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.

rigeld2 wrote:

 some bloke wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 some bloke wrote:
1: starting at the top, we already know that Battle brothers are friendly units by virtue of being Battle Brothers, as stated on page 112. if they were not Battle Brothers, they wouldn't be friendly units. correct?

Citation required.
Your entire argument hinges on this assumption and you have done literally nothing to prove it. Please do so.

right, right. so can you please tell me where it states that your opponents models are "enemy units" and your own are "Friendly units"?

The rules consistently use "your army" vs "your opponents army". Since the rules never define "friendly" vs "enemy" normal English tells us your army is friendly unless otherwise stated.

if models are friendly units by default then every match ends at the start with peace and flowers.

Incorrect.

so if an ally of convenience IC is deployed with an allied unit, it loses the rule for "Allies of convenience", as per your argument, and ceases to be an enemy unit. This means that, as per your argument he now defaults to "Friendly unit" and by the end of the movement phase will be able to stay in the unit, embark on transports and cast psychic power on the now friendly units around him.

Incorrect. The deployment rules don't override the IC rules that require a friendly unit.

so would you be happy to face an army in which, thanks to your own rules interpretation, even desperate allies can join their characters to each other at the start of the game? let's get Abaddon leading a unit of 30 'ard boys, shall we, or mad dok grotsnik giving a unit of 20 nurgle posessed feel no pain?

If it was allowed by the rules, I'd have no problem with it. Again, however - it's not.

So it appears there are two ways of reading the Battle Brothers rules.

1. Battle Brothers refers to units from a different codex (baring certain exceptions such as SM), and as such, every time the rule mentions "Battle Brothers" then it deals with the unit level.

2. Battle Brothers refers to models from a different codex (again barring certain exceptions), and as such, in accordance with the very first rule of Battle Brothers (treated as friendly units) means not only is every model a unit in and of itself, but except for an IC joined to a unit, no character can ever make LOS rolls since there is nothing else in its unit.

rigeld2 wrote:

 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.

I read the sarcasm, the turning of one persons dodgy rules against themselves. that's what I agree with.

the restriction applies to battle brothers. the sentence the bullet points lead off of is "This means, for example, that Battle Brothers...", which means that Battle Brothers cannot embark on allied transports. if it tailed off as "BB are friendly units that cannot embark on allied transports" then the argument would be valid.

you just agreed that he never stops being a Battle Brother
The rules say Battle Brothers cannot embark on allied transports
therefore, he cannot embark on an allied transport.

 some bloke wrote:
I read the sarcasm, the turning of one persons dodgy rules against themselves. that's what I agree with.

the restriction applies to battle brothers. the sentence the bullet points lead off of is "This means, for example, that Battle Brothers...", which means that Battle Brothers cannot embark on allied transports. if it tailed off as "BB are friendly units that cannot embark on allied transports" then the argument would be valid.

you just agreed that he never stops being a Battle Brother
The rules say Battle Brothers cannot embark on allied transports
therefore, he cannot embark on an allied transport.

And since we know form the very first paragraph that Battle Brothers are friendly units, then you are proposing that since (for example) an Eldar Farseer attached to a Dark Eldar unit is still a Battle Brother, it is still a unit and as such can be selected as a target and cannot LOS since there are no other models in the Farseer unit.

 Happyjew wrote:

 some bloke wrote:
I read the sarcasm, the turning of one persons dodgy rules against themselves. that's what I agree with.

the restriction applies to battle brothers. the sentence the bullet points lead off of is "This means, for example, that Battle Brothers...", which means that Battle Brothers cannot embark on allied transports. if it tailed off as "BB are friendly units that cannot embark on allied transports" then the argument would be valid.

you just agreed that he never stops being a Battle Brother
The rules say Battle Brothers cannot embark on allied transports
therefore, he cannot embark on an allied transport.

And since we know form the very first paragraph that Battle Brothers are friendly units, then you are proposing that since (for example) an Eldar Farseer attached to a Dark Eldar unit is still a Battle Brother, it is still a unit and as such can be selected as a target and cannot LOS since there are no other models in the Farseer unit.

no. IC's have their own rules concerning changing their status as a unit to join another unit. this does not change their status as a battle brother.

is he a battle brother -> he's a friendly unit ->is he an IC -> is he in a unit-> He's no longer his own unit

at no point does BB get removed.

So why are you ignoring the very first rule regarding Battle Brothers? You know, the one that says they are treated as friendly "units".

