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.

 Kriswall wrote:
We're dealing with a Rhino that we're TREATING as a piece of terrain with the difficult terrain type. The data sheet is exactly the same. We're just ignoring the majority of it when we treat it as a piece of terrain. Terrain doesn't have an AV, so we ignore the Rhino's AV. Terrain doesn't have HPs, so we ignore that the Rhino has 0 HPs. Etc, etc.

So you also don't believe that "treat as" means the same thing as "is" to GW?
Despite the fact that it's been proven to be true multiple times?

The data sheet cannot be exactly the same as a data sheet for Terrain is nothing like a data sheet for a Vehicle. Primarily because Vehicles don't have data sheets, they have Army List Entries.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
We're dealing with a Rhino that we're TREATING as a piece of terrain with the difficult terrain type. The data sheet is exactly the same. We're just ignoring the majority of it when we treat it as a piece of terrain. Terrain doesn't have an AV, so we ignore the Rhino's AV. Terrain doesn't have HPs, so we ignore that the Rhino has 0 HPs. Etc, etc.

So you also don't believe that "treat as" means the same thing as "is" to GW?
Despite the fact that it's been proven to be true multiple times?

The data sheet cannot be exactly the same as a data sheet for Terrain is nothing like a data sheet for a Vehicle. Primarily because Vehicles don't have data sheets, they have Army List Entries.

Treat as isn't the same as is.

John's parents treat him as a girl. They dress him like a girl. They buy him Barbies. Etc. Etc.
John isn't actually a girl. He's just being treated as one. John is demonstrably still male.

The Rhino isn't actually a piece of Citadel Terrain. It's just being treated as one.

"Is" is demonstrably different from "Treated As".

 Kriswall wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
We're dealing with a Rhino that we're TREATING as a piece of terrain with the difficult terrain type. The data sheet is exactly the same. We're just ignoring the majority of it when we treat it as a piece of terrain. Terrain doesn't have an AV, so we ignore the Rhino's AV. Terrain doesn't have HPs, so we ignore that the Rhino has 0 HPs. Etc, etc.

So you also don't believe that "treat as" means the same thing as "is" to GW?
Despite the fact that it's been proven to be true multiple times?

The data sheet cannot be exactly the same as a data sheet for Terrain is nothing like a data sheet for a Vehicle. Primarily because Vehicles don't have data sheets, they have Army List Entries.

Treat as isn't the same as is.

John's parents treat him as a girl. They dress him like a girl. They buy him Barbies. Etc. Etc.
John isn't actually a girl. He's just being treated as one. John is demonstrably still male.

The Rhino isn't actually a piece of Citadel Terrain. It's just being treated as one.

"Is" is demonstrably different from "Treated As".

Bad analogy is bad.

As far as GW is concerned, saying that they're different causes the rules to fail completely.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
We're dealing with a Rhino that we're TREATING as a piece of terrain with the difficult terrain type. The data sheet is exactly the same. We're just ignoring the majority of it when we treat it as a piece of terrain. Terrain doesn't have an AV, so we ignore the Rhino's AV. Terrain doesn't have HPs, so we ignore that the Rhino has 0 HPs. Etc, etc.

So you also don't believe that "treat as" means the same thing as "is" to GW?
Despite the fact that it's been proven to be true multiple times?

The data sheet cannot be exactly the same as a data sheet for Terrain is nothing like a data sheet for a Vehicle. Primarily because Vehicles don't have data sheets, they have Army List Entries.

Treat as isn't the same as is.

John's parents treat him as a girl. They dress him like a girl. They buy him Barbies. Etc. Etc.
John isn't actually a girl. He's just being treated as one. John is demonstrably still male.

The Rhino isn't actually a piece of Citadel Terrain. It's just being treated as one.

"Is" is demonstrably different from "Treated As".

Bad analogy is bad.

As far as GW is concerned, saying that they're different causes the rules to fail completely.

First, why is the analogy bad? Because it demonstrates the difference between is and treated as?

Second, my whole point is that the rules are bad and fail in this situation. Everyone 'knows' the 'correct' way to play this. I don't think anyone would actually argue that 'dead' models should still be able to use their rules. This is an easy situation in real games where 99.99% of people agree on 'HIWPI'. BUT... GW is known for writing internal inconsistent rules. My stance is that this is another one of those situations.

