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.

So you don't have any rules-based permission to support your assertions?

Well, as long as we don't need to back up our assertions with rules, I say friendly units are all the units in your army painted purple.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
So you don't have any rules-based permission to support your assertions?

Well, as long as we don't need to back up our assertions with rules, I say friendly units are all the units in your army painted purple.

That's cute.
I'm curious - how do the rules define "a", "the", and "different"?
Since you're asserting every word used must have a rules based definition and all, I'm sure you can provide me with these.

Tenets of YMDC wrote:1. Don't make a statement without backing it up.
- You have to give premises for a conclusive statement; without this, there can be no debate.
...
6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.

English definitions are great in English class. This isn't English class, and general grammar isn't the YMDC beat stick a lot of people think it is. What an 'friendly unit' is in terms of the game rules needs specifically bear not the slightest resemblance to the same phrase in a basic English grammar. Terms in 40K are defined by the GW authors (for both good a bad) not by dictionary definitions.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

Tenets of YMDC wrote:1. Don't make a statement without backing it up.
- You have to give premises for a conclusive statement; without this, there can be no debate.
...
6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.

He's saying "if the definition I have provided, the English definition, is wrong, show me why that is." How would you define a friendly unit, if you exclude the definition in the dictionary?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Fenris-77 wrote:
English definitions are great in English class. This isn't English class, and general grammar isn't the YMDC beat stick a lot of people think it is. What an 'friendly unit' is in terms of the game rules needs specifically bear not the slightest resemblance to the same phrase in a basic English grammar. Terms in 40K are defined by the GW authors (for both good a bad) not by dictionary definitions.

Not every term is explicitly defined by the authors. Tell me, what definitions are we supposed to use in the absence of one explicitly stated?

 PrinceRaven wrote:

Tenets of YMDC wrote:1. Don't make a statement without backing it up.
- You have to give premises for a conclusive statement; without this, there can be no debate.
...
6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.

So you dont have a rules based definition of "friendly unit" then? Given your argument relies upon it, I suggest you find one.

If you cannot THEN the common English usage applies. Oh, and the tenet doesnt really apply here - it has been backed up that "friendly units" are the units in your army not otherwise defined as enemy, like DA and AoC are. We know they are not friendly. An allied IC attached to a unt is not a not unit, so cannot be a friendly one.

Funnily enough talk is now about the definition of friendly units. That has nothing to do with the topic.

Naw wrote:
Funnily enough talk is now about the definition of friendly units. That has nothing to do with the topic.

Care to post a rebuttal of the arguments proving your assertions are incorrect? Or will you follow the tenets and mark your posts as "HYWPI", as they do not have a rules basis?

To bring it back to what this is about, Battle Brothers are treated as "friendly units" (BRB 112). Furthermore, because they are "friendly units", they can join other "friendly units" and benefit from or can cast psychic powers on other "friendly units", however they are forbidden from embarking.

Easy way to check your level of alliance is to check your army list. If from different codex, refer to the alliance matrix.

Also to a previous poster, the alliance matrix is not asymmetric.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
My assertions? You have not ever responded to straight questions supported by the rulebook and yet you complain about not following the tenets?? As an example of pro-embarking side's way of arguing, look how often "incorrect" was used in responses without any reason/rule given.

For shooting we refer to the rules about shooting. For assaults we refer to the rules of assaulting. Surprisingly for alliances we refer to the rules of alliances.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:

Tenets of YMDC wrote:1. Don't make a statement without backing it up.
- You have to give premises for a conclusive statement; without this, there can be no debate.
...
6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.

He's saying "if the definition I have provided, the English definition, is wrong, show me why that is." How would you define a friendly unit, if you exclude the definition in the dictionary?

How about "units you are told are friendly units"?

I'd also be very interesting in seeing this dictionary that provides the definition for the Warhammer 40k game term "friendly unit".

Naw - erm, incorrect, actually. I proved that we already have permission to embark, answering your question - just not in the ay you were hoping. You have general permission to embark, and the restriction only applues to units, and as we ALL know - including yourself - the IC is no longer a unit while attached.

