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.

Osirisx - any chance you could more carefully read page 112, and note BBs are defined as units?

Or are you yet another poster making the assertion that an IC is still a unit while joined? Care to provide any rules off that?

It's been asked for, and never provided....

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.

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.

Please post the page number where it SPECIFICALLY WORDED that Battle Brothers IC lose there BB status\special rule\not normal rule\rule that is different then norm, because I can POST where it SPECIFICALLY states ALL Battle Brothers (page 112) cannot embark in allied transports.

BTW its on page 112

Yet you still cannot read the part of page 112 that states it applies to friendly units, or find a citation that states an IC is still a unit while joined?

Failure to provide these citations is a breach of the tenets, and concession

rigeld2 wrote:
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?

wow you gave me a whole 4 minutes to post my response. If you look at the times you can see between this post and his last was about 4 minutes.

I already showed in black and white, gave you page number and reference .




Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yet you still cannot read the part of page 112 that states it applies to friendly units, or find a citation that states an IC is still a unit while joined?

Failure to provide these citations is a breach of the tenets, and concession

Nos what ???????>?? please ask your question in a better manner.

osirisx69 wrote:
Please post the page number where it SPECIFICALLY WORDED that Battle Brothers IC lose there BB status\special rule\not normal rule\rule that is different then norm, because I can POST where it SPECIFICALLY states ALL Battle Brothers (page 112) cannot embark in allied transports.

BTW its on page 112

So you refuse to read the thread then? Okay.

Page 112 proves that Battle Brothers are friendly units. Do you agree? (p112)
This means that if something is not a friendly unit it cannot be a Battle Brother. Do you agree? (p112)
An IC that joins another unit is no longer a unit by himself. Do you agree? (p39 and p3)
If an IC is not a unit he cannot be a friendly unit. Do you agree? (no citation - simple logic)
If an IC is not a friendly unit he cannot be a Battle Brother.

If you agree with the first 4, the 5th is the indisputable consequence. If you disagree with the first 4, please provide reasons with citations.

edit: Any chance for an apology for saying I was attacking you? Or a quote where I did? That'd be nice, but I don't expect either.

BBs are not defined as units, something which already has a definition is treated as friendly units. Battle brothers has to already be defined for us to consider them friendly in that sentence, and BB is between 2 detachments.

Since he is a unit from the detachment, he is a battle brother, regardless of what unit he may later join. Like the multitude of rules or effects which are only given at a unit level, however are 'applied' to each model on the unit. BB is not dependant upon being a unit - if that were the case then I could easily argue that 1 put of 3 centurion is not a friendly model when the rules require one- as that one model is not a unit, he is in a unit, but isn't 'a' unit.

The rules tell you which require unit of BB and which require BB only.

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:
Please post the page number where it SPECIFICALLY WORDED that Battle Brothers IC lose there BB status\special rule\not normal rule\rule that is different then norm, because I can POST where it SPECIFICALLY states ALL Battle Brothers (page 112) cannot embark in allied transports.

BTW its on page 112

So you refuse to read the thread then? Okay.

Page 112 proves that Battle Brothers are friendly units. Do you agree? (p112) Nope they are treated as friendly. You are confusing "treated" with "are" common mistake.
This means that if something is not a friendly unit it cannot be a Battle Brother. Do you agree? (p112) NOPE! Page 112 says battle brothers are TREATED like friendly units. Its does not say they are friendly UNITS. Big difference. Battle Brothers are CLEARLY defined on page 112 and 113 where the charts states who and what is a BB. Battle Brothers are in effect treated as friendly units.
An IC that joins another unit is no longer a unit by himself. Do you agree? (p39 and p3) NOPE! He is still a unit that is an IC that has took control of another unit. it is now a unit with a BB IC joined or attached.
If an IC is not a unit he cannot be a friendly unit. Do you agree? (no citation - simple logic) Nope he is a BB unit like it states on page 112
If an IC is not a friendly unit he cannot be a Battle Brother.

