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:

 DeathReaper wrote:
And the IC is still a battle brother, as per the levels of alliance.

The attached IC is still an allied unit for the purposes of the Alliance rules, as per page 112

Because the IC is " treated as 'friendly units' from all points of view" (112)

He's no longer a unit and therefore cannot be a friendly unit.

He is a unit, for first blood, for a KP in Purge the Alien.

He is also a unit for the BB's rules because there are rules, like with First blood, and Purge mission, that say that he is a unit.

The same does not apply for shooting attacks.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
And the IC is still a battle brother, as per the levels of alliance.

The attached IC is still an allied unit for the purposes of the Alliance rules, as per page 112

Because the IC is " treated as 'friendly units' from all points of view" (112)

He's no longer a unit and therefore cannot be a friendly unit.

He is a unit, for first blood, for a KP in Purge the Alien.

He is also a unit for the BB's rules because there are rules, like with First blood, and Purge mission, that say that he is a unit.

The same does not apply for shooting attacks.

This is what happens if you apply all of the rules on p112 and not selectively leave out some of them.
You get 2 units in one which is a monster.

If however, you accept that an ic isn't always a unit in of itself and yet maintains the rules baggage that comes along with it, this situation goes away.

An example being a biker ic in an infantry unit.
He can move as far as he wants (coherency permitting), he isn't limited by difficult terrain tests, but will be subject to dangerous terrain etc etc.
He is a member of the unit for all rules purposes, except ones that only/do not apply to him.

= "all rules purposes" is conditional, it is not an absolute.

In our ultra marine tactical squad, with joined rune priest, we do not have an ultra marine unit, we have a unit with an ic, chosen from a different codex, therefore, it has to be an ally. It cannot be something that was an ally and now is not. That would be an illegal unit.

No need for insults please folks.

 fuusa wrote:
He can move as far as he wants (coherency permitting), he isn't limited by difficult terrain tests, but will be subject to dangerous terrain etc etc.
He is a member of the unit for all rules purposes, except ones that only/do not apply to him.

= "all rules purposes" is conditional, it is not an absolute.

Yes. Absolutely correct. Well done. Exactly - literally - what I've been saying.

In our ultra marine tactical squad, with joined rune priest, we do not have an ultra marine unit, we have a unit with an ic, chosen from a different codex, therefore, it has to be an ally. It cannot be something that was an ally and now is not. That would be an illegal unit.

Wait - you're not treating it as a member of the unit for a rules purpose?
Can you cite why? There are reasons not to, but they specify why.

 DeathReaper wrote:
And the IC is still a battle brother, as per the levels of alliance.

The attached IC is still an allied unit for the purposes of the Alliance rules, as per page 112

Because the IC is " treated as 'friendly units' from all points of view" (112)

Not under the definition of those examples.

He is not a separate friendly unit unless I, as the opponent, can target just him.

rigeld2 wrote:

 fuusa wrote:
He can move as far as he wants (coherency permitting), he isn't limited by difficult terrain tests, but will be subject to dangerous terrain etc etc.
He is a member of the unit for all rules purposes, except ones that only/do not apply to him.

= "all rules purposes" is conditional, it is not an absolute.

Yes. Absolutely correct. Well done. Exactly - literally - what I've been saying.

In our ultra marine tactical squad, with joined rune priest, we do not have an ultra marine unit, we have a unit with an ic, chosen from a different codex, therefore, it has to be an ally. It cannot be something that was an ally and now is not. That would be an illegal unit.

Wait - you're not treating it as a member of the unit for a rules purpose?

Can you cite why? There are reasons not to, but they specify why.

Not sure where the "well done" comes from, I've just repeated stuff from earlier, so I don't follow your apparent surprise.
I haven't changed my point of view in the slightest, so it seems I had to explain it differently for you then.

Literally what I have been saying, is that, uniquely, among the allies rules, ic allies "units" can undergo change, like ic joining an allied unit, as a friendly unit.
Note that a unit, is joining a unit, forming 1 unit.

The ic then loses his "unit" status, but, far from being a member of the unit for ALL rules purposes, as many have claimed here, what he gains and loses are conditional, not absolute.
He keeps his bike/psychic powers or whatever, because he is not restricted by all the units rules. Nothing is conferred in this manner.

