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.

Yes, and how do you know which profile one's looking at?
"each model has a profile made up of nine" Pg 6
"Each model in Warhammer 40,000 has a profile that lists the value of its characteristics." Pg 7

So if one's looking at two different profiles, how can one be looking at the same one?

page 6 is not the definition of a profile; page 7 is.

Page 6 is the definition of the characteristics that make up the profile; as the intro paragraph is going to be discussing the characteristics that is what it states; Characteristics are the 9 numbers in the profile, it in no way defines the profile(again, page 7 does that)

Page 25:
"..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."

They only care about the profile of characteristics, they care not for the name when looking at "Identical in gaming terms"

If they cared about the name the "of characteristics" would not be in there.

But you're not looking at 'the same profile of characteristics.'
Zz.

Exactly. Deathreaper, you're chopping off half of the part that (IMO) matters. "the same profile of characteristics".

A Terminator and a Terminator Sgt have two different profiles, which sit one atop the other on the page.

Two different profiles that are Identical in gaming terms.

AkA the same profile of Characteristics. If the Characteristics are the same, then the profile of Characteristics are the same/identical.

Mannahnin wrote:
The fact that the Justicar can be affected differently in any situation at all means he is clearly not "identical in gaming terms" as page 25 requires.

"The same profile of characteristics" is the heart of the interpretational difference, here. Are two things which have different names and are listed next to one another and separately, but contain identical numbers, identical or not?* IMO they are not, even if the only obvious and immediate difference is the name.

Another example of a situation when a terminator sergeant is not identical in gaming terms is in a Blood Angels army containing the Sanguinor. At the beginning of the game, one of the sergeants in the army, randomly determined, will get a stat boost. Only sergeants are eligible, and only their name serves to distinguish them from the other terminators in their squad. Yet this name is sufficient to be the determining factor for the Sanguinor's power, demonstrating that the terminator sergeant is not "identical in gaming terms" to his squad mates.

Theoretically GW could also introduce a special rule in a codex or expansion or special scenario like "Frag the Lieutenant" or "Assassins in the wire!" in which a randomly-determined Sgt. model in a given army is killed before the game begins, or at another time. Again, the sergeant is distinguishable purely by his name and game consequences can hinge on that.

*Real world parallel: I could set a Red Delicious and a Fuji apple of the same weight next to one another, and they may have the same nutritional values, but are still functionally different and distinguishable; in the name, in appearance, and in the non-numerically-measurable flavor.

But you're making a distinction that doesn't exist in the rules. A model CAN be functionally different than another model and still be considered 'identical' by the terms presented for complex units. For example, models with one-shot weapons (like combi-weapons, for example) on otherwise identical models. One model has fired his combi-weapon shot while another rmodel hasn't. Functionally, those two models are different in the game, but per the guidelines laid out in the complex unit rules they *are* 'identical' and would be allocated together as one group.

There are all sorts of scenarios we can come up with where units that have the same special rules could be functionally different...say a unit had a special rule that allowed each model in the unit once per game to act as though it had a psychic hood, for a random example. Again, you can easily imagine plenty of different scenarios where models are functionally different but still 'identical' in the eyes of the complex unit rules.

Like I said before, at the end of the day GW had to draw a line in the sand and make a distinction about what constitutes an identical model and they went with: characteristics, weapons, wargear and special rules.

Yes this means in some cases models that are functionally different still get grouped together, but especially given that wound allocation is used as almost a defensive weapon, I think erring on the side of caution and not allowing people to abuse the wound allocation rules any more than the rules already allow them to do is the right way to go.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

ChrisCP wrote:But you're not looking at 'the same profile of characteristics.'
Zz.

Again, you guys seem to be ignoring the fact that 'profile' has a real world meaning in that it is a 'set of characteristics'. A name *can* be a characteristic included in a profile, but it is cearly not defined as a characteristic in 40K.

