Independent characters and 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.

**kambien**

rigeld2 wrote:
kambien wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
kambien wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:

Are you sure? Really? Or does your codex say something to the effect of "The army list at the back of the books how's all the standard and optional wargear available to a particular model." (C:BA p23)
I checked Spqce Wolves, Necrons, and Tyranids and that rule exists in all of them.

"These list detail the points values of carious items of wargear available to units in your army. Many unit entries in the army list that follows may include wargear options from one or more of these lists - in each instance, the armor list entry will tell you (in bold) exactly whico of these list you may use."

Which codex? What page? Citations are cool bro.

tau pg 94.

Look before the fluff for all the units - that's where the one I cited is. Along with army special rules (ie, what everliving does)

pg 32. "The second part of this section, know as the Arsenal of expansion. details the armor of weapons and equipment available to eac Tau unit"

**Farseer Faenyin**

I still don't see any permission to remove the Battle Brother status from the IC though. Joining something for 'all rules purposes' does not give permission to remove other rules attached to the IC. I haven't seen any other rules removal take place, so why does BB suddenly disappear?

Rigeld, I read through and can't see a clear statement as to how you grant permission to remove Battle Brother other than the ambigious ruling of 'for all rules purposes' you draw from attaching an IC. I can see how you can allow him to keep Battle Brother or remove it by simply the wording of that rule, no clear distinction that the removal of BB is part of the 'for all rules purposes'.

**rigeld2**

Farseer Faenyin wrote:
I still don't see any permission to remove the Battle Brother status from the IC though. Joining something for 'all rules purposes' does not give permission to remove other rules attached to the IC. I haven't seen any other rules removal take place, so why does BB suddenly disappear?

Rigeld, I read through and can't see a clear statement as to how you grant permission to remove Battle Brother other than the ambigious ruling of 'for all rules purposes' you draw from attaching an IC. I can see how you can allow him to keep Battle Brother or remove it by simply the wording of that rule, no clear distinction that the removal of BB is part of the 'for all rules purposes'.

Then you've failed to read. I'll post it - again. Third time this thread if I'm counting right.

Battle Brothers is defined as being a friendly unit.
An IC that joins a unit is no longer a unit on his own.
If something is not a unit, it cannot be a friendly unit.
Therefore if an IC joins a unit it cannot be a Battle Brother.

It has literally nothing to do with the fact that he is a member of th unit for all rules purposes - that's something else people are getting hung up on and is tangential (at best).

Automatically Appended Next Post:

kambien wrote:
pg 32. "The second part of this section, know as the Arsenal of expansion. details the armor of weapons and equipment available to eac Tau unit"

Checking the GK codex it has similar wording.
However, on page 54 it says "Weapons and equipment that can be used by more than one type of model or unit are detailed here..."
Wargear is model based. Again, unless 15 Fire Warriors have a single Pulse Rifle for them all to share.

**kambien**

rigeld2 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

kambien wrote:
pg 32. "The second part of this section, know as the Arsenal of expansion. details the armor of weapons and equipment available to eac Tau unit"

Checking the GK codex it has similar wording.
However, on page 54 it says "Weapons and equipment that can be used by more than one type of model or unit are detailed here..."
Wargear is model based. Again, unless 15 Fire Warriors have a single Pulse Rifle for them all to share.

Permission for model count and what wargear available is unit based.

**rigeld2**

kambien wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

kambien wrote:
pg 32. "The second part of this section, know as the Arsenal of expansion. details the armor of weapons and equipment available to eac Tau unit"

Checking the GK codex it has similar wording.
However, on page 54 it says "Weapons and equipment that can be used by more than one type of model or unit are detailed here..."
Wargear is model based. Again, unless 15 Fire Warriors have a single Pulse Rifle for them all to share.

Permission for model count and what wargear available is unit based.

What wargear is available to each model.
Or does the Tau Codex list 1 Pulse Rifle per Fire Warrior?

