Allied IC's joining units in dedicated transports.

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**

jamesk1973 wrote:
What does it matter if I interpreted the rule "as written" or "as intended"?

Because when we're discussing what the rules say, knowing where you're arguing from is important.

Those of us who are saying "no" are simply reading the rules.

No, you're making your own assumption as to what the rules should say - for whatever reason. I'm not trying to imply bias, I'm simply stating that you are failing to read the actual words on the page if you say "No."

Is it a unit? When is a unit not a unit? Does an IC that has joined a unit become a butterfly? Is an allied unit a friendly character or a serial rapist? Those are figuratively some of the questions/arguments that have been thrown out.

Perhaps you could Strawman less? That'd be great. Because, no - they're not.

For feths sake if you want to win so badly and it matters so much to you go pick yourself up a screamstar and be done with it.

Hi, I'm a Tyranid player. I can't take Allies nor Vehicles so this rule literally doesn't effect me. At all. But you know, go ahead and insinuate bias if it makes you feel better. Maybe throw in something about serial rapists too! Oh, you did that.

But don't hold your hands out in a gesture of confusion...as written?...as intended?....mocha latte?....

I will continue to ask the question so that I can have an honest discussion with you. If you're arguing intent and I'm arguing what's written, were talking (potentially) two completely different things. It's the polite thing to do to clarify instead of assume.

But what do I know - I should just go buy a screamer star (that loses to a well played Tyranid list) and fly off the handle when someone asks honest questions.

**Eihnlazer**

Rigeld has been right about this from day one.

An IC that joins a unit is part of it, and can therefor go into a transport with it.

It is no longer a unit on its own, and so is no longer a BB unit.

The rule stating "An IC who joins a unit becomes a member of it for all rules purposes" clearly means it is no longer a unit in and of itself as it is now part of the unit it joined.

**Naw**

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Why are you changing the subject from units to non units?

"Treated as" also must equal "are", otherwise the rules breakdown in lots of places

Care to explain in what spectacular way the rules break, as units taken from another codex are all "just" battle brothers?

Cite some examples.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
The "yes" side is not discussing the rules as written. They make the illogical assumption that all units, models, whatnot taken from another codex are battle brothers at best and bullet point nr 3 specifically forbids all battle brothers from embarking.

That they claim it to mean battle brothers units is their interpretation, not as the rule is written.

Yet they continuously pursue that one track despite exact opposite _rule as written_ evidence makes their arguing step deep in the realm of RAI.

But even there they are incorrect as the 3rd point does not leave room for interpretation, it works the same RAW and RAI.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Eihnlazer wrote:

It is no longer a unit on its own, and so is no longer a BB unit.

Whether it is a unit or not is irrelevant. It is still a battle brother and "not even battle brothers can". It is also from a rules perspective treated as a "friendly unit" so joining units, using/benefiting from psychic rules etc were possible. HOWEVER bullet point 3 declares whether they can embark and the answer is no.

**PrinceRaven**

So I have a Farseer joined to a Crisis Suit squad.

- Since the Farseer is no longer a Battle Brother, what rule allows me to have it remain joined to the unit?

- Since it is no longer a Farseer unit, how do I navigate from the Crisis Suit unit rules to find out what Farseers do?

- Can I cast Prescience on my Dark Eldar allies? Why or why not?

- Can I cast Prescience on my Space Marine allies? Why or why not?

**JinxDragon**

The issue will always stem from the Independent Character Rules, in particular the very poor choice of words: "for all rules purposes."
That requirement prevents us from treating the Independent Character as anything but part of that Unit....

**Unit1126PLL**

PrinceRaven wrote:
So I have a Farseer joined to a Crisis Suit squad.

- Since the Farseer is no longer a Battle Brother, what rule allows me to have it remain joined to the unit?

- Since it is no longer a Farseer unit, how do I navigate from the Crisis Suit unit rules to find out what Farseers do?

- Can I cast Prescience on my Dark Eldar allies? Why or why not?

- Can I cast Prescience on my Space Marine allies? Why or why not?

