i am still new with the game and I don't totally understand the wound allocation rule

in CC, how do you allocate the wounds?

The way I understood is that every unit has to take a wound b4 i can put a second one on a model. But from what I read, the wounds seems to be allocated by equipment instead of just models in units.

every model in the unit must take 1 wound before they can take another.

when rolling saves each group of identical models (same stats and wargear) takes there's together.

When dealing with complex units and lots of shots, there might be several that ignore armour saves. You can allocate wounds as you see fit, so multiple armour ignoring attacks could be stacked on a single group so you lose as few models as possible.

for example

SM squad (5) with a sergeant, special weapon and heavy weapon, is hit by 5 bolter shots and a Krak missile. They cannot take a save against the krak so someone will die. They can stack the missile and another bolter shot on the marine with a heavy weapon. This way you only have to make 4 saves rather then 5. The sergeant must then make one save, he fails he dies. Then the special weapon marine must then make one save, he fails he dies. Finally the other 2 marines must make there saves (one fails you pick which dies).
Had they been hit by two krak missiles both could have been allocated to the heavy weapon marine even though he can only die once.

Tri has it right, although one thing that should be mentioned as well is that with multiple-wound models, if they are armed the same then you have to consolidate the wounds onto one model after they're taken (can't take three wound and put tokens on three different guys at the same time), but if they are armed differently they keep track of their own wounds.

Tri, one thing I've always wondered is, do you distinguish by model name as well?

Hand-to-hand Terminators have a Sergeant and 4 Terminators. Those models all have the exact same stats, and they're all armed identically in this example.

The unit takes two powerweapon wounds and 4 regular wounds. If you put the two powerweapon wounds on the Sergeant and he fails both, do you remove just him, or him and another model?

They are exactly the same in game terms, but technically different due to their name. How would you resolve this?

Similar issue with a model with a bolter, a model with a combi-melta who has already shot, and a model with a combi-melta who has not shot. Are these three different models for wound allocation, or a group of two and one other? If the second one, which two make a group? The ones with the same names, or the ones with the same in-game relevance?

All models must take a wound before you can put a second on another, and this goes for the 3rd wound etc. When rolling the armor saves, models that are equipped the same are rolled together. What this allows you to do is if you have 6 models that are armed differently and you take 10 normal cc wounds and 2 PW wounds you can put the PW on one guy.
Here is an example:

Your nob squad (who is all took wounds) is assaulted by a SM assault squad they hit you 19 times with normal ccw, and 3 times with the PW. The wounds are rolled and there are 10 normal wounds, and 2 PW wounds to save.
(x=armor save, *=PW wound)
Nob1 PK- xx
Nob2 PK, Waagh Banner- xx
Nob3 BC-**
Nob4 BC, BP-xx
Nob5 BC, KS-xx
Nob6 Painboy-xx

This way you will only be loosing 1 guy instead of possibly 2. I hope this helps.

thx guys, this really helps, now I understand how to make my nobz survive even longer XD

somerandomdude wrote:Tri, one thing I've always wondered is, do you distinguish by model name as well?

Yes, although the stats are the same they both have their own statline so they are different groups.

Combi-weapons (and other one shot weapons) are the same equipment even if they've fired, so they don't create complex units (well no more so then including them in the first place).

Tri wrote:

somerandomdude wrote:Tri, one thing I've always wondered is, do you distinguish by model name as well?

Yes, although the stats are the same they both have their own statline so they are different groups.

I view this as a no. Since they are Identical in gaming terms.

even though they have their own statline, this statline is Identical to the rest of his unit.

P.25 under complex units:

"... Identical in gaming terms. by this we mean they have the same profile of characteristics, the same weapons and wargear."

so if a model in a unit has the same statline, rules weapons and wargear you can not allocate wounds as if the model were different.

DeathReaper wrote:
"... Identical in gaming terms. by this we mean they have the same profile of characteristics ...

but they don't have the same profile ... they have identical profiles but they each have their own.

Tri wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:
"... Identical in gaming terms. by this we mean they have the same profile of characteristics ...

but they don't have the same profile ... they have identical profiles but they each have their own.

They each have their own profile yes, but are the profile of characteristics the same? Yes they are, so there can be no wound allocation.

Are these two profile of characteristics the same?

WS BS S T W I A Ld Sv
4 4 4 4 1 4 2 9 2+ Terminator

4 4 4 4 1 4 2 9 2+ Terminator Sergeant

Look at the profiles of characteristics Are they Identical? I.E. is the profile for the Terminator the same as for the Terminator Sergeant?

Yes they are.

There are 9 characteristics for non vehicle models. These 9 are listed on P.6

It does not matter what name is given to the model. they have the same profile of characteristics as long as these 9 characteristics are identical.

but they don't share the same profile of characteristics you've clearly listed both of them ^_^

Tri wrote:but they don't share the same profile of characteristics you've clearly listed both of them ^_^

It does not matter if they share a profile.

It only matters if the Profiles are the same/Identical.

in my above case the profiles are the same/Identical.

DeathReaper wrote:

Tri wrote:but they don't share the same profile of characteristics you've clearly listed both of them ^_^

It does not matter if they share a profile.

It only matters if the Profiles are the same/Identical.

in my above case the profiles are the same/Identical.

what is this identical? I see only same and there are two so they cannot be the same profile.

"... Identical in gaming terms. by this we mean they have the same profile of characteristics ..."

Same = Identical

DeathReaper wrote:"... Identical in gaming terms. by this we mean they have the same profile of characteristics ..."

Same = Identical

4 4 4 4 1 4 2 9 2+ Terminator
4 4 4 4 1 4 2 9 2+ Terminator Sergeant
Two different profile of characteristics so they can't be the same.
Or you might as well 4 4 4 4 1 4 2 9 2+ Terminator/Terminator Sergeant

in this case the seargeant is identical to the troopers as everything but the name of the model is the same. the name of the model is not one of the qulifications listed to distinguish.

Tri wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:"... Identical in gaming terms. by this we mean they have the same profile of characteristics ..."

Same = Identical

4 4 4 4 1 4 2 9 2+ Terminator
4 4 4 4 1 4 2 9 2+ Terminator Sergeant
Two different profile of characteristics so they can't be the same.
Or you might as well 4 4 4 4 1 4 2 9 2+ Terminator/Terminator Sergeant

Except that they are the same

they are identical.

Whats the Weapon Skill on the Terminator Sergeant? 4
Whats the Weapon Skill on the Terminator? 4
How is 4 not the same as 4?

The same goes for BS, S, T, W, I, A, Ld, and Sv values, they are all the same.

Just because they are listed in two different places does not mean they are not the same/Identical in gaming terms.

You are using same == equivalent
He is using "same" as in "actually identical"
If you have to of "x" they cannot be the same.

I see what you mean Nos.

They are not the same profile but the profiles are the same.

Stupid english.

Still no wound allocation, since the WS and all other stats and wargear are Indentical to each other.

"Identical in game terms" would mean "identical in every way that the game can have influence."

The question is whether or not the game cares about the names of models within groups, and more specifically whether the game cares about the difference between "Terminator Sergeant" and "Terminator". I don't believe it does, but I can see where Tri is coming from (which is why I asked the question).

Also, Tri, I disagree with you about the combi weapons, as a used combi-melta and an unused combi-melta are different in game terms. The question then is whether a used combi-melta is different from a regular bolter. I appreciate the discussion though, as usually I can't get a response from someone, and while I know how I feel about it, I can see how others might rule and wanted more input.

somerandomdude wrote:"Identical in game terms" would mean "identical in every way that the game can have influence."

The question is whether or not the game cares about the names of models within groups, and more specifically whether the game cares about the difference between "Terminator Sergeant" and "Terminator". I don't believe it does, but I can see where Tri is coming from (which is why I asked the question).

Also, Tri, I disagree with you about the combi weapons, as a used combi-melta and an unused combi-melta are different in game terms. The question then is whether a used combi-melta is different from a regular bolter. I appreciate the discussion though, as usually I can't get a response from someone, and while I know how I feel about it, I can see how others might rule and wanted more input.

Used Combi-weapon is a combi-weapon a bolter is a bolter. No over lap.