Please, rebut the arguments. Stop ignoring the first line that actually defines BBs, misrepresenting the continuation of that rule as somehow a self contained rule, devoid of all context, and admit your error. I note you still have yet to present an argument that doesnt ignore the rules stating BBs are friendly units, and that when reading "BB" you can substitue in the thing they literally ARE - meaning units - meaning the final bullet can only be talkin about units. Something you pretend otehrwise, but that doesnt satisfy even a casual glance.

PR - it only has to define "friendly", as unit is already defined in game. Your army is friendly until told otherwise - or are you claiming a no-ally army isnt friendly to itself?

Again, if you claim that the accepted English usage of a phrase is not valid, then you MUST have an ingame term for it. Please cite a rule defining "friendly" in relation to "friendly unit" , page and para. Further refusal is concession that none such definition exists.

It never reaaaally defines BB's. It says BB's are friendly units - the sentence is structured as a already defined item are friendly units.

If you take only that sentence you know there's something which is called 'Battle Brothers' and that they are friendly.

So what are these friendly units?
-Units taken from an allied detachment with the relationship BB are friendly units?
-BB models are friendly at a group (unit) only level? (unlikely)
-Every model in an allied detachment is a friendly unit (unlikely)
-The detachment taken as allied are a friendly unit? (unlikely)

I believe the above is all it could possibly be. Ofc all of them work in 'no' favor, but if anyone could offer another which doesn't....

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Naw - erm, incorrect, actually. I proved that we already have permission to embark, answering your question - just not in the ay you were hoping. You have general permission to embark, and the restriction only applues to units, and as we ALL know - including yourself - the IC is no longer a unit while attached .

What?? No! That is not what the rulebook says. Why do you keep insisting that it does?

This is verbatim from the rulebook pg 112 (I shall take a picture if you don't believe me) under heading Battle Brothers:
Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units' from all
points of view. This rneans, for example, that Battle Brothers:
[...]
However, note that not even Battle Brothers can embark in
allied transport vehicles.

Battle Brothers, not units, see?? Why do you keep lying about what it says in the rulebook?

Please, rebut the arguments.

Done.

Stop ignoring the first line that actually defines BBs

What first line? The one that says treated as 'friendly units'? I am not ignoring it. You can also refer to the alliance matrix to see the level of alliance your models might have.

misrepresenting the continuation of that rule as somehow a self contained rule

Again I provided a written rule, unlike you, yet you accuse me of misrepresenting something. Shall I take a picture and post a screenshot?

I note you still have yet to present an argument that doesnt ignore the rules stating BBs are friendly units

Why would I do that? I do not disagree that Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units'.

and that when reading "BB" you can substitue in the thing they literally ARE - meaning units - meaning the final bullet can only be talkin about units.

Aha, so that's how you read the rules. You decide what it means, good work. Shall we utilize that to the allied rules in general about Battle Brothers?

So the heading should read:
Battle Brothers units

Then the rules part:
Battle Brothers units are treated as 'friendly units'... This means, for example, that Battle Brothers units:
...
However, note that not even Battle Brothers units can embark in allied transport vehicles.


Yes yes, much better now.

Something you pretend otehrwise, but that doesnt satisfy even a casual glance.

Yet I do not make up rules or claim that a rule says something that it doesn't.

Edit: Tag issue.

Sigh.

I am not lying about what it states. I am stating that pretending that the "treated as" somehow does not apply to every instance of Battle Brothers means you are NOT follwoing the rules. Retract your adhominem.

Battle brothers, whcih are friendly units, are not allowed to embark. Agreed?

Now take an IC joined to a unit. We know, per page 39, we have to treat him as a normal member of the uit in ALL respects. Agreed?

If you try to claim they are a friendly unit, have you treated them as a normal member? No. Agreed?

