I have 5 points left to spend in my army, with nothing really to spend it on.
I have a 2-man crisis suit squad: both standard fireknife suits, same loadout.
I can spend 5 points to upgrade one to a team leader, which gives him access to the armory. Doesn't change his stats, and I don't actually give him any different equipment.

If I do this, can I use/abuse wound allocation on that unit? The relevant passage from the BRB says:

40k 5e page 25 wrote: Taking Saving Throws
Having allocated the wounds, all the models in the unit that are identical in gaming terms take their saving throws at the same time...

So the question is: I have 2 different models. One is a Crisis Battlesuit Shas'ui, one is a Crisis Battlesuit Shas'ui Team Leader. However, as no wargear was taken, they are functionally, in gaming terms, no different. What happens?

The only thing the complex rules care about are:

1) Characteristics (which are identical between the team leader and other squad member).
2) Special Rules (which are the same: they only have the 'XV8 Battlesuit' special rule in their codex entry).
3) Weapons (which are the same in this case because you equipped them the same).
4) Wargear (is the same because you haven't given them anything differentl).


So in order to make them a complex unit, you need to change one of those 4 things. I highly suggest dropping something somewhere and taking a bonding knife. It is highly worth it both for wound allocation and because Tau often fail their morale.

But there is no point giving a bonding knife to a 2 man Crisis suit team. If the unit is below half strength then its totally dead.

yakface wrote:
1) Characteristics (which are identical between the team leader and other squad member).

So two members of a unit with different names, different models and other distinguishing characteristics aren't different from their other squad members because their Stats are the same?

I dunno about that. We've always played it that a Terminator Sergeant is different from a regular Terminator, simply because he is a sergeant and it is outlined as such. He is a different model and a different character within the unit. Just because the statline is identical doesn't mean there aren't two separate stat lines, which there are, helping to distinguish one from the other.

puma713 wrote:

yakface wrote:
1) Characteristics (which are identical between the team leader and other squad member).

So two members of a unit with different names, different models and other distinguishing characteristics aren't different from their other squad members because their Stats are the same?

I dunno about that. We've always played it that a Terminator Sergeant is different from a regular Terminator, simply because he is a sergeant and it is outlined as such. He is a different model and a different character within the unit. Just because the statline is identical doesn't mean there aren't two separate stat lines, which there are, helping to distinguish one from the other.

It's a little different here. The Shas'ui doe not get a new name just for being designated as a team leader. You can then go ahead and upgrade a Shas'ui who has been designated to a Shas'vre. But then he gets a different WS as well as a new name.

The topic of does the name count as part of the profile was recently done in a 8,000 page thread here:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/347421.page

kmdl1066 wrote:
It's a little different here. The Shas'ui doe not get a new name just for being designated as a team leader. You can then go ahead and upgrade a Shas'ui who has been designated to a Shas'vre. But then he gets a different WS as well as a new name.

Ah, that's my mistake. I am thinking of the Shas'vre.

I don't actually know any of this stuff the way yak/nos/insaniak/manaheim/etc. do. I just go look something up if I have access to the codex and then pretend I know what I'm talking about.

It's a good way to learn.

Flinty wrote:But there is no point giving a bonding knife to a 2 man Crisis suit team. If the unit is below half strength then its totally dead.

What that guy said.

BK are good but only if the unit is worth enough. (i.e 2 broadsides in a team with 2 shield drones)

kmdl1066 wrote:I don't actually know any of this stuff the way yak/nos/insaniak/manaheim/etc. do. I just go look something up if I have access to the codex and then pretend I know what I'm talking about.

It's a good way to learn.

Good approach. I don't have everything memorized either. I almost always double-check the book before posting, both because it helps keep my knowledge sharp, and keeps me from embarassing myself. I still make occasional mistakes, as do we all.

puma713 wrote:

yakface wrote:The only thing the complex rules care about are:

1) Characteristics (which are identical between the team leader and other squad member).
2) Special Rules (which are the same: they only have the 'XV8 Battlesuit' special rule in their codex entry).
3) Weapons (which are the same in this case because you equipped them the same).
4) Wargear (is the same because you haven't given them anything differentl).

So in order to make them a complex unit, you need to change one of those 4 things.

So two members of a unit with different names, different models and other distinguishing characteristics aren't different from their other squad members because their Stats are the same?

I dunno about that. We've always played it that a Terminator Sergeant is different from a regular Terminator, simply because he is a sergeant and it is outlined as such. He is a different model and a different character within the unit. Just because the statline is identical doesn't mean there aren't two separate stat lines, which there are, helping to distinguish one from the other.

People have conflicting views on the subject, but I see it this way:

The rules state that 'each model has a profile made up of nine numbers'. A 'profile of characteristics' is a 'profile [that] is made up of 9 numbers', the name is not one of the nine characteristics.

Characteristics are numbers and not names, since a name is not a number it can't be included in the BRB's definition of what a profile is, and is only there for reference so we know what profile of characteristics they are referencing.

These rules below, say to me, that a profile is made up of characteristics and the characteristics are listed, no where do I see "Unit name" as one of the characteristics, so with the permissive ruleset we can not include the name in the profile since we are given no permission to do so.
P.6 lists what Characteristics are (WS BS S T W I A Ld Sv)

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."

P.7 "Each model in warhammer 40k has a profile that lists the value of its 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."

It could read like this and have exactly the same meaning because of the other rules presented:

"... Identical in gaming terms. By this we mean they have the same profile of nine numbers that are called characteristics, the same weapons and wargear."

If the nine numbers are Identical in gaming terms then two different profiles can be Identical in gaming terms.

Some people do not see it this way. But this, to me, is an open and shut case.

To put the other side across: you are asked to have the same profile.

If you have a different profile, like a terminator sarge has a different profile to the terminators then you are different. This is because it is not the SAME profile, despite the numbers making it up being identical.

Just as a quick aside, by the way you are claiming nos, no two models could have the "the same weapons and wargear." either.

Since 2 different bolt pistols, while identical, could never be the same weapon because they are 2 individual weapons.

Which is actually false, but nice attempt at winning an argument you lost long ago.

2 separate profiles *cannot* be the same profile. Ever. They may have the same numbers in them, but by virtue of having separate entries tehy are not the same profile.

Interesting you say I lost, when there are clearly people that agree with both of us, I would call it undecided.

having the same profile is different than having the same weapon?

I fail to see how that can be.

If you say same =/= identical then it applies for weapons and wargear as well.

2 separate Bolt Pistols *cannot* be the same Bolt Pistol. Ever. They may have the same stats, but by virtue of having separate models that they belong to, they are not the same Bolt Pistol.

just give a different weapon

DR - so actually adfdress the point.

You have two profiles, one named "Sarge" and one named "Terminator". Are these the SAME profile?

Same means Identical. The sarge and terminator profiles are the same.

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."

If the profiles both have the same values for characteristics then the profiles are the same, since the profile does not include the name by the description on P.6 and a profile of characteristics = profile of 9 numbers they call characteristics.

If same does not mean identical then we run into problems with being able to allocate to every member of a squad because they all do not have the same bolt pistol, they have identical bolt pistols. In a five man squad we have 5 different bolt pistols that are not the same bolt pistol, yet they are identical.

A profile lists the value of its characteristics P.7

In the case of the assault terminators they, and the sarge, are Identical in gaming terms. The sarge has a different profile that is the same as the terminators, aka Identical in gaming terms. aka the values of its characteristics are the same.

Yet the profiles are NOT the same. If they were the same there would be one single profile

That is what you constantly ignore, and is why you remain incorrect.

In this very thread we have the example of the Shas'ui team leader who doesn't get his own profile line to contrast with Terminator Sergeants who do get their own profile line.

While they are separate profiles, they are also identical. They can be both. What is looked at for would allocation purposes is them being identical, aka, having different characteristics, having differing special rules, or different wargear or weapons, as per the rulebook. So, even with them having different entries, they have identical stats, all the same special rules, the same weapon load, and the same pieces of wargear. By game mechanics, they are identical. The 'sarge' profile is capable of taking additional/different options, which would make him distinguishable if he did, but the current situation leaves him as identical.

I am not ignoring they are two different entries, But the two entries are identical in gaming terms and that is what the rules care about.

If they need the same profile, they need the same weapons and wargear as well.

Two different Bolt Pistols are NOT the same.

By your definition a unit of 5 marines would be able to allocate to specific marines because they all have different Identical Bolt Pistols.

If they all needed to be the same, as you claim, then every unit would be a complex unit, which is not the case.

DR - it asks for the same profile. it is not the same profile.

Yes, you are ignoring this because it undermines your argument. good try again though.

It also asks for the same wargear and weapons.

so 2 marines with frag and krak grenades, by your interpretation, do not have the same frag and krak grenades because each model has a different pair of frag and krak grenades.

Interpreting it your way makes every unit a complex unit.

It does not undermine my argument, because they are asked to be "identical in gaming terms" = "same".

I give you credit for sticking to your side of it, with the overwhelming evidence against you.

Your flawed argument /- overwhelming evidence. - Removed. Let's keep it civil, folks. -

Two different profiles /= THE SAME profile. Your mangling of the English language notwithstanding, of course.

And Two different Bolt Pistols /= THE SAME Bolt Pistols. Your mangling of the English language notwithstanding, of course.

DeathReaper wrote:And Two different Bolt Pistols /= THE SAME Bolt Pistols.

Sorry, but what one earth does this mean? Are you saying that two different Bolt Pistol use different 'Bolt Pistol Profiles', and how on earth are you allocating wounds to bolt pistols?

