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.

Scenario

A deathwing terminator squad all with TH and SS including sarge.

All are exactly the same in stats and equipment. Is sarge different for the purposes of wound allocation?

Wound allocation only takes about equipment in the RAW it does not ever mention name or organization within the squad.

Thoughts?

I believe that the rules state that you have to delegate equal wounds to the entire squad, and this includes sarges, IC's etc... In terms of rolling to wound in terms of toughness that may not be the same you take the majority toughness for the purposes of determining wounds.

If you have a unit of 10, and take it 8 wounds you get to pick 8 models to take the wounds (not the opponent). If you take 12 wounds you have to allocate 10 wounds, and then you allocate two more wounds, so 2 models each take two wounds. Again, you get to pick which models in the unit.

Could be wrong, since I don't have the BRB on me.

TGF: That has been a point of much debate here on dakka very recently.
There are 2 Camps:
the first says that the name is part of the Profile; different names are different models in game terms.

The second says that the name does not matter only the Stat line and the equipment matter.

The end result is really to decide which camp you are in, and to discuss the matter with your opponent pregame every time you think it will come up(i.e. when you have a unit that is 100% equally armed and with equal statlines, but some different names).

leprousy: that is 100% completely correct for units with different models(complex units); with units that Are 100% the same, you just roll the 12 armor saves(or remove the ten models if no saves are available from those wounds) and remove any models that fail. Wound allocation in that manner is only necessary when the unit is not 100% identical. I still give you props for remembering how complex units work without the BRB with you though.

And neither camp really has raw on their side because it comes down to an interpretation of what stat line includes. Ok well I guess its going to be an opponent agreement at this point.

Nothing "in game terms" differentiates the Sgt in this case.

....apart from him having a different profile to the unit. The two profiles are not the "same"

But the rules only care about them being Identical.

just as they need identical rules, weapons, and wargear.

Unit Composition seems to say otherwise, from what I can tell. The Sergeant is obviously seperate, as he has different wargear as a base option. Even if you throw TH / SS on the whole squad, he is still listed as the squad's Sergeant.

I don't see how there can be much debate here as Unit Composition seems to make everything clear, no matter the statline.

The issue is page 25 (taking saving throws) states: 'having allocated the wounds, all of the models in the unit that are identical in gaming terms take their saving throws at the same time, in one batch'.

'Gaming Terms' is not defined in the rulebook. My interpretation is the DW Sergeant (in this particular example) is identical in gaming terms, thus he would be included in the batch roll .

Sarigar wrote:The issue is page 25 (taking saving throws) states: 'having allocated the wounds, all of the models in the unit that are identical in gaming terms take their saving throws at the same time, in one batch'.

'Gaming Terms' is not defined in the rulebook. My interpretation is the DW Sergeant (in this particular example) is identical in gaming terms, thus he would be included in the batch roll .

I would argue that "Unit Composition" clearly defines him as a separate model in game terms, otherwise why define it? That he has the option of different wargear and his own statline seems to indicate he is unique, even if he is equipped the same as another squad member.

They're not different in game terms at the time of allocating wounds, however.

IMO if it's a case where the sarge has even one different number in his stat line, even one different piece of gear, or even one different special rule, then he is not exactly the same as the men he leads. Im not very familiar with the entry for DW, so I'm not claiming he does or doesn't in the given example, but this is my overall rule.

"... gaming terms. By this we mean they have the same profile of characteristics, the same special rules and the same weapons and wargear."

Let's work backwards.

Same Weapons and Wargear... check (in this scenario)
Same Special Rules... check
Same Profile of Characteristics... check

He has a different name. This, however, is not a part of the "- profile made up of nine numbers that describe the various aspects of their physical and mental makeup" under Characteristics on p6. I believe it's fair to presume that the name is part of the model's "profile" but not the "profile of characterisitics" which is specifically called for.

The qualifiers for 'identical in gaming terms' make no allowance for the name of the model, and although I believe it should be included (since the names of individual models absolutely make a difference in gaming terms) the fact remains that 'identical in gaming terms' is defined by the qualifiers above for the purposes of allocating saves.

I've previously tried to argue for the other side regarding certain models that are identical in all terms except for their points value, but I have had to admit that points values are also not a part of the profile of characteristics, supported by the p6 quote above, and despite being described in the same section of the rulebook.

Leprousy wrote:I believe that the rules state that you have to delegate equal wounds to the entire squad, and this includes sarges, Independent Characters's etc... In terms of rolling to wound in terms of toughness that may not be the same you take the majority toughness for the purposes of determining wounds.

If you have a unit of 10, and take it 8 wounds you get to pick 8 models to take the wounds (not the opponent). If you take 12 wounds you have to allocate 10 wounds, and then you allocate two more wounds, so 2 models each take two wounds. Again, you get to pick which models in the unit.

Could be wrong, since I don't have the BRB on me.

Bolded by me: Incorrect. IC's have their own special rules for CC and wound allocation in CC and should not be included in this. Since, I believe, the Sarge in question is an upgraded model to the unit where as an IC is a joined unit to a another unit, which is very different.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:"... gaming terms. By this we mean they have the same profile of characteristics, the same special rules and the same weapons and wargear."

Let's work backwards.

Same Weapons and Wargear... check (in this scenario)
Same Special Rules... check
Same Profile of Characteristics... check

He has a different name. This, however, is not a part of the "- profile made up of nine numbers that describe the various aspects of their physical and mental makeup" under Characteristics on p6. I believe it's fair to presume that the name is part of the model's "profile" but not the "profile of characterisitics" which is specifically called for.

The qualifiers for 'identical in gaming terms' make no allowance for the name of the model, and although I believe it should be included (since the names of individual models absolutely make a difference in gaming terms) the fact remains that 'identical in gaming terms' is defined by the qualifiers above for the purposes of allocating saves.

I've previously tried to argue for the other side regarding certain models that are identical in all terms except for their points value, but I have had to admit that points values are also not a part of the profile of characteristics, supported by the p6 quote above, and despite being described in the same section of the rulebook.

Agreed. This is also how I interpret it.

We really don't need to watch this train-wreck unfold yet again just yet.

The answer, right now, is yes. Or no. Depending on personal interpretation as to whether or not the model's name is considered a part of the profile for determining whether or not the profiles are identical.

Until GW FAQ it, if you have any units in your army that would run afoul of this issue (and there aren't really that many of them) discuss it with your opponent before the game.