If you agree with the first 4, the 5th is the indisputable consequence. If you disagree with the first 4, please provide reasons with citations.

Answered your questions.

I have answered your question...

you guys still fail to grasp the simple concept behind the ACTUAL written rules

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"



note that last bit, the exception to BB being treated as friendly units is that they cannot enter transports...

BB are NOT defined as friendly units, they are TREATED as FU's in all but one scenario, with that scenario being embarking in transports.

even if they are "defined" as friendly units,(they are not, they are TREATED as such 99%of the time) they are not done so in relation to embarking into transports, your definition does not apply to the one scenario you are trying to apply it too.

you are literally taking the ONLY scenario where BB are called out specifically as NOT being treated as friendly units, and claiming they are friendly units in that specific scenario.

read the BRB, not your own posts, thats where the RAW is.

 Nem wrote:
BBs are not defined as units, something which already has a definition is treated as friendly units. Battle brothers has to already be defined for us to consider them friendly in that sentence, and BB is between 2 detachments.

Since he is a unit from the detachment, he is a battle brother, regardless of what unit he may later join. Like the multitude of rules or effects which are only given at a unit level, however are 'applied' to each model on the unit. BB is not dependant upon being a unit - if that were the case then I could easily argue that 1 put of 3 centurion is not a friendly model when the rules require one- as that one model is not a unit, he is in a unit, but isn't 'a' unit.

The rules tell you which require unit of BB and which require BB only.

This simple easy to understand quote is awesome.


Thanks!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 easysauce wrote:
you guys still fail to grasp the simple concept behind the ACTUAL written rules

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"



note that last bit, the exception to BB being treated as friendly units is that they cannot enter transports...

BB are NOT defined as battle brothers, they are TREATED as BB's in all but one scenario, with that scenario being embarking in transports.

even if they are "defined" as friendly units,(they are not, they are TREATED as such 99%of the time) they are not done so in relation to embarking into transports, your definition does not apply to the one scenario you are trying to apply it too.

read the BRB, not your own posts, thats where the RAW is.

This is nice also.

osirisx69 wrote:

 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

special rules are in the special rules section of the rulebook, that's why they call them that. And there is no hostility, but an observation of what I have seen. Want to disprove it, actually say something new instead of just repeating what has been posted and discussed by both sides in detail already. Failing to do so is just plain disrespectful to all the people that have made an actual contribution. This is not a personal attack or anything, applies to a lot of people.

Edit: I am starting to consider giving up even reading this thread as it mostly seems to exist after page 4/5 of people wanting to put their fingers in their ears and go "lalalala" until the actual rules of the game go away and they can go back to their happy place.

To be honest, I'm surprised nobody has accused the guy who plays an army that has no allies, of being biased.

osirisx69 wrote:

Page 112 proves that Battle Brothers are friendly units. Do you agree? (p112) Nope they are treated as friendly. You are confusing "treated" with "are" common mistake.

Then you've just singlehandedly rendered a significant amount of the rulebook useless.

Treated as must be the same as counts as which must be the same as is. If you disagree the rules break in interesting ways. Thank GW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:
To be honest, I'm surprised nobody has accused the guy who plays an army that has no allies, of being biased.

Read the thread - it happened :-). Don't forget no vehicles as well!

 Xarin wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:

 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

special rules are in the special rules section of the rulebook, that's why they call them that. And there is no hostility, but an observation of what I have seen. Want to disprove it, actually say something new instead of just repeating what has been posted and discussed by both sides in detail already. Failing to do so is just plain disrespectful to all the people that have made an actual contribution. This is not a personal attack or anything, applies to a lot of people.