ChrisCP wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:And Two different Bolt Pistols /= THE SAME Bolt Pistols.

Sorry, but what one earth does this mean? Are you saying that two different Bolt Pistol use different 'Bolt Pistol Profiles', and how on earth are you allocating wounds to bolt pistols?

It means:
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."

It does not say they need to share a profile. If people read same as needing to share a profile, then you would have to read same as needing to share weapons and wargear as well. 5 marines with 1 set of power armor, 1 bolt pistol, 1 frag and 1 krak grenade makes for an interesting unit.

If people read same as "Two different profiles /= THE SAME profile" then "Two different Bolt Pistols /= THE SAME Bolt Pistol" thus you have a group of 5 marines that are all their own model in a complex unit. Because if If people read same as needing to share a profile then they need read same as needing to share the same weapons (not two identical profiles and identical weapons).

They only need to be identical in gaming terms.

puma713 wrote:So two members of a unit with different names, different models and other distinguishing characteristics aren't different from their other squad members because their Stats are the same?

I dunno about that. We've always played it that a Terminator Sergeant is different from a regular Terminator, simply because he is a sergeant and it is outlined as such. He is a different model and a different character within the unit. Just because the statline is identical doesn't mean there aren't two separate stat lines, which there are, helping to distinguish one from the other.

Isn't he different anyway because the Sarge has a power sword while the squad have powerfists??? So different wargear would mean you would have to allocate anyway, correct?

DeathReaper wrote:If people read same as "Two different profiles /= THE SAME profile" then "Two different Bolt Pistols /= THE SAME Bolt Pistol" thus you have a group of 5 marines that are all their own model in a complex unit. Because if If people read same as needing to share a profile then they need read same as needing to share the same weapons (not two identical profiles and identical weapons).

This would only be true of the people disagreeing with you were claiming that the two models had to be the same physical model. Which they're not, as it's a patently adsurd claim.

The two bolt pistols don't need to be the same weapon. They just need to be the same weapon profile. Just as the two models don't need to be the same physical model... they just need to share a profile.

One bolt pistol is exactly the same as another bolt pistol.
One model with a profile labelled 'X' is not the same as a model with a profile labelled 'Y' however, even if their characteristics are identical... because it has a different name.

DR: Go back to page 7 of the BRB; "Below are the profiles, blah, blah, blah" notice how they include the names of the Space marine and the Ork boy?

The profile lists the Characteristics; it is not just the Characteristics

Funny, a Mod deleted my post just so he can win an argument. How childish can that be.

A mod deleted your post because it was off-topic and responding to a post that I had edited for inappropriate behaviour, and wasn't actually adding anything to the discussion. Any time you feel like contributing something useful and on-topic, go right ahead.

insaniak wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:If people read same as "Two different profiles /= THE SAME profile" then "Two different Bolt Pistols /= THE SAME Bolt Pistol" thus you have a group of 5 marines that are all their own model in a complex unit. Because if If people read same as needing to share a profile then they need read same as needing to share the same weapons (not two identical profiles and identical weapons).

This would only be true of the people disagreeing with you were claiming that the two models had to be the same physical model. Which they're not, as it's a patently adsurd claim.

The two bolt pistols don't need to be the same weapon. They just need to be the same weapon profile. Just as the two models don't need to be the same physical model... they just need to share a profile.

One bolt pistol is exactly the same as another bolt pistol.
One model with a profile labelled 'X' is not the same as a model with a profile labelled 'Y' however, even if their characteristics are identical... because it has a different name.

But under the interpretation of Share a profile, they would need to share weapons and wargear. but it does not say they need to share a profile, it just asks for the profiles to be identical in gaming terms (the way they interact with the game)

If you read it as meaning they need to share a profile, they also need to share weapons and wargear, which leads to a 5 man squad sharing one weapon. If you can show a Page # where it says they need to share a profile please find it for me. I can not find said page, if you can not either then they do not need to share a profile, just have two identical profile of 9 numbers.

And one profile is exactly the same as the other in the case of the Assault terminator/Assault terminator Sergeant.

However they only need be Identical in gaming terms, and a profile of characteristics does not include the name, since the characteristics are listed on P.6 below.

P.6 lists what Characteristics are (WS BS S T W I A Ld Sv) (note, no names are mentioned)

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."

P.7 "Each model in warhammer 40k has a profile that lists the value of its characteristics" (Profiles list values of the 9 aforementioned characteristics, a name is not a value.)

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."

profile of characteristics = a 'profile made up of nine numbers...called characteristics'
9 same/identical numbers = same profile of characteristics

I do not find name being a characteristic anywhere on P.6 where it describes the 9 characteristics. I would love to see you take a characteristic test and roll under Assault terminator Sergeant on a D6.

If this is not clear then I do not know how to explain it.

DR out :-)

DeathReaper wrote:...and a profile of characteristics does not include the name

Then how do you tell who that profile belongs to?

The names of the profiles are only there for reference, since the profile is made up of nine numbers that are called characteristics.

Question: Is an Assault terminator and an Assault terminator sergeant identical in gaming terms?

Assault terminator
W BS S T W I A LD Sv
4 4 4 4 1 4 2 9 2+

Assault terminator sergeant
W BS S T W I A LD Sv
4 4 4 4 1 4 2 9 2+

assuming both are armed with LC's and both have terminator armor.

Do these two models interact with the game in the same/identical way?

Do they both have the same/Identical values in their profiles that are made up of nine numbers that are called characteristics.?

The answers have to be yes, because they do exactly the same thing when it comes to rolling dice.

I would like the answer to this one question:

Since they say they need the same profile,rules, weapons, and wargear then If same profile means 'share a profile', then same weapons means 'share weapons' right?

I guess it can come down to whether or not you interpret the name as part of the profile or not. There isn't really any hard evidence that supports or denies that the name is part of the profile so until there is some kind of official ruling this will be settled by house rules, tournament organizers, and dice role-offs.

The most important thing is to not get angry over someone else's opinion as there are good points argued on both sides of this topic.

augustus5 wrote:I guess it can come down to whether or not you interpret the name as part of the profile or not. There isn't really any hard evidence that supports or denies that the name is part of the profile so until there is some kind of official ruling this will be settled by house rules, tournament organizers, and dice role-offs.

That's pretty much where this wound up the last time around, yes.

augustus5 wrote: There isn't really any hard evidence that supports or denies that the name is part of the profile

If names are not part of the profile then, how does one find the correct profile of characteristics?
If names are not part of the profile then, how does one tell if two models share the same profile of characteristics?
If names are not part of the profile then 'My ork boyz are "Ws6, Bs2, S5, T5, W4, ,I4, A5. Ld9, 2+" as that's what a profile of characteristics says.'

If names are part of the profile then, I can quickly and readily locate each models profile of characteristics by its name.
If names are part of the profile then I can tell which profiles are identical by looking for the same profile of characteristics

Consider a game where names were not part of the profile, how would you play this game?

DR:

Each model in Warhammer 40,000 has a profile that lists the value of its characteristics.

Note how it says the profile lists the characteristics, and not that the profile is the or a list of characteristics?

The Characteristics are not the only part of the profile, the name is as well. This is Why a terminator Sgt cannot take the heavy Flamer, Assault Cannon, or Cyclone Missile launcher; because his Profile has him as a terminator Sgt, not just a terminator.

Heck; turn to page 128 of the Space Marine Codex and look at the diagram/breakdown of the Army list entry. Look at #1 "Unit Profile". Now read the text: unit Name, The Profile of any models in the unit, and Points cost for base unit.

What is a profile? something that lists the value of its characteristics.
A value is a number, names are not values.

It is all right here:

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."

The bold above tells us what a profile is: A profile (In gaming terms) is made up of nine numbers, not names, just numbers.

So profile of characteristics does not include the name.
How would you take a characteristic test and roll under Assault terminator Sergeant on a D6?

The names are there for reference and have no bearing on how you play the game.

If this is not clear then I do not know how to explain it.
DR out :-)

You are taking the definition of characteristics(which tells you where they are found), and applying that as the definition of Profile(where the characteristics are found); The definition of profile on the very next page does not limit the profile to just that line of characteristic(as i said earlier the profile lists the characteristics but is not only them).

Every Modern Codex has the Diagram for the Armylists, none of them tell you that the profile is just the characteristics; they all tell you it is the stats and the Name of the models.

I have 3 candles on my desk right in front of me; a Candle is 1 or more Wicks surrounded by paraffin or wax; all three are scented, 2 are apple spice, 1 is Pumpkin spice, 1 of the apple spice is a 3-wick candle. I ask you to light the single wick Apple spice: which do you light?

The only difference by the definitions I gave you is the name.

If the profiles are Identical in gaming terms that is all the game cares about. they need not be a shared profile, it only asks that they be Identical in gaming terms. names have no bearing on how you play the game.

The term 'profile' has a meaning outside of the 40K rulebook and that is:

"A set of characteristics or qualities that identify a type or category of person or thing."


In other words, a profile is a set of characteristics. In 40k 'characteristics' are clearly defined and the model's 'name' is not a characteristic (it is not defined as such in the section for characteristics). The same is true in the 'weapon' section, where the weapon's name appears with its profile, but 'name' is not then defined as a characteristic.

So a 'name' by definition is not a characteristic and by the definition of what a profile is we know that it is not part of the profile (as a 'profile' is a set of characteristics).

Furthermore to claim that because a profile always contains a name next to it this makes the name 'part' of the profile is ludicrous. Without a name next to the profile, the profile would be meaningless. The name is the description that tells us who that profile belongs to.