1) The independent character rules.

2) Is nonsensical - "if a librarian is joined to a terminator squad, how to I get the librarian's rules from the Terminator entry??" is exactly the same question, with exactly the same answer - so unless you think that no IC can ever join a unit...

3) I don't know the levels of alliance, but I would say yes, because Dark Eldar units are friendly units, as are other Eldar units.

4) I don''t know the level of alliance between Space Marines and Eldar.

**Naw**

JinxDragon wrote:
The issue will always stem from the Independent Character Rules, in particular the very poor choice of words: "for all rules purposes."
That requirement prevents us from treating the Independent Character as anything but part of that Unit....

Another simple question. Let's state that your army is single FOC with 2 HQ's and an allied detachment with 1 HQ.

When you attach your allied HQ to your primary detachment do you immediately forfeit the game for having an illegal army composition?

**Unit1126PLL**

Naw wrote:
JinxDragon wrote:
The issue will always stem from the Independent Character Rules, in particular the very poor choice of words: "for all rules purposes."
That requirement prevents us from treating the Independent Character as anything but part of that Unit....

Another simple question. Let's state that your army is single FOC with 2 HQ's and an allied detachment with 1 HQ.

When you attach your allied HQ to your primary detachment do you immediately forfeit the game for having an illegal army composition?

No, because you'd go from having 2 Primary Detachment HQs and 1 Allied Detachment HQ to having 2 Primary Detachment HQs.

The IC has become a part of the Primary Detachment HQ it has joined "for all rules purposes."

**PrinceRaven**

Unit1126PLL wrote:
PrinceRaven wrote:
So I have a Farseer joined to a Crisis Suit squad.

- Since the Farseer is no longer a Battle Brother, what rule allows me to have it remain joined to the unit?

- Since it is no longer a Farseer unit, how do I navigate from the Crisis Suit unit rules to find out what Farseers do?

- Can I cast Prescience on my Dark Eldar allies? Why or why not?

- Can I cast Prescience on my Space Marine allies? Why or why not?

1) The independent character rules.

2) Is nonsensical - "if a librarian is joined to a terminator squad, how to I get the librarian's rules from the Terminator entry??" is exactly the same question, with exactly the same answer - so unless you think that no IC can ever join a unit...

3) I don't know the levels of alliance, but I would say yes, because Dark Eldar units are friendly units, as are other Eldar units.

4) I don''t know the level of alliance between Space Marines and Eldar.

1) The independent Character rules only allow ICs to join friendly units, if the Farseer is not a Battle Brother any more the Crisis Suits are no longer friendly units

2) No, I think that it keeps being a Librarian unit within a Terminator unit

3) So you're saying that the Farseer still uses the level of alliance rules of Eldar and would therefore be Battle Brothers with the Crisis Suits and unable to enter a Tau transport?

Unit1126PLL wrote:
Naw wrote:
JinxDragon wrote:
The issue will always stem from the Independent Character Rules, in particular the very poor choice of words: "for all rules purposes."
That requirement prevents us from treating the Independent Character as anything but part of that Unit....

Another simple question. Let's state that your army is single FOC with 2 HQ's and an allied detachment with 1 HQ.

When you attach your allied HQ to your primary detachment do you immediately forfeit the game for having an illegal army composition?

No, because you'd go from having 2 Primary Detachment HQs and 1 Allied Detachment HQ to having 2 Primary Detachment HQs.

The IC has become a part of the Primary Detachment HQ it has joined "for all rules purposes."

An army whose Allied detachment has no HQs is an illegal list.

**Naw**

Indeed. Looks like we found autowin against many deathstars. Well done, guys.

**JinxDragon**

Naw,
Where in the book is a requirement that the List must always be checked, throughout the course of the game and not just at List building stage, to contain one X and two Y per Detachment?
As far as I know, it is impossible for the Independent character to be 'joined' into another Unit when it comes time to check to see if the list is legal.

