.

pg 112 still stands as the only rule I need to quote, and it most certainly spells out that no BB's can go into allied transports

BBs that are friendly units of course - since that's what those bullet points apply to.

since you now agree that the BB rule still exists for the IC, then it must still apply.

I agreed to that? Hmm. Pretty sure I didn't.

please note, I have quoted this rule, and your last 6 posts have 0 rules in them. no actual rule you have quoted takes away the BB rule, and by your own admission (finally) above, the rule does not dissapear.

Again you're misreading. It seems to be a habit.
The fact - note, that's not opinion or an interpretation - is that those restrictions can only apply to Battle Brother units. We know that because of the sentence preceding the bullet points - which your argument conveniently ignores the existence of.
Unless you're going to continue the argument that an IC that has joined a unit is still a unit in and of himself? That'd be cute.

no, the BRB refers to them as BB;s,

not "BB units"

we only TREAT BB's as friendly units, and such being the case, you need to treat your BB IC, as a friendly UNIT, even when he is inside another unit, if you are going to play the "all BB's are units" card.


again, your argument, selectively applies the rules,

the restriction on BB's by name?

you ONLY apply to half the BB's in the game... namely multi model units, not the IC unit.

your claim that BB's are ALWAYS "friendly units" ... well at least until they are not anymore, because if they were ALWAYS friendly units, they still cannot embark in allied transports.

again, you cited 0 rules to counter pg 112... yet again, the "you cant read my posts" argument is touted, and yet again I simply have to read the BRB, not your posts, to play 40k rigel.

its not that I am not reading you, its that what you are writing is not going to over rule what GW writes.

 easysauce wrote:
no, the BRB refers to them as BB;s,

not "BB units"

we only TREAT BB's as friendly units, and such being the case, you need to treat your BB IC, as a friendly UNIT, even when he is inside another unit, if you are going to play the "all BB's are units" card.

Treated as must mean the same as "is" or "are". And no - that's not my argument. Have you read the thread? Evidence so far would show you have not. I'd encourage you to.
Battle Brothers are friendly units (with some guidelines). Agreed?
ICs that join another unit are not themselves a unit. Agreed?

We can go on, but I'd like you to actually answer a relevant question and not throw baseless accusations at me for once.

again, your arguement, selectivly applies the rules,

That's a lie.

the restriction on BB's by name?

you ONLY apply to half the BB's in the game... namely multi model units, not the IC unit.

It absolutely applies to an IC unit. Just not an IC model that is a member of another unit.

your claim that BB's are ALWAYS "friendly units" ... well at least until they are not anymore, because if they were ALWAYS friendly units, they still cannot embark in allied transports.

It's cool how you emphasized "always" like I've been saying that word, but I haven't.
As far as the rules are concerned a Battle Brother is a friendly unit.
If an entity is not a unit, it cannot be a friendly unit (It's missing half of the phrase).
If an entity is not a friendly unit, it cannot restricted by rules that apply to a Battle Brother.

again, you cited 0 rules to counter pg 112.

The rule you're citing on page 112 doesn't apply in this situation. It's exactly as relevant as the rules on page 31.

rigeld2 wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
no, the BRB refers to them as BB;s,

not "BB units"

we only TREAT BB's as friendly units, and such being the case, you need to treat your BB IC, as a friendly UNIT, even when he is inside another unit, if you are going to play the "all BB's are units" card.

Treated as must mean the same as "is" or "are". And no - that's not my argument. Have you read the thread? Evidence so far would show you have not. I'd encourage you to.
Battle Brothers are friendly units (with some guidelines). Agreed? (oh so now there are guidelines? as in, they are units when its convenient, and not when it isnt, this is EXACTLY my point, you are selectively applying even your own interpretation of what BB are. you are making things up now, no "guidlines" exist in the book, if they are units, then they ARE units. period.)
ICs that join another unit are not themselves a unit. Agreed? (maybe a regular IC, but BB ICs, in your theory, are friendly units. the BRB doesnt say "treated as friendly units with guildines" it just says treated as friendly units, stop, period. so even in another unit, they are a friendly unit. except, you only want that unit status to selectively be applied. IF a BB is a firendly unit, as soon as you are not a firendly unit, you are not a BB. as soon as you are not a BB, you are illegally in an allied unit)
.