If a polling company takes a 'profile' of me, it would (assuming it isn't anonymous) have my name at the top of the page but then it would have a list of a bunch of other characteristics that define me...age, sex, race, etc.

My 'profile' is that of the characteristics on that page, NOT my name. If the polling company wanted to group all the people with the exact same profiles together they wouldn't say: 'sorry, we have no matching profiles because every one has a separate name on the top of the page.'

Finally, when a rule is unclear by the RAW (and this one most certainly is), then it doesn't hurt to take a step back and consider 'why' the rule exists in the first place. I hope we can all agree that the purpose of the complex unit rules is NOT to make a unit more durable...that just happens to be a side benefit. The point of the complex unit rules is to ensure that elements of the unit that have special rules have a chance to get killed before the unit is wiped out...as without it the models with the special rules would always be the very last models removed in the unit, and that would allow units to remain unrealistically potent until the very last model was killed.

So with that in mind, how do the complex unit rules implement this goal? They do so by forcing saves separately onto any model that is functionally different from another model in the unit.

In the case of a Tau team leader or any other model that has the EXACT same characteristics, weapons, wargear and special rules as other members of his unit, there is literally no functional difference between him and any one of those other models in the unit. If he dies or if they die, nothing has changed in the unit except one more model has been removed. And that is how we can know that 'name' and name alone does not constitute a different profile because the name has no functional meaning. characteristics, weapons, wargear and special rules are all functional elements of the game, whereas the name of the model is not.

OFF TOPIC ARGUMENT DELETED. HOWEVER, THE FOLLOWING NEEDS TO BE COMMENTED ON:

There is no need to be rude, but since you wish to be, I can easily respond in kind, as you will see in your statement in the thread I spoke of.


"RESPONDING IN KIND" TO RUDENESS IS A VIOLATION OF THE DAKKA DAKKA FORUM RULES. TWO WRONGS DO NOT MAKE A RIGHT. IF A POSTER VIOLATES THE RULES, HIT THE 'ALERT MODERATOR' BUTTON. DO NOT BREAK THEM YOURSELF, OR YOU TOO WILL BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE WHEN WE REVIEW THE THREAD.

IF ONE SIDE IN AN ARGUMENT BEGINS TO RESORT TO RUDENESS OR PERSONAL ATTACKS, THAT PERSON NORMALLY MAKES CLEAR THEREBY TO THE AUDIENCE/OTHER READERS THAT THEIR POSITION IS WEAK. IF YOU RESORT TO RUDENESS YOURSELF, YOU LOWER YOURSELF TO THE SAME LEVEL, AND LOSE THE MORAL HIGH GROUND. FOR THAT REASON, IT IS ALWAYS IN YOUR OWN BEST INTEREST TO REMAIN POLITE.

No dragging an argument from another (locked) thread into this one. I am editing the above to remove off-topic comments.

Page 25 wrote: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 that they have the same profile of characteristics, the same special rules, and the same weapons and wargear.

I agree with Insaniak that the name is part of the profile, as are the characteristics.

A Space Marine Sgt. is not "identical in gaming terms" to a regular SM in his squad.

Since a Sgt is not identical in gaming terms to a SM, and since they have differently-named profiles, with separate existences, it seems reasonably clear to me that they are different for purposes of wound grouping.

I think the new Gk book throws in a president here which seems to suggest that having different names can mean you interact with the game differently.

For instance a Grey Knight Terminator Justicar has identical numbers to a Grey Knight Terminator and identical wargear yet is clearly different in game terms. Ditto a Flame Champion (is it? or knight of the flame something like that) and Purifier...

This to me tells us that a name does indeed relate to different profiles and different interactions with the game even if the 9 numbers and wargear all match.

Mann the Sgt and the regular marine, in the case of assault terminators, have the exact same stats, the exact same weapons, rules, and wargear loadout.

How does an Assault terminator and Assault terminator Sergeant interact differently if all the stats, weapons rules, and wargear are identical?

"If he [Assault terminator] dies or if they [Assault terminator Sergeant] die, nothing has changed in the unit except one more model has been removed." -Yakface

I think yakface's coment is rock solid, I honestly can not understand the other side of the coin.

So what about the GK Terminator Justicar? He is fuctionally different to the other GKs yet by your definition he is not. So we get a contradiction by trying to apply your definition of hwat makes a model different...

Mannahnin wrote:I agree with Insaniak that the name is part of the profile, as are the characteristics.

In the previous thread I had argued that when the examples of profiles are given, the name is included and this indicates the name
should be part of the profile.

I'm flip-flopping.

Page 6, bold print: "...each model has a profile made up of nine numbers that ..."

Pretty unambiguous, to me at least. The profile is the nine numbers.

Edit: Of course this doesn't go any where near whether two sets of identical nine numbers are the 'same' profile.

kmdl1066, Would two sets of identical nine numbers be identical in gaming terms?

To me yes.

Librarian 5,4,4,4,2,4,2,10,3+
Chaplain 5,4,4,4,2,4,2,10,3+

Do they have the same profile? I'd say yes. Someone else might argue that one is the profile of a librarian while one is a profile of a chaplain so they're not the same profile.

Of course they'll never have the same equipment so it will never be an issue for would allocation. But it's a useful example of whether or not to consider the profile the same.

kmdl1066, Would two sets of identical nine numbers be identical in gaming terms?

Yes obviously. But would 2 profiles containing 9 identical numbers be identical in game terms?

GK Termmie Justicar says no...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

FlingitNow wrote:

kmdl1066, Would two sets of identical nine numbers be identical in gaming terms?

Yes obviously. But would 2 profiles containing 9 identical numbers be identical in game terms?

GK Termmie Justicar says no...

But that's not an issue for wound allocation. Because would allocation mentions special rules as a separate item from profile of characteristics.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

yakface wrote:
*snip*
In the case of a Tau team leader or any other model that has the EXACT same characteristics, weapons, wargear and special rules as other members of his unit, there is literally no functional difference between him and any one of those other models in the unit.
*snip*

Unlike a Terminator Sergeant, an XV8 or Stealth team leader does not get their own listing of 9 characteristics with a label that says "Shas'ui Team Leader." It's just noted in the options that you can designate a model as team leader. You have to get another upgrade to turn the team leader into a Shas'vre and get them a separate listing of nine numbers. (In the case of the stealth team the Shas'vre numbers are the same as the Shas'ui.)

So depending on someone's predisposition this is either (a) proof that the name is utterly unimportant to deciding if identical numbers mean the 'same' profile or (b) proof that when a separate listing of identical numbers is provided it should be treated as a 'different but equal' profile.

Bill Clinton: "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

kmdl1066 wrote:
Unlike a Terminator Sergeant, an XV8 or Stealth team leader does not get their own listing of 9 characteristics with a label that says "Shas'ui Team Leader." It's just noted in the options that you can designate a model as team leader. You have to get another upgrade to turn the team leader into a Shas'vre and get them a separate listing of nine numbers. (In the case of the stealth team the Shas'vre numbers are the same as the Shas'ui.)

So depending on someone's predisposition this is either (a) proof that the name is utterly unimportant to deciding if identical numbers mean the 'same' profile or (b) proof that when a separate listing of identical numbers is provided it should be treated as a 'different but equal' profile.

Bill Clinton: "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

Okay, so I'm assuming that everyone can agree that a Tau team leader is considered identical since he doesn't even have a separate 'profile' to argue about whether his name is different or not over? If so, then I'll move on to just addressing models that do have a different name but the same characteristics, wargear, weapons and special rules (like a Terminator Sgt).

FlingitNow wrote:

kmdl1066, Would two sets of identical nine numbers be identical in gaming terms?

Yes obviously. But would 2 profiles containing 9 identical numbers be identical in game terms?

GK Termmie Justicar says no...

It really depends on how you interpret models having the same 'special rules'...since Grey Knights share an army wide special rule that applies to the entire army, so if you're counting that by 'name' then yes, they all have the same special rules, but if you're counting that to mean functionality, then that special rule specifically grants Justicars a unique functionality from the rest of their unit. In other words, they have different special rules as there are army wide special rules that apply specifically to them.

As such, I would have no problem with someone allocating wounds separately to a Justicar, but I would also be okay with the stricter interpretation that he is functionally the same as the rest of his unit. Yes, Ld tests are taken using his Ld, but he has the same Ld as his unit (or else he'd already be functionally different) and if he dies the only other rule he has is that a perils of the warp attacks a random member of the unit instead of him...so I think the game works perfectly fine playing that the Justicar is functionally identical (by the complex unit criteria) to other members of his unit.

Mannahnin wrote:
I agree with Insaniak that the name is part of the profile, as are the characteristics.

A Space Marine Sgt. is not "identical in gaming terms" to a regular SM in his squad.

Since a Sgt is not identical in gaming terms to a SM, and since they have differently-named profiles, with separate existences, it seems reasonably clear to me that they are different for purposes of wound grouping.

Just to hash out what you're effectively saying is that it is categorically impossible for a profile to exist in which a 'name' is not part of the profile? Because I hope we all agree that all profiles have to have some sort of name to identify which models they apply to, correct?

But a 'profile' by definition is a set of characteristics, and while a name can certainly be considered a characteristic, it definitely isn't defined as one in the case of a 40K profile. So by definition alone, we know that the name is not part of the profile (as a 'profile' is a set of characteristics and 'name' is not a listed characteristic).