An ic, that is a battle brother ally, can join an allied unit, but, even if he does so, this will not make that ic any different, he remains a character, chosen from another codex, that can only exist in your army, as an ally. Without this status, he goes down the rabbit hole.

This is possible, because ic's can remain entirely intact, with their rules, whether they are a distinct unit or not.

By insisting that an ic, that is perfectly capable, in rules terms to be either a distinct unit, or part of another unit whilst retaining its own rules and stripping it of its own rules, by citing "part of the unit for all rules purposes" is half of the truth.

Making this claim, that "part of the unit for all purposes" is all-powerful, that logic, is exactly the same as quoting "from all points of view."
= car crash.

The ic loses his unit status, but cannot lose his ally status if he is to remain where he is (that is in an army or even still on the board).
The allies rules, exactly as they stand, are robust enough to accept the existence of allies, both as independent units and ic's that have "merged" with another unit.

 fuusa wrote:
The ic then loses his "unit" status, but, far from being a member of the unit for ALL rules purposes, as many have claimed here, what he gains and loses are conditional, not absolute.
He keeps his bike/psychic powers or whatever, because he is not restricted by all the units rules. Nothing is conferred in this manner.

Nothing in the units rules would ever change his model type. That's a red herring - no one is saying that it would change.

Making this claim, that "part of the unit for all purposes" is all-powerful, that logic, is exactly the same as quoting "from all points of view."
= car crash.

That's just not true.
People keep claiming that but that's not how the rules actually work.

Thanks fuusa, that is what I have been trying to say all along, you just said it far better and more clearly than I could... :-)

 fuusa wrote:
The ic then loses his "unit" status, but, far from being a member of the unit for ALL rules purposes, as many have claimed here, what he gains and loses are conditional, not absolute.
He keeps his bike/psychic powers or whatever, because he is not restricted by all the units rules. Nothing is conferred in this manner.

I dunno; I think the wording is 100% clear that ist is ALL rules purposes.

Here is the Quote: BRB page 39, Independent Characters, First column, last paragraph: 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 Independent Characters.

being part of the unit, for all purposes, does not stop you from being a BB, you need to prove why it does.

IC who is a BB joins a unit, and is a part of it for all rules purposes, does that mean a biker IC is no longer bulky?

of course not! the IC is treated as a PART of the unit, for all purposes, he is still a biker or BB, and as such still subject to the limitations on bikes or BB's

just like a IC BB is still a BB, it gets treated like a part of the unit, for all purposes, but being a part of the unit is not permission to override the specific restriction placed on BB's.

the BB IC is still treated as part of the unit for all purposes, in addition, he is bound by the BB rules, there is no conflict with the IC rules here... you can still be a part of the unit for all purposes, while still having to follow additional rules for being a BB

BB's by RAW, are NOT allowed in allied transports, either as a unit on their own, or as PART of another unit, it does not matter, as it is all BB's, not just BB UNITS that are banned from allied transport.

nothing about being part of the unit for all purposes, stops the IC BB, from being either an IC, or BB, or any other additional permissions/restrictions on them.

being "part of the unit for all purposes" is in no way permission for a BB to embark in an allied transport,

those arguing FOR BB IC's getting into allied transports, need a RAW quote, that explains how BB IC's in a unit are no longer BB"s, as BB's by RAW are not allowed in allied transports (part of a unit, or as a unit, it doesnt matter, RAW states no BB"s in allied transports)

it does not matter if the "unit" is mixed, or BB, the fact is you are trying to put a BB into an allied transport, and the RAW say that is not allowed. Being treated as part of a unit, does not in any way, stop the IC BB from being a BB.

 easysauce wrote:
being part of the unit, for all purposes, does not stop you from being a BB, you need to prove why it does.

The rules for BB says that they are friendly units and explains what this allows. If an IC (part of the same detachment or allied) joins a unit, how many units do you have? If you try to continue to treat the IC as a friendly unit while attached, does that mean I can shoot only the IC (with no LOS!)?

IC who is a BB joins a unit, and is a part of it for all rules purposes, does that mean a biker IC is no longer bulky?