**kambien**

rigeld2 wrote:
kambien wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

kambien wrote:
pg 32. "The second part of this section, know as the Arsenal of expansion. details the armor of weapons and equipment available to eac Tau unit"

Checking the GK codex it has similar wording.
However, on page 54 it says "Weapons and equipment that can be used by more than one type of model or unit are detailed here..."
Wargear is model based. Again, unless 15 Fire Warriors have a single Pulse Rifle for them all to share.

Permission for model count and what wargear available is unit based.

What wargear is available to each model.
Or does the Tau Codex list 1 Pulse Rifle per Fire Warrior?

what wargear available to each model is still determined by the unit. base permission is still unit based with exceptions given to specific models to have specific wargear

**rigeld2**

kambien wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
kambien wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

kambien wrote:
pg 32. "The second part of this section, know as the Arsenal of expansion. details the armor of weapons and equipment available to eac Tau unit"

Checking the GK codex it has similar wording.
However, on page 54 it says "Weapons and equipment that can be used by more than one type of model or unit are detailed here..."
Wargear is model based. Again, unless 15 Fire Warriors have a single Pulse Rifle for them all to share.

Permission for model count and what wargear available is unit based.

What wargear is available to each model.
Or does the Tau Codex list 1 Pulse Rifle per Fire Warrior?

what wargear available to each model is still determined by the unit. base permission is still unit based with exceptions given to specific models to have specific wargear

Right - and when can you change that wargear? List creation. Does an IC join a unit during list creation or after?

**kambien**

rigeld2 wrote:
kambien wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
kambien wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

kambien wrote:
pg 32. "The second part of this section, know as the Arsenal of expansion. details the armor of weapons and equipment available to eac Tau unit"

Checking the GK codex it has similar wording.
However, on page 54 it says "Weapons and equipment that can be used by more than one type of model or unit are detailed here..."
Wargear is model based. Again, unless 15 Fire Warriors have a single Pulse Rifle for them all to share.

Permission for model count and what wargear available is unit based.

What wargear is available to each model.
Or does the Tau Codex list 1 Pulse Rifle per Fire Warrior?

what wargear available to each model is still determined by the unit. base permission is still unit based with exceptions given to specific models to have specific wargear

Right - and when can you change that wargear? List creation. Does an IC join a unit during list creation or after?

after , i am failing to see your point

**rigeld2**

kambien wrote:
after , i am failing to see your point

Find permission to modify a model's wargear post list creation. You've asserted it changes during the game, cite permission.

**kambien**

rigeld2 wrote:
kambien wrote:
after , i am failing to see your point

Find permission to modify a model's wargear post list creation. You've asserted it changes during the game, cite permission.

pg 39 brb "while a independent Character is part of the unit, he counts as part of the unit for ALL rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for charaters"
All is a blanket statement encompassing every rule that effects a unit , which would include unit creation
You misunderstand , i am not modifying the model's wargear , he would be free to use what ever wargear is available to him outside of the unit he joins. The restriction to him using said wargear in a newly joined unit falls directly to the units allowed weaponry/wargear/rules.
This would also apply to model count since you are never given permission to go over said count for any reason ( including joining a IC )
IE a space marine captain cannot join a unit of 12 firewarriors because the model count is now 13 and the max allowed in the unit is 12 and 2 drones ( specified in the units text )
But is acceptable that a IC can join a unit of 11 firewarriors

**Happyjew**

So wargear is rules now? Does that mean a model can no longer benefit from 2 power weapons?

**rigeld2**

kambien wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
kambien wrote:
after , i am failing to see your point

Find permission to modify a model's wargear post list creation. You've asserted it changes during the game, cite permission.

pg 39 brb "while a independent Character is part of the unit, he counts as part of the unit for ALL rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for charaters"
All is a blanket statement encompassing every rule that effects a unit , which would include unit creation

No, it wouldn't. Creation is past. You're never given permission to revisit it.

**kambien**

rigeld2 wrote:
kambien wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
kambien wrote:
after , i am failing to see your point

Find permission to modify a model's wargear post list creation. You've asserted it changes during the game, cite permission.

pg 39 brb "while a independent Character is part of the unit, he counts as part of the unit for ALL rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for charaters"
All is a blanket statement encompassing every rule that effects a unit , which would include unit creation

No, it wouldn't. Creation is past. You're never given permission to revisit it.

so creation is now no longer rules ?

