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.

Well in the rulebook it says for taking saves and such if they have different stats or anything you use the majority..

No you dont. Youre mixing up rolling to wound with taking saves.

don_mondo wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:
Same, in this instance, means Identical. It does not mean shared.

And they aren't identical, are they? One says Sergeant, the other doesn't.

They are identical as far as wound allocation is concerned. Since they only need to have the same profile of characteristics.

A profile lists the value of its characteristics P.7 (No mention of name)

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."(No mention of name)

So I have proven that the profile of characteristics is "a profile made up of nine numbers that describe the various aspects of their physical and mental make-up. These are called characteristics"(No mention of name)

a profile is made up of 9 numbers that are called characteristics

characteristics = the 9 numbers in the profile.

You can not prove that the name is a characteristic, since characteristic are numbers. names are not numbers.

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."

nosferatu1001 wrote:1)DR - they have the same weapons and wargear. Again, stop changing the wording to support your argument, it undermines it something chronic

Mind actually answering my question?

Do they have Shared weapons and wargear, or Identical weapons and wargear?

No DR, not answering a question involving you altering wording to your benefit. I have answered the required question, which is that they are the same items of wargear.

We have proven that the profiles are only similar, they are not the same. Whie the numbers may be identical, the profiles are not - just simlar.

Your refusal to understand the semantic difference is the issue here

No altered wording, I am trying to determine what same means in that sentence. It can mean identical or shared, you are taking same to mean shared, I am taking same to mean Identical, here is why.

P.25 under complex units: Even says Identical, it makes no mention of shared.
"... Identical in gaming terms. By this we mean they have the same profile of characteristics, the same weapons and wargear."

The profile of characteristics need to be IDENTICAL.

The DO NOT need to share a profile. you have no rules to actually back up your point.

Same refers to Identical as mentioned in the previous sentence.

And they're not identical, right?

don_mondo wrote:And they're not identical, right?

Actually they are Identical as far as the wound allocation rules are concerned. They only need to have the same profile of characteristics. Names are not mentioned.

You can not prove that the name is a characteristic, since characteristic are numbers. Names are not numbers.

Until you prove the name is a part of the profile of characteristics you have no rules argument.

In this instance 'Profile' means one thing (Name included) and 'profile of characteristics' means something slightly different (Name not included), since the name is not a characteristic.

My group plays it as how DeathReaper is suggesting. If the numerical stats and wargear are the same, they roll saves together. That is what we feel was intended by the "in gaming terms" and the logical reason for wound allocation.

DeathReaper wrote:

don_mondo wrote:And they're not identical, right?

Actually they are Identical as far as the wound allocation rules are concerned. They only need to have the same profile of characteristics. Names are not mentioned.

Actually, the example in the main rules includes the name, so yes, it is indeed part of the profile of characterisitics.

don_mondo wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

don_mondo wrote:And they're not identical, right?

Actually they are Identical as far as the wound allocation rules are concerned. They only need to have the same profile of characteristics. Names are not mentioned.

Actually, the example in the main rules includes the name, so yes, it is indeed part of the profile of characterisitics.

Page with actual rules that states that please.

Page 7, Characteristic profiles, see examples.

I see no actual rules that say names are a part of the Characteristics.

All P.7 says is that A profile lists the value of its characteristics.

P.6 states "For all models except vehicles these characteristics are given a value on a scale of 0 - 10..."

A name is not one of the listed values between 0-10

What is the value of the "Ork boy" or the "Space Marine" examples?
(Hint: they do not have a value since they are not between 0 - 10 inclusive)

....and they still dont have an identical set of characteristics. There are two of them, not one. You'd have a point if there was one - but there isnt.

nosferatu1001 wrote:....and they still dont have an identical set of characteristics. There are two of them, not one. You'd have a point if there was one - but there isnt.

Characteristics = Values.

