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.

Naw wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Naw - your concession si accepted.

LOL

You proferred no rebuttal to the points, posted up strawman arguments that you never even attempted to defend once shown how silly they were, and insist on sleectively quoting, and therefore misrepresenting, rules.

Your concession is indeed accepted, as your useful contribution to the thread is mostly summed up by your response above.

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.

2) ...and become a part of the unit for all rules purposes/ You are attempting to treat it NOT as a member of the unit for a rules purpose - namely, you are claiming it is still a separate unit. You have broken a rule, and therefore your argument is invalidated at that point
3) It is a normal member of the unit for all rules purposes. Whether it is "friendly" or not as is needed to be determined for the casting powers of powers IS A RULES PURPOSE, so he is a) "Friendly" to any Tau unit, as he is a member of a Tau unit for all rules purposes, and b) at the same level of alliance as the Tau unit to anything else. So assuming Tau are NOT BB with DE, a farseer joined to a tau unit CANNOT CAST powers on a DE unit, as the DE unit is NOT BB with the Tau unit.

Attempting to differentiate the Farseer at this point breaks the rules on page 39. You cannot show allowance to do so - as the BB rules refer to friendly units, and the IC is demonstrably NOT a unit in and of itself any longer - and therefore you cannot do so.

QED.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
3) So if the Farseer is no longer allowed to use the Battle Brothers rules:
- 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.

Please, using actual rules, define "friendly unit". There's a reason I'm asking this question.

Remember, a character that has joined a unit follows all the normal rules for being part of a unit. If a character in a unit that charges into close combat, the character charges too, as it is part of the unit. If the character is locked in close combat he fights as part of the unit.

'All rules purposes' is like a little lie in the book. The following paragraphs go on to show this isn't true, as with other areas. Nothings listed as 'unless otherwise specified' and nothing in those conflicting rules are listed as exceptions. It's quite reasonable to read 'Part of the unit for all rules purposes' to mean as quoted above, rather than that he is absorbed by the unit. - As in, being part of the unit means he runs, charges, shoots etc as part of the unit. Unit in this context being the group of models. He is part, and acts with that group of models.
This however never stops him being a unit as bought on the army list - or an IC would lose all their special rules. We know this isn't the case.

Once at this point all rules are covered, with no other rules issues, and the IC is both part of the unit, and a unit as bought from the codex, still a BB unit.

 Nem wrote:
This however never stops him being a unit as bought on the army list - or an IC would lose all their special rules.

Incorrect. Special Rules are model based, not unit based.

Once at this point all rules are covered, with no other rules issues, and the IC is both part of the unit, and a unit as bought from the codex, still a BB unit.

Are you attempting to treat it as something other than a member of the unit its joined for a rules purpose?
Yes?
Why would you do that when the rules explicitly tell you otherwise?

rigeld2 wrote:

 Nem wrote:
This however never stops him being a unit as bought on the army list - or an IC would lose all their special rules.

Incorrect. Special Rules are model based, not unit based.

Once at this point all rules are covered, with no other rules issues, and the IC is both part of the unit, and a unit as bought from the codex, still a BB unit.

Are you attempting to treat it as something other than a member of the unit its joined for a rules purpose?
Yes?
Why would you do that when the rules explicitly tell you otherwise?

Special rules are given to models that are 'in the unit' - direct quote -

If he is no longer a unit, he no longer has those rules either.

Your the ones that are saying he is no longer in the unit he was bought for.

Edit; clarify posted that a few back.
6. Special rules
Any special rules that apply to the models in the unit are listed here.......

Of course things like this, battle brother tags etc - the things that were decided when choosing your army, probably all remain, and do so at a model level.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
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.

there's that phrase again - "Battle brother unit".
there is no such thing as a "battle brother unit"!
it has been invented by people because Battle Brothers count as friendly units!
The word "unit" is in the phrase "Friendly units" not "Battle Brothers"!

every single thing in the allied army is a battle brother to the primary, and vice versa. it does not cease to be a battle brother, ever. nothing says it does. you're adding the word "unit" into the term "battle brother", then removing the word "unit" from the new, invented term "Battle Brother Unit" and then claiming that it doesn't just revert back to "Battle Brother", but instead loses all limitations and restrictions it had!

and what still hasn't been addressed is that if what you are saying is true, and that an independant character loses his place as a battle brother if he joins a unit, how has he joined the unit? he is no longer a friendly character, so cannot join.

oh, but there's a second bullet point that allows him to join. well, we'll allow that then.

best not mention that third bullet point about not being allowed in allied transports though, that clearly doesn't apply.

