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.

 Nem wrote:

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.

Correct - there isn't a neat definition, and "as opposed to your enemy" is the best we can do. A model that you selected as part of your army list is not your enemy and is therefore ... ?
If you remove the BB rules from the model it's still a friendly model, meaning it can join units just fine.

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.

You must have misread the rule - "Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units' from all points of view." This means that Battle Brothers are friendly units. This means that things that are not friendly units cannot be Battle Brothers. If an IC is not a unit, can he be a friendly unit?
The bullet points below that sentence define what the sentence means - meaning they apply to Battle Brothers that are friendly units.

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.

Great! Now - the Battle Brother rule in question... does it apply to units specifically or not? According to my BRB, it applies solely to Battle Brother friendly units.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wagguy80 wrote:Wow just wow.

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

You really did fail to read the thread.

rigeld2 wrote:Yes, it's RAW legal, no I don't think it's intended (but it could be).

Wagguy80 wrote:

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

Actually that is the way all rule systems work in this universe, from poker to Catan to soccer and to anything else. I've just described it in more detail then is in normal rulebooks. Also your sentences after that actually confirm this seeing as whether or not the requirements are checked means there must be moments where this check happens. Seeing as situations can change constantly, these checks actually happen every moment of the game. As an example for the difference in rulebooks give the "normal" magic rulebook and the complete magic rulebook, same rules, just way more detailed.

I had been thinking of rehashing this subject since Codex inquisition came out.

An IG unit, a Tau IC and an inquisitor all can be joined because the the IG unit is BB to both Tau IC and Inquisitor.

It is the nature of the unit not being changed when a Desperate Ally has joined to it.

In a similar manner the IG unit with an inquisitor attached is not an allied unit to the Vendetta they are trying to embark upon(or more accurately, the vendetta is not an allied transport to the IG unit)

It is a shame that there is no clear definition on friendly unit, so we must use the process of exclusion instead, but "Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units' from all points of view." This means that Battle Brothers are friendly units. This means that things that are not friendly units cannot be Battle Brothers. If an IC is not a unit, can he be a friendly unit? sums it up.

Also don't forget that IC are units in their codex descriptions. However, they are not this unit when they join another unit(BB or not) but are instead part of the other unit.

Also, it would make the most sense to have the rules from codex:inquistion only apply to those units mentioned there, as it is part of the codex and not the BRB. If the wording is different in there, I don't know as I don't own that codex, then that is a completely different situation only applying when that codex is used. The rules discussion for this codex probably requires a whole topic of its own as it is a new and, at least for the moment, stand alone situation

Ok I have looked at several scenario's because GW's rules are so blurry.

I'm now going to agree with you. IC's that are battle brothers can embark or be deployed in allied transports.

Why not if GW allows the riptide thing. This allows for all sorts of craziness however.

I'm going to assume the reason for the rules is a Farseer could join some Firewarriors and embark on a Devilfish.
However they could not Embark on a Wave Serpent.

Luckily for psychic powers, and orders most of them now state the specific codex they affect.

side note:

At a tournament your still open for a rules debate and still at the whim of whatever just comes over to make the call. So I wouldn't try anything debate worthy in a tournament. I've had some of the dumbest rules calls ever come from official GW redshirts.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Nem wrote:

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.

Correct - there isn't a neat definition, and "as opposed to your enemy" is the best we can do. A model that you selected as part of your army list is not your enemy and is therefore ... ?
If you remove the BB rules from the model it's still a friendly model, meaning it can join units just fine.

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.

You must have misread the rule - "Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units' from all points of view." This means that Battle Brothers are friendly units. This means that things that are not friendly units cannot be Battle Brothers. If an IC is not a unit, can he be a friendly unit?
The bullet points below that sentence define what the sentence means - meaning they apply to Battle Brothers that are friendly units.

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.

Great! Now - the Battle Brother rule in question... does it apply to units specifically or not? According to my BRB, it applies solely to Battle Brother friendly units.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wagguy80 wrote:Wow just wow.

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

You really did fail to read the thread.

rigeld2 wrote:Yes, it's RAW legal, no I don't think it's intended (but it could be).

My BRB says levels of alliance are by detachment.

