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.

PanzerLeader wrote:
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.

This seems like a very summarisation of the whole debate, well done

Might I ask what your definition of join=connect is because the explanation of that and how you get to that point is unclear to me(and seems to have gotten bogged down in this debate). Might I be so bold as to ask for a detailed description?

 easysauce wrote:
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.

Exactly how I see it... also, p112: -However, note that not even BB's can embark in allied transport vehicles
How can this not mean models? It doesn't say units....?

The bullet points are a list of extra rules, not an extension of "battle brothers are treated as "friendly units" from ALL points of view"
The words "This means" that come after mean that the 3 bullet points pretty much replace the previous statement as examples.

This is further enforced by point 2 which specifies "unit" in contrast with "model" that is valid for the other 2 points.

My 2 cents from reading the rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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.

Rigeld, did you completely forget this post?

 BlackTalos wrote:

Angelic wrote:
"Treated as" does not mean is. In fact it is the exact opposite, otherwise it would say "is". In order to be "treated as" it must be a different object that will be treated as the same object. But it is still a different object. Rules? English. You would never say, "My BMW is treated as my BMW." You would say, "Your car will be treated as if it were my own." Doesn't mean the car is yours. But again, it's not the sole characteristic. Everything else persists even if that doesn't. How do you get rid of the fact that is an ally from a different detachment? If ally remains, Battle Brother must remain because they go hand in hand.

I do agree the understanding of the English Language and Grammar is cause to so many of the issues here.

"Your car will be treated as if it were my own." Doesn't mean the car is yours.

Indeed.

rigeld2 wrote:
Go through your BRB and find every occurrence of "treated as" and pretend it isn't actually that thing. The rules break every time. Here, I'll help:

Accordingly, all vehicles are treated as being Weapon Skill 1, provided that they moved in the previous turn - otherwise they are treated as being Weapon Skill 0.

But they aren't actually WS1 or 0 - they don't have a WS. So what number do I need to roll in CC to hit them? Does it matter if they moved?

You agree they do not have it? But get it as soon as the "treated as" appears?

rigeld2 wrote:

They don't have to use the Skyfire special rule, but if they do, all weapons they fire that turn are treated as having the Skyfire special rule.

But they don't actually have it, so I guess Flyers have to Snap Shot at other Flyers.

You agree they do not have it? But get it as soon as the "treated as" appears?

So if a Rule such as:

All vehicles with WS:1 blow up.
Assign 3 Hits to any Flyer with the Skyfire Special Rule.

appears, they would obviously not apply, right?

Angelic wrote:They are, in fact, not defined as being a friendly unit. First they are "treated" as friendly units.

All friendly units blow up: These guys don't, they're only "treated as", not "is"

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Either you did not read it, or you have serious issues when people lend you their items and say please "treat it as" if it was yours. Have people accused you of stealing sometimes? =P

The rules are not property. Bad analogy is bad.

Once you define "BB" as meaning "friendly units from allied codexes" then you dont need to keep repeating "unit" - to do so is redundant.

So, you need to prove "BB" doesnt mean "unit.....". Page and para.

 BlackTalos wrote:

Either you did not read it, or you have serious issues when people lend you their items and say please "treat it as" if it was yours. Have people accused you of stealing sometimes? =P

Another person not reading my posts.

I said that for GW rules my statement is correct.
But feel free to attempt to troll and mock all you want. I've provided rules citations and no one has proven them wrong. Have a nice day.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

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....

Post the page number please that clearly states IC's from a BATTLEBROTHERS codex (IE an allied codex you are using to the MAIN army you are allying with) are NOT Battle brothers and you would be right. As far as treated as even the RAI is on the RAW side because I cant buy an ork truck for my boyz and then put a mob of lootas in it. This is just an example of what the developers intended for transports.