As such, I would have no problem with someone allocating wounds separately to a Justicar, but I would also be okay with the stricter interpretation that he is functionally the same as the rest of his unit. Yes, Ld tests are taken using his Ld, but he has the same Ld as his unit (or else he'd already be functionally different) and if he dies the only other rule he has is that a perils of the warp attacks a random member of the unit instead of him...so I think the game works perfectly fine playing that the Justicar is functionally identical (by the complex unit criteria) to other members of his unit.

The perils bit makes a difference. Say I cast Hammerhand in combat my justicar is placed so that he's not fighting an IC he dies to perils combat continues. However with randomn allocation my squad member in base contact with his IC could potentially take the wound removing the IC from the combat. Or I may have chosen to place the justicar next to eth IC so I coudl remove him from eth equation should I suffer a perils again I don't get that choice with randomisation.

Also say I caste a power at another time randomisation of who dies rather than a specific model can have a drastic effect on LoS, ranges and assault ranges.

But they all have Brotherhood of psykers. They all have that special rule and it is the same for all of them. However the game impact is dependant on the name...

FlingitNow wrote:
The perils bit makes a difference. Say I cast Hammerhand in combat my justicar is placed so that he's not fighting an IC he dies to perils combat continues. However with randomn allocation my squad member in base contact with his IC could potentially take the wound removing the IC from the combat. Or I may have chosen to place the justicar next to eth IC so I coudl remove him from eth equation should I suffer a perils again I don't get that choice with randomisation.

Also say I caste a power at another time randomisation of who dies rather than a specific model can have a drastic effect on LoS, ranges and assault ranges.

But they all have Brotherhood of psykers. They all have that special rule and it is the same for all of them. However the game impact is dependant on the name...

And like I said, I'm fine with that interpretation. GW obviously had to draw a line in the sand somewhere and define what they meant by two models being identical and what they went with was: characteristics, weapons, wargear and special rules. Can this create a situation, such as you've noted where you have a model that is 'identical' per the the guidelines presented but still is affected differently because of his name in some cases?

Sure, but it doesn't break the game or make anything explode, it just means that the Justicar is a little more survivable when the unit suffers a few wounds (as you can choose not to kill him as long as there are other identical models remaining in the unit) but he's a bit more vulnerable when the unit takes a LOT of wounds (as you'll have to pull him off when the group of 'identical' models suffers too many unsaved wounds).

But just because the Justicar can be affected differently in some situations does not mean he ceases to be 'identical' by the standards laid out in the complex unit rules.

yakface wrote:

FlingitNow wrote:
The perils bit makes a difference. Say I cast Hammerhand in combat my justicar is placed so that he's not fighting an IC he dies to perils combat continues. However with randomn allocation my squad member in base contact with his IC could potentially take the wound removing the IC from the combat. Or I may have chosen to place the justicar next to eth IC so I coudl remove him from eth equation should I suffer a perils again I don't get that choice with randomisation.

Also say I caste a power at another time randomisation of who dies rather than a specific model can have a drastic effect on LoS, ranges and assault ranges.

But they all have Brotherhood of psykers. They all have that special rule and it is the same for all of them. However the game impact is dependant on the name...

And like I said, I'm fine with that interpretation. GW obviously had to draw a line in the sand somewhere and define what they meant by two models being identical and what they went with was: characteristics, weapons, wargear and special rules. Can this create a situation, such as you've noted where you have a model that is 'identical' per the the guidelines presented but still is affected differently because of his name in some cases?

<snip>

But just because the Justicar can be affected differently in some situations does not mean he ceases to be 'identical' by the standards laid out in the complex unit rules.

The fact that the Justicar can be affected differently in any situation at all means he is clearly not "identical in gaming terms" as page 25 requires.

"The same profile of characteristics" is the heart of the interpretational difference, here. Are two things which have different names and are listed next to one another and separately, but contain identical numbers, identical or not?* IMO they are not, even if the only obvious and immediate difference is the name.

Another example of a situation when a terminator sergeant is not identical in gaming terms is in a Blood Angels army containing the Sanguinor. At the beginning of the game, one of the sergeants in the army, randomly determined, will get a stat boost. Only sergeants are eligible, and only their name serves to distinguish them from the other terminators in their squad. Yet this name is sufficient to be the determining factor for the Sanguinor's power, demonstrating that the terminator sergeant is not "identical in gaming terms" to his squad mates.

Theoretically GW could also introduce a special rule in a codex or expansion or special scenario like "Frag the Lieutenant" or "Assassins in the wire!" in which a randomly-determined Sgt. model in a given army is killed before the game begins, or at another time. Again, the sergeant is distinguishable purely by his name and game consequences can hinge on that.

*Real world parallel: I could set a Red Delicious and a Fuji apple of the same weight next to one another, and they may have the same nutritional values, but are still functionally different and distinguishable; in the name, in appearance, and in the non-numerically-measurable flavor.

Mannahnin wrote:

The fact that the Justicar can be affected differently in any situation at all means he is clearly not "identical in gaming terms" as page 25 requires.

"The same profile of characteristics" is the heart of the interpretational difference, here. Are two things which have different names and are listed next to one another and separately, but contain identical numbers, identical or not?* IMO they are not, even if the only obvious and immediate difference is the name.

<engage RAW lawyering mode>

Except that page 6 bold text tells us:
"Each model has a profile made up of nine numbers that ..."

By RAW I don't see how you can argue that the name is part of the profile. GW have very clearly told us what makes up a profile.

Page 25:
"..identical in gaming terms. By this we mean they have the same profile of characteristics, the same special rules and the same weapons and wargear."

GW have given us the criteria for evaluating whether or not a model should be considered identical in gaming terms. The fact that their definition should really have some more criteria listed is besides the point when it comes to RAW. If the Justicar is identical by the criteria given then by RAW Justicar is identical in gaming terms.

<disengage RAW lawyering mode>

(When playing I don't care which way it is played it as long as it is played the same way for the whole game.)

Page 25 does not say 'profiles containing the same characteristics' or anything to indicate that one should be comparing the 9 numbers in a profile.
It says 'they have the same profile of characteristics.' if one is looking at two different profiles (as identified by their name, otherwise one would know what one was looking at) then one can not be looking at 'the same profile of characteristics'. One is looking at two profiles, which contain the same characteristics... they aren't the same profile of characteristics.

I'll also point to page 7;
"Each model in Warhammer 40,000 has a profile that lists the value of its characteristics. At the back of this book, and in the Codex books for each army, you will find profiles for any races and creatures."Below are the profiles for an Ork Boy and a Space Marine of the Imperium:
WS BS S T W I A Ld Sv
Ork Boy X Y Z .......... 6+
Space Marine P Q T...... 3+"


Each model has a profile, that profile lists it's characteristics, if one need to look at different profiles that list different models characteristic then one is not looking at the same profile profile of characteristics.

If names are not part of a profile why do both of these profiles have one included?

<shrug> You can't point to page 7 and ignore page 6. Page 6 says the profile is made up of the nine characteristics. Nothing on page 7 contradicts this statement. Therefore by RAW the profile is made up the nine characteristics. You are stating that because a name is shown with the profile it is part of the profile* and the very clear and unambiguous statement on page 6 about what makes up a profile should be ignored.

Now you might want to argue that by RAW "profile" is defined but "profile of characteristics" is undefined. But I don't think an argument that "profile" and "profile of characteristics" are different things will get much traction.

I think my favorite part about how much energy we're all putting into this argument is how little difference it actually makes whichever way you play it.

*Yes I realize this was the exact argument I made to DR in the other 8,000 page thread on this topic, but at that point I hadn't actually read the bold text on page 6 carefully.

Yes, and how do you know which profile one's looking at?
"each model has a profile made up of nine" Pg 6
"Each model in Warhammer 40,000 has a profile that lists the value of its characteristics." Pg 7

So if one's looking at two different profiles, how can one be looking at the same one?

page 6 is not the definition of a profile; page 7 is.

Page 6 is the definition of the characteristics that make up the profile; as the intro paragraph is going to be discussing the characteristics that is what it states; Characteristics are the 9 numbers in the profile, it in no way defines the profile(again, page 7 does that)

Page 25:
"..identical in gaming terms. By this we mean they have the same profile of characteristics, the same special rules and the same weapons and wargear."

They only care about the profile of characteristics, they care not for the name when looking at "Identical in gaming terms"

If they cared about the name the "of characteristics" would not be in there.

But you're not looking at 'the same profile of characteristics.'
Zz.

Exactly. Deathreaper, you're chopping off half of the part that (IMO) matters. "the same profile of characteristics".

A Terminator and a Terminator Sgt have two different profiles, which sit one atop the other on the page.

Two different profiles that are Identical in gaming terms.

AkA the same profile of Characteristics. If the Characteristics are the same, then the profile of Characteristics are the same/identical.

Mannahnin wrote:
The fact that the Justicar can be affected differently in any situation at all means he is clearly not "identical in gaming terms" as page 25 requires.

"The same profile of characteristics" is the heart of the interpretational difference, here. Are two things which have different names and are listed next to one another and separately, but contain identical numbers, identical or not?* IMO they are not, even if the only obvious and immediate difference is the name.

Another example of a situation when a terminator sergeant is not identical in gaming terms is in a Blood Angels army containing the Sanguinor. At the beginning of the game, one of the sergeants in the army, randomly determined, will get a stat boost. Only sergeants are eligible, and only their name serves to distinguish them from the other terminators in their squad. Yet this name is sufficient to be the determining factor for the Sanguinor's power, demonstrating that the terminator sergeant is not "identical in gaming terms" to his squad mates.