NEXT!

rigeld2 wrote:

 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.

hmm, that apples thing reminds me of the algebra I stated as well. you know, the one I said was wrong?

skipping the confusion of the charade of replacing rules with items of food....

Battle brothers are friendly units
IC's are friendly units
IC's can join friendly units
IC no longer is classed as a unit
Is the IC a battle brother. the simple solution to this is in the list you wrote before the game - if he's in one detatchment and the transport he wants to get into is in the other, he can't get in.

do you remember those really long questions that were all about reading the question properly?

it'd start with "you pick up your bag and get on a bus, on the bus there are 16 other people, four have green eyes and three have brown, the rest have blue. you sit down on one of the 4 empty seats and eat 8 skittles out of a pack of 30. you give each of the other people on the bus a skittle.
How many bags do you have?"

this discussion reminds me of that sort of thing. you're getting caught up by all the stuff in the middle and are forgetting the simple fact that the book states "Not even Battle Brothers can ride in allied Transports". "but he's not a unit!" still a battle brother. "but he's in another squad!" Still a battle brother.

the status of "Battle Brother" is simply defined by pointing at any model and saying "what detachment did I buy him for?" if it's different from the transport vehicle, he can't get in.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Naw wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Naw - your concession si accepted.

LOL

You proferred no rebuttal to the points, posted up strawman arguments that you never even attempted to defend once shown how silly they were, and insist on sleectively quoting, and therefore misrepresenting, rules.

For the final time, provide the rule from BRB that says that Battle Brothers can embark transports of their allies. Should be easy, just the page number and rule quote.

We have already provided the rule word to word that forbids them doing so.

Your concession is indeed accepted, as your useful contribution to the thread is mostly summed up by your response above.

Aha. So it is accepted in rules discussion to provide your opinion rather than actual rules. Glad you clarified that.

 Nem wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Nem wrote:
This however never stops him being a unit as bought on the army list - or an IC would lose all their special rules.

Incorrect. Special Rules are model based, not unit based.

Once at this point all rules are covered, with no other rules issues, and the IC is both part of the unit, and a unit as bought from the codex, still a BB unit.

Are you attempting to treat it as something other than a member of the unit its joined for a rules purpose?
Yes?
Why would you do that when the rules explicitly tell you otherwise?

Special rules are given to models that are 'in the unit' - direct quote -

If he is no longer a unit, he no longer has those rules either.

Your the ones that are saying he is no longer in the unit he was bought for.

p33 wrote:WHAT SPECIAL RULES DO I HAVE?
It may seem obvious, but unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule. Most special rules are given to a model by the relevant entry in its codex. That said, a model's Attacks can gain special rules because of the weapon it is using.

Rules are given to a model. Does the model change? No. So your assertion is incorrect. Next?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 some bloke wrote:
and what still hasn't been addressed is that if what you are saying is true, and that an independant character loses his place as a battle brother if he joins a unit, how has he joined the unit? he is no longer a friendly character, so cannot join.

Really? What defines a friendly unit in the BRB? I'd love an answer.

Battle brothers are friendly units
IC's are friendly units
IC's can join friendly units
IC no longer is classed as a unit
Is the IC a battle brother. the simple solution to this is in the list you wrote before the game - if he's in one detatchment and the transport he wants to get into is in the other, he can't get in.

The underlined is an interesting argument for intent, but it is not what the rules actually say.

this discussion reminds me of that sort of thing. you're getting caught up by all the stuff in the middle and are forgetting the simple fact that the book states "Not even Battle Brothers can ride in allied Transports". "but he's not a unit!" still a battle brother. "but he's in another squad!" Still a battle brother.

the status of "Battle Brother" is simply defined by pointing at any model and saying "what detachment did I buy him for?" if it's different from the transport vehicle, he can't get in.

No, that's incorrect. You're literally ignoring the rest of the paragraph and focusing on one sentence. That's not how English works.

Left or Right? Relevant question, please answer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Naw wrote:
For the final time, provide the rule from BRB that says that Battle Brothers can embark transports of their allies. Should be easy, just the page number and rule quote.

p78 wrote:A unit can embark onto a vehicle by moving each model to within 2" of its Access Points in the Movement phase

We have already provided the rule word to word that forbids them doing so.