Again since you have FAILED to ever post a page number that CLEARLY states an ALLIED IC can embark in an ALLIED transport you have failed to provide proof of your point. If you have posted some page number OTHER then 3 39 112 then please post it again cause I can find it in the topic at hand.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

Either you did not read it, or you have serious issues when people lend you their items and say please "treat it as" if it was yours. Have people accused you of stealing sometimes? =P

Another person not reading my posts.

I said that for GW rules my statement is correct.
But feel free to attempt to troll and mock all you want. I've provided rules citations and no one has proven them wrong. Have a nice day.

Wow, maybe you have calmed down since that last post. He even put a smiley face to show it was just a joke.

osirisx69 wrote:
Post the page number please that clearly states IC's from a BATTLEBROTHERS codex (IE an allied codex you are using to the MAIN army you are allying with) are NOT Battle brothers and you would be right. As far as treated as even the RAI is on the RAW side because I cant buy an ork truck for my boyz and then put a mob of lootas in it. This is just an example of what the developers intended for transports.

How is that example even close to relevant?

Again since you have FAILED to ever post a page number that CLEARLY states an ALLIED IC can embark in an ALLIED transport you have failed to provide proof of your point. If you have posted some page number OTHER then 3 39 112 then please post it again cause I can find it in the topic at hand.

You must be misreading pages 3 and 39 - they allow it, as I've shown.

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

Either you did not read it, or you have serious issues when people lend you their items and say please "treat it as" if it was yours. Have people accused you of stealing sometimes? =P

Another person not reading my posts.

I said that for GW rules my statement is correct.
But feel free to attempt to troll and mock all you want. I've provided rules citations and no one has proven them wrong. Have a nice day.

Wow, maybe you have calmed down since that last post. He even put a smiley face to show it was just a joke.

The part about stealing was the joke - and it was an attempt to mock my stance. And I haven't been worked up about this whole thing. I'm just tired of repeating myself for people who are deliberately misrepresenting or misunderstanding my argument.

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:
Post the page number please that clearly states IC's from a BATTLEBROTHERS codex (IE an allied codex you are using to the MAIN army you are allying with) are NOT Battle brothers and you would be right. As far as treated as even the RAI is on the RAW side because I cant buy an ork truck for my boyz and then put a mob of lootas in it. This is just an example of what the developers intended for transports.

How is that example even close to relevant?

Again since you have FAILED to ever post a page number that CLEARLY states an ALLIED IC can embark in an ALLIED transport you have failed to provide proof of your point. If you have posted some page number OTHER then 3 39 112 then please post it again cause I can find it in the topic at hand.

You must be misreading pages 3 and 39 - they allow it, as I've shown.

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

Either you did not read it, or you have serious issues when people lend you their items and say please "treat it as" if it was yours. Have people accused you of stealing sometimes? =P

Another person not reading my posts.

I said that for GW rules my statement is correct.
But feel free to attempt to troll and mock all you want. I've provided rules citations and no one has proven them wrong. Have a nice day.

Wow, maybe you have calmed down since that last post. He even put a smiley face to show it was just a joke.

The part about stealing was the joke - and it was an attempt to mock my stance. And I haven't been worked up about this whole thing. I'm just tired of repeating myself for people who are deliberately misrepresenting or misunderstanding my argument.

WOW you really believe that on page 3 or 39 its CLEARLY says the words "even BattleBrother IC'c can embark in an allied transport...."

Page 112 says that Battle Brothers cannot embark in an allied transport. THATS FACT! so ANY models you purchase as Battle Brothers CANNOT join an allied transport.

The rest you are literally making up...........

osirisx69 wrote:
WOW you really believe that on page 3 or 39 its CLEARLY says the words "even BattleBrother IC'c can embark in an allied transport...."

Have I said that? Pretty sure I haven't.

Page 112 says that Battle Brothers cannot embark in an allied transport. THATS FACT! so ANY models you purchase as Battle Brothers CANNOT join an allied transport.