**rigeld2**

kambien wrote:
so creation is now no longer rules ?

Did I say that? I'm pretty sure I didn't. Could you quote me?

It is rules. Cite the rule that changes a model's wargear based on what unit he's in.
The rules say that the army lists are default and optional wargear. We know that wargear is defined by the unit, but is model based. We know that we have no permission to change a model's wargear during the game.

So... can you stop with this line of questioning yet? Or are you trolling me to get me to stop arguing it?

**kambien**

rigeld2 wrote:
kambien wrote:
so creation is now no longer rules ?

Did I say that? I'm pretty sure I didn't. Could you quote me?

It is rules. Cite the rule that changes a model's wargear based on what unit he's in.
The rules say that the army lists are default and optional wargear. We know that wargear is defined by the unit, but is model based. We know that we have no permission to change a model's wargear during the game.

So... can you stop with this line of questioning yet? Or are you trolling me to get me to stop arguing it?

i never said the wargear was changed
just because you don like my line of reasoning , while providing rules quotes, even asked for by you specifically in areas of a codex mean that i am trolling .
i am simply using RAW and when it says all rules i am applying it to all rules.

**rigeld2**

kambien wrote:
i never said the wargear was changed

Really?

kambien wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
Because, you see, it's a member of the unit (it joined) for all rules purposes.

so this excludes a IC from using any/all wargear, special abilities, ect that the unit it now has joined does not have access too right ?

kambien wrote:
JinxDragon wrote:
Special Rules and war-gear are found at the 'model level' so the IC's do not lose them. This information can be found in any of the Army List Explained section of the codex.

the models only gain access to them through the unit listing in the codexs

kambien wrote:its not a strawman , its following RAW . It does say all rules purposes . How is FOC/Wargear/Special Abilites/Unit composition somehow not rules now ?

kambien wrote:isn't the permission to assign wagrear to the model under the unit entry , not the model entry ? that's how it is in my codex

Those never happened? I must be missing your point then. Could you post - clearly - what your point is?

**kambien**

rigeld2 wrote:
kambien wrote:
i never said the wargear was changed

Really?

kambien wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
Because, you see, it's a member of the unit (it joined) for all rules purposes.

so this excludes a IC from using any/all wargear, special abilities, ect that the unit it now has joined does not have access too right ?

kambien wrote:
JinxDragon wrote:
Special Rules and war-gear are found at the 'model level' so the IC's do not lose them. This information can be found in any of the Army List Explained section of the codex.

the models only gain access to them through the unit listing in the codexs

kambien wrote:its not a strawman , its following RAW . It does say all rules purposes . How is FOC/Wargear/Special Abilites/Unit composition somehow not rules now ?

kambien wrote:isn't the permission to assign wagrear to the model under the unit entry , not the model entry ? that's how it is in my codex

Those never happened? I must be missing your point then. Could you post - clearly - what your point is?

at no point in any of those quotes did i change wargear ,

**rigeld2**

So you can't clearly state your point? Because I'm confused and I'd rather not put words in your mouth - that'd be rude.

**Angelic**

rigeld2 wrote:

Battle Brothers is defined as being a friendly unit.

That is incorrect. They are, in fact, not defined as being a friendly unit. First they are "treated" as friendly units. Second, that is merely 1 characteristic of Battle Brothers. While there may be an argument as to whether "friendly unit" disappears, the remaining characteristics of Battle Brothers persist. Chief among them, is the fact that it is an ally from a different detachment (if not from an entirely different codex). The rest of your conclusions stem from a faulty premise.

**kambien**

rigeld2 wrote:
So you can't clearly state your point? Because I'm confused and I'd rather not put words in your mouth - that'd be rude.

My point ?
sure , you are selecting only certain rules and applying them in specific ways to validate your point while using the text pg 39 brb "while a independent Character is part of the unit, he counts as part of the unit for ALL rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters"

I am taking the RAW from above and they way you are applying to to defraud your argument entirely by applying to every rule possible since the "all" text of that above encompass everything , specifically the unit and its rules governing model count , access to what wargear and special rules abilities within

**rigeld2**

Angelic wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:

Battle Brothers is defined as being a friendly unit.