2 values can be identical even if they are listed in two separate places. P.7 confirms this under the example profiles by saying "They have the same Weapon Skill and the same Toughness value." How can this be if there are two of them?

4 4 4 4 1 4 2 9 2+

is Identical to

4 4 4 4 1 4 2 9 2+

Even though they are listed two different places. That's basic stuff Nos. I am actually kind of surprised Nos, most of the time you stay away from Logical Fallacies.

And your basic "stuff" is ignoring that there are two profiles that are not the same. They are similar, but not the same.

We will never agree, at any point

nosferatu1001 wrote:And your basic "stuff" is ignoring that there are two profiles that are not the same. They are similar, but not the same.

We will never agree, at any point

That's because your arguments are in error and you can not see it.

The same means Identical in this case, as referenced by the "Identical" in the previous sentence.

They are not the same profile, but the profiles are the same.

Edit: Also you are not answering my question because it undermines your argument. The same can refer to one of two things. Either a shared profile, or an Identical Profile. If you read the sentence just before that says "Identical. By this we mean" tells us they do not need to share a profile, just that the profiles need to be identical.

So which is it? Do they have Shared weapons and wargear, or Identical weapons and wargear?

False equivalence, actually. Thats your error, and no matter how many times its pointed out you blindly ignore it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:False equivalence, actually. Thats your error, and no matter how many times its pointed out you blindly ignore it.

Can you actually answer the question.

Do they have Shared weapons and wargear, or Identical weapons and wargear?

No, the question is do they have identical stat lines. And the answer is no.

don_mondo wrote:No, the question is do they have identical stat lines. And the answer is no.

The answer is yes, The Profile of Characteristics is Identical.

Unless:

4 4 4 4 1 4 2 9 2+

and

4 4 4 4 1 4 2 9 2+

are somehow not identical. but they are identical.

I in the sarge is rolled separately camp. In every other squad the sarge is different just because the squad has the same stats doesn't change that he is a different model, what purpose does he have being their if he isn't special?

DeathReaper wrote:

don_mondo wrote:No, the question is do they have identical stat lines. And the answer is no.

The answer is yes, The Profile of Characteristics is Identical.

Except for the part of the profile that tells you who that profile belongs to.

Unless:

4 4 4 4 1 4 2 9 2+

and

4 4 4 4 1 4 2 9 2+

are somehow not identical. but they are identical.

Sure, those parts are identical. Likewise, if you look at a regular Tactical Squad member and his Sergeant, and only compare those parts of their profiles that are identical you will also have two apparently identical profiles.

You have to compare the entire profile, though. And if you don't include the name that identifies the profile as a part of the comparison then the comparison is meaningless since there is no way of identifying who those profiles belong to.

The Rules only care about the Profile of Characteristics, and that they are Identical.

P.7 says is that A profile lists the value of its characteristics.

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."

P.6 states "For all models except vehicles these characteristics are given a value on a scale of 0 - 10..."\

Profile of characteristics do not include the name.

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 need to be "Identical in gaming terms" aka same values for its profile.

I do not understand how this is not clear to you guys.

Does the fact that the actual Codex entry for the unit composition lists him as a separate model?

The unit composition does not state that there are 5 Terminators (1 of which is a Sergeant). It states that there are 4 Terminators (which are the same) and 1 Sergeant (which is a separate model but has the same profile).

The Sergeant for Tactical Terminators has different wargear from the rest of the squat, so the Assault Terminators are the odd man out here.

d-usa wrote:Does the fact that the actual Codex entry for the unit composition lists him as a separate model?

The unit composition does not state that there are 5 Terminators (1 of which is a Sergeant). It states that there are 4 Terminators (which are the same) and 1 Sergeant (which is a separate model but has the same profile).

The Sergeant for Tactical Terminators has different wargear from the rest of the squat, so the Assault Terminators are the odd man out here.

The underlined is what the rules care about.

