When allocating wounds, I know that identical models are treated as a group when taking casualties, but what about the sergeant? Deathwing in particular.

In a typical squad that I run, I have 2 models with Thunderhammers and storm shields, and 3 with a pair of lightning claws. To me, the sergeant has the same statistics as any other member of the unit so it really doesn't matter which model he is. And yet people that I play against always force me to treat him seperately for wound allocation. This just seems that it gives the rest of the unit a greater chance to survive as more wounds are being put on a model that is in pretty much all respect the same as any other model in the unit.

Is the sergeant treated as a seperate model in the unit even if his stats and wargear are identical t other members of the squad? Or are his wounds just put in with the other models that are the same as him?

Name is included in profiles and differentiates models.

Have a quick search, there are two opposiing camps.

I'm the "the sarge is a distinct model" camp, because the name has to be part of the characteristics in order to distinguish one model from another.

Yea, the Sergeant is a different group, even though he has the same gear and stats. Good for us

I would make him roll his own dice. Since if you allocate a wound to him and he dies, the group will have a lower LD check.

Edit: Same for any model with a special weapon. I.E. PF or the like.

Not for Terminators, everyone has the same Ld as they are all vets

kirsanth wrote:Name is included in profiles and differentiates models.

The name is not a part of the Profile of characteristics, so they are not different models.

nosferatu1001 wrote:I'm the "the sarge is a distinct model" camp, because the name has to be part of the characteristics in order to distinguish one model from another.

The name is not a part of the characteristics, We can even prove that characteristics are what make up a profile. It cannot be proved that the name is part of the profile.

However there are people who do not agree with this.

Discussed here:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/352524.page#2549430

It has also been proven that the game is a nonsense if you dont include names. Absurd results abound

nosferatu1001 wrote:It has also been proven that the game is a nonsense if you dont include names. Absurd results abound

Sure, but the name is not included for the purposes of wound allocation. As per the way the rules are laid out.

Names are part of the profile, but they are not a part of the Profile of characteristics, since we are told what the 9 characteristics are, and names are not among them.

nosferatu1001 wrote:I'm the "the sarge is a distinct model" camp, because the name has to be part of the characteristics in order to distinguish one model from another.

The other argument (simply for completeness and I don't think DeathReaper has done a good job of explaining it) is:

The rulebook specifies what you should consider to determine whether models are different for purposes of wound allocation. Name is not one of them.

My position is that if all of the models are identical in game terms, you should roll all of the saves for the unit at once.

biccat wrote:
My position is that if all of the models are identical in game terms, you should roll all of the saves for the unit at once.

Good position, and since the Sergeant has his own profile line in the codex, he is different from regular marines, even if all factors other than the name are the same. He does not have the "same profile of characteristics" as there is a difference between his profile line and their profile line. And that's all that is required.

Same profile of characteristics is not the same as having the same values listed in the profile of characteristics.

3 3 3 3 1 3 1 6 6+ is a list of values.

Find a profile without a name and you may have a counter point. More likely you have a typo or a truncated quote. . .but there it is.

DeathReaper wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:It has also been proven that the game is a nonsense if you dont include names. Absurd results abound

Sure, but the name is not included for the purposes of wound allocation. As per the way the rules are laid out.

Names are part of the profile, but they are not a part of the Profile of characteristics, since we are told what the 9 characteristics are, and names are not among them.

Theyre not the same, as there are two lines there - one for each. If they were the SAME, as in the same as the other 4 guys, then there would only be 1 profile line

don_mondo wrote:

biccat wrote:
My position is that if all of the models are identical in game terms, you should roll all of the saves for the unit at once.

Good position, and since the Sergeant has his own profile line in the codex, he is different from regular marines, even if all factors other than the name are the same. He does not have the "same profile of characteristics" as there is a difference between his profile line and their profile line. And that's all that is required.

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."

No, he has be Identical in gaming terms, meaning they need "the same profile of characteristics". He does not SHARE "the same profile of characteristics", but he has "the same profile of characteristics".

It says they need to have" the same profile of characteristics".

It does not say they need to share "the same profile of characteristics".

Same, in this instance, means Identical. It does not mean shared.

"The same" meaning "the same"

A terminator sarge and terminator unit do NOT have "the same" profile of characteristics. You are changing words to suit your artgument, again.

DeathReaper wrote:
Same, in this instance, means Identical. It does not mean shared.

And they aren't identical, are they? One says Sergeant, the other doesn't.

See also, page xii.
Model Profiles.

Note that the name is listed.

nosferatu1001 wrote:"The same" meaning "the same"

A terminator sarge and terminator unit do NOT have "the same" profile of characteristics. You are changing words to suit your artgument, again.

If that were true they would need the same weapons and wargear as well.

Do they have Shared weapons and wargear, or Identical weapons and wargear?

The same applies for the profile of characteristics. as long as they have identical characteristics, they are one group for wound allocation.

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."

We know that "each model has a profile made up of nine numbers" (Not names for the purpose of being the same)

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 asks that they have the same profile of characteristics, In this case the profile of characteristics are the same.

DeathReaper wrote:
It asks that they have the same profile of characteristics, In this case the profile of characteristics are the same.

Except they're not..............

DR - and, again you are adding / changing words to fit your argument.

they have to have the "same (profile of characteristics)"

They dont. They have different ones that contain the same numbers. That does not make them the same - it makes them SIMILAR, from a mathematical sense, but it doesnt make them the same

However we're back agsint the brick wall again, same as last time. Your reading, by changing the words, supports your view point.

Then answer my question:

Do they have Shared weapons and wargear, or Identical weapons and wargear?

- Off-topic image removed by insaniak. Let's not try to make this personal, hmm? -


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I was on his side power hungry mod. It was a picture of spock saying something about logic. I didnt say your mum's logical. I agree with Death reaper, and was saying that he argues with logic.

Let me make sure I have this correct...

I have a squad of 10 normal Chaos Space Marines. One of these is named "Aspiring Champion" and he has slightly different characteristics. I also give him slightly different wargear - say, a powerfist.

Within the remaining 9 members of the unit, 6 of them are IDENTICAL in the sense that they have the same characteristics and the same wargear.

That leaves 3 models. 2 of these models have flamers instead of bolters. The final model has all the same wargear as the previous 6 EXCEPT he is carrying a Chaos Icon.

During a game, this unit of 10 models receives 10 wounds in a single shooting phase, but has not yet rolled their armor saves.

So, my question (and I think the point of this thread) is how are the wounds allocated/saves rolled? Here are the options, and this is where I am confused:

Options

1) All 10 saves are rolled at the same time, before allocating a specific save to a specific model. If 4 saves are failed, the wounds are THEN allocated to the models of the controlling player's choosing. Obviously, the player is not going to choose the champion or the guy with the Icon.

2) 6 saves are rolled separately for the normal marines. 2 saves are rolled separately for the flamer guys. 1 is rolled separately for the Champion, and 1 is rolled separately for the Icon bearer.

Which is correct?

1) You allocate one wound to all models before allocating another. In this case every model gets one wound assigned

2) You then group wounds into identical groups - so the 6 normal guys have a pool of 6 wounds to make svaes from.

Essentially your number 2, you just need to note the grouping - you dont roll one guy at a time, as you see how many of that group suffer an unsaved wound, and can then choose which models are removed.

This has nothing to do with this thread, however.

DR - they have the same weapons and wargear. Again, stop changing the wording to support your argument, it undermines it something chronic

Ok, what if there are only 9 wounds instead of 10? Would I still roll a separate save for, say, the guy with an Icon (but otherwise identical wargear)?

Yes, as the ICon bearer does NOT have the same wargear. That is enough to make him a separate unit within the squad

Deathshead420 wrote:I was on his side power hungry mod. It was a picture of spock saying something about logic. I didnt say your mum's logical. I agree with Death reaper, and was saying that he argues with logic.

Fine. I can change the in-thread warning to a suspension for posting spam, if you would prefer?

Thanks!

don_mondo wrote:Good position, and since the Sergeant has his own profile line in the codex, he is different from regular marines, even if all factors other than the name are the same. He does not have the "same profile of characteristics" as there is a difference between his profile line and their profile line. And that's all that is required.

Well, you go ahead and adhere to your position. I think it's wrong, and I have a strong rules-based argument to support that position.

You do too, FYI.

But during a game, if a unit of 5 suffered 9 wounds, I would object to my opponent rolling 8 saves for 4 models and 1 save for the sergeant. Especially if it were from AP1 or 2 weapons.

For non-AP1-2 weapons there's less than a 1% chance of wiping out the unit (.5% with allocation, .8% without), so allocation will have a negligible effect. With AP1-2 weapons (or power weapons), the odds of wiping out the squad changes significantly. Without allocation, AP1-2 weapons will wipe out the squad 85% of the time. With allocation, you will only wipe out the squad 60% of the time. That's a substantial difference that could affect the game result, IMO.

don_mondo wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:
Same, in this instance, means Identical. It does not mean shared.

And they aren't identical, are they? One says Sergeant, the other doesn't.

Exactly.

Well in the rulebook it says for taking saves and such if they have different stats or anything you use the majority..

No you dont. Youre mixing up rolling to wound with taking saves.

don_mondo wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:
Same, in this instance, means Identical. It does not mean shared.

And they aren't identical, are they? One says Sergeant, the other doesn't.

They are identical as far as wound allocation is concerned. Since they only need to have the same profile of characteristics.

A profile lists the value of its characteristics P.7 (No mention of name)

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."(No mention of name)

So I have proven that the profile of characteristics is "a profile made up of nine numbers that describe the various aspects of their physical and mental make-up. These are called characteristics"(No mention of name)

a profile is made up of 9 numbers that are called characteristics

characteristics = the 9 numbers in the profile.

You can not prove that the name is a characteristic, since characteristic are numbers. names are not numbers.

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."

nosferatu1001 wrote:1)DR - they have the same weapons and wargear. Again, stop changing the wording to support your argument, it undermines it something chronic

Mind actually answering my question?

Do they have Shared weapons and wargear, or Identical weapons and wargear?

No DR, not answering a question involving you altering wording to your benefit. I have answered the required question, which is that they are the same items of wargear.

We have proven that the profiles are only similar, they are not the same. Whie the numbers may be identical, the profiles are not - just simlar.

Your refusal to understand the semantic difference is the issue here

No altered wording, I am trying to determine what same means in that sentence. It can mean identical or shared, you are taking same to mean shared, I am taking same to mean Identical, here is why.

P.25 under complex units: Even says Identical, it makes no mention of shared.
"... Identical in gaming terms. By this we mean they have the same profile of characteristics, the same weapons and wargear."

The profile of characteristics need to be IDENTICAL.

The DO NOT need to share a profile. you have no rules to actually back up your point.

Same refers to Identical as mentioned in the previous sentence.

And they're not identical, right?

don_mondo wrote:And they're not identical, right?

Actually they are Identical as far as the wound allocation rules are concerned. They only need to have the same profile of characteristics. Names are not mentioned.

You can not prove that the name is a characteristic, since characteristic are numbers. Names are not numbers.

Until you prove the name is a part of the profile of characteristics you have no rules argument.

In this instance 'Profile' means one thing (Name included) and 'profile of characteristics' means something slightly different (Name not included), since the name is not a characteristic.

My group plays it as how DeathReaper is suggesting. If the numerical stats and wargear are the same, they roll saves together. That is what we feel was intended by the "in gaming terms" and the logical reason for wound allocation.

DeathReaper wrote:

don_mondo wrote:And they're not identical, right?

Actually they are Identical as far as the wound allocation rules are concerned. They only need to have the same profile of characteristics. Names are not mentioned.

Actually, the example in the main rules includes the name, so yes, it is indeed part of the profile of characterisitics.

don_mondo wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

don_mondo wrote:And they're not identical, right?

Actually they are Identical as far as the wound allocation rules are concerned. They only need to have the same profile of characteristics. Names are not mentioned.

Actually, the example in the main rules includes the name, so yes, it is indeed part of the profile of characterisitics.

Page with actual rules that states that please.

Page 7, Characteristic profiles, see examples.

I see no actual rules that say names are a part of the Characteristics.

All P.7 says is that A profile lists the value of its characteristics.

P.6 states "For all models except vehicles these characteristics are given a value on a scale of 0 - 10..."