That is incorrect. They are, in fact, not defined as being a friendly unit. First they are "treated" as friendly units. Second, that is merely 1 characteristic of Battle Brothers. While there may be an argument as to whether "friendly unit" disappears, the remaining characteristics of Battle Brothers persist. Chief among them, is the fact that it is an ally from a different detachment (if not from an entirely different codex). The rest of your conclusions stem from a faulty premise.

treated as must mean the same as "is".

Sure - they are an ally from a different detachment. I don't dispute that.
Now - what rules govern that?

**PanzerLeader**

rigeld2 wrote:
kambien wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
kambien wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
kambien wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
Because, you see, it's a member of the unit (it joined) for all rules purposes.

so this excludes a IC from using any/all wargear, special abilities, ect that the unit it now has joined does not have access too right ?

No. Not at all. Drop the Strawman please.

its not a strawman , its following RAW . It does say all rules purposes . How is FOC/Wargear/Special Abilites/Unit composition somehow not rules now ?

Because wargear/special abilities are tied to the model. FOC does change - an HQ that joins a Troop can score if he's the only one in range.

isn't the permission to assign wagrear to the model under the unit entry , not the model entry ? that's how it is in my codex

Are you sure? Really? Or does your codex say something to the effect of "The army list at the back of the books how's all the standard and optional wargear available to a particular model." (C:BA p23)
I checked Spqce Wolves, Necrons, and Tyranids and that rule exists in all of them.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

PanzerLeader wrote:

That is not what we are saying. Following our logic, there is nothing illegal. The rules give you permission to create ad hoc units once the game has started (to include deployment). The IC rule explicitly gives you that permission as does the example you gave from the Orc book. The lists were legal at the start of the game, which is what is required, and have been used in a legal manner. Our interpretation is quite consistent with the IC rules: when an IC joins a unit, he ceases to be a unit of one and instead merges into another unit. Now in most cases, this is not an issue. If both choices (unit + IC unit) are from the same codex, there are no issues with the rules. The ad hoc unit is still clearly part of the same detachment.

If you join an IC from one detachment to a unit from another, you generate a situation in which the "grouping of models" is now best described as "x + y." This unit is still clearly friendly in regards to other units, but by RAW you cannot determine what constitutes an "allied" unit to it. Because of that, I think you cannot trigger the restriction and may embark but I haven't yet seen permission cited anywhere to treat a group of tau and marines AS solely marines.

What unit is the IC joining?
Cite permission for mixed units to exist.
Cite permission to change the detachment a unit is in.

You're inventing rules and the. Creating an argument that fits them. I've cited support for my stance, I'd appreciate the same courtesy (as required by the tenets of the sub forum).

I'm not inventing anything. Please reread my posts. I've cited that the IC rule (page 39) gives permission for ICs to join eligible units (normally from the same Codex/detachment, but if battle brothers this can also be from a different codex/detachment). The IC rule therefore also gives permission for mixed units to exist, as a unit is simply a grouping of models and the IC rule permits one "grouping of models"/unit (the IC) to join a second "grouping of models"/unit (i.e. any eligible unit of your choice that the IC is capable of joining). You have not cited any rule that defines or delineates what detachment a unit composed of models from two normally seperate detachments counts as. I stand by the fact that such a rule does not exist. I'm not claiming that units change detachments. The IC rule and BB rule allow you to create a single, legal unit that contains models from two detachments (primary unit + allied IC or allied unit + primary IC). You have failed to cite any rule that gives you permission to count such a unit as part of either detachment for the purposes of embarking.

**rigeld2**

kambien wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
So you can't clearly state your point? Because I'm confused and I'd rather not put words in your mouth - that'd be rude.