From what I have seen, the game is designed to allow Units to either be removed or created during play given how many Rules can Remove models or even Units from play or create entire new Units that would otherwise make the 'list' illegal. The restriction on what is or isn't legal has to only apply to the List Building stage, or else we enter into this strange situation where losing your Warlord would forfeit the game instead of just giving a Victory Point. Therefore I can not accept there is some global requirement to always have a 'legal' list that is violated by the Wording of the Rule itself, unless we create a Unit inside of a Unit situation which contradicts the very wording of the Rule causing us the problem in the first place.

**Unit1126PLL**

PrinceRaven wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
PrinceRaven wrote:
So I have a Farseer joined to a Crisis Suit squad.

- Since the Farseer is no longer a Battle Brother, what rule allows me to have it remain joined to the unit?

- Since it is no longer a Farseer unit, how do I navigate from the Crisis Suit unit rules to find out what Farseers do?

- Can I cast Prescience on my Dark Eldar allies? Why or why not?

- Can I cast Prescience on my Space Marine allies? Why or why not?

1) The independent character rules.

2) Is nonsensical - "if a librarian is joined to a terminator squad, how to I get the librarian's rules from the Terminator entry??" is exactly the same question, with exactly the same answer - so unless you think that no IC can ever join a unit...

3) I don't know the levels of alliance, but I would say yes, because Dark Eldar units are friendly units, as are other Eldar units.

4) I don''t know the level of alliance between Space Marines and Eldar.

1) The independent Character rules only allow ICs to join friendly units, if the Farseer is not a Battle Brother any more the Crisis Suits are no longer friendly units

2) No, I think that it keeps being a Librarian unit within a Terminator unit

3) So you're saying that the Farseer still uses the level of alliance rules of Eldar and would therefore be Battle Brothers with the Crisis Suits and unable to enter a Tau transport?

1) What are they, then? Unfriendly unit? Enemy unit? Neutral unit? Some made up category?

2) Can I target the librarian separately, then, since he's his own unit?

3) Yes, he still uses the level of alliance rules of Eldar, and would therefore be Battle Brothers with the Crisis Suits. However, this would not prevent him from entering a Tau transport with the Crisis Suits, as the restriction applies to "Battle Brother Unit" which the Farseer is not, if he is joined to the crisis suits.

PrinceRaven wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
Naw wrote:
JinxDragon wrote:
The issue will always stem from the Independent Character Rules, in particular the very poor choice of words: "for all rules purposes."
That requirement prevents us from treating the Independent Character as anything but part of that Unit....

Another simple question. Let's state that your army is single FOC with 2 HQ's and an allied detachment with 1 HQ.

When you attach your allied HQ to your primary detachment do you immediately forfeit the game for having an illegal army composition?

No, because you'd go from having 2 Primary Detachment HQs and 1 Allied Detachment HQ to having 2 Primary Detachment HQs.

The IC has become a part of the Primary Detachment HQ it has joined "for all rules purposes."

An army whose Allied detachment has no HQs is an illegal list.

The Allied detachment still has an HQ Selection, just not an HQ unit.

**PrinceRaven**

Unit1126PLL wrote:
PrinceRaven wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
PrinceRaven wrote:
So I have a Farseer joined to a Crisis Suit squad.

- Since the Farseer is no longer a Battle Brother, what rule allows me to have it remain joined to the unit?

- Since it is no longer a Farseer unit, how do I navigate from the Crisis Suit unit rules to find out what Farseers do?

- Can I cast Prescience on my Dark Eldar allies? Why or why not?

- Can I cast Prescience on my Space Marine allies? Why or why not?

1) The independent character rules.

2) Is nonsensical - "if a librarian is joined to a terminator squad, how to I get the librarian's rules from the Terminator entry??" is exactly the same question, with exactly the same answer - so unless you think that no IC can ever join a unit...

3) I don't know the levels of alliance, but I would say yes, because Dark Eldar units are friendly units, as are other Eldar units.

4) I don''t know the level of alliance between Space Marines and Eldar.

