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.

So, the Deathwing profile in the DA Book lists the Sergeant separately (even though his stats are the same). If I swap out all the models to have TH/SS (or all LC's, it doesn't matter), would the Sergeant still be a separate/different group for Wound Allocation?

Does the sergeant actually have different stats (IE 2 base attacks instead of 1, Ld9 instead of 8)? Does he have different equipment from the rest of the group? If the answer to both of those questions is no, then the answer to your question is no. Otherwise the answer is yes.

It should as the profiles include the name (every single time they are listed). Although they are not a characteristic, they do affect the game--see IG Orders, Khan, Logan, Parasite of Mortrex, etc.

There are some folks who think that the names are not part of the profile, but they have yet to give a good explanation how to tell profiles apart if that is the case.

If all the models are "Identical in gaming terms. By this we mean they have the same profile of characteristics, the same special rules and the same weapons and wargear."P.25 then you do not allocate.

On P.25 they use identical and same interchangeably.

Remember it asks to have an Identical Profile of characteristics.

P.7 tells us that "Each model has a profile that lists the value of its characteristics"

so we know all profiles of characteristics are a list their values.

P.6 tells us what the characteristics are. Names are not listed under characteristics. so the profile of characteristics can be identical despite the names being different.

So does the [2 2 3 3 3 2 4 5 6+] need to test for Instinctive Behaviour?

Which models succumb to mindlock?

Editing to add:
Names have an affect on the game, thus differentiate the model in gaming terms.

See also: Terminators (vs. models in terminator armour)

Names are a part of the profile as a whole, but as far as Profile of characteristics is concerned names are not listed.

Seeing as the name is not a value (P.7) and not a characteristic (P.6) it is not counted as far as wound allocation is concerned on P.25. because only the profile of characteristics needs to be identical, not the profile as a whole.

Had it just said the same profile, that would be a different story.

I never said names were a characteristic, but as you said they are part of the profile of characteristics.

Which is all that is required.

It does not require only that the characteristics on the profile are the same value.

It depends on whether you see "the same" as meaning shared or identical. If shared then you can allocate to that sergeant as he doesn't share the same profile of characteristics as the rest of the squad. If identical the you can't as his profile has the same characteristics as the rest of the squad.

Queue hours of people arguing irrelevance and flatly ignoring the correct English that same can mean either identical or shared.

FlingitNow wrote:It depends on whether you see "the same" as meaning shared or identical.

It says identical.

And identical twins have absolutely no bearing on that usage of the word.

It says identical.

No it says same and if it said Identical then it is a closed case against your point of view.

FlingitNow wrote:

It says identical.

No it says same and if it said Identical then it is a closed case against your point of view.

"Identical in gaming terms" is what I was refering to.

Even so, how would different things with different names -- which can cause different gaming affects -- be identical?

Even so, how would different things with different names -- which can cause different gaming affects -- be identical?

Identical profiles of characteristics are profiles with identical charcteristics as that is all a profile of characteristics contains as per the BrB.

FlingitNow wrote:

It says identical.

No it says same and if it said Identical then it is a closed case against your point of view.

It does say Identical.

"Identical in gaming terms. By this we mean they have the same..."

Identical and Same are interchangeable in the above sentence, since they say, "Identical. by this we mean same"

kirsanth wrote:I never said names were a characteristic, but as you said they are part of the profile of characteristics.

Which is all that is required.

It does not require only that the characteristics on the profile are the same value.

No, I said "Names are a part of the profile as a whole, but as far as Profile of characteristics is concerned names are not listed."

the name is not a part of the Profile of characteristics.

as my earlier post shows, the values of the characteristics need to be the same/ identical in gaming terms.

FlingitNow wrote:Queue hours of people arguing irrelevance and flatly ignoring the correct English that same can mean either identical or shared.

In colloquial expression there may be some confusion here, but otherwise I miss the point of this statement. How is this read as shared?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DeathReaper wrote: "Names are a part of the profile"

"the name is not a part of the Profile"

This is a significant part of my confusion.

And edited for extra confusion.

It does say Identical.

"Identical in gaming terms. By this we mean they have the same..."

Identical and Same are interchangeable in the above sentence, since they say, "Identical. by this we mean same"

Yes it says identical in game terms it goes onto to say this means the same profile. So the point of contention is what the same profile means. So the part that says identical is entirely irrelevant and no it doesn't mean that identical and same are definitely interchangeable.

@Kir how about you stop misquoting me?

I said "Names are a part of the profile as a whole"

"But the name is not a part of the Profile of characteristics."

the wound allocation rules only care about the Profile of characteristics, and not the profile as a whole.

FlingitNow wrote:

It does say Identical.

"Identical in gaming terms. By this we mean they have the same..."

Identical and Same are interchangeable in the above sentence, since they say, "Identical. by this we mean same"

Yes it says identical in game terms it goes onto to say this means the same profile. So the point of contention is what the same profile means. So the part that says identical is entirely irrelevant and no it doesn't mean that identical and same are definitely interchangeable.

It says Identical, then goes on to explain that they mean the same profile of characteristics. that tells us that Identical and Same are interchangeable since they explain what they mean by Identical.

Identical means the same...

Circles and circles.

This is the same disagreement about whether a "profile of characteristics" includes the name as we've had before.

Whether a "profile of characteristics" includes the name or just the numbers is a matter of opinion. I agree with Kirsanth, for the reasons cited. The name is important for game purposes for quite a few units and special rules. Which inclines me to consider is quite clear that a sergeant and an identically-equipped member of his squad, even if the numbers in their profile are identical, are not "identical for gaming purposes."

Do we need to keep going 'round in circles?

I have not seen rules quotes to back up the 'name is included' side of the debate.

But we have been over this many times before.

No need to debate further.

Indeed. All of the usual ground appears to have been covered, so I think it might be best to leave this here. The previous exhaustive (and ultimately no less circular) threads on this topic won't be too far back if anyone feels the need to search them out.

Until GW get around to FAQing it, I would recommend discussing it with your opponent if either of you are fielding any of the few units that this would actually be an issue with.