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.

An example of what I want to do is simple. Allied inquisitor joins a sternguard unit in a drop pod. Can I do this?

This debate has started in another thread, I wanted to pull it out as a separate argument.

Some people are using the allies rules which states even battle brothers can't embark on allied transports. Others are quoting the independent character rules stating that when an IC joins a unit he becomes part of that unit, and it is the units transport and therefore allowed.

Where do we stand dakka?

Khaine: read this thread: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/523666.page

It was locked after 14 pages of debate, there hasn't been a FAQ to resolve it AND we have new rules coming in 2 weeks...

Raw yes, because the bb rules refer to
Bb units, and while the IC is attached it isn't a BB unit.

Are the release dates for the new rules confirmed? I really need to get my hands on the new book. Anyone know if this months white dwarf have any decent info?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Raw yes, because the bb rules refer to
Bb units, and while the IC is attached it isn't a BB unit.

to quote a famous dakkanaught

"This is where you have taken an incorrect logical leap.

Just because an IC counts as being a member of a unit does not mean any other rules/abilities/etc that this model has are jettisoned. Even if the model is joined a unit, he is STILL an allied battle brother model within that unit.

And given that IC battle brothers are never allowed to embark on their allies transports, this is always disallowed, no matter what. "

osirisx69 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Raw yes, because the bb rules refer to
Bb units, and while the IC is attached it isn't a BB unit.

to quote a famous dakkanaught

"This is where you have taken an incorrect logical leap.

Just because an IC counts as being a member of a unit does not mean any other rules/abilities/etc that this model has are jettisoned. Even if the model is joined a unit, he is STILL an allied battle brother model within that unit.

And given that IC battle brothers are never allowed to embark on their allies transports, this is always disallowed, no matter what. "

And that famous dakkanaught is completely and utterly wrong.
There is no rule that says IC battle brothers are not allowed to embark.
There is a rule that Battle Brother (units) are not allowed to embark. An IC that is joined to a unit is not, himself, a unit and therefore there's no restriction on embarking.

Well that is why I am interested in how tournaments play it?

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Raw yes, because the bb rules refer to
Bb units, and while the IC is attached it isn't a BB unit.

to quote a famous dakkanaught

"This is where you have taken an incorrect logical leap.

Just because an IC counts as being a member of a unit does not mean any other rules/abilities/etc that this model has are jettisoned. Even if the model is joined a unit, he is STILL an allied battle brother model within that unit.

And given that IC battle brothers are never allowed to embark on their allies transports, this is always disallowed, no matter what. "

And that famous dakkanaught is completely and utterly wrong.
There is no rule that says IC battle brothers are not allowed to embark.
There is a rule that Battle Brother (units) are not allowed to embark. An IC that is joined to a unit is not, himself, a unit and therefore there's no restriction on embarking.

Please site page and reference where it explicitly states IC of a DIFFERENT codex are not considered battle brothers.

All I am asking you show us where it says that..... that's it...........

osirisx69 wrote:
[Please site page and reference where it explicitly states IC of a DIFFERENT codex are not considered battle brothers.

All I am asking you show us where it says that..... that's it...........

What? That has literally no bearing on anything I've said.

Battle Brothers are defined as being friendly units. Correct?
If something is not a unit, it cannot be a friendly unit. Correct?
An IC that joins a unit is no longer a unit in and of himself. Correct?

Please tell me which one of these you disagree with and cite rules to support your disagreement.

Its simple really.

When you take an allied detachment you have to determine if its a battle brother or not. correct?
When you purchase the units from a different codex that you have determined is a battlebrother all models\units\squads\ are battlebrothers, including independent characters. correct?
Since there is NO RULE anywhere saying you remove that tag\status\honor of battle brother, anything purchased from that allied codex therefore still a battlebrother correct?.
It states not EVEN battlebrothers can join DT. Correct?

what don't you agree with and why?

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:
[Please site page and reference where it explicitly states IC of a DIFFERENT codex are not considered battle brothers.

All I am asking you show us where it says that..... that's it...........

What? That has literally no bearing on anything I've said.

Battle Brothers are defined as being friendly units. Correct?
If something is not a unit, it cannot be a friendly unit. Correct?
An IC that joins a unit is no longer a unit in and of himself. Correct?

Please tell me which one of these you disagree with and cite rules to support your disagreement.

I'd love an actual answer.

osirisx69 wrote:It states not EVEN battlebrothers can join DT. Correct?

