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 I have been thinking about the battle brothers and transports situation and decided to write out my thoughts to get things organized.
This is how I see this happening rules-wise:

During the pre-deployment phase of a battle you check if your army list(s) is legal. At this point several actions take place/rules trigger simultaneously.
All these events have the same time stamp(they all technically occur within the same micro-second. Humans can't physically do this of course, but rules are not restricted by these limitations)

- You declare whether or not you are using allies and what their relative status on the ally chart is(2nd part is an automated passive ability).

- You declare whether or not that an independent character is joining another unit and which one (within legal boundaries).
The battle brothers status allows an independent character to join a unit from an allied detachment
with the battle brothers rule on the allies chart (passive rules ability, allows for this situation to exist).

- The moment an independent character joins a unit it is considered part of this unit for ALL rules intents and purposes(passive ability).
This makes the independent character part of the unit(for better or for worse) until that character leaves the unit.
The independent character does not register as an independent unit as far as the rules are concerned and is as such absorbed into the host unit(for want of a better term). This does not create a new unit
but changes the status of the host unit to now exist with the IC as a joined model with it's own characteristics, special rules, status and wargear. The status of the IC at this point is checked at the model
level, not the unit level(he checks his status in regard to the other models in his host unit, not outside his unit as would any other model in his unit). (passive triggered rule).
This is [independent character] +[unit] = unit.. This applies to both allied and codex independent characters. This writing is for easy of reading alone, it does not suggest the creation of a new unit in
any way as explained below.

- At this point two sub unit realities exists: the unit with the character in it exists as one unit for all rules intents and purposes and within this unit also exists the sublayer [independent character,
battle brother] + [unit, battle brother]. Remember that the independent character rule states that the character is part of the unit for all rules intents and purposes.

- At the exact same moment(we are still within the same micro-second) you declare which independent characters join which unit(if any) you also
declare whether or not a unit will be embarked on their (dedicated)transport or not. This declaration is mandatory for the deployment process to be able to continue.

- When checking if a unit is allowed to embark a vehicle or be embarked on a vehicle the rules check whether or not this is a legal situation. The unit is allowed to embark when the following applies:
1. the unit is legally from the same force organisation chart/codex
2. there are no restrictions preventing the unit from entering such as equipment, size or special rules


- At this point the [independent character] +[unit] exists as unit. The independent character is subsumed in the sub universe of the unit and does not exist as a whole entity, but only as a subpart of
the bigger unit. It is legal for unit to be embarked upon/embark the transport vehicle.

This would conclude that the unit with the battle brother independent character is allowed to be embarked the transport.

Some notes
The moment this situation ceases to exist, for example the unit disembarks the vehicle but the independent character stays embarked, ergo the situation [independent character] +[unit] = unit seizes to exist, the independent character becomes a unit on its own again with all its rules including battle brothers, which triggers the rules that battle brothers can never be embarked om allied vehicles and thus creates an illegal situation.

This does not work the other way around as the unit would still have the status battlebrother in relation to the transport(so no daemons in rhino's for example)

In relation to gear and embarkation, remember that it is the gear that does not allow entry, not the character(for example, the character abaddon would be allowed to enter a rhino, the terminator armor that he is wearing as part of his wargear isn't. Theoretically an Abaddon in power armor would be allowed entry into the rhino after all)

Battle brothers is not a special rule such as say infiltrate. The independent character section is quite clear about special rules. Special rules are in the special rules section of the rulebook and in the special rules entry of the unit. Battle brothers is in a completely different part of the book.

I believe the rule was meant to prevent stuff like jain zar alone in a land raider from happening, not to prevent independent characters from somehow joining units(if they trust them enough to lead them into battle, why wouldn't they be allowed on their vehicle)

I do hope there will be an official faq for this soon and I won't have to ruleslawyer this much. Updated for clarity.

This has been discussed at grievous length way back when.

Don't care to read through fourteen pages of debate? There's a related poll to gauge community reaction here.

While there is intense debate about whether you are technically correct (I believe you are), 88% of the community disagrees. (Only 64% of 'no' respondents bothered to read the thread that started the issue, it should be pointed out.) It also bears mentioning that the arguments may have been persuasive, since the people who think allied ICs can NOT get on Battle Brother transports is 2.8 times as high as those who think they can, among people who didn't read the original thread, but among those who DID read the original thread, the people who voted no on ICs in BB transports rose to 5.4 times as high as their counterparts who voted yes.

