Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports.

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.

**Happyjew**

some bloke wrote:
if you want to argue the "is it a unit" thing, let's do that:
"Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units' from all points of view"

this doesn't say that battle brother units are treated as friendly units, just battle brothers in general.

So each individual model in the army is now it's own unit? If Battle Brothers refers to models and not units that means every single model, in your army, is now its own unit. Guess that means only one model can be embarked at a time, and characters cannot utilise LOS!

**Naw**

rigeld2 wrote:
Naw wrote:
Let's see what page 112 actually says.

Allies - Levels of Alliance - Battle Brothers

Quite clear that Battle Brothers cover everything: Troops, IC, monstrous creatures, etc.

"Battle Brothers have utter trust in their comrades.."

The some examples are listed, which include:

"However, note that not even Battle Brothers can embark in allied transport vehicles."

Cannot really be more clearer than that. I don't see the need tl argue this further.

Congratulations on a failure to actually read the thread and correctly quote rules.
Hint - you left out 2 very important sentences in your attempt to seem correct.
Please don't purposely leave relevant rules text out when discussing rules.

Those sentences are irrelevant as the blanket statement in third bullet point covers all cases. That is the point you conveniently forget.

Answer this question with yes/no and provide rules to support your response:

Can Battle Brothers embark on transports of their allies?

**Happyjew**

Naw wrote:
Answer this question with yes/no and provide rules to support your response:

Can Battle Brothers embark on transports of their allies?

Battle Brother units cannot embark on allied Transports.

If an IC is attached to an allied unit, you only have the unit, which has no restriction on embarking onto its own transport.

**Fragile**

Happyjew wrote:
Naw wrote:
Answer this question with yes/no and provide rules to support your response:

Can Battle Brothers embark on transports of their allies?

Battle Brother units cannot embark on allied Transports.

If an IC is attached to an allied unit, you only have the unit, which has no restriction on embarking onto its own transport.

A unit never ceases to be a unit though, unless it has a special rule stating that it does. For example Royal Courts, etc.

**osirisx69**

"However, note that not even Battle Brothers can embark in allied transport vehicles." is denial for all BB.

**Happyjew**

Fragile wrote:
Happyjew wrote:
Naw wrote:
Answer this question with yes/no and provide rules to support your response:

Can Battle Brothers embark on transports of their allies?

Battle Brother units cannot embark on allied Transports.

If an IC is attached to an allied unit, you only have the unit, which has no restriction on embarking onto its own transport.

A unit never ceases to be a unit though, unless it has a special rule stating that it does. For example Royal Courts, etc.

If there is still a unit, that means I can elect to shoot at the IC unit, which would just contain the specific IC. Furthermore, the IC would not be able to LOS! any wounds, as there is no one else in the IC unit.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

osirisx69 wrote:
"However, note that not even Battle Brothers can embark in allied transport vehicles." is denial for all BB.

Which when taken in context refers to what? Friendly units. Not models, units.

**osirisx69**

some bloke wrote:
you make your list, you look at the units chosen in the allied detachment and they are all branded "battle brothers", and they can't go in transports. then you try and put one in a transport - regardless of what with - and you can't, because it can't go in transports.

by your argument, you can put the IC in a unit and then put the unit in a transport, but you can't get the IC into a transport to join the squad that's already inside, because he can't get in. only the first one of these is disputed, so logically it's going to be the same as the second; he can't get into the transport at all.

here's another; you want your ethereal to get a better bunker. so you ally in space marines, and get a landraider. the ethereal can't embark, as per the battle brothers rules, but there's nothing that states he cannot be embarked, meaning you can take him in a squad of marines, then immediately get the marines out of the landraider, leaving the ethereal behind. you just can't do that.