Why wouldn't he still be Bulky?

of course not! the IC is treated as a PART of the unit, for all purposes, he is still a biker or BB, and as such still subject to the limitations on bikes or BB's

Except Special Rules, such as Bulky apply to the model, not the unit.

just like a IC BB is still a BB, it gets treated like a part of the unit, for all purposes, but being a part of the unit is not permission to override the specific restriction placed on BB's.

Why do you insist on treating the attached IC as its own unit? The restriction on embarking an allied vehicle applies to Battle Brothers which are defined as "friendly units". Rhinos, for example have a restriction on models in Terminator armour (or Bulky models I forget which specifically). Either way, the restriction is on models, not units.

the BB IC is still treated as part of the unit for all purposes, in addition, he is bound by the BB rules, there is no conflict with the IC rules here... you can still be a part of the unit for all purposes, while still having to follow additional rules for being a BB

Citation required.

BB's by RAW, are NOT allowed in allied transports, either as a unit on their own, or as PART of another unit, it does not matter, as it is all BB's, not just BB UNITS that are banned from allied transport.

So it is all friendly units from a different codex, not just friendly units from a different codex units?

nothing about being part of the unit for all purposes, stops the IC BB, from being either an IC, or BB, or any other additional permissions/restrictions on them.

Not true. The rules specify when the IC is not counted as a normal member of the unit. Do the rules specify that a currently non-existent unit still has unit-based restrictions?

being "part of the unit for all purposes" is in no way permission for a BB to embark in an allied transport,

Sure it does. As have been shown, the rules for BB deals with units, not models.

those arguing FOR BB IC's getting into allied transports, need a RAW quote, that explains how BB IC's in a unit are no longer BB"s, as BB's by RAW are not allowed in allied transports (part of a unit, or as a unit, it doesnt matter, RAW states no BB"s in allied transports)

We have, it just keeps getting ignored as the counter-claim is BBs are models not units.

it does not matter if the "unit" is mixed, or BB, the fact is you are trying to put a BB into an allied transport, and the RAW say that is not allowed. Being treated as part of a unit, does not in any way, stop the IC BB from being a BB.

No, I'm trying to put a unit of "X" in a transport. I'm not embarking any friendly units from another codex.

The IC is a unit for First blood, the same applies to the BB rules.

 DeathReaper wrote:
The IC is a unit for First blood, the same applies to the BB rules.

The IC is a unit for First Blood because the rules specifically say that it is its own unit for the purposes of First Blood. And Victory Points in general. And Reserves. Where does it say that an attached IC is a unit for the purposes of allies?

 Happyjew wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The IC is a unit for First blood, the same applies to the BB rules.

The IC is a unit for First Blood because the rules specifically say that it is its own unit for the purposes of First Blood. And Victory Points in general. And Reserves. Where does it say that an attached IC is a unit for any other purposes?

Fixed that for you.

ICs have specific rules allowing them to be "separate units" only in certain situations that are specifically called upon, for all other rules purposes, they are part of the joined squad.

And with reserves, they are still a singular unit when you go to place them in reserve with a unit; beyond being "per the rules" they would absolutely be their own unit prior to joining a unit in reserves, in which they would have to go into reserves to join anyways.

 Happyjew wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The IC is a unit for First blood, the same applies to the BB rules.

The IC is a unit for First Blood because the rules specifically say that it is its own unit for the purposes of First Blood. And Victory Points in general. And Reserves. Where does it say that an attached IC is a unit for the purposes of allies?

And the BB rules say that...

"Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units' from all points of view" (112)

All points of view includes counting as a unit when trying to embark, the rules specifically say that it is its own unit for the purposes of embarking onto allied transports, just like the language in the First Blood and VP rules.

P.S. It took 8 pages but we got there.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The IC is a unit for First blood, the same applies to the BB rules.

The IC is a unit for First Blood because the rules specifically say that it is its own unit for the purposes of First Blood. And Victory Points in general. And Reserves. Where does it say that an attached IC is a unit for the purposes of allies?

And the BB rules say that...

"Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units' from all points of view" (112)

All points of view includes counting as a unit when trying to embark, the rules specifically say that it is its own unit for the purposes of embarking onto allied transports, just like the language in the First Blood and VP rules.

P.S. It took 8 pages but we got there.

So if it treated as a friendly unit while attached, then I can shoot at just the IC?

 Happyjew wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The IC is a unit for First blood, the same applies to the BB rules.