The other important thing to note is that On page 7, the profile for models is called a 'characterstic profile'...that is its 'title', so to speak.

The complex unit rules require that models have the same 'profile of characteristics'...this DOES NOT SAY 'characteristic profile' which is a very slight but important difference.

We are loocking for the same 'profile' (set of characteristics) of characteristics. If two models both have the same characteristics, then they both have the same profile of characteristics.

Again, the name is not defined as a characteristic and is therefore not part of the profile as a 'profile' by definition is a set of characteristics (which the name is not in this case).

Kommissar Kel wrote:page 6 is not the definition of a profile; page 7 is.

Page 6 is the definition of the characteristics that make up the profile; as the intro paragraph is going to be discussing the characteristics that is what it states; Characteristics are the 9 numbers in the profile, it in no way defines the profile(again, page 7 does that)

And what more suitable place than the introduction to the characteristics to make it clear that the nine characteristics are what make up the profile?

Again: "each model has a profile made up of nine numbers that describe.." Looks like it's defining what a profile is. There is nothing on page 7 that contradicts this. And even if you wanted to argue that page 6 is not the definition, it certainly provides clarity that when page 7 says "has a profile that lists the value of its characteristics" that page 7 does in fact mean that the list of nine characteristics is the profile.

There is plenty of precedent for the fact that you have to take into account two (or more) pieces from disparate sections in the rule book for a particular circumstance. So you cannot claim that page 7 is meant to be taken in isolation for determining what the profile is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
BTW. Just wanted to comment how nice it is to argue rules around here.

No ad-hominem, precious little red herring or slippery slope, appeal to authority is kept appropriately to the rules. None of the crud that passes for 'debate' on most of the internet.

yakface wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:
The fact that the Justicar can be affected differently in any situation at all means he is clearly not "identical in gaming terms" as page 25 requires.

"The same profile of characteristics" is the heart of the interpretational difference, here. Are two things which have different names and are listed next to one another and separately, but contain identical numbers, identical or not?* IMO they are not, even if the only obvious and immediate difference is the name.

Another example of a situation when a terminator sergeant is not identical in gaming terms is in a Blood Angels army containing the Sanguinor. At the beginning of the game, one of the sergeants in the army, randomly determined, will get a stat boost. Only sergeants are eligible, and only their name serves to distinguish them from the other terminators in their squad. Yet this name is sufficient to be the determining factor for the Sanguinor's power, demonstrating that the terminator sergeant is not "identical in gaming terms" to his squad mates.

But you're making a distinction that doesn't exist in the rules.

Well, that's evidently a matter of opinion/interpretation at this point, isn't it?

As I posted above, "The same profile of characteristics" is the heart of the interpretational difference, here. Are two things which have different names and are listed next to one another and separately, but contain identical numbers, identical or not?

You read that quoted clause there with a different emphasis and meaning than I or Insaniak do. I think it can reasonably be seen either way, particularly since page 6 seems to support your read, and page 7 seems to support mine.

This is part of why I go back to the foundational statement, and ask if the two things are "identical in gaming terms". IMO, the existence of the Sanguinor (for one example) means that a BA Terminator Sgt and a BA Terminator are not identical in gaming terms. Same with your combi-melta example, although the specific clause about weapons makes that reasonably-arguable the other way, IMO, as they are still the same weapon.

Yakface wrote:The complex unit rules require that models have the same 'profile of characteristics'...this DOES NOT SAY 'characteristic profile' which is a very slight but important difference.

It could be an important difference, or it could be the same words used in a different order merely for the sake of the author's personal expression.

yakface wrote:Like I said before, at the end of the day GW had to draw a line in the sand and make a distinction about what constitutes an identical model and they went with: characteristics, weapons, wargear and special rules.

And again, I have to note that this is an opinion and a guess on your part, not a settled fact. The text of the rule in question actually says "the same profile of characteristics," not "the same characteristics".