... Codex of your primary detachment on the left side of the matrix, then find the column for the codex of your potential allies at the top of the matrix. You'll find the levels of alliance....

So Space Marine and Tau are Battle Brothers. The detachment of Space Marines, and the detachment of Tau are Battle Brothers. Everything in that detachment is a BB to the other. NOw we know they are BB we move on to what this means...

Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units'

OK fine, As you said, its not a full unit of Battle Brothers so we have no need to further know we need to treat them as friendly units.... This really isn't defining what a BB is, its defining how the detachments treat BB's in the game. BB has already been determined by this point by detachment.

This means;
Can be joined by IC's
Counted as friendly units for powers ect.

However, not even Battle Brothers can embark in allied transport vehicles

Now, it doesn't say a unit of BB can not embark. It says Battle Brothers, we know a they are Battle Brothers because the rules tell us so. The bit about units does not say your only a BB if your in a BB unit. It says BB's are treated as friendly units. We can even go on to say in context that means Units of BB are friendly units, you don't treat a whole detachment like one big friendly unit. This part of the rule doesn't care what unit you are in, or if your units friendly, enemy, purple. A Battle Brother can not embark in an allied transport. That SM man is still a Battle Brother, and the Tau vehicle is still an allied transport.

Yet another case of a rules loophole where the 'core rules' both disallow (BBs can't embark) and allow (ICs count as the unit) in a vicious circle....and they refuse to FAQ it.

RAW, I think it is a circle jerk.

RAI, I think it is demonstrably no.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
I had been thinking of rehashing this subject since Codex inquisition came out.

An IG unit, a Tau IC and an inquisitor all can be joined because the the IG unit is BB to both Tau IC and Inquisitor.

It is the nature of the unit not being changed when a Desperate Ally has joined to it.

In a similar manner the IG unit with an inquisitor attached is not an allied unit to the Vendetta they are trying to embark upon(or more accurately, the vendetta is not an allied transport to the IG unit)

Again there are a few problems here, mainly that INQ goes further than the rule book and explains (at least their own) alliance levels are between models - In which case they can not as this destroys the 'unit' based alliances altogether. Intended or not? IDK. It just seems to be further in a list of inconsistencies and trying to write new rules in, especially a third detachment which is not supported by the basic rules in the first place. The whole section needs some rework. (6.5 anyone?)

I like you Nem for the simple reason your the only person who caught that RAW it says "Battle Brothers" and not units of battle brothers.

I read it like 5 times at least digging to see one way or the other. Initially being against because it seems so broken (not necessarily transports but because of other possible combinations).

 Nem wrote:

My BRB says levels of alliance are by detachment.

... Codex of your primary detachment on the left side of the matrix, then find the column for the codex of your potential allies at the top of the matrix. You'll find the levels of alliance....

So Space Marine and Tau are Battle Brothers. The detachment of Space Marines, and the detachment of Tau are Battle Brothers. Everything in that detachment is a BB to the other. NOw we know they are BB we move on to what this means...

Great - so we agree that they are allies to each other and that what this means is defined later on - by itself it means nothing.

Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units'

OK fine, As you said, its not a full unit of Battle Brothers so we have no need to further know we need to treat them as friendly units.... This really isn't defining what a BB is, its defining how the detachments treat BB's in the game. BB has already been determined by this point by detachment.

It's defining, using rules, what being a BB means.

However, not even Battle Brothers can embark in allied transport vehicles

Now, it doesn't say a unit of BB can not embark.

Oops - that's where you're wrong. It says, and I'll quote the entire thing so I'm not accused of taking things out of context,

Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units' from all points of view. This means, for example, that Battle Brothers:
• Can be joined by allied Independent Characters.
• Are counted as being friendly units for the targeting of
psychic powers,abilities and so on.
• However, note that not even Battle Brothers can embark in
allied transport vehicles.

Now - we know that the 3 bullet points are consequences/definitions of what it means, rules wise, to be a Battle Brother.
We also know that Battle Brothers are friendly units.
Which means that an entity that is not a unit cannot be held to those rules. Just like a Bike model is not held to the rules of Infantry.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wagguy80 wrote:
I like you Nem for the simple reason your the only person who caught that RAW it says "Battle Brothers" and not units of battle brothers.