I'll admit I'm trolling slightly on the profiles but it still remains why else are they given sergeants if sergeants are in no way different.

Tri wrote:Snip.
I'll admit I'm trolling slightly on the profiles but it still remains why else are they given sergeants if sergeants are in no way different.

A lot of things they write do not make sense to me.

I have no idea why they did not lump them into one, maybe for wargear upgrades like the sergeant can take X weapon or whatever?

somerandomdude wrote:
Also, Tri, I disagree with you about the combi weapons, as a used combi-melta and an unused combi-melta are different in game terms. The question then is whether a used combi-melta is different from a regular bolter. I appreciate the discussion though, as usually I can't get a response from someone, and while I know how I feel about it, I can see how others might rule and wanted more input.

I think a used combi-melta is different from a regular bolter.

This is because you have a model armed with a combi-melta even though he shot the melta part of it, he still holds a combi-melta.

Though a used combi-melta is the same as someone with an unused combi-melta.

DeathReaper wrote:Though a used combi-melta is the same as someone with an unused combi-melta.

How?

I'm sorry for not adding much to the discussion with this post, but can someone please explain to me how those two weapons don't "stand out in game terms?"

Because they are both armed with a combi-melta, it does not matter that one has expended its ammo, you bought 2 models each with a combi-melta so they are one group.


They have the same weapons, a used combi-melta is still a combi-melta.

DeathReaper wrote:They have the same weapons, a used combi-melta is still a combi-melta.

But, those are not the same in game terms. The combi-profile has changed (either becoming non-existent or saying "0 shots"). If it doesn't change, then you would always have "1 shot" available. Something hidden inside the game must occur in order for you to suddenly not be able to shoot the alternate ammo again, which means that those are no longer the same weapons.

If they were the same weapons, they would have the same options available to them, and be able to do the same things. Once one of them shoots their alternate ammo, they can no longer do the same things.

DeathReaper wrote:A lot of things they write do not make sense to me.

I have no idea why they did not lump them into one, maybe for war gear upgrades like the sergeant can take X weapon or whatever?

well may be its to be complete on assault terminators. As it stands there is a good argument that they can. Yay for GW and their roll a D6.

somerandomdude wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:They have the same weapons, a used combi-melta is still a combi-melta.

But, those are not the same in game terms. The combi-profile has changed (either becoming non-existent or saying "0 shots"). If it doesn't change, then you would always have "1 shot" available. Something hidden inside the game must occur in order for you to suddenly not be able to shoot the alternate ammo again, which means that those are no longer the same weapons.

If they were the same weapons, they would have the same options available to them, and be able to do the same things. Once one of them shoots their alternate ammo, they can no longer do the same things.

its still a combi weapon though ... same with wounds; model may lose a wound but it still has the same profile.

somerandomdude wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:They have the same weapons, a used combi-melta is still a combi-melta.

But, those are not the same in game terms. The combi-profile has changed (either becoming non-existent or saying "0 shots"). If it doesn't change, then you would always have "1 shot" available. Something hidden inside the game must occur in order for you to suddenly not be able to shoot the alternate ammo again, which means that those are no longer the same weapons.

If they were the same weapons, they would have the same options available to them, and be able to do the same things. Once one of them shoots their alternate ammo, they can no longer do the same things.

A combi-melta with 0 shots in the melta is still a combi-melta.

remember the requirement is:

"... Identical in gaming terms. by this we mean they have the same profile of characteristics, the same weapons and wargear." P.25

so if it has the same wargear, in this case a combi-melta, then it fits the requirement.

DeathReaper wrote:Whats the Weapon Skill on the Terminator Sergeant? 4
Whats the Weapon Skill on the Terminator? 4
How is 4 not the same as 4?

How is 'Terminator Sergeant' the same as 'Terminator'...?

They're only identical if you don't count the name as a part of the profile line. Which I see no reason to do.

insaniak wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Whats the Weapon Skill on the Terminator Sergeant? 4
Whats the Weapon Skill on the Terminator? 4
How is 4 not the same as 4?

How is 'Terminator Sergeant' the same as 'Terminator'...?

They're only identical if you don't count the name as a part of the profile line. Which I see no reason to do.

The profile of characteristics has to be the same.

There are 9 characteristics for non vehicle models. These 9 are listed on P.6

Nowhere does it mention the name of the unit on P.6, so we can not include that as a part of the profile of characteristics.

It's not one of the characteristics. It's still a part of the profile.

insaniak wrote:It's not one of the characteristics. It's still a part of the profile.

Sorry, I forgot the important quote:

"... Identical in gaming terms. by this we mean they have the same profile of characteristics, the same weapons and wargear." P.25

By this they only have to have the same profile of characteristics, anything else does not count as far as the rules are concerned.

DeathReaper wrote:

insaniak wrote:It's not one of the characteristics. It's still a part of the profile.

Sorry, I forgot the important quote:

"... Identical in gaming terms. by this we mean they have the same profile of characteristics, the same weapons and wargear." P.25

By this they only have to have the same profile of characteristics, anything else does not count as far as the rules are concerned.

Except that have different profiles Eg, turn to the back of your BA codex, note how they have two different profiles.
The issue isn't "the numbers in the profiles are the same" the issue is you're saying that profile and this profile are the same one - when they're different entries.

Also, for BA at least the Seargent had a PS. Shock-horror, different wargear.

ChrisCP wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

insaniak wrote:It's not one of the characteristics. It's still a part of the profile.

Sorry, I forgot the important quote:

"... Identical in gaming terms. by this we mean they have the same profile of characteristics, the same weapons and wargear." P.25

By this they only have to have the same profile of characteristics, anything else does not count as far as the rules are concerned.

Except that have different profiles Eg, turn to the back of your BA codex, note how they have two different profiles.
The issue isn't "the numbers in the profiles are the same" the issue is you're saying that profile and this profile are the same one - when they're different entries.

Also, for BA at least the Seargent had a PS. Shock-horror, different wargear.

They do not have different profiles where the game is concerned. They are 'Identical in gaming terms.' since they have the same profile of characteristics, the same weapons and wargear.

Terminator Assault squad sgt has the exact profile and wargear as the rest of the Terminators in his squad.

so you can not allocate wounds to him.

No, they different profiles (look in the back of a codex/BRB) with the same characteristics. Difficult concept to grasp. I know, here's some examples to help illustrate! Starting with SM; Apothecary - who is a - Veteran Sergeant - who is - Death Company - is a - Veteran - Wolf Guard, these guys all have the same stats in their profile but different profiles.

They are not the same profile but the profiles are the same. (for game purposes I.E. the profile of characteristics are identical, which is the only thing the rules care about.)

In your example if all those guys were in one unit and all had the same wargear and rules, then you could not allocate wounds to anyone.

Since they have the same profile of characteristics.

DeathReaper wrote:They are not the same profile but the profiles are the same. (for game purposes I.E. the profile of characteristics are identical, which is the only thing the rules care about.)
In your example if all those guys were in one unit and all had the same wargear and rules, then you could not allocate wounds to anyone.
Since they have the same profile of characteristics.

Nope, different profiles containing the same characteristics. Again look in the bask of any army bok and you will most likley find more instances of this.

Right different profiles that are Identical in gaming terms.

P.25 under complex units:

"... Identical in gaming terms. by this we mean they have the same profile of characteristics, the same weapons and wargear."

They are different profiles with the same profile of characteristics.

Yes 'the same profile of characteristics', they do not have the same profile.

An example of 'the same profile of characteristics' is two archons joined with identical wargear but one has S6 due to soul-trap - if it wasn't for this they would be identicle and one couldn't allocate.

DeathReaper wrote:By this they only have to have the same profile of characteristics, anything else does not count as far as the rules are concerned.

Yes. And models with different names don't have the same profile of characteristics, because the name on that profile is different.

It doesn't say that only the characteristics have to be the same. It says the profile has to be the same. Different name = different profile, regardless of whether or not those profiles have the same characteristic values.

Rulebook p.6

To represent the different abilities of these creatures in the game, each model has a profile made up of nine numbers that describe the various aspects of their physical and mental make-up. These are called characteristics.

A profile consists of the 9 stats. The name is not part of a profile the way that reads.

