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.

DeathReaper wrote:

insaniak wrote:It's not one of the characteristics. It's still a part of the profile.

Sorry, I forgot the important quote:

"... Identical in gaming terms. by this we mean they have the same profile of characteristics, the same weapons and wargear." P.25

By this they only have to have the same profile of characteristics, anything else does not count as far as the rules are concerned.

Except that have different profiles Eg, turn to the back of your BA codex, note how they have two different profiles.
The issue isn't "the numbers in the profiles are the same" the issue is you're saying that profile and this profile are the same one - when they're different entries.

Also, for BA at least the Seargent had a PS. Shock-horror, different wargear.

ChrisCP wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

insaniak wrote:It's not one of the characteristics. It's still a part of the profile.

Sorry, I forgot the important quote:

"... Identical in gaming terms. by this we mean they have the same profile of characteristics, the same weapons and wargear." P.25

By this they only have to have the same profile of characteristics, anything else does not count as far as the rules are concerned.

Except that have different profiles Eg, turn to the back of your BA codex, note how they have two different profiles.
The issue isn't "the numbers in the profiles are the same" the issue is you're saying that profile and this profile are the same one - when they're different entries.

Also, for BA at least the Seargent had a PS. Shock-horror, different wargear.

They do not have different profiles where the game is concerned. They are 'Identical in gaming terms.' since they have the same profile of characteristics, the same weapons and wargear.

Terminator Assault squad sgt has the exact profile and wargear as the rest of the Terminators in his squad.

so you can not allocate wounds to him.

No, they different profiles (look in the back of a codex/BRB) with the same characteristics. Difficult concept to grasp. I know, here's some examples to help illustrate! Starting with SM; Apothecary - who is a - Veteran Sergeant - who is - Death Company - is a - Veteran - Wolf Guard, these guys all have the same stats in their profile but different profiles.

They are not the same profile but the profiles are the same. (for game purposes I.E. the profile of characteristics are identical, which is the only thing the rules care about.)

In your example if all those guys were in one unit and all had the same wargear and rules, then you could not allocate wounds to anyone.

Since they have the same profile of characteristics.

DeathReaper wrote:They are not the same profile but the profiles are the same. (for game purposes I.E. the profile of characteristics are identical, which is the only thing the rules care about.)
In your example if all those guys were in one unit and all had the same wargear and rules, then you could not allocate wounds to anyone.
Since they have the same profile of characteristics.

Nope, different profiles containing the same characteristics. Again look in the bask of any army bok and you will most likley find more instances of this.

Right different profiles that are Identical in gaming terms.

P.25 under complex units:

"... Identical in gaming terms. by this we mean they have the same profile of characteristics, the same weapons and wargear."

They are different profiles with the same profile of characteristics.

Yes 'the same profile of characteristics', they do not have the same profile.

An example of 'the same profile of characteristics' is two archons joined with identical wargear but one has S6 due to soul-trap - if it wasn't for this they would be identicle and one couldn't allocate.

DeathReaper wrote:By this they only have to have the same profile of characteristics, anything else does not count as far as the rules are concerned.

Yes. And models with different names don't have the same profile of characteristics, because the name on that profile is different.

It doesn't say that only the characteristics have to be the same. It says the profile has to be the same. Different name = different profile, regardless of whether or not those profiles have the same characteristic values.

Rulebook 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.

A profile consists of the 9 stats. The name is not part of a profile the way that reads.

Just to be clear they have the same "characteristics" but not the same "profile of characteristics" subtle difference.

bonerjamz wrote:Rulebook 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.

A profile consists of the 9 stats. The name is not part of a profile the way that reads.

Yes, the profile is made up of the 9 stats. It has a name tag that then tells you what that profile belongs to. The name is therefore an inherent part of the profile... as without it, the profile is a meaningless bunch of numbers.