Partially correct, but misleading. The rule you're referring to is part of a set of rules that refer to BB as friendly units. Since an IC that joins a unit is no longer a unit he is not bound by those rules whatsoever.
Which is why I asked my questions - they're absolutely relevant and your refusal to answer them is noted.

rigeld2 wrote:
Since an IC that joins a unit is no longer a unit he is not bound by those rules whatsoever.

...Thereby removing his permission to be joined to that unit in the first place?

Anyway, no. Battle Brothers are not defined as friendly units, they're treated as friendly units. They're defined as coming from a specific different codex. Joining a unit does not remove its status as a Battle Brother - it still came from a different codex.

Pyrian wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Since an IC that joins a unit is no longer a unit he is not bound by those rules whatsoever.

...Thereby removing his permission to be joined to that unit in the first place?

Anyway, no. Battle Brothers are not defined as friendly units, they're treated as friendly units. They're defined as coming from a specific different codex. Joining a unit does not remove its status as a Battle Brother - it still came from a different codex.

+1

and ninjad my response......

Pyrian wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Since an IC that joins a unit is no longer a unit he is not bound by those rules whatsoever.

...Thereby removing his permission to be joined to that unit in the first place?

You mean the permission granted by being an IC?

Anyway, no. Battle Brothers are not defined as friendly units, they're treated as friendly units. They're defined as coming from a specific different codex. Joining a unit does not remove its status as a Battle Brother - it still came from a different codex.

I didn't say, and haven't said, that the IC isn't from another codex.
And you're misrepresenting something - when 40k says "treated as" it has to mean the same thing as "is".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

osirisx69 wrote:

Pyrian wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Since an IC that joins a unit is no longer a unit he is not bound by those rules whatsoever.

...Thereby removing his permission to be joined to that unit in the first place?

Anyway, no. Battle Brothers are not defined as friendly units, they're treated as friendly units. They're defined as coming from a specific different codex. Joining a unit does not remove its status as a Battle Brother - it still came from a different codex.

+1

Another refusal to answer questions?
Awesome.

rigeld2 wrote:

Anyway, no. Battle Brothers are not defined as friendly units, they're treated as friendly units. They're defined as coming from a specific different codex. Joining a unit does not remove its status as a Battle Brother - it still came from a different codex.

I didn't say, and haven't said, that the IC isn't from another codex.

But you ARE claiming that he is no longer a Battle Brother, which is equivalent.

rigeld2 wrote:
And you're misrepresenting something - when 40k says "treated as" it has to mean the same thing as "is".

I've made the same argument a number of times, but this is different. Typically, the argument goes, A is treated as B, a rule references B, and people try to argue that A isn't "really" B, so it shouldn't apply. You're doing a sort of inverse of the same thing; trying to claim that a rule doesn't apply to A because A isn't A because it's B. But being B doesn't make A not A. If A is treated as B, and a rule references A, you don't get to claim that the rule doesn't apply because A is now B rather than A. A is B - but it's still A, too.

Pyrian wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Anyway, no. Battle Brothers are not defined as friendly units, they're treated as friendly units. They're defined as coming from a specific different codex. Joining a unit does not remove its status as a Battle Brother - it still came from a different codex.

I didn't say, and haven't said, that the IC isn't from another codex.

But you ARE claiming that he is no longer a Battle Brother, which is equivalent.

[color=blue]That is the only way for the argument to be valid. The IC would have to lose the BB status in order for it to be in a DT. I just don 't see anywhere here in the BRB that supports that argument. Because if its NOT a BB then it could NOT join an allied unit in the first place. So yes he is claiming through a logical leap that IC lose there BB status.[/color]

rigeld2 wrote:
And you're misrepresenting something - when 40k says "treated as" it has to mean the same thing as "is".

I've made the same argument a number of times, but this is different. Typically, the argument goes, A is treated as B, a rule references B, and people try to argue that A isn't "really" B, so it shouldn't apply. You're doing a sort of inverse of the same thing; trying to claim that a rule doesn't apply to A because A isn't A because it's B. But being B doesn't make A not A. If A is treated as B, and a rule references A, you don't get to claim that the rule doesn't apply because A is now B rather than A. A is B - but it's still A, too.

This +1

Pyrian wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Anyway, no. Battle Brothers are not defined as friendly units, they're treated as friendly units. They're defined as coming from a specific different codex. Joining a unit does not remove its status as a Battle Brother - it still came from a different codex.

I didn't say, and haven't said, that the IC isn't from another codex.