A name is not one of the listed values between 0-10

What is the value of the "Ork boy" or the "Space Marine" examples?
(Hint: they do not have a value since they are not between 0 - 10 inclusive)

....and they still dont have an identical set of characteristics. There are two of them, not one. You'd have a point if there was one - but there isnt.

nosferatu1001 wrote:....and they still dont have an identical set of characteristics. There are two of them, not one. You'd have a point if there was one - but there isnt.

Characteristics = Values.

2 values can be identical even if they are listed in two separate places. P.7 confirms this under the example profiles by saying "They have the same Weapon Skill and the same Toughness value." How can this be if there are two of them?

4 4 4 4 1 4 2 9 2+

is Identical to

4 4 4 4 1 4 2 9 2+

Even though they are listed two different places. That's basic stuff Nos. I am actually kind of surprised Nos, most of the time you stay away from Logical Fallacies.

And your basic "stuff" is ignoring that there are two profiles that are not the same. They are similar, but not the same.

We will never agree, at any point

nosferatu1001 wrote:And your basic "stuff" is ignoring that there are two profiles that are not the same. They are similar, but not the same.

We will never agree, at any point

That's because your arguments are in error and you can not see it.

The same means Identical in this case, as referenced by the "Identical" in the previous sentence.

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

Edit: Also you are not answering my question because it undermines your argument. The same can refer to one of two things. Either a shared profile, or an Identical Profile. If you read the sentence just before that says "Identical. By this we mean" tells us they do not need to share a profile, just that the profiles need to be identical.

So which is it? Do they have Shared weapons and wargear, or Identical weapons and wargear?

False equivalence, actually. Thats your error, and no matter how many times its pointed out you blindly ignore it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:False equivalence, actually. Thats your error, and no matter how many times its pointed out you blindly ignore it.

Can you actually answer the question.

Do they have Shared weapons and wargear, or Identical weapons and wargear?

No, the question is do they have identical stat lines. And the answer is no.

don_mondo wrote:No, the question is do they have identical stat lines. And the answer is no.

The answer is yes, The Profile of Characteristics is Identical.

Unless:

4 4 4 4 1 4 2 9 2+

and

4 4 4 4 1 4 2 9 2+

are somehow not identical. but they are identical.

I in the sarge is rolled separately camp. In every other squad the sarge is different just because the squad has the same stats doesn't change that he is a different model, what purpose does he have being their if he isn't special?

DeathReaper wrote:

don_mondo wrote:No, the question is do they have identical stat lines. And the answer is no.

The answer is yes, The Profile of Characteristics is Identical.

Except for the part of the profile that tells you who that profile belongs to.

Unless:

4 4 4 4 1 4 2 9 2+

and

4 4 4 4 1 4 2 9 2+

are somehow not identical. but they are identical.

Sure, those parts are identical. Likewise, if you look at a regular Tactical Squad member and his Sergeant, and only compare those parts of their profiles that are identical you will also have two apparently identical profiles.

You have to compare the entire profile, though. And if you don't include the name that identifies the profile as a part of the comparison then the comparison is meaningless since there is no way of identifying who those profiles belong to.

The Rules only care about the Profile of Characteristics, and that they are Identical.

P.7 says is that A profile lists the value of its characteristics.

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.6 states "For all models except vehicles these characteristics are given a value on a scale of 0 - 10..."\

Profile of characteristics do not include the name.

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

They need to be "Identical in gaming terms" aka same values for its profile.

I do not understand how this is not clear to you guys.

Does the fact that the actual Codex entry for the unit composition lists him as a separate model?

The unit composition does not state that there are 5 Terminators (1 of which is a Sergeant). It states that there are 4 Terminators (which are the same) and 1 Sergeant (which is a separate model but has the same profile).

The Sergeant for Tactical Terminators has different wargear from the rest of the squat, so the Assault Terminators are the odd man out here.

d-usa wrote:Does the fact that the actual Codex entry for the unit composition lists him as a separate model?

The unit composition does not state that there are 5 Terminators (1 of which is a Sergeant). It states that there are 4 Terminators (which are the same) and 1 Sergeant (which is a separate model but has the same profile).

The Sergeant for Tactical Terminators has different wargear from the rest of the squat, so the Assault Terminators are the odd man out here.

The underlined is what the rules care about.

Only if he has different wargear or rules than the rest then he is different.

if he has "the same profile of characteristics, the same weapons and wargear." he is "Identical in gaming terms."

Different names are not mentioned as criteria.

DeathReaper wrote:The Rules only care about the Profile of Characteristics, and that they are Identical.

And that profile of characteristics is a series of characteristic values with a name attached to it to tell you what it belongs to. If any part of that profile is different, they are not identical.

You can't just choose to ignore the part of the profile that is different. You're creating a definition for this 'profile of characteristics' that pretends that the name is not a part of the profile... and ths definition is simply not backed up by actual rules.

The name is a part of the profile. It has to be, otherwise you just have a series of meaningless numbers. The fact that the profile includes a series of characteristics does not, in any way, mean that the name is not also a part of the profile.

I would think that if the profiles for all 4 Terminators and 1 Sgt would be the same, there would only be one profile entry.

I am going to put myself in the "just because the profiles are identical, does not mean that two separate profiles are really only one for gaming purposes" camp.

The composition lists them as separate models, they have two separate profiles, they have a distinctly separate model.

The rules on page 25 talks about "different models" not "different profiles" or whatever you want to use. Since the Sgt is a different model in the profile line and composition line I don't think that there is anything wrong with considering him a "different model".

insaniak wrote:

Deathshead420 wrote:I was on his side power hungry mod. It was a picture of spock saying something about logic. I didnt say your mum's logical. I agree with Death reaper, and was saying that he argues with logic.

Fine. I can change the in-thread warning to a suspension for posting spam, if you would prefer?

This is a little much Insaniak. Threatening a suspension for spam when there is none? Really dude? That does nothing to defend the power hungry claim there...
Now, conduct and language is a different story but there's no mention of that.

Now for the topic at hand. I'm on the side that the Sgt is always treated as a separate model for wound allocation, most of the time they have a higher LD, and in the cases where they don't, most cases they have a bolt pistol chain sword or some kind of different wargear. Just because some squads can equip their sgt with the same gear as the squad and have a statline, it's still a separate model that is leading the squad.

insaniak wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:The Rules only care about the Profile of Characteristics, and that they are Identical.

And that profile of characteristics is a series of characteristic values with a name attached to it to tell you what it belongs to. If any part of that profile is different, they are not identical.

You can't just choose to ignore the part of the profile that is different. You're creating a definition for this 'profile of characteristics' that pretends that the name is not a part of the profile... and ths definition is simply not backed up by actual rules.

The name is a part of the profile. It has to be, otherwise you just have a series of meaningless numbers. The fact that the profile includes a series of characteristics does not, in any way, mean that the name is not also a part of the profile.

If any part of the Profile of characteristics is different, which are the values of the characteristics, they are not identical. (Names are there for reference)

I have proven with Pages and quotes that the profile is made up of 9 number. The characteristics on P.6 do not mention names as one of the characteristics.

The profile would include the name but the profile of characteristics would not, as I have shown.

Why does it not say they need the same profile?
(Because Profile of characteristics is just the numbered values, and Profile is the whole thing)

DeathReaper wrote:I see no actual rules that say names are a part of the Characteristics.

All P.7 says is that A profile lists the value of its characteristics.

P.6 states "For all models except vehicles these characteristics are given a value on a scale of 0 - 10..."

A name is not one of the listed values between 0-10

What is the value of the "Ork boy" or the "Space Marine" examples?
(Hint: they do not have a value since they are not between 0 - 10 inclusive)

But a "Space Marine" is not an "Ork Boy", so you must admit that there IS a challenge that the name IS a characteristic of the model. Just the same as a Medusa is not a Basilisk etc etc.



I'm not sold yet on which way is the right answer, and think this might be something that should be addressed by FAQ. But, there is a very logical argument that a models name is in fact a genuine article of definition of models in a squad. To place 5 space marines on the table you MUST have one Sargent, the codex dictates this; therefor one model is essentially different by definition of the codex itself.

I think that the name serves as an identifier for the profile of characteristics, not a characteristic of the profile.

I also think that the main reason that the wound allocation rules are as they are in ed. 5 is so that models that could impact the game differently due to having different gear, rules or characteristic values from their unit are all represented when their unit suffers enough wounds. Since the sergeant has no different impact to the game from any other member of the squad of terminators that the intent (as I assume it is intended) is not applicable.

I did notice that the INAT unofficial FAQ has ruled on this exact question. I didn't know that models can be specifically targeted by their names, and if that is true then that would make anything with a different name from the rest of its unit have a potential different impact to the game simply due to it having a different name. I need to learn more about what can target something specifically by its name, but if so, that could sway me to change my stance.

Dracheous wrote:
But a "Space Marine" is not an "Ork Boy", so you must admit that there IS a challenge that the name IS a characteristic of the model. Just the same as a Medusa is not a Basilisk etc etc.

I'm not sold yet on which way is the right answer, and think this might be something that should be addressed by FAQ. But, there is a very logical argument that a models name is in fact a genuine article of definition of models in a squad. To place 5 space marines on the table you MUST have one Sargent, the codex dictates this; therefor one model is essentially different by definition of the codex itself.

Being "essentially different by definition of the codex itself." does not matter to the BRB, it onl;y cares about characteristics, weapons, wargear, and special rules being identical.

The Characteristics are Listed on P.6

It tells us what the 9 characteristics are.
I will list them.

Weapon Skill (WS)
Balistic Skill (BS)
Strength (S)
Toughness (T)
Wounds (W)
Initiative (I)
Attacks (A)
Leadership (Ld)
Armor Save (Sv)

It even goes on to say "Certain pieces of wargear or special rules may modify a model's characteristics positively or negatively, by adding to it (+1, +2 etc) or even multiplying it (x2, x3, etc.) However no modifier may raise any characteristic above 10 or lower it to below 0."

Now, if the name "IS a characteristic of the model" as you say, how can you modify it by +1? and how can it be maxed at 10 or reduced to 0?

The name is there for reference and is not a characteristic value.

This is being argued from the wrong angle. Forget about the characteristics, they mean little in this arguement. Look at profiles within each codex. Example being discussed and the OP question involving... Deathwing Sgt.

Wound allocation is done by spreading wounds evenly among figures within squad, different profiles break this down further.

Per Dark Angels codex, Deathwing terminators have a profile line and the Deathwing terminator Sgt has his own. With those facts, you have 2 profiles! You spread wounds evenly amongst remaining models. If the squad has a heavy weapon, the profiles increase to 3. A full Deathwing squad has a potential of 5 profiles, as they can each be armed differently.

With that said, I play my Deathwing Sgt armed with TH/SS as a seperate profile than the regular TH/SS terminator within his squad.

Kreedos wrote:This is a little much Insaniak. Threatening a suspension for spam when there is none?

Posting just an image as a thread response is just as much spam as a '+1' post. It's nothing to do with being 'power-hungry' ... the rule is there simply to encourage people to take the time to write an actual response if they wish to contribute to the thread.

And the middle of a thread is the wrong place to debate forum moderation. Particularly if you're going to be rude about it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
[quote=insaniakIf any part of the Profile of characteristics is different, which are the values of the characteristics,...

The Profile of characteristics is a thing I can prove as being 9 numbers."each model has a profile made up of nine numbers...These are called characteristics."" This is what a profile of characteristics consists of.

Names can not be proven to be a part of the Profile of characteristics for being identical in gaming terms.

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."(No mention of name)

Drop the characteristic debate. I don't refute they have the same 9 stats. Codex profiles show basic terminator has it's profile and Sgt terminator has it's own. Same exact numbers, but on 2 different lines.

The DW sgt and the other 4 termies have 2 profiles. This IS what allows the sgt to be rolled seperately.

DeathReaper wrote:
It even goes on to say "Certain pieces of wargear or special rules may modify a model's characteristics positively or negatively, by adding to it (+1, +2 etc) or even multiplying it (x2, x3, etc.) However no modifier may raise any characteristic above 10 or lower it to below 0."

Now, if the name "IS a characteristic of the model" as you say, how can you modify it by +1? and how can it be maxed at 10 or reduced to 0?

The name is there for reference and is not a characteristic value.