The IC is a unit for First Blood because the rules specifically say that it is its own unit for the purposes of First Blood. And Victory Points in general. And Reserves. Where does it say that an attached IC is a unit for the purposes of allies?

And the BB rules say that...

"Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units' from all points of view" (112)

All points of view includes counting as a unit when trying to embark, the rules specifically say that it is its own unit for the purposes of embarking onto allied transports, just like the language in the First Blood and VP rules.

P.S. It took 8 pages but we got there.

So if it treated as a friendly unit while attached, then I can shoot at just the IC?

The same could be asked about the First Blood scenario.

Why does it not apply to First blood, that is the same reason it does not apply to BB's and Allies.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The IC is a unit for First blood, the same applies to the BB rules.

The IC is a unit for First Blood because the rules specifically say that it is its own unit for the purposes of First Blood. And Victory Points in general. And Reserves. Where does it say that an attached IC is a unit for the purposes of allies?

And the BB rules say that...

"Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units' from all points of view" (112)

All points of view includes counting as a unit when trying to embark, the rules specifically say that it is its own unit for the purposes of embarking onto allied transports, just like the language in the First Blood and VP rules.

P.S. It took 8 pages but we got there.

So if it treated as a friendly unit while attached, then I can shoot at just the IC?

The same could be asked about the First Blood scenario.

Why does it not apply to First blood, that is the same reason it does not apply to BB's and Allies.

Why? Because VPs are calculated at the end of the game. And at the end of the game ICs are not attached to any units.

IC's can be attached to a unit at the end of the game...

Edit: Missed what you were saying.

The IC, was a part of a unit so when VP's are calculated... But there is an exception in the rules. The same is true for BB's.

rigeld2 wrote:

 fuusa wrote:
The ic then loses his "unit" status, but, far from being a member of the unit for ALL rules purposes, as many have claimed here, what he gains and loses are conditional, not absolute.
He keeps his bike/psychic powers or whatever, because he is not restricted by all the units rules. Nothing is conferred in this manner.

Nothing in the units rules would ever change his model type. That's a red herring - no one is saying that it would change.

Its not a red herring, its not just about model type, what it is, is an obvious example of how "all" rules purposes simply does not apply to him.
What the ic actually is, does not change, only his unit status changes, the fact that he is an ally doesn't change and cannot change.

What is an ic chosen from a different codex, doing in one of your units, if it isn't an ally???
It can only be there because it is, not was, an ally.

rigeld2 wrote:

 fuusa wrote:
Making this claim, that "part of the unit for all purposes" is all-powerful, that logic, is exactly the same as quoting "from all points of view."
= car crash.

That's just not true.
People keep claiming that but that's not how the rules actually work.

And yet, "part of the unit for all purposes" and "from all points of view" is exactly what the rules say.

Something has got to give there.

Beast wrote:
Thanks fuusa, that is what I have been trying to say all along, you just said it far better and more clearly than I could... :-)

Cheers mate.

It seems using someone else's "logic" to reach an awful conclusion, is not a valid form of presenting them with a "you are wrong" mirror around here.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Here is the Quote: BRB page 39, Independent Characters, First column, last paragraph: 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 Independent Characters.

It doesn't actually work like that though, does it?

If our (space wolf) rune priest joins those (ultra marine) tacticals, if we really end up with a unit of ultra marines for all rules purposes, what do we have???

I'll ask the question again, as no-one responded before.
If that ^ unit was embarked upon a transport and I forget, when I ask you what's aboard, can you honestly say a unit of ultra marine tacticals??
Is that the true sum of those passengers?

 fuusa wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 fuusa wrote:
The ic then loses his "unit" status, but, far from being a member of the unit for ALL rules purposes, as many have claimed here, what he gains and loses are conditional, not absolute.
He keeps his bike/psychic powers or whatever, because he is not restricted by all the units rules. Nothing is conferred in this manner.

Nothing in the units rules would ever change his model type. That's a red herring - no one is saying that it would change.

Its not a red herring, its not just about model type, what it is, is an obvious example of how "all" rules purposes simply does not apply to him.
What the ic actually is, does not change, only his unit status changes, the fact that he is an ally doesn't change and cannot change.