Bottom line: even if you are correct on the way that the rule was intended, the community at large doesn't support such an interpretation.

You are incorrect. While the IC is part of the unit, it does possess a rule which prevents it from embarking on the transport, i.e a BB IC in the unit. It is no different than a 20-man unit with a transport that only holds 10 or a bike IC joined to the unit. There is a rule within the unit that doesn't allow it to embark while the IC is joined.

Aas has been stated... this has been discussed at length and ..... well....... ummm no.

 quickfuze wrote:
Aas has been stated... this has been discussed at length and ..... well....... ummm no.

An absolutely amazing and convincing rules based argument. I really love the way you cited support for your argument. Well done.


Yes, it's RAW legal, no I don't think it's intended (but it could be).

First of all, thanks for the reply's so far. As I said, this is primary because it has been bugging me for quite some time now

Jimsolo wrote:This has been discussed at grievous length way back when.

Don't care to read through fourteen pages of debate? There's a related poll to gauge community reaction here.

While there is intense debate about whether you are technically correct (I believe you are), 88% of the community disagrees. (Only 64% of 'no' respondents bothered to read the thread that started the issue, it should be pointed out.) It also bears mentioning that the arguments may have been persuasive, since the people who think allied ICs can NOT get on Battle Brother transports is 2.8 times as high as those who think they can, among people who didn't read the original thread, but among those who DID read the original thread, the people who voted no on ICs in BB transports rose to 5.4 times as high as their counterparts who voted yes.

Bottom line: even if you are correct on the way that the rule was intended, the community at large doesn't support such an interpretation.

The way I see it, this is what is says in the rulebook. I don't think certain power combo's were thought of when writing these rules, but that is not the issue here. I believe the community is actually wrong here on a technical level because their interpretation can not be found in the rulebook, while this is not an interpretation but RAW in the rulebook. I get that people don't want it, but the rules are the rules and until there is an official faq shouldn't we be following whats in the book, rather then an interpretation of the "spirit of the rules" (which is an abstract concept anyway and different for everyone)

I did read several forums considering this topic before figuring out my opinion but could not really find a proper worked out analysis of the rules so I made this and thought I'd share it.

Angelic wrote:You are incorrect. While the IC is part of the unit, it does possess a rule which prevents it from embarking on the transport, i.e a BB IC in the unit. It is no different than a 20-man unit with a transport that only holds 10 or a bike IC joined to the unit. There is a rule within the unit that doesn't allow it to embark while the IC is joined.

I edited my first post to reflect this, but in your examples it is not the character that prevents the situation from happening.

Problem people have are BB are specifically disallowed from embarking, and we are not given and guidance on how Allies rules are shared between a mix occupancy units etc. Some people feel BB 'status' is lost, some people feel BB 'status' remains, either way RAW is not clear, as no one know how this is handled either by the rules or how it is intended (which may have changed anyway with all the new rules…). Some people are adamant RAW is very clear that you cannot embark;
http://natfka.blogspot.com/2013/09/independent-characters-embarking-into.html

Personally, I don't like the idea of someone using a rule which allows them to join a unit, and then ignoring that same rule when trying to embark. The rule says IC's can join, blah blah, however not even BB embark on transport, while the rule is bulleted it is all one rule. but I wouldn’t be surprised if a FAQ came out either way, not sure even GW knows how they want to handle this atm.

-edit-
If the IC indeed retains his BB status, then the unit could not embark. If one model in a unit is restricted from entering the transport for any reason then a unit cannot embark - IC BB is not the only situation this can be an issue, some special characters are disallowed from entering certain vehicles and joining another unit does not then allow that unit to embark.