I'm not sure where the dispute is coming from here. the rulebook on page 112 states:

"However, note that not even Battle Brothers can embark on allied transport vehicles."

is the allied IC from a different codex a battle brother? yes.
QED - he can't get in a vehicle.

if you want to argue the "is it a unit" thing, let's do that:
"Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units' from all points of view"

this doesn't say that battle brother units are treated as friendly units, just battle brothers in general. it also states that battle brothers can't get into an allied transport.

so for him to be able to get in, by your method, he is relinquishing his status as a "friendly unit" as he's clearly not a battle brother, and so can't join the unit to embark anyway!

they're either bringing their own transports, or they're walking.

this +1

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Happyjew wrote:
Fragile wrote:
Happyjew wrote:
Naw wrote:
Answer this question with yes/no and provide rules to support your response:

Can Battle Brothers embark on transports of their allies?

Battle Brother units cannot embark on allied Transports.

If an IC is attached to an allied unit, you only have the unit, which has no restriction on embarking onto its own transport.

A unit never ceases to be a unit though, unless it has a special rule stating that it does. For example Royal Courts, etc.

If there is still a unit, that means I can elect to shoot at the IC unit, which would just contain the specific IC. Furthermore, the IC would not be able to LOS! any wounds, as there is no one else in the IC unit.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

osirisx69 wrote:
"However, note that not even Battle Brothers can embark in allied transport vehicles." is denial for all BB.

Which when taken in context refers to what? Friendly units. Not models, units.

Actually it refers to anything purchased from a codex that you have allied BB with.

**Naw**

Happyjew wrote:
Funny, it's almost as if First Blood has permission to override the normal IC rules.

Does Battle Brothers have the same permission?

Without Battle Brothers rules you would not even have a permission to field allies. But go ahead and ignore rules that are inconvenient to you.

**rigeld2**

Naw wrote:
Happyjew wrote:
Funny, it's almost as if First Blood has permission to override the normal IC rules.

Does Battle Brothers have the same permission?

Without Battle Brothers rules you would not even have a permission to field allies. But go ahead and ignore rules that are inconvenient to you.

Not true at all. It's like you're not even trying my more...
And Happy isn't ignoring any rules. At all. Please - cite the rule he's ignoring.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Naw wrote:
Those sentences are irrelevant as the blanket statement in third bullet point covers all cases. That is the point you conveniently forget.

Really? Go ahead. Take those sentences out of the rulebook.
You've broken the game. Congrats! That means the sentences matter.

Answer this question with yes/no and provide rules to support your response:

Can Battle Brothers embark on transports of their allies?

Objection - not enough information to make it a yes or no question.

**Naw**

Happyjew wrote:
Naw wrote:
Answer this question with yes/no and provide rules to support your response:

Can Battle Brothers embark on transports of their allies?

Battle Brother units cannot embark on allied Transports.

If an IC is attached to an allied unit, you only have the unit, which has no restriction on embarking onto its own transport.

Did you just fail to quote any rules? Hmm, yes, you failed. Re-read pg 112 3rd bullet point under Battle Brothers (note, not BB units).

Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:
Naw wrote:
Happyjew wrote:
Funny, it's almost as if First Blood has permission to override the normal IC rules.

Does Battle Brothers have the same permission?

Without Battle Brothers rules you would not even have a permission to field allies. But go ahead and ignore rules that are inconvenient to you.

Not true at all. It's like you're not even trying my more...
And Happy isn't ignoring any rules. At all. Please - cite the rule he's ignoring.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Naw wrote:
Those sentences are irrelevant as the blanket statement in third bullet point covers all cases. That is the point you conveniently forget.

Really? Go ahead. Take those sentences out of the rulebook.
You've broken the game. Congrats! That means the sentences matter.

Answer this question with yes/no and provide rules to support your response:

Can Battle Brothers embark on transports of their allies?

Objection - not enough information to make it a yes or no question.

You always insist on others to answer your questions and provide rules support, but you almost never do so yourself. I no longer see the need to continue any conversation with you as you just keep repeating the same and demanding responses.

**Fragile**

Happyjew wrote:

If there is still a unit, that means I can elect to shoot at the IC unit, which would just contain the specific IC. Furthermore, the IC would not be able to LOS! any wounds, as there is no one else in the IC unit.

Except the whole IC rule being more specific about that.