Just to be clear they have the same "characteristics" but not the same "profile of characteristics" subtle difference.

bonerjamz wrote:Rulebook p.6

To represent the different abilities of these creatures in the game, each model has a profile made up of nine numbers that describe the various aspects of their physical and mental make-up. These are called characteristics.

A profile consists of the 9 stats. The name is not part of a profile the way that reads.

Yes, the profile is made up of the 9 stats. It has a name tag that then tells you what that profile belongs to. The name is therefore an inherent part of the profile... as without it, the profile is a meaningless bunch of numbers.

I'm with DeathReaper on this one, as the characteristics are the same in the two profiles, which is what we're looking for, we are NOT looking for two different profiles with the same characteristics.
In my eyes, as it says "the same profile OF characteristics, etc", it seems that the actual characteristics being the same is the most important part, and, as has been pointed out before, names are not part of the profile per se, but are simply used to identify the profile.
My musings...

So I can apply wounds to my gargoyles when my termagants get hit?

kirsanth wrote:So I can apply wounds to my gargoyles when my termagants get hit?

Are they part of the same unit?

Sure.

Really?

I would have left it at that as one-liner, indeed one-word, posts were apparently OK.

In the end it doesn't matter. Termagants and Gargoyles don't share wound-group. Not necessarily for reasons of having different names and an identical stat-line, but rather because they have different special rules.

I'm curious when this could possibly come up. And then I'm curious when it could possibly matter.

Honestly. Is there an example of how this could happen? And just for a pre-argument, if we have to go to Apoc or some game where we have multiple Codecies involved, we're into house-rule territory.

I will say that kirsanth brings up a good point. Is the unit type included in the nine statistics. The strict reading of profile of characteristics seems to argue that it wouldn't be included, which seems a little silly. (but then again, we all know that RAW doesn't always make sense)

Rulebook wrote:PG. 6 - To represent the different abilities of these creatures in the game, each model has a profile made up of nine numbers that describe the various aspects of their physical and mental make-up. These are called characteristics.

P.25 under complex units:
"... Identical in gaming terms. by this we mean they have the same profile of characteristics, the same weapons and wargear."

I quoted these together since they were on different pages of the thread to make it easier as to what people where referring to.

A don't have the BRB on me but it seems there could be a loophole in which the Name is not considered for determining Complex units.

But just as the previous poster asked. When would this even come up that would actually make some sort of difference. If there was a Sergeant in a normal unit with the same characteristics and wargear then does it matter if he has to take a wound?
I am guessing this is an argument over just what is the right way in the rules but it just doesn't looks like it would ever matter in a real game...

The point made about Gargoyles and Termagaunts is kind of irrelevant, as the two can never be in the same unit...

kirsanth may have not brought up a real game example but thats almost the point. Are there any actual real game relevant situations?

I know I can't think of any relevant ones and if such a situation like a Gargoyle and Termagaunt unit existed, which would be the only relevant type of situation that I can think of, then how would it be played?

These are the types of situations that we are discussing right?

Edit: And if there are not any relevant real game situations and no one wants to discuss hypothetical ones, then whats the point?

While the models have the same characteristics they do not share the same profile.

Sternguard/ Vanguard Veteran (van maybe equipped the same) and Assault Terminators do not share the same profile as their Sergeants; they otherwise is identical.

As we are checking to see if the same profile of characteristics is used (not the same characteristics) these sergeants are clearly using a different one to every one else.

So, for clarity, the way people are using "same": the name tells you to look up to the entry and read the indicated line, line 1. Now, the segeant's entry has a different name, and tells you to read line 2. Even if line 1 and 2 have identical contents, they aren't the "same profile." You're looking for models using the same entry, not just the same values. Basically, you're using it as "self-same." Am I understanding you guys correctly?

Again I ask when this could come up and actually matter. If the models all have the same profile, then it doesn't really matter which one dies, since nothing is lost. If the Sergeant doesn't even have an extra point of Ld or another attack it hardly matters if they die. The only impact would be one model on the table vs another, which *could* matter, but only if the sergeant were the only one in assault range, or something. The only other time would be when it's multi-wound models, so you can pull a very minor bit of wound allocation abuse. Are there any examples of this?

Right they do not share a profile but the profiles are Identical in gaming terms. and being 'Identical in gaming terms.' is what matters. as per P.25

I will use the example I used earlier:

WS BS S T W I A Ld Sv
4 4 4 4 1 4 2 9 2+ Terminator

4 4 4 4 1 4 2 9 2+ Terminator Sergeant

all 9 characteristics are identical.

let us assume that both these models have the same weapons, wargear, and rules.

These two models would be identical in gaming terms. I.E. the same WS, BS, S, T, W, I, A, Ld, and Sv values.

P.25 under complex units:

"The rules for taking saving throws and removing casualties, as presented so far, assume that all the models in the target unit are Identical in gaming terms. by this we mean they have the same profile of characteristics, the same weapons and wargear."

and Kir, yes you can apply wounds to your gargoyles when your termagants get hit, if they could join onto one big unit, and they had the same weapons and wargear, and all their characteristics are Identical in gaming terms.

ElCheezus wrote:So, for clarity, the way people are using "same": the name tells you to look up to the entry and read the indicated line, line 1. Now, the segeant's entry has a different name, and tells you to read line 2. Even if line 1 and 2 have identical contents, they aren't the "same profile." You're looking for models using the same entry, not just the same values. Basically, you're using it as "self-same." Am I understanding you guys correctly?

Again I ask when this could come up and actually matter. If the models all have the same profile, then it doesn't really matter which one dies, since nothing is lost. If the Sergeant doesn't even have an extra point of Ld or another attack it hardly matters if they die. The only impact would be one model on the table vs another, which *could* matter, but only if the sergeant were the only one in assault range, or something. The only other time would be when it's multi-wound models, so you can pull a very minor bit of wound allocation abuse. Are there any examples of this?

your 5 men get shot at by a IG blob you take 10 Lasgun wounds and 3 plasma wounds. Since he doesn't use the same profile i can stack all three plasma wounds on the sergeant, he's otherwise identical so no loss by him taking the brunt of it.

You'd go from definitely loosing 3 models (most likely all 5 as i'd fail at some of the ten lasgun saves) to definitely losing 1.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DeathReaper wrote:Right they do not share a profile but the profiles are Identical in gaming terms. and being 'Identical in gaming terms.' is what matters. as per P.25

But they're not Identical in gaming terms they do not share the same profile.

Tri wrote: your 5 men get shot at by a IG blob you take 10 Lasgun wounds and 3 plasma wounds. Since he doesn't use the same profile i can stack all three plasma wounds on the sergeant, he's otherwise identical so no loss by him taking the brunt of it.

You'd go from definitely loosing 3 models (most likely all 5 as i'd fail at some of the ten lasgun saves) to definitely losing 1.

That's a good point. And a good example of how wound allocation is dumb. Dumb dumb dumb. More shooting should never amount to fewer casualties.

DR - you are still missing the entirely valid point: they are not the SAME profile.

They are 2, separate profiles. While the stats are the same numbers, that is NOT the criteria. It has to be the EXACT SAME profile.

Yes, I was making an obviously assinine example in what seems to be a deliberately obtuse situation.

Characteristic Profiles start with the unit's name, see page 7. Otherwise you are simply listing numbers.

kirsanth wrote:Yes, I was making an obviously assinine example in what seems to be a deliberately obtuse situation.

Characteristic Profiles start with the unit's name, see page 7. Otherwise you are simply listing numbers.

Exactly! P.7 Under Characteristic Profiles.

"Each model in warhammer 40k has a profile that lists the value of its characteristics"

so we now know that the profile is a list of its characteristics.

In my example above they are "Identical in gaming terms. by this we mean they have the same profile of characteristics, the same weapons and wargear."

Ergo: the value of its characteristics must be the same. and since they are, there is no allocation.

nosferatu1001 wrote:DR - you are still missing the entirely valid point: they are not the SAME profile.

They are 2, separate profiles. While the stats are the same numbers, that is NOT the criteria. It has to be the EXACT SAME profile.

They are not the same profile but they are 'Identical in gaming terms.'

Where does it say they need to be the EXACT SAME profile? It doesn't. So the profiles(value of its characteristics) only need to be identical.