It does say units of Battle Brothers by defining BB as a friendly unit. A = B. If you cannot be B you cannot be A. Simple fact.

Initially being against because it seems so broken (not necessarily transports but because of other possible combinations).

Never a good way to look at a rules argument.

Here is a simple question to consider: I join my Tau Commander to a unit of Space Marine Centurions. Which detachment do they now count as part of, the primary, the allied, both or neither? Without knowing which detachment the mixed unit is part of, we cannot determine what constitutes an "allied transport vehicle." Hence, RAW I think you end up at a stale mate as RAW never defines the relationship of a mixed unit to the remainder of the army.

Correction: Does not define the relationship of the mixed unit beyond friendly, but not with enough specificity to determine what constitutes an "allied" vehicle.

PanzerLeader wrote:
Here is a simple question to consider: I join my Tau Commander to a unit of Space Marine Centurions. Which detachment do they now count as part of, the primary, the allied, both or neither? Without knowing which detachment the mixed unit is part of, we cannot determine what constitutes an "allied transport vehicle." Hence, RAW I think you end up at a stale mate as RAW never defines the relationship of a mixed unit to the remainder of the army.

The Commander joins the Centurion unit. Meaning the unit (as a whole) is a Space Marine unit for all rules purposes.

rigeld2 wrote:

PanzerLeader wrote:
Here is a simple question to consider: I join my Tau Commander to a unit of Space Marine Centurions. Which detachment do they now count as part of, the primary, the allied, both or neither? Without knowing which detachment the mixed unit is part of, we cannot determine what constitutes an "allied transport vehicle." Hence, RAW I think you end up at a stale mate as RAW never defines the relationship of a mixed unit to the remainder of the army.

The Commander joins the Centurion unit. Meaning the unit (as a whole) is a Space Marine unit for all rules purposes.

I want to agree with you because it makes intuitive sense, but where is this actually defined? Using the Battle Brothers frame work, I had a friendly Tau unit that joined a friendly Space Marine unit to create a new "friendly" unit. The friendly unit consists of models from both my primary and allied detachment. Nowhere in RAW does it explicitly define which detachment the new unit belongs to. The unit consists of models chosen from Codex: Space Marines and Codex: Tau and nowhere are we told which takes precedence for determing how to treat it.

PanzerLeader wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

PanzerLeader wrote:
Here is a simple question to consider: I join my Tau Commander to a unit of Space Marine Centurions. Which detachment do they now count as part of, the primary, the allied, both or neither? Without knowing which detachment the mixed unit is part of, we cannot determine what constitutes an "allied transport vehicle." Hence, RAW I think you end up at a stale mate as RAW never defines the relationship of a mixed unit to the remainder of the army.

The Commander joins the Centurion unit. Meaning the unit (as a whole) is a Space Marine unit for all rules purposes.

I want to agree with you because it makes intuitive sense, but where is this actually defined? Using the Battle Brothers frame work, I had a friendly Tau unit that joined a friendly Space Marine unit to create a new "friendly" unit. The friendly unit consists of models from both my primary and allied detachment. Nowhere in RAW does it explicitly define which detachment the new unit belongs to. The unit consists of models chosen from Codex: Space Marines and Codex: Tau and nowhere are we told which takes precedence for determing how to treat it.

We are told on page 39 that the IC joins the unit and is a member of the unit for all rules purposes.
All. Not most. So treating the unit as anything but a Centurion unit would not be treating the IC as a member of the unit for all rules purposes, ie breaking a rule.

