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.

They are saying it is no longer a Battle Brother, but as an Eldar model it clearly is, as it is from the allied detachment and its rules are found in the allied codex.

 Jimsolo wrote:
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?'

You missed stacking hammerhand, and the rule that says "different powers stack" apparently being a waste of ink.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
They are saying it is no longer a Battle Brother, but as an Eldar model it clearly is, as it is from the allied detachment and its rules are found in the allied codex.

Incorrect, reread more carefully, and note that a distinction is made between a UNIT and a MODEL here, one that you are missing.

The rules concerning Battle Brother units state that they cannot embark allied vehicles.
There is no such restriction on Battle Brother models.

An IC joining a unit is demonstrably NOT a unit in their own right any longer, but as per page 39 are a normal member for ALL rules purposes. Thus, the eldar model is STILL a battle brother, but NOT a battle brother unit, and absolutely CAN embark while joined to the Tau unit.

100% solid, concrete rules.

The rule says "However, note that not even Battle Brothers can embark in allied transport vehicles", not Battle Brothers units, Battle Brothers. The IC is a Battle Brother; therefore they cannot embark on friendly transports; Q.E.D.

Don't bother, they'll just ignore that rule as there are only battle brother units and battle brother models in the game. That is why the rule does not count.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
The rule says "However, note that not even Battle Brothers can embark in allied transport vehicles", not Battle Brothers units, Battle Brothers. The IC is a Battle Brother; therefore they cannot embark on friendly transports; Q.E.D.

Yes, and if you read further up that example, you will note it is talking only about batle brother units, not models. Meaning that, unless you are ignoring context, this is referring to units of Battle Brothers and is a restriction only on said units.

Or do you disagree that he rule is only talking about units? If so you are ignoring context.

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.

That's incorrect. There's a specific rule forbidding BB units from embarking. Please cite rules correctly.

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

As far as the rules are concerned, he does. Pretending otherwise violates the IC rules.
I'm ignoring nothing - please do not put words in my mouth. I've demonstrated how the rules work. I've asked 3 questions to give people an opportunity to show where they disagree. It's been ignored. I've cited rules to support my position. The best that has been used in rebuttal is "Nuh uh!".

I know you removed your post, but as you had a section directly addressed to me, I wanted to respond.

I'm sorry, I was under the impression this was a RAW discussion, not RAI.

Please ignore me.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
The rule says "However, note that not even Battle Brothers can embark in allied transport vehicles", not Battle Brothers units, Battle Brothers. The IC is a Battle Brother; therefore they cannot embark on friendly transports; Q.E.D.

Please, read the header before those bullet points.
Note that Battle Brothers are friendly units. Do you disagree?
Why are you separating the bullet points from the header?
Why are you assuming that something that isn't a unit can be restricted by rules around a friendly unit?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
I'm sorry, I was under the impression this was a RAW discussion, not RAI.

Please ignore me.

It is a RAW discussion. I've cited the rules that support my position.
Your refusal to actually address my argument is noted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Naw wrote:
Don't bother, they'll just ignore that rule as there are only battle brother units and battle brother models in the game. That is why the rule does not count.

That's a lie - I'm ignoring nothing.
Please address the argument, not the person.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
I'm sorry, I was under the impression this was a RAW discussion, not RAI.

Please ignore me.

It is a RAW discussion - I've supplied the rules, which is that Battle Brothers are defined under rules for BB UNITS. Nott models. It is only possible to disagree if you literally ignore rules

rigeld2 wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
The rule says "However, note that not even Battle Brothers can embark in allied transport vehicles", not Battle Brothers units, Battle Brothers. The IC is a Battle Brother; therefore they cannot embark on friendly transports; Q.E.D.

Please, read the header before those bullet points.
Note that Battle Brothers are friendly units. Do you disagree?
Why are you separating the bullet points from the header?
Why are you assuming that something that isn't a unit can be restricted by rules around a friendly unit?

No, I do not.
Because each is a separate rule.
Because (a) an Independent character is a unit, (b) the rule does not say it only applies to units and (c) as it comes from the allied codex it is by definition a Battle Brother.

It is a RAW discussion. I've cited the rules that support my position.
Your refusal to actually address my argument is noted.

Just personal opinion here, but I consider saying that a rule is intended to mean something other than what it says it means because of "context" to be a RAI argument.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
The rule says "However, note that not even Battle Brothers can embark in allied transport vehicles", not Battle Brothers units, Battle Brothers. The IC is a Battle Brother; therefore they cannot embark on friendly transports; Q.E.D.

Please, read the header before those bullet points.
Note that Battle Brothers are friendly units. Do you disagree?
Why are you separating the bullet points from the header?
Why are you assuming that something that isn't a unit can be restricted by rules around a friendly unit?

No, I do not.
Because each is a separate rule.
Because (a) an Independent character is a unit, (b) the rule does not say it only applies to units and (c) as it comes from the allied codex it is by definition a Battle Brother.

Your (b) is demonstrably incorrect.

p112 wrote:Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units' from all
points of view. This means, for example, that Battle Brothers:

Note that it says "all points of view". Note again that the second sentence (the header for the bullet points) is applying that definition (friendly units) to the bullet points.
Therefore the rule does apply to only units - specifically friendly units that are tagged as Battle Brothers.