Stop adding exact in there, when it does not say that.

You are adding a qualifier that does not exist (shocking to everyone, I know)

It says they have to have the SAME profile. Do they have the same profile? NO, because the profiles are separate.

they may have the same values, but that is not what is asked.

For the 90th time, your argument has not altered now in two pages. If you stop repeating the same words over and over, and explain things differently, this may continue.

Nos has called a "Threefold repetition" stalemate. New arguments only!

nosferatu1001 wrote:You are adding a qualifier that does not exist (shocking to everyone, I know)

It says they have to have the SAME profile. Do they have the same profile? NO, because the profiles are separate.

they may have the same values, but that is not what is asked.

For the 90th time, your argument has not altered now in two pages. If you stop repeating the same words over and over, and explain things differently, this may continue.

But that is what they asked.

They ask for all the models in a unit to be "Identical in gaming terms."

"Identical in gaming terms." means "have the same profile of characteristics"

"have the same profile of characteristics" means "has a profile that lists the value of its characteristics"

So the value of its characteristics needs to be identical, and in my example above they are.

Same in this instance means "Identical in gaming terms."

It is you that have added the qualifier in this case, not me.

remember the partially on area of the base discussion?

and remember how GW FaQ stated that on meant on, not partially on, like you were adding, same applies here.

For those of you that missed it: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/315833.page

DeathReaper wrote:"Identical in gaming terms." means "have the same profile of characteristics"

So I can just take an entire squad of Terminator Sergeants, then? Since they're identical in gaming terms to regular Terminators? That will be handy for fielding cheap power-sword-equipped assault squads...

"have the same profile of characteristics" means "has a profile that lists the value of its characteristics"

Except it doesn't. It means they have to have the same profile, which means the profiles have to be identical.

A profile labelled 'Terminator Sergeant is not identical to a profile labelled 'Terminator'.

It is you that have added the qualifier in this case, not me.

How is ignoring a specific part of the profile because it doesn't fit your definition not adding a qualifier?

DeathReaper wrote:

P.25 under complex units:

"... Identical in gaming terms. by this we mean they have the same profile of characteristics, the same weapons and wargear."

DeathReaper wrote:
P.25 under complex units:

"The rules for taking saving throws and removing casualties, as presented so far, assume that all the models in the target unit are Identical in gaming terms. by this we mean they have the same profile of characteristics, the same weapons and wargear."

DeathReaper wrote:
Exactly! P.7 Under Characteristic Profiles.

"Each model in warhammer 40k has a profile that lists the value of its characteristics"

so we now know that the profile is a list of its characteristics.

In my example above they are "Identical in gaming terms. by this we mean they have the same profile of characteristics, the same weapons and wargear."

While it has no impact on the argument presented, this annoys me to no end.

When directly or indirectly quoting the rules, please take care to quote the relevant rules correctly.

The relevant wording on page 25 is;

"By this we mean they have the same profile of characteristics, the same special rules and the same weapons and wargear"

insaniak wrote:A profile labelled 'Terminator Sergeant is not identical to a profile labelled 'Terminator'.

It is if they "have the same the same profile of characteristics, the same special rules and the same weapons and wargear"


@Steelmage99 & insaniak It was stated earlier that we were talking about Terminator Assault Squads, I should have included the whole quote.


So you can take 5 "Terminator Assault Sergeants" because what you name them has no bearing on the game.

where as Terminator Sergeants are different than Terminators because the Terminator Sergeants have power swords and the Terminators have Power Fists. but that is the only difference in game terms.

DeathReaper wrote:WS BS S T W I A Ld Sv
4 4 4 4 1 4 2 9 2+ Terminator

4 4 4 4 1 4 2 9 2+ Terminator Sergeant

... back on page one you kindly typed this out. Two identical profile, two different profile of characteristics.

DR

"have the same profile of characteristics" means "has a profile that lists the value of its characteristics"

that's your unsupported leap, and the bit you keep failing on.

You are asked for the same [profile of characteristics]. You have TWO profiles of characteristics, therefore they cannot ever satisfy the requirement to be the same.

Now, can you avoid making your unsupported leap for, ooh, at least one post? Pretty please?

Cheers for reminding everyone that you didnt believe the hammer was on the table, good one! You do realise if GW FAQs it it normally means it was a rules change? No? Oh well.

nosferatu1001 wrote:DR

Cheers for reminding everyone that you didnt believe the hammer was on the table, good one! You do realise if GW FAQs it it normally means it was a rules change? No? Oh well.

To be fair, it doesn't have to. It can equally mean; "This is what we meant all along. Now stop asking these frequent questions about it."

Or:

Noone was asking this question, but we answered it anyway

Yeah, they tend to do that too. Often at the expense of answering "real" questions.

DeathReaper wrote:It is if they "have the same the same profile of characteristics, the same special rules and the same weapons and wargear"

Which they don't, because their profiles have different names.

DeathReaper wrote:

kirsanth wrote:Yes, I was making an obviously assinine example in what seems to be a deliberately obtuse situation.

Characteristic Profiles start with the unit's name, see page 7. Otherwise you are simply listing numbers.

Exactly!

Awesome. So referencing a profile that includes that includes those names and saying it is the same as a profile that does not is simply wrong.

[dons professorial airs and gets long winded]

When defining characteristic profiles the wording on pg. 7 is "a profile that lists the value of its characteristics" and not "a profile consisting of its characteristics." Clearly indicating that a profile can contain more than just characteristics. Then they usefully give you a couple of profiles these do in fact have more than just characteristics in them. So I think it's incontrovertible that a profile also contains the name. Similarly, from the heading of the section and the contents of the section we can be certain that "characteristic profile" and "profile" are interchangeable terms.

Now if GW wrote rules instead of sieves, on pg 25 they would have said "By this we mean have the same characteristic profile, the same special rules, blah, blah." and there wouldn't be a problem. Instead they introduce "profile of characteristics." A term that has never been defined.

So you either have to assume "profile of characteristics" = "characteristic profile" or you have to start guessing at what "profile of characteristics" means.

One of these seems far simpler and more likely than the other.

Either way it needs to be assiciated with a unit, thus the name included as part of the profile.

nosferatu1001 wrote:DR

"have the same profile of characteristics" means "has a profile that lists the value of its characteristics"

that's your unsupported leap, and the bit you keep failing on.

You are asked for the same [profile of characteristics]. You have TWO profiles of characteristics, therefore they cannot ever satisfy the requirement to be the same.

Now, can you avoid making your unsupported leap for, ooh, at least one post? Pretty please?

Cheers for reminding everyone that you didnt believe the hammer was on the table, good one! You do realise if GW FAQs it it normally means it was a rules change? No? Oh well.

If you read it, I said the hammer was only partially on the table.

Here is the support you are looking for

insaniak wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:It is if they "have the same profile of characteristics, the same special rules and the same weapons and wargear"

Which they don't, because their profiles have different names.

The names do not enter into it. P.7 says that a profile that lists the value of its characteristics.

we have two profiles of characteristics that are the same since the 'profile lists the value of its characteristics', and these need to be 'Identical in gaming terms.' which they are.

a name is not one of the characteristics on P.6, there are 9 characteristics, WS, BS, S, T, W, I, A, Ld, and Sv.

no names, just numbers. The bold above states that 'profile of characteristics' or 'characteristic profile' is 'a profile that lists the value of its characteristics'

and P.6 shows us what 9 characteristics there are.

"have the same profile of characteristics" means "has a profile that lists the value of its characteristics"


The terminator assault squad lists terminators and terminator sergeant, and they are 'Identical in gaming terms.'

If you can show where they are not 'Identical in gaming terms.' (which you cant because they "have the same the same profile of characteristics, the same special rules and the same weapons and wargear")

Its not the same profile but the profiles are the same/Identical in gaming terms. It only matters if the two profiles are 'Identical in gaming terms.'

by them saying that they need to be 'Identical in gaming terms.' means they can be 2 different profiles as long as the value of the characteristics are identical in both profiles.

look at P.7 after they list the ork and the SM profiles. "As you can see, they are similar in some respects. They have the same weapon skill"

How can they have the same weapon skill, they are two different profiles?

