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.

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.