 Nem wrote:
Problem people have are BB are specifically disallowed from embarking, and we are not given and guidance on how Allies rules are shared between a mix occupancy units etc. Some people feel BB 'status' is lost, some people feel BB 'status' remains, either way RAW is not clear, as no one know how this is handled either by the rules or how it is intended (which may have changed anyway with all the new rules…). Some people are adamant RAW is very clear that you cannot embark;
http://natfka.blogspot.com/2013/09/independent-characters-embarking-into.html

Personally, I don't like the idea of someone using a rule which allows them to join a unit, and then ignoring that same rule when trying to embark. The rule says IC's can join, blah blah, however not even BB embark on transport, while the rule is bulleted it is all one rule. but I wouldn’t be surprised if a FAQ came out either way, not sure even GW knows how they want to handle this atm.

Although I completely agree that it might seem a bit weird, it really isn't. The IC and the unit never lose the battlebrothers status in regard to one another, but the rules clearly state the the IC becomes part of the unit for all rules intents and purposes. These rules are triggered at exactly the same moment(they have the same timestamp). The unit does not have the battle brother status in regard to the transport(and the transport does not have the battle brothers status in regard to the unit) and therefor is allowed to embark. Battle brothers is not a special rule and thus not conferred unto the unit when the IC joins it.

 Xarin wrote:

 Nem wrote:
Problem people have are BB are specifically disallowed from embarking, and we are not given and guidance on how Allies rules are shared between a mix occupancy units etc. Some people feel BB 'status' is lost, some people feel BB 'status' remains, either way RAW is not clear, as no one know how this is handled either by the rules or how it is intended (which may have changed anyway with all the new rules…). Some people are adamant RAW is very clear that you cannot embark;
http://natfka.blogspot.com/2013/09/independent-characters-embarking-into.html

Personally, I don't like the idea of someone using a rule which allows them to join a unit, and then ignoring that same rule when trying to embark. The rule says IC's can join, blah blah, however not even BB embark on transport, while the rule is bulleted it is all one rule. but I wouldn’t be surprised if a FAQ came out either way, not sure even GW knows how they want to handle this atm.

Although I completely agree that it might seem a bit weird, it really isn't. The IC and the unit never lose the battlebrothers status in regard to one another, but the rules clearly state the the IC becomes part of the unit for all rules intents and purposes. These rules are triggered at exactly the same moment(they have the same timestamp). The unit does not have the battle brother status in regard to the transport(and the transport does not have the battle brothers status in regard to the unit) and therefor is allowed to embark. Battle brothers is not a special rule and thus not conferred unto the unit when the IC joins it.

I'm not saying I find it weird, I am saying when looking at RAW, people have very different views on this subject- maybe more venomously split than most rule debates and everyone makes good arguments either way.

For example, I agree it’s not a special rule and not conferred, but where does anything say you ignore the restrictions the IC has? If the IC still has BB status then the unit cannot embark as one model is restricted (see edit in my last post).

like I've said several times now, you actually don't ignore the bb status of the ic, but it is not part of the check for embarkation as the IC is part of the unit for ALL rules purposes at that point, this is in the book.

 Xarin wrote:
like I've said several times now, you actually don't ignore the bb status of the ic, but it is not part of the check for embarkation as the IC is part of the unit for ALL rules purposes at that point, this is in the book.

Right, as he is part of the unit, and when the unit checks if it can embark, how can you ignore the IC as he is part of the unit?

As I have said this issue has come up previously with a character before who could not embark on a specific transport, and joining a unit which was not restricted did not change the fact he could not embark, as a result the unit could not embark... When checking if the unit can or cannot take an action, every part of that unit and the rules on each model are included, he is part of the unit for all rule purposes - and the unit accounts for rules on all models which are part of it when taking a unit related action, another instance might be charging, if the IC has a different charge speed it can potentionally slow the charge down - the IC does not just charge at the same pace as the rest of the unit... Models can have different rules, and the IC's rules for movement etc do not disappear because he joined a unit where the models have a different movement speed to him. If you need more examples, the link and other posts on Dakka put forward a multitude of examples where a unit can't do something, becuase the IC that just joined can't. Being part of the unit means you must use the IC's rules and restrictions, rather than meaning you can ignore them.

Which is why I suggest the main point is whether a BB loses his status or not, if the status and restrictions remain RAW we know the unit cannot embark. There is conflict in the rule as to what the allied status is attached to, the first is the BRB is relationship is determined by detachment, the rules for alliances in the BRB mostly mention 'units of', but not in all circumstances. Codex Inq says allies relationships are between models, which is inconsistent wording throughout the current rule set.