I.E. same = Identical as I have pointed out. and not Exact same as you contend nos. just like models moving on from reserve need to move onto the table and not partially on, stop adding Exact as a qualifier for same.

there you go nos.

kirsanth wrote:Either way it needs to be assiciated with a unit, thus the name included as part of the profile.

But if you're making up rules for an undefined term it doesn't have to include the name. Your "profile of characteristics" includes a name but someone else can have a "profile of characteristics" that is just a collection of characteristics. You might even get a three page thread of argument about this!

Which is why it is so much easier to just go with "profile of characteristics" = "characteristic profile" and move on with life.

kmdl1066 wrote:But if you're making up rules for an undefined term it doesn't have to include the name. Your "profile of characteristics" includes a name but someone else can have a "profile of characteristics" that is just a collection of characteristics. You might even get a three page thread of argument about this!

Which is why it is so much easier to just go with "profile of characteristics" = "characteristic profile" and move on with life.

and we also know that "profile of characteristics" = "characteristic profile" is a 'profile lists the value of its characteristics', value is something with a number, a name is not a number.

Which profile are you refering to, DeathReaper?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirsanth wrote:Which profile are you refering to, DeathReaper?

Editing to add:
The profiles listed in the rules start with names, prior to the defined characteristics. I would think that you should provide examples of every single model having a profile without a name to differentiate it before you have any grounds to insinuate your interpretation of any rules.

If part of the text included in a profile (its name) needs to be ignored, prove it.

kmdl1066 wrote:Snip.
"profile of characteristics" = "characteristic profile" ...

I was referring to the above.

seems they should be synonymous. The profile of characteristics is the characteristic profile.

and that characteristic profile lists the value of its characteristics.

and value is a number, a name is not a number, so names do not enter into it.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirsanth wrote:Which profile are you refering to, DeathReaper?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirsanth wrote:Which profile are you refering to, DeathReaper?

Editing to add:
The profiles listed in the rules start with names, prior to the defined characteristics. I would think that you should providw examples of every single model having a profiles without a name to differentiate it before you have any grounds to insinuate you interpretation of any rules.

If the part of the text of a profile (its name) needs to be ignored, prove it.

No, the characteristics are defined before the names ever come into it.

characteristics P.6
characteristic profile P.7

DeathReaper wrote:
No, the characteristics are defined before the names ever come into it.

characteristics P.6
characteristic profile P.7

So which profile is for the ork without referincing the part of the profile that identifies the ork?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I apologize if it sounds like a question directed at an idiot.

DeathReaper wrote:
look at P.7 after they list the ork and the SM profiles. "As you can see, they are similar in some respects. They have the same weapon skill"

Look at p. 7 where they list the Ork Boy and Space Marine profiles. Each profile contains a name and nine characteristics.

Just because each model "has a profile that lists the value of its characteristics" does not mean that a profile consists only of characteristics. "A recipe lists the ingredients required to prepare a dish" does not imply that a recipe consists only of a list of ingredients, merely that within a recipe you will find a list of ingredients.

For the ork
What is the value of the WS?
What is the value of the BS?
What is the value of the S?
What is the value of the T?
What is the value of the W?
What is the value of the I?
What is the value of the A?
What is the value of the Ld?
What is the value of the Sv?.

What is the value of the ork?

9 of these have values, one does not, that is why you do not count the name among the value of its characteristics.

DeathReaper wrote:For the ork

And. . . scene.

How do you know it is an ork?

Editing to add:
The obvious answer does not help.

DeathReaper wrote:
What is the value of the ork?

9 of these have values, one does not, that is why you do not count the name among the value of its characteristics.

Red herring. The name is clearly not a characteristic. You are insisting that a profile can only consist of characteristics when the most cursory of glances at the sample profiles provided on page 7 show that they consist of a name and nine characteristics.

Note the unit composition: The Sarge is listed as a completely different model. It's no longer even about the same profile, but rather a completely different model that just so happens to have the same characteristics.

But honestly, this only applies to two units in the game (as far as I can tell, as every other case where two units shared the same profile has different wargear, thereby fulfilling the second part of the rule, or have a statistics difference) and probably only the Assault Terminator Sarge will ever get to use this bit of rule lawyering ever, as the Sternguard one will likely have different wargear, letting him legitimately use the wound allocation rule.

"By this we mean they have the same profile" What do profiles contain? "of characteristics, the same special rules and the same weapons and wargear."
Two differently named profiles are not the same profile.

As above.

DR - you seem to still not understand, despite it being pointed out to you, that your substitution is unfounded in the rules, and breaks a point of logic.

There is, as ever, no arguing with you.

Just to throw some petrol on the fire:

The name of the unit has absolutely no impact "in gaming terms". If the ork in the example was actually called 'Fungi Monster' or whatever, he would still be, in gaming terms, identical.

I arrived at the same conclusion as DR but from a different angle.

Soup and a roll wrote:Just to throw some petrol on the fire:

The name of the unit has absolutely no impact "in gaming terms". If the ork in the example was actually called 'Fungi Monster' or whatever, he would still be, in gaming terms, identical.

I arrived at the same conclusion as DR but from a different angle.

There is one case where this is true. Pink and blue horrors and this is because they have the same statline, not two identical statlines.

Do they not have different rules/wargear? I'm not up on the deamons codex.

Soup and a roll wrote:Do they not have different rules/wargear? I'm not up on the deamons codex.

nope they're essentially two different models for the same unit. Think that an age ago there was some difference but not now.

Tri wrote:Think that an age ago there was some difference but not now.

Not that long ago, whippersnapper!

I suppose people will play the WA rules the same for the horrors as they do for Space marine Termies then, one way or the other.

Soup and a roll wrote:Not that long ago, whippersnapper!

I suppose people will play the WA rules the same for the horrors as they do for Space marine Termies then, one way or the other.

(Back in 3rd i had no money so i have no codices from that far back).

... trouble is horrors share a profile, Sgts don't they have their own which means they can never share the same profile with the rest of the unit.

If that is true, I agree. It is not the same thing.

I still think that the sergeant is identical 'in gaming terms' to his squaddies. It would have no effect on the squad or the battle if there were three sgts and two troopers, or if one of the termies was actually called Bob the terminator (other than being illegal). I don't think the proviso would be there if the rules meant they had to share a single profile.

Soup and a roll wrote:If that is true, I agree. It is not the same thing.

I still think that the sergeant is identical 'in gaming terms' to his squaddies. It would have no effect on the squad or the battle if there were three sgts and two troopers, or if one of the termies was actually called Bob the terminator (other than being illegal). I don't think the proviso would be there if the rules meant they had to share a single profile.

But it clearly asks you if they do have the same profile of characteristics. They don't so they're a complex unit.

But if a used combi-weapon is treated identical to an unused combi-weapon for the sake of wound allocation, what happens if you have two combi-weapons in one unit, fire one of them and then one dies? Wouldn't just wound allocating make sense?

Ziggy Stardust wrote:But if a used combi-weapon is treated identical to an unused combi-weapon for the sake of wound allocation, what happens if you have two combi-weapons in one unit, fire one of them and then one dies? Wouldn't just wound allocating make sense?

One of the them die, you pick which (I'd kill the one that has all ready fired). This because they are armed the same (unless one has a different type of combi-weapon)

Are the models armed with a combi-weapon?

I do not think there is a way to prove that firing the weapon makes it a differet weapon.

I think it's odd that in one case, we have models being allocated separately because their names are different, but there is no relevant change for the game, but in the other situation we have two models being allocated wounds together because they have the same name, even though they do in fact have different effects on the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirsanth wrote:I do not think there is a way to prove that firing the weapon makes it a differet weapon.

Do they have the same options available?

If not, then I don't see how they could be anything other than different. Same name does not counter different abilities.

somerandomdude wrote:I think it's odd that in one case, we have models being allocated separately because their names are different, but there is no relevant change for the game, but in the other situation we have two models being allocated wounds together because they have the same name, even though they do in fact have different effects on the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirsanth wrote:I do not think there is a way to prove that firing the weapon makes it a differet weapon.

Do they have the same options available?

If not, then I don't see how they could be anything other than different. Same name does not counter different abilities.