every argument you make has self contained contradictions rigel. too many shcrodingers "units" and BB's where they are those things for the advantageous purposes of being put in transports, but at the same time, are not those things for the restrictions put on BB's by name purposes.

to sum it up, once a BB is in an allied unit, you are saying:

the BB, once joined to an allied unit, no longer counts as a BB, or at least, we get to ignore that hes a BB IC. (ok if its no longer a BB, its not allowed in the unit, this is a another contradiction)

so your three points, have three big contradictions, that dont go away by insulting my reading skills no matter how much you wish it.

 easysauce wrote:
(oh so now there are guidelines? as in, they are units when its convenient, and not when it isnt, this is EXACTLY my point, you are selectively applying even your own interpretation of what BB are. you are making things up now, no "guidlines" exist in the book, if they are units, then they ARE units. period.)

Guidelines, explanations of what that means - whatever you want to call them. They apply to Battle Brothers which are friendly units.

(maybe a regular IC, but BB ICs, in your theory, are friendly units. the BRB doesnt say "treated as friendly units with guildines" it just says treated as friendly units, stop, period. so even in another unit, they are a friendly unit. except, you only want that unit status to selectively be applied. IF a BB is a firendly unit, as soon as you are not a firendly unit, you are not a BB. as soon as you are not a BB, you are illegally in an allied unit)

The bolded is absolutely false and has been addressed once in this thread, and I corrected you on it earlier today. Please read the thread.
So you actually are going to argue that ICs are still a unit after they've joined another unit? Perhaps you'd like to cite some rules to support that statement?

every argument you make has self contained contradictions rigel.

That's a lie.

too many shcrodingers "units" and BB's where they are those things for the advantageous purposes of being put in transports, but at the same time, are not those things for the restrictions put on BB's by name purposes.

What?

to sum it up, once a BB is in an allied unit, you are saying:

the BB, once joined to an allied unit, no longer counts as a BB, or at least, we get to ignore that hes a BB IC. (ok if its no longer a BB, its not allowed in the unit, this is a another contradiction)

Again - you've literally failed to actually read the entire thread. Please do so. The bolded has no basis in fact.

so your three points, have three big contradictions, that dont go away by insulting my reading skills no matter how much you wish it.

You're inventing contradictions and haven't proved them.

No, BBs are units, by definition. You ignore this fact, as it destroys your argument

Stop misrepresenting Rigeld; your trolling gets tiresome.

rigeld2 wrote:

Again - you've literally failed to actually read the entire thread. Please do so. The bolded has no basis in fact.

it has all the basis in fact... you cannot have allied IC's join units, unless they are BB relationship. Nice try.

again, no rules to back your claims, and more "you cant read" accusations. not to mention you keep ignoring, and calling out the pertinent rules on pg 112 as erroneous, or you are simply unable to read them properly.

RAW p112 word for word
"battle brothers are treated as "friendly units" from ALL points of view. This means for example, that battle brothers:

-can be joined by allied independent characters

-are counted as being firendly units for the targeting of psychich powers, abilities, and so on

-However, note that not even BB's can embark in allied transport vehicles"

notice it did not say "treated as friendly units for most, some, or "along guide lines" it said "ALL", so very different from what you say it says, namely that there are guidelines (there are not according to BRB) hence why being a unit doesnt prove what you think it does... if they are defined as units, then they are defined as units. stop trying to define them as units "sometimes" and non units at other times. I am NOT ignoring that they are treated as frienly units, I am in fact using that point to further back my argument. If you actually argued based of the BRB, instead of your own posts, you would see that.

the ONE and ONLY restriction on BBs is that they cannot enter allied transports.. when the same rules that tell us to treat them as units, also tell us NOT to put them in allied transports, that means they cannot go into transports.

the first line defines the 3 examples, all are mutually inclusive or exclusive, yet you however are choosing to follow the first two permissions, and are ignoring the obvious RAW restriction in the third.

again,
my theory cited from BRB pg 112 "However, note that not even BB's can embark in allied transport vehicles" actually means no BB in allied transports.

rigel2d's theory cited from 20+ pages of non official internet forum "look how I embark a BB into an allied transport "

Still unable to avoid misrepresenting Rigeld

The restriction is on joining, not remaining joined. One of you errors.