You only believe this because you also believe that the rules in the BRB do not work.

The rest you are literally making up...........

Nope. I've provided my evidence.

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:
WOW you really believe that on page 3 or 39 its CLEARLY says the words "even BattleBrother IC'c can embark in an allied transport...."

Have I said that? Pretty sure I haven't.

Page 112 says that Battle Brothers cannot embark in an allied transport. THATS FACT! so ANY models you purchase as Battle Brothers CANNOT join an allied transport.

You only believe this because you also believe that the rules in the BRB do not work.

The rest you are literally making up...........

Nope. I've provided my evidence.

"You only believe this because you also believe that the rules in the BRB do not work."


Please stop stating that you know what I BELIEVE. You are personally signaling me out when that's not the case here. Its not a belief its a WRITTEN rule in the BRB word for word....page 112

Over 78% of the 40k populace know they are right about this topic.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/525801.page

Look don't believe the written word then. If you need more proof go to this forum post and read Yak's comment on page 1

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/523666.page

osirisx69 wrote:
Please stop stating that you know what I BELIEVE. You are personally signaling me out when that's not the case here. Its not a belief its a WRITTEN rule in the BRB word for word....page 112

I'm not singling you out. You posted, I responded. It is a belief that treated as != is, which is the foundation your argument is built on. That's the only way for page 112 to apply and it also literally causes the rules to not function. Which you'd know if you did what I suggested.

Over 78% of the 40k populace know they are right about this topic.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/525801.page

Over 78%? Don't you mean exactly 78%?
And 15% didn't even read the debate to educate themselves - they just voted blindly.
And that's not "the 40k populace" that's the people who frequent YMDC.

131 people responded that they think allied ICs cannot embark on transports. That's really all you can glean from that poll - that and 34 people think they can.
I wonder how many people "know they are right" about how many T3 W3 Swarm models die to a single S6 blast wound? If you answer 2 you're wrong, by the way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

osirisx69 wrote:
Look don't believe the written word then. If you need more proof go to this forum post and read Yak's comment on page 1

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/523666.page

And Yakface's comment is completely incorrect. I'm not sure what your point is.

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:
Please stop stating that you know what I BELIEVE. You are personally signaling me out when that's not the case here. Its not a belief its a WRITTEN rule in the BRB word for word....page 112

I'm not singling you out. You posted, I responded. It is a belief that treated as != is, which is the foundation your argument is built on. That's the only way for page 112 to apply and it also literally causes the rules to not function. Which you'd know if you did what I suggested.

Over 78% of the 40k populace know they are right about this topic.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/525801.page

Over 78%? Don't you mean exactly 78%?
And 15% didn't even read the debate to educate themselves - they just voted blindly.
And that's not "the 40k populace" that's the people who frequent YMDC.

131 people responded that they think allied ICs cannot embark on transports. That's really all you can glean from that poll - that and 34 people think they can.
I wonder how many people "know they are right" about how many T3 W3 Swarm models die to a single S6 blast wound? If you answer 2 you're wrong, by the way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

osirisx69 wrote:
Look don't believe the written word then. If you need more proof go to this forum post and read Yak's comment on page 1

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/523666.page

And Yakface's comment is completely incorrect. I'm not sure what your point is.

Wow..............just wow.

The argument for BB IC to embark in an allied transport fails on the logical level.

osirisx69 wrote:
Wow..............just wow.

The argument for BB IC to embark in an allied transport fails on the logical level.

Not true at all.

@ Xarin,

:If: the IC retains the rules associated with 'Battle Brother/s' while joined, what permissions 'the unit' has to embark is then irrelevant, fact a ''Battle Brother'' can not, trumps the rule which says the unit can. (Spercific 'can not' is present in this case).

Do you agree with that under :IF: conditions? If not please explain what is the problem factor in that scenario.