Answer one question before continuing; CAN you have a Terminator Squad with out a Terminator Sargent?



If names are not "important" why bother naming any of them? As I said, a Space Marine is not an Ork Boy; but seeing as name is not a characteristic I suppose I could run my Space Marines as Ork Boy's .

Dracheous wrote:Answer one question before continuing; CAN you have a Terminator Squad with out a Terminator Sargent?

In gaming terms yes, since they are functionally Identical to the gameplay. When purchased they are 5 identical models, one with a different name.

Dracheous wrote:If names are not "important" why bother naming any of them? As I said, a Space Marine is not an Ork Boy; but seeing as name is not a characteristic I suppose I could run my Space Marines as Ork Boy's .

Call them whatever you want. Call them Super-human un-killable green killing machines that regenerate, as long as you do not change their profile there is no issue as they will interact with the game in the exact same way as before you changed their name.

Old Man Ultramarine wrote:Drop the characteristic debate. I don't refute they have the same 9 stats. Codex profiles show basic terminator has it's profile and Sgt terminator has it's own. Same exact numbers, but on 2 different lines.

The DW sgt and the other 4 termies have 2 profiles. This IS what allows the sgt to be rolled seperately.

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 only asks that the Profile of Characteristics be the same (This means Identical due to the previous paragraph)

2 different Profile of Characteristics can be Identical.

"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)."[Yakface said this in a previous thread]

DeathReaper wrote:

Old Man Ultramarine wrote:Drop the characteristic debate. I don't refute they have the same 9 stats. Codex profiles show basic terminator has it's profile and Sgt terminator has it's own. Same exact numbers, but on 2 different lines.

The DW sgt and the other 4 termies have 2 profiles. This IS what allows the sgt to be rolled seperately.

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 only asks that the Profile of Characteristics be the same (This means Identical due to the previous paragraph)

2 different Profile of Characteristics can be Identical.

"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)."[Yakface said this in a previous thread]

Uh huh, want to read Pg. 7 again?

Pg.7"Characteristic Profiles wrote: Each model has a profile that lists the value of its characteristics.

A "Sargent Terminator" is not a "Terminator", it has its own listing. A terminator squad can not be placed on the table with out a Sargent; please reference Pg. 136 for "Sargent Terminator" Characteristic profile.

Want to give me proof that the name is included in the Profile of Characteristics?

you can't, it is not there.

No matter what you call them you have 5 models with identical profile characteristics, weapons, wargear, and special rules on the table.

A profile, by definition is a set of characteristics.

DeathReaper wrote:Want to give me proof that the name is included in the Profile of Characteristics?

you can't, it is not there.

No matter what you call them you have 5 models with identical profile characteristics, weapons, wargear, and special rules on the table.

A profile, by definition is a set of characteristics.

So you are not placing a Sargent model in your squad?

Ok enough with this.

If the squad of terminators was all Sargent, then yes it wouldn't matter. However if the unit clearly has two listings, such as terminators, and then terminator sargent, it's a different model for purposes of wound allocation.

So in a squad of 5 you have:
Terminator
Terminator
Terminator
Terminator
Terminator Sargent.

As opposed to:
Terminator
Terminator
Terminator
Terminator
Terminator

Or even:
Terminator Sargent
Terminator Sargent
Terminator Sargent
Terminator Sargent
Terminator Sargent

What I am saying is that it does not matter what the model is called.

What matters is that the models are "Identical in gaming terms"

I.E. if the models have the same weapon skill Ballistic skill etc. then they are "Identical in gaming terms" Regardless of what they are called.

juraigamer wrote:...If the squad of terminators was all Sargent, then yes it wouldn't matter. However if the unit clearly has two listings, such as terminators, and then terminator sargent, it's a different model for purposes of wound allocation.

Incorrect. those models you listed are all "Identical in gaming terms"

DeathReaper wrote:What I am saying is that it does not matter what the model is called.

What matters is that the models are "Identical in gaming terms"

I.E. if the models have the same weapon skill Ballistic skill etc. then they are "Identical in gaming terms" Regardless of what they are called.

juraigamer wrote:...If the squad of terminators was all Sargent, then yes it wouldn't matter. However if the unit clearly has two listings, such as terminators, and then terminator sargent, it's a different model for purposes of wound allocation.

Incorrect. those models you listed are all "Identical in gaming terms"

But you're not reading Pg.7, here I'll show ya one more time:

Pg.7"Characteristic Profiles wrote: Each model has a profile that lists the value of its characteristics.

It states that each MODEL, not each "squad", when you go to the Codex you require 4 Terminators and 1 Sargent Terminator for a squad to be placed on the table; you are able to include an addition "5 Terminators" but there is no allocation for any more "Sargent Terminators" because you're only allowed ONE. And that model has its own characteristic profile

Dracheous wrote:
But you're not reading Pg.7, here I'll show ya one more time:

Pg.7"Characteristic Profiles wrote: Each model has a profile that lists the value of its characteristics.

It states that each MODEL, not each "squad", when you go to the Codex you require 4 Terminators and 1 Sargent Terminator for a squad to be placed on the table; you are able to include an addition "5 Terminators" but there is no allocation for any more "Sargent Terminators" because you're only allowed ONE. And that model has its own characteristic profile

It can have its own characteristic profile, P. 25 cares only if that characteristic profile is Identical to the rest of his unit. (the do not have to share a profile, they have to have Identical profiles)

Since the Assault terminator and Assault terminator sergeant have Identical characteristic profiles they are the same wound group.

and I am reading P.7, I have read it many times.

DeathReaper wrote:What I am saying is that it does not matter what the model is called.

And what you're being told is that of course it matters what the model is called. The name is what you use to distinguish one profile from another. So if two profiles have different names, they're clearly not the same profile.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DeathReaper wrote:What matters is that the models are "Identical in gaming terms"

If the models have different profiles, they are clearly not identical in gaming terms. Because if they were, they wouldn't have a separate profile. You would just have a fluff description stating that the squad consists of a sergeant and 4 terminators, and the profile would just read 'Terminator'...

DeathReaper wrote:

It can have its own characteristic profile, P. 25 cares only if that characteristic profile is Identical to the rest of his unit. (the do not have to share a profile, they have to have Identical profiles)

Since the Assault terminator and Assault terminator sergeant have Identical characteristic profiles they are the same wound group.

and I am reading P.7, I have read it many times.

Pg.25 wrote: This Space Marine Devastator combat squad consists of five models: two Space Marines armed with bolters, two armed with missile launchers and one Veteran Sergeant (who has a different profile and wargear from the rest of the squad)

Pg.25 even states that the Sergeant is different from the Space Marines both in profile AND war gear. Yes, in a Dev Squad, the Sergeant has one more attack and 9 Ld. However it does not state "different characteristics", it states "different profile". The Terminator Sergeant has his OWN "profile" right there in the Codex as well; and he is REQUIRED for a squad.

I know they are not the same profile, but they are "Identical in gaming terms"

look at the quote from P.25, it establishes that The same means Identical in the context of that sentence.

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."

The same means Identical in this case, so they do not have to share a profile, they only need identical.

In the context of that passage on P.25 this question arises:

To be the same wound group would they need Shared weapons and wargear, or Identical weapons and wargear?

DeathReaper wrote:I know they are not the same profile, but they are "Identical in gaming terms"

look at the quote from P.25, it establishes that The same means Identical in the context of that sentence.

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."

The same means Identical in this case, so they do not have to share a profile, they only need identical.

In the context of that passage on P.25 this question arises:

To be the same wound group would they need Shared weapons and wargear, or Identical weapons and wargear?

That's the part you're missing; a Sergeant Terminator and Terminator do NOT have the "same" profile, they EACH have their own. Just because they're the same does not eliminate the REQUIREMENT of ONE model to represent the Sergeant Terminator in the squad, who has his OWN profile.



Sweet Mary 'n Joseph boy, the feth so hard to grasp here? Mods excuse my lapse in ability to contain the damned language... but dude look at what YOU just said yourself and KEEPING IT QUOTED HERE and capped.

"I know they're not the SAME profile... but the book here says if you HAVE the SAME profile..."

what?!

Dracheous, Look at the context.

The same profile of characteristics does not mean they need to share a profile. This is what you are suggesting.

But the rules actually tell us that the profiles need only to be Identical in gaming terms.

they need Identical profiles, they do not need to share a profile.

Subtle but important difference.

(Remember the same can mean shared, or it can mean Identical, I think this distinction is where you are getting confused).

DeathReaper wrote:Dracheous, Look at the context.

The same profile of characteristics does not mean they need to share a profile. This is what you are suggesting.

But the rules actually tell us that the profiles need only to be Identical in gaming terms.

they need Identical profiles, they do not need to share a profile.

Subtle but important difference.

No, the rules tell you that each model has its own profile, the rules tell you that a Sergeant Terminator is not a Terminator; the rules TELL you that for allocating wounds to models they must have the same: profile, wargear, weapons, AND special rules to be grouped together. A Sergeant has his OWN profile and is not a Terminator profile, thus different, AS the same page states that Sergeants have a "different profile" ((not "different characteristics)).

Answer me this Drac:

To be the same wound group would they need Shared weapons and wargear, or Identical weapons and wargear?

DeathReaper wrote:Answer me this Drac:

To be the same wound group would they need Shared weapons and wargear, or Identical weapons and wargear?

Pg.25 wrote:we mean they have the same profile of characteristics, the same special rules, and the same weapons and wargear.

If the models have the same weapons and wargear ((as well as same profile of characteristics <- this is the part that is NOT the same for the Sergeant, he has his own, AND same special rules.))



Look this "shared weapons" thing, are you referring to something like an heavy weapons team? ((ie. guard)), because that arguments not sinking in here as such weapons are part of ONE model. Generally one model with multiple wounds. "Shared Weapons" don't even show up in the weapons type/profiles starting on Pg.27.

I don't have the SM codex, but I do have a question from it. Devastator Squads: Does the Sarge have a different profile? I ask because under Allocating wounds on complex units, pg 25 BRB: "...one Veteran Sergeant (who has a different profile and wargear...)"

Happyjew wrote:I don't have the SM codex, but I do have a question from it. Devastator Squads: Does the Sarge have a different profile? I ask because under Allocating wounds on complex units, pg 25 BRB: "...one Veteran Sergeant (who has a different profile and wargear...)"

He has his own profile with his own characteristics. The argument is not about the numbers being the same or different, its that he has his own listed profile which makes it different from the standard Space Marines in his squad; this is shown by the codex requiring a model in his place for the unit to be on the table. But yes, his characteristics are similar but has change from Space Marines. Again though, he is not himself a Space Marine ((or a Devastator)).

Youre making a number of logical errors, DR, as usual.

Youre assuming that "is made up" is actually saying "is only made up of", which is one error.

Its also the only one that counts. They are not the same profile, but similar profiles, so they ARE different.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't he purchased as a Sgt in the unit cost?

That would make him a separate model than the rest, that's a pretty straight forward reason by itself. Having the same stats and wargear, does not the same profile make. This is actually a pretty easy call, I think you're complicating it for yourself DR

DeathReaper wrote:Want to give me proof that the name is included in the Profile of Characteristics?

you can't, it is not there.

.

Look in the codex. Is there a name at the beginning of the profile. Yes. There's your proof.

Question:

If I buy 2 Chaos Lords and equip them similarly (say a powerfist and bolter) and attach them both to a unit of 5 Chaos Marines (no Aspiring Champion), how would you resolve it when the unit receives 12 wounds?

A)
10 wounds to marines.
1 wound to Chaos Lord #1.
1 wound to Chaos Lord #2.

Or:

B)
10 wounds to marines.
2 wounds to Chaos Lords.

Do the Chaos Lords have the "same profile of characteristics" for purposes of wound allocation?

What if one of the Lords has only 1 wound remaining while the other Lord has 3 wounds remaining; do they still share the "same profile of characteristics"?

They have the same profile, so are a single group for wound allocation.

The number of wounds you have currently does not alter your profile.

False, each Chaos Lord is a IC. In HtH the are seperate units and need to be allocated wounds seperately, but evenly.

However for shooting they are NOT a separate unit, so would be one wound group.

don_mondo wrote:Look in the codex. Is there a name at the beginning of the profile. Yes. There's your proof.

