Wound Allocation on Sergeants

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.

**don_mondo**

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

**Happyjew**

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)

**insaniak**

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.

**imweasel**

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.

**Tye_Informer**

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.

**nosferatu1001**

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

**Joey**

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

**d-usa**

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.

**Joey**

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.

**Tangent**

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

**Joey**

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.

**d-usa**

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.

**Joey**

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.

**Kommissar Kel**

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?

**d-usa**

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.

**Joey**

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.

**d-usa**

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.

**Joey**

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.

**d-usa**

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?

**Kommissar Kel**

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.

**Joey**

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.

**d-usa**

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.

**DeathReaper**

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.

**Joey**

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.

**Kommissar Kel**

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?

**Tangent**

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?

**DeathReaper**

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?

**Kommissar Kel**

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.

**insaniak**

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.