No, you haven't. You've misquoted rules, repeatedly, to make it seem like you're correct - but you have to literally ignore the beginning of that paragraph (pretend it doesn't exist).

the beginning of the paragraph doesn't help at all! if it stated, with these exact words, "All Battle Brother Units are treated as friendly units" then it would, you would have found a loophole, hooray for you. as it is it states "All Battle Brothers are treated as friendly units", so your whole "is he a unit or isn't he" argument becomes invalid, as the very statement that you're clinging to doesn't care if he's a unit or not.

And you Still haven't addressed the issue that if indeed he ceases to be a Battle Brother, and therefore ceases to be counted as a friendly unit, how is he joined to the unit.

so for your next response please, explain to me how an independant character who is not within 2" of a friendly unit is joined to the aforementioned not-friendly unit.

 some bloke wrote:
the beginning of the paragraph doesn't help at all! if it stated, with these exact words, "All Battle Brother Units are treated as friendly units" then it would, you would have found a loophole, hooray for you. as it is it states "All Battle Brothers are treated as friendly units", so your whole "is he a unit or isn't he" argument becomes invalid, as the very statement that you're clinging to doesn't care if he's a unit or not.

It does.
Battle Brothers are friendly units. If something isn't a unit, can it possibly be a friendly unit?

And you Still haven't addressed the issue that if indeed he ceases to be a Battle Brother, and therefore ceases to be counted as a friendly unit, how is he joined to the unit.

I did. I asked a question that you apparently ignored.

so for your next response please, explain to me how an independant character who is not within 2" of a friendly unit is joined to the aforementioned not-friendly unit.

Your assumption is that any Allied unit is non-friendly by default. I've never seen you support that assumption with actual rules - you've just repeated it over and over.
Perhaps you'd like to support that assumption with actual rules? Because as far as I can see in the rulebook, that assumption isn't true.
Which means the BB rules are more a reminder than a bonus. DA and AoC specify enemy units so of course they're not friendly.

Cite a rule that, by default, Allies are not friendly.

Or we could just wait 10 days and see if the BB rules change.

 Nem wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Nem wrote:
This however never stops him being a unit as bought on the army list - or an IC would lose all their special rules.

Incorrect. Special Rules are model based, not unit based.

Once at this point all rules are covered, with no other rules issues, and the IC is both part of the unit, and a unit as bought from the codex, still a BB unit.

Are you attempting to treat it as something other than a member of the unit its joined for a rules purpose?
Yes?
Why would you do that when the rules explicitly tell you otherwise?

Special rules are given to models that are 'in the unit' - direct quote -

If he is no longer a unit, he no longer has those rules either.

Your the ones that are saying he is no longer in the unit he was bought for.

Edit; clarify posted that a few back.
6. Special rules
Any special rules that apply to the models in the unit are listed here.......

Of course things like this, battle brother tags etc - the things that were decided when choosing your army, probably all remain, and do so at a model level.

This is absolutely correct.

osirisx69 wrote:
This is absolutely correct.

No, it's not. I've addressed his comments.
Perhaps you have something to actually add to the thread instead of just +1ing?

rigeld2 wrote:

 some bloke wrote:
the beginning of the paragraph doesn't help at all! if it stated, with these exact words, "All Battle Brother Units are treated as friendly units" then it would, you would have found a loophole, hooray for you. as it is it states "All Battle Brothers are treated as friendly units", so your whole "is he a unit or isn't he" argument becomes invalid, as the very statement that you're clinging to doesn't care if he's a unit or not.

It does.
Battle Brothers are friendly units. If something isn't a unit, can it possibly be a friendly unit?

And you Still haven't addressed the issue that if indeed he ceases to be a Battle Brother, and therefore ceases to be counted as a friendly unit, how is he joined to the unit.

I did. I asked a question that you apparently ignored.

so for your next response please, explain to me how an independant character who is not within 2" of a friendly unit is joined to the aforementioned not-friendly unit.

Your assumption is that any Allied unit is non-friendly by default. I've never seen you support that assumption with actual rules - you've just repeated it over and over.
Perhaps you'd like to support that assumption with actual rules? Because as far as I can see in the rulebook, that assumption isn't true.
Which means the BB rules are more a reminder than a bonus. DA and AoC specify enemy units so of course they're not friendly.

Cite a rule that, by default, Allies are not friendly.

Well, I think you've misunderstood me there but that's no big deal, I'll go over it now, with rules references for you.