Edit: I am starting to consider giving up even reading this thread as it mostly seems to exist after page 4/5 of people wanting to put their fingers in their ears and go "lalalala" until the actual rules of the game go away and they can go back to their happy place.

that's why I added the special rule\abnormal rule\rule that is not normal tags. Its so you don't get hung up on the word special like you have seem to do. Please read easysauce or nems post if you cant get past the word special. they never mention the word special but said the same thing I have said. Either way BB cannot embark in an allied transport.

 easysauce wrote:
you guys still fail to grasp the simple concept behind the ACTUAL written rules

read the BRB, not your own posts, thats where the RAW is.

So no rules citation to disagree with the points I laid out? Hint - the rule you keep quoting doesnt actually apply to the situation. As I've said before and you continuously ignore.

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:

Page 112 proves that Battle Brothers are friendly units. Do you agree? (p112) Nope they are treated as friendly. You are confusing "treated" with "are" common mistake.

Then you've just singlehandedly rendered a significant amount of the rulebook useless.

Treated as must be the same as counts as which must be the same as is. If you disagree the rules break in interesting ways. Thank GW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:
To be honest, I'm surprised nobody has accused the guy who plays an army that has no allies, of being biased.

Read the thread - it happened :-). Don't forget no vehicles as well!

I haven't done anything but RAW. I am sorry that renders a significant amount of the game useless to you, but it IS as RAW.

osirisx69 wrote:

 Nem wrote:
BBs are not defined as units, something which already has a definition is treated as friendly units. Battle brothers has to already be defined for us to consider them friendly in that sentence, and BB is between 2 detachments.

Since he is a unit from the detachment, he is a battle brother, regardless of what unit he may later join. Like the multitude of rules or effects which are only given at a unit level, however are 'applied' to each model on the unit. BB is not dependant upon being a unit - if that were the case then I could easily argue that 1 put of 3 centurion is not a friendly model when the rules require one- as that one model is not a unit, he is in a unit, but isn't 'a' unit.

The rules tell you which require unit of BB and which require BB only.

This simple easy to understand quote is awesome.

And it has no rules relevance.
He's a Battle Brother. And what does that mean as far as the rules are concerned? Oh, that he's a friendly unit. Except he isn't a unit at all, so that can't apply. It almost like I've said that before.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

osirisx69 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:

Page 112 proves that Battle Brothers are friendly units. Do you agree? (p112) Nope they are treated as friendly. You are confusing "treated" with "are" common mistake.

Then you've just singlehandedly rendered a significant amount of the rulebook useless.

Treated as must be the same as counts as which must be the same as is. If you disagree the rules break in interesting ways. Thank GW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:
To be honest, I'm surprised nobody has accused the guy who plays an army that has no allies, of being biased.

Read the thread - it happened :-). Don't forget no vehicles as well!

I haven't done anything but RAW. I am sorry that renders a significant amount of the game useless to you, but it IS as RAW.

No, you're not understanding.
Sit down and read your rulebook. Recognize every occurrence of "treats as" "treated as" or "counts as" and understand that you've literally made all of those rules nonfunctional.
Your statement isn't RAW because at that point there are no rules - nothing works. Have fun playing that game!

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:

 Nem wrote:
BBs are not defined as units, something which already has a definition is treated as friendly units. Battle brothers has to already be defined for us to consider them friendly in that sentence, and BB is between 2 detachments.

Since he is a unit from the detachment, he is a battle brother, regardless of what unit he may later join. Like the multitude of rules or effects which are only given at a unit level, however are 'applied' to each model on the unit. BB is not dependant upon being a unit - if that were the case then I could easily argue that 1 put of 3 centurion is not a friendly model when the rules require one- as that one model is not a unit, he is in a unit, but isn't 'a' unit.

The rules tell you which require unit of BB and which require BB only.

This simple easy to understand quote is awesome.

And it has no rules relevance.
He's a Battle Brother. And what does that mean as far as the rules are concerned? Oh, that he's a friendly unit. Except he isn't a unit at all, so that can't apply. It almost like I've said that before.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

osirisx69 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:

Page 112 proves that Battle Brothers are friendly units. Do you agree? (p112) Nope they are treated as friendly. You are confusing "treated" with "are" common mistake.