Yakface wrote:Yes this means in some cases models that are functionally different still get grouped together, but especially given that wound allocation is used as almost a defensive weapon, I think erring on the side of caution and not allowing people to abuse the wound allocation rules any more than the rules already allow them to do is the right way to go.

If we're going to rule from pragmatism/playability, you've got a point there. However, then we also need to get into the "How Do You Play It?" poll situation, too. What do you think is more intuitive/how do you think most players play? That Sergeants are identical and interchangeable with regular squad guys for the purposes of wound allocation, or different? Even if the particular sergeant in question has the same stats (whereas many don't) I suspect that most gamers intuitively see the two as being separate and distinct entities. An impression reinforced and supported by their having two separate profiles in the unit entry; even if the numbers contained in those profiles are the same.

Yakface wrote:

ChrisCP wrote:But you're not looking at 'the same profile of characteristics.'
Zz.

Again, you guys seem to be ignoring the fact that 'profile' has a real world meaning in that it is a 'set of characteristics'.

If you want to bring real life into it, I again refer to my apple example. If you want to write a profile of an apple you would likely include its main usages (baking, snacking, etc.), or of a person you'd likely include ethnicity, nationality, etc. Which are important distinguishing factors but not numeric values.

Mannahnin wrote:

yakface wrote:Like I said before, at the end of the day GW had to draw a line in the sand and make a distinction about what constitutes an identical model and they went with: characteristics, weapons, wargear and special rules.

And again, I have to note that this is an opinion and a guess on your part, not a settled fact. The text of the rule in question actually says "the same profile of characteristics," not "the same characteristics".

Fact remains that Each model has a profile made up nine numbers that are called characteristics. The profile is made up of 9 numbers, no names only numbers. The names are there for reference only, and not part of what the game considers the 'profile of characteristics'
A profile lists the value of its characteristics, this is what a profile is, something that lists the value of its characteristics, 'Assault terminator Sergeant' is not a characteristic or a value.

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

DeathReaper wrote:Fact remains that Each model has a profile made up nine numbers that are called characteristics. The profile is made up of 9 numbers, no names only numbers.

And yet we can all clearly see a name right at the front of the profile.

A recipe is a list of ingredients, and instructions for cooking something. It also has a name, which tells you what the recipe is for. That name is inherently a part of the recipe, even though it's not an ingredient or an instruction.

A car is a form of transportion that is made up of various mechanical device. Paint is a part of the car... but is not a mechanical device.

Essentially, the fact that the rules tell us that the profile is a list of characteristics does not mean that the numbers that represent those characteristic values are the only things that are cosidered part of the profile. The profile is a list of information that tells us what a specific model does in the game. The name of that model, due to being used to link the profile to the model, is inherently a part of the profile.

Yes, they're just there for reference... but that's kind of the point. The fact that the names are different is proof that the profiles are referring to two different things. And if they're different things, they're not identical.

Yakface wrote:

ChrisCP wrote:But you're not looking at 'the same profile of characteristics.'
Zz.

Again, you guys seem to be ignoring the fact that 'profile' has a real world meaning in that it is a 'set of characteristics'.

Yet the two models don't possess the same set of characteristics, otherwise we would find them in the same place. If the rules asked for a profile containing the same characteristics I would agree with you two models with two different profiles could indeed be identicle in game terms. But as things stand they have different profiles of characteristics and the values of said profiles happen to be the same, as Dr has shown again "P.7 "Each model in warhammer 40k has a profile that lists the value of its characteristics" to have the same profile of characteristics one would have to be looking in the same place.

insaniak wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Fact remains that Each model has a profile made up nine numbers that are called characteristics. The profile is made up of 9 numbers, no names only numbers.

And yet we can all clearly see a name right at the front of the profile.
(Snip)

Essentially, the fact that the rules tell us that the profile is a list of characteristics does not mean that the numbers that represent those characteristic values are the only things that are cosidered part of the profile. The profile is a list of information that tells us what a specific model does in the game. The name of that model, due to being used to link the profile to the model, is inherently a part of the profile.