RAW its illegal, the UNIT does not have permission to embark, the MODELS in the unit, not including the BB, do

now when you join the IC, who is part of the unit for ALL rules purploses, you have a unit with 10 MODELS that are allowed to embark, and one modell NOT allowed to embark by the BB rules.

bering part of the UNIT for all purposes, is NOT the permission you keep insisting it is rigel, it is in fact just further supportive that the IC cannot embark.

since the IC is part of the UNIT for ALL purposes, and the IC cannot embark, then for the purpose of embarking, its part of the unit, so the unit may not embark.


mainly because the UNIT has no permission to embark, the models do, when a unit has 10 models with permission to embark, and one model that is by name a BB and NOT allowed to embark, you cannot embark.

that is being part of the unit for all rules purposes, there is no RAW that agrees with putting BB into transports,

just people who desparately WANT to put a BB into a transport, despite the CLEAR RAW from BRB

not even BB can embark in allied transports

they are called out by name as unable to embark, by model,

being part of a unit, in no way changes the status of the model, nor does being part of a unit grant models that are banned from embarkation, permission to embark.

 easysauce wrote:
RAW its illegal, the UNIT does not have permission to embark, the MODELS in the unit, not including the BB, do

It's obvious you haven't actually read the thread. I'll decline to respond until you do.

just people who desparately WANT to put a BB into a transport, despite the CLEAR RAW from BRB

Insinuating bias is quite rude, doubly so when I play Tyranids who have neither allies nor transports.

RAW is 100% BB cannot embark in allied transports.

RAW is 100% that a biker cannot embark in transports.


so if a BIker IC joins a unit, for ALL purposes, it still cannot embark, because now PART OF THE UNIT FOR ALL PURPOSES cannot embark.

nothing about being"part of" the unit, over rides the specific restriction on bikes in transports

so if a BB IC joins a unit, for ALL purposes, it still cannot embark, because now PART OF THE UNIT FOR ALL PURPOSES cannot embark.

nothing about being"part of" the unit, over rides the specific restriction on BB's in transports

a unit may only embark if all the models in that unit have permission to embark, so when a model, added to a unit, has a specific restriction on embarking, it is now part of that unit for all purposes, including determining embarkation privileges. and as with bikers and BB's, since one model in the unit cannot embark, the whole unit cannot embark.

the BRB

BB cannot embark in allied transports

is in no way over ridded by the IC rule, you are completely mis interpreting/reading the IC rule and giving it powers it just does not have.

by your "logic" that biker can now embark as well, despite the specific restriction on the model, simply because its "part of a unit"...

 easysauce wrote:
by your "logic" that biker can now embark as well, despite the specific restriction on the model, simply because its "part of a unit"...

This statement proves you either have not read the thread or you are misunderstanding the argument.

rigeld2 wrote:

PanzerLeader wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

PanzerLeader wrote:
Here is a simple question to consider: I join my Tau Commander to a unit of Space Marine Centurions. Which detachment do they now count as part of, the primary, the allied, both or neither? Without knowing which detachment the mixed unit is part of, we cannot determine what constitutes an "allied transport vehicle." Hence, RAW I think you end up at a stale mate as RAW never defines the relationship of a mixed unit to the remainder of the army.

The Commander joins the Centurion unit. Meaning the unit (as a whole) is a Space Marine unit for all rules purposes.

I want to agree with you because it makes intuitive sense, but where is this actually defined? Using the Battle Brothers frame work, I had a friendly Tau unit that joined a friendly Space Marine unit to create a new "friendly" unit. The friendly unit consists of models from both my primary and allied detachment. Nowhere in RAW does it explicitly define which detachment the new unit belongs to. The unit consists of models chosen from Codex: Space Marines and Codex: Tau and nowhere are we told which takes precedence for determing how to treat it.

We are told on page 39 that the IC joins the unit and is a member of the unit for all rules purposes.
All. Not most. So treating the unit as anything but a Centurion unit would not be treating the IC as a member of the unit for all rules purposes, ie breaking a rule.

You are making an assumption RAW does not support. Per page 175 of the SM codex, a unit of centurions is an infantry unit composed of three models with the option of adding up to three more models. By joining an IC, you are adding models to an infantry unit. There is no RAW supporting a unit type as "centurion" or "space marine." A unit is defined by type per the BRB and has models composing it.

no, it proves that you will ignore any evidence that does not agree with your position,

and that you do not understand my argument at all rigel

you are hand waiving away one BB rule with the IC rule, with no real backing at all, just lots of tangential things that dont really make a rule to overrule an ACTUAL written rule

namely the actual, written rule, that no BB's in allied transports.

your assumptions about how the BB/IC rules work, in no way over rules the very SIMPLE and straightforward rule, that is actually a written rule,

the BRB says, "BB cannot embark in allied transports"

yet rigel says "BB can embark in alllied transports"

you have no RAW that is above the level of the BRB restriction on BB's in transports at all, despite your claims.

