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.

Hi all,

I searched through some old posts (I admit, rather quickly), but couldn't find this question. This came up in a game the other day. We have a resident TFG who likes to "interpret" rules to his benefit. He was playing our 'Nid player and some of his 'Nids had Without Number. TFG killed the gaunts twice and when the 'Nid player tried to bring them back on for a third time TFG said, "Nope, they don't have Without Number anymore."

He claims that under the 'Nid codex rule when they come back with a "normal" (I think that's the word used, don't have the dex handy as I'm at work) profile, it doesn't include any wargear options, they're just vanilla gaunts. Now, the rest of us think that he's full of gak, but, through our quick scanning of the rules, could find nothing to refute him.

So, I guess the question is, do 'Nids lose Without Number after they've been killed and how (if it's possible) can I show this to him in the rulebooks?

Thanks in advance.

You can bring them on as many times as you will. They are identical each time, which includes W/O# as much as the weapons they are armed with.

TFG was full of crap. Page 40 of the Tyranids Codex:

Without Number wrote:Any brood Without Number that is removed from play may be brought back into play at the beginning of the next Tyranid turn. It...has exactly the same profile and armaments as its predecessor.

@RustyKnight

I totally agree with you and when we pointed that out to him, he said that Without Number is not a part of its profile (which, I believe is just defined as the statistics) and it is not an armament (which, he argued means weapons and bio-morphs), so it doesn't retain Without Number.

Let me again iterate, I agree, but is there a rule in the BRB or somewhere else that says "unit upgrades count as its profile" or some such?

Point out to him (TFG) that without number is a special rule that the brood has. It is similar to the fleet of claw special rule that the brood has, the only difference being that they had to pay a points cost for the without number special rule.
Then tell him to look at page 74 BRB that details universal special rules. Fleet is there so this is the reference for the special rules of the gaunts. This page also tells if and when any special rules are lost by a unit. THere is nothing in this section to say that gaunts coming back due to without number lose the without number special rule, so they come back with it, time and time again if necessary.
If he still argues the point, tell him to cite the rules that says gaunts returning due to without number lose that special ability.
If that still fails to convince him, tell all the other gamers not to give him a game. (ie "boycott" him) They probably wouldn't be missing much by not playing against him anyway.

@time wizard

Thanks for the suggestions, I (we) will try to employ them from now on. There's already a small "boycott" going on as it is. The only reason he gets a game is if he is the last option available. I've actually come in late, seen him as the only option, and set up shop painting instead of playing. Hopefully, this will work.

Thanks again for all the replies.

Well, technically he has a point. The "Profile" is defined as the block of stats. Armaments are not really defined, so we have to assume that would be the guns.

So to be strict about it, they would be exactly the same, except would lose Flesh Hooks, Fleet, WoN.

I am pretty sure, however, that GW has used the term 'profile' to refer to all the info, even if it defines it as only the 9 characteristics.
And it seems foolish to assume that the gaunts are expected to lose Fleet when they come back.
So yeah, TFG is being TFG, but his argument isn''t totally without merit.

TFG was completely wrong.

Gwar..... how unlike you to go against the rules as actually written.

What a change for you.

It says same profile and armaments. The rules don't say you get the same "Special Rules".

I applaud your new found ability to look past the explicit writing, to see the obvious intent. Perhaps this is a watershed moment for you....

This really depends on how WoN is worded. If it says that the gaunts come back with a normal profile, they get to keep their special rules because it doesn't indicate that they lose these rules. If it goes beyond this, they may not get to keep the rule. I don't have access to the codex, so you figure it out.

coredump wrote:Gwar..... how unlike you to go against the rules as actually written.

What a change for you.

It says same profile and armaments. The rules don't say you get the same "Special Rules".

I applaud your new found ability to look past the explicit writing, to see the obvious intent. Perhaps this is a watershed moment for you....

Don't assume too much. While TFG might have had a theoretical argument, anyone that much of an donkey-cave deserves my scorn. Even I have limits

I know this is a bit of a necro, but being a 'nid player myself, and using 2 broods of gaunts with WoN. Every time the brood is killed, they come back on at the begining of the 'nid players turn from the 'nid players table edge with exactly the same characteristics, weapons, biomorphs, and upgrades.

StarSkreamer:

While I don't disagree with your conclusion, that isn't what the WoN rule actually says, now is it?

The WoN rule says;"...same profile and armaments...".

Please add some reference or you are just....you know...adding to your postcount, really.

Steelmage,

I just took the exact line slightly further tbh. The way I see it, if you pay points for the item (wargear, upgrade, or whatever) then the unit returns to play exactly how it was when you originally purchased.
I think this is completely fair, considering that every time a WoN brood comes onto the table it is worth a further KP.