Yes, they're just there for reference... but that's kind of the point. The fact that the names are different is proof that the profiles are referring to two different things. And if they're different things, they're not identical.

Look at the bold above, the permissive rulset tells us that it is, most definitely, only a list of characteristics, and nothing else.

As for different things not being identical: A SM Vanguard Veteran has a toughness of 4, a SM Librarian has a toughness of 4. Are these two values Identical even though they are listed in two different places? I would say yes they are identical, I would even say the values are the same.

The name is not at the front of the profile, it is before the profile as a reference to whom that profile belongs. Nothing tells us that a name is a characteristic, or a part of the profile. We have no permission to include it as a part of a profile of characteristics, since we are explicitly told what a profile of characteristics is.

Unless I missed the Page where it tells you that a name is a part of the 'profile of characteristics' If I missed that please give me a Page Number.

@ ChrisCP: 'The same profile...' does not mean 'share a profile'. It says they need the same, not that they need to share a profile. Subtle, but really important, difference.

They do not share a profile, but the profiles are the same.

Edit:

insaniak wrote:
A recipe is a list of ingredients, and instructions for cooking something. It also has a name, which tells you what the recipe is for. That name is inherently a part of the recipe, even though it's not an ingredient or an instruction

See this is where the disagreement stems from, If the recipe did not have a name, and you followed all the 'ingredients [and] instructions' to make it, would it taste the same as if you knew what the name of the item was?
Of course they would taste the same since the 'ingredients [and] instructions' are the same, even if the same recipe were in two different cookbooks they would taste the same. It would not matter if you called it Spaghetti-O Surprise is one cookbook, and Ran-over possum-flank tail steaks, or Dark Eldar stew in the other.

My appearance in this discussion will be brief, I just want to add this little bit of food for thought.

In America, I can go into a store and buy a bottle of ketchup. Here in South Africa, that same bottle, with the same brand, same size, same ingredients, is called Tomato Sauce. Now would these 2 bottles be considered different or identical, considering they have a different name?

Personally, I do play that an Assault Terminator Sergeant is grouped as the same as the rest of the group for simplicity sake.

This does all seem to pivot on whether the Name is part of the "Profile of Characteristics", and I highly doubt we will ever clarification on this from GW. As always, best to discuss with your opponent before the game if you feel that this issue may arise.

The same profile (of characteristics) is NOT the same as the same (characteristics on a profile)

DR is arguing the latter, (mostly) everyone else argues the former.

If you have two different profiles, they *cannot* be the SAME profile *even if* the components of the profile are the same.

insaniak wrote:Essentially, the fact that the rules tell us that the profile is a list of characteristics does not mean that the numbers that represent those characteristic values are the only things that are cosidered part of the profile. The profile is a list of information that tells us what a specific model does in the game. The name of that model, due to being used to link the profile to the model, is inherently a part of the profile. ...

Look at the bold above, the permissive rulset tells us that it is, most definitely, only a list of characteristics, and nothing else.

the profile is a list of characteristics, no names. So the name issue is resolved.

Same does not mean shared. Two different profiles can have the same 'profile of characteristics' It even goes on to mention values, look at the context of P.25 they define IDENTICAL in gaming terms as having the same profile of characteristics. I.E. if the profiles are IDENTICAL then they are the same as far as the rules are concerned.

They do not need to share a profile, it only asks that they be the same AKA Identical.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
If you have two different profiles, they *cannot* be the SAME profile *even if* the components of the profile are the same.

Agreed, but the rulebook defines what comprises a profile, and that are the characteristics...the name is not part of that. The name is the NAME of the profile so we all know what profile belongs to what model. So a Terminator and a Terminator sergeant have identical profiles. If you asked a hundred people on the street if the two profiles were identical without providing any other context I think you'd likely get 100% of the people saying that yes indeed the two profiles are identical...because they are.