A sternguard is uniformly equipped with combi-flamers. Some models have fired others haven't. They take several wounds so we check to see if they are a complex unit.

The sgt has his own profile so is different to every one else.
Models with combi-flamers are all the same as they all have the same wargear, even though some cannot fire them any more. A sensible person removes the combi weapons that have fired first.

I know you have been arguing with DR for several pages, but all I'm getting (from anyone who disagrees with me - my brother, my friends, other posters) is more examples, and not a reason.

How do these models not stand out? Does "before game" or "when the game starts" really matter after the game has begun?

What exactly happens when a combi-weapon is fired? Does it not change anything? Doesn't it make one profile unavailable, which means that the profiles are in fact different?

somerandomdude wrote:I know you have been arguing with DR for several pages, but all I'm getting (from anyone who disagrees with me - my brother, my friends, other posters) is more examples, and not a reason.

How do these models not stand out? Does "before game" or "when the game starts" really matter after the game has begun?

What exactly happens when a combi-weapon is fired? Does it not change anything? Doesn't it make one profile unavailable, which means that the profiles are in fact different?

we're not asked about wargear status just ...
the same profile of characteristics, the same weapons and wargear ...

Does the model have the same ...
profile of characteristics
same weapons
wargear
...then they're treated as the same.

Terminator Sgt has his own profile so he cannot share the same profile of characteristics even though they may have the same stats.

Fired combi weapons are still combi weapons, so they are treated the same.

Tri wrote:Fired combi weapons are still combi weapons, so they are treated the same.

Except that one is a combi weapon that can be used, and one is a combi weapon that can not be used.

Not the same, IMO.

insaniak wrote:

Tri wrote:Fired combi weapons are still combi weapons, so they are treated the same.

Except that one is a combi weapon that can be used, and one is a combi weapon that can not be used.

Not the same, IMO.

the same ... as far as complex units are concerns not other game dynamics.

But that's the point. The complex units rule calls for you to determine whether or not the models are the same for game purposes.

A model with a combi weapon that is still usable is not the same for game purposes as a model with a combi weapon that it can not use... because it has a combi weapon that is usable, whereas the other model doesn't.

The whole point of the complex units rule is to separate out models that are different so that you don't have to try to figure out how the wounds are applied. Treating both combi weapons as the same leaves you having to figure out whether the model you remove as a casualty is the one with the working weapon or not... which is exactly the sort of situation that the rule is supposed to prevent.

insaniak wrote:The whole point of the complex units rule is to separate out models that are different so that you don't have to try to figure out how the wounds are applied. Treating both combi weapons as the same leaves you having to figure out whether the model you remove as a casualty is the one with the working weapon or not... which is exactly the sort of situation that the rule is supposed to prevent.

I see your point ... still unsure but i can see that as an option.

Profile A is still different than Profile B right?

I have never found a rule that suggests that a profile containing identical numers is actually the exact same profile as an entirely different profile that contains those same numbers. The fact that those profiles are named differently makes them not indentical in any terms--let alone gaming terms. The name is still part of the profile.

Insaniak - the list is inclusive and exhaustive; whether a combi weapon can fire or not is NOT on that list, and therefore does not "count" for wound allocation purposes.

Yes, they are different. But NOT as far as wound allocation is concerned.

insaniak wrote:

Tri wrote:Fired combi weapons are still combi weapons, so they are treated the same.

Except that one is a combi weapon that can be used, and one is a combi weapon that can not be used.

Not the same, IMO.

Wasn't this actually addressed in an faq somewhere? I'm not sure if it is the core rules =(

nosferatu1001 wrote:Insaniak - the list is inclusive and exhaustive; whether a combi weapon can fire or not is NOT on that list, and therefore does not "count" for wound allocation purposes.

Whether or not a combi weapon can fire is not. But the model can be considered as having different weaponry (due to having a weapon that is no longer usable) which is on the list.

ChrisCP wrote:Wasn't this actually addressed in an faq somewhere? I'm not sure if it is the core rules =(

The closest so far as I'm aware is addressing limited shot weapon on vehicles:

Rulebook FAQ wrote:A: No. Once a weapon cannot possibly fire again during
the battle it is effectively destroyed as far as Damaged -
Weapon Destroyed results on the Vehicle Damage table
are concerned.

...which could be seen as a precedent for counting the used 'combi' part of the combi-weapon as no longer a weapon for game purposes... but isn't really a hard and fast rule.

Ultimately, though, you have one possible interpretation (a used and an unused combi weapon are effectively the same) which requires you to create a house rule when the unit takes casualties, to determine which of the models is removed... and you have another possible interpretation (that a weapon that is still usable and a weapon that is not usable are not the same in game terms) which allows you to just carry on with the game.

While everyone is free to draw their own conclusions, obviously, I'm inclined to go with the interpretation that functions within the existing rules.

Why the houserule? You can always decide which of any wound-group you remove, ALWAYS.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Why the houserule? You can always decide which of any wound-group you remove, ALWAYS.

because if you roll a 1 on the group that hasn't fired you loose a model that could have shot.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Why the houserule? You can always decide which of any wound-group you remove, ALWAYS.

Fair point.
However, the reason that you can always choose which model to remove is because they are identical.

If the models are not, in fact, identical, then you're at the very best sitting in a grey area of the rules. I would think, though, that the fact that the choice as to which model you remove in this instance does make an actual difference in game terms should be a red flag that has 'You're doing it wrong!' emblazoned on it in large letters.

Again, the whole point of the complex units rule is to ensure that wounds are sorted in groups of identical models. The models, in game terms, are not identical if the weapons that they have available for use are not the same.

insaniak wrote:
Again, the whole point of the complex units rule is to ensure that wounds are sorted in groups of identical models. The models, in game terms, are not identical if the weapons that they have available for use are not the same.

Ok say a squad of 10 Burnas rocks up 5 fire 5 don't they then charge. Are they identical or could you stack wounds on those that fired?

(Burnas can be used as flamer or as a power weapon but not both in the same turn)

Still sitting firmly in that same grey area... but for my money, at the point in time that the wounds are being resolved, those models are not identical as some have power weapons and some don't.

Tri wrote:Terminator Sgt has his own profile so he cannot share the same profile of characteristics even though they may have the same stats.

the problem with that is, in the rule, they take same to mean identical, and not exact same/share a profile.

So a group of models can have 2 different profiles that are identical in gaming terms and be treated as a unit that can not allocate wounds since they are identical.

Like the Terminator Assault squad. All the values of the characteristics on both of those profiles are identical.

DeathReaper wrote:All the values of the characteristics on both of those profiles are identical.

And yet they have different profiles.

Editing to add:
That is how you can tell them apart for game reasons.


The numbers in the profile are not the profile. Notice that they each start with a name to let you identify they model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ignoring part of the listed profile does make it obvious how this is confusing though.

You must look at the entire profile to see the difference in various profiles.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DeathReaper wrote:Like the Terminator Assault

or like the space marines with the same numbers but different profiles?


Even you know they are two different profiles or they would not be listed as BOTH in your original post.

They do have different Identical profiles.

That is what matters for allocation, if the two profiles were not identical then you could allocate.(provided the 2 profiles had the same rules, wargear, and weapons).

DeathReaper wrote:They do have different Identical profiles.

So the differently named profiles are the same despite your claims?

Just to point out, the profile is not the same if it is not the same profile.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

DeathReaper wrote:They do have different Identical profiles.

Do you not see the name of the model in the Characteristics Profile or do you just ignore it?
"Different Identical" anything is just made of so much win I feel the need to repeat it.

Consider it tagged.

kirsanth wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:They do have different Identical profiles.

So the differently named profiles are the same despite your claims?

Just to point out, the profile is not the same if it is not the same profile.

In the rule, they take same to mean identical, and not exact same/share a profile.

So they are Identical/the same for game purposes even though they have a different name, since the names have no bearing on the rules.

2 different profiles, even though they are not the same profile, can be the same profile of characteristics.(where the first 'same' in the sentence means there are 2 different profiles, and the second 'same' means Identical)

the English language is stupid like that, Does anyone have a German or Italian copy of the BRB? That would clear this up.

DeathReaper wrote:since the names have no bearing on the rules.