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."(No mention of name)

This tells us what a profile is.

Where does it mention name?

(Hint: It doesn't.)

They only need to be identical, it does not matter if they are different profiles, because the rules only ask for them to be identical.

Same on P.25 means Identical, as I have proven, not shared as you are claiming.

But this is not going anywhere, just like last time, we should probably just let it go.

-TY for the discussion.

"made up of" /= "only made up of"

Stop conflating the two

Having allocated the wounds, all of the models in the unit that are identical in gaming terms take their saving throws at the same time, in one batch. Casualties can then be chosen by the owning player from amongst these identical models. If there is another group of identical models in the unit, the player then takes all of their saves in one batch, and so on.

Finally, the player rolls separately for each model that stands out in gaming terms. If one of these different models suffers an unsaved wound, then that specific model must be removed.

The key phrases are "Identical in gaming terms" and "stands out in gaming terms". If the sergeant is not identical in gaming terms or stands out, for example affecting the squads leadership value, then he must be rolled separately. Really, the question will it matter later if the sergeant dies versus any other member of the squad who has the same weapons? If so, then he is not identical in gaming terms.

Not sure why it takes 4 pages to figure this out, but really, the only reason it would take 4 pages is because it matters, if it matters then they aren't identical.

He became the sergeant by standing out, so the sergeant gets rolled separately,

DeathReaper wrote:

don_mondo wrote:Look in the codex. Is there a name at the beginning of the profile. Yes. There's your proof.

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."(No mention of name)

This tells us what a profile is.

Where does it mention name?

(Hint: It doesn't.)

They only need to be identical, it does not matter if they are different profiles, because the rules only ask for them to be identical.

Same on P.25 means Identical, as I have proven, not shared as you are claiming.

But this is not going anywhere, just like last time, we should probably just let it go.

-TY for the discussion.

Actually it DOES mention name. It in fact calls that entry for EACH model the "profile". So if you are going to cast out name, then I'm going to say that you must roll INDIVIDUALLY and not group any models when allocating. Otherwise, to what material do you reference to "profile" said models. Are you going to use the "profile" for characteristics? Then you're using the profile for THAT model. As I said before, if you are playing squads with out Sergeants, then you in fact ARE cheating.

You keep making the argument on "Characteristics" but Pg.25 clearly states "profile" repeatedly when consulting similar models.

Tye_Informer wrote:The key phrases are "Identical in gaming terms" and "stands out in gaming terms". If the sergeant is not identical in gaming terms or stands out, for example affecting the squads leadership value, then he must be rolled separately. Really, the question will it matter later if the sergeant dies versus any other member of the squad who has the same weapons? If so, then he is not identical in gaming terms.

Not sure why it takes 4 pages to figure this out, but really, the only reason it would take 4 pages is because it matters, if it matters then they aren't identical.

He became the sergeant by standing out, so the sergeant gets rolled separately,

I don't follow this argument. The sergeant being a "sergeant" has no bearing on the unit, he is functionally identical to all of the other models - equal characteristics, same wargear, same weapons. The only time it would matter to remove the sergeant rather than another model would be if the sergeant were in an advantageous (or disadventageous) position on the board. Wound allocation rules don't care about the position of the models, that's supposed to be up to the person removing casualties.

If there's some additional rule in the codex I'm missing that grants some special benefit to having a sergeant, then he should be rolled separately because he's not "identical in game terms." Otherwise, it's trying to create an advantage through wound-allocation shenanigans that wouldn't be available to a functionally identical group of 5 terminators without a leader.

edit: also, I see that my question about the Chaos Lords doesn't really help, I thought it might be illustrative, but at that point you're looking at a subdivision with multi-wound models and those rules would take care of the problem of allocating wounds to A or B. Please disregard.

biccat wrote:
He became the sergeant by standing out, so the sergeant gets rolled separately,

I don't follow this argument. The sergeant being a "sergeant" has no bearing on the unit, he is functionally identical to all of the other models - equal characteristics, same wargear, same weapons. The only time it would matter to remove the sergeant rather than another model would be if the sergeant were in an advantageous (or disadventageous) position on the board. Wound allocation rules don't care about the position of the models, that's supposed to be up to the person removing casualties.

Dracheous wrote:

biccat wrote:

He became the sergeant by standing out, so the sergeant gets rolled separately,

I don't follow this argument. The sergeant being a "sergeant" has no bearing on the unit, he is functionally identical to all of the other models - equal characteristics, same wargear, same weapons. The only time it would matter to remove the sergeant rather than another model would be if the sergeant were in an advantageous (or disadventageous) position on the board. Wound allocation rules don't care about the position of the models, that's supposed to be up to the person removing casualties.

You're right, wound allocation does not care about the position of a model, but it does care about the profile; a Sergeant has its own separate profile and is required for the squad otherwise the Codex would have just said Unit Composition: 5 Terminators.

Let me put it this way; lets assume the following:

Ork Boy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Space Marine 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Is an Ork Boy now a Space Marine?

I'm simply asking about the argument that the poster made.

The question isn't "is X Y", but whether X and Y are identical in game terms. I think a strong argument could be made that the Ork Boy and Space Marine in your example are identical in game terms.

biccat wrote:
I'm simply asking about the argument that the poster made.

The question isn't "is X Y", but whether X and Y are identical in game terms. I think a strong argument could be made that the Ork Boy and Space Marine in your example are identical in game terms.

But you must remember that Pg.25 states that each model has its own profile; now applying the rest of BRB to this equation, you could never have a squad made of both Ork Boyz and Space Marines, because of Unit Compositions. Applying Unit Compositions states that you must have a Sargent Model; which has its own profile; which brings us back to Pg.25 saying that PROFILES must be the same, an Ork Boy is not a Space Marine and thus have a different profile.

Dracheous wrote:Ork Boy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Space Marine 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Those two profiles ARE Identical in gaming terms, they have the same profile of characteristics.

Dracheous wrote:But you must remember that Pg.25 states that each model has its own profile

But if each model has its own profile, how could you claim that the 4 non-sergeant terminators have "the same profile"?

Dracheous wrote:you could never have a squad made of both Ork Boyz and Space Marines, because of Unit Compositions.

Uh...yeah, I suppose, because the relevant rule books don't give this as an option (SM & Ork codices).

Dracheous wrote:Applying Unit Compositions states that you must have a Sargent Model; which has its own profile

I'm not sure where you're going with this.

Dracheous wrote:which brings us back to Pg.25 saying that PROFILES must be the same, an Ork Boy is not a Space Marine and thus have a different profile.

So...a terminator sergeant must be allocated wounds separately because you can't have a unit of Ork Boyz and Space Marines and therefore Ork Boyz are not Space Marines? What?

DeathReaper wrote:

Dracheous wrote:Ork Boy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Space Marine 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Those two profiles ARE Identical in gaming terms, they have the same profile of characteristics.

ARE they?

suppose i take your logic, and now consider that further
Ork Boy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Space Marine 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Kabalite Warrior 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

They are are identical in gaming terms, by your logic.

Let's apply a gaming situation:

suppose I have Vect in my army
he has the Ancient Nemesis special rule: " He has preferred Enemy rule against all units. Against Eldar or Dark Eldar units, Vect also re-rolls failed to Wound rolls"

All three profiles are identical.

or does one in particular stand out? can Vect re-roll failed wounds rolls on all profile of characteristics? (my answer would be no, he can re-roll failed wound rolls only on the kabalite warrior)
how could this be? we proved that they were identical, no?

or did we just apply a difference in gaming terms?

Hence, the name cannot be considered outside of characteristics.

my $.02

I know I am kinda kicking a hornet's nest here, but in what way does a terminator sergeant function any differently than a terminator on the tabletop? What can the sergeant or the terminator do that the other can't?

I would feel quite beardy indeed if I tried to pull this in a game.

Thaylen wrote:I know I am kinda kicking a hornet's nest here, but in what way does a terminator sergeant function any differently than a terminator on the tabletop? What can the sergeant or the terminator do that the other can't?

I would feel quite beardy indeed if I tried to pull this in a game.

I completely agree. I imagine I would get stern looks if I tried wound allocation games with a model that doesn't have any different impact on the table from the rest of the unit.

NeonPhoenix wrote:suppose I have Vect in my army
he has the Ancient Nemesis special rule: " He has preferred Enemy rule against all units. Against Eldar or Dark Eldar units, Vect also re-rolls failed to Wound rolls"

All three profiles are identical.

or does one in particular stand out? can Vect re-roll failed wounds rolls on all profile of characteristics? (my answer would be no, he can re-roll failed wound rolls only on the kabalite warrior)
how could this be? we proved that they were identical, no?

As far as wound distribution is concerned, yes. Vects rule has nothing to do with wound distribution - it's similar to the Daemonhunter stuff that GKs get.

First of all - AHAHAHAHAHAHA --- I love this thread!

A: *pedantic deconstruction of B's argument* "You'd realize that if you'd stop being pedantic."

B: *pedantic deconstruction of A's argument* "You'd realize that if you'd stop being pedantic."

Repeat ad nauseum.

Just gotta say, I'm picking up my 5th rulebook tomorrow (my little gaming circle didn't feel we needed to fix what wasn't broken, and have been playing mostly WHFB and MtG for the last couple years anyway) - and I just can't wait to be person C in this little ordeal.

The only unit that comes to mind that is like this is assault terminators, I can't think of any others off the top of my head. Can anyone think of other units in which the squad leader is (or can be) identical to the rest of the unit both stat-wise and wargear?

I'm still on the fence but sorta leaning towards death reapers's side of things

My take hinges on 'identical in game terms'. I think that if the model, as per Biccat's comment above, is no different in wargear, stats, or in-game effect, then its rolled as one group.

I've never seen termie sargeants rolled separately unless armed differently, which regular termies are since the sarge has powerweapon while the rest have fists.

Space marine vet sargeants, yes, because they have +1 Ld and A.

Going ALL the way back to the original question - can someone clarify it? I don't see where the confusion lies.

The example at the bottom of p. 25 involves a unit with a sergeant, two bolters, and two missile launchers. They're assigned their wounds before the save rolls, and because their loadouts are different, there isn't any carryover of damage unto models that aren't identical. So... what EXACTLY is the question?

Is someone saying that there is carryover of unsaved wounds from unit models to the sergeant if they're loaded identically and have the same stats? Ridiculous.

Just because for a few types of troops in the game, the upgrade character happens to have the same stats and wargear:
1) Own line in the codex - the only thing more differentiating than this, that I can think of, is own PAGE in the codex.
2) So they ONLY thing preventing ALL the other upgrade characters in the 40k universe from taking carryover damage is their slightly higher sense of duty?

Now IF I'm getting the idea wrong on the exact question, I welcome a clarification. If I got the question, and you disagree with my answer, well, guess we're in different camps.

I would argue that the sergeant's wounds should be rolled separately for two reasons, first because it does not have an identical characteristic profile and second because it is not an identical model "in gaming terms".

The example of a model's characteristic profile on page xii does include the model's name. Different name = different characteristic profile.

Also, I note that having a different name for a model can make a difference "in gaming terms". A couple of examples:

Blood Angels' Sanguinor's Blessing Rule:

"When your force is deployed, randomly choose one Sergeant in your army to recieve the sacred blessing of the sanguinor - that model has ..." Codex: Blood Angels p. 51

Chaos Space Marines' Summoning Greater Daemons Rule:

"When it becomes available from Reserve, the Greater Daemon possesses the body of either a Champion, Aspiring Sorcerer, Sorcerer of Chaos or Chaos Lord to enter the game. The controlling player chooses any suitable model in his own army and removes it from play..." Codex: Chaos Space Marines p. 61

In each case, you can't just pick a model with the same characteristic numbers as a sergeant or champion - it has to be a model named sergeant or champion. Accordingly, two models are not functionally identical "in gaming terms" just because they have the same stat line.

Hope this helps!
-GK

Warboss Fugnutz wrote:The example at the bottom of p. 25 involves a unit with a sergeant, two bolters, and two missile launchers. They're assigned their wounds before the save rolls, and because their loadouts are different, there isn't any carryover of damage unto models that aren't identical. So... what EXACTLY is the question?

The example also states that the Sergeant has a different profile. Though this may be because he's a Vet Sarge.