Then you've just singlehandedly rendered a significant amount of the rulebook useless.

Treated as must be the same as counts as which must be the same as is. If you disagree the rules break in interesting ways. Thank GW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:
To be honest, I'm surprised nobody has accused the guy who plays an army that has no allies, of being biased.

Read the thread - it happened :-). Don't forget no vehicles as well!

I haven't done anything but RAW. I am sorry that renders a significant amount of the game useless to you, but it IS as RAW.

No, you're not understanding.
Sit down and read your rulebook. Recognize every occurrence of "treats as" "treated as" or "counts as" and understand that you've literally made all of those rules nonfunctional.
Your statement isn't RAW because at that point there are no rules - nothing works. Have fun playing that game!

you are making that rule up. please cite page where is specifically says "treats as" "treated as" or counts ass" equals to "like friendly units"

The same page the word "a" is defined or the page that tells us it's a "permissive rule set".

It's simply a fact you have to accept when discussing GW rules. I've invented nothing - I'm guessing you didn't bother to do my lsuggestion?

rigeld2 wrote:
The same page the word "a" is defined or the page that tells us it's a "permissive rule set".

It's simply a fact you have to accept when discussing GW rules. I've invented nothing - I'm guessing you didn't bother to do my lsuggestion?

As soon as you make a suggestion that actually adds to this debate I will be more then happy.

I guess you refuse to cite a page reference where it states an IC of an allied army is no longer a BB when he takes over an allied unit.

Oh that's right, because it doesn't exit.

Sorry

osirisx69 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
The same page the word "a" is defined or the page that tells us it's a "permissive rule set".

It's simply a fact you have to accept when discussing GW rules. I've invented nothing - I'm guessing you didn't bother to do my lsuggestion?

As soon as you make a suggestion that actually adds to this debate I will be more then happy.

I did. It would educate you as to how the rules have to work to be functional.

I guess you refuse to cite a page reference where it states an IC of an allied army is no longer a BB when he takes over an allied unit.

I have. I'm guessing you still refuse to read the thread.

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
The same page the word "a" is defined or the page that tells us it's a "permissive rule set".

It's simply a fact you have to accept when discussing GW rules. I've invented nothing - I'm guessing you didn't bother to do my lsuggestion?

As soon as you make a suggestion that actually adds to this debate I will be more then happy.

I did. It would educate you as to how the rules have to work to be functional.

I guess you refuse to cite a page reference where it states an IC of an allied army is no longer a BB when he takes over an allied unit.

I have. I'm guessing you still refuse to read the thread.

No, you haven't at all. No where on page 3 39 or page 112 does it specifically states BB are allowed to use there allied dedicated transports. The only pages you have reference are 3 39 and 112. Have you posted another page reference?

I have posted where it specifically states you CAN'T embark in allied transport.

Remember Permissive games require SPECIFICALLY allowances to perform the actions request.

rigeld2 wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
you guys still fail to grasp the simple concept behind the ACTUAL written rules

read the BRB, not your own posts, thats where the RAW is.

So no rules citation to disagree with the points I laid out? Hint - the rule you keep quoting doesnt actually apply to the situation. As I've said before and you continuously ignore.

Only if you cut out the rules I quote by editing my post, you are deliberately editing my post and LIEING about its contents for some reason. Your opinion that the rules on pg 112, relating to embarkation of BB's in allied transports, are irrelevant to the discussion of weather a BB can embark in an allied transport, is not fact. it is your opinion.



actual post was

 easysauce wrote:
you guys still fail to grasp the simple concept behind the ACTUAL written rules

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"



note that last bit, the exception to BB being treated as friendly units is that they cannot enter transports...