Text please.

editing to add:
Not yours.

One more addition:
The names are listed in the example rules and each profile given. Why do you ignore it?

kirsanth wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:since the names have no bearing on the rules.

Text please.

editing to add:
Not yours.

P.7

"has a profile that lists the value of its characteristics"

A name is not a value

As for your sig? how are Identical twins the same person? Identical things can be different people.

DeathReaper wrote:

kirsanth wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:since the names have no bearing on the rules.

Text please.

editing to add:
Not yours.

P.7

"has a profile that lists the value of its characteristics"

A name is not a value

You are so correct that it pains me to correct your ignorance.

The profile does contain a list of its characteristics.

I think that this grey area might actually be considered covered by Games Workshop. These models may have acted differently over the course of the game, by firing a combi weapon or something even rarer like the burnas having two possible uses.

I would say, that the 'status' of wargear is irrelivent, unless it was a situation with a squadron, in which a vehicle which has suffed a weapon destroyed result. In this situation the wargear is gone, so I think most people are happy to call apples oranges here. A collaery would be infantry with One-Shot weapons, once these have been used they are gone too.

But with the combi/burnas, the only difference is the status of the weapon, both weapons are still there on the model. A Combibolterthingo doesn't dissappear and the name doesn't change. Same with a burna the name doesn't change, just it's use, it's still the same wargear.

It's true the results of this could be unsual (ymmv) but if a buna squad did take 5 wounds, all the models would be identicle and it is left to the discretion of the player to remove the models as per the rules. (We all know that crazy guy who would choose to have one less burna at that initive step to pull a fancy combat.)

This last is a bit strawman; if GW had wished for the commander to be able to tell these minor differences in a models battle experiance, then each model could easily be unique, they all move to different locations after all. And we know that suffering a wound isn't enough to tell the difference between models (with exception to the clause for instant death).

fun fact this isn't the first time I brought this up ... three years ago http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/224418.page ... must admit some of my reasoning back then is suspect but such is life.

Names = Fluff, Fluff is not rules. so if the characteristics have the same profile values there is no allocation.

So you really do posit that two different things are identical?

Editing to add:
I left off "for gaming purposes" intentionally.
For gaming purposes two different things are different.

DeathReaper wrote:Names = Fluff, Fluff is not rules. so if the characteristics have the same profile values there is no allocation.

......
Firing my plasma pistol ... large blast ... I say pistol? I meant cannon no biggy right.

(...Edit miss typed but ...)

that has a small blast? Na, that's just fluff we're using the big one.

Tri wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Names = Fluff, Fluff is not rules. so if the characteristics have the same profile values there is no allocation.

......
Firing my plasma pistol ... large blast ... I say pistol? I meant cannon no biggy right.

Akin to wondering how any rule/model/ability/wargear is referenced since its name does not count.

Tri wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Names = Fluff, Fluff is not rules. so if the characteristics have the same profile values there is no allocation.

......
Firing my plasma pistol ... large blast ... I say pistol? I meant cannon no biggy right.

Plasma pistol and Plasma cannon have 2 different sets of rules
(you could call them Big Fragging Gun, and Big Fragging pistol, it would not matter as long as everyone knew what you were talking about).

Attacking you with my Assault Terminator Sergeant, oh wait I mean my Assault Terminator...

Assault Terminator and Assault Terminator Sergeant have the same rules, weapons, wargear, and characteristic values. they are 2 diffeernt models that are identical in game terms.

you could call them Blue Smurf and Blue Smurf with a grudge it would have no bearing on the actual rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirsanth wrote:

Tri wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Names = Fluff, Fluff is not rules. so if the characteristics have the same profile values there is no allocation.

......
Firing my plasma pistol ... large blast ... I say pistol? I meant cannon no biggy right.

Akin to wondering how any rule/model/ability/wargear is referenced since its name does not count.

The names have 0 effect on how you play the game, they are just there for reference.

DeathReaper wrote:The names have 0 effect on how you play the game, they are just there for reference.

So when a rule looks for "lasguns" for example, it can include things that have a different name? Since names have 0 effect on how youy play the game. . .

DR - if names are fluff then one can't play the game as unit have no identify featurs as per the rules and could not be selected or written into an army list.

By the way where do to sit on burns who have/haven't used their power weapons?

DeathReaper wrote:The names have 0 effect on how you play the game, they are just there for reference.

Like to different profiles of characteristics ?

they are just there for reference.

so you would reference "lasguns". and find the rules that define "lasguns"

Two models with Furious charge both add +1 to Str and I when they assault into combat.

2 different models with the Identical rule.

normal marines with FC would have Identical Str and I on the assault if they both had FC.

so these two marines are identical in game terms even if one was called gut with armor and the other was marine with armor.

DeathReaper wrote:they are just there for reference.

So are the numbers.

ChrisCP wrote:DR - if names are fluff then one can't play the game as unit have no identify featurs as per the rules and could not be selected or written into an army list.

By the way where do to sit on burns who have/haven't used their power weapons?

That is an interesting question.

I think, since they are all equipped the same (the Burna can be used 1 of two ways) I do not think it matters for wound allocation how you use a Burna.

Right names are just for reference.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirsanth wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:they are just there for reference.

So are the numbers.

except the names do not have a value, as is called for on P.7

I understand what you are saying DR (and personally agree), but I doubt anyone is going to change their mind and the argument is completely circular.

I was also going to have a go at K for using bad grammar to insult members in his sig. until I read that it is common usage in US English. 'Different than each other' looks so wrong to my limey eyes!

Soup and a roll wrote:I understand what you are saying DR (and personally agree), but I doubt anyone is going to change their mind and the argument is completely circular.

I was also going to have a go at K for using bad grammar to insult members in his sig. until I read that it is common usage in US English. 'Different than each other' looks so wrong to my limey eyes!

you are probably correct on that one, maybe we should just leave it as is and wait for an FaQ from GW.

DeathReaper wrote:

kirsanth wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:they are just there for reference.

So are the numbers.

except the names do not have a value, as is called for on P.7

A value is not required. They are still listed as part of the profile. They are not a "characteristic" but are indeed part of the characteristic profile as it identifies which model is refered to.

Listing
334421164+ is not a profile.

kirsanth wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

kirsanth wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:they are just there for reference.

So are the numbers.

except the names do not have a value, as is called for on P.7

A value is not required. They are still listed as part of the profile. They are not a "characteristic" but are indeed part of the characteristic profile as it identifies which model is refered to.

Listing
334421164+ is not a profile.

They are part of the profile, but attacking with an Assault Terminator Sergent is Identical in gaming terms to attacking with an Assault Terminator. The stats are what matter for gaming terms.

DeathReaper wrote: The stats are what matter for gaming terms.

No, the profile is what matters. Which is what you said previously.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DeathReaper wrote:They are part of the profile

This is all that matters, really.

BGB (next line down) wrote:Of course many unit include different models, and when this is the case extra step is needed

Is the sergeant a different model? Yes, then extra step is needed.

DeathReaper wrote:Names = Fluff, Fluff is not rules. so if the characteristics have the same profile values there is no allocation.
The names have 0 effect on how you play the game, they are just there for reference.

DeathReaper wrote:
Right names are just for reference.
Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirsanth wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:they are just there for reference.

So are the numbers.

except the names do not have a value, as is called for on P.7

This doesn't work any more man, your DA just reached a real dead end with this particular line of reasoning.
One con have names with '0 effect', while still being there for referencing. If one's referencing something with a name for rules, then the name can not be fluff, because one doesn't look to fluff ever for a rule.

Furthur so, to check a profile after finding it with it's name is to see that profiles stats, to have to look at two different refernces means that they do not have the same profile of charateristics, they have two different ones, one can't look at one for the other or one's not actually using one of the profiles.

Try and play a game where all the names are fluff, ghaz and the like just don't work, neither does the duke etc etc etc.

Tri wrote:

next line down wrote:Of course many unit include different models, and when this is the case extra step is needed

Is the sergeant a different model? Yes, then extra step is needed.

The other Assault terminators are different models, and you allocate normally, the same applies to the model that has the same/Identical in gaming terms profile, same special rules, weapons and wargear. All which the Assault Terminator Sergeant have.