If I listed two (fictional) profiles:

Imperial Guardsman - WS3, BS3, S3, T3, W1, I3, A1, Ld7, Sv5+
Human Auxiliary - WS3, BS3, S3, T3, W1, I3, A1, Ld7, Sv5+

And then when describing them I said something like: "As you can see the two profiles are identical, which means the Human Auxiliary and Imperial Guardsman are a mirrior image of each other on the table."


You would actually think I'm being technically incorrect because the NAMES identifying which profile belongs to which model are different?

Seriously? Outside of this thread would anyone ever blink an eye reading that?

yakface wrote:If I listed two (fictional) profiles:

Imperial Guardsman - WS3, BS3, S3, T3, W1, I3, A1, Ld7, Sv5+
Human Auxiliary - WS3, BS3, S3, T3, W1, I3, A1, Ld7, Sv5+

And then when describing them I said something like: "As you can see the two profiles are identical, which means the Human Auxiliary and Imperial Guardsman are a mirrior image of each other on the table."


You would actually think I'm being technically incorrect because the NAMES identifying which profile belongs to which model are different?

In terms of casual conversation, yes, that would probably pass.
In terms of a set of rules and determining how they should be applied, in your example the characteristics are identical, but the profiles are different.

But Insaniak, that is not true, the profiles are the same.

insaniak wrote:The rules tell us that the profile is a list of characteristics

What is a profile? A profile is a list of characteristics. The above defines what a profile is. No names included just a list of the characteristics, So the name issue is resolved.

P.25 defines that they only need to be identical, and goes on to list what needs to be identical. the profile of characteristics, which we have determined does not include the name, needs to be identical, you are taking 'Same" to mean 'share' but no where in the rules does it say they have to share a profile.

They are not the same profile, because you have two profiles. They may have identical numbers, but that does not mean they are the same.

You are reading "same" to mean, incorrectly, identical in stats. That is not what "same profile" means in this context, as I explicated above.

DeathReaper wrote:What is a profile? A profile is a list of characteristics. The above defines what a profile is. No names included just a list of the characteristics, So the name issue is resolved.

You're not going to resolve this issue just by declaring it so.

You have an interpretation that works for you. I have one that works for me. The fact that they're different is only an issue in the unlikely event that we wind up standing on opposite sides of the table. So there's no need to 'win' this discussion... which has gone around in circles enough times for me to feel that we've covered all the useful ground we're likely to, so I think I'm about done here.

insaniak wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:What is a profile? A profile is a list of characteristics. The above defines what a profile is. No names included just a list of the characteristics, So the name issue is resolved.

You're not going to resolve this issue just by declaring it so.

DR didn't declare it so. GW did when they wrote on page 6 that "..each model has a profile made up of nine numbers.."

So whether two identical profiles are the the same profile is a different argument, but in the absence of an FAQ or amendment on the issue I just don't see the justification for ignoring the part of the rules that tells us what makes up a profile.

Notice the lack of "only" there.

You're assuming it is *only* made up of 9 numbers

nosferatu1001 wrote:Notice the lack of "only" there.

You're assuming it is *only* made up of 9 numbers

When GW tells you that the profile is 9 numbers, you may NOT assume that it can be more than 9 numbers.

ChrisCP wrote:

augustus5 wrote: There isn't really any hard evidence that supports or denies that the name is part of the profile

If names are not part of the profile then, how does one find the correct profile of characteristics?
If names are not part of the profile then, how does one tell if two models share the same profile of characteristics?
If names are not part of the profile then 'My ork boyz are "Ws6, Bs2, S5, T5, W4, ,I4, A5. Ld9, 2+" as that's what a profile of characteristics says.'

If names are part of the profile then, I can quickly and readily locate each models profile of characteristics by its name.
If names are part of the profile then I can tell which profiles are identical by looking for the same profile of characteristics

Consider a game where names were not part of the profile, how would you play this game?

You are not thinking about the concept of indexing.