I'm a bit confused as well as to some of the notes entered in the OP, theres a scenario where the IC stays embarked however the rest of the unit are disembarked, I don't think thats a legal situation to be in in the first place.

Others are free to answer if they want.

 Nem wrote:
:If: the IC retains the rules associated with 'Battle Brother/s' while joined, what permissions 'the unit' has to embark is then irrelevant, fact a ''Battle Brother'' can not, trumps the rule which says the unit can. (Spercific 'can not' is present in this case).

Do you agree with that under :IF: conditions? If not please explain what is the problem factor in that scenario.

Sure. But he doesn't. Since those rules are tied to being a friendly unit.

I find it unbelievable that again this rules issue has been going on for 10 pages.

There is one rule to override all questions of the legality of an ally embarking a vehicle and that rule is conveniently ignored.

I would love to see someone try to explain away the ally rules in real life.

Naw wrote:
I find it unbelievable that again this rules issue has been going on for 10 pages.

There is one rule to override all questions of the legality of an ally embarking a vehicle and that rule is conveniently ignored.

I would love to see someone try to explain away the ally rules in real life.

Nothing is being ignored. At all. It's not polite to jump in on page 10 and think you understand the argument. Please read the thread.

rigeld2 wrote:

Naw wrote:
I find it unbelievable that again this rules issue has been going on for 10 pages.

There is one rule to override all questions of the legality of an ally embarking a vehicle and that rule is conveniently ignored.

I would love to see someone try to explain away the ally rules in real life.

Nothing is being ignored. At all. It's not polite to jump in on page 10 and think you understand the argument. Please read the thread.

You ARE ignoring the basic rule. You are doing it conveniently to misrepresent what RAW means.

Just because YOU feel he is wrong doesn't mean he is..........

This is most entertaining !!

 Dozer Blades wrote:
This is most entertaining !!

LOL I saw your post on the other thread. I really understand what they went through....

Anyways this statement sums it up perfectly.

"As I pointed out earlier and you have not addressed, if an allied IC that is a battle brother joins an allied unit, is it still a battle brother? If it is, then it must abide by all of the battle brother rules including not being able to embark. If it is no longer a battle brother, then it does not have any basis for joining that said unit because only a battle brother allied IC can join friendly units. It is not the fact that it is an IC that it can join the unit but the fact that it is a battle brother IC."

osirisx, when an IC joins a unit (BB or not), how many units are there (at that moment)?

 Happyjew wrote:
osirisx, when an IC joins a unit (BB or not), how many units are there (at that moment)?

why are you asking me to guess something?

Why would a Tau stop being a Tau just by joining an Eldar unit? Bought as an ally -> always as an ally, thus one rule to trump them all. This should not even be an issue as the rules clearly state that not even battle brothers can embark vehicles that are not their own.

@Rigeld2: You are assuming I have not read through these posts. You are ignoring the one basic rule that clearly states how allies work.

osirisx69 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
osirisx, when an IC joins a unit (BB or not), how many units are there (at that moment)?

why are you asking me to guess something?

He's not asking you to guess - it should be a trivial answer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

osirisx69 wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
This is most entertaining !!

LOL I saw your post on the other thread. I really understand what they went through....

Anyways this statement sums it up perfectly.

"As I pointed out earlier and you have not addressed, if an allied IC that is a battle brother joins an allied unit, is it still a battle brother? If it is, then it must abide by all of the battle brother rules including not being able to embark. If it is no longer a battle brother, then it does not have any basis for joining that said unit because only a battle brother allied IC can join friendly units. It is not the fact that it is an IC that it can join the unit but the fact that it is a battle brother IC."

And that bolded statement is incorrect.

Page 39 grants permission to join units. There is no rule, anywhere involved, that removes this permission. Therefore permission is granted for all ICs to join friendly units.

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
osirisx, when an IC joins a unit (BB or not), how many units are there (at that moment)?

why are you asking me to guess something?