BB are NOT defined as friendly units, they are TREATED as FU's in all but one scenario, with that scenario being embarking in transports.

even if they are "defined" as friendly units,(they are not, they are TREATED as such 99%of the time) they are not done so in relation to embarking into transports, your definition does not apply to the one scenario you are trying to apply it too.

you are literally taking the ONLY scenario where BB are called out specifically as NOT being treated as friendly units, and claiming they are friendly units in that specific scenario.

read the BRB, not your own posts, thats where the RAW is.

you rigel2d are the one who keeps baselessly asserting that "treated as" means "defined as" with no citation at all for this.


YOU are the one who has not quoted a SINGLE page, or line, from the book in the last few pages, nor have you address the rules on pg 112, which when read in full, OMIT BB's from being treated as friendly units in regards to embarking in transports.

pg 112 -However, note that not even BB's can embark in allied transport vehicles" its right there, they are not treated as FU's for embarkation purposes. They are outright banned from embarkation by name.

you have not proven that p112 is irrelevant either...

rigeld2 wrote:
Hint - the rule you keep quoting doesnt actually apply to the situation. As I've said before and you continuously ignore.

I would say the rule on on BB's embarking in allied transports, is a very pertinent rule when deciding weather a BB can embark on an allied transport.


you seem to think that just because you have SAID it 1000 times, I must believe it, or that it is true.

again, poor debate tactic, non evidence based. Repetition does not equal truth, just a treated as does not equal defined as.

the BRB has to say it, not rigel2d.

BRB says "not even BB can embark in allied transports"

by name, as the exclusion to treating them as FU's for embarking purposes.

HIWPI no, Tau Ethereals aren't allowed into Black Templar Land Raiders, even if they're being nice to a Crusader Squad.

Also while this situation not being applicable to an army DOES mean that someone who plays that army may be less biased, it DOESN'T mean that person is correct

Including me, naturally

Cool - so there's two people that should perform the exercise I recommended earlier.

Go though the BRB. Write down every rule that contains "treated as", "treats as" or "counts as". Those rules do not function unless what I've said is true. If your argument requires them to be different - you can have that win. I'll have a playable rule set.

And easy - I have absolutely quoted rules in the part few pages. Your blind (unexplainable) anger at me is causing you to both misspell my name and fail to actually read my posts. You're also singularly failing to understand my argument.

Your argument is exactly like saying that models without eyes cannot shoot. That's fine. I don't care. I'd rather play the game than have rules that literally don't work.

rigeld2 wrote:
Cool - so there's two people that should perform the exercise I recommended earlier.

Go though the BRB. Write down every rule that contains "treated as", "treats as" or "counts as". Those rules do not function unless what I've said is true. If your argument requires them to be different - you can have that win. I'll have a playable rule set.

And easy - I have absolutely quoted rules in the part few pages. Your blind (unexplainable) anger at me is causing you to both misspell my name and fail to actually read my posts. You're also singularly failing to understand my argument.

Your argument is exactly like saying that models without eyes cannot shoot. That's fine. I don't care. I'd rather play the game than have rules that literally don't work.

WOW.......this is a perfect example of circular argument that cause's threads to get locked or closed

rigeld2 wrote:
Cool - so there's two people that should perform the exercise I recommended earlier.

Go though the BRB. Write down every rule that contains "treated as", "treats as" or "counts as". Those rules do not function unless what I've said is true. If your argument requires them to be different - you can have that win. I'll have a playable rule set.

And easy - I have absolutely quoted rules in the part few pages. Your blind (unexplainable) anger at me is causing you to both misspell my name and fail to actually read my posts. You're also singularly failing to understand my argument.

Your argument is exactly like saying that models without eyes cannot shoot. That's fine. I don't care. I'd rather play the game than have rules that literally don't work.

mhm, so no actual rules discussion again, just assertions without proof, and comparing my argument to a totally different one, I do believe straw manning you called it before. so you chastise me for a tactic I dont use, then use that tactic yourself? really ?!? im arguing for models with no eyes not shooting now? talk about contradictions again... and again poor debate form.



as pg 112 shows,

weather you are treated as, or defined as FU's, it DOES NOT MATTER.

for embarkation in allied transport purposes, you are not treated as, nor defined as FU's according to pg 112. you are excluded as being treated as, or defined as, by the "not even BB can embark" rule.

why you seem to be so oblivious to this point, and angry about it, is odd.