Only if he has different wargear or rules than the rest then he is different.

if he has "the same profile of characteristics, the same weapons and wargear." he is "Identical in gaming terms."

Different names are not mentioned as criteria.

DeathReaper wrote:The Rules only care about the Profile of Characteristics, and that they are Identical.

And that profile of characteristics is a series of characteristic values with a name attached to it to tell you what it belongs to. If any part of that profile is different, they are not identical.

You can't just choose to ignore the part of the profile that is different. You're creating a definition for this 'profile of characteristics' that pretends that the name is not a part of the profile... and ths definition is simply not backed up by actual rules.

The name is a part of the profile. It has to be, otherwise you just have a series of meaningless numbers. The fact that the profile includes a series of characteristics does not, in any way, mean that the name is not also a part of the profile.

I would think that if the profiles for all 4 Terminators and 1 Sgt would be the same, there would only be one profile entry.

I am going to put myself in the "just because the profiles are identical, does not mean that two separate profiles are really only one for gaming purposes" camp.

The composition lists them as separate models, they have two separate profiles, they have a distinctly separate model.

The rules on page 25 talks about "different models" not "different profiles" or whatever you want to use. Since the Sgt is a different model in the profile line and composition line I don't think that there is anything wrong with considering him a "different model".

insaniak wrote:

Deathshead420 wrote:I was on his side power hungry mod. It was a picture of spock saying something about logic. I didnt say your mum's logical. I agree with Death reaper, and was saying that he argues with logic.

Fine. I can change the in-thread warning to a suspension for posting spam, if you would prefer?

This is a little much Insaniak. Threatening a suspension for spam when there is none? Really dude? That does nothing to defend the power hungry claim there...
Now, conduct and language is a different story but there's no mention of that.

Now for the topic at hand. I'm on the side that the Sgt is always treated as a separate model for wound allocation, most of the time they have a higher LD, and in the cases where they don't, most cases they have a bolt pistol chain sword or some kind of different wargear. Just because some squads can equip their sgt with the same gear as the squad and have a statline, it's still a separate model that is leading the squad.

insaniak wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:The Rules only care about the Profile of Characteristics, and that they are Identical.

And that profile of characteristics is a series of characteristic values with a name attached to it to tell you what it belongs to. If any part of that profile is different, they are not identical.

You can't just choose to ignore the part of the profile that is different. You're creating a definition for this 'profile of characteristics' that pretends that the name is not a part of the profile... and ths definition is simply not backed up by actual rules.

The name is a part of the profile. It has to be, otherwise you just have a series of meaningless numbers. The fact that the profile includes a series of characteristics does not, in any way, mean that the name is not also a part of the profile.

If any part of the Profile of characteristics is different, which are the values of the characteristics, they are not identical. (Names are there for reference)

I have proven with Pages and quotes that the profile is made up of 9 number. The characteristics on P.6 do not mention names as one of the characteristics.

The profile would include the name but the profile of characteristics would not, as I have shown.

Why does it not say they need the same profile?
(Because Profile of characteristics is just the numbered values, and Profile is the whole thing)

DeathReaper wrote:I see no actual rules that say names are a part of the Characteristics.

All P.7 says is that A profile lists the value of its characteristics.

P.6 states "For all models except vehicles these characteristics are given a value on a scale of 0 - 10..."

A name is not one of the listed values between 0-10

What is the value of the "Ork boy" or the "Space Marine" examples?
(Hint: they do not have a value since they are not between 0 - 10 inclusive)

But a "Space Marine" is not an "Ork Boy", so you must admit that there IS a challenge that the name IS a characteristic of the model. Just the same as a Medusa is not a Basilisk etc etc.



I'm not sold yet on which way is the right answer, and think this might be something that should be addressed by FAQ. But, there is a very logical argument that a models name is in fact a genuine article of definition of models in a squad. To place 5 space marines on the table you MUST have one Sargent, the codex dictates this; therefor one model is essentially different by definition of the codex itself.