So how then can you apply the BB rules? We KNOW that, in ALL respects, they are a friendly unit. If you do not HAVE a unit, you CANNOT be a battle brother - as otherwise you are treating a non-unit as a battle brother, breaking the EXPLICIT rule telling you what they are

That is your issue. You are pretending, for some reason, that the explicit requirement to treat them as a friendly unit somehow applies to a model. It doesnt. If that model is NOT an allied unit, it cannot be a battle brother.

Your argument is conceded, as yet again you cannot join the dots between the requirement (are a friendly unti) and something that is no longer a unit in and of itself.

I have made up no rules, and have not claimed anythign that isnt supportable. You have - or are you still going to claim a game is autolost if I kill your allied HQ?

Naw wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
and as we ALL know - including yourself - the IC is no longer a unit while attached [/color].

What?? No! That is not what the rulebook says. Why do you keep insisting that it does?

Actually...

[...]he again becomes a unit of one model at the start of the following phase.

While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters.

BRB, p.39.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Sigh.

I am not lying about what it states. I am stating that pretending that the "treated as" somehow does not apply to every instance of Battle Brothers means you are NOT follwoing the rules. Retract your adhominem.

I have no reason to do so as I quoted actual rules, you never have.

Battle brothers, whcih are friendly units, are not allowed to embark. Agreed?

No, I do not agree. The rule says: Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units' and furthermore states that not even Battle Brothers are allowed to embark. Look it up, I posted the rules in my previous message.

Now take an IC joined to a unit. We know, per page 39, we have to treat him as a normal member of the uit in ALL respects. Agreed?

Yes, which does not mean that this IC would stop having Battle Brothers status with the unit it is attached to, as it wouldn't be able to join the unit in the first place without that status. This also has nothing to do with the third bullet point which says in verbatim "However, note that not even Battle Brothers can embark in allied transport vehicles."

Do you see the requirement of being a Battle Brothers unit there? Because I do not. Does the IC stop being a Tau Commander just because he joined up with Centurion Devastators? No, he does not. Looking up the alliance matrix in BRB tells me that his level of alliance is Battle Brothers with Space Marines, which is covered by the third bullet point preventing him from embarking.

It really is as simple as that.

If you try to claim they are a friendly unit, have you treated them as a normal member? No. Agreed?

Now you lost me. Read up the rules about ICs. They can join units that they are friendly with by moving within 2" of said unit. I also have no idea what this has got to do with disallowing embarking for Battle Brothers.

So how then can you apply the BB rules? We KNOW that, in ALL respects, they are a friendly unit.

Because the requirement is not that they are friendly units, the requirement is that they are Battle Brothers, thus they are not allowed to embark. I do not understand why you keep bringing up this friendly unit issue, it has no bearing whatsoever in the rule.

If you do not HAVE a unit, you CANNOT be a battle brother

Please provide the rule that says they lose their battle brother status. Should be easy, yes?

- as otherwise you are treating a non-unit as a battle brother, breaking the EXPLICIT rule telling you what they are

What is this EXPLICIT rule you are talking about? Again you pull out rules from your... well, not from the rulebook anyway. Refer to the alliance matrix if you have any doubt on who are battle brothers.

That is your issue. You are pretending, for some reason, that the explicit requirement to treat them as a friendly unit somehow applies to a model. It doesnt. If that model is NOT an allied unit, it cannot be a battle brother.

Why do you keep insisting on that friendly unit issue? The rule does not require them to be friendly, enemies, cousins and whatnot. The only requirement is that they are battle brothers and again, you can verify this by looking it up in the alliance matrix.

There is no rule that you base this argument on, yet you blame me for not following the tenets.

Your argument is conceded, as yet again you cannot join the dots between the requirement (are a friendly unti) and something that is no longer a unit in and of itself.

Oh, this is jumping to the conclusion game. I so like games. Let's just forget the rules and come up with our own conclusions and present them as facts. That will work.

I have made up no rules, and have not claimed anythign that isnt supportable.

Now I'll give you the chance to support what you just wrote by providing actual rules to the points you made in your message. I won't say I haven't given you the chance before and you have failed to do so by showing a written rule from BRB. But hey, give it a try.