Theoretically GW could also introduce a special rule in a codex or expansion or special scenario like "Frag the Lieutenant" or "Assassins in the wire!" in which a randomly-determined Sgt. model in a given army is killed before the game begins, or at another time. Again, the sergeant is distinguishable purely by his name and game consequences can hinge on that.

*Real world parallel: I could set a Red Delicious and a Fuji apple of the same weight next to one another, and they may have the same nutritional values, but are still functionally different and distinguishable; in the name, in appearance, and in the non-numerically-measurable flavor.

But you're making a distinction that doesn't exist in the rules. A model CAN be functionally different than another model and still be considered 'identical' by the terms presented for complex units. For example, models with one-shot weapons (like combi-weapons, for example) on otherwise identical models. One model has fired his combi-weapon shot while another rmodel hasn't. Functionally, those two models are different in the game, but per the guidelines laid out in the complex unit rules they *are* 'identical' and would be allocated together as one group.

There are all sorts of scenarios we can come up with where units that have the same special rules could be functionally different...say a unit had a special rule that allowed each model in the unit once per game to act as though it had a psychic hood, for a random example. Again, you can easily imagine plenty of different scenarios where models are functionally different but still 'identical' in the eyes of the complex unit rules.

Like I said before, at the end of the day GW had to draw a line in the sand and make a distinction about what constitutes an identical model and they went with: characteristics, weapons, wargear and special rules.

Yes this means in some cases models that are functionally different still get grouped together, but especially given that wound allocation is used as almost a defensive weapon, I think erring on the side of caution and not allowing people to abuse the wound allocation rules any more than the rules already allow them to do is the right way to go.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

ChrisCP wrote:But you're not looking at 'the same profile of characteristics.'
Zz.

Again, you guys seem to be ignoring the fact that 'profile' has a real world meaning in that it is a 'set of characteristics'. A name *can* be a characteristic included in a profile, but it is cearly not defined as a characteristic in 40K.

The other important thing to note is that On page 7, the profile for models is called a 'characterstic profile'...that is its 'title', so to speak.

The complex unit rules require that models have the same 'profile of characteristics'...this DOES NOT SAY 'characteristic profile' which is a very slight but important difference.

We are loocking for the same 'profile' (set of characteristics) of characteristics. If two models both have the same characteristics, then they both have the same profile of characteristics.

Again, the name is not defined as a characteristic and is therefore not part of the profile as a 'profile' by definition is a set of characteristics (which the name is not in this case).

Kommissar Kel wrote:page 6 is not the definition of a profile; page 7 is.

Page 6 is the definition of the characteristics that make up the profile; as the intro paragraph is going to be discussing the characteristics that is what it states; Characteristics are the 9 numbers in the profile, it in no way defines the profile(again, page 7 does that)

And what more suitable place than the introduction to the characteristics to make it clear that the nine characteristics are what make up the profile?

Again: "each model has a profile made up of nine numbers that describe.." Looks like it's defining what a profile is. There is nothing on page 7 that contradicts this. And even if you wanted to argue that page 6 is not the definition, it certainly provides clarity that when page 7 says "has a profile that lists the value of its characteristics" that page 7 does in fact mean that the list of nine characteristics is the profile.

There is plenty of precedent for the fact that you have to take into account two (or more) pieces from disparate sections in the rule book for a particular circumstance. So you cannot claim that page 7 is meant to be taken in isolation for determining what the profile is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
BTW. Just wanted to comment how nice it is to argue rules around here.

No ad-hominem, precious little red herring or slippery slope, appeal to authority is kept appropriately to the rules. None of the crud that passes for 'debate' on most of the internet.

yakface wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:
The fact that the Justicar can be affected differently in any situation at all means he is clearly not "identical in gaming terms" as page 25 requires.

"The same profile of characteristics" is the heart of the interpretational difference, here. Are two things which have different names and are listed next to one another and separately, but contain identical numbers, identical or not?* IMO they are not, even if the only obvious and immediate difference is the name.

Another example of a situation when a terminator sergeant is not identical in gaming terms is in a Blood Angels army containing the Sanguinor. At the beginning of the game, one of the sergeants in the army, randomly determined, will get a stat boost. Only sergeants are eligible, and only their name serves to distinguish them from the other terminators in their squad. Yet this name is sufficient to be the determining factor for the Sanguinor's power, demonstrating that the terminator sergeant is not "identical in gaming terms" to his squad mates.

But you're making a distinction that doesn't exist in the rules.

Well, that's evidently a matter of opinion/interpretation at this point, isn't it?

As I posted above, "The same profile of characteristics" is the heart of the interpretational difference, here. Are two things which have different names and are listed next to one another and separately, but contain identical numbers, identical or not?

You read that quoted clause there with a different emphasis and meaning than I or Insaniak do. I think it can reasonably be seen either way, particularly since page 6 seems to support your read, and page 7 seems to support mine.

This is part of why I go back to the foundational statement, and ask if the two things are "identical in gaming terms". IMO, the existence of the Sanguinor (for one example) means that a BA Terminator Sgt and a BA Terminator are not identical in gaming terms. Same with your combi-melta example, although the specific clause about weapons makes that reasonably-arguable the other way, IMO, as they are still the same weapon.

Yakface wrote:The complex unit rules require that models have the same 'profile of characteristics'...this DOES NOT SAY 'characteristic profile' which is a very slight but important difference.

It could be an important difference, or it could be the same words used in a different order merely for the sake of the author's personal expression.

yakface wrote:Like I said before, at the end of the day GW had to draw a line in the sand and make a distinction about what constitutes an identical model and they went with: characteristics, weapons, wargear and special rules.

And again, I have to note that this is an opinion and a guess on your part, not a settled fact. The text of the rule in question actually says "the same profile of characteristics," not "the same characteristics".

Yakface wrote:Yes this means in some cases models that are functionally different still get grouped together, but especially given that wound allocation is used as almost a defensive weapon, I think erring on the side of caution and not allowing people to abuse the wound allocation rules any more than the rules already allow them to do is the right way to go.

If we're going to rule from pragmatism/playability, you've got a point there. However, then we also need to get into the "How Do You Play It?" poll situation, too. What do you think is more intuitive/how do you think most players play? That Sergeants are identical and interchangeable with regular squad guys for the purposes of wound allocation, or different? Even if the particular sergeant in question has the same stats (whereas many don't) I suspect that most gamers intuitively see the two as being separate and distinct entities. An impression reinforced and supported by their having two separate profiles in the unit entry; even if the numbers contained in those profiles are the same.

Yakface wrote:

ChrisCP wrote:But you're not looking at 'the same profile of characteristics.'
Zz.

Again, you guys seem to be ignoring the fact that 'profile' has a real world meaning in that it is a 'set of characteristics'.

If you want to bring real life into it, I again refer to my apple example. If you want to write a profile of an apple you would likely include its main usages (baking, snacking, etc.), or of a person you'd likely include ethnicity, nationality, etc. Which are important distinguishing factors but not numeric values.

Mannahnin wrote:

yakface wrote:Like I said before, at the end of the day GW had to draw a line in the sand and make a distinction about what constitutes an identical model and they went with: characteristics, weapons, wargear and special rules.

And again, I have to note that this is an opinion and a guess on your part, not a settled fact. The text of the rule in question actually says "the same profile of characteristics," not "the same characteristics".

Fact remains that Each model has a profile made up nine numbers that are called characteristics. The profile is made up of 9 numbers, no names only numbers. The names are there for reference only, and not part of what the game considers the 'profile of characteristics'
A profile lists the value of its characteristics, this is what a profile is, something that lists the value of its characteristics, 'Assault terminator Sergeant' is not a characteristic or a value.

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."

P.7 "Each model in warhammer 40k has a profile that lists the value of its characteristics"

DeathReaper wrote:Fact remains that Each model has a profile made up nine numbers that are called characteristics. The profile is made up of 9 numbers, no names only numbers.

And yet we can all clearly see a name right at the front of the profile.

A recipe is a list of ingredients, and instructions for cooking something. It also has a name, which tells you what the recipe is for. That name is inherently a part of the recipe, even though it's not an ingredient or an instruction.

A car is a form of transportion that is made up of various mechanical device. Paint is a part of the car... but is not a mechanical device.

Essentially, the fact that the rules tell us that the profile is a list of characteristics does not mean that the numbers that represent those characteristic values are the only things that are cosidered part of the profile. The profile is a list of information that tells us what a specific model does in the game. The name of that model, due to being used to link the profile to the model, is inherently a part of the profile.

Yes, they're just there for reference... but that's kind of the point. The fact that the names are different is proof that the profiles are referring to two different things. And if they're different things, they're not identical.

Yakface wrote:

ChrisCP wrote:But you're not looking at 'the same profile of characteristics.'
Zz.

Again, you guys seem to be ignoring the fact that 'profile' has a real world meaning in that it is a 'set of characteristics'.

Yet the two models don't possess the same set of characteristics, otherwise we would find them in the same place. If the rules asked for a profile containing the same characteristics I would agree with you two models with two different profiles could indeed be identicle in game terms. But as things stand they have different profiles of characteristics and the values of said profiles happen to be the same, as Dr has shown again "P.7 "Each model in warhammer 40k has a profile that lists the value of its characteristics" to have the same profile of characteristics one would have to be looking in the same place.

insaniak wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Fact remains that Each model has a profile made up nine numbers that are called characteristics. The profile is made up of 9 numbers, no names only numbers.