My point ?
sure , you are selecting only certain rules and applying them in specific ways to validate your point while using the text pg 39 brb "while a independent Character is part of the unit, he counts as part of the unit for ALL rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters"

No, I'm not. Perhaps you should read the thread. This is a tangent that was started by someone who misunderstood my argument completely and you continue to harp on it.
Since it has literally nothing to do with the point of the thread I'll stop responding.

I am taking the RAW from above and they way you are applying to to defraud your argument entirely by applying to every rule possible since the "all" text of that above encompass everything , specifically the unit and its rules governing model count , access to what wargear and special rules abilities within

So you're not saying that wargear changes, but you're saying wargear changes.
Is that about right?

**kambien**

rigeld2 wrote:
kambien wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
So you can't clearly state your point? Because I'm confused and I'd rather not put words in your mouth - that'd be rude.

My point ?
sure , you are selecting only certain rules and applying them in specific ways to validate your point while using the text pg 39 brb "while a independent Character is part of the unit, he counts as part of the unit for ALL rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters"

No, I'm not. Perhaps you should read the thread. This is a tangent that was started by someone who misunderstood my argument completely and you continue to harp on it.
Since it has literally nothing to do with the point of the thread I'll stop responding.

I am taking the RAW from above and they way you are applying to to defraud your argument entirely by applying to every rule possible since the "all" text of that above encompass everything , specifically the unit and its rules governing model count , access to what wargear and special rules abilities within

So you're not saying that wargear changes, but you're saying wargear changes.
Is that about right?

where do you even see me mention change of wargear ? I don't believe i have , you haven't quoted me saying such either

**Angelic**

rigeld2 wrote:
Angelic wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:

Battle Brothers is defined as being a friendly unit.

That is incorrect. They are, in fact, not defined as being a friendly unit. First they are "treated" as friendly units. Second, that is merely 1 characteristic of Battle Brothers. While there may be an argument as to whether "friendly unit" disappears, the remaining characteristics of Battle Brothers persist. Chief among them, is the fact that it is an ally from a different detachment (if not from an entirely different codex). The rest of your conclusions stem from a faulty premise.

treated as must mean the same as "is".

Sure - they are an ally from a different detachment. I don't dispute that.
Now - what rules govern that?

"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.

**rigeld2**

kambien wrote:
where do you even see me mention change of wargear ? I don't believe i have , you haven't quoted me saying such either

When you ask why wargear doesn't change, that to me is saying that wargear changes.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

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.

As far as GW's rules are concerned they must be the same. 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?

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.

There's dozens more. It's the same as "counts as" being the same as "is".

**Angelic**

rigeld2 wrote:
kambien wrote:
where do you even see me mention change of wargear ? I don't believe i have , you haven't quoted me saying such either

When you ask why wargear doesn't change, that to me is saying that wargear changes.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

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.

As far as GW's rules are concerned they must be the same. 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?

Proves my point. Vehicles are not "defined as" WS1 or WS 0. Vehicles are defined as having a non-existent WS, which will then be "treated as" having differing values based upon the situation. Analogizing to the Battle Brothers, when whether being a friendly or enemy unit is relevant to the situation, they are friendly to said unit. Allies-Battle Brothers persists throughout in relation to that army.

**rigeld2**

Angelic wrote:
Proves my point. Vehicles are not "defined as" WS1 or WS 0. Vehicles are defined as having a non-existent WS, which will then be "treated as" having differing values based upon the situation. Analogizing to the Battle Brothers situation, when whether being a friendly or enemy unit is relevant to the situation, they are friendly. Allies-Battle Brothers persists throughout.

No - they aren't defined as having WS1 or WS0. They simply do. If they didn't, there would be a question as to what you need to hit them in CC. Correct?
It doesn't prove your point at all actually - I'm not sure why you say that. "treat as" must equal "is".

**osirisx69**

This topic has kinda strayed from the OP's original topic. As has been stated in the 1st few post MOST players agree this is not allowed. Take what you can from all the information posted here and decide what is RAW for your gaming group. The most important point I think is that almost all (not all of course) agree the RAI is that it should not be allowed. again lots of great information and insights here though.

**BlackTalos**

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:
Between this thread and the VSG Blast Rules:
This is me: http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/111/795/Image1.png

Lol