But you ARE claiming that he is no longer a Battle Brother, which is equivalent.

No, I'm not. I'm stating he's no longer bound by the restrictions associated with Battle Brother units.

rigeld2 wrote:
And you're misrepresenting something - when 40k says "treated as" it has to mean the same thing as "is".

I've made the same argument a number of times, but this is different. Typically, the argument goes, A is treated as B, a rule references B, and people try to argue that A isn't "really" B, so it shouldn't apply. You're doing a sort of inverse of the same thing; trying to claim that a rule doesn't apply to A because A isn't A because it's B. But being B doesn't make A not A. If A is treated as B, and a rule references A, you don't get to claim that the rule doesn't apply because A is now B rather than A. A is B - but it's still A, too.

I don't really follow what you said, but you're saying he's still a Battle Brother? Sure. I don't care.
He's not a Battle Brother *unit* which is what the rule in question applies to. Which is what I said. Please address what I've said instead of assuming what you think I'm saying.

I get what you're saying, rigeld. While a battle brother unit cannot embark, an independent character (once joined to another unit) is not a battle brother unit anymore.

 Leonus wrote:
I get what you're saying, rigeld. While a battle brother unit cannot embark, an independent character (once joined to another unit) is not a battle brother unit anymore.

Exactly. It's still a Battle Brother, but that's irrelevant as the only rules restricting embarkation are associated with BB units.

'No' vote from me. Battle brothers can not ride in Allied transports.

Allowing them to do so causes issues when the squad climbs out (or dies) and may result in the end of space-time as we know it. Think of the universe. Don't put allied ICs in transports.

With the inconsistencies it's easier to agree on no. There have been polls before which suggest most people would play it no.

We can cross our fingers for allies fix in 7, with recent publications I'm guessing that New release will follow the trend 'unit' will disappear from the relationship BRB section and be replaced with 'models'.

Most people play that way, sure.
But it's demonstrably not what the rules actually say - which is what was asked.

I say yes, however, a vast majority of Dakka users think otherwise. You'd be hard pressed to find an opponent who'd play it otherwise.

Removed.

Naw wrote:
This is very easy:

Is the IC from an allied detachment?
If yes, then that IC is a BB at best and there is a _specific_ rule forbidding his embarkment.

Anything else is just ignoring the one rule to rule them all.

Once the allied IC has joined a primary detachment unit, check again where he is from. Is he from the allied detachment? Yes, he still is. He is forbidden from embarking.

Why do you continuosly ignore a) the rules defining alliances and b) the _specific_ rule that forbids the action of embarking?

Why do you ignore the Independent Character rule? The part where it says the character is considered a member of that unit for ALL rules purposes. Army affiliation would seem to qualify. And in most cases (bar a few special exceptions mentioned in the FAQs) it does.

This last bit is to Rig: You do not have demonstrated anything else than your ability to ignore a specific rule.

My IC does not suddenly become a troop just because he joined a unit of troops

For almost every rules purpose that matters, he does. If your HQ is joined to a troops unit and he is the only model from that unit in range of an objective, you still claim it because he's still a member of a scoring (troops) unit.

and my allied IC certainly does not become part of the primary detachment losing his allied status by joining my primary detachment troops!

Can't believe why there is even an argument saying otherwise..

Because the RAW seems to say otherwise. I understand that an overwhelming majority of players have decided that the RAI is that allied ICs can't get in their Battle Brothers' transports, and that might even be the case, but it isn't the RAW. And since we apparently love to debate the Rules as Written and Not How Anyone is Ever Going to Play Them, then the answer is that BB units can be joined by an IC in their low-riders. Trying to dismiss an argument (especially one that continues to spark so much debate) as 'unbelievable' is one of the surest signs of not being sure you're correct.

Must we start this again?

Every couple of months. Like clockwork. Usually right after someone starts the 'Can Space Marine apothecaries take upgrades?' thread all over again. Although occasionally this one takes a backseat to the 'do drop pod doors always count as open?' thread. Have I missed any of the 'Top 10 YMDC Hits?'

 Scipio Africanus wrote:
Must we start this again?

No, we don't. Apologies, I'll remove my message to prevent more responses.

I'm gonna go with no, an Eldar Farseer in a tau Fire Warrior squad is stil an Eldar Farseer.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
I'm gonna go with no, an Eldar Farseer in a tau Fire Warrior squad is stil an Eldar Farseer.

Right, however, the unit is a Tau Fire Warrior unit. No one is saying that the Farseer magically becomes a Fire Warrior.