PanzerLeader wrote:
You are making an assumption RAW does not support. Per page 175 of the SM codex, a unit of centurions is an infantry unit composed of three models with the option of adding up to three more models. By joining an IC, you are adding models to an infantry unit. There is no RAW supporting a unit type as "centurion" or "space marine." A unit is defined by type per the BRB and has models composing it.

Page 39 support the fact that the model is a member of the unit for all rules purposes. Have a rules purpose? It's a member of the unit.
Cite something that denies this.

I never said that the unit "type" is Centurion. That'd be foolish and incorrect.
I said that the Commander is a member of the Centurion unit. We know that because the IC rule allows him to become a member for all rules purposes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 easysauce wrote:
you are hand waiving away one BB rule with the IC rule, with no real backing at all, just lots of tangential things that dont really make a rule to overrule an ACTUAL written rule

Really? Then you haven't read my posts.

you have no RAW that is above the level of the BRB restriction on BB's in transports at all, despite your claims.

Please, read the thread. The restriction doesn't apply in this case. I've shown why. Your statements do not apply to my argument whatsoever.

@ Rigeld: I'm not disagreeing on that point. I'm asking you to cite rules showing which detachment a unit composed of models drawn from the primary and allied detachment belongs to. In our example, there now exists an infantry unit with space marine and tau models. What constitutes an allied transport for such a unit? A land raider would theoretically be an allied transport to the tau commander but not the centurions and vice versa for a devilfish. You can create rules wise a "friendly" unit that is not inherently part of either detachment when you mix factions and ICs. Page 39 does not support an assumption that because an IC from army X joins a unit from army Y that the mixed unit counts as being from army Y.

PanzerLeader wrote:
@ Rigeld: I'm not disagreeing on that point. I'm asking you to cite rules showing which detachment a unit composed of models drawn from the primary and allied detachment belongs to. In our example, there now exists an infantry unit with space marine and tau models. What constitutes an allied transport for such a unit? A land raider would theoretically be an allied transport to the tau commander but not the centurions and vice versa for a devilfish. You can create rules wise a "friendly" unit that is not inherently part of either detachment when you mix factions and ICs. Page 39 does not support an assumption that because an IC from army X joins a unit from army Y that the mixed unit counts as being from army Y.

Why is the answer to that question relevant?

What unit is embarking on the Land Raider? The Centurions. Are there any rules forbidding this? None. Embark away!
What unit is embarking on the Devilfish? The Centurions. Are there any rules forbidding this? Yes - BB units can't embark. Stay out nonfishies!

edit:
The IC is a member of the unit for all rules purposes. Is this a rules purpose? Why are you not treating it as a member of the unit? By calling it a mixed unit and trying to find rules that deal with it, you're not treating him as a member of the unit. IC is sad. :(

I suggest you read the first post of the topic as it is all explained there, even with examples(and again elsewhere in the topic)

but for your example, in this whole debeate it has been clearly stated that the transport to be embarked belongs to the codex of the unit joined, not of the IC. So(and this is the extremely simplified version of my complete analysis) when the unit consisting of (marines+tau ic) wants to embark on a rhino, permission for this action is automatically checked(are they allowed to enter yes or no). The unit does not have the battle brothers rule towards the rhino, neither does the rhino have the battlebrothers rule toward the unit. Thus they can embark. The unit "independent character" does not exist at this point for the check as he has been absorbed by the unit marines(because he is is a part of the unit for all rule intents and purposes). Were this not the case then you could target him while he is in a unit(so you could sniper an IC out of the unit he joined). This rule clearly applies when shooting at the unit, so why should it not apply the rest of the time.

note that if either the ic or the unit joined had some form of restriction( for example disembarked so cannot charge) this still applies . This is because Battle brothers is an overall static status granted at the start of the battle and can only dissapear or re-appear when the unit seizes to exist as an independent unit and becomes part of another unit. In other situations these are dynamic effects(the amount of wounds on a model can change, leadership tests are passed, etc) due to actions during the game

Except you're making a mistake by calling the unit of tau commander plus centurions a "centurion" unit. It is still an infantry unit, treated as one infantry unit for all rules purposes, but you can no longer define what detachment that infantry unit belongs to because it is now composed of models from multiple detachments. Hence, you can't define what an "allied" transport is for that unit.