 Kriswall wrote:
First, why is the analogy bad? Because it demonstrates the difference between is and treated as?

No. Because real life != rules.
And the actual meaning of a phrase != how GW uses it.

Second, my whole point is that the rules are bad and fail in this situation. Everyone 'knows' the 'correct' way to play this. I don't think anyone would actually argue that 'dead' models should still be able to use their rules. This is an easy situation in real games where 99.99% of people agree on 'HIWPI'. BUT... GW is known for writing internal inconsistent rules. My stance is that this is another one of those situations.

In this case, however, you're saying that it's written poorly because you're forcing an inconsistency that is accepted literally everywhere else in the rules.
Yes, I'll agree - when you make words mean different things at different times, the rules aren't consistent. GW, however, consistently uses "treated/counts as" to mean "is".

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
First, why is the analogy bad? Because it demonstrates the difference between is and treated as?

No. Because real life != rules.
And the actual meaning of a phrase != how GW uses it.

Second, my whole point is that the rules are bad and fail in this situation. Everyone 'knows' the 'correct' way to play this. I don't think anyone would actually argue that 'dead' models should still be able to use their rules. This is an easy situation in real games where 99.99% of people agree on 'HIWPI'. BUT... GW is known for writing internal inconsistent rules. My stance is that this is another one of those situations.

In this case, however, you're saying that it's written poorly because you're forcing an inconsistency that is accepted literally everywhere else in the rules.
Yes, I'll agree - when you make words mean different things at different times, the rules aren't consistent. GW, however, consistently uses "treated/counts as" to mean "is".

Please provide your examples. I need rules citations and not your word that GW consistently uses treated/counts as to mean is. Treated/counted as actually means "isn't, but pretend like it is" in the real world. Without a specific, contradictory game definition (like they provide for 'and/or' in the army list entry definition section of most codices), we generally assume the real world definition is being used.

Treat this (noun A) as a (noun B). Is noun A a noun B? No.

Treat this Rhino as a Citadel Scenery Piece. Is this Rhino a Citadel Scenery Piece? No, but pretend like it is.
Treat this Banana as an Apple. Is this Banana an Apple? No, but pretend like it is.

woop woop, i'm onto that:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/150/635145.page#7588270

Shame it's locked or i would've quoted it....

I also disagree that "treated as" = "is". That equality is only the case for the subject described, not as a constant....

So for bikes, Difficult terrain = Dangerous terrain, Difficult terrain "is" Dangerous terrain, but then for anyone else Difficult terrain =/= Dangerous terrain, etc.

I don't think "treated as" = "is" completely, even if it might seem most rules need that... But please continue this discussion

 Kriswall wrote:
Please provide your examples.

Sure, I'll do your work for you.

Unless otherwise stated, Poisoned weapons are treated as having a Strength of 1.

So what's their Strength again? How do you resolve a Poison weapon with no listed S hitting a vehicle? Please support your statements with rule citations - because this weapon doesn't have a S.

Battlements are treated as an Access Point for their building, meaning that a unit inside the building can disembark onto the battlements, or vice-versa.

So how do you get into Battlements? They're not an Access Point after all.

Battlements are treated as a separate piece of terrain from the building that they are on top of.

Especially since they're just part of the same piece of terrain - man, those rules are messed up.

Models that are in base contact with a defence line are treated as being in base contact with any enemy models who are directly opposite them and in base contact with the other side of that defence line.

But they're not, so any rule requiring base contact doesn't work.

When a Super-heavy vehicle makes a shooting attack, it is always treated as if it had remained stationary in the Movement phase (even if it actually moved), and it may fire each of its weapons at different targets if desired.

What does that even mean? After all, if it moved then it moved - since treated as isn't the same thing as is, rules that require you to be stationary can't be met.

However, a Chariot is always treated as a single model.

But it has two profiles! And a model can only have one profile! But this is a Chariot... if only "treated as" meant the same as "is" we wouldn't have confusing rules here...

If they do, all weapons they fire that phase are treated as having the Skyfire special rule.

But they don't have it, and so they must snapshot at Fliers.

What's the WS of a vehicle again? Not what you want to pretend it is, but what is it actually? Because the rules care about your actual weapon skill.

A Grounded Flying Monstrous Creature is treated as if it is in Glide mode with immediate effect, and can therefore be charged in the following Assault phase.