**Nem**

Kommissar Kel wrote:
Nem wrote:
Unit can be taken either way on that one.. And Special rules are given to models - but only that are in the unit.
Codexs..

1. Unit Name
...

2. Unit Profile
...

3. Unit type
...
..
..

6. Special rules
Any special rules that apply to the models in the unit are listed here.......

I picked on Tau codex for that but believe all new codex's are a copy / paste of the same. Tau codex pg 94.

Of course, this is because unit means 2 different things. It's quite easy to come out with yes they can, or no they can't depending which 'unit' you choose. It's quite easy to say a 'Battle brother unit' is a unit taken as an allied detachment where the relationship is 'Battle Brother', in which case that model will never not be one. As I believe we all agree IC's retain Unit rule tags when joined to another unit.

Evidence of this in work, in the rule set is things like IC's still counting as unit kills. They are not a 'unit' at that point par sey, but they are still a 'unit'. yay.

Poor points all.

Unit Name, ok that is fine, the model ceases being a unit when they join another unit; all the Ic's in the tau codex(and I am pretty sure all codices) have the same model name as the unit name, and all abilities/special rules are tied to the model name.

Unit Type: This has always been a misnomer, A SM Bike Captain does not stop being a Bike because he joined an Assault squad. Similarly a Riptide does not stop being a MC, nor does the Drones bought for him become MCs when drones are bought for him(since we are using t6he Tau codex).

Special rules: You posted the relevant rules yourself, These are the rules given to the models when you buy the unit. The IC ceases being a unit when brought to the table and joined to a Unit.

And as to the IC counting as a destroyed unit, that falls back to the IC rules as well. It is only while attached to the unit that he is a member of the unit, when he is destroyed he is no longer part of the unit and dies as a Unit himself.

No rules say he is a member of the unit. The paragraphs after that misquoted sentence address what its actually saying, people just choose to ignore it. Being Part of a unit is also addressed in the characters section.

Special rules: You posted the relevant rules yourself, These are the rules given to the models when you buy the unit. The IC ceases being a unit when brought to the table and joined to a Unit.?

Please point me to this rule which states they are given to models for being bought? from what I quoted, they get it for being in the unit. 'Being in' rather than 'Being bought for', the difference is crucial to this thread.

And wrong, the rules are not addressed in this section, it's later on there's a rule (or.. reminder) IC's as part of other units give VP for killing a unit.

**rigeld2**

Naw wrote:
You always insist on others to answer your questions and provide rules support, but you almost never do so yourself. I no longer see the need to continue any conversation with you as you just keep repeating the same and demanding responses.

I have provided rules support - I always do.
I can't answer your question as I need more information.

Do you or don't you?

**some bloke**

rigeld2 wrote:

Answer this question with yes/no and provide rules to support your response:

Can Battle Brothers embark on transports of their allies?

Objection - not enough information to make it a yes or no question.

actually there is, and it is. page 112 of the rulebook states

"note that not even battle brothers can embark on allied transport vehicles"

the answer therefore is no.

I don't know where you're getting the word "unit" involved here! can you please explain exactly where the word "unit" comes into this, and quote me the rule & page number as I have now done for you?

**rigeld2**

some bloke wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:

Answer this question with yes/no and provide rules to support your response:

Can Battle Brothers embark on transports of their allies?

Objection - not enough information to make it a yes or no question.

actually there is, and it is. page 112 of the rulebook states

"note that not even battle brothers can embark on allied transport vehicles"

the answer therefore is no.

I don't know where you're getting the word "unit" involved here! can you please explain exactly where the word "unit" comes into this, and quote me the rule & page number as I have now done for you?

I've quoted it multiple times in this thread.
Page 112, the paragraph that begins before your oft-quoted bullet points.
Reading the thread is polite. Asking me to repeat something I've done multiple times so far (and others have as well) isn't.

**some bloke**

rigeld2 wrote:
some bloke wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:

Answer this question with yes/no and provide rules to support your response:

Can Battle Brothers embark on transports of their allies?

