BlackTalos wrote:
easysauce wrote:BB are NOT defined as friendly units, they are TREATED as FU's in all but one scenario, with that scenario being embarking in transports.
Exactly how I see it... also, p112: -However, note that not even BB's can embark in allied transport vehicles
How can this not mean models? It doesn't say units....?
The bullet points are a list of extra rules, not an extension of "
battle brothers are treated as "friendly units" from ALL points of view"
The words
"This means" that come after mean that the 3 bullet points pretty much
replace the previous statement as examples.
This is further enforced by point 2 which specifies "unit" in contrast with "model" that is valid for the other 2 points.
My 2 cents from reading the rule.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
rigeld2 wrote:Cool - so there's two people that should perform the exercise I recommended earlier.
Go though the
BRB. Write down every rule that contains "treated as", "treats as" or "counts as". Those rules do not function unless what I've said is true. If your argument requires them to be different - you can have that win. I'll have a playable rule set.
And easy - I have absolutely quoted rules in the part few pages. Your blind (unexplainable) anger at me is causing you to both misspell my name and fail to actually read my posts. You're also singularly failing to understand my argument.
Your argument is exactly like saying that models without eyes cannot shoot. That's fine. I don't care. I'd rather play the game than have rules that literally don't work.
Rigeld, did you completely forget this post?
BlackTalos wrote:Angelic wrote:"Treated as" does not mean is. In fact it is the exact opposite, otherwise it would say "is". In order to be "treated as" it must be a different object that will be treated as the same object. But it is still a different object. Rules? English. You would never say, "My BMW is treated as my BMW." You would say, "Your car will be treated as if it were my own." Doesn't mean the car is yours. But again, it's not the sole characteristic. Everything else persists even if that doesn't. How do you get rid of the fact that is an ally from a different detachment? If ally remains, Battle Brother must remain because they go hand in hand.
I do agree the understanding of the English Language and Grammar is cause to so many of the issues here.
"Your car will be treated as if it were my own." Doesn't mean the car is yours.
Indeed.
rigeld2 wrote:Go through your
BRB and find every occurrence of "treated as" and pretend it isn't actually that thing. The rules break every time. Here, I'll help:
Accordingly, all vehicles are treated as being Weapon Skill 1, provided that they moved in the previous turn - otherwise they are treated as being Weapon Skill 0.
But they aren't actually WS1 or 0 - they don't have a
WS. So what number do I need to roll in
CC to hit them? Does it matter if they moved?
You agree they do not have it? But get it as soon as the "treated as" appears?
rigeld2 wrote:They don't have to use the Skyfire special rule, but if they do, all weapons they fire that turn are treated as having the Skyfire special rule.
But they don't actually have it, so I guess Flyers have to Snap Shot at other Flyers.
You agree they do not have it? But get it as soon as the "treated as" appears?
So if a Rule such as:
All vehicles with
WS:1 blow up.
Assign 3 Hits to any Flyer with the Skyfire Special Rule.
appears, they would
obviously not apply, right?
Angelic wrote:They are, in fact, not defined as being a friendly unit. First they are "treated" as friendly units.
All friendly units blow up: These guys don't, they're only "treated as", not "is"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Either you did not read it, or you have serious issues when people lend you their items and say please "treat it as" if it was yours. Have people accused you of stealing sometimes? =P
yeah, it wont matter that we read everything,
rigel will never, ever, admit his point has problems,
nor will he ever admit that "treated as" and "defined as" are different terms with different meanings,
nor will he admit that expecting us to LITERALLY CHANGE WORDS in the
RAW, is changing words in the
RAW.
rigel is also literally adding that word "unit" to the restriction on
pg 112, where it does not exist.
so if rigels theory needs us to "change" words in the BRB, its not really
RAW, is it?
if his theory rests on the fact that every time
GW says one thing, we have to assume they mean "defined as", then thats now
RAW, thats changing the
RAW.
pg112, cleary tells us that battle brothers are not "treated as" friendly units for embarkation purposes, and prohibits them by name (not unit) from entering.