But wait - it's not in Glide mode so it can't be charged. But we have specific allowance to do so. But since it's not actually Gliding, does it still benefit from Hard to Hit?

Waitaminute. If it was only "treated as" Gliding and not actually Gliding, this doesn't make sense! It can't start its turn in a mode it wasn't in before and can't declare a charge the turn it changes modes!

If a model is not specifically stated as having a weapon with the Melee type, it is treated as being armed with a single close combat weapon.

But it doesn't actually have one, so how is combat handled?

or if a special rule refers to Random Allocation, do the following: randomly determine a model in the unit – that model is treated as being the closest model to the attack and remains so until either the attack ends or the model is slain.

But it's not the closest model to the attack - and since you can only allocate wounds to the closest model, no wound scan be allocated.

When the power is resolved, the new unit then arrives via Deep Strike, within the power’s maximum range; the new unit is under your control and is treated as having arrived from Reserves for all rules purposes.

But it didn't arrive from Reserves so feel free to declare a Charge.

Moving on to counts as.

A model that made a Vector Strike in its Movement phase counts as having already fired one weapon in its following Shooting phase.

So how many weapons can a FMC fire after Vector Striking - 1 or 2? I mean, it didn't actually fire a weapon.

While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters.

But he's not part of the unit, so feel free to target him independently all you want.


And I'm done... there's more but I'll let you do a modicum of research on the matter.

I think you have mistaken what the request was:
Can you quote where Game workshop actual said that 'Count As' equals "Is?"

PS:
Every Rule you quoted works because we are told to ignore the reality of the subject in question, in order to resolve the situation differently to normal.

JinxDragon wrote:
I think you have mistaken what the request was:
Can you quote where Game workshop actual said that 'Count As' equals "Is?"

No, he literally said

Please provide your examples. I need rules citations and not your word that GW consistently uses treated/counts as to mean is.

But thanks for keeping up.

PS:
Every Rule you quoted works because we are told to ignore the reality of the subject in question, in order to resolve the situation differently to normal.

No. The rules don't ask you to look up what you're pretending your Weapon Skill is, they ask you to look up what it is.
If you treat "treated as" and "is" differently, you have to word everything differently.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
Please provide your examples.

Sure, I'll do your work for you.

You made the assertion. I'm not sure why it's my job to prove your point for you.

You list a series of examples where we're told to treat something that isn't X as being X. Every weapon has a Strength value. Sometimes that Strength value is "-". Take the following weapon.

Stabby Knife
Range: -; S -; AP -; Melee, Poisoned (2+)

What is the Strength of this weapon? The Strength is "-". It's right there in the profile. However, we know the weapon has the Poisoned special rule, so we know that we should treat the weapon as if it were Strength 1 whenever we need a Strength value. The Strength isn't actually 1, but we pretend it is because we're told to treat it as 1. This is how "treat as" works.

I could do this for every example you listed, but it's obvious you've already made up your mind that "treat as" somehow transforms the thing into whatever you're treating it as.

"I don't care if you respect your father, but I do require that you treat him as if you respected him."

Me treating my father with respect doesn't mean I respect him. Treat has has an element of pretend. I feel like you're not understanding this. I also know you don't like real life examples, but I think confirmation bias may be clouding your vision as relates to the in game ones.

And I'm done... there's more but I'll let you do a modicum of research on the matter.

Again, your monkeys, your circus. You made the claim. You need to be the one who provides the examples. This is how backing up your claims with citations in a debate scenario works.

 Kriswall wrote:
You list a series of examples where we're told to treat something that isn't X as being X. Every weapon has a Strength value. Sometimes that Strength value is "-". Take the following weapon.

Stabby Knife
Range: -; S -; AP -; Melee, Poisoned (2+)

What is the Strength of this weapon? The Strength is "-". It's right there in the profile. However, we know the weapon has the Poisoned special rule, so we know that we should treat the weapon as if it were Strength 1 whenever we need a Strength value. The Strength isn't actually 1, but we pretend it is because we're told to treat it as 1. This is how "treat as" works.

Great! Now, how do you resolve a hit with that weapon against a Vehicle? You can't use S = 1 because the actual rule requires the S, not what you pretend it to be.

I could do this for every example you listed, but it's obvious you've already made up your mind that "treat as" somehow transforms the thing into whatever you're treating it as.

Well, because otherwise the rules simply don't work.