I've cited permission to remove ally status.
Cite permission for joining a unit to change model type or special rules or drop this line of argument. It's unsupported and only serves to cloud the issue - he's a member of the unit for all rules purposes. There is no rules purpose that involves changing his special rules or unit type.

What is an ic chosen from a different codex, doing in one of your units, if it isn't an ally???
It can only be there because it is, not was, an ally.

He's an IC in my army list that joined a friendly unit.

rigeld2 wrote:

 fuusa wrote:
Making this claim, that "part of the unit for all purposes" is all-powerful, that logic, is exactly the same as quoting "from all points of view."
= car crash.

That's just not true.
People keep claiming that but that's not how the rules actually work.

And yet, "part of the unit for all purposes" and "from all points of view" is exactly what the rules say.

Something has got to give there.

What car crash? You've never cited one despite being asked repeatedly. You made up some issue that doesn't actually exist about model types changing and special rules changing, but there's no actual rules support for it. You've invented it.

I'll ask the question again, as no-one responded before.
If that ^ unit was embarked upon a transport and I forget, when I ask you what's aboard, can you honestly say a unit of ultra marine tacticals??
Is that the true sum of those passengers?

Depends. Since the embarked squad must be made clear you might say "the one with the Rune priest".

rigeld2 wrote:
I've cited permission to remove ally status.

No you haven't.

rigeld2 wrote:
Cite permission for joining a unit to change model type or special rules or drop this line of argument.

Why would I want to cite permission for that, when it is exactly the opposite of what I have been arguing.
You are very quick to criticise people for not understanding your argument (which is very simple) and you seem not to understand mine at all. According to you, I should drop a line of argument I am not persuing, either you are critically failing to understand, or you are misrepresenting my view.

rigeld2 wrote:
It's unsupported and only serves to cloud the issue - he's a member of the unit for all rules purposes. There is no rules purpose that involves changing his special rules or unit type.

See above, please get it right.

What is an ic chosen from a different codex, doing in one of your units, if it isn't an ally???
It can only be there because it is, not was, an ally.

rigeld2 wrote:
He's an IC in my army list that joined a friendly unit.

And the mechanism that enables this is the allies rules and his level of allegeance.

rigeld2 wrote:
What car crash? You've never cited one despite being asked repeatedly. You made up some issue that doesn't actually exist about model types changing and special rules changing, but there's no actual rules support for it. You've invented it.

Where is this?

I'll ask the question again, as no-one responded before.
If that ^ unit was embarked upon a transport and I forget, when I ask you what's aboard, can you honestly say a unit of ultra marine tacticals??
Is that the true sum of those passengers?

rigeld2 wrote:
Depends. Since the embarked squad must be made clear you might say "the one with the Rune priest".

 fuusa wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
I've cited permission to remove ally status.

No you haven't.

Your refusal to accept a fact doesn't mean I haven't cited it.

rigeld2 wrote:
Cite permission for joining a unit to change model type or special rules or drop this line of argument.

Why would I want to cite permission for that, when it is exactly the opposite of what I have been arguing.

... Did your last post not include the words "Its not a red herring, its not just about model type, what it is, is an obvious example of how "all" rules purposes simply does not apply to him. "?
Meaning it is at least partially about model type and you think that joining a unit can change a model's unit type or special rules. Please cite why you think that.

You are very quick to criticise people for not understanding your argument (which is very simple) and you seem not to understand mine at all. According to you, I should drop a line of argument I am not persuing, either you are critically failing to understand, or you are misrepresenting my view.

You are saying that either "all rules purposes" means literally everything which somehow includes changing a model's unit type and special rules, or "all rules purposes" means something close to "when fuusa says so".
Is that close enough?

What is an ic chosen from a different codex, doing in one of your units, if it isn't an ally???
It can only be there because it is, not was, an ally.

rigeld2 wrote:
He's an IC in my army list that joined a friendly unit.

And the mechanism that enables this is the allies rules and his level of allegeance.

So page 39 doesn't allow that? Strange - it does in my rulebook. Perhaps you should get yours replaced as a faulty printing?

rigeld2 wrote:
What car crash? You've never cited one despite being asked repeatedly. You made up some issue that doesn't actually exist about model types changing and special rules changing, but there's no actual rules support for it. You've invented it.