Objection - not enough information to make it a yes or no question.

actually there is, and it is. page 112 of the rulebook states

"note that not even battle brothers can embark on allied transport vehicles"

the answer therefore is no.

I don't know where you're getting the word "unit" involved here! can you please explain exactly where the word "unit" comes into this, and quote me the rule & page number as I have now done for you?

I've quoted it multiple times in this thread.
Page 112, the paragraph that begins before your oft-quoted bullet points.
Reading the thread is polite. Asking me to repeat something I've done multiple times so far (and others have as well) isn't.

you mean the paragraph;

"Battle brothers are treated as 'friendly units' from all points of view"

"treated as" =/= "are"

your whole argument is caught up on the idea that "battle brother units are friendly units", and you'll note that it doesn't say that. it says battle brothers are treated as friendly units. the chain of rules goes:

the allies are battle brothers

the battle brothers are treated as friendly units

the battle brothers can't go in allied vehicles

so the fact that the independant character is treated as a friendly unit and can join an allied unit does not remove anything except the word "unit" from his profile, he is still a battle brother, he still can't embark on an allied transport.

the word "However" in "However, not even Battle Brothers can embark in allied transport vehicles" tells us that this third bullet point affects the initial statement. so regardless of anything previously mentioned ivolving being freindly and joining units, they can't get in vehicles!

if we treat the bullet points as commas, which english lets us do (bullet points are a list, it makes it easier to read, it functions as a comma) we have the paragraph:

"Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units' from all points of view. This means, for example, that Battle Brothers can be joined by allied independant characters and are counted as being friendly units for the casting of psychic powers and so on. However, note that not even a Battle Brother can embark in an allied transport vehicle."

My rules are cited, yours are disproved. have you any more to add?

**nosferatu1001**

Why are you changing the subject from units to non units?

"Treated as" also must equal "are", otherwise the rules breakdown in lots of places

**Kommissar Kel**

Fragile wrote:
Kommissar Kel wrote:
No it says he is "part of" the unit.

So my Vindicare snipes your IC out during Purge the Alien. Are you saying that i do not get a VP for it?

I already answered that.

He is only part of the unit while attached to the unit, the moment the farseer model is destroyed it is no longer part of the unit and returns to being its own unit

**rigeld2**

some bloke wrote:

"Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units' from all points of view. This means, for example, that Battle Brothers can be joined by allied independant characters and are counted as being friendly units for the casting of psychic powers and so on. However, note that not even a Battle Brother can embark in an allied transport vehicle."

My rules are cited, yours are disproved. have you any more to add?

So since we know that Battle Brothers and "friendly units" are interchangeable. Agreed? (I hope so - the rules break down I spectacular ways otherwise)
So we can write that sentence to read "However, note that not even a friendly unit can embark in an allied transport vehicle." Agreed?

So what happens when the Battle Brother is not a unit?

**Happyjew**

Naw wrote:
Happyjew wrote:
Funny, it's almost as if First Blood has permission to override the normal IC rules.

Does Battle Brothers have the same permission?

Without Battle Brothers rules you would not even have a permission to field allies. But go ahead and ignore rules that are inconvenient to you.

So my Eldar cannot ally with the Inquisition since they are not Battle Brothers?

What about Tau? Can they ally with Imperial Knights, even though they are Desperate Allies?

I guess Grey Knights cannot ally with anyone except Inquisition then.

Also, what rules am I ignoring?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fragile wrote:
Happyjew wrote:

If there is still a unit, that means I can elect to shoot at the IC unit, which would just contain the specific IC. Furthermore, the IC would not be able to LOS! any wounds, as there is no one else in the IC unit.

Except the whole IC rule being more specific about that.

So while attached to a unit, an IC is not a unit unto itself?

If so, then where is the restriction for Unit "X" to embark it's Transport?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Naw wrote:
Did you just fail to quote any rules? Hmm, yes, you failed. Re-read pg 112 3rd bullet point under Battle Brothers (note, not BB units).

Fail to quote the rules? Sure. But I figured there was no point as they've been posted multiple times and would just be ignored.