The rules are so inconsistant you will find a home brew FAQ at all tournaments on this subject - and this was before INQ and formations came a muddied the water further.

The IC can't lose his BB status, because then it would be ineligible to join the unit. It must be a BB to be part of the unit. Besides, there are no rules saying that anything the IC has is lost when joining he unit. It just happens to gain additional rules. In any event, it seems a new discussion would be pointless.

Might I ask which character this was as I have no idea who you are referring to(and such, how relevant he is to this situation). Also, I just hope for a faq at some point, but so far GW doesn't seem to have the need to change the wording of the book

and I feel you are missing the point here a bit. Nothing is ignored, it simply does not apply to the situation as the triggers for the situations never occur(I am running out of ways to explain this by now). You don't check for what is not there and the rules say that it is not. The unit does not have battle brothers in regards to the vehicle so the situation does not occur because at that point the IC does not exist as a seperate entity because he is completely part of the unit at that point.

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. That's characters, so no different within in unit perspective then a veteran sergeant, his status as an IC only triggers when additional rules like "look out sir", or certain weaponry ask for it and only apply to that trigger, otherwise you could always snipe an IC in the middle of a unit)

 Xarin wrote:
Might I ask which character this was as I have no idea who you are referring to(and such, how relevant he is to this situation)

and I feel you are missing the point here a bit. Nothing is ignored, it simply does not apply to the situation as the triggers for the situations never occur(I am running out of ways to explain this by now). You don't check for what is not there and the rules say that it is not. The unit does not have battle brothers in regards to the vehicle so the situation does not occur because at that point the IC does not exist as a seperate entity because he is completely part of the unit at that point.

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. That's characters, so no different within in unit perspective then a veteran sergeant, his status as an IC only triggers when additional rules like "look out sir", or certain weaponry ask for it and only apply to that trigger, otherwise you could always snipe an IC in the middle a unit)

I get your point 100%. Your saying the unit can, so the IC rules as the unit would have, and that alliances are unit based rules.

I can't remember which character it is now at this spercific point in time, but there are other examples such as...

-A IC pops from a Rhino, and joins a unit of Assault Marines which have not yet moved, they later wish to assault - While the 'unit' has not disembarked and are able to assault - actually they can not. As that IC can not charge, the unit can not charge. It doesn't remove the restriction from the model.
-You can attach a Terminator IC to a squad of power armor. If the unit wants to embark on a Rhino, it can't unless the IC leaves, even though the 'unit' can.

You get the idea, a IC which can't do something will prevent a unit which can from performing that action.


As for BB unit, the restriction on transports is...

not even battle brothers can embark in allied transport vehicles

. Nothing about units or models or detachments in that part.... As per my last post we have RAW examples of Alliance relationships being between Detachments, Units and Models, which is where the problem lies.

I get your point 100%. Your saying the unit can, so the IC rules as the unit would have, and that alliances are unit based rules.

Actually, that's not what I'm saying

actually both situations are completely different.

-A IC pops from a Rhino, and joins a unit of Assault Marines which have not yet moved, they later wish to assault - While the 'unit' has not disembarked and are able to assault - actually they can not. As that IC can not charge, the unit can not charge. It doesn't remove the restriction from the model.

The IC joining in has, by his previous actions, triggered a situation which prevents the charge from happening. This is a completely different check(and happens under completely different circumstances) then checking the "allied"status of a unit


-You can attach a Terminator IC to a squad of power armor. If the unit wants to embark on a Rhino, it can't unless the IC leaves, even though the 'unit' can.
As said, it is the gear that prevents it, not the character

You get the idea, a IC which can't do something will prevent a unit which can from performing that action.


As for BB unit, the restriction on transports is...

not even battle brothers can embark in allied transport vehicles

. Nothing about units or models or detachments in that part.... As per my last post we have RAW examples of Alliance relationships being between Detachments, Units and Models, which is where the problem lies.

Angelic wrote:
The IC can't lose his BB status, because then it would be ineligible to join the unit.

No, it wouldn't.

Ignore the BB rules. Now, cite denial to join a unit - I can cite permission on page 39.

rigeld2 wrote:

Angelic wrote:
The IC can't lose his BB status, because then it would be ineligible to join the unit.

No, it wouldn't.

