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.

You are mistaking the outcome for the mechanism. It's the mechanism that is named not the outcome.

The mechanism is: Roll 2D6 and apply the result found in the following chart.

As this mechanism uses a random element it becomes impossible to say it is identical, or the same, to every other application of the very same rule. It is not even possible to guarantee the same instructions would be followed if you decide to simply 'undo' the shot and re-attempt it. With no other factors being reviewed then the Special Rule itself, it is still not possible to state that that it will be the same steps you follow throughout executing the Special Rule.

As I said, we are arguing over the meaning of one word here: Same.

As I see it, everything involved in the equation has to be identical before I would consider it the 'Same.' Should you want to have a much lower measuring stick, there is nothing I can really say to convince you that this could be a bad idea. We are talking about a fundamental here, so it is not going to be possible for either you or I to provide any solid evidence to support either conclusion as being correct. All I can do is point out that 'Simultaneous Resolution' in this situation can lead to unforeseen consequences in a handful of rare scenarios that are avoidable by simply applying the Roll sequentially instead.

Example is still: A spawn result, a +1 Wound Characteristic result and the lack of knowledge on which one is applied first.

Jinx, I don't think anyone is arguing that you roll the results on the table at the same time, only that both characters (in this instance) would get to roll.

Your example is really nothing to do with the rule.
If you're spawned you don't take the +1 as you're no longer a character, if you are +1 wound and then take a spawn you're still jsut a spawn.

Have you anything rules based to back up this idea that "the same" is not a rule that is actually the same.

A 10% discount is still a 10% discount no matter how much you spend and is not a different 10% discount to the discount another customer receives.

HappyJew,
Then why so much resistance to the idea that they would be assigned to separate 'wound groupings' and why am I dedicating so much time to trying to get people to realize that the order which wound groupings are resolved is important?

Actually, the situation does have some weight on what I was trying to explain:
Without rolling the dice sequentially, or using different coloured dice to mark which Special Rule is which, how do you know you are applying the result to the correct model?

JinxDragon wrote:
HappyJew,
Then why so much resistance to the idea that they would be assigned to separate 'wound groupings' and why am I dedicating so much time to trying to get people to realize that the order which wound groupings are resolved is important?

Actually, the situation does have some weight on what I was trying to explain:
Without rolling the dice sequentially, or using different coloured dice to mark which Special Rule is which, how do you know you are applying the result to the correct model?

Thanks for talking as if we're idiots but there is no permission to use different groups unless you meet the criteria that was laid out 2 pages ago. This doesn't meet them. So RAW, there is no reason to group them separately.

If you're saying this is how it should be played, fine but please read the forum tenants as RAW is the default position for arguments in YMDC.

You do also realise it's a rare situation where you'd have 2 characters with the same weapon both hitting and wounding and that group of wounds being applied to a character and taking it's last wound? It's very likely that it didn't come up in play testing.

Liturgies of Blood,
How rare the situation is does not change a thing as we are asked how to go about resolving this situation. One answer is to group the wounds together, making it impossible to keep track of whom is causing which wound and this does raises a few additional concerns with me. One answer is to resolve the wounds separately, or at least use different colored dice, in the exact same way as you resolve separate Wound Groupings. The debate is dependent on how identical does something need to be before we can consider it 'the same,' required to even have permission to group them together in the first place. The problem with that stems from the fact the definition of 'same' is open to interpenetration.

Now I might be over-looking something, so if you can provide me with a page and paragraph which provides us with a criteria on how to determine sameness then I would appropriate it.

The brb assumes a few things, firstly that you can tell some basic things apart. (Eg: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh5kZ4uIUC0) I think we can use common sense to figure out if the same rule is applied to two wounds. Common sense would generally say that two things are the same when they are totally identical. Coc is a rule applied to all chaos characters, it's not a different rule for each character. If we go by your logic then we need a separate group for every single wound that has any rule with a random element tied to it's resolution, unfortunately this is nothing like the shooting rules.

Is your arguement RAW, RAI or something else?
RAW you have no permission to resolve the wounds in sub-groups for the two characters. If you can show that you have permission please do so.

If it's RAI, that's fine but that cannot be debated against RAW.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Thanks for talking as if we're idiots but there is no permission to use different groups unless you meet the criteria that was laid out 2 pages ago. This doesn't meet them. So RAW, there is no reason to group them separately.

Except, you know, the fact that there's different special rules involved.

You do also realise it's a rare situation where you'd have 2 characters with the same weapon both hitting and wounding and that group of wounds being applied to a character and taking it's last wound? It's very likely that it didn't come up in play testing.

bs. Not like it matters, but if it didn't come up its because they didn't play test. Which is likely.

rigeld2 wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Thanks for talking as if we're idiots but there is no permission to use different groups unless you meet the criteria that was laid out 2 pages ago. This doesn't meet them. So RAW, there is no reason to group them separately.