You have - or are you still going to claim a game is autolost if I kill your allied HQ?

Yes yes, next time I shall point out my sarcastic response so it is clear to everyone.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sigvatr wrote:

Naw wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
and as we ALL know - including yourself - the IC is no longer a unit while attached [/color].

What?? No! That is not what the rulebook says. Why do you keep insisting that it does?

Actually...

[...]he again becomes a unit of one model at the start of the following phase.

While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters.

BRB, p.39.

Well quoted, sir. Want to try again? I even bolded the part in my own message. Nevermind.

Naw, do you agree that "Treated As" functionally means "Is"?

 Happyjew wrote:
Naw, do you agree that "Treated As" functionally means "Is"?

Even with that, and 'unit' functionally means 'group of models' you come to

Battle Brothers are friendly groups of models.

Which is means if this is a 'definition' everything on the table is a battle brother.

 Nem wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Naw, do you agree that "Treated As" functionally means "Is"?

Even with that, and 'unit' functionally means 'group of models' you come to

Battle Brothers are friendly groups of models.

Which is means if this is a 'definition' everything on the table is a battle brother.

The underlined is claiming that since apples are fruit, all fruit are apples.

And you did not answer my question. Do you agree or disagree that "Treated As" = "Is"?

 Happyjew wrote:
Naw, do you agree that "Treated As" functionally means "Is"?

Yes, I agree with that. It also has no bearing with the 3rd point which prevents embarking. More specific rule trumps more general rule, if that is your question.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Nem wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Naw, do you agree that "Treated As" functionally means "Is"?

Even with that, and 'unit' functionally means 'group of models' you come to

Battle Brothers are friendly groups of models.

Which is means if this is a 'definition' everything on the table is a battle brother.

The underlined is claiming that since apples are fruit, all fruit are apples.

And you did not answer my question. Do you agree or disagree that "Treated As" = "Is"?

I never denied so, my line of thinking is in a slightly separate vein the Naws.

At this point we still don't know what we are treating as a friendly unit. Are we treating the whole allied detachment of battle brothers as a friendly unit?

You see, that sentence about friendly units doesn't really make sense in the context it is being used to push. It's being proposed as a definition, and it is not. It's a statement used to help players understand how the armies interact, not limiting, not defining just a statement.
I listed some possibilities in a thread further up, and challenged anyone to come up with a different suggestion.

 Nem wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 Nem wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Naw, do you agree that "Treated As" functionally means "Is"?

Even with that, and 'unit' functionally means 'group of models' you come to

Battle Brothers are friendly groups of models.

Which is means if this is a 'definition' everything on the table is a battle brother.

The underlined is claiming that since apples are fruit, all fruit are apples.

And you did not answer my question. Do you agree or disagree that "Treated As" = "Is"?

I never denied so, my line of thinking is in a slightly separate vein the Naws.

At this point we still don't know what we are treating as a friendly unit. Are we treating the whole allied detachment of battle brothers as a friendly unit?

You see, that sentence about friendly units doesn't really make sense in the context it is being used to push. It's being proposed as a definition, and it is not.
I listed some possibilities in a thread further up, and challenged anyone to come up with a different suggestion.

Sorry, I was replying from my phone, and thought you were Naw, which is why I accused you of not answering my question.

Also using my phone and I did

Naw wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Naw, do you agree that "Treated As" functionally means "Is"?

Yes, I agree with that. It also has no bearing with the 3rd point which prevents embarking. More specific rule trumps more general rule, if that is your question.

I'm getting there.

Now if you agree that "Treated as" functionally means the same thing as "is", then the BB rules could be re-written as follows and would mean the same thing:

Friendly units are treated as 'friendly units' from all points of view. This means, for example, that friendly units:

Do you agree with my statement?

I do not. You just changed the whole rule to something it was not. That is not following RAW but your own interpretation.

Naw wrote:
I do not. You just changed the whole rule to something it was not. That is not following RAW but your own interpretation.