Just personal opinion here, but I consider saying that a rule is intended to mean something other than what it says it means because of "context" to be a RAI argument.

Except you're misreading the rule. I'm not saying it's what is intended, I am saying what the rule actually says.

Do you or don't you?

PR - so you disagree that the definition only stalks about units? P39 also tates an IC is no longer a unit when joined - sol your a) is false as well.

So far a) and b) are wrong, and c) is an unsupported leap given the rules for BB define them as being units. So QED you are wrong

 PrinceRaven wrote:
I'm sorry, I was under the impression this was a RAW discussion, not RAI.

Please ignore me.

This +1

As PrinceRaven said, you can't cherry pick your rules.

Rule 1 allows something.
Rule 2 alllows something.
Rule 3 prevents the above two in certain situation.

Your claim is that rule 3 does not count as there are no BB models, only BB units. But the rule 3 does not make that distinction, it universally forbids you from doing something. That rule has been quoted already, and it is very clear in wording.

Produce a rule that disproves this.

osirisx69 wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
I'm sorry, I was under the impression this was a RAW discussion, not RAI.

Please ignore me.

This +1

It is a RAW discussion. As was already mentioned. So just saying "This +1" isn't contributing anything.

Naw wrote:As PrinceRaven said, you can't cherry pick your rules.

Rule 1 allows something.
Rule 2 alllows something.
Rule 3 prevents the above two in certain situation.

Your claim is that rule 3 does not count as there are no BB models, only BB units. But the rule 3 does not make that distinction, it universally forbids you from doing something. That rule has been quoted already, and it is very clear in wording.

Produce a rule that disproves this.

Rule 3 absolutely does make that distinction.

p112 wrote:Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units' from all points of view. This means, for example, that Battle Brothers:
...
• However, note that not even Battle Brothers can embark in allied transport vehicles.

All points of view. What does that mean? Oh - the rules are kind enough to tell us what "Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units'" means.
One of the things it (Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units') means is that not even Battle Brothers (that thing that is a friendly unit) can embark.

Do you or don't you?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
PR - so you disagree that the definition only stalks about units? P39 also tates an IC is no longer a unit when joined - sol your a) is false as well.

So far a) and b) are wrong, and c) is an unsupported leap given the rules for BB define them as being units. So QED you are wrong

Page 39 says it is counted as part of the unit for all purposes, not that it stops being a unit, do you believe a Farseer joined to a squad of Fire Warriors is no longer a Farseer unit?

Saying that the "Battle Brothers are treated as friendly units" rule means that only units are defined as Battle Brothers is also an unsupported leap.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
PR - so you disagree that the definition only stalks about units? P39 also tates an IC is no longer a unit when joined - sol your a) is false as well.

So far a) and b) are wrong, and c) is an unsupported leap given the rules for BB define them as being units. So QED you are wrong

Page 39 says it is counted as part of the unit for all purposes, not that it stops being a unit, do you believe a Farseer joined to a squad of Fire Warriors is no longer a Farseer unit?

Correct - he's no longer a unit. He's still a Farseer, but he's not a unit.

Saying that the "Battle Brothers are treated as friendly units" rule means that only units are defined as Battle Brothers is also an unsupported leap.

Really? Do you have another rules definition of what being a Battle Brother means in the rules?

Naw wrote:
As PrinceRaven said, you can't cherry pick your rules.

Rule 1 allows something.
Rule 2 alllows something.
Rule 3 prevents the above two in certain situation.

Your claim is that rule 3 does not count as there are no BB models, only BB units. But the rule 3 does not make that distinction, it universally forbids you from doing something. That rule has been quoted already, and it is very clear in wording.

Produce a rule that disproves this.

This is absolutely correct. Saying that BB does not apply to models would negate being able to purchase said models through the codex.

When you purchase the models in whatever allied codex they are all considered units

Independent characters count as one unit for targeting purposes, shooting, and assault, so why would they NOT be a unit when determining BB status?

Heck (I am paraphrasing) it even says in the BB that an IC is considered 1 unit or if a few join together its considered 1 big unit

osirisx69 wrote:
This is absolutely correct. Saying that BB does not apply to models would negate being able to purchase said models through the codex.

No it wouldn't. At all.

When you purchase the models in whatever allied codex they are all considered units

Yup.

Independent characters count as one unit for targeting purposes, shooting, and assault, so why would they NOT be a unit when determining BB status?

Because they're joined to another unit and therefore do not count as a unit for targeting, shooting, or assault.

Heck (I am paraphrasing) it even says in the BB that an IC is considered 1 unit or if a few join together its considered 1 big unit

... Correct. Literally no bearing, but correct.

Its a standard warhammer rules conundrum. Both points have merits to them, and there is no clear answer. GW hasn't released an FAQ in over a year so they are no help.

If you are into competitive play, then ask the organizers of the event you wish to attend. House rules for tournaments seems to be the way things are going.