Except, you know, the fact that there's different special rules involved.

What is the different special rule? Or are multiple instances of the same rule now different rules?

 liturgies of blood wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Thanks for talking as if we're idiots but there is no permission to use different groups unless you meet the criteria that was laid out 2 pages ago. This doesn't meet them. So RAW, there is no reason to group them separately.

Except, you know, the fact that there's different special rules involved.

What is the different special rule? Or are multiple instances of the same rule now different rules?

Same name, different models, different rule.

Can you prove that with something other than an assertion?

If your assertion was true then wounds should be pooled on a basis of which model inflicted them as different models have different rules now.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Can you prove that with something other than an assertion?

If your assertion was true then wounds should be pooled on a basis of which model inflicted them as different models have different rules now.

In many cases the difference in rules is irrelevant. With CoC however it's absolutely relevant.

Ah so because the rules don't say what to do... RAW is that you throw in arbitrary extra groups in the wound pool?

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Ah so because the rules don't say what to do... RAW is that you throw in arbitrary extra groups in the wound pool?

Arbitrary? Seriously? No, they aren't arbitrary extra groups. They're groups designated by different special rules.

It's almost like I said that...

You've said it, that doesn't make it true.

You've also not shown CoC to be different to CoC(hint, it's not).

Liturgies,
As we are discussing a fundamental concept, how identical does something need to be before it can be considered 'same' as something else, we are clearly in a meta-game discussion. While this meta-game level is vital to how Rules as Written function, they themselves are not written down anywhere in the rule book itself. Therefore, by the definition of what a written rule is, I can not state this debate is in the realm of Rules as Written. One thing is very sure though, the outcome of such a debate will effect how certain rules are handled when we encounter these very few situations on the table. The lack of a criteria informing us how to determine level of 'sameness' does create problems for this rule, as well as a few others throughout the Rule Book, and at this point I think it is very obvious neither of us are going to be able to resolve it to each others satisfaction.

Besides:
Permission based rule-set, so it is up to you to prove to me that these rules are the 'same' in order to group them together in the first place.

Jinx, is not being identical enough to be the same? If I had a unit with Stealth, and attached an IC with Stealth would you allow me to have +2 to my cover saves? After all they are on different models and apparently that is enough of a difference that they are not the same rule.

HappyJew,
It is someone else' assumption that being on a different model makes it a different Special Rule, not my own. This is why I have been trying carefully to state that the factors at question need to be internal to the Special Rule itself, that is the wording inside of the Special Rule is all we should be focusing on. I actually find the idea of external factors, such as which different models evoking the rule, to be flawed because it would invalidate so much of the Rule Book. All the rules granting permission, and explaining how, to carry out Simultaneous Resolutions would now be invalid and impossible to evoke. Not only that, but it makes it impossible for any Special Rule to fall under the restriction you mentioned and it creates a few additional problems with the resolution of a handful of other rules as well.

Therefore this outlook can not be correct.

The issue I have is when internal factors within the rule would change the method used to resolve the rule. I recognize that rules are written without detailing every external factors involved, that it is impossible for a writer to pen down every situation where every rule will conflict, and therefore I limit my scope to match. I am focusing on situations where different methods of resolution are introduced by the body of the rule itself, such requiring us look up a 'randomizing table' or having different instructions depending on the circumstances surrounding how the Special Rule is evoked. I believe the simple fact that we do not know what the instructions will be until we go to resolve them is enough to prevent us from stating outright that this application of the Special Rule is the same as another application of the Special Rule. Because the method we use to resolve these rule, the instructions we go about obeying, changes dramatically between applications we must be extra careful to ensure the Roll is being allocated the correct Special Rule. Should that mean sequential resolution, though different colored dice would be enough in this situation, then I see no problem with it as ensuring the rules are applied correctly should be important enough to forgo a little convenience designed to speed up the game.

So the question is simple:
If the rule contains instructions that change dependent on circumstances outside of our control, is it truly possible to guarantee it is the 'same rule' as one with an identical name?

So I guess that is the next question too:
Would you deny the application of the second result on the grounds the unit will benefit twice from the 'two applications of the same Special Rule' during this Simultaneous Resolution?

Is this a Kafka story? Can anything ever be the same?

If two applications of a rule are not the same rule then why does the USRs limit you to gaining the benefit of a USR only once? As per Happy's example, you've have a 2+ stealth unit because of the IC and the unit having stealth.