He's not asking you to guess - it should be a trivial answer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

osirisx69 wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
This is most entertaining !!

LOL I saw your post on the other thread. I really understand what they went through....

Anyways this statement sums it up perfectly.

"As I pointed out earlier and you have not addressed, if an allied IC that is a battle brother joins an allied unit, is it still a battle brother? If it is, then it must abide by all of the battle brother rules including not being able to embark. If it is no longer a battle brother, then it does not have any basis for joining that said unit because only a battle brother allied IC can join friendly units. It is not the fact that it is an IC that it can join the unit but the fact that it is a battle brother IC."

And that bolded statement is incorrect.

Page 39 grants permission to join units. There is no rule, anywhere involved, that removes this permission. Therefore permission is granted for all ICs to join friendly units.

And that red sentence is a complete fallacy. There is a rule the removes the permission. PAGE 112

osirisx69 wrote:You ARE ignoring the basic rule. You are doing it conveniently to misrepresent what RAW means.

Just because YOU feel he is wrong doesn't mean he is..........

That's incorrect. I'm ignoring nothing. Ignoring would mean that I haven't addressed an issue with that argument. I have. Every time.

Naw wrote:Why would a Tau stop being a Tau just by joining an Eldar unit? Bought as an ally -> always as an ally, thus one rule to trump them all. This should not even be an issue as the rules clearly state that not even battle brothers can embark vehicles that are not their own.

@Rigeld2: You are assuming I have not read through these posts. You are ignoring the one basic rule that clearly states how allies work.

If you have read these posts then you are failing to understand the argument. Can I say it more clearly?

"the rules clearly state that not even battle brothers can embark vehicles that are not their own" <--- THIS RULE DOES NOT APPLY DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE IC IS NO LONGER A UNIT.
There - maybe if its in caps you'll be able to see the actual argument and try to find an issue with it instead of regurgitating something that was addressed 10 pages ago.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

osirisx69 wrote:
Page 39 grants permission to join units. There is no rule, anywhere involved, that removes this permission. Therefore permission is granted for all ICs to join friendly units.

And that red sentence is a complete fallacy. There is a rule the removes the permission. PAGE 112

Page 112 removes the permission to join units?

Cite the rule please. I'll wait.

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:You ARE ignoring the basic rule. You are doing it conveniently to misrepresent what RAW means.

Just because YOU feel he is wrong doesn't mean he is..........

That's incorrect. I'm ignoring nothing. Ignoring would mean that I haven't addressed an issue with that argument. I have. Every time.

Naw wrote:Why would a Tau stop being a Tau just by joining an Eldar unit? Bought as an ally -> always as an ally, thus one rule to trump them all. This should not even be an issue as the rules clearly state that not even battle brothers can embark vehicles that are not their own.

@Rigeld2: You are assuming I have not read through these posts. You are ignoring the one basic rule that clearly states how allies work.

If you have read these posts then you are failing to understand the argument. Can I say it more clearly?

"the rules clearly state that not even battle brothers can embark vehicles that are not their own" <--- THIS RULE DOES NOT APPLY DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE IC IS NO LONGER A UNIT.
There - maybe if its in caps you'll be able to see the actual argument and try to find an issue with it instead of regurgitating something that was addressed 10 pages ago.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

osirisx69 wrote:
Page 39 grants permission to join units. There is no rule, anywhere involved, that removes this permission. Therefore permission is granted for all ICs to join friendly units.

And that red sentence is a complete fallacy. There is a rule the removes the permission. PAGE 112

Page 112 removes the permission to join units?

Cite the rule please. I'll wait.

Yes page 112 clearly states BB cannot embark allied transport....

Again you are confusing with "treated as" and "being as". Its a mistake made a lot.

No were does it state the IC from a BB is allowed to join an allied transport. In fact there are rules stating the exact opposite.