Ignore the BB rules. Now, cite denial to join a unit - I can cite permission on page 39.

If you ignore Alliance rules then you don't know if that detachment is friendly or not - and a IC can only join by ''moving within 2'' unit coherency distance of a friendly unit'', without BB rules he doesn't have permission by page 39, as it's the BB rules which state they are friendly units.

 Nem wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Angelic wrote:
The IC can't lose his BB status, because then it would be ineligible to join the unit.

No, it wouldn't.

Ignore the BB rules. Now, cite denial to join a unit - I can cite permission on page 39.

If you ignore Alliance rules then you don't know if that detachment is friendly or not - and a IC can only join by ''moving within 2'' unit coherency distance of a friendly unit'', without BB rules he doesn't have permission by page 39, as it's the BB rules which state they are friendly units.

Please define a friendly unit using the rules.

Restrictions are restrictions and are not ignored unless specifically stated. Here's a simple example I think someone already gave.

If a Lord in Terminator armor joins a unit in power armor the unit cannot embark in a Rhino. Even though he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes.

The rules say models in terminator armor cannot embark in a rhino/razorback.

The rules say Battle Brothers cannot embark on allied transports.

So while he does count as part of the unit for all rules purposes at no time does he not count also as a Battle Brother, or not in terminator armor, etc.

So no, no, and no.

The confusion comes from the counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes. That means exactly what is written he counts (all of his rules, rules applied to him, wargear, restrictions, etc) as part of the unit.

It does not give permission in any way to then ignore the independent characters rules because he has joined a squad.

Wagguy80 wrote:
Restrictions are restrictions and are not ignored unless specifically stated.

Absolutely agreed.

If a Lord in Terminator armor joins a unit in power armor the unit cannot embark in a Rhino. Even though he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes.

The rules say models in terminator armor cannot embark in a rhino/razorback.

Right. The individual model has a rule that forbids the entire unit from embarking. Not a relevant example.

The rules say Battle Brothers cannot embark on allied transports.

So while he does count as part of the unit for all rules purposes at no time does he not count also as a Battle Brother.

Demonstrably false. I've proven it before and been told "NUH UH" as evidence I'm wrong. Sorry - you'll need more than that.

BB status is tied to units.

p112 wrote:Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units' from all points of view.

An IC is no longer a unit by himself when he joins a unit.
If the IC is no longer a unit he cannot be a BB.

So no, no, and no.

Another well cited post in this thread. Well done.

No he "counts as" part of the unit. He is not however discounted. IE special rules, etc that affect him are not ignored because he is now part of another unit.

So by your logic...

If I allied Space marines with Tau, and Eldar. I could attach a Farseer which is a battle brother to Tau and he becomes "part of that unit". And since now he's a Tau unit and not an Eldar unit since he has joined a Tau unit.

Any farseer powers that "affect friendly units" would also affect the Space Marines because they are battle brothers to Tau, and the Eldar Farseer has joined a Tau squad so he no longer counts as being Eldar since he has become part of a Tau unit not.

Wagguy80 wrote:
No he "counts as" part of the unit. He is not however discounted. IE special rules, etc that affect him are not ignored because he is now part of another unit.

He is part of the unit. I've never said to discount him for anything. Perhaps you'd like to actually read and respond to what I'm saying rather than what you think I'm saying?

Only a unit can be a BB. An IC joined to a unit is not himself a unit and therefore cannot be a BB. I've cited evidence - I expect the same respect.

Wagguy80 wrote:
No he "counts as" part of the unit. He is not however discounted. IE special rules, etc that affect him are not ignored because he is now part of another unit.

So by your logic...

If I allied Space marines with Tau, and Eldar. I could attach a Farseer which is a battle brother to Tau and he becomes "part of that unit". And since now he's a Tau unit and not an Eldar unit since he has joined a Tau unit.

Any farseer powers that "affect friendly units" would also affect the Space Marines because they are battle brothers to Tau, and the Eldar Farseer has joined a Tau squad so he no longer counts as being Eldar since he has become part of a Tau unit not.

"counts as", so as far as the rules are concerned he is part of the unit an not seen as separate. The unit "IC" does not exist at the point of checking restrictions as has been thoroughly described in my first post

the second part of your post doesn't make any sense, please read what is said before replying.