Consider a book such as the Warhammer 40K rulebook. If you want to look up a rule, you consult the index, find that the rule is on page 22, and go to that page and read it.

If the index used roman numerals, so the rule was on page XXII, how would that change the rule?

ph34r wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Notice the lack of "only" there.

You're assuming it is *only* made up of 9 numbers

When GW tells you that the profile is 9 numbers, you may NOT assume that it can be more than 9 numbers.

Even when the rules over the page give you that exact situation?

Not that it's needed anyway - no matter how you dice it, having two profiles precludes them from being the SAME profile.

@Kill crazy: I'm not sure what you're basing you point on there - if you are in fact in contention to what I've said, if the index read in roman numerals there's still an identify feature, an indication of what to look for, albiet in an archaic numbering system (they couldn't even handle fractions ffs ). To locate a profile one looks for them name, profile located. If one hasn't looked for the identify feature of a profile, then any profile is in fair game. If the index read "Some rule page XX." it would be compareable. But one still wouldn't be able to locate the correct rule, because the rules would also lack their identifying feature (I was looking for a rule pertaining to cover saves, I can only find this thing that mentions cover, guess these rules for cover from flamer template apply to everything.)

DeathReaper wrote:Look at the bold above, the permissive rulset tells us that it is, most definitely, only a list of characteristics, and nothing else.

@ ChrisCP: 'The same profile...' does not mean 'share a profile'. It says they need the same, not that they need to share a profile. Subtle, but really important, difference.

They do not share a profile, but the profiles are the same.

For the first bit, which profile are you looking at?... Then, why are you looking at a different profile of characteristics for that?

In the second piece you say "they need the same, not that they need to share a profile." And "'The same profile...' does not mean 'share a profile'." this is being my point and the contradiction in your argument I used the first pice to highlight. To locate the profile of a model one must look for it by name, if one is not looking at a profile with the same name then one isn't looking at the same profile of characteristics ie. the one they both share. One is looking at two different profiles of charateristics for whice the values of the characteristics are the same.
Same profile of characteristics "Convient Example: Ws XXYY, Convient Example: Ws XXYY."
Different profiles of characteristics "Convient Example: Ws XXYY, Inconvient Example: Ws XXYY."

Overheard at the thunderwolf stables:

"ouch! those ork shootas look like they really hurt brother Thorfin!"
"Aye! but look on the bright side brother Wulfgar, If I hadn't brought that meltabomb instead of another storm shield like yours, I would be dead!"

But joking aside, (please Emperor save us from the stupidity of wound allocation when 6th comes out), equipment/special abilities and the statline is all that matters for being considered 'different' gamewise. Naming the models doesn't matter. Most upgrade characters have either different equipment or a slightly altered statline, and as such are treated as different types. Some do not, though, but just calling him "Sarge" doesn't make him any different than calling him "dave" if he still behaves exactly the same way as "Dave" in the game. It is possible that Sarge has the options to take some other stuff that Dave doesn't have the option for, which would make him behave differently in the game, but without that wargear, he is just like Dave with some stripes on his shoulder that have no effect on his performance on the table. It's already a dumb enough system as it is without one more variable to exploit.

Yes, as can be shown - a Terminator Sarge IS different *in game* to a non-Termie sarge. The sanguinor tells you that.

TC wrote:In America, I can go into a store and buy a bottle of ketchup. Here in South Africa, that same bottle, with the same brand, same size, same ingredients, is called Tomato Sauce. Now would these 2 bottles be considered different or identical, considering they have a different name?

This is the stance I took in the previous thread. It would make no difference 'in gaming terms', if the sergeant was called a 'team leader' or anything else so the name in itself is unimportant.

The waters are muddied, however, by the GK Terminator Justicar and, even more indirectly, by the Sanguinor's blessings. I personally agree with Yakface on this matter. It seems ludicrous to play a similar situation in different armies in different ways due to such an obscure and complicated reading of the rules. Of course, YMMV.