1) The independent Character rules only allow ICs to join friendly units, if the Farseer is not a Battle Brother any more the Crisis Suits are no longer friendly units

2) No, I think that it keeps being a Librarian unit within a Terminator unit

3) So you're saying that the Farseer still uses the level of alliance rules of Eldar and would therefore be Battle Brothers with the Crisis Suits and unable to enter a Tau transport?

1) What are they, then? Unfriendly unit? Enemy unit? Neutral unit? Some made up category?

2) Can I target the librarian separately, then, since he's his own unit?

3) Yes, he still uses the level of alliance rules of Eldar, and would therefore be Battle Brothers with the Crisis Suits. However, this would not prevent him from entering a Tau transport with the Crisis Suits, as the restriction applies to "Battle Brother Unit" which the Farseer is not, if he is joined to the crisis suits.

1) They would be a temporarily undefined unit, then once the Farseer is kicked out of the unit they would go back to being friendly units.

2) Not according to the shooting rules.

3) Show me this rule you are quoting "Battle Brothers Unit" from.

**Unit1126PLL**

PrinceRaven wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
PrinceRaven wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
PrinceRaven wrote:
So I have a Farseer joined to a Crisis Suit squad.

- Since the Farseer is no longer a Battle Brother, what rule allows me to have it remain joined to the unit?

- Since it is no longer a Farseer unit, how do I navigate from the Crisis Suit unit rules to find out what Farseers do?

- Can I cast Prescience on my Dark Eldar allies? Why or why not?

- Can I cast Prescience on my Space Marine allies? Why or why not?

1) The independent character rules.

2) Is nonsensical - "if a librarian is joined to a terminator squad, how to I get the librarian's rules from the Terminator entry??" is exactly the same question, with exactly the same answer - so unless you think that no IC can ever join a unit...

3) I don't know the levels of alliance, but I would say yes, because Dark Eldar units are friendly units, as are other Eldar units.

4) I don''t know the level of alliance between Space Marines and Eldar.

1) The independent Character rules only allow ICs to join friendly units, if the Farseer is not a Battle Brother any more the Crisis Suits are no longer friendly units

2) No, I think that it keeps being a Librarian unit within a Terminator unit

3) So you're saying that the Farseer still uses the level of alliance rules of Eldar and would therefore be Battle Brothers with the Crisis Suits and unable to enter a Tau transport?

1) What are they, then? Unfriendly unit? Enemy unit? Neutral unit? Some made up category?

2) Can I target the librarian separately, then, since he's his own unit?

3) Yes, he still uses the level of alliance rules of Eldar, and would therefore be Battle Brothers with the Crisis Suits. However, this would not prevent him from entering a Tau transport with the Crisis Suits, as the restriction applies to "Battle Brother Unit" which the Farseer is not, if he is joined to the crisis suits.

1) They would be a temporarily undefined unit, then once the Farseer is kicked out of the unit they would go back to being friendly units.

2) Not according to the shooting rules.

3) Show me this rule you are quoting "Battle Brothers Unit" from.

1) Why would the Farseer be kicked from the unit? And not, say, a drone or something.

2) Where in the shooting rules does it say I cannot target separate units?

3) See the first post on the top of page 3, which demonstrates why the use of the term "Battle Brother" by the BRB must necessarily refer to units.

**PrinceRaven**

1) Because the drone is part of the unit's composition and is in a friendly unit while the Farseer (if they are no longer Battle Brothers) is not

2) The IC is also part of the unit it is joined to, and you cannot target a part of a unit without invoking a rule like Focus Fire or a Focussed Witchfire.

3) In which case, according to your interpretation of the rules, the Farseer, not being a unit, cannot be a Battle Brother with Dark Eldar or Tau.

**Unit1126PLL**

PrinceRaven wrote:
1) Because the drone is part of the unit's composition and is in a friendly unit while the Farseer (if they are no longer Battle Brothers) is not

2) The IC is also part of the unit it is joined to, and you cannot target a part of a unit without invoking a rule like Focus Fire or a Focussed Witchfire.