Your discounting that he is from a allied detachment.

Neither of us are, again please read before replying

Wagguy80 wrote:
Your discounting that he is from a allied detachment.

You've failed to actually understand the argument. Please re-read and try again.

Well if your not discounting he is an ally then he cannot embark on the transport.

Because in order to do that he would no longer count as a unit from the detachment he came from.

So my example was accurate. By your rules reasoning If an Eldar Farseer joins a Tau Firewarrior squad he no longer counts as an ally. He counts as Tau and can get on their transport.

Otherwise he can't get on their transport.

Also since he counts as Tau now and not Eldar his psychic powers that affect "friendly" models will affect Space Marines .
Since Space Marines and Tau are battle brothers. Even though Space Marines, and Eldar are not battle brothers.

Edit and I see your arguement your trying to pretend like this is some computer program with specific checks and it's not. It's a tabletop game, and they either meet all requirements or they cannot do it.

IF he is a battle brother he can't get on the transport. Can the unit get on the transport? Yes Is there anything preventing them from getting on the transport? YES THERE IS A BATTLE BROTHER WITH THEM

Wagguy80 wrote:
Well if your not discounting he is an ally then he cannot embark on the transport.

You need to word your statements more precisely.

Because in order to do that he would no longer count as a unit from the detachment he came from.

Correct - he does not.

So my example was accurate. By your rules reasoning If an Eldar Farseer joins a Tau Firewarrior squad he no longer counts as an ally. He counts as Tau and can get on their transport.

He doesn't "count as Tau" - he's a member of a Tau unit for all rules purposes and can therefore embark.

Also since he counts as Tau now and not Eldar his psychic powers that affect "friendly" models will affect Space Marines .
Since Space Marines and Tau are battle brothers. Even though Space Marines, and Eldar are not battle brothers.

Correct - once he joins any unit the BB restrictions are lifted.

Wow just wow.

Try it at a tournament and see what happens. I'm out. lol

rigeld2 wrote:

 Nem wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Angelic wrote:
The IC can't lose his BB status, because then it would be ineligible to join the unit.

No, it wouldn't.

Ignore the BB rules. Now, cite denial to join a unit - I can cite permission on page 39.

If you ignore Alliance rules then you don't know if that detachment is friendly or not - and a IC can only join by ''moving within 2'' unit coherency distance of a friendly unit'', without BB rules he doesn't have permission by page 39, as it's the BB rules which state they are friendly units.

Please define a friendly unit using the rules.

There is no neat definition in the rule book, best I could do is 'as opposed to your enemy'. (As far as I know). The point is if you ignore the rules for allies the situation doesn't exist - you don't have allies to be able to join.

rigeld2 wrote:

Wagguy80 wrote:
No he "counts as" part of the unit. He is not however discounted. IE special rules, etc that affect him are not ignored because he is now part of another unit.

He is part of the unit. I've never said to discount him for anything. Perhaps you'd like to actually read and respond to what I'm saying rather than what you think I'm saying?

Only a unit can be a BB. An IC joined to a unit is not himself a unit and therefore cannot be a BB. I've cited evidence - I expect the same respect.

--

I understand some areas of the rule's for allies mention units. In the all the levels of alliance some area's mention units (Notably, for items which can only be 'unit' such as shooting etc) and some don't, the particular check for embarking doesn't mention units at all - that particular rule in itself does not require it to be a unit of BB's (and a lot of them do), only that BB's cannot embark, not a unit of BB's cannot embark. We know what a Battle Brother is, using the Allies matrix. Just because we are told we treat the detachment like friendly units, does not mean every single rule then listed must be unit based, this is especially true as all a unit is - is a group of models.

I would be inclined to agree quicker 'Unit' was the only way GW has written rules for Allies, and Allied relationships, but they have not. We are told we know what level of alliance they are by detachment in the BRB, and in Codex; INQ the rules say allied relationships are between models. This leaves us at three levels how Allies act, by Detachment, Unit and Model. Really if you say detachment, that covers all three, detachments are comprised of units, and units are comprised of models. With these many rules, it's not illogical to say being it's own unit has nothing to do with this particular rule, as this rule only requires that a Battle Brother does not embark on an allied transport.