1: starting at the top, we already know that Battle brothers are friendly units by virtue of being Battle Brothers, as stated on page 112. if they were not Battle Brothers, they wouldn't be friendly units. correct?
2: You state that Independant characters are no longer Battle Brothers when they join an allied unit, correct?
3: So by removing the "Battle Brothers" tag from the IC, it means he is no longer a BB. Can i confirm that you do not think he is a BB?
4: so by going through the rules for BB's, he no longer is treated as a freindly unit, cannot join friendly units, isn't treated as friendly for the purposes of psychic powers, as the only reason this was true was because he was a BB. correct?
5: flip back to page 39. "in order to join a unit, the IC simply has to move so that he is within 2" coherency of a friendly unit at the end of the movement phase" as the IC is no longer treated as a Battle Brother, he is no longer a friendly unit, and can no longer join units, as it is only under the bullet points for Battle Brothers that he can join them. correct?

It's not about defaulting to non-friendly. it's about whether he counts as friendly or not. he is only friendly because he's a battle brother (note that all the other allies count as enemy units). if he stops being a battle brother, he stops being friendly.

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

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

Naw wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Naw wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Naw - your concession si accepted.

LOL

You proferred no rebuttal to the points, posted up strawman arguments that you never even attempted to defend once shown how silly they were, and insist on sleectively quoting, and therefore misrepresenting, rules.

For the final time, provide the rule from BRB that says that Battle Brothers can embark transports of their allies. Should be easy, just the page number and rule quote.

We have already provided the rule word to word that forbids them doing so.

Your concession is indeed accepted, as your useful contribution to the thread is mostly summed up by your response above.

Aha. So it is accepted in rules discussion to provide your opinion rather than actual rules. Glad you clarified that.

No, you have provided the rules that forbid friendly units, which are battle brothers, from embarking.. That isn't a model level rule, as you are aware. So I have permission to embark, and nothing restricting me, as proven, so I can embark. Your concession is still accepted.

Prove that a rule dealing with units applies to models, and do so without violating page 39. Page and graph, or accept your argument is voided,

No, what is accepted that your useful contribution is effectively nil , as you continue to deliberately misrepresent and ignore written rules. You are pretending the first paragraph sentence does not exist, which given it defines the term battle brother, and therefore underpins any argument you are trying to make, means you have no useful argument to make. It is impossible to argue coherently with you, as you refuse to accept the written rules that are there, and have been cited for you ad nauseum.

Reread, note you are looking at an ordered list, and adept your error in comprehension is real.

rigeld2 wrote:

 some bloke wrote:

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

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

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

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

so there are Units, Friendly Units and Enemy units. by standard you're a unit. to Battle Brothers and models in your own detachment, you are Friendly units. To model in the opponents army, you are Enemy Units.

you have to be a battle brother to be a friendly unit, you have to be a friendly unit to join. so you're either in the unit, still a Battle brother and can't embark on allied transports, or you're no longer a Battle Brother, no longer a friendly unit, can't join the unit and can't Embark on allied transports.

or, as you seem to think, you use the Battle Brothers rule to join the unit, discard half the Battle Brothers rule, keeping the part you like, and can embark on a transport.


it was mentioned before that ignoring the word "unit" in the battle brothers opening paragraph (the word that wasn't actually there) would result in the catastrophic failure of the rules. so now I'm going to turn that argument on you, using your logic for the interpretation of the rules. let's take a look.

Page 39:
"An independent character can begin the game already with a unit, simply by deploying in unit coherency with it."

Page 112, Allies of Convenience, underlines for effect:
"Units in your army treat allies of convenience as enemy Units that cannot be charged..."

using your logic for what makes a battle brother a battle brother, we must be able to apply the self same login to the other types of allies.

so an Ally of Convenience is only an Enemy Unit if if is a Unit. if it is no longer a unit, it is no longer an enemy unit.

an Independant Character can join a Unit at the start, with no stipulations on whether it is friendly or not - this comes in at the end of the movement phase...

Page 39:
"in order to join a unit, an independent Character simply has to move so that he is within the 2" unit coherency distance of a friendly unit at the end of the movement phase"

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

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

please feel free to point out any of your rules interpretations I got wrong here.

 some bloke wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

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

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

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

It was asked earlier what rules would allow a Farseer to be joined to a Crisis team since he stops being a Battle Brother by ceasing to be a Unit.

I have a simple answer for which rule allows him to remain attached: The Battle Brothers rule, but not why you think.

The Battle Brothers rule does not say that Battle Brothers ICs may join allied units, it says that Battle Brothers may be joined by Allied ICs.