How? If "Treated as" means the same thing as "Is" then you can replace X with Y and it would functionally mean the same thing. For example, if you are given the math equation "X+Y=Z" and are told that X is treated as 2, then the same equation could be written as "2+Y=Z" and it would mean the same thing.

we still have the issue of how you seem to be removing the Battle Brothers tag - and it's just that, it's not a rule, it's a Tag. the allied army is treated as a battle brother by the other allied army.

what you are doing (back to metaphors) is this:

I am allergic to prawns
Prawns are shellfish
Lets have prawn cocktail for dinner.

Battle Brothers sticks, nothing makes it go!

you're claiming that as Battle Brothers are friendly units, if it's no longer a unit, it's no longer a Battle brother. I still don't get why you think this.

an IC is a Battle Brother, and is its own friendly unit because it is a Battle Brother. it is not a Battle Brother because it is its own friendly unit, however. apples are all fruits, fruits aren't all apples.

The IC rules then let it join another unit, becoming part of that unit. It is no longer a unit, but remains a Battle Brother. a toffee apple is still an apple, even if it's wrapped in toffee.

you're still trying to take the phrase "Battle Brothers are Friendly Units" and try to turn it backwards, unsuccessfully.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

Tenets of YMDC wrote:1. Don't make a statement without backing it up.
- You have to give premises for a conclusive statement; without this, there can be no debate.
...
6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.

Please answer my question.
Obviously you should be able to. Right? I mean, everything is defined in the rulebook!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:

Tenets of YMDC wrote:1. Don't make a statement without backing it up.
- You have to give premises for a conclusive statement; without this, there can be no debate.
...
6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.

He's saying "if the definition I have provided, the English definition, is wrong, show me why that is." How would you define a friendly unit, if you exclude the definition in the dictionary?

How about "units you are told are friendly units"?

Great! So literally only Battle Brothers are friendly units. If you take no allies you have no friendly units. At all.

I'd also be very interesting in seeing this dictionary that provides the definition for the Warhammer 40k game term "friendly unit".

I've explained it, but you ignored it so...

 Happyjew wrote:

Naw wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Naw, do you agree that "Treated As" functionally means "Is"?

Yes, I agree with that. It also has no bearing with the 3rd point which prevents embarking. More specific rule trumps more general rule, if that is your question.

I'm getting there.

Now if you agree that "Treated as" functionally means the same thing as "is", then the BB rules could be re-written as follows and would mean the same thing:

Friendly units are treated as 'friendly units' from all points of view. This means, for example, that friendly units:

Do you agree with my statement?

this, exactly. "treated as" doesn't mean "is".

if Battle Brothers are freindly units, then you can stop treating them as Battle Brothers at all.

if Battle Brothers are teated as friendly units, then they remain Battle Brothers. they don't stop being Battle Brothers to be friendly units. so Battle Brothers remains, no matter what you do with the model, as no rule says to remove it (and as we've already pointed out several times, if what you say does ignore it, then it stops being possible to do what you say.

 some bloke wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

Naw wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Naw, do you agree that "Treated As" functionally means "Is"?

Yes, I agree with that. It also has no bearing with the 3rd point which prevents embarking. More specific rule trumps more general rule, if that is your question.

I'm getting there.

Now if you agree that "Treated as" functionally means the same thing as "is", then the BB rules could be re-written as follows and would mean the same thing:

Friendly units are treated as 'friendly units' from all points of view. This means, for example, that friendly units:

Do you agree with my statement?

this, exactly. "treated as" doesn't mean "is".

if Battle Brothers are freindly units, then you can stop treating them as Battle Brothers at all.

if Battle Brothers are teated as friendly units, then they remain Battle Brothers. they don't stop being Battle Brothers to be friendly units. so Battle Brothers remains, no matter what you do with the model, as no rule says to remove it (and as we've already pointed out several times, if what you say does ignore it, then it stops being possible to do what you say.

... You said "this exactly" and then disagreed completely with him.
What?

And I've literally never said he stops being a Battle Brother. That'd be silly.
I've said that the restriction in that paragraph only apply to units. Which is true.