 Happyjew wrote:

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.

Your whole argument hinges on your idea that once the IC us joined to a unit, it no longer is an ally. If that is the case in your interpretation then what happens when this IC detaches itself from the unit? What is it then? Will you point to the alliance matrix then? Was there a rule that told you to do that? Why does it suddenly become a battle brother again? Certainly there must be something in the rules as you are so adamant about that?

Naw wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

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.

Your whole argument hinges on your idea that once the IC us joined to a unit, it no longer is an ally. If that is the case in your interpretation then what happens when this IC detaches itself from the unit?

No, the argument hinges on the IC joined to another unit no longer being a single model unit.

There is a clear misunderstanding of this from the side arguing against the restriction being only on BB (which = friendly Units) (as the rule defines them as).

What is it then? Will you point to the alliance matrix then? Was there a rule that told you to do that? Why does it suddenly become a battle brother again? Certainly there must be something in the rules as you are so adamant about that

It is still an ally. It is a member of the unit it joined, for all rules purposes. When it leaves that unit, it again becomes its own unit and the restrictions on BB Units are restored to that single model unit.

 some bloke wrote:
the current argument for allowing IC's into transports is as follows:

1:The IC is a Battle Brother as long as it is a unit

Incorrect. He's always a Battle Brother. As I've said. Please stop attributing this argument to me as it's false.
He is no longer bound by the restrictions on Battle Brothers on page 112 as he's no longer a unit.

my argument, using the exact same logic as your own is:

1: The IC is a desperate ally as long as it's a unit
2: The IC may be deployed in any unit, it does not specify whether it is a friendly or an enemy unit until the end of the movement phase - look it up and quote it if I'm wrong.

Page 39. The Deployment rules do not override the IC rules.

Models are never units to begin with, IC is no longer a unit is a very strange argument, as he never was.

 Nem wrote:
Models are never units to begin with, IC is no longer a unit is a very strange argument, as he never was.

An IC is a single model unit, as per the rules, unless it is joined to another unit at which point it becomes a member of that unit for all rules purposes. When it leaves that unit, it again becomes a single model unit.

Naw wrote:
Your whole argument hinges on your idea that once the IC us joined to a unit, it no longer is an ally.

Completely and utterly false. Are you even reading the thread before replying?
He's still an ally. He is no longer a separate unit. The BB restrictions/rules on page 112 apply to units.
You have no permission to apply those rules to something that is no longer a unit.

Seriously - this isn't a changed argument. It's what I've been saying all along. If you're willingly misreading what I'm typing I can't help that, but please don't argue against something I'm not saying.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nem wrote:
Models are never units to begin with, IC is no longer a unit is a very strange argument, as he never was.

False. He's a single model unit - otherwise a lone IC couldn't ever be targeted, assaulted, moved, etc.

rigeld2 wrote:

Naw wrote:
Your whole argument hinges on your idea that once the IC us joined to a unit, it no longer is an ally.

Completely and utterly false. Are you even reading the thread before replying?
He's still an ally. He is no longer a separate unit. The BB restrictions/rules on page 112 apply to units.
You have no permission to apply those rules to something that is no longer a unit.

Seriously - this isn't a changed argument. It's what I've been saying all along. If you're willingly misreading what I'm typing I can't help that, but please don't argue against something I'm not saying.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nem wrote:
Models are never units to begin with, IC is no longer a unit is a very strange argument, as he never was.

False. He's a single model unit - otherwise a lone IC couldn't ever be targeted, assaulted, moved, etc.

Hmmm. Could call him 'a' unit certainly in some respects but the model composition isn't the defining factor of 'a unit'. for example 4 models together are 'a unit', if one of them dies the remainder are still 'a unit' - but I mean models are not units, units are models. Its more like there is a unit comprised of one model, the unit 'layer' still sits above, like any other unit.

Plenty of examples of single model units outside a IC.

 Nem wrote:


Hmmm. Could call him 'a' unit certainly in some respects but the model composition isn't the defining factor of 'a unit'. for example 4 models together are 'a unit', if one of them dies the remainder are still 'a unit' - but I mean models are not units, units are models. Its more like there is a unit comprised of one model, the unit 'layer' still sits above, like any other unit.

Plenty of examples of single model units outside a IC.

Correct, models are not units in and of themselves. However, a lone IC *IS* a single model unit. So where you're going with this statement is confusing as it has nothing to do with the debate (and your statement of an IC not being a unit, but a model is factually incorrect under the single model unit circumstances to begin with).