I'm with DeathReaper on this one, as the characteristics are the same in the two profiles, which is what we're looking for, we are NOT looking for two different profiles with the same characteristics.
In my eyes, as it says "the same profile OF characteristics, etc", it seems that the actual characteristics being the same is the most important part, and, as has been pointed out before, names are not part of the profile per se, but are simply used to identify the profile.
My musings...

So I can apply wounds to my gargoyles when my termagants get hit?

kirsanth wrote:So I can apply wounds to my gargoyles when my termagants get hit?

Are they part of the same unit?

Sure.

Really?

I would have left it at that as one-liner, indeed one-word, posts were apparently OK.

In the end it doesn't matter. Termagants and Gargoyles don't share wound-group. Not necessarily for reasons of having different names and an identical stat-line, but rather because they have different special rules.

I'm curious when this could possibly come up. And then I'm curious when it could possibly matter.

Honestly. Is there an example of how this could happen? And just for a pre-argument, if we have to go to Apoc or some game where we have multiple Codecies involved, we're into house-rule territory.

I will say that kirsanth brings up a good point. Is the unit type included in the nine statistics. The strict reading of profile of characteristics seems to argue that it wouldn't be included, which seems a little silly. (but then again, we all know that RAW doesn't always make sense)

Rulebook wrote:PG. 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.

P.25 under complex units:
"... Identical in gaming terms. by this we mean they have the same profile of characteristics, the same weapons and wargear."

I quoted these together since they were on different pages of the thread to make it easier as to what people where referring to.

A don't have the BRB on me but it seems there could be a loophole in which the Name is not considered for determining Complex units.

But just as the previous poster asked. When would this even come up that would actually make some sort of difference. If there was a Sergeant in a normal unit with the same characteristics and wargear then does it matter if he has to take a wound?
I am guessing this is an argument over just what is the right way in the rules but it just doesn't looks like it would ever matter in a real game...

The point made about Gargoyles and Termagaunts is kind of irrelevant, as the two can never be in the same unit...

kirsanth may have not brought up a real game example but thats almost the point. Are there any actual real game relevant situations?

I know I can't think of any relevant ones and if such a situation like a Gargoyle and Termagaunt unit existed, which would be the only relevant type of situation that I can think of, then how would it be played?

These are the types of situations that we are discussing right?

Edit: And if there are not any relevant real game situations and no one wants to discuss hypothetical ones, then whats the point?

While the models have the same characteristics they do not share the same profile.

Sternguard/ Vanguard Veteran (van maybe equipped the same) and Assault Terminators do not share the same profile as their Sergeants; they otherwise is identical.

As we are checking to see if the same profile of characteristics is used (not the same characteristics) these sergeants are clearly using a different one to every one else.

So, for clarity, the way people are using "same": the name tells you to look up to the entry and read the indicated line, line 1. Now, the segeant's entry has a different name, and tells you to read line 2. Even if line 1 and 2 have identical contents, they aren't the "same profile." You're looking for models using the same entry, not just the same values. Basically, you're using it as "self-same." Am I understanding you guys correctly?

Again I ask when this could come up and actually matter. If the models all have the same profile, then it doesn't really matter which one dies, since nothing is lost. If the Sergeant doesn't even have an extra point of Ld or another attack it hardly matters if they die. The only impact would be one model on the table vs another, which *could* matter, but only if the sergeant were the only one in assault range, or something. The only other time would be when it's multi-wound models, so you can pull a very minor bit of wound allocation abuse. Are there any examples of this?

Right they do not share a profile but the profiles are Identical in gaming terms. and being 'Identical in gaming terms.' is what matters. as per P.25

I will use the example I used earlier:

WS BS S T W I A Ld Sv
4 4 4 4 1 4 2 9 2+ Terminator

4 4 4 4 1 4 2 9 2+ Terminator Sergeant

all 9 characteristics are identical.

let us assume that both these models have the same weapons, wargear, and rules.

These two models would be identical in gaming terms. I.E. the same WS, BS, S, T, W, I, A, Ld, and Sv values.