DeathReaper wrote:

Dracheous wrote:Ork Boy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Space Marine 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Those two profiles ARE Identical in gaming terms, they have the same profile of characteristics.

I don't think this holds water. Especially when you throw in IC's with the same 'characteristic profile'.

For instance, I have 2 HQ's that are both IC's, both in the same squad. They have the exact same wargear. Their only difference is their names.

Here are their profiles.

4 4 3 3 3 4 2/3 10 4+
4 4 3 3 3 4 2/3 10 4+

They currently have taken zero wounds. They take 5 shooting wounds, none of which would cause instant death. They fail 2 saves. How do I allocate the 2 wounds they take? Anyway I want?

I think the names are an important distinction in the 'characteristic profile'. The names are even included in the example of what makes up a characteristic profile.

imweasel wrote:
For instance, I have 2 HQ's that are both IC's, both in the same squad. They have the exact same wargear. Their only difference is their names.

Here are their profiles.

4 4 3 3 3 4 2/3 10 4+
4 4 3 3 3 4 2/3 10 4+

They currently have taken zero wounds. They take 5 wounds, none of which would cause instant death. They fail 2 saves. How do I allocate the 2 wounds they take? Anyway I want?

I think the names are an important distinction in the 'characteristic profile'. The names are even included in the example of what makes up a characteristic profile.

Is this hypothetical or actual? Which ICs are you referring to?

haendas wrote: Which ICs are you referring to?

This is the other reason names matter.

Even in gaming terms.

haendas wrote:Is this hypothetical or actual? Which ICs are you referring to?

These characteristics are actual, not hypothetical. They have identical wargear and stats.

According to some folks in this thread, the IC's 'names' I am referring to don't matter.

So why is there even a Sergeant if there's no difference?

imweasel wrote:

haendas wrote:Is this hypothetical or actual? Which ICs are you referring to?

These characteristics are actual, not hypothetical. They have identical wargear and stats.

According to some folks in this thread, the IC's 'names' I am referring to don't matter.

Fine. Would you PM me the names please? I'm just trying to become more educated.

pm sent

imweasel wrote:pm sent

I sincerely thank you imweasel. I'm going to refrain from discussing the contents of the pm and the information I've gathered through those contents since part of your point is about the importance of names.

Unfortunately I'm still not swayed into the names = separate allocation camp yet. The one thing that has come closest to bringing me to change my position is the INAT FAQ on this exact question. It mentions that certain rules may target models based on their name . In my opinion that would make names have a potential direct impact to what happens on the table. I'm still thinking it over, but the general mode of thinking about it on this thread isn't what is convincing me yet.

Your welcome.

The INAT FAQ does not enter discussions in YMDC.

YOU personally can choose to play that way, but it can't enter discussion in YMDC.

Frankly, the INAT FAQ only provides a base on which to play the game on. They change rules at a whim. They change their rulings on a whim.

Copy that, and for good reason. So leaving INAT out of it, can we talk about how some rules may target a model by its name, resulting in names having a potential direct impact to the table?

Edit: I agree and understand that INAT is not official. I wasn't partly swayed because the answer came from INAT, but because the context of the answer provided by INAT seemed to have some substance to it.

You should probably start a new thread for that one.

Understood. Unfortunately I feel like that subject could have more bearing on the ruling that is being debated here than what has been brought up so far.

If people would prefer to continue talking in the circles which have dominated the last 4 pages, go right ahead!

Personally, I only think one person has really been talking in circles and only for the last couple of pages.

Thought I might post part of an army list of mine (don't worry, this is relevant)

One of my squads has 5 models stat line of : 4 4 4 4 1 4 2 9 2+

One of my models has a lascannon.
One has a assault cannon.
One has a bolter.
One has an storm bolter.
And the last one has a demolisher cannon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
By your argument DR, names don't go with stat lines, right?
So therefore I can use the stat line referenced above, with pretty much any wargear I want from the codex.

Since "terminator" isn't included in the stat line, I can say that they aren't required to abide by the wargear restrictions on the same page in the codex.

The wargear options state that "any terminator may take..." But wait! How do I know they are terminators? I don't because the name isn't a part of the stat line. So I can just say that they can have wargear from other entries, like a lascannon, assault cannon, etc.

Now I'm starting to get confused. A lot of people are saying that if the profile and wargear are identical (except for name) then you roll saves as 1 group. I have a group of 5 [model name]s. I upgrade 1 to [upgrade].

Now I have the following
WS BS S T W I A Ld Sv
Model 5 4 3 3 1 6 2 9 -
Upgrade 5 4 3 3 1 6 2 9 -

They have the same wargear, except, upgrade has 1 special rule. According to some, since profiles and wargear are the same, I must roll as a group, in which case, if I take 9 wounds, and fail 5 saves, as the saves are rolled together, than the entire unit is wiped, since allocating wounds makes no difference.

This clearly is not the case. I would first allocate wounds, 1 to upgrade, 8 to models, then roll saves for each group.

Happyjew wrote:Now I'm starting to get confused. A lot of people are saying that if the profile and wargear are identical (except for name) then you roll saves as 1 group. I have a group of 5 [model name]s. I upgrade 1 to [upgrade].

Now I have the following
WS BS S T W I A Ld Sv
Model 5 4 3 3 1 6 2 9 -
Upgrade 5 4 3 3 1 6 2 9 -

They have the same wargear, except, upgrade has 1 special rule. According to some, since profiles and wargear are the same, I must roll as a group, in which case, if I take 9 wounds, and fail 5 saves, as the saves are rolled together, than the entire unit is wiped, since allocating wounds makes no difference.

This clearly is not the case. I would first allocate wounds, 1 to upgrade, 8 to models, then roll saves for each group.

No, Pg.25 does say that "Special rules" come into play as well for allocating rules, so because he has a different special rule he would be rolled separate.

Here is a question:

Black Templar Terminator Command Squad

SGT has Powersword, all others have powerfists.

You buy the SGT a powerfist.

Is he now identical?

EDIT: BTW, he's now much more expensive (point wise) than his bretheren, but is identical except for name and points cost.

I still maintain that it is allocated separately, as the sgt. now differs not only in options, but in points.

Since "terminator" isn't included in the stat line, I can say that they aren't required to abide by the wargear restrictions on the same page in the codex.

DR's argument isn't that the name isn't relevant to the model, but that it isn't relevant to the model when dealing with wound allocation.

I still maintain that it is allocated separately, as the sgt. now differs not only in options, but in points.

But for gaming purposes this is irrelevant (list building isn't the game really). As far as the rules of the game and all the interactions are concerned, they're the same.

My example would be a tactical marine with a bolter and a devestator marine with a bolter (and a character that makes devastators scoring to get rid of that annoying difference). Which do you target first, and why?

But really, my idea is who cares? The only thing that would change resulting from the answer to this argument is whether or not you can pull allocation shenanigans. There's nothing different about losing the seargant than losing any other terminator in this case.


Oh, and for the chaos lord thing, they aren't grouped because they're armed differently, so it's 10 marines, 1 lord and (the other) 1 lord.

Ail-Shan wrote:

Since "terminator" isn't included in the stat line, I can say that they aren't required to abide by the wargear restrictions on the same page in the codex.

DR's argument isn't that the name isn't relevant to the model, but that it isn't relevant to the model when dealing with wound allocation.

I was being sarcastic, because if one wants to argue that the name doesn't count for one thing, others could easily argure that it does not count for other purposes.

Ali-Shan wrote:

I still maintain that it is allocated separately, as the sgt. now differs not only in options, but in points.

But for gaming purposes this is irrelevant (list building isn't the game really). As far as the rules of the game and all the interactions are concerned, they're the same.

My example would be a tactical marine with a bolter and a devestator marine with a bolter (and a character that makes devastators scoring to get rid of that annoying difference). Which do you target first, and why?

But really, my idea is who cares? The only thing that would change resulting from the answer to this argument is whether or not you can pull allocation shenanigans. There's nothing different about losing the seargant than losing any other terminator in this case.


Oh, and for the chaos lord thing, they aren't grouped because they're armed differently, so it's 10 marines, 1 lord and (the other) 1 lord.

And I completely agree that the only point would be allocation shenanigans. Most shenanigans are cheeky and fun, but allocation shenanigans are cruel and tragic, which...makes them not really shenanigans at all.

Anyways, I neither use nor allow people I'm playing with to use allocation shenanigans [/pistolwhip]. I was simply trying to show how rediculous DR's point was on the matter, and what it could turn into.

Ail-Shan wrote:
But for gaming purposes this is irrelevant (list building isn't the game really). As far as the rules of the game and all the interactions are concerned, they're the same.

That is a very slippery slope right there; List building is indeed a very crucial part to the game, otherwise what would be the "big deal" if I had an extra 5 points than you. Some will argue that this 5 points is another flamer for them, which could in theory make or break a game based on a crucial point in objective denial/securing. Or with good chance force enough model deaths for a unit to fall into retreat off a game edge. In every game, or with every player I've personally spoken with or played a game against the point LIMIT is the limit, if you are forced to come in under limit because taking anything else puts you over the limit, too bad for you.


So far the only argument I've been given that I have no counter-argument for is this: "In a terminator assault squad, what difference does the Sergeant make?" The only answer I have is "He is the Sergeant, the codex tells me I HAVE to have him there."


I keep falling back to the same argument on this case; Pg.25 says "Each model has its own profile" I know to see these "profiles" I check the codex. I know that to deploy an Assault Squad, I require 4 Terminators and 1 Sergeant Terminator. If I apply "each model has its own profile" I follow that the Terminators have the same profile, because the codex only has one Assault Terminator stat line; I see one stat line for the Assault Terminator Sergeant as well, which would tell me that the Sergeant has his OWN profile.

That is a very slippery slope right there; List building is indeed a very crucial part to the game, otherwise what would be the "big deal" if I had an extra 5 points than you.

Yea, it is a slippery slope. My main point is the game is the actions players take that have an effect. What you include in your list doesn't matter really, as long as it's below the points total.

I'd look at it like this: the models in your list are the pieces you play with, similar to the ships in battleship. You can vary what they are, and how they behave, but they are still just the pieces. The actions that take place between the two players is where the game is.

As another example, in Battlefield or Call of Duty, you can vary your equipment. The act of equipping your character, while it impacts future games, is not actual gameplay (it has no goal, you can't lose, though it is in the game).

imweasel wrote:I don't think this holds water. Especially when you throw in IC's with the same 'characteristic profile'.

For instance, I have 2 HQ's that are both IC's, both in the same squad. They have the exact same wargear. Their only difference is their names.

Here are their profiles.

4 4 3 3 3 4 2/3 10 4+
4 4 3 3 3 4 2/3 10 4+

They currently have taken zero wounds. They take 5 shooting wounds, none of which would cause instant death. They fail 2 saves. How do I allocate the 2 wounds they take? Anyway I want?

I think the names are an important distinction in the 'characteristic profile'. The names are even included in the example of what makes up a characteristic profile.

First, unsaved wounds aren't allocated, only wounds are allocated.

There are two ways to deal with this:
1) treat the models as a group of multi-wound models. The models then have 2 unsaved wounds between them. If they receive 2 more unsaved wounds, then you would have to remove 1 whole model - you can't spread wounds around to avoid removing casualties.

The problem arises when the models try to leave the unit, because there's no mechanism for transferring these unsaved wounds from the unit to individual models. A valid rules-based argument could be made to give the wounds to the parent unit, eliminate the wounds entirely, or distribute them among the IC's however you want.

2) Consider that since they are both ICs, they have different 'special rules' (they can each independently leave the unit), and therefore should be treated as different for purposes of wound allocation.

It's not an easy situation to resolve, because the rules don't cover this situation. If you think that the "names are part of the profile" argument solves this dilemma, how would you deal with 2 identically named independent characters? (which is why I abandoned this argument earlier, it creates more problems than it solves).

Ah forgot about that question.

You would treat them as a unit of identical multi-wound models (because they are), and so one of the models would lose 2 wounds, so you're left with an IC with 3 wounds and one with 1. It'd be the same for a unit of nobz or ogryn (between those that are identically equipped that is).

There is a term cropping up here called "allocation shenanigans". Keep in mind, that for a gaming circle (like mine) who considers sergeants separate for wound allocation, this is not a shenanigan, just how the game is played.