Bb are units, so if you're not a unit you can't be a bb. Quite elementary.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, BBs are units, by definition. You ignore this fact, as it destroys your argument

Stop misrepresenting Rigeld; your trolling gets tiresome.

mhhmm.. had you actually read my posts, you would see that I am not ignoring this, it is actually a fact that works AGAINST your side that wants to put BB units into allied transports. If BBs are defined as units, then thats what they are. Your side is the one who claims they stop being BB units once an icBB joins another unit. despite that being true for NON BB iC;s that join, we are told to treat ICBB's as friendly units for all purposes, including when they are in another unit in this case.

you are the one ignoring that, not me. I cannot help it if the fact that you treat BB's as friendly units is actually just more proof they cannot go into allied transports.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Still unable to avoid misrepresenting Rigeld

The restriction is on joining, not remaining joined. One of you errors.

Bb are units, so if you're not a unit you can't be a bb. Quite elementary.

and if your not a BB, you cant be in that allied unit, also quite elementary.

BB ICS are still units after joining, they are not normal IC's, they have PG 112 telling us they are units from ALL points of veiw, yet you claim "from this point of veiw, they are not treated as a units"

Sigh, you're still misreading quite a straightforward sentence.

So you are now, absurdly, claiming the IC remains a distinct unit?

Of course, you have a rules citation for being allowed to belong to two units at the same time?

 easysauce wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Again - you've literally failed to actually read the entire thread. Please do so. The bolded has no basis in fact.

it has all the basis in fact... you cannot have allied IC's join units, unless they are BB relationship. Nice try.

Really? Page 39 says, and I'll quote:

p39 wrote:Independent Characters can join other units.

Where's the denial of that permission?

again, no rules to back your claims, and more "you cant read" accusations. not to mention you keep ignoring, and calling out the pertinent rules on pg 112 as erroneous, or you are simply unable to read them properly.

I've never said you can't read. I've said you obviously haven't because the points you're bringing up have been addressed.

notice it did not say "treated as friendly units for most, some, or "along guide lines" it said "ALL", so very different from what you say it says, namely that there are guidelines (there are not according to BRB) hence why being a unit doesnt prove what you think it does... if they are defined as units, then they are defined as units. stop trying to define them as units "sometimes" and non units at other times. I am NOT ignoring that they are treated as frienly units, I am in fact using that point to further back my argument. If you actually argued based of the BRB, instead of your own posts, you would see that.

See, my sole argument is that the paragraph on page 112 doesn't apply whatsoever to an IC that has joined a unit. At all. So I'm not "trying to define them as units "sometimes" and non units at other times". That would be inconsistent. The Battle Brothers rules apply to units. Absolute fact.

the first line defines the 3 examples, all are mutually inclusive or exclusive, yet you however are choosing to follow the first two permissions, and are ignoring the obvious RAW restriction in the third.

That's a lie - I'm not following any of the permissions or restrictions.

my theory cited from BRB pg 112 "However, note that not even BB's can embark in allied transport vehicles" actually means no BB in allied transports.

rigel2d's theory cited from 20+ pages of non official internet forum "look how I embark a BB into an allied transport "

Another lie. Another proof you've failed to read the thread and understand the argument. And more refusals to address the points I've brought up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 easysauce wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, BBs are units, by definition. You ignore this fact, as it destroys your argument

Stop misrepresenting Rigeld; your trolling gets tiresome.

mhhmm.. had you actually read my posts, you would see that I am not ignoring this, it is actually a fact that works AGAINST your side that wants to put BB units into allied transports. If BBs are defined as units, then thats what they are. Your side is the one who claims they stop being BB units once an icBB joins another unit. despite that being true for NON BB iC;s that join, we are told to treat ICBB's as friendly units for all purposes, including when they are in another unit in this case.

You're sure we're told that? Really sure? Or are you changing the words to fit your argument like to did with me and "disappear"?

and if your not a BB, you cant be in that allied unit, also quite elementary.

Incorrect. Page 39 allows it.

wow 8 pages !!! CongoRatz!