The problem here is the RAW interpretations are very different from one another; so different there will be no reconciliation.

Strictly speaking of the definitions for units, models, battle brothers, and treating them as units is the crux of everyone's arguments and quite frankly, no one is going to "win" if this keeps going the way it is.

I bowed out several pages ago, asserted a retraction of my position, and am willing to simply go with local HYWPI consensus for the sake of any argument.

It's not worth fighting over this, especially when RAI could go either way since we don't know what GW wants us to believe (and yes, you can argue RAI either yes or no through various interpretations).

I say let this thread die and let the Battle of Brothers Part II end.

 easysauce wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Cool - so there's two people that should perform the exercise I recommended earlier.

Go though the BRB. Write down every rule that contains "treated as", "treats as" or "counts as". Those rules do not function unless what I've said is true. If your argument requires them to be different - you can have that win. I'll have a playable rule set.

And easy - I have absolutely quoted rules in the part few pages. Your blind (unexplainable) anger at me is causing you to both misspell my name and fail to actually read my posts. You're also singularly failing to understand my argument.

Your argument is exactly like saying that models without eyes cannot shoot. That's fine. I don't care. I'd rather play the game than have rules that literally don't work.

mhm, so no actual rules discussion again, just assertions without proof, and comparing my argument to a totally different one, I do believe straw manning you called it before. so you chastise me for a tactic I dont use, then use that tactic yourself? again poor debate form.

You don't understand what a straw man is then.
I'd appreciate it if you read the thread. I've done all the relevant rules discussion already. Your repeated citation just isn't relevant.

why you seem to be so oblivious to this point, and angry about it, is odd.

I'm not angry about it. At all. Nor oblivious. I can read - you've just completely failed to actually address my argument, instead citing irrelevant text.

Whether or not the IC loses BB status is irrelevant. Models from both detachments (primary and allied) are considered "allied" to each other. Once an IC joins a unit, the whole unit is still considered a friendly unit for all units in the army. What matters is whether the joining of the IC results in the unit being counted towards the original detachment for purposes of embarking (so unit A + IC B = unit A) or whether the unit counts as part of neither detachment any longer because it is composed of units from both (unit A + IC B = unit AB). RAW is insufficient for a conclusive answer. Xarin has a valid interpretation based on join = absorbed by and Abandon and myself laid out an equally valid interpretation based on join = connect. Draw your own conclusions.

osirisx69 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
The same page the word "a" is defined or the page that tells us it's a "permissive rule set".

It's simply a fact you have to accept when discussing GW rules. I've invented nothing - I'm guessing you didn't bother to do my lsuggestion?

As soon as you make a suggestion that actually adds to this debate I will be more then happy.

I did. It would educate you as to how the rules have to work to be functional.

I guess you refuse to cite a page reference where it states an IC of an allied army is no longer a BB when he takes over an allied unit.

I have. I'm guessing you still refuse to read the thread.

No, you haven't at all. No where on page 3 39 or page 112 does it specifically states BB are allowed to use there allied dedicated transports. The only pages you have reference are 3 39 and 112. Have you posted another page reference?

I have posted where it specifically states you CAN'T embark in allied transport.

Remember Permissive games require SPECIFICALLY allowances to perform the actions request.

Yes, we understand the game just fine thanks.

BBs are friendly units. That is what treated as means. Otherwise the rules do not function. Both you and easy sauce don't seem to understand that when they state "battle brother" that can ONLY refer to a unit. And an attached IC is not a unit any longer, so cannot be a Battle Brother, so the rule restricting the unit from embarking cannot apply.

This incredibly simple distinction is one you keep on missing , and have no response to within written rules

Easy- rigged has provided exact citations, you make up rules. I know who I believe more....