Furthermore - why does it matter if the sergeant has identical stats? He's no more threatening for wound displacement than a uniquely armed soldier.

And I have to go to the identically-armed IC's for the answer to sergeants. You wouldn't treat them as a set for wound allocation, despite having identical profile numbers and the same special rules.

To me, treating a sergeant as though he's just another trooper is the real BS move, and it wouldn't fly with anyone I've played with.

Just out of curiosity, other than Termies, are there any other unit who has a Sarge/Upgrade that has the same stats as a regular model in the unit? I was skimming through the codexes (codecies?) at my FLGS but didn't see any.

Sternguard veteran squads.

Vanguard veteran squads.*
both have the same stats for all 5 models in the unit.

*Vanguard vets have bolt pistol chain sword, the Sgt has Bolt Pistol Power weapon. you can purchase power weapons to replace the vets chainswords to make them identical.

So there are really only a few units where this would come up. In that case, not a big deal. As far as I'm concerned, separate stat line, separate grouping.

To me, the biggest part is the "identical special rules".

Regardless of whether the sergeant has the same number for leadership as the rest of the troops, you are using HIS leadership to test for the unit, yes?

This is a special rule the troops don't have. Unique special rule = separate wound allocation.

you are using HIS leadership to test for the unit, yes?

No. You always use the highest leadership, so a regular trooper in the squad has just as much right to be leader as the sergeant as far as rules are concerned.

Ail-Shan wrote:
No. You always use the highest leadership, so a regular trooper in the squad has just as much right to be leader as the sergeant as far as rules are concerned.

Ahh. Well, then what WAS my biggest reason dissipates, and leaves only the other four or five for allocating him separately.

Furthermore - why does it matter if the sergeant has identical stats? He's no more threatening for wound displacement than a uniquely armed soldier.

And I have to go to the identically-armed IC's for the answer to sergeants. You wouldn't treat them as a set for wound allocation, despite having identical profile numbers and the same special rules.

Actually, the sergeant is less threatening than a uniquely armed soldier, because he's not uniquely armed.

Also, the identically armed characters would be treated as a group (assuming there are no differences between them) the same as a nob squad where each nob has a power klaw would be treated as a group. If you want to say you bought them as two choices, the best I can come up with is this: when a necron is killed, they normally get their WBB roll the next turn, assuming there's another necron of the same type within range. If the squad is wiped, but a different squad is still in range, they then join that squad. However, they were 2 different squads (bought as 2 choices), but you wont force your opponent to differentiate the necrons that joined in the middle of the game from those that were originally in the squad. They are all identically armed, with identical stats.

Oh, and I do have something to bring up on the "name is a characteristic." Take a "name" test. Roll equal to or under your name as you would for a S, T, I, etc. characteristic test. For gaming purposes, the name is a label, not a characteristic.

Ail-Shan wrote:Oh, and I do have something to bring up on the "name is a characteristic." Take a "name" test. Roll equal to or under your name as you would for a S, T, I, etc. characteristic test. For gaming purposes, the name is a label, not a characteristic.

I think you are misunderstanding a few things with that comment.

To start, what a characteristic is, what "in gaming terms" means, and why "take a test" is not all that related to the discussion.

Characteristics DO include names in this game, in fact it is probably the most important one.

In gaming terms is generally debatable, but they DO matter in the game--whether you acknowledge them in this case or not. Names from "Ork" to "Lictor" to "Swarmlord" all make a rather large difference for gaming purposes and there are pages of rules that prove this point.

Nowhere in the rules we are discussing does taking a test matter. The fact that there are ways (that came about after the rulebook, iirc) to take an Armour Save test is 100% irrelevant, unless you are saying the Armor Save of a unit is not a characteristic or you regularly make saving throws by taking an Armor Save test backwards, and for no apparent reason.

I understand why DeathReaper states what he does, even if I disagree; however this bit is rather off on another level.

kirsanth wrote:Characteristics DO include names in this game, in fact it is probably the most important one.

Page 6 disagrees with you

"The characteristics are: Weapon Skill (WS), Balistic Skill (BS), Strength (S), Toughness (T), Wounds (W), Initiative (I), Attacks (A), Leadership (Ld), and Armour Save (Sv)."

DeathReaper wrote:

kirsanth wrote:Characteristics DO include names in this game, in fact it is probably the most important one.

Page 6 disagrees with you

"The characteristics are: Weapon Skill (WS), Balistic Skill (BS), Strength (S), Toughness (T), Wounds (W), Initiative (I), Attacks (A), Leadership (Ld), and Armour Save (Sv)."

What characteristics?
Each model's.
Which model's profile are you discussing?
Amazingly enough every one of them has a unique identifier on the Profile of Characteristics that is used in games to much effect.

kirsanth wrote:What characteristics?
Each model's.
Which model's profile are you discussing?
Amazingly enough every one of them has a unique identifier on the Profile of Characteristics that is used in games to much effect.

And you have hit the nail on the head, the name is not a characteristic, it is a unique identifier on the Profile of Characteristics. It itself is not a characteristic.

DeathReaper wrote:, it is a unique identifier on the Profile of Characteristics

That is the definition of a characteristic. What you are listing are examples.
And values FOR characteristics.

No, the BRB Defines what characteristics are. They are listed on P.6

"The characteristics are:" etc.

Permissive ruleset tells us that nothing else, but what is listed, is a characteristic.

Ail-Shan wrote:Oh, and I do have something to bring up on the "name is a characteristic." Take a "name" test. Roll equal to or under your name as you would for a S, T, I, etc. characteristic test. For gaming purposes, the name is a label, not a characteristic.

If the seargeant is different in gaming terms, which it usually is, then he/she gets rolled separately.

If I shoot up your squad this turn, killing 1 unit, then you have to determine if any of the units in that squad are different in gaming terms. Basically, at any point in the future, if you get to do something different because the sergeant is still alive (or is dead), then the sergeant is different than the rest of the unit. Some examples, if rolling an 9 would have caused the unit to fall back, unless the sergeant is still alive (so you picked the sergeant to live) then he/she is different in gaming terms. Or, if my unit can counter-charge against your assault if your sergeant is still alive (so you picked the sergeant to die) then he/she is different in gaming terms. The first is probably an example of the sergeant having a higher LD value (like normal space marines I think), the second would be an example (possibly completely made up) of a named based, favored-enemy, kind of rule that is based on the presence of a unit leader.

So, I think we have established that a Sergeant is different, in gaming terms, than a regular space marine, etc.

Now, for speed sake, in a game against me: If your sergeant is identical stats and his presence/absence doesn't matter at all in this game (even though it may against a different army) then I'd have no problem with you rolling him together even though you really should roll him separate, but once you pick one way you have to stick to that way for the rest of the game!

Random example number 62, page 85 of the Tyranid codex states: "Unit Name: At the start of each entry. . ."
"Unit Profile: This section will show you the profile of any models the unit can include."

Turn the page to 86.

Note the first entry.
It has a name, in bold. Then under that is a profile.
There are 19 things there.

I turn to page 90 and look at "GENESTEALER BROOD" (Its name)

That profile has 29 listings.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DeathReaper wrote:the BRB Defines what characteristics are.

I really do agree with you mostly.

The problem is that the book also shows what a profile of characteristics is, repeatedly, and they all include names---which can differentiate a model in gaming terms.

No, it shows what a profile is, they define profile of characteristics differently.

Tye_Informer wrote:if my unit can counter-charge against your assault if your sergeant is still alive (so you picked the sergeant to die) then he/she is different in gaming terms

Tye_Informer wrote:the second would be an example (possibly completely made up) of a named based, favored-enemy, kind of rule that is based on the presence of a unit leader.

I've been dying to find a name based rule / situation that would cause a model with a different name to have a different impact to the table simply because it has a different name from the rest of the unit that is otherwise identical. I need an example that isn't "possibly completely made up"

Tye_Informer wrote:So, I think we have established that a Sergeant is different, in gaming terms, than a regular space marine, etc.

Now, for speed sake, in a game against me: If your sergeant is identical stats and his presence/absence doesn't matter at all in this game (even though it may against a different army) then I'd have no problem with you rolling him together even though you really should roll him separate, but once you pick one way you have to stick to that way for the rest of the game!

I think you're missing something. In a terminator squad the Sergeant is identical to the rest of the troops. He does not confer any special rules on the unit. His LD is identical to the rest of the unit. He has the same equipment, wargear, saves, special rules, and is identical to the rest of the unit except for the fact that his name includes the label "Sergeant." In short, his presence or absence will never matter in any game, regardless of the enemy.

DeathReaper wrote:No, it shows what a profile is, they define profile of characteristics differently.

This helps. Not your case, as I read it, but why you think it.

I am entirely uncertain where and how you draw that line, since the rule book does not--see page xii.

I think this may be one of those "agree to disagree" situations.

kirsanth wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:No, it shows what a profile is, they define profile of characteristics differently.

This helps. Not your case, as I read it, but why you think it.

I am entirely uncertain where and how you draw that line, since the rule book does not--see page xii.

Well, page xii occurs before the rules begin on page 1.

kirsanth wrote:I am entirely uncertain where and how you draw that line, since the rule book does not--see page xii.

First, I do not see a page xii. (I have the AOBR Rulebook)

Here is the line the book draws, I am not making this distinction:

A profile lists the value of its characteristics P.7

"These characteristics are given a value on a scale of 0 - 10" P.6 (Names are not values on a scale of 0 - 10)

a profile of characteristics is something that lists the value of its characteristics on a scale of 0 - 10.

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."

Each model has a profile made up of nine numbers that are called characteristics. (No names)

As for Profile "Below are the profiles for an Ork Boy and a Space Marine of the Imperium:" P.7

Profile includes everything, profile of characteristics are nine numbers called characteristics.

kirsanth wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:No, it shows what a profile is, they define profile of characteristics differently.

This helps. Not your case, as I read it, but why you think it.

I am entirely uncertain where and how you draw that line, since the rule book does not--see page xii.

Page xii states model profiles, has the different characteristics listed, than a profile shown.

I agree with DR in this case that if he Characteristics match up than its treated as the same even if it has a diferent name.

The characteristics are defined, and only under the whole character profile does it even list a name (when it shows it all laid out)

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote: only under the whole character profile does it even list a name

Looking at only part of a profile can cause any number of confusing issues, this is the least of them.

Another funny part of this is that folks are taking part of a statement and ignoring many other parts around it, some of which provide relevant context.
Both mine and the rule book, actually.

My response to Ail-Shan was correct, I wrote:
"Characteristics DO include names in this game, in fact it is probably the most important one.

In gaming terms is generally debatable, but they DO matter in the game--whether you acknowledge them in this case or not. Names from "Ork" to "Lictor" to "Swarmlord" all make a rather large difference for gaming purposes and there are pages of rules that prove this point."

When you truncate that to make a (debatable) point by only including "Characteristics DO include names in this game, in fact it is probably the most important one" it leaves off the VERY relevant "In gaming terms is generally debatable" and the caveat "whether you acknowledge them in this case or not."

And to repeat, "I understand why DeathReaper states what he does, even if I disagree; however this bit is rather off on another level."
Which is why I bothered to post--the statement that "Name is not a Characteristic because you cannot roll a test against it" is false on so many levels.

I get DeathReaper's point and disagree, no matter how many times it is repeated.

As for page xii being before the rules. . .if you think so, cheers. Even so, it is a reference used in and by the rulebook that is not contradicted anywhere.

Back to your regularly scheduled programming. . . .

To anyone who thinks upgrade soldiers are rolled with the unit - do identically equipped HQ models in the same unit roll together as well? If I put two Warbosses in the same unit and it takes shooting hits, do I then roll the HQ's' saves together?

I would argue that identically equipped HQ's share a greater similarity than upgraded soldiers in a unit. Upgraded soldiers have their own line in the codex (pretty damn differentiating if you ask me), but with the identically equipped HQ's it's the SAME line being reused?

OR, as is more likely since the people arguing this point are probably routinely beat by SM and want even a tiny advantage against those squads, are the HQ's totally separate because that rule could be used against you?


-edit-

Games Workshop Customer Service Rules Clarification (800) 394-4263, Agent name: Madison
Profile does not equal Characteristic Profile.
Characteristic Profile is only the numbers and the corresponding column headers.
Identically equipped upgrade characters are rolled at the same time as the unit members.
I'm wrong, you're right.

kirsanth wrote:As for page xii being before the rules. . .if you think so, cheers. Even so, it is a reference used in and by the rulebook that is not contradicted anywhere.