And yet we can all clearly see a name right at the front of the profile.
(Snip)

Essentially, the fact that the rules tell us that the profile is a list of characteristics does not mean that the numbers that represent those characteristic values are the only things that are cosidered part of the profile. The profile is a list of information that tells us what a specific model does in the game. The name of that model, due to being used to link the profile to the model, is inherently a part of the profile.

Yes, they're just there for reference... but that's kind of the point. The fact that the names are different is proof that the profiles are referring to two different things. And if they're different things, they're not identical.

Look at the bold above, the permissive rulset tells us that it is, most definitely, only a list of characteristics, and nothing else.

As for different things not being identical: A SM Vanguard Veteran has a toughness of 4, a SM Librarian has a toughness of 4. Are these two values Identical even though they are listed in two different places? I would say yes they are identical, I would even say the values are the same.

The name is not at the front of the profile, it is before the profile as a reference to whom that profile belongs. Nothing tells us that a name is a characteristic, or a part of the profile. We have no permission to include it as a part of a profile of characteristics, since we are explicitly told what a profile of characteristics is.

Unless I missed the Page where it tells you that a name is a part of the 'profile of characteristics' If I missed that please give me a Page Number.

@ ChrisCP: 'The same profile...' does not mean 'share a profile'. It says they need the same, not that they need to share a profile. Subtle, but really important, difference.

They do not share a profile, but the profiles are the same.

Edit:

insaniak wrote:
A recipe is a list of ingredients, and instructions for cooking something. It also has a name, which tells you what the recipe is for. That name is inherently a part of the recipe, even though it's not an ingredient or an instruction

See this is where the disagreement stems from, If the recipe did not have a name, and you followed all the 'ingredients [and] instructions' to make it, would it taste the same as if you knew what the name of the item was?
Of course they would taste the same since the 'ingredients [and] instructions' are the same, even if the same recipe were in two different cookbooks they would taste the same. It would not matter if you called it Spaghetti-O Surprise is one cookbook, and Ran-over possum-flank tail steaks, or Dark Eldar stew in the other.

My appearance in this discussion will be brief, I just want to add this little bit of food for thought.

In America, I can go into a store and buy a bottle of ketchup. Here in South Africa, that same bottle, with the same brand, same size, same ingredients, is called Tomato Sauce. Now would these 2 bottles be considered different or identical, considering they have a different name?

Personally, I do play that an Assault Terminator Sergeant is grouped as the same as the rest of the group for simplicity sake.

This does all seem to pivot on whether the Name is part of the "Profile of Characteristics", and I highly doubt we will ever clarification on this from GW. As always, best to discuss with your opponent before the game if you feel that this issue may arise.

The same profile (of characteristics) is NOT the same as the same (characteristics on a profile)

DR is arguing the latter, (mostly) everyone else argues the former.

If you have two different profiles, they *cannot* be the SAME profile *even if* the components of the profile are the same.

insaniak wrote:Essentially, the fact that the rules tell us that the profile is a list of characteristics does not mean that the numbers that represent those characteristic values are the only things that are cosidered part of the profile. The profile is a list of information that tells us what a specific model does in the game. The name of that model, due to being used to link the profile to the model, is inherently a part of the profile. ...

Look at the bold above, the permissive rulset tells us that it is, most definitely, only a list of characteristics, and nothing else.

the profile is a list of characteristics, no names. So the name issue is resolved.

Same does not mean shared. Two different profiles can have the same 'profile of characteristics' It even goes on to mention values, look at the context of P.25 they define IDENTICAL in gaming terms as having the same profile of characteristics. I.E. if the profiles are IDENTICAL then they are the same as far as the rules are concerned.

They do not need to share a profile, it only asks that they be the same AKA Identical.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
If you have two different profiles, they *cannot* be the SAME profile *even if* the components of the profile are the same.

Agreed, but the rulebook defines what comprises a profile, and that are the characteristics...the name is not part of that. The name is the NAME of the profile so we all know what profile belongs to what model. So a Terminator and a Terminator sergeant have identical profiles. If you asked a hundred people on the street if the two profiles were identical without providing any other context I think you'd likely get 100% of the people saying that yes indeed the two profiles are identical...because they are.

If I listed two (fictional) profiles:

Imperial Guardsman - WS3, BS3, S3, T3, W1, I3, A1, Ld7, Sv5+
Human Auxiliary - WS3, BS3, S3, T3, W1, I3, A1, Ld7, Sv5+

And then when describing them I said something like: "As you can see the two profiles are identical, which means the Human Auxiliary and Imperial Guardsman are a mirrior image of each other on the table."


You would actually think I'm being technically incorrect because the NAMES identifying which profile belongs to which model are different?

Seriously? Outside of this thread would anyone ever blink an eye reading that?

yakface wrote:If I listed two (fictional) profiles:

Imperial Guardsman - WS3, BS3, S3, T3, W1, I3, A1, Ld7, Sv5+
Human Auxiliary - WS3, BS3, S3, T3, W1, I3, A1, Ld7, Sv5+

And then when describing them I said something like: "As you can see the two profiles are identical, which means the Human Auxiliary and Imperial Guardsman are a mirrior image of each other on the table."


You would actually think I'm being technically incorrect because the NAMES identifying which profile belongs to which model are different?

In terms of casual conversation, yes, that would probably pass.
In terms of a set of rules and determining how they should be applied, in your example the characteristics are identical, but the profiles are different.

But Insaniak, that is not true, the profiles are the same.

insaniak wrote:The rules tell us that the profile is a list of characteristics

What is a profile? A profile is a list of characteristics. The above defines what a profile is. No names included just a list of the characteristics, So the name issue is resolved.

P.25 defines that they only need to be identical, and goes on to list what needs to be identical. the profile of characteristics, which we have determined does not include the name, needs to be identical, you are taking 'Same" to mean 'share' but no where in the rules does it say they have to share a profile.

They are not the same profile, because you have two profiles. They may have identical numbers, but that does not mean they are the same.

You are reading "same" to mean, incorrectly, identical in stats. That is not what "same profile" means in this context, as I explicated above.

DeathReaper wrote:What is a profile? A profile is a list of characteristics. The above defines what a profile is. No names included just a list of the characteristics, So the name issue is resolved.

You're not going to resolve this issue just by declaring it so.

You have an interpretation that works for you. I have one that works for me. The fact that they're different is only an issue in the unlikely event that we wind up standing on opposite sides of the table. So there's no need to 'win' this discussion... which has gone around in circles enough times for me to feel that we've covered all the useful ground we're likely to, so I think I'm about done here.

insaniak wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:What is a profile? A profile is a list of characteristics. The above defines what a profile is. No names included just a list of the characteristics, So the name issue is resolved.

You're not going to resolve this issue just by declaring it so.

DR didn't declare it so. GW did when they wrote on page 6 that "..each model has a profile made up of nine numbers.."

So whether two identical profiles are the the same profile is a different argument, but in the absence of an FAQ or amendment on the issue I just don't see the justification for ignoring the part of the rules that tells us what makes up a profile.

Notice the lack of "only" there.

You're assuming it is *only* made up of 9 numbers

nosferatu1001 wrote:Notice the lack of "only" there.

You're assuming it is *only* made up of 9 numbers

When GW tells you that the profile is 9 numbers, you may NOT assume that it can be more than 9 numbers.

ChrisCP wrote:

augustus5 wrote: There isn't really any hard evidence that supports or denies that the name is part of the profile

If names are not part of the profile then, how does one find the correct profile of characteristics?
If names are not part of the profile then, how does one tell if two models share the same profile of characteristics?
If names are not part of the profile then 'My ork boyz are "Ws6, Bs2, S5, T5, W4, ,I4, A5. Ld9, 2+" as that's what a profile of characteristics says.'

If names are part of the profile then, I can quickly and readily locate each models profile of characteristics by its name.
If names are part of the profile then I can tell which profiles are identical by looking for the same profile of characteristics

Consider a game where names were not part of the profile, how would you play this game?

You are not thinking about the concept of indexing.

Consider a book such as the Warhammer 40K rulebook. If you want to look up a rule, you consult the index, find that the rule is on page 22, and go to that page and read it.

If the index used roman numerals, so the rule was on page XXII, how would that change the rule?

ph34r wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Notice the lack of "only" there.

You're assuming it is *only* made up of 9 numbers

When GW tells you that the profile is 9 numbers, you may NOT assume that it can be more than 9 numbers.

Even when the rules over the page give you that exact situation?

Not that it's needed anyway - no matter how you dice it, having two profiles precludes them from being the SAME profile.

@Kill crazy: I'm not sure what you're basing you point on there - if you are in fact in contention to what I've said, if the index read in roman numerals there's still an identify feature, an indication of what to look for, albiet in an archaic numbering system (they couldn't even handle fractions ffs ). To locate a profile one looks for them name, profile located. If one hasn't looked for the identify feature of a profile, then any profile is in fair game. If the index read "Some rule page XX." it would be compareable. But one still wouldn't be able to locate the correct rule, because the rules would also lack their identifying feature (I was looking for a rule pertaining to cover saves, I can only find this thing that mentions cover, guess these rules for cover from flamer template apply to everything.)

DeathReaper wrote:Look at the bold above, the permissive rulset tells us that it is, most definitely, only a list of characteristics, and nothing else.

@ ChrisCP: 'The same profile...' does not mean 'share a profile'. It says they need the same, not that they need to share a profile. Subtle, but really important, difference.

They do not share a profile, but the profiles are the same.

For the first bit, which profile are you looking at?... Then, why are you looking at a different profile of characteristics for that?