 Happyjew wrote:
Jinx, is not being identical enough to be the same? If I had a unit with Stealth, and attached an IC with Stealth would you allow me to have +2 to my cover saves? After all they are on different models and apparently that is enough of a difference that they are not the same rule.

Stealth is worded to prevent this.

No matter how many models in the unit have stealth(1 or all) you only gain +1; so stealth is a bad example.

Choose another one.

Jinx, let me ask you this. Certain Tzeentchian weapons have a special rule that forces the wounded unit to take a toughness test. On a failure the unit takes extra wounds. On a success the unit either gains a special rule, or if they already have it, a bonus to the special rule.
This means that the instructions change based on circumstances outside our control. Does this men they are different rules, and each weapon can force the toughness test?

If you were wondering, HIWPI (regarding chaos boobs) is to treat them differently, but then again I don't play RAW, I play "logically".


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kk, according to rigeld, a special rule on an IC is different then the same special rule on a character in a unit. As such the unit is benefiting from two different special rules. They just happen to have the same name, same effect, etc.

Unless we are told it is 1 test per shooting Phase, or 1 Test per unit; it is 1 test per trigger.


Happy: which I agree with; it is 2 Instances of the special rule, which itself need to know which special rule is being invoked(the ICs or the UCs)

Liturgies,
It is not the external factors which make the application of the rule 'different' but internal factors making it impossible for us to state the rule will be identical each time.

HappyJew,
See this example is one that I do like because it does make me think on the situation a lot more. I would need to know the exact wording to see exactly what triggers the toughness test and if there is more to it then seen within the quick summery you put forth here. That summery does lend some strength to the other side of the debate, not so much about the 'Sameness' thing because it is undefinable but because of an issue to do with timing. If the Special Rule has a random element within it, but you test for that element once and apply the results to all rules with this element, does this prevent you from grouping these 'shots' together to resolve Simultaneously prior to knowing the results of this test?

I could honestly just point out that the terminology 'one or more' is very powerful, it is often used to highlight situations where you resolve multiple Special Rules or events through a single action, but I feel that is a dishonor to the line of thought that should be explored.

Jinx, that is nonsense.
If the rule requires you to resolve it in a separate group in the pool that's fine but where is the permission?

There is nothing in the brb to back up your idea, this special class of rule isn't explained in the brb or codex CSM.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Jinx, that is nonsense.
If the rule requires you to resolve it in a separate group in the pool that's fine but where is the permission?

There is nothing in the brb to back up your idea, this special class of rule isn't explained in the brb or codex CSM.

the special rules that do not stack are worded not to stack.

Special rules shopuld default to separate from separate sources because of this.

This is beside the point that this special rule has an effect only on the model that possess the special rule in the event that the models attacks kill an enemy character(so each instance of this special rule only effects the model with this special rule)

Liturgues,
You are looking at it backwards as you require permission to group the results together, not permission to group them separately, hence the debate on how identical a Special Rule has to be in order to be consider 'Same' and therefore be allowed to group together.

JinxDragon wrote:
Liturgues,
You are looking at it backwards as you require permission to group the results together, not permission to group them separately, hence the debate on how identical a Special Rule has to be in order to be consider 'Same' and therefore be allowed to group together.

Actually the wound pool tells you to group together by certain criteria. Grouping is always together btw, separating is apart.

 liturgies of blood wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
Liturgues,
You are looking at it backwards as you require permission to group the results together, not permission to group them separately, hence the debate on how identical a Special Rule has to be in order to be consider 'Same' and therefore be allowed to group together.

Actually the wound pool tells you to group together by certain criteria. Grouping is always together btw, separating is apart.

So, a CoC on a Lord is the Same SR as a CoC on an Asp Champ?

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Jinx, that is nonsense.
If the rule requires you to resolve it in a separate group in the pool that's fine but where is the permission?

There is nothing in the brb to back up your idea, this special class of rule isn't explained in the brb or codex CSM.

the special rules that do not stack are worded not to stack.

Special rules shopuld default to separate from separate sources because of this.

This is beside the point that this special rule has an effect only on the model that possess the special rule in the event that the models attacks kill an enemy character(so each instance of this special rule only effects the model with this special rule)

I agree that the rule points to a need for separate groups for each character but where there permission? Why is this rule different to all others?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
Liturgues,
You are looking at it backwards as you require permission to group the results together, not permission to group them separately, hence the debate on how identical a Special Rule has to be in order to be consider 'Same' and therefore be allowed to group together.

Actually the wound pool tells you to group together by certain criteria. Grouping is always together btw, separating is apart.

So, a CoC on a Lord is the Same SR as a CoC on an Asp Champ?

Yes..... they are the exact same rule, the have the same triggers and mechanisms and have the same range of outcomes.