I do not even have page Xii and clearly it is not a real rule, since they did think it necessary to include in the AoBR rule book.

Warboss Fugnutz wrote:To anyone who thinks upgrade soldiers are rolled with the unit - do identically equipped HQ models in the same unit roll together as well? If I put two Warbosses in the same unit and it takes shooting hits, do I then roll the HQ's' saves together?

By the rules, you would have to they are one group for wound purposes. The names are not even different here. (Not that names matter)

Warboss Fugnutz wrote:do identically equipped HQ models in the same unit roll together as well?

Yes.

Warboss Fugnutz wrote:
If I put two Warbosses in the same unit and it takes shooting hits, do I then roll the HQ's' saves together?

If those warbosses have the same load out, yes.

Edit: Do you think that either of those two scenarios warrant separate wound allocation? On what grounds if so?

Also:

Warboss Fugnutz wrote:the people arguing this point are probably routinely beat by SM and want even a tiny advantage

Comments like this are not helpful in this debate. Especially since the exact opposite could easily be said, but neither are based with any facts to back them up.

DeathReaper wrote:No, the BRB Defines what characteristics are. They are listed on P.6

"The characteristics are:" etc.

Permissive ruleset tells us that nothing else, but what is listed, is a characteristic.

So, all models have no characteristics. Each model would, but it has no name characteristic.



I find it funny that I would bet every single person here that says the name of a model does not matter would be extremely upset at
me for showing up with 100 bottle caps on 25mm bases and call them "Guardsmen". I'll use "Budlight" caps as Penal Legion, Coors for
regular guardsmen, Keiths caps for Veterans, Guiness tabs for Ogryns, Rickards Red caps for Pyskers... I only have to "reference" the
page for characteristics right?

Or would the above be just as silly as using Ork models as Marines?

Use whatever models you want to represent the stats, the fact remains Names are not Characteristics, they are not given a value on a scale of 0 - 10.

Names are there for reference. They are a unique identifier on the Profile of Characteristics, but they themselves are not what the BRB defines as a Characteristic.

Of course if you have actual rules that say otherwise, I would like to see the page number they are on.

haendas wrote:Comments like this are not helpful in this debate.

I didn't ask.

-edit-

I got the answer for you all, btw.

On page 25 the BRB tells you specifically what "identical in gaming terms" means. "By this we mean they have the same PROFILE of characteristics, the same special rules..."

On page 6-7 it lists the characteristics.

On page 7 it specifically says "Below are the PROFILES for an Ork Boy and a Space Marine of the Imperium:" Notice anything... like the NAME of the model being part of what the BRB says IS the PROFILE? And where the heading of that subsection says CHARACTERISTIC PROFILES?


There you have it:
1) The BRB tells you what a PROFILE is on page 7, and it includes the name.
2) The BRB tells you that identical in gaming terms means "the same profile of characteristics" (page 25), which page 7 proves includes the name.
3) The BRB says that "all of the models that are identical in gaming terms take their saving throws at the same time, in one batch"

i.e. Identical in gaming terms includes profile (page 25), and profile includes name (page 7). Upgrade characters are rolled separately.

I cannot believe 2 things.
1) The rules-lawyers actually made me bust out my BRB to research this.
2) It took me only 90 seconds to out-lawyer you all.

How exactly can anyone debate that profile doesn't include name when the BRB says "BELOW ARE THE PROFILES..." -- Look - NAMES! haha -- Sheesh, after so many pages I was expecting more of a challenge.

P.S.
If it occurs to you to debate whether a "profile of characteristics" and a "characteristic profile" are the same thing... all I have to say is... ... ... ... dude.


-edit-

Games Workshop Customer Service Rules Clarification (800) 394-4263, Agent name: Madison
Profile does not equal Characteristic Profile.
Characteristic Profile is only the numbers and the corresponding column headers.
Identically equipped upgrade characters are rolled at the same time as the unit members.
I'm wrong, you're right.

Warboss Fugnutz wrote:does anyone think this isn't rules-lawyering? Does anyone think this would fly in a tournament? Has anyone asked a judge?

My opponents would be very unhappy with me if I tried to say that my terminator sergeant got separate wound allocation from the rest of the identical unit. Yes, they would think I was rules-lawyering if I tried to debate for separate wound allocation.

Do I think this would fly in a tournament? It depends on the judge. Have I asked a judge? No.

haendas wrote:
My opponents would be very unhappy with me if I tried to say that my terminator sergeant got separate wound allocation from the rest of the identical unit. Yes, they would think I was rules-lawyering if I tried to debate for separate wound allocation.

Do I think this would fly in a tournament? It depends on the judge. Have I asked a judge? No.

I went back and edited. I shouldn't include unnecessary rhetorical questions like that. Post has been updated with hard facts.

-edit- this one too! haha.

Anyway, if you rolled your terminator sergeant with the rest of your termies, people in -my- gaming circle would look at you funny. Gaming circles come up with their own definitive interpretation of the rules, but I don't think it's lawyering at all to say "profile includes name... he's rolled seperately".

btw - YOU were not one of the lawyers I was addressing with my blanket "out-lawyer you all" statement. There are other posters who have tried egregiously to manipulate the BRB to their own designs. You, I just think, are being boned a little by your gaming circle.


-edit-

Games Workshop Customer Service Rules Clarification (800) 394-4263, Agent name: Madison
Profile does not equal Characteristic Profile.
Characteristic Profile is only the numbers and the corresponding column headers.
Identically equipped upgrade characters are rolled at the same time as the unit members.
I'm wrong, you're right.

Warboss Fugnutz wrote:Post has been updated with hard facts.

I commend you for your well thought out edit. The "hard facts" you brought up have been hashed out multiple times so far in this thread though. In your quotes, you emphasize (all caps) some words that are not emphasized by the rule book. You interpret that Profile and Profile of Characteristics are the same thing. Some people will disagree with you. I'm not 'firmly' on one side of this or the other.

Edit:

Warboss Fugnutz wrote:Anyway, if you rolled your terminator sergeant with the rest of your termies, people in -my- gaming circle would look at you funny. Gaming circles come up with their own definitive interpretation of the rules, but I don't think it's lawyering at all to say "profile includes name... he's rolled seperately".

I completely agree that different gaming groups will have different interpretations. I don't think it's lawyering to say that the model has no on board impact that differentiates him from his squad, and as such is identical "in gaming terms" and therefore rolls as one wound group.

Warboss Fugnutz wrote:
btw - YOU were not one of the lawyers I was addressing with my blanket "out-lawyer you all" statement. There are other posters who have tried egregiously to manipulate the BRB to their own designs. You, I just think, are being boned a little by your gaming circle.

Thank you for that clarification. In truth, I'm not bonded so much by my circle but by what I feel the RAI is for the reasoning behind the separate wound allocation rules. I think wound allocation's intended purpose is so that models which have a different potential to impact the table from the rest of their unit are rolled for separately.

PS: the edit circle is getting hilarious.

haendas wrote: You interpret that Profile and Profile of Characteristics are the same thing.

They are. Page 6 (because the profile section has not been covered yet) says "the characteristics are..."

It is not until Page 7, under the subsection "CHARACTERISTIC PROFILES" that the BRB goes out of its way to show the reader that the name is included.

Now, IF on page 25, where the BRB defines what "identical in gaming terms" means they did not want you to reference the subsection heading "characteristic profiles" (which includes the model's name), they would have just said "the same characteristics", not "the same PROFILE of characteristics".

Like my previous post.
Page 25 - identical mean same profile of characteristics

Page 7, subsection "CHARACTERISTICS PROFILES" shows name, therefore: name is part of the profile.

Page 7 - Profile = Characteristic profile (hence the subsection name in all caps and bold letters and use of the word "profile")

Page 25 - BRB goes out of its way to say "same profile of characteristics" and not just "same characteristics" - you're supposed to use the profile.

While name is not a characteristic, it IS part of the PROFILE of characteristics. There is no profile without name. If there where profile without name, it would just be "characteristics".

-edit-
Yes, the edit circle is!

Tell this post what... I'll probably make it down to the GW store sometime next spring. I'll post the official answer then! haha

-edit-

Games Workshop Customer Service Rules Clarification (800) 394-4263, Agent name: Madison
Profile does not equal Characteristic Profile.
Characteristic Profile is only the numbers and the corresponding column headers.
Identically equipped upgrade characters are rolled at the same time as the unit members.
I'm wrong, you're right.

Warboss Fugnutz wrote:

haendas wrote: You interpret that Profile and Profile of Characteristics are the same thing.

They are.

Ultimately I'm not sure I disagree with you, and the others who have made the same point. Therefore, I will leave that rebuttal to other posters

Well how do you like that.

I'm wrong, you're right.

Identically equipped upgrade characters are rolled at the same time as the squad.

Source? GAMES WORKSHOP CUSTOMER SERVICE RULES CLARIFICATION (800) 394-4263

Agent's name was Madison.

From the horse's mouth. Characteristic profile means numbers and corresponding column headers. Profile (not characteristic profile) includes name.

Profile does not equal Characteristic Profile.

I would have bet $1 that I was right, but alas - there you have it. The ACTUAL right answer.

Warboss Fugnutz wrote:

Source? GAMES WORKSHOP CUSTOMER SERVICE RULES CLARIFICATION (800) 394-4263

LOL. A GW customer service rules answer holds as much water as a 2 year old's bladder.

@Warboss Fugnutz
I just called GW, talked to James. He said the opposite. I guess you're right.

Edit circle for the win.

Going to a GW store wont get you any kind of official answer. The people that work there do not make the rules, and are not always right. The only 'official' answer would be if they either FAQ this or make it clear in 6th edition.

Warboss - have a pop at the Tenets, stickied at the top:

"2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs. Emails from Askyourquestion@games-workshop.com are technically official, but they are easily spoofed and should not be relied on."

1) GW rules monkies are not a good rules source. Ever. Its more luck than anything if they get the right answer

2) Even if, by fluke, the box packer give the right answer, we cannot verify it. In fact, if we ring back, we'll probably get 3 different answers to a simple binary question!

Yeah, unfortunately you won't convince anyone here with a GW response other than an official FAQ if they don't want to be convinced. Be it phone call, red shirt comment or email response. I'm struggling with a different issue regarding the SAG and scatter. Less than totally official GW sources (email responses) say one thing, but a lot of Dakka still supports the alternative. I thank you for sharing the details of the phone call though.

Hey, I'm just going to go with it. 99% of my games are played without a judge present. If a qualified judge says it's this way, I'll just do it that way until the FAQ comes out.

Been gaming for 20 years - I know help-line and even present judges are wrong half the time. I played the creator of the highlander card game in a tournament in '97 and had to correct him on a couple of the rules.

I'm happy to put the matter to bed with a "judge said this, this is it" because there is no DEFINITE way to say it's one way or the other.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I will say it's great to see so much disregarding of the phone call though. It's a welcome change from the guys at the club (not in my circle, but I play with them a couple times a month) who I play MtG with. They have memorized precedents for MtG play from judge rulings in different friggin countries.

Happyjew wrote:@Warboss Fugnutz
I just called GW, talked to James. He said the opposite. I guess you're right.

Edit circle for the win.

I'm wondering, James said the opposite of what?

haendas wrote:

Happyjew wrote:@Warboss Fugnutz
I just called GW, talked to James. He said the opposite. I guess you're right.

Edit circle for the win.

I'm wondering, James said the opposite of what?

James said that identically equipped upgrade characters are NOT rolled at the same time as the squad. Same source as Warboss, different person, different answer.

Yeah, GW is notorious for giving three different answers toa yes/no question if called.......................

Which is exactly my point, just because you call the hotline and talked to "Bob", doesn't mean Bob has any idea what he's talking about. As far as he knows, I'm talking about a Dark Reaper Exarch with Reaper Launcher. This is an example of an upgrade character with identical wargear (Although they have different stat lines)

Warboss Fugnutz wrote:I will say it's great to see so much disregarding of the phone call though. It's a welcome change from the guys at the club (not in my circle, but I play with them a couple times a month) who I play MtG with. They have memorized precedents for MtG play from judge rulings in different friggin countries.