"I don't care if you respect your father, but I do require that you treat him as if you respected him."

Me treating my father with respect doesn't mean I respect him. Treat has has an element of pretend. I feel like you're not understanding this. I also know you don't like real life examples, but I think confirmation bias may be clouding your vision as relates to the in game ones.

Yes, absolutely - treat has an element of pretend. That's my point.
Do the Armor Penetration rules ask for what you pretend the attack's S to be, or what the S is? According to you there's a difference, so the rules must take that difference into account, right?
And it's not just me "not liking" real life examples - they literally don't apply when discussing the rules of a game.

Again, your monkeys, your circus. You made the claim. You need to be the one who provides the examples. This is how backing up your claims with citations in a debate scenario works.

I've proven it before - and I believe you were involved in some of the threads I've done this in. So pardon me when I get tired of repeating myself on this.
And, in fact, when something is so prevalent as to be assumed as fact it's not the person asserting the fact that has to prove it.. the person challenging the factuality of the statement has to come up with a reason why it's incorrect.

I won't continue this debate if you're going to just be sarcastic.

You've obviously already made up your mind and don't appear open to any other ideas.

"Treats as" and "is" are not the same concepts. My examples demonstrate this clearly. The apply just fine as they're intended as illustrative examples.

 Kriswall wrote:
I won't continue this debate if you're going to just be sarcastic.

You've obviously already made up your mind and don't appear open to any other ideas.

"Treats as" and "is" are not the same concepts. My examples demonstrate this clearly. The apply just fine as they're intended as illustrative examples.

"Treats as" and "is" are the same concepts as far as the 40 K rules are concerned.

"treat as" means the same thing as "is" to GW.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
I won't continue this debate if you're going to just be sarcastic.

You've obviously already made up your mind and don't appear open to any other ideas.

"Treats as" and "is" are not the same concepts. My examples demonstrate this clearly. The apply just fine as they're intended as illustrative examples.

"Treats as" and "is" are the same concepts as far as the 40 K rules are concerned.

"treat as" means the same thing as "is" to GW.

I challenge that statement as there is nothing in the rulebook modifying the standard meaning. GW uses and/or to mean something other than what it normally means. We know this because they define the new meaning in the Codices. Do you have any citations providing a non-standard definition of "treat as"?

Also, it sounds dangerously like you're arguing intent. Are you saying that GW intended for treats as to mean is but simply forgot to define the term? I'm ok with you saying this is not RaW, but you think it's probably RaI. RaI is an entirely different discussion. I also agree that this is probably what GW intended. I don't agree that it's what they wrote.

I think the biggest thing here is that GW just didn't expect people to play semantics so hard with their rules. GW didn't feel they had to inform you that when a model with a rocket launcher dies that the rocket launcher and hte model are now dead and not in play and do not effect play in anyway. Same applies to buffs like DLS, after my warboss dies my unit loses that +1 WS.

honestly would anyone try to argue these rules in a game, be it friendly or competitive?

 Ghazkuul wrote:
I think the biggest thing here is that GW just didn't expect people to play semantics so hard with their rules. GW didn't feel they had to inform you that when a model with a rocket launcher dies that the rocket launcher and hte model are now dead and not in play and do not effect play in anyway. Same applies to buffs like DLS, after my warboss dies my unit loses that +1 WS.

honestly would anyone try to argue these rules in a game, be it friendly or competitive?

I would never try to argue these rules in a game. As has been stated, I think most people simply accept that dead models don't typically impact game play.

Now, in an online forum dedicated to debating the fine details of the rule set... that's an entirely different story.

Net result... GW writes sloppy rules that are unplayable in many instances. The only reason we are able to play a successful game is that we assume certain house rules.

Compare this rule set to something like Magic: The Gathering. MtG has an absolutely airtight rule set that a lawyer would have trouble finding fault with. Warhammer 40k is terrible in comparison. Part of the appeal of this forum for me is trying to identify and patch all the holes.

 Kriswall wrote:
I won't continue this debate if you're going to just be sarcastic.

There wasn't any sarcasm in that post.

You've obviously already made up your mind and don't appear open to any other ideas.

Oh, I'm open to ideas. Just not ideas that are chasing some "higher understanding" of the rules that - when implementing said idea - literally causes the rules to stop functioning. Not just "not working as intended" but not working at all.