3) In which case, according to your interpretation of the rules, the Farseer, not being a unit, cannot be a Battle Brother with Dark Eldar or Tau.

1) If the unit is 'undefined', how do you know that the drone is part of its composition? Or that it's friendly? Or that it's even a unit at all? If you take the IC rule "is treated as a member of the unit for all rules purposes" as RAW, then the Farseer has just as much a right to be in said "undefined" unit as a drone would. Since, as soon as it joined the unit, it became a member 'for all rules purposes.'

2) Citation for a model to be in two units simultaneously.

3) Correct - once the Farseer has joined a unit, he is a member of that unit for all rules purposes and is no longer merely an "ally."

**Naw**

JinxDragon wrote:
Naw,
Where in the book is a requirement that the List must always be checked, throughout the course of the game and not just at List building stage, to contain one X and two Y per Detachment?

Must be in the same place where it says that Battle Brothers can embark on allied transports, please look it up.

**nosferatu1001**

Naw wrote:
JinxDragon wrote:
The issue will always stem from the Independent Character Rules, in particular the very poor choice of words: "for all rules purposes."
That requirement prevents us from treating the Independent Character as anything but part of that Unit....

Another simple question. Let's state that your army is single FOC with 2 HQ's and an allied detachment with 1 HQ.

When you attach your allied HQ to your primary detachment do you immediately forfeit the game for having an illegal army composition?

Only if you believe that having the allied HQ killed would also cause you to forfeit the game. Oh wait, no such rule exists, phew! Guess your rule doesn't exist as well.

(If it wasn't clear - list construction rules cannot apply throughout the game, or else I can say with certainty you have lost some games you didn't play as a loss)

So again, why changing the subject from "are" friendly units to talking about models? Or is still the claim that you are ignoring page 39 and the rule "for all rules purposes" by NOT treating the IC as a part of the unit?

So we have rules. Stating BB are defined as friendly units, and we know, with certainty, that we cannot treat the IC as an attached unit without breaking page 39, and therefore any restriction on allied Units cannot apply, as you don't HAVE an allied IC

Naw - for examples of where the rules break if you do not treat "treated as" as "are" or "is", do some quick searches on here. Simple examples include deepstrike movement, vehicle weapon skill. If you make the claim that they are not actually weapon skill 0, say, then you have no ability to resolve attacks.

So, given every point you made has been comprehensively debunked, your concession is accepted

**milkboy**

Dear OP,

I hope you managed to get an answer to your original post. Now there are 2 schools of thought, one might sound wrong to you. But hopefully the poll answers your question about Dakka's take on this.

As for your question on how tournaments play it, maybe you could pm previous organizers? I remember seeing Reecius who did LVO.

**nosferatu1001**

Naw wrote:
JinxDragon wrote:
Naw,
Where in the book is a requirement that the List must always be checked, throughout the course of the game and not just at List building stage, to contain one X and two Y per Detachment?

Must be in the same place where it says that Battle Brothers can embark on allied transports, please look it up.

Page 39 allows allied IC models to embark, otherwise you are breaking a rule. Page 122 only concerns itself with units, which is what BB are defined as in game, which you know.

So, care to find a quote for your supposed rule of auto losing the game ? Or we're you simply creating a straw man argument again?

**Naw**

Unit1126PLL wrote:

3) See the first post on the top of page 3, which demonstrates why the use of the term "Battle Brother" by the BRB must necessarily refer to units.

Whew, luckily the third bullet point under the heading Battle Brothers forbids Battle Brothers from embarking, at least in my rulebook.

Still awaiting the exact opposite rules quote. It looks like you are again arguing based not on what the rulebook says but from your own wishful thinking.

**nosferatu1001**

Naw wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:

3) See the first post on the top of page 3, which demonstrates why the use of the term "Battle Brother" by the BRB must necessarily refer to units.

Whew, luckily the third bullet point under the heading Battle Brothers forbids Battle Brothers from embarking, at least in my rulebook.

Still awaiting the exact opposite rules quote. It looks like you are again arguing based not on what the rulebook says but from your own wishful thinking.