" <--- THIS RULE DOES NOT APPLY DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE IC IS NO LONGER A UNIT.
There - maybe if its in caps you'll be able to see the actual argument and try to find an issue with it instead of regurgitating something that was addressed 10 pages ago.
"

You are again completely making this rule up.

osirisx69 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:
Page 39 grants permission to join units. There is no rule, anywhere involved, that removes this permission. Therefore permission is granted for all ICs to join friendly units.

And that red sentence is a complete fallacy. There is a rule the removes the permission. PAGE 112

Page 112 removes the permission to join units?

Cite the rule please. I'll wait.

Yes page 112 clearly states BB cannot embark allied transport....

Again you are confusing with "treated as" and IS a being as. Its a mistake make a lot.

No were does it state the IC from a BB is allowed to join an allied transport. In fact there are rules stating the exact opposite.

You misunderstand. Quote the rule on page 112 that denies the action in red. It has literally nothing to do with embarking. You said the denial is on page 112. Quote it, please.

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:
Page 39 grants permission to join units. There is no rule, anywhere involved, that removes this permission. Therefore permission is granted for all ICs to join friendly units.

And that red sentence is a complete fallacy. There is a rule the removes the permission. PAGE 112

Page 112 removes the permission to join units?

Cite the rule please. I'll wait.

Yes page 112 clearly states BB cannot embark allied transport....

Again you are confusing with "treated as" and IS a being as. Its a mistake make a lot.

No were does it state the IC from a BB is allowed to join an allied transport. In fact there are rules stating the exact opposite.

You misunderstand. Quote the rule on page 112 that denies the action in red. It has literally nothing to do with embarking. You said the denial is on page 112. Quote it, please.

lmao keep putting your fingers in your ear Reg........

osirisx69 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:
Page 39 grants permission to join units. There is no rule, anywhere involved, that removes this permission. Therefore permission is granted for all ICs to join friendly units.

And that red sentence is a complete fallacy. There is a rule the removes the permission. PAGE 112

Page 112 removes the permission to join units?

Cite the rule please. I'll wait.

Yes page 112 clearly states BB cannot embark allied transport....

Again you are confusing with "treated as" and IS a being as. Its a mistake make a lot.

No were does it state the IC from a BB is allowed to join an allied transport. In fact there are rules stating the exact opposite.

You misunderstand. Quote the rule on page 112 that denies the action in red. It has literally nothing to do with embarking. You said the denial is on page 112. Quote it, please.

lmao keep putting your fingers in your ear Reg........

It's Rig. And really, it's rigeld2.

So no actual rules quote to support your statement that the red is a "complete fallacy"? Because I've read page 112 and there is no such denial.

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:
Page 39 grants permission to join units. There is no rule, anywhere involved, that removes this permission. Therefore permission is granted for all ICs to join friendly units.

And that red sentence is a complete fallacy. There is a rule the removes the permission. PAGE 112

Page 112 removes the permission to join units?

Cite the rule please. I'll wait.

Yes page 112 clearly states BB cannot embark allied transport....

Again you are confusing with "treated as" and IS a being as. Its a mistake make a lot.

No were does it state the IC from a BB is allowed to join an allied transport. In fact there are rules stating the exact opposite.

You misunderstand. Quote the rule on page 112 that denies the action in red. It has literally nothing to do with embarking. You said the denial is on page 112. Quote it, please.

lmao keep putting your fingers in your ear Reg........

It's Rig. And really, it's rigeld2.

So no actual rules quote to support your statement that the red is a "complete fallacy"? Because I've read page 112 and there is no such denial.

I have read page 3 39 and 112 and there is NO SUCH PERMISSION that allows BB to embark on allied transports. So I DONT need to point out the denial......WOW

Did you not understand this is a permissive game? Let me clear it up...........

THIS IS A PERMISSIVE GAME. YOU NEED PERMISSION TO ALLOW THE ACTION REQUESTED.

See all caps like you like it....

Your false logic fails..........