As for HIWPI, I would allow it, as do the group of guys I play with. An inquisitor riding with some space marines in a rhino? Sure, what's the problem with this?
Its a beer and pretzels game after all, and not even the game designers care so much as to clarify the rules.

 Big Blind Bill wrote:
Its a standard warhammer rules conundrum. Both points have merits to them, and there is no clear answer. GW hasn't released an FAQ in over a year so they are no help.

If you are into competitive play, then ask the organizers of the event you wish to attend. House rules for tournaments seems to be the way things are going.

As for HIWPI, I would allow it, as do the group of guys I play with. An inquisitor riding with some space marines in a rhino? Sure, what's the problem with this?
Its a beer and pretzels game after all, and not even the game designers care so much as to clarify the rules.

All, true. But in general people like to follow RAW in these discussions. Its very hard to argue with ""While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes.."" in this discussion for RAW though.

The op asked what dakka thinks. Both the polls clearly show over 76% of players have it right and feel IC cannot use an allied DT. If you want to bend rules or make stretching logical leaps you could play it wrong and allow IC's to use an allied DT.

Either way, again, this topic has run its course and probably should be locked as there is no new information being added.

osirisx69 wrote:
The op asked what dakka thinks. Both the polls clearly show over 76% of players have it right and feel IC cannot use an allied DT. If you want to bend rules or make stretching logical leaps you could play it wrong and allow IC's to use an allied DT.

Please don't assert right/wrong without at least attempting to disprove an argument.

As it is, all you've done is say I'm wrong and offered literally nothing to back it up. Please actually contribute to the thread.

Considering the rules are so clear cut and dry for the Rigeld/Nos camp...I'm surprised the vote is going like it is.

I guess it isn't clear cut and dry and that Battle Brother rule has permission to disappear afterall.

I have to admit, it is nice to see that when there are two ways to 'read' a rule...the masses come to a more logical conclusion...but some still refuse to. Makes this thread so very fun to read.

P.S - I voted 'No', because the Battle Brother rule remains.

Please - just once - cite where I've said the Battle Brother rule "disappears". Please - just once - cite where the "other side" is a more "logical conclusion". Use actual rules instead of attempts to mock.

Instead of jeering and snide remarks, actually participate in the discussion. That'd be welcome. Insults aren't.

 Farseer Faenyin wrote:
Considering the rules are so clear cut and dry for the Rigeld/Nos camp...I'm surprised the vote is going like it is.

I guess it isn't clear cut and dry and that Battle Brother rule has permission to disappear afterall.

I have to admit, it is nice to see that when there are two ways to 'read' a rule...the masses come to a more logical conclusion...but some still refuse to. Makes this thread so very fun to read.

P.S - I voted 'No', because the Battle Brother rule remains.

You will find this more true then not. Most people are very easy to have a discussion with and debate over. This topic is a prime example. It really has stayed pretty civil even though over 78% agree that IC's cant be in allied DC.

osirisx69 wrote:
It really has stayed pretty civil even though over 78% agree that IC's cant be in allied DC.

That many people play that way.
That doesn't mean that's what the rules actually say. You do understand the difference, yes?

rigeld2 wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
PR - so you disagree that the definition only stalks about units? P39 also tates an IC is no longer a unit when joined - sol your a) is false as well.

So far a) and b) are wrong, and c) is an unsupported leap given the rules for BB define them as being units. So QED you are wrong

Page 39 says it is counted as part of the unit for all purposes, not that it stops being a unit, do you believe a Farseer joined to a squad of Fire Warriors is no longer a Farseer unit?

Correct - he's no longer a unit. He's still a Farseer, but he's not a unit.

I am ok with this interpretation, since the model is now unable to use the rules for a Farseer unit.

Saying that the "Battle Brothers are treated as friendly units" rule means that only units are defined as Battle Brothers is also an unsupported leap.

Really? Do you have another rules definition of what being a Battle Brother means in the rules?

Considering that "Battle Brothers" is just a level of alliance, everything in the allied detachment that is Battle Brothers with the relevant unit.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
PR - so you disagree that the definition only stalks about units? P39 also tates an IC is no longer a unit when joined - sol your a) is false as well.

So far a) and b) are wrong, and c) is an unsupported leap given the rules for BB define them as being units. So QED you are wrong

Page 39 says it is counted as part of the unit for all purposes, not that it stops being a unit, do you believe a Farseer joined to a squad of Fire Warriors is no longer a Farseer unit?

Correct - he's no longer a unit. He's still a Farseer, but he's not a unit.

I am ok with this interpretation, since the model is now unable to use the rules for a Farseer unit.

Great? You do realize his special rules, etc are model based and not tied to him being a unit, right?

Saying that the "Battle Brothers are treated as friendly units" rule means that only units are defined as Battle Brothers is also an unsupported leap.

Really? Do you have another rules definition of what being a Battle Brother means in the rules?

Considering that "Battle Brothers" is just a level of alliance, everything in the allied detachment that is Battle Brothers with the relevant unit.

No - that identifies what units are Battle Brothers.
Please define what that means in the rules. I've shown where it's defined. You've said that doesn't apply. Please show me rules that do apply to non-unit Battle Brothers.