"Treats as" and "is" are not the same concepts. My examples demonstrate this clearly. The apply just fine as they're intended as illustrative examples.

They don't apply because - and this is the important part that you keep skipping over -
They don't take into account the fact that GW uses the phrases in an abnormal way.

I can illustrate just fine that I can shoot into a mob of people. I can even, depending on where I'm standing, shoot into a mob of people and have a low chance of hitting a friendly.
GW disagrees.

Pointing out that Game Workshop has misused terminology in the past does zero to prove this is one such situations.
The traditional meaning of the word 'count as' comes to the exact same outcome...
How can you come to the conclusion they are using the phrase incorrectly?!

JinxDragon wrote:
Pointing out that Game Workshop has misused terminology in the past does zero to prove this is one such situations.
The traditional meaning of the word 'count as' comes to the exact same outcome...
How can you come to the conclusion they are using the phrase incorrectly?!

Except it doesn't come to the same outcome. If you treat the phrases differently, you must word things surrounding those phrases differently.

Please explain how to resolve the above Stabby Knife that Kriswall posted in an attack on a Vehicle.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
I won't continue this debate if you're going to just be sarcastic.

There wasn't any sarcasm in that post.

You've obviously already made up your mind and don't appear open to any other ideas.

Oh, I'm open to ideas. Just not ideas that are chasing some "higher understanding" of the rules that - when implementing said idea - literally causes the rules to stop functioning. Not just "not working as intended" but not working at all.

"Treats as" and "is" are not the same concepts. My examples demonstrate this clearly. The apply just fine as they're intended as illustrative examples.

They don't apply because - and this is the important part that you keep skipping over -
They don't take into account the fact that GW uses the phrases in an abnormal way.

I can illustrate just fine that I can shoot into a mob of people. I can even, depending on where I'm standing, shoot into a mob of people and have a low chance of hitting a friendly.
GW disagrees.

Can you provide a citation similar to the army list entry definition for 'and/or' stating that GW has redefined 'treat as'? You admit that you think the usage is abnormal. For it to mean something other than the standard definition, you need something in writing.

I don't know why you find this explanation that hard to gasp, and have to come to the same conclusions that you are vested in not understanding the concept, but I will try at least once more before I go back to work:
We resolve the situation with the different number... not because the numbers have changed, but because a more advanced Rule told us to use an entirely different number!

Let me put forth this thought experiment:
We have a Basic Rule with a count as clause... don't know how, but somehow we do
We have an Advanced Rule with a count as clause, using a different value entirely

Which value would you use and what grants you permission to chose that value over the other?

JinxDragon wrote:
I don't know why you find this explanation that hard to gasp, and have to come to the same conclusions that you are vested in not understanding the concept, but I will try at least once more before I go back to work:
We resolve the situation with the different number... not because the numbers have changed, but because a more advanced Rule told us to use an entirely different number!

You resolve it "as" if its S was 1. Its S is not 1, which is proven by the rule listed.

This has been proven many times. But your just arguing for the sake of argument rather than trying to resolve a rule or problem.

 Kriswall wrote:
Can you provide a citation similar to the army list entry definition for 'and/or' stating that GW has redefined 'treat as'? You admit that you think the usage is abnormal. For it to mean something other than the standard definition, you need something in writing.

Factually incorrect.

But we're obviously done. I've proven that GW doesn't use that phrase in the normal manner using examples you asked for, and now you are saying "Nuh uh y00 need rulez!" No. I don't. You asked for evidence. I provided it. Instead of accepting it like someone interested in an honest debate, you move the goalposts, just like this entire thread.

You're not interested in finding some "higher understanding" of the rules. You and Jnix are both just interested in pointing and laughing at what you think is an "exploit" in the rules, no matter how literally irrelevant it might be.

Let me ask you this:
You've both admitted you'd never bring it up at the table.
The intent is extremely obvious here.

What is your actual goal in this discussion?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JinxDragon wrote:
I don't know why you find this explanation that hard to gasp, and have to come to the same conclusions that you are vested in not understanding the concept, but I will try at least once more before I go back to work:
We resolve the situation with the different number... not because the numbers have changed, but because a more advanced Rule told us to use an entirely different number!

So you don't feel like answering my question, but would rather pretend I asked something I didn't? Cool story bro.

Which value would you use and what grants you permission to chose that value over the other?