**jamesk1973**

Pg 112 of the small rulebook

"However, note that not even Battle Brothers can embark on allied transport vehicles."

Doesn't matter if he "is" or "is not" a unit.

Doesn't matter is he "is" or "is not" a friendly unit.

He stops at the door.

**Happyjew**

jamesk1973, what is the rules definition of "battle brother"?

**rigeld2**

jamesk1973 wrote:
Pg 112 of the small rulebook

"However, note that not even Battle Brothers can embark on allied transport vehicles."

Doesn't matter if he "is" or "is not" a unit.

Doesn't matter is he "is" or "is not" a friendly unit.

He stops at the door.

Do me a favor and actually read the thread.
Seriously - it's the polite thing to do.

**jamesk1973**

The is not such thing as a "Battle Brother".

Battle Brother indicates a level of alliance between two armies.

Battle Brother describes a relationship.

I totally agree that ICs can join allied units. That such units and ICs are considered friendly units and all that.

And...

If they had not said anything, I would not be able to argue the allied ICs cannot ride in your LRC.

But...

The writers specifically went out of their way and said "no BBs in allied transports".

Share our chow? Join our units? Participate in our psyker love? Sure. No problem.

Want to ride in our Rhino? GtFO. We don't want your kind...

I am not saying the rule makes any particular sense.

But there must have been a specific reason that they went out of their way to say "No" to riding in allied transports.

Truth be told they probably never anticipated that it would become an issue since we are forging narratives and whatnot.

**rigeld2**

So are you arguing intent or what's written?
Your latest post is confusing.

**jamesk1973**

rigeld2 wrote:
So are you arguing intent or what's written?
Your latest post is confusing.

No BB ICs in allied transports whether they have or have not joined a unit. That should clear it up.

**rigeld2**

jamesk1973 wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
So are you arguing intent or what's written?
Your latest post is confusing.

No BB ICs in allied transports whether they have or have not joined a unit. That should clear it up.

As written? I'd ask that you read the thread and respond to rules citations that are false.
As intended? I honestly couldn't care less.

**jamesk1973**

rigeld2 wrote:
jamesk1973 wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
So are you arguing intent or what's written?
Your latest post is confusing.

No BB ICs in allied transports whether they have or have not joined a unit. That should clear it up.

As written? I'd ask that you read the thread and respond to rules citations that are false.
As intended? I honestly couldn't care less.

Edit, nope, that's undeniably rude and you know it - MT11

What does it matter if I interpreted the rule "as written" or "as intended"?

Does it really matter in the scheme of things?

There was a question posed at the beginning of this thread and the answer was simply yes or no.

Based upon my readings and understanding of the game my interpretation is "no". And so it would seem for 78% of the folks who have responded to the poll.

Those of us who are saying "no" are simply reading the rules.

We (those who read the rules and made a decision) are not delving into the metaphysical nature of our plastic toys.

Is it a unit? When is a unit not a unit? Does an IC that has joined a unit become a butterfly? Is an allied unit a friendly character or a serial rapist? Those are figuratively some of the questions/arguments that have been thrown out.

For feths sake if you want to win so badly and it matters so much to you go pick yourself up a screamstar and be done with it.

But don't hold your hands out in a gesture of confusion...as written?...as intended?....mocha latte?....

**JinxDragon**

'What I believe the Rules intended' and 'What the Rules are Written' are two completely different animals when it comes to a Rule Debate.

**Rorschach9**

jamesk1973 wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
jamesk1973 wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
So are you arguing intent or what's written?
Your latest post is confusing.

No BB ICs in allied transports whether they have or have not joined a unit. That should clear it up.

As written? I'd ask that you read the thread and respond to rules citations that are false.
As intended? I honestly couldn't care less.

What does it matter if I interpreted the rule "as written" or "as intended"?

It matters because those who are discussing rules As Written (as is the case in this forum unless noted otherwise) do not necessarily play that way. To simply say it doesn't matter is blatantly rude and dismissive of honest debate.