The Battle Brothers in the situation is the Crisis Team, The Farseer is merely an Allied IC.

I think literal RAW wise it is possible as rigeld has quite nicely shown through applying literal definitions to concepts and words. Don't ask me why as I will just point you to what he has posted.
How it is intended, I believe it not to be possible and the vast majority of players do not allow it.
How I play it - I do not allow it due to general consensus and it would not be worth the arguing otherwise.
How I WOULD LIKE to play it - allow it!!! It makes utter complete logical sense! Why can an inquisitor not join his spacemarine deathsquad at the start of the game? Why can a space marine captain not join his chapters attached support units in defense of his planet? Why can a farseer who is striving to protect his species from extinction not zoom with the dark eldar warriors who he is using to aid him with that?
It is fluffy, it is logical. Be a good 'dungeon master' and allow it when not playing competative games.

Poly Ranger wrote:
I think literal RAW wise it is possible as rigeld has quite nicely shown through applying literal definitions to concepts and words. Don't ask me why as I will just point you to what he has posted.
How it is intended, I believe it not to be possible and the vast majority of players do not allow it.
How I play it - I do not allow it due to general consensus and it would not be worth the arguing otherwise.
How I WOULD LIKE to play it - allow it!!! It makes utter complete logical sense! Why can an inquisitor not join his spacemarine deathsquad at the start of the game? Why can a space marine captain not join his chapters attached support units in defense of his planet? Why can a farseer who is striving to protect his species from extinction not zoom with the dark eldar warriors who he is using to aid him with that?
It is fluffy, it is logical. Be a good 'dungeon master' and allow it when not playing competative games.

Don't let logic, fun, and fluff get in the way of good, honest competition.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
It was asked earlier what rules would allow a Farseer to be joined to a Crisis team since he stops being a Battle Brother by ceasing to be a Unit.

I have a simple answer for which rule allows him to remain attached: The Battle Brothers rule, but not why you think.

The Battle Brothers rule does not say that Battle Brothers ICs may join allied units, it says that Battle Brothers may be joined by Allied ICs.

The Battle Brothers in the situation is the Crisis Team, The Farseer is merely an Allied IC.

So they are simultaneously Battle Brothers and not Battle Brothers?
How is the Farseer treating the unit as a friendly unit, as required by the Independent Character rules?

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
It was asked earlier what rules would allow a Farseer to be joined to a Crisis team since he stops being a Battle Brother by ceasing to be a Unit.

I have a simple answer for which rule allows him to remain attached: The Battle Brothers rule, but not why you think.

The Battle Brothers rule does not say that Battle Brothers ICs may join allied units, it says that Battle Brothers may be joined by Allied ICs.

The Battle Brothers in the situation is the Crisis Team, The Farseer is merely an Allied IC.

So they are simultaneously Battle Brothers and not Battle Brothers?
How is the Farseer treating the unit as a friendly unit, as required by the Independent Character rules?

Well first we need to know what a "Friendly Unit" is.

No we don't, we need to know that an Independent Character can only join friendly units, and that without the Battle Brothers rules we don't have permission to treat allied units as friendly.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
No we don't, we need to know that an Independent Character can only join friendly units, and that without the Battle Brothers rules we don't have permission to treat allied units as friendly.

That's an assumption without rules support.
Please, use the rules to define a freindly unit.

Which is an assumption? That Independent Characters can only join friendly units?

"In order to join a unit, an Independent Character simply has to move so that he is within the 2" unit coherency distance of a friendly unit at the end of their Movement phase"

Or that we don't have permission to treat allied units without invoking the Battle Brothers rules? If you have a rule that allows us to treat non-BB allies as friendly by all means please share.

PrinceRaven, as both sides arguments hinge on "Friendly Unit", what is the definition of "Friendly Unit"?

I think most people would claim that a Friendly unit is a unit in your army that is not an Ally of Convenience or Desperate Ally. Is that something you would agree with?

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Or that we don't have permission to treat allied units without invoking the Battle Brothers rules? If you have a rule that allows us to treat non-BB allies as friendly by all means please share.

Did you actually read my post?
The onus is on you to define friendly unit in the rules.
Otherwise by plain English, it's all the models in your army that aren't otherwise treated as Enemy units (DA or AoC).

Please find permission to treat "all models in your army that aren't otherwise treated as Enemy units" as friendly units.

I have. Unless it's defined otherwise, that's the English definition.

Have you found somewhere it's defined otherwise? I'd be interested to see that.