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.

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

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

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

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

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

Soup and a roll wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unfortuneately the rules do no agree.

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

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

Exactly.

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

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

kirsanth wrote:Exactly.

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

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


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

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

Since it assumes models are identical in game terms.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes we know they are not the same profile.

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

and that is what the rules care about.

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

Spot on.

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

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

Unit name is not one of the 9 Characteristics.

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

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

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

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

Tri wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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