PanzerLeader wrote:
Except you're making a mistake by calling the unit of tau commander plus centurions a "centurion" unit. It is still an infantry unit, treated as one infantry unit for all rules purposes, but you can no longer define what detachment that infantry unit belongs to because it is now composed of models from multiple detachments. Hence, you can't define what an "allied" transport is for that unit.

Sure you can. I have 3 Centurions. That's a SM unit of Centurions. I join the Commander to them. Since we know the commander is a member of the unit for all rules purposes, as far as the rules are concerned it's a SM unit of Centurions with 4 models - 3 Centurions and a Commander.

By looking for an exception and treating the unit as "mixed" you're not treating the Commander as a member of the unit for all rules purposes.

Xarin: I read it initially. I actually like the position you outlined. My only argument is that by RAW, there is no such thing as a "unit of marines." A unit has a type and is composed of models. When you add an IC to a unit, you essentially get a unit of (type x) composed of models a and b. There is no permission granted to treat a unit composed of models from both detachments as part of either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@ Rigeld: and as I pointed out, by RAW on page 175 of the SM codex that is an infantry unit composed of three models (2 centurions and 1 sergeant). By strict RAW, that is not a "unit of centurions" but an infantry unit composed of three models. Please cite any rule referencing how a unit of centurions acts on the battle field.

actually it says Unit type: infantry. What this unit consists of is described in the codex entry. When you field this entry in your armylist you are fielding 1 unit with a specified type, stats, members, wargear and optional wargear. It is easier to refer to this unit by the name described in the codex, but the actual name does not matter, you could call your unit banana if you want to as long as it's clear what's in it.
A unit of space marines consists of space marines models, unit type infantry, has x models with y wargear and x special rules, with possibly z upgrades
and independent character consists of an independent character model, unit type infantry(character), has 1 model with y wargear and x special rules, with possibly z special upgrades

When an independent character joins another unit he becomes part of that unit as outlined by the independent character rules. Part of the unit does not create a new unit, just a new situation for the existing unit. This new unit has the same qualities as before, only now with the IC added to its roster and models. it is simply a new situation for an old unit, not a whole new unit(in which case your argument would be entirely valid). They are still part of the same detachment as they were before, otherwise they would be an enemy unit to all other units around them that were friendly before the merger. Not to mention an illegal unit as they are on the table without being part of an armylist or scenariorule

PanzerLeader wrote:
@ Rigeld: and as I pointed out, by RAW on page 175 of the SM codex that is an infantry unit composed of three models (2 centurions and 1 sergeant). By strict RAW, that is not a "unit of centurions" but an infantry unit composed of three models. Please cite any rule referencing how a unit of centurions acts on the battle field.

There's no requirement to.

I have to prove that the unit came from the SM codex. That's trivial. You referenced page C SM 175.
I have to prove that the Commander is a member of the unit. He is, for [b]all[/b rules purposes. BRB 39.

We know what detachment the unit is from. We know that everyone in the unit is eligible to board the transport (because it's a transport from the same codex the unit is from).

Rigeld, has any one ever debated the idea that while inside a transport the IC is not part of the unit? We know that transports can carry one unit and any number of ICs (within transport capacity) and one could argue that embarking into a transport, a move action, takes the IC out of coherency because it is no longer within 2" of another model in that unit. Its impossible as the unit is no longer being represented by models. So using that logic the IC has to leave the unit as part of embarking and has returned to being a BB and is would not be allowed to complete the embarking action with the rest of the unit.

Ok, funny (to me) related question. Where in the RAW does it say models cannot embark onto non-dedicated enemy transports? I see permission for 'a unit' to embark if it is entirely within 2" of an access point and I see that dedicated transports can transport any friendly unit after the start of the game, but I don't see anything that actually stops me from climbing my Chaos Marines into an empty Iron Hands Land Raider. I've got to have missed it right?