Yes, there are plenty of single model units outside of an IC. That doesn't alter the debate in any way as the debate is about an IC, not another single model unit that isn't an IC.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 some bloke wrote:


the current argument for allowing IC's into transports is as follows:

1:The IC is a Battle Brother as long as it is a unit

NO, the IC is always a battle brother and an ally

2: When the IC stops being a unit, he stops being a BB

Incorrect. The IC stops being a unit of its own and is now a member of the unit it joined, for all rules purposes (as per the BRB), but is still a BB

3: The IC now classes as a friendly model as he is on your side

The IC was already a friendly unit, which is what allowed the IC to join the other unit in the first place.

4: therefore he is now just within 2" of a friendly unit and can embark on transports.

Correct. And as the IC is no longer a unit of its own but a member of the unit embarking the transport (for all rules purposes) it has no restrictions on embarking the transport (since the restriction, in context, is discussing BB = Friendly UNITS), there is no issue here

my argument, using the exact same logic as your own is:

1: The IC is a desperate ally as long as it's a unit
2: The IC may be deployed in any unit, it does not specify whether it is a friendly or an enemy unit until the end of the movement phase - look it up and quote it if I'm wrong.

How are you joining the IC to a non friendly unit? This is not allowed.

3: The IC ceases to be his own unit at the start, as he is deployed in an allied unit
4: As the IC is not a unit, he is no longer a Desperate Ally
5: if he is no longer a Desperate ally, he is no longer treated as an enemy unit
6: The IC therefore classes as a friendly model, as he is on your side
7: By the end of the movement phase, the IC is within 2" of a friendly unit and can stay joined, as he no longer is a desperate ally and doesn't treat them as enemy units, nor they him.
8: because of this, he can embark on transports.

Since the DA ally cannot join the unit in the first place, this is all irrelevant

do you not see that this is exactly what you're doing?

Except .. it's not.

Does a Spacemarine captain ic which joined a unit of firewarriors get to ride in a TAU DT?

Does a Spacemarine captain ic which joined a unit of firewarriors suffer the effects of PE TAU?

Does a Spacemarine captain ic which joined a unit of firewarriors get to use the marker lights of tau since they are per unit?


If you have answered yes to these questions then you agree that the SpaceMarine Captain is no longer restricted by the BB status and he gets to do amazing things

osirisx69 wrote:
Does a Spacemarine captain ic which joined a unit of firewarriors get to ride in a TAU DT?

Yes as it is a Tau unit trying to embark.

Does a Spacemarine captain ic which joined a unit of firewarriors suffer the effects of PE TAU?

Yes as it is a Tau unit.

Does a Spacemarine captain ic which joined a unit of firewarriors get to use the marker lights of tau since they are per unit?

Again yes, as it is a Tau unit, and the markerlights affect all models/weapons in the unit.

If you have answered yes to these questions then you agree that the SpaceMarine Captain is no longer restricted by the BB status and he gets to do amazing things

Only while he is part of a Tau unit.

 Happyjew wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:
Does a Spacemarine captain ic which joined a unit of firewarriors get to ride in a TAU DT?

Yes as it is a Tau unit trying to embark.

Does a Spacemarine captain ic which joined a unit of firewarriors suffer the effects of PE TAU?

Yes as it is a Tau unit.

Does a Spacemarine captain ic which joined a unit of firewarriors get to use the marker lights of tau since they are per unit?

Again yes, as it is a Tau unit, and the markerlights affect all models/weapons in the unit.

If you have answered yes to these questions then you agree that the SpaceMarine Captain is no longer restricted by the BB status and he gets to do amazing things

Only while he is part of a Tau unit.

I will let others answer there Reponses before I post the correct answers to these questions.

 Nem wrote:
Hmmm. Could call him 'a' unit certainly in some respects but the model composition isn't the defining factor of 'a unit'. for example 4 models together are 'a unit', if one of them dies the remainder are still 'a unit' - but I mean models are not units, units are models. Its more like there is a unit comprised of one model, the unit 'layer' still sits above, like any other unit.

Plenty of examples of single model units outside a IC.

I never said ICs are the only single model units.
Where are you taking this argument? You're the one that brought up unit composition, you're the one that said, and I quote, "Models are never units to begin with, IC is no longer a unit is a very strange argument, as he never was."
The IC was a unit - a single model unit. He isn't any longer.

All somewhat redundant soon enough anyway.