A nice little flow chart/list to explain the obvious. The list is by no means printed in the BRB it is just a summary

Step 1 is the character an ally
Step 2 is the ally a Battle Brother or Allies of Convenience or Desperate Allies
Step 3 If Battle Brother then you can join an allied unit if NOT a Battle brother you cannot join the unit.
Step 4 Battle Brothers CANNOT Embark in an allied transport!

Where on page 112 does it say IC battle brothers can use allied transport? It DOES'NT!

But what the forums rules state is that special rules over write normal rules.

The normal rules for IC are on page 39 the Special rule for ALL BB including IC's are on page 112. Heck its after warlord traits!

Please cite a special rule the REMOVES the restriction of page 112 other then citing page 39 which is a GENERAL rule.

osirisx69 wrote:
wow 8 pages !!! CongoRatz!

A nice little flow chart/list to explain the obvious. The list is by no means printed in the BRB it is just a summary

Step 1 is the character an ally
Step 2 is the ally a Battle Brother or Allies of Convenience or Desperate Allies
Step 3 If Battle Brother then you can join an allied unit if NOT a Battle brother you cannot join the unit.
Step 4 Battle Brothers CANNOT Embark in an allied transport!

Where on page 112 does it say IC battle brothers can use allied transport? It DOES'NT!

But what the forums rules state is that special rules over write normal rules.

The normal rules for IC are on page 39 the Special rule for ALL BB including IC's are on page 112. Heck its after warlord traits!

Please cite a special rule the REMOVES the restriction of page 112 other then citing page 39 which is a GENERAL rule.

So you're failing to read the thread and understand the arguments as well? Cool story bro. Please do so.

Hint: Page 112 doesn't apply.

osirisx69 wrote:
wow 8 pages !!! CongoRatz!

A nice little flow chart/list to explain the obvious. The list is by no means printed in the BRB it is just a summary

Step 1 is the character an ally
Step 2 is the ally a Battle Brother or Allies of Convenience or Desperate Allies
Step 3 If Battle Brother then you can join an allied unit if NOT a Battle brother you cannot join the unit.
Step 4 Battle Brothers CANNOT Embark in an allied transport!

Where on page 112 does it say IC battle brothers can use allied transport? It DOES'NT!

But what the forums rules state is that special rules over write normal rules.

The normal rules for IC are on page 39 the Special rule for ALL BB including IC's are on page 112. Heck its after warlord traits!

Please cite a special rule the REMOVES the restriction of page 112 other then citing page 39 which is a GENERAL rule.

Except battle brother isn't a special rule. Please read before posting.

Also, this debate was actually resolved around page 4, only after that the trolls were let in with their records stuck on the same chant, their fingers in their ears and their eyes sewn shut, all by the power of ignorance, arrogance and sheer stupidity.

Please everyone ease of the accusations of trolling. One may not be able to change the interlocutor's mind but there are plenty of folks waiting on the sidelines who are quietly agreeing with you. So remember it's just toy soldiers and go grab a snack or something rather than allowing anybody to get your goat over it. Thanks!

 Xarin wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:
wow 8 pages !!! CongoRatz!

A nice little flow chart/list to explain the obvious. The list is by no means printed in the BRB it is just a summary

Step 1 is the character an ally
Step 2 is the ally a Battle Brother or Allies of Convenience or Desperate Allies
Step 3 If Battle Brother then you can join an allied unit if NOT a Battle brother you cannot join the unit.
Step 4 Battle Brothers CANNOT Embark in an allied transport!

Where on page 112 does it say IC battle brothers can use allied transport? It DOES'NT!

But what the forums rules state is that special rules over write normal rules.

The normal rules for IC are on page 39 the Special rule for ALL BB including IC's are on page 112. Heck its after warlord traits!

Please cite a special rule the REMOVES the restriction of page 112 other then citing page 39 which is a GENERAL rule.

Except battle brother isn't a special rule. Please read before posting.

Also, this debate was actually resolved around page 4, only after that the trolls were let in with their records stuck on the same chant, their fingers in their ears and their eyes sewn shut, all by the power of ignorance, arrogance and sheer stupidity.

Wow hostility AND an abilty to not read the post I made correctly....good job!!

BB is a special rule..... its a special\advanced\not normal\after the basic rules that tells you how BB should behave. The basic rules for IC's are page 39 the special rules\advance\not normal for allied detachment are 112.