Phew, lucky for us that you're not ignoring the the first sentence, that define the content of that list of which the third item is part! If you were, then you wouldn't be arguing based on what the rule book says but something else, breaking the tenets.

So again, Battle brothers ARE friendly units. So, when you don't have a unit, can you be a battle brother? The rules say no, however your stance is....?

**Naw**

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So we have rules. Stating BB are defined as friendly units

That is incorrect again, as you already noticed below. They are NOT defined as friendly units, they are TREATED AS. They are defined as battle brothers because of they are from another Codex AND the ally matrix defines the level of alliance in question. Stop with your rules interpretations and follow the rules as they are crystal clear in this area.

and we know, with certainty, that we cannot treat the IC as an attached unit without breaking page 39, and therefore any restriction on allied Units cannot apply, as you don't HAVE an allied IC

What makes you think rules cannot extend each other? Clearly when you have allies you follow also the ally rules. Yes or no? IC rules do not take any stance whatsoever to allies as they cover only that part of the rules. To expand on those when you do have allies, you will look up the alliy rules.

Naw - for examples of where the rules break if you do not treat "treated as" as "are" or "is", do some quick searches on here.

I'm not going to do the work for you, you are the one asserting that this BB units being not BB units breaks the whole game. Your examples below have _nothing to do with that_.

Simple examples include deepstrike movement, vehicle weapon skill. If you make the claim that they are not actually weapon skill 0, say, then you have no ability to resolve attacks.

What?? What have these examples got to do with allies?

So, given every point you made has been comprehensively debunked, your concession is accepted

Debunk this:
Allies
Levels of Alliance
Battle Brothers
Definition of Battle Brothers
"This means, for example, that Battle Brothers:" (note, not units, Battle Brothers)
"- However, note that not even Battle Brothers can embark in allied transport vehicles."

Debunk that and show the opposite ruling that allows IC who are Battle Brothers to embark. It must be easy, just quote from the rulebook.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
They are treated as 'friendly units'. Not units, but friendly units. Then two positives are given as examples of IC's being able to join and that they are counted as being friendly units.

Again, nowhere does it give this weird "Battle Brothers unit" that you are referring to. Is my rulebook incorrect?

Luckily almost 80% of Dakka readers have the ability to follow the actual rules here. I'm done with this thread, thanks and bye.

**nosferatu1001**

Sigh, ignoring what others type again.

You claim is that treated as is not the same as is/are. I showed where this is not true. Exactly as you asked.

So, battle brothers ARE friendly units. Saying otherwise literally ignores the way the game is written.

Page 39 states they are no longer a unit. As they are not a unit, they cannot be a battle brother, as we know that BB refers to units and not models. So therefore a restriction on the unit no longer applies.

Stop removing the context from rules, stop ignoring how English works (as in, you are taking part of a list and claiming it is the whole rule, when by definition it is a continuation of what preceded it. Continuing to ignore the first sentences means it is pointless to argue further with you, as you are refusing to acknowledge the rules that exist) and you may stop creating rules out if thin air

**some bloke**

We don't know that battle brothers refers to units and not models. battle brothers refers to everything from an allied detachment.

you are arguing that as apples are fruits, all fruits are apples.

you are arguing that as battle brothers are treated as friendly units, only units can be battle brothers.

to put it in algebra, as seems popular:

A is treated as B
A also cannot do C

if A is no longer treated as B, can it do C? no, because it is still A.

what you seem to be reading it as is:

A is treated as B
B cannot do C

if A is no longer B, it can do C as only B cannot do C.

I'm genuinely perplexed as to how this is being misinterpreted! And before you make the assumption that I haven't read the thread, I've read every word.

onto the post you've referred to a few times now:

Kommissar Kel wrote:
Clearly an English lesson is required here.

When you have a sentence that ends in a colon(The following symbol ":") with bullet points following it, those bullet points are an extension of that sentence.

When a sentence is part of the body of a paragraph, the first sentence in the paragraph defines the subject of that paragraph.