In the second piece you say "they need the same, not that they need to share a profile." And "'The same profile...' does not mean 'share a profile'." this is being my point and the contradiction in your argument I used the first pice to highlight. To locate the profile of a model one must look for it by name, if one is not looking at a profile with the same name then one isn't looking at the same profile of characteristics ie. the one they both share. One is looking at two different profiles of charateristics for whice the values of the characteristics are the same.
Same profile of characteristics "Convient Example: Ws XXYY, Convient Example: Ws XXYY."
Different profiles of characteristics "Convient Example: Ws XXYY, Inconvient Example: Ws XXYY."

Overheard at the thunderwolf stables:

"ouch! those ork shootas look like they really hurt brother Thorfin!"
"Aye! but look on the bright side brother Wulfgar, If I hadn't brought that meltabomb instead of another storm shield like yours, I would be dead!"

But joking aside, (please Emperor save us from the stupidity of wound allocation when 6th comes out), equipment/special abilities and the statline is all that matters for being considered 'different' gamewise. Naming the models doesn't matter. Most upgrade characters have either different equipment or a slightly altered statline, and as such are treated as different types. Some do not, though, but just calling him "Sarge" doesn't make him any different than calling him "dave" if he still behaves exactly the same way as "Dave" in the game. It is possible that Sarge has the options to take some other stuff that Dave doesn't have the option for, which would make him behave differently in the game, but without that wargear, he is just like Dave with some stripes on his shoulder that have no effect on his performance on the table. It's already a dumb enough system as it is without one more variable to exploit.

Yes, as can be shown - a Terminator Sarge IS different *in game* to a non-Termie sarge. The sanguinor tells you that.

TC wrote:In America, I can go into a store and buy a bottle of ketchup. Here in South Africa, that same bottle, with the same brand, same size, same ingredients, is called Tomato Sauce. Now would these 2 bottles be considered different or identical, considering they have a different name?

This is the stance I took in the previous thread. It would make no difference 'in gaming terms', if the sergeant was called a 'team leader' or anything else so the name in itself is unimportant.

The waters are muddied, however, by the GK Terminator Justicar and, even more indirectly, by the Sanguinor's blessings. I personally agree with Yakface on this matter. It seems ludicrous to play a similar situation in different armies in different ways due to such an obscure and complicated reading of the rules. Of course, YMMV.

ChrisCP wrote:@Kill crazy: I'm not sure what you're basing you point on there - if you are in fact in contention to what I've said, if the index read in roman numerals there's still an identify feature, an indication of what to look for, albiet in an archaic numbering system (they couldn't even handle fractions ffs ).

I am basing it on the fact that only profiles that make a difference in the game make a difference in the game. and the rules refer to those ones.

A profile of 1-2-3 which is called a Sergeant, and a profile of 1-2-3 which is called a Captain, are not different in the game.

Conversely, a profile of 1-2-3 Sergeant and 3-2-1 Sergeant are different although they have got the same name.

Yet one called a sarge and one called a captain can be entirely different, as the Sanguinor shows.

Soup and a roll wrote:

TC wrote:In America, I can go into a store and buy a bottle of ketchup. Here in South Africa, that same bottle, with the same brand, same size, same ingredients, is called Tomato Sauce. Now would these 2 bottles be considered different or identical, considering they have a different name?

This is the stance I took in the previous thread. It would make no difference 'in gaming terms', if the sergeant was called a 'team leader' or anything else so the name in itself is unimportant.

The waters are muddied, however, by the GK Terminator Justicar and, even more indirectly, by the Sanguinor's blessings.

Exactly. There are rules which distinguish between a sergeant or justicar and a regular squad member, even when their statlines, special rules, and weaponry are identical. And thus they cannot be said to be "identical for gaming purposes".

Soup and a roll wrote:[ It seems ludicrous to play a similar situation in different armies in different ways due to such an obscure and complicated reading of the rules. Of course, YMMV.

As I pointed out previously, which is more obscure and complicated? If we show the rules for complex units/wound allocation to a new or random player, is he more likely to think of a sergeant as identical and interchangeable with a regular squad member, or different? I think the more intuitive answer is that a sergeant is not just another squaddie.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yet one called a sarge and one called a captain can be entirely different, as the Sanguinor shows.

But that fact is irrelevant for the purposes of the complex unit rules. I think we can all thank god that GW didn't just go with some kind of blanket 'if the models function differently in the game' bull-crap for the complex unit rules, but what that means is that they did draw a line in the sand and pick specific things that identify if two models are identical for the purpose of the complex unit rules (with those things being: characteristics, weapons, wargear and special rules).

Yes, by defining exactly what things constitute identical in can (and does) leave potential situations where a model can actually function differently from another model but is still considered 'identical' for the complex unit rules as I've already pointed out with the example of some combi-weapons in a unit being expended while others are not.

So bringing up Sainguinor is irrelevant. Yes, a model with a different name can sometimes function differently from the rest of the models in his unit even though he has the same characteristics, weapons, wargear and special rules...the fact that it happens doesn't change that the complex unit rules only care for those 4 things, of which name is not one of them.

Mannahnin wrote:

Soup and a roll wrote:

TC wrote:In America, I can go into a store and buy a bottle of ketchup. Here in South Africa, that same bottle, with the same brand, same size, same ingredients, is called Tomato Sauce. Now would these 2 bottles be considered different or identical, considering they have a different name?

This is the stance I took in the previous thread. It would make no difference 'in gaming terms', if the sergeant was called a 'team leader' or anything else so the name in itself is unimportant.

The waters are muddied, however, by the GK Terminator Justicar and, even more indirectly, by the Sanguinor's blessings.

Exactly. There are rules which distinguish between a sergeant or justicar and a regular squad member, even when their statlines, special rules, and weaponry are identical. And thus they cannot be said to be "identical for gaming purposes".

Again, the complex unit rules very specifically say what they mean by 'identical for gaming purposes' and there are CLEARLY situations where models function differently in the game but still would be considered 'identical' when following the rules for complex units. It is pointless to keep bringing up the fact that models can sometimes be affected separately somehow has bearing on the argument, when it actually doesn't.

The whole thing hinges upon the idea of whether or not the name is considered part of the profile of characteristics and nobody has shown any actual precedence that the name is considered by the rules to be part of the characteristic profile.

Soup and a roll wrote:[ It seems ludicrous to play a similar situation in different armies in different ways due to such an obscure and complicated reading of the rules. Of course, YMMV.

As I pointed out previously, which is more obscure and complicated? If we show the rules for complex units/wound allocation to a new or random player, is he more likely to think of a sergeant as identical and interchangeable with a regular squad member, or different? I think the more intuitive answer is that a sergeant is not just another squaddie.

I totally disagree, and I'm being totally honest. If the sergeant is equipped exactly the same, has the same profile of characteristics and has no different special rules I don't think a new player would even think twice...in 199 out of 200 situations, that sergeant will play exactly the same as any other member of the unit so why would they have wounds allocated to them separately?

Let's be honest, the people who *really* want the sergeant to be treated differently are those people looking to dump extra wounds onto him for no other reason except that they can.

I'm disappointed now. I don't think Nos, Insaniak, or myself are arguing for personal advantage. I can't think of a good reason for you to even include that last bit.

I withdraw from the discussion. Evidently you have decided that this is not a matter of opinion or interpretation, and "the same profile of characteristics" cannot possibly mean what I think it means. It can only mean what you think it means. There is therefore no point in continuing to reiterate my interpretation & belief, as it has been read and disregarded as erroneous.

Congratulations.

Mannahnin wrote:I'm disappointed now. I don't think Nos, Insaniak, or myself are arguing for personal advantage. I can't think of a good reason for you to even include that last bit.

Then arguing for the sake of arguing?

Mannahnin wrote:I'm disappointed now. I don't think Nos, Insaniak, or myself are arguing for personal advantage. I can't think of a good reason for you to even include that last bit.

I withdraw from the discussion. Evidently this is not a matter of opinion or interpretation, and "the same profile of characteristics" cannot possibly mean what I think it means. It can only mean what you think it means. I am wrong and you are right, and clearly we can all see GW's intent. Congratulations.

Sorry about that, I wasn't trying to imply that anyone with a differing viewpoint is doing so solely because they want to take advantage of the wound allocation rules. I think you personally are arguing from the point of view of what you believe to be right. In other words, I don't think you *really* want the sergeant to be allocated separately, you just think the rules say it should be played that way.

What I was trying to say is that we have an ambiguous situation at best here, and one interpretation is definitely more beneficial for the player designing his units, and that is to have a model in the unit that is allocated separately even though he is identical in the eyes of the complex unit rules. While I do think the letter of the rules support my position, I also think that the principle of erring on the side of the less advantageous interpretation makes it a good idea to treat models with the same characteristics, weapons, warger and special rules as identical for the purposes of the complex unit rules even if they have a different name from the rest of the models in their unit.

So I apologize again for any negative connotation I may have made.

Ah. I went back and edited my rather over-dramatic phrasing a bit too late. Thanks for the apology.

The whole thing hinges upon the idea of whether or not the name is considered part of the profile of characteristics and nobody has shown any actual precedence that the name is considered by the rules to be part of the characteristic profile.

I think this is the key misunderstanding. I don't think the counter argument is that the name is part of the profile of characteristics. It is more that an identical profile of numbers is a different profile if it is a different profile. So for instance a Tactical marine has a different profile to a devastator marine even though the name is the same and so are all the number. By the nature of have a separate profile in a separate entry they have 2 different profiles which are identical.