Page 112 restricts all BB's to not embark on allied transport. The rule trumps page 39...

Simple

osirisx69 wrote:
BB is a special rule..... its a special\advanced\not normal\after the basic rules that tells you how BB should behave. The basic rules for IC's are page 39 the special rules\advance\not normal for allied detachment are 112.

Page 112 restricts all BB's to not embark on allied transport. The rule trumps page 39...

Simple

And again, page 112 doesn't apply, as shown. Simple. If you'd have read the thread you'd understand why.

Page 112 applies to BBs; BBs are defined as units; an IC joined to a unit is no longer a unit; the BB rule cannot apply to them.

Simple

You just used exactly the same disproved argument others have on here, without adding anything new, which is, frankly, rude

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:
BB is a special rule..... its a special\advanced\not normal\after the basic rules that tells you how BB should behave. The basic rules for IC's are page 39 the special rules\advance\not normal for allied detachment are 112.

Page 112 restricts all BB's to not embark on allied transport. The rule trumps page 39...

Simple

And again, page 112 doesn't apply, as shown. Simple. If you'd have read the thread you'd understand why.

Nope you are wrong, an allied BB is still a BB pure and simple. If they where not a BB then you could get more then 3 HQ's choices.

IC's are units BTW Page 3 so pleaser stop attacking me.

Play it how you want RAW, is NO BattleBrothers to embark on transports....

osirisx69 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:
BB is a special rule..... its a special\advanced\not normal\after the basic rules that tells you how BB should behave. The basic rules for IC's are page 39 the special rules\advance\not normal for allied detachment are 112.

Page 112 restricts all BB's to not embark on allied transport. The rule trumps page 39...

Simple

And again, page 112 doesn't apply, as shown. Simple. If you'd have read the thread you'd understand why.

Nope you are wrong, an allied BB is still a BB pure and simple. If they where not a BB then you could get more then 3 HQ's choices.

Play it how you want RAW, is NO BattleBrothers to embark on transports....

What does being a Battle Brother have to do with HQ choices?
And it's cool that you didn't bother posting a rule that proves me wrong, just that I am. That's okay - it's not like the tenets of the forum require you to support your argument with rules or anything.
Oh wait. Oh. They do. Totes McGotes. Darn.

Mind citing rules that prove your position? If you'd read this thread you'll see that I've cited rules support throughout it.

edit to address your edit:

osirisx69 wrote:
IC's are units BTW Page 3 so pleaser stop attacking me.

Attacking? Where have I done that? I'm sure you'll report any rudeness you see - please do. I know I do.
And ICs are addressed on page 3 - that's correct. But when they join another unit they are no longer a model on their own and are a member of the joined unit for all rules purposes. Meaning they are no longer a unit on their own. Meaning they're no longer a Battle Brother. Meaning page 112 doesn't apply.

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:
BB is a special rule..... its a special\advanced\not normal\after the basic rules that tells you how BB should behave. The basic rules for IC's are page 39 the special rules\advance\not normal for allied detachment are 112.

Page 112 restricts all BB's to not embark on allied transport. The rule trumps page 39...

Simple

And again, page 112 doesn't apply, as shown. Simple. If you'd have read the thread you'd understand why.

Nope you are wrong, an allied BB is still a BB pure and simple. If they where not a BB then you could get more then 3 HQ's choices.

Play it how you want RAW, is NO BattleBrothers to embark on transports....

What does being a Battle Brother have to do with HQ choices?
And it's cool that you didn't bother posting a rule that proves me wrong, just that I am. That's okay - it's not like the tenets of the forum require you to support your argument with rules or anything.
Oh wait. Oh. They do. Totes McGotes. Darn.



Mind citing rules that prove your position? If you'd read this thread you'll see that I've cited rules support throughout it.

Again, nice tone reg, I already did post. Choose to ignore it if you want but stop attacking and being rude like you do to alot of posters.

Page 112 BB cant embark in transports.

So no explanation as to what you meant with Battle Brothers and HQ choices? Okay.

And no citation now that I've proved page 112 doesn't apply? Okay.

And no actual quotes of me attacking you ever? Okay.

So why do you think your argument has any relevance? Care to explain that one?