Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.