Assault Terminator and Assault Terminator Sergeant are identical in how the interact with the game, they have the same number of attacks, the same Weapon skill, the same strength, the same initiative, the same weapons, the same wargear, the same special rules that have an effect on them.

They are Identical in gaming terms, they interact with the game in the exact same way.

Edit to add, the names are not "Fluff" they are just there for reference. (I retract the previous statement about them being fluff)

Soup and a roll wrote:I was also going to have a go at K for using bad grammar to insult members in his sig. until I read that it is common usage in US English. 'Different than each other' looks so wrong to my limey eyes!

As strange as it sounds, I had to cross reference the language when I was writing it too. I made it correct in American just for spite. heh

DeathReaper wrote:
They are part of the profile

And you've just done a 360, names can't be part of the profile (rules) because you said they were fluff. But as they are in fact part of a profile one can see again, two different profiles of characteristics - that happend to be the same in all bar name - thus different.

DeathReaper wrote:They are Identical in gaming terms

So they have no difference in the game at all? Even when refering to a profile?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ChrisCP wrote:And you've just done a 360,

720, at least.

Exactly they score hits on the same number, they wound on the same number, they take armor saves on the same number.

They have to different profiles. These profiles are exactly equal and alike, aka identical

The fact that they are named two different things and have two different profiles does not matter, since the profiles are exactly equal and alike.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

ChrisCP wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:
They are part of the profile

And you've just done a 360, names can't be part of the profile (rules) because you said they were fluff. But as they are in fact part of a profile one can see again, two different profiles of characteristics - that happend to be the same in all bar name - thus different.

Edit to add, the names are not "Fluff" they are just there for reference. (I retract the previous statement about them being fluff) (See above)

DeathReaper wrote:Edit to add, the names are not "Fluff" they are just there for reference. (I retract the previous statement about them being fluff) (See above)

And in this case they reference two different profiles. One for the Sgt, one for the Sternguard ... two identical and different profiles.

kirsanth wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:

ChrisCP wrote:And you've just done a 360,

720, at least.

Tri wrote: And in this case they reference two different profiles. One for the Sgt, one for the Sternguard ... two identical and different profiles.

Yes.

They do not have the same profile but they have the same profile of characteristics.

English is stupid sometimes, since the same can mean two different things.

like if I am reading The 40k Rulebook, and you are reading the same Rulebook, its possible for you to be sitting next to me reading the same book, or for you to be at your place with a copy of the book, reading the same book.

The reason I say they can not allocate wounds is because of the 'Identical in game terms' wording in the BRB. This says they can have different profiles but as long as those profiles interact with the game in an identical manner, then it is ok to have two different profiles and not be able to allocate wounds.

DeathReaper wrote:They do not have the same profile but they have the same profile of characteristics.

They have the same characteristics despite being a different profile of characteristics.

ChrisCP wrote:Try and play a game where all the names are fluff, ghaz and the like just don't work, neither does the duke etc etc etc.

There are countless examples of people changing the names of their units. White Dwarf, at least when I bought it, would give names and sometimes even backstory to characters in battle reports. The name of the unit doesn't make a difference as long as you know what numbers you are using. This is also the reason bolters/boltguns etc work although that is not pertinent to this "debate".

Identical in gaming terms includes names, for the same reason I brought up lasguns.

It wouldn't matter if the Terminator Sgt was called "lasgun" because you are clearly shown his profile in the unit entry. The name doesn't effect the rules.

Edit: Quick! Someone lock the thread while I have the last word!

Soup and a roll wrote:

ChrisCP wrote:Try and play a game where all the names are fluff, ghaz and the like just don't work, neither does the duke etc etc etc.

There are countless examples of people changing the names of their units. White Dwarf, at least when I bought it, would give names and sometimes even backstory to characters in battle reports. The name of the unit doesn't make a difference as long as you know what numbers you are using. This is also the reason bolters/boltguns etc work although that is not pertinent to this "debate".

People calling their unit different names in no way affects the game as when you ask them "What is that unit again?", it would be safe to expect "Oh their my 'ard boys and their nob." as these names are essential to playing the game. If you don't know that your unit is called in the rulebook or it's codex, one can hard claim to be able to use it, let alone know what it is.

Soup and a roll wrote:It wouldn't matter if the Terminator Sgt was called "lasgun" because you are clearly shown his profile in the unit entry. The name doesn't effect the rules.

Edit: Quick! Someone lock the thread while I have the last word!

Doesn't work like that we normally get a mods last words ...

Thing is he is given his own profile of characteristics and thought there are many like them this is his profile. (gah shouldn't be watching full meta jacket)

If the name 'lasgun' had no bearing on the rules, I would be more inclined to assume other names were as irrelevant as DeathReaper states.

Unfortuneately the rules do no agree.

I just always assume DR plays DA, but for this topic, especially after last exchange leavs nothing for the view he's supporting.

Names are part of the profile, otherwise porfiles would be meaning less, they can't be 'fluff' or 'references' without also having to be part of the profile itself - the title of a graph is part of the graph, just because the x,y intercepts and the grdient is the same doesn't mean they are the same graph - so the claim that identicle stats=identicle models is incorrect as the name, the identifying feature of the profile show us that it is different - in the process of checking to see if the profiles are the same we discover they are different.

Exactly.

I am confused as to why x=1 is the same as x=3

Editing to add:
You can make the numbers true but that would ignore the reality that states 1 ≠ 3

kirsanth wrote:Exactly.

I am confused as to why x=1 is the same as x=3

ah what you've got there is Y= X²+2, its the point that X passes the Y axis.


If you find me a unit with a combination of Bolters and Bolterguns I'd agree they were the same thing (as its listed that they are in the description)

As long as those profiles interact with the game in an identical manner, then it is ok to have two different profiles and not be able to allocate wounds.

Since it assumes models are identical in game terms.

2 different profiles can be identical in game terms even if the names are different.

It's just that the name has absolutely no impact on the game itself. If you change the WS, as an example, it has an impact; the profile is different. The only impact the name has, in this example, is if you are using it for wound allocation- it has no different rules, wargear and doesn't need to use a different model to the rest of the squad.

The way I see it, to borrow your graph example, it would be like changing the colours used for the axis. It is definitely different, but it has no effect on the graph in any real sense. The Terminator Sgt has a separate (different) profile, but it is the same in every way that might affect the game.

Anyway, like I said, I think both bases of thought have stated their (equally valid) views as clearly as can be and I don't think anyone is changing their minds.

When something is the same it has nothing different. In this case they don't share the same profile of characteristics because they each have their own. While both profile share the same values this is not the same as them being the same profile.

I agree it is different. Just not in gaming terms, i.e in any way that effects the battle.

Yes we know they are not the same profile.

But they are Identical in game terms, and how the two models with the two different profiles interact with the game is identical.

and that is what the rules care about.

Soup and a roll wrote:It's just that the name has absolutely no impact on the game itself.

Spot on.

Identical in gaming terms would not include the name since the name 'has absolutely no impact on the game itself.'

Except identical in gaming terms are defined as the same profile of characteristics and they're different profiles. (ok also defined by rules, weapon and wargear)

Unit name is not one of the 9 Characteristics.

The profile is made up of characteristics, these 9 characteristics are identical in gaming terms.

DeathReaper wrote:Unit name is not one of the 9 Characteristics.

The profile is made up of characteristics, these 9 characteristics are identical in gaming terms.

Yet they are still two separate profiles which means they are not. We are asked for profiles not characteristics.

Tri wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Unit name is not one of the 9 Characteristics.

The profile is made up of characteristics, these 9 characteristics are identical in gaming terms.

Yet they are still two separate profiles which means they are not. We are asked for profiles not characteristics.

We are asked for 'profiles of characteristics' and the Unit name is not a characteristic. (Since it does not say 'the same profile' they can be different)

2 separate profiles can be Identical in gaming terms. because they deal with identical characteristics.

A Veteran with bolter and bolt pistol, and the space marine sergeant in his squad with bolter and bolt pistol are Identical in gaming terms. even though they have two different profiles, they have an Identical profile of characteristics, weapons, rules, wargear.

these two marines interact with the game the exact same way.

I think we've circled around more than enough at this point. Moving on.