Now those 2 rules of the English language alone tell you that the bullet points are part of the paragraph and the the paragraph is discussing Battle brothers as friendly units.

But more importantly we have the sentence that the bullet points belongs to: "This means, for example, Battle Brothers:". Example of what means? This means is in regard to the preceding sentence: "Battle brothers are treated as friendly units from all points of view." That is what "this means", that battle brothers as friendly units means...

This is also a theme that continues throughout the Bullet points. Does it say that a Battle brother IC can Join an allied unit? No it says "This Means that Battle Brothers: Can be joined by allied Independent Characters.". Does it say That Battle Brothers can be the target of Psychic powers, Abilities, and so on? Yes, yes it does, and most powers, abilities and what have you are based on units.

The third bullet point is poorly worded(worded as a complete sentence); but it must still be taken in context of its containing sentence.

So sure, the RAW read as anything that is drawn from a battle brothers ally; if yoiu completely ignore the English language and context of the rules

Why don't we ignore the context of Preferred enemy as well?

Or how about Vector Strike? Why can't a gliding FMC use vector strike? If we can ignore the first sentence in the paragraph about Battle brothers I should be able to take a FMC and vector strike while gliding by ignoring the first sentence of the paragraph and ignoring the context of the rest of the rules.

So yeah, the RAW of the rule is that Battle Brothers are friendly units and those units cannot embark on allied transports.

ICs joined to a unit are no longer units on their own, but are instead members of the unit they have joined for all rules purposes.

An Eldar farseer that joins a unit of Fire Warriors is still an Eldar Farseer, but is no longer and Eldar Farseer Unit, he is now just a member of the Tau Firewarrior unit. A Cadre Fireblade is still able to join that unit(ICs joining units does not change the unit, only the IC), and Preferred enemy(Eldar) will not effect that unit.

and compare with the one I made that's startlingly similar, but without a sudden jump of random logic:

some bloke wrote:

if we treat the bullet points as commas, which english lets us do (bullet points are a list, it makes it easier to read, it functions as a comma) we have the paragraph:

"Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units' from all points of view. This means, for example, that Battle Brothers can be joined by allied independant characters and are counted as being friendly units for the casting of psychic powers and so on. However, note that not even a Battle Brother can embark in an allied transport vehicle."

My rules are cited, yours are disproved. have you any more to add?

when you read this statement, what part of it makes you think that an independant character stops being a battle brother? the word "unit" is on the wrong side of the equation. is he a battle brother? yes. is he a friendly unit? yes, because he's a battle brother. can he join another unit? yes, because he's a friendly unit. does this stop him being a battle brother? no, because not a single rule states that it does. so can he embark on an allied transport? no, he's a battle brother.

it's very simple; is it from your codex or the allied one? if allied, it's a battle brother (or worse) and can't get in, no matter how much you mutilate the rules.

**rigeld2**

Naw wrote:
Indeed. Looks like we found autowin against many deathstars. Well done, guys.

You select 2 HQs and an allied HQ. I kill the allied HQ. do you auto-lose?
What's the difference?

Oh, there isn't one. Gotcha.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

some bloke wrote:
We don't know that battle brothers refers to units and not models. battle brothers refers to everything from an allied detachment.

you are arguing that as apples are fruits, all fruits are apples.

Not at all.
All apples are fruits. Fruits are prevented from being dinner.
If something isn't an apple, can it be dinner?

it's very simple; is it from your codex or the allied one? if allied, it's a battle brother (or worse) and can't get in, no matter how much you mutilate the rules.

That's correct if you ignore rules.

**nosferatu1001**

Some bloke - from all points of view, they are friendly units. So a Batle Brother is, from all points of view, a friendly unit. Are you discussing a unit any longer? No, because the IC is not a unit any longer, but part of a non-BB unit.

If you do not have a unit, you certainly cannot have a BB unit, meaning none of the rules that apply to BB units

You are making a leap the wrong direction, and misreading a very straightforward sentence in quite a bizarre way. Literally, the only way to read the sentence is that Battle brothers are friendly units, always. If you do not have a unit, you cannot have a battle brother - you have failed in the first requirement.