Hey Star,

Welcome to Dakka, and the rules forum.

But to clarify, here we tend to deal with what the rules actually say. The fact that you think something is 'fair', or is 'how you see it', is not nearly as important as to what the rule actually says.

Now, as is evidenced above, we pretty much all agree that it is meant to come back multiple times; but that isn't quite what the rules actually state.

Steelmage99 wrote:StarSkreamer:

While I don't disagree with your conclusion, that isn't what the WoN rule actually says, now is it?

The WoN rule says;"...same profile and armaments...".

Please add some reference or you are just....you know...adding to your postcount, really.

coredump wrote:Gwar..... how unlike you to go against the rules as actually written.

What a change for you.

It says same profile and armaments. The rules don't say you get the same "Special Rules".

I applaud your new found ability to look past the explicit writing, to see the obvious intent. Perhaps this is a watershed moment for you....

So wait, you think they lose Fleet of claw, then?

Wouldn't Fleet of Claw be part of its basic profile? It is not an add on or something that you purchase separately.

As for "armaments", where is that term even defined? .

Fleet of Claw is a special rule the unit has, just like Without Number.
I do not understand how bringing a unit back onto the table would change the unit, but therein lies the OP query.

Oddly enough, "Characteristic Profiles" are not the only profiles - just the only one "the resident TFG" cared to count.

coredump wrote:But to clarify, here we tend to deal with what the rules actually say. The fact that you think something is 'fair', or is 'how you see it', is not nearly as important as to what the rule actually says.

Hardly, YMDC is about how the majority of people agree to play a specific ruling. As such, it has always involved disputes between RAW amd RAI and RAIAW arguements. Yakface, who was a significant contributor to YMDC back in the days often argued on stances that were not solely from a RAW stance. Hell, 40K rule books are chopped full of inconsistencies and faulty language that from a strict RAW stand point lack meaning. Even GWAR, the poster child for RAW, had to practically rewrite the SW book so that it made "technical" sense.

In this example, the RAW states "armements". The term "armaments" is not clearly and presicely defined by the BRB or Codex. It is a synonym that you must infer has meaning and the majority of us who play Tyranids interpret that meaning to be "biomorphs and bio-weapons".

Special rules are part of the profile. The upgraded WoN becomes part of the profile, which the predecessor had. So would continue to have it.

Don't confuse Profile characteristics with the Profile

BGB pg 14 Impassable Terrain wrote:Models may not be placed in impassable terrain unless the models concerned have a special rule in their profile

I hope that helps.

Well good work sbeasley, I think we have /thread

Gotta tell ya, I didn't expect my thread to be dragged back to life, but thanks for pointing that out sbeasley! It's pretty clear that the profile is more than just the characteristics.

EDIT: Oh, didn't see sbeasley's post.

Sorry, but profile is defined in the BRB, and again in the Nid codex. It is clearly defined, and it only includes the 10 characteristics in the stat line.

The fact that there is a line in the rules for Impassable Terrain that mentions a profile, does not do enough to change the definitions provided in two sources.

That said, as before, *of course* it should include fleet and WoN.

Wyoming: I would suggest perusing the "how to have a rules debate" and "tenents of YMDC".
Yes 'how you would play' has a place in the discussion and in the forum. But 'how you wish the rule was written' does not.
When discussing the rules, we need to stick with what is written.

The only part of the BGB that defines profiles is on p.7, and it defines "Characteristic Profiles". I would submit that this means there are other parts of the profile than just the characteristics. The passage in the impassible terrain section reveals that GW includes special rules as part of a profile, and no other rule I can find contradicts this.

Seriously, people?

This thread should have been like two posts long.

Just tell the guy that if he wants to make up his own rules then he should start saving his pennies to start up his own game company.

whocares wrote:Seriously, people?

This thread should have been like two posts long.

Just tell the guy that if he wants to make up his own rules then he should start saving his pennies to start up his own game company.

Welcome to the wonderful world of RAW!

Vale,

JohnS

RAW should have had this post answered and finished in 1 response.

Characteristics Profile =/= Profile.

kirsanth wrote:RAW should have had this post answered and finished in 1 response.

Characteristics Profile =/= Profile.

The BRB uses them interchangeably a lot of the time, and aside from the hint in the terrain rules (which several other quotes go against) I can't find a flat out 'profile' definition that includes rules.

Ex) Pg24
"As long as all the models
in the unit have the same profile, special rules,
weapons and wargear, the player who owns the unit
can choose which of his models is removed"
Special rules are distinct from profile here.

GW writing strikes again

w/o# states "the unit is brought back onto the table"
Had it instead said "a unit is brought to the table" or "another unit" or somesuch, I would generally agree.

"brought back" makes it hard to read the implication that it should be different.