It hinges on whether you interpret the same as meaning identical or shared rather than whether you believe the name is a characteristic of the profile (which it clearly isn't).

I've tried to expalain that a few times now, and generally DR responds with "same == identical in gaming terms", when that is an invalid mangling of two sentences.

You cannot have the same profile if there are two different profiles; while the contents may be the sam that is NOT what the rule asks for: it asks for the *same profile of characteristics", not a profile which has the same characteristics.

nosferatu1001 wrote:I've tried to expalain that a few times now, and generally DR responds with "same == identical in gaming terms", when that is an invalid mangling of two sentences.

You cannot have the same profile if there are two different profiles; while the contents may be the sam that is NOT what the rule asks for: it asks for the *same profile of characteristics", not a profile which has the same characteristics.

And what you keep ignoring is the fact that a 'profile' MEANS a 'set of characteristics', so when the rule asks to check if the models have the 'same profile of characteristics' they are asking for you to look and see if they have the same characteristics...that is EXACTLY what that means.

There is no NAME listed in the rules as being part of the profile. Every profile has to be named for it to have meaning, but as to what actually makes up a profile is just the characteristics.

We can PROVE that characteristics are what make up a profile. It cannot be proved that the name is part of the profile. As a game is permissive, you cannot simply assume that anything not mentioned makes up a profile...only the things specified as actually making up the profile do so.


So a Devestator Marine and a Tactical Marine have the SAME profile of characteristics...as a profile is a set of characteristics, and the name is not identified as being one of those characteristics.

And what you keep ignoring is the fact that a 'profile' MEANS a 'set of characteristics'

But the counter is that 2 differents sets with the same contents aren't the same sets. They are identical sets but by the very definition of not being the same set they are different sets.

Again it is a question of does same = identical or shared. (personally I feel both interpretations are valid, I'm leaning towards shared for RaW and Identical for RaI).

FlingitNow wrote:

And what you keep ignoring is the fact that a 'profile' MEANS a 'set of characteristics'

But the counter is that 2 differents sets with the same contents aren't the same sets. They are identical sets but by the very definition of not being the same set they are different sets.

Again it is a question of does same = identical or shared. (personally I feel both interpretations are valid, I'm leaning towards shared for RaW and Identical for RaI).

I think you hit this one square on the head. The word "same" can have various meanings:

1. Being the very one; identical (the same boat we rented before.)
2. Similar in kind, quality, quantity, or degree.
3. Conforming in every detail: according to the same rules as before.
4. Being the one previously mentioned or indicated; aforesaid.

Since there is no specific definition in the rulebook, this leaves it open to interpretation based on English language.

Yak - they are not the same, as there are two profiles there. The two profiles may have the same contents but they are NOT the same profiles!

The issue is whether the profiles are identical in the way they work on the table top.

That isnt what is asked - you are asked if they are the same profile as part of defining what "identical in gaming terms" really means.

If you have 2 different profiles they are never the same profile, even if the contents are identical.

Main point being the rules don't ask one to compare two profiles.

How does one know the profiles are the 'same' if one doesn't have any reason to look at the second profile. If one has located the correct profile why would one consult another?... unless one was consulting a different profile that is. But wouldn't the same profile as the one you were looking for.

If one has to look at two different profiles then one isn't looking at the same profile.

nosferatu1001 wrote:I've tried to expalain that a few times now, and generally DR responds with "same == identical in gaming terms", when that is an invalid mangling of two sentences.

You cannot have the same profile if there are two different profiles; while the contents may be the same that is NOT what the rule asks for: it asks for the *same profile of characteristics", not a profile which has the same characteristics.

Read the sentence again nos, it says identical. Then goes on to define what they mean by identical in the next sentence. the context of the paragraph is what some are missing, and why they do not read it correctly.

TC wrote:
I think you hit this one square on the head. The word "same" can have various meanings:

1. Being the very one; identical (the same boat we rented before.)
2. Similar in kind, quality, quantity, or degree.
3. Conforming in every detail: according to the same rules as before.
4. Being the one previously mentioned or indicated; aforesaid.

Since there is no specific definition in the rulebook, this leaves it open to interpretation based on English language.

There is a specific definition in the rulebook, look at the wording on page 25, It asks for things to be identical. Then it goes on to list what those 4 things are, profile, weapons, rules, and wargear.

It only asks that the Profiles be identical, it does not say that they need to share a profile.

Stop taking same to mean shared, it does not say shared anywhere, it says Identical.

2 different profiles can most certainly be 'the same/Identical.'
while they can not be 'the same/shared' the rules do not say they have to share a profile.

Mannahnin wrote:There are rules which distinguish between a sergeant or justicar and a regular squad member, even when their statlines, special rules, and weaponry are identical. And thus they cannot be said to be "identical for gaming purposes".

Except they only ask for 4 things to be identical, wargear, weapons, special rules, and characteristic values. For wound allocation purposes it cares not if the sanguinor can single out the sergeant in a unit with a special rule.

DeathReaper wrote:
2 different profiles can most certainly be 'the same/Identical.'

Antonyms by Answers.com wrote:
identical

Home > Library > Literature & Language > Antonyms

adj

Definition: alike, equal
Antonyms: different, dissimilar, distinct, diverse, opposite, unequal, unlike

I might not be a native english speaker, but I don't think so.

DR - back to mangling again.

You are asked if they are identical "in gaming terms", which is what you conveniently ignored there. Then then explain what "identical in gaming terms" means.

It doesnt mean what you repeatedly say it does.

you are asked if they are the same profile. They are different profiles, NOT the same

Jidmah wrote: I might not be a native english speaker, but I don't think so.

Actually Jidmah, both 'alike' and 'equal' fit DR's usage well. While the profiles are different in some ways, as per Nos' view, they are also the same (alike, equal), as per DR's.

yakface wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote: The issue is whether the profiles are identical in the way they work on the table top.

We can PROVE that characteristics are what make up a profile. It cannot be proved that the name is part of the profile.

this is spot on. If the value of the characteristics are the same, then they have the same profile of characteristics as far as the rules are concerned.

nosferatu1001 wrote:DR - back to mangling again.

You are asked if they are identical "in gaming terms", which is what you conveniently ignored there. Then then explain what "identical in gaming terms" means.

It doesnt mean what you repeatedly say it does.[but have not provided a page number to the contrary]

you are asked if they are the same profile[meaning Identical, not meaning shared]. They are different [Identical] profiles, NOT the same[but the game only cares if they are identical]

Fixed the above for you with the [bold].

Since A profile lists the value of its characteristics (P.7) then If you have the same listed values of characteristics, you have the same profile. It is all right there. Right here we have empirical evidence that you can have 2 separate profiles that are the same.


Jidmah, I am not 100% sure what you are saying, but If you are saying that identical means alike or equal, then profiles for an assault terminator and an assault terminator sergeant, are most definitely alike/equal.

Yes, and can one identify the profile that matters?

Conveniently each profile also contains a way to tell it apart from other profiles that would otherwise be identical--if you left part of the profile out that lets you know which profile you are looking at.

A name is part of each profile and is part of the game that is not a characteristic.
There is an identified list of the characteristics listed in a Profile of Characteristics, but names are also relevant to any listing.

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 is not a Profile of Characteristics, it is a list of numbers contained in a (non-existant example) profile.

The name can matter in gaming terms as well.

Actually Kir, as far as P.7 is concerned, 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 is a Profile of Characteristics

Since all the rule tell us is that a profile lists the value of its characteristics, It can only contain characteristic values as a part of the profile. Because it does not say that anything other than the characteristics is a part of the profile, we can not include anything other than the characteristics as a part of the profile.

The name can matter for some special rules, but as far as P.25 is concerned names do not matter, since it only cares about profile, weapons, rules, and wargear.

DeathReaper wrote:Since all the rule tell us is that a profile lists the value of its characteristics

Exactly. It does. Fortunately that is not ALL that it does. It also identifies the model it is associated with. AND the statistics those numbers are associated with.

(See: IG Orders, Vulcan, various Daemon rules, Preferred Enemy, etc.)



Automatically Appended Next Post:

DeathReaper wrote: It can only contain characteristic values as a part of the profile.

Find me a complete profile that does not contain the information that you state is irrelevent to the game.

yakface wrote:
... Fact a 'profile' MEANS a 'set of characteristics', so when the rule asks to check if the models have the 'same profile of characteristics' they are asking for you to look and see if they have the same characteristics...that is EXACTLY what that means.

There is no NAME listed in the rules as being part of the profile. Every profile has to be named for it to have meaning, but as to what actually makes up a profile is just the characteristics.

We can PROVE that characteristics are what make up a profile. It cannot be proved that the name is part of the profile. As a game is permissive, you cannot simply assume that anything not mentioned makes up a profile...only the things specified as actually making up the profile do so.

So a Devestator Marine and a Tactical Marine have the SAME profile of characteristics...as a profile is a set of characteristics, and the name is not identified as being one of those characteristics.

It is on you to find something that says the name is a part of the profile, you can not however, as the rules Yakface and I have presented are solid in this instance.

The rule tell us is that a profile lists the value of its characteristics. Fortunately that is ALL that it does. The names are just there for reference, and not a part of the profiles as far as P.25 is concerned.

And we're back round again.

I'm out guys. walls and all.

Yeah, this is definitely one of those cases where basic interpretation of language is at the heart of the disagreement so no amount of arguing is ever going to convince...especially as I think we've covered the salient points about four times over now.


As such, it seems like locking this one and moving on is the right course.