If you no longer have a unit, you cannot be a battle brother, meaning you cannot apply any restrictions on battlebrothers.

Proven.

Naw - your concession si accepted.

**PrinceRaven**

Unit1126PLL wrote:
PrinceRaven wrote:
1) Because the drone is part of the unit's composition and is in a friendly unit while the Farseer (if they are no longer Battle Brothers) is not

2) The IC is also part of the unit it is joined to, and you cannot target a part of a unit without invoking a rule like Focus Fire or a Focussed Witchfire.

3) In which case, according to your interpretation of the rules, the Farseer, not being a unit, cannot be a Battle Brother with Dark Eldar or Tau.

1) If the unit is 'undefined', how do you know that the drone is part of its composition? Or that it's friendly? Or that it's even a unit at all? If you take the IC rule "is treated as a member of the unit for all rules purposes" as RAW, then the Farseer has just as much a right to be in said "undefined" unit as a drone would. Since, as soon as it joined the unit, it became a member 'for all rules purposes.'

2) Citation for a model to be in two units simultaneously.

3) Correct - once the Farseer has joined a unit, he is a member of that unit for all rules purposes and is no longer merely an "ally."

1) Because the Drone is purchased as part of the unit in the Tau Codex.

2) The Independent Character rules allow you to join an IC to another unit

3) So if the Farseer is no longer allowed to use the Battle Brothers rules:
- It cannot cast psychic powers on the Dark Eldar unit
- It cannot treat the Tau unit as a friendly unit

Now, as the Farseer is not within 2" coherency of a friendly unit, it leaves the Tau unit at the end of movement phase.

**Naw**

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Naw - your concession si accepted.

LOL

**Unit1126PLL**

PrinceRaven wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
PrinceRaven wrote:
1) Because the drone is part of the unit's composition and is in a friendly unit while the Farseer (if they are no longer Battle Brothers) is not

2) The IC is also part of the unit it is joined to, and you cannot target a part of a unit without invoking a rule like Focus Fire or a Focussed Witchfire.

3) In which case, according to your interpretation of the rules, the Farseer, not being a unit, cannot be a Battle Brother with Dark Eldar or Tau.

1) If the unit is 'undefined', how do you know that the drone is part of its composition? Or that it's friendly? Or that it's even a unit at all? If you take the IC rule "is treated as a member of the unit for all rules purposes" as RAW, then the Farseer has just as much a right to be in said "undefined" unit as a drone would. Since, as soon as it joined the unit, it became a member 'for all rules purposes.'

2) Citation for a model to be in two units simultaneously.

3) Correct - once the Farseer has joined a unit, he is a member of that unit for all rules purposes and is no longer merely an "ally."

1) Because the Drone is purchased as part of the unit in the Tau Codex.

2) The Independent Character rules allow you to join an IC to another unit

3) So if the Farseer is no longer allowed to use the Battle Brothers rules:
- It cannot cast psychic powers on the Dark Eldar unit
- It cannot treat the Tau unit as a friendly unit

Now, as the Farseer is not within 2" coherency of a friendly unit, it leaves the Tau unit at the end of movement phase.

1) What codex a unit is from has no bearing on its composition. A unit could have an Inquisitor, Commissar, and Chapter Master Marneus Calgar, an Iron Hands MOTF and three Techmarines, and it's still one unit, the individual members of which are each from different codexes/supplements.

2) Yes, but they also say they count as part of that unit for all rules purposes, so either they're 2 units simultaneously or they're one unit which the independent character is part of. (Notice the how the wording for the second option is identical to the wording in the rulebook? While the first one is basically unsubstantiated by the rules?)

3) Yes, it can. Because it counts as a member of the Tau unit, and to a Tau unit, all other Tau units are friendly. As far as the Dark Eldar are concerned, I am unsure of their state-of-alliance with the Tau, but if they are not BB with the Tau then a Farseer in a Tau unit could not cast psychic powers on a Dark Eldar unit, RAW.