MtG is a slightly different issue, though, as they actually vet (to some degree) the people who become judges in organised play, and they actually try for some sort of consistency in their rulings. They also have a much tighter ruleset to start with, so making rulings relies much more on the actually written word.

In GW's case, any staff member will quite happily answer rules queries... but outside the studio, you're just getting that staff member's personal opinion. And no matter how clearly a rule is written, GW have shown in the past that they're quite happy to ignore the written rule in favour of what they think will make for a better game.

biccat wrote:First, unsaved wounds aren't allocated, only wounds are allocated.

There are two ways to deal with this:
1) treat the models as a group of multi-wound models. The models then have 2 unsaved wounds between them. If they receive 2 more unsaved wounds, then you would have to remove 1 whole model - you can't spread wounds around to avoid removing casualties.

The problem arises when the models try to leave the unit, because there's no mechanism for transferring these unsaved wounds from the unit to individual models. A valid rules-based argument could be made to give the wounds to the parent unit, eliminate the wounds entirely, or distribute them among the IC's however you want.

2) Consider that since they are both ICs, they have different 'special rules' (they can each independently leave the unit), and therefore should be treated as different for purposes of wound allocation.

It's not an easy situation to resolve, because the rules don't cover this situation. If you think that the "names are part of the profile" argument solves this dilemma, how would you deal with 2 identically named independent characters? (which is why I abandoned this argument earlier, it creates more problems than it solves).

I think there is some confusion here. I was simply using DR's interpretation of the allocation rules. The two models in question took 5 wounds and only saved 3, leaving 2 wounds to be distributed.

I do not believe that IC's with the exact same stats and wargear but with different names are/can be treated as a group of multi-wound models, but I could be mistaken here.

As far as the 'different special rules' being based that they can independently leave the unit doesn't come into play. They both have that rule.

As for the last part, I dunno either. I think IC's are treated differently, but it would be interesting to see how this would all shake down.

haendas wrote:

Tye_Informer wrote:if my unit can counter-charge against your assault if your sergeant is still alive (so you picked the sergeant to die) then he/she is different in gaming terms

Tye_Informer wrote:the second would be an example (possibly completely made up) of a named based, favored-enemy, kind of rule that is based on the presence of a unit leader.

I've been dying to find a name based rule / situation that would cause a model with a different name to have a different impact to the table simply because it has a different name from the rest of the unit that is otherwise identical. I need an example that isn't "possibly completely made up"

I found one. The new Necron codex has a character who, on successfully wounding one model, has a chance to wound every other model in that combat with the same name.

Sanguinor as well, randomly upgrades a sarge, which would include a terminator sarge

How did this get to seven pages?
Identical stats and wargear= treated the same as all the others.

Joey wrote:How did this get to seven pages?
Identical stats and wargear= treated the same as all the others.

Because the question is do Identical numbers = identical stats if they are in two separate profiles.

The INAT FAQ seems to rule that the Sergeants has a different profile by sake of having a different name.

d-usa wrote:

Joey wrote:How did this get to seven pages?
Identical stats and wargear= treated the same as all the others.

Because the question is do Identical numbers = identical stats if they are in two separate profiles.

The INAT FAQ seems to rule that the Sergeants has a different profile by sake of having a different name.

Quote from the BRB, page 25.

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

It explicitly states what it means by "identical in gaming terms".
QED.

Man, you guys really need to read this entire thread before posting... :/

Tangent wrote:Man, you guys really need to read this entire thread before posting... :/

No, you only need to read those two lines from the BRB. This thread would have ended after a few posts if people had just looked it up.

Joey wrote:

Tangent wrote:Man, you guys really need to read this entire thread before posting... :/

No, you only need to read those two lines from the BRB. This thread would have ended after a few posts if people had just looked it up.

Well, if you play at an independent tournament that uses the INAT FAQ, you will be wrong.

d-usa wrote:

Joey wrote:

Tangent wrote:Man, you guys really need to read this entire thread before posting... :/

No, you only need to read those two lines from the BRB. This thread would have ended after a few posts if people had just looked it up.

Well, if you play at an independent tournament that uses the INAT FAQ, you will be wrong.

No because the INAT FAQ agrees with the rulebook. How is this difficult?
Question answered, this thread should be locked.

Joey wrote:
Quote from the BRB, page 25.

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

It explicitly states what it means by "identical in gaming terms".
QED.

Yep same profile, of characteristics; the name is part of the profile.

Or can a terminator Sgt carry the Cyclone missile launcher since he must be the same as a Terminator as he has identical numeric values?

Joey wrote:

d-usa wrote:

Joey wrote:

Tangent wrote:Man, you guys really need to read this entire thread before posting... :/

No, you only need to read those two lines from the BRB. This thread would have ended after a few posts if people had just looked it up.

Well, if you play at an independent tournament that uses the INAT FAQ, you will be wrong.

No because the INAT FAQ agrees with the rulebook. How is this difficult?
Question answered, this thread should be locked.

Well, it sounded like you were with the "they are identical" camp. While the INAT FAQ is in the "they are not identical" camp. Sorry if I had you confused.

d-usa wrote:
Well, it sounded like you were with the "they are identical" camp. While the INAT FAQ is in the "they are not identical" camp. Sorry if I had you confused.

What I say is irrelevent. I provided conclusive evidence on one side of the argument.
Further discourse is moot.

Joey wrote:

d-usa wrote:
Well, it sounded like you were with the "they are identical" camp. While the INAT FAQ is in the "they are not identical" camp. Sorry if I had you confused.

What I say is irrelevent. I provided conclusive evidence on one side of the argument.
Further discourse is moot.

So what is your answer then: Yes they are identical, or no they are not?




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Point being, if you think that the BRB says they are identical, then INAT and the BRB do NOT agree.

d-usa wrote:

Joey wrote:

d-usa wrote:
Well, it sounded like you were with the "they are identical" camp. While the INAT FAQ is in the "they are not identical" camp. Sorry if I had you confused.

What I say is irrelevent. I provided conclusive evidence on one side of the argument.
Further discourse is moot.

So what is your answer then: Yes they are identical, or no they are not?




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Point being, if you think that the BRB says they are identical, then INAT and the BRB do NOT agree.

BRB agrees with the INAT. Read the quote.

And yet you are dancing about providing an actual answer.

You keep on quoting the BRB about "same profile of characteristics means the unit is identical" which pretty much every single person in here agrees on.

The question that is up for debate is if a different name means that they have a different profile of characteristics.

Do you think that the BRB treats them as identical?

Sorry, I also read your response as one who disbelieves that the name is part of the profile.

As you are saying that the INAT Agrees with the BRB, it is clear you have proper understanding of what all is part of the profile.

d-usa; if you read the Inat answer you will see what joey is saying; I do not agree with his refusal to give you a straight answer, but then he already had in your post about the Inat Answer.

d-usa wrote:And yet you are dancing about providing an actual answer.

You keep on quoting the BRB about "same profile of characteristics means the unit is identical" which pretty much every single person in here agrees on.

The question that is up for debate is if a different name means that they have a different profile of characteristics.

Do you think that the BRB treats them as identical?

Jesus christ.
In order for them to be identical in gaming terms, three conditions have to be met-
They must the same profile
AND
They must have the same special rules
AND
They must have the same weapons and wargear.
The first condition is not met, ergo they are not the same. This really, really isn't difficult.

Well, I am sorry for offending your tender sensibilities, but if you would have given a simple yes/no answer 6 quote boxes ago, then we would not have had this problem

Repeating "they have the same profile" does not answer what your stand is if the main argument has been about if the name is part of the profile or not. That has been a core part of this discussion, is a profile just the numbers or the numbers + name. Just quoting the rule did not make it clear if 90% of the last 7 pages has been about what this rule includes and means.

That's why I asked for a quick "yes/no" clarification. I agree with you, but could not tell if I did because I was not sure what your interpretation was. Sorry about that.

So the quick summary for this rule would be this then:

If you are playing in a tournament that uses INAT FAQ they are not considered identical.

If you are playing in a GW GT or any other tournament that does not use the INAT FAQ you are at the mercy of a TO until a GW FAQ clarifies the issue. Best bet is to ask the TO before hand and get an official ruling before the event.

Friendly games: talk about it/roll off/fight to the death.

Look at the Characteristics on P.6, notice how name is not listed?

The name is not a characteristic, it is an identifier telling us to whom that profile belongs.

if the Characteristics are identical then the profiles are identical regardless of to whom that profile belongs.

look at the Space wolves Long fang pack. They specifically exclude the Squad leader from taking a heavy weapon, which they would not have to do if it worked like The INAT says it does.

d-usa wrote:Well, I am sorry for offending your tender sensibilities, but if you would have given a simple yes/no answer 6 quote boxes ago, then we would not have had this problem

Repeating "they have the same profile" does not answer what your stand is if the main argument has been about if the name is part of the profile or not. That has been a core part of this discussion, is a profile just the numbers or the numbers + name. Just quoting the rule did not make it clear if 90% of the last 7 pages has been about what this rule includes and means.

That's why I asked for a quick "yes/no" clarification. I agree with you, but could not tell if I did because I was not sure what your interpretation was. Sorry about that.

So the quick summary for this rule would be this then:

If you are playing in a tournament that uses INAT FAQ they are not considered identical.

If you are playing in a GW GT or any other tournament that does not use the INAT FAQ you are at the mercy of a TO until a GW FAQ clarifies the issue. Best bet is to ask the TO before hand and get an official ruling before the event.

Friendly games: talk about it/roll off/fight to the death.

What? The answer is that they are treated as separate units, by any interpretation of any rules. You're over-complicating things.

DeathReaper wrote:Look at the Characteristics on P.6, notice how name is not listed?

The name is not a characteristic, it is an identifier telling us to whom that profile belongs.

if the Characteristics are identical then the profiles are identical regardless of to whom that profile belongs.

look at the Space wolves Long fang pack. They specifically exclude the Squad leader from taking a heavy weapon, which they would not have to do if it worked like The INAT says it does.

Look at Characteristic Profiles on Page 7; Look at the examples, see how the names are there?

Look in any Codex, Look at the profiles for the Given units in the Armylists; See how the names are there? notice how the entire section is boxed in, including the names?

Now look at an Armylist page in one of those codices(the one that explains the entries, generally just before the first HQ entry and has the FOC on it); Look at the Unit profile definition entry does it state that the name is not part of the profile, or does it state that the Profile is found there. Look at the options definition Entry, does it mention anything about the names or the names not being a part of the profile?

Now look in the actual armylists in your codex, look for any options that allow for specific Names, does the name not being a part of the profile(according to you) mean that you can give anyone that upgrade?

Joey wrote:

Tangent wrote:Man, you guys really need to read this entire thread before posting... :/

No, you only need to read those two lines from the BRB. This thread would have ended after a few posts if people had just looked it up.

See what I mean now?

Kel, P.7 says that "Each model in Warhammer 40,000 has a profile that lists the value of its characteristics."

A profile 'lists the value of its characteristics' a name is not a characteristic.

P.6 states " For all models except vehicles these characteristics are given a value on a scale of 0-10"

What is the value of Terminator Sergeant?

DeathReaper wrote:Kel, P.7 says that "Each model in Warhammer 40,000 has a profile that lists the value of its characteristics."

A profile 'lists the value of its characteristics' a name is not a characteristic.

P.6 states " For all models except vehicles these characteristics are given a value on a scale of 0-10"

What is the value of Terminator Sergeant?

Terminator Sergeant.

Lack of a numeric does not negate the possibility of a characteristic.

At any rate this thread is long over and we are not going to be hashing out anything new; I posit we leave it for dead.

In the event we meet for a game, the situation can be discussed and we can either play the Game with just INAT answers, Just GW Answers, TO ruling, Discussed and agreed upon answers, or any blend of those.

Joey wrote:No, you only need to read those two lines from the BRB. This thread would have ended after a few posts if people had just looked it up.

Here's a tip: If a thread discussing something that you think is crystal clear has spun out to multiple pages, chances are the issue isn't as clear-cut as you think. Which is usually made apparent by reading the actual discussion.


However, since this has been dug up from its peaceful slumber just to wind up circling around the exact same arguments, I would agree that the thread has done it's duty and needs to be put down for good.