The answer is both obvious and irrelevant to the question at hand.

To answer again:
We ignore what is on the profile because a more advanced Rule is telling us to count the value as a different number entirely!

To ask again:
Do you have a Quote form Game Workshop informing us to ignore the default, and working, definition of count's as in favour of "is?"

My only issue with this whole mess is why people would ever get so heated over something that can so easily be interpreted by common sense. GW can't be expected to explain every possible scenario, or else we would likely be paying in the thousands for the largest tome of a rule book ever made
It seems the most fundamental rule has been forgotten, Have Fun. If anything else clouds or imposes on this than it wouldn't be worth the stress.
Of all this, my answer to the question, GW never defines what a piece a terrain must be (such as a certain product or range of such) and as thus it is assumed that proxying things is acceptable seeing as how nothing claims that it is not

JinxDragon wrote:
To answer again:
We ignore what is on the profile because a more advanced Rule is telling us to count the value as a different number entirely!

To ask again:
Do you have a Quote form Game Workshop informing us to ignore the default, and working, definition of count's as in favour of "is?"

Every single instance where it tells you to treat it as something else.

JinxDragon wrote:
To answer again:
We ignore what is on the profile because a more advanced Rule is telling us to count the value as a different number entirely!

So.. Accusing me of sidestepping when I actually directly answered your question and yet you go out of your way to side step answering mine.
Awesome.

To ask again:
Do you have a Quote form Game Workshop informing us to ignore the default, and working, definition of count's as in favour of "is?"

Except it doesn't work. And again, you've shifted goal posts so many times I couldn't care less that I have to answer "No." because a) you already knew the answer and b) it's irrelevant.

okay, I am curious... your question was:
Please explain how to resolve the above Stabby Knife that Kriswall posted in an attack on a Vehicle.
Correct?

So how does this answer not fit:
A More advanced Rule (Special Rule - Poison) tells me to use a different value (1), so the original (-) is ignored entirely.

And I don't understand this whole 'it doesn't work' thing either so I am just going have to out right ask:
What do you think 'count as' means in the normal, everyday world?
And why do you think that can not be applied to situations where Game Workshop states 'Count X as Y?'


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, before I just stop trying if I can't even explain a basic concept clearly enough, is it possible for you to answer the same question you put forth in one sentence or less... as I really want to know where this divide comes from.

Please explain how to resolve the above Stabby Knife that Kriswall posted in an attack on a Vehicle.

Seriously, as soon as we appear to have all agreed that there is only one reasonable way to resolve the whole, "When does a model stop giving unit-wide benefits?" question, and then resolved that there's only one reasonable way to resolve "What's In Play, What's out of Play, and what does it matter?" question, we've now moved onto dissecting the difference between "Is" and "Counts-as?"

All because a vehicle model becomes a piece of terrain if it doesn't explode. I mean, really. What the feth is the point?

I'm more clever than you are!

I'm more clever than you are!

I'm more clever than you are, and my dick's bigger!

It all seems kind of masturbatory, and I'm sick of getting splash-over. Again, the working premise is that when something "Counts-as" you have to treat it as if it "is", even if it isn't. When you embark into a vehicle, you don't actually crush your models down until they fit inside the transport model. They are instead "counted as" being inside that vehicle for all gaming purposes, such as range, being able to use the firepoints, etc. There's no difference to how the rules work if you physically put models inside, or you just pretend they're in there.

Quit jerking off, trying to impress people with how cleverly you can point out flaws in the wording of a publication. You know how far I can kick a puppy? From my front door to the road, but I'm not going to get a medal for it. Maybe arrested, but no medals. How hard is it to point out that GW wrote rules that you can wiggle a needle into and then pull apart? Congratulations, you've won the special Olympics of lawyerdom. You know what's better than winning the special Olympics? Not being slowed. Stop being slowed. Discuss rules, not whether or not you can point out the inconsistencies in writing.

The fundamental flaw of that sort of activity is that it's not "right". You can't play a game when you apply those interpretations. Therefore, they are inimically "wrong", no matter how literally you can mince the words. If you mince the words, and create an irreconcilable state in the game, you have failed at correctly interpreting the rules. I've never had a game of 40k literally end in a stalemate. I've never once encountered a situation, no matter how poorly written the rules may be, that I couldn't complete a game from start to finish by using reason to determine the outcome of an inquiry.