Where is this?

fuusa wrote:Its not a red herring, its not just about model type, what it is, is an obvious example of how "all" rules purposes simply does not apply to him.

fuusa wrote:Then all of the rules for my space wolf rune priest will be conviniently found in the space marine codex then.
Absurd.

Now - what car crash? You have repeatedly asserted one but have literally failed to prove one. Every. Time.

You might say that (which would be another half-truth) but you couldn't say a unit of ultra marine tacticals could you?

You could if it was the only unit embarked - because then it would be clear.

Had typed a point of view, then realised this is an argument and not a discussion and i cba with that - can't figure out how to delete the post so.... enjoy this flaming cheese. -

NickAtkins wrote:
A biker IC joining a non-bike squad doesn't lose his extra movement or toughness, nor does he lose his IC ability to leave/join squads, take look out sirs etc.

So why would he lose specifically and only his BB status?

Because the BB status is tied to being a unit.
If he's not a unit, he's not a BB.

It's like a question this simple wasn't answered 23489238523495734812972389 times in the thread already.

rigeld2 wrote:

NickAtkins wrote:
A biker IC joining a non-bike squad doesn't lose his extra movement or toughness, nor does he lose his IC ability to leave/join squads, take look out sirs etc.

So why would he lose specifically and only his BB status?

Because the BB status is tied to being a unit.
If he's not a unit, he's not a BB.

It's like a question this simple wasn't answered 23489238523495734812972389 times in the thread already.

Well to be fair at most it would be 117 times assuming that it was asked and answered every other post.

If you are going to be that pedantic then in the allies section it does not say "Units from the Battle Brothers detachment are treated as 'friendly units'"

It says: "Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units'"

It doesn't specify that you must be a unit to be a battle brother - so whether the Character is a "unit" or not has no bearing.

again, IC RULES, where an IC is PART of unit, for ALL purposes, does not overide that the IC is still a BB

IC BB, being part of a unit is all well and good, it does not stop the ICBB from being a BB still.

RAW is, no BB's in allied transports.

rigel and happy are trying to argue that ass soon as an IC BB joins a non BB unit, that the IC BB is no longer a BB, which is NOT supported by RAW.

being a part of a unit, for all purposes, does not change that you are a BB, and oyu have 0 rules that stat how being PART of a unit stops a BB from being a BB.

that BB's are TREATED as friendly units, does not make them non BB's.

an IC you choose from another codex is a BB,
you join him to a allied squad, he is still a BB, and is also a part of that squad.
you now try to put the entire unit, which contains a BB as PART of it, into an allied transport.

what does the BRB say about BB in allied transports? that it is not allowed.
that is raw,
you are not correct by RAW to state that a BB, through any means, can enter a transport.

them being "part" of a 1st codex unit does NOTHING to stop the IC bb from still being a BB.

the very arguement that rigel and happy make, that as soon as an IC BB joins a 1st codex unit, that it is now not an BB, would also not allow that IC to join the unit, as since its not a BB anymore, why are you allowed to even have the model from another codex in your army?

its another circular arguement, where you are asserting the IC BB is both in a state of being a BB, for the purposes of you feilding it at all, but not a BB for the purpose of being in an allied transport.

schrodiners BB in other words...

no matter how you argue it, a BB in allied transport, no matter how you got there, breaks RAW as "even BB's cannot enter allied transports"

We're going to go around in circles on this one forever. RAW needs to be rewritten as I believe it violates the RAI but of course, that is the crux of the problem and why no consensus will ever come here to this issue.

Suffice to say, RAW does seem to allow the unit to embark with an attached IC BB. There are some issues to work out with regards to what happens if the unit disappears while in the transport leaving the IC inside, but that's an argument for another day.

I'll continue to play however toward the majority belief because that seems to be what GW intended.

NickAtkins wrote:
If you are going to be that pedantic then in the allies section it does not say "Units from the Battle Brothers detachment are treated as 'friendly units'"

It says: "Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units'"

It doesn't specify that you must be a unit to be a battle brother - so whether the Character is a "unit" or not has no bearing.

It does have a bearing.

Bananas are yellow. No deviations from that fact are bananas.
I have a red fruit. Is it possible it's a banana?

2+2 is 4.
Is it possible 2 is 4?

BB are friendly units.
I have a model that is not a unit. Is it possible that it's a BB?