P.25 under complex units:

"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 they have the same profile of characteristics, the same weapons and wargear."

and Kir, yes you can apply wounds to your gargoyles when your termagants get hit, if they could join onto one big unit, and they had the same weapons and wargear, and all their characteristics are Identical in gaming terms.

ElCheezus wrote:So, for clarity, the way people are using "same": the name tells you to look up to the entry and read the indicated line, line 1. Now, the segeant's entry has a different name, and tells you to read line 2. Even if line 1 and 2 have identical contents, they aren't the "same profile." You're looking for models using the same entry, not just the same values. Basically, you're using it as "self-same." Am I understanding you guys correctly?

Again I ask when this could come up and actually matter. If the models all have the same profile, then it doesn't really matter which one dies, since nothing is lost. If the Sergeant doesn't even have an extra point of Ld or another attack it hardly matters if they die. The only impact would be one model on the table vs another, which *could* matter, but only if the sergeant were the only one in assault range, or something. The only other time would be when it's multi-wound models, so you can pull a very minor bit of wound allocation abuse. Are there any examples of this?

your 5 men get shot at by a IG blob you take 10 Lasgun wounds and 3 plasma wounds. Since he doesn't use the same profile i can stack all three plasma wounds on the sergeant, he's otherwise identical so no loss by him taking the brunt of it.

You'd go from definitely loosing 3 models (most likely all 5 as i'd fail at some of the ten lasgun saves) to definitely losing 1.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DeathReaper wrote:Right they do not share a profile but the profiles are Identical in gaming terms. and being 'Identical in gaming terms.' is what matters. as per P.25

But they're not Identical in gaming terms they do not share the same profile.

Tri wrote: your 5 men get shot at by a IG blob you take 10 Lasgun wounds and 3 plasma wounds. Since he doesn't use the same profile i can stack all three plasma wounds on the sergeant, he's otherwise identical so no loss by him taking the brunt of it.

You'd go from definitely loosing 3 models (most likely all 5 as i'd fail at some of the ten lasgun saves) to definitely losing 1.

That's a good point. And a good example of how wound allocation is dumb. Dumb dumb dumb. More shooting should never amount to fewer casualties.

DR - you are still missing the entirely valid point: they are not the SAME profile.

They are 2, separate profiles. While the stats are the same numbers, that is NOT the criteria. It has to be the EXACT SAME profile.

Yes, I was making an obviously assinine example in what seems to be a deliberately obtuse situation.

Characteristic Profiles start with the unit's name, see page 7. Otherwise you are simply listing numbers.

kirsanth wrote:Yes, I was making an obviously assinine example in what seems to be a deliberately obtuse situation.

Characteristic Profiles start with the unit's name, see page 7. Otherwise you are simply listing numbers.

Exactly! P.7 Under Characteristic Profiles.

"Each model in warhammer 40k has a profile that lists the value of its characteristics"

so we now know that the profile is a list of its characteristics.

In my example above they are "Identical in gaming terms. by this we mean they have the same profile of characteristics, the same weapons and wargear."

Ergo: the value of its characteristics must be the same. and since they are, there is no allocation.

nosferatu1001 wrote:DR - you are still missing the entirely valid point: they are not the SAME profile.

They are 2, separate profiles. While the stats are the same numbers, that is NOT the criteria. It has to be the EXACT SAME profile.

They are not the same profile but they are 'Identical in gaming terms.'

Where does it say they need to be the EXACT SAME profile? It doesn't. So the profiles(value of its characteristics) only need to be identical.

Stop adding exact in there, when it does not say that.

You are adding a qualifier that does not exist (shocking to everyone, I know)

It says they have to have the SAME profile. Do they have the same profile? NO, because the profiles are separate.

they may have the same values, but that is not what is asked.

For the 90th time, your argument has not altered now in two pages. If you stop repeating the same words over and over, and explain things differently, this may continue.

Nos has called a "Threefold repetition" stalemate. New arguments only!