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.

ChrisCP wrote:@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 ).

I am basing it on the fact that only profiles that make a difference in the game make a difference in the game. and the rules refer to those ones.

A profile of 1-2-3 which is called a Sergeant, and a profile of 1-2-3 which is called a Captain, are not different in the game.

Conversely, a profile of 1-2-3 Sergeant and 3-2-1 Sergeant are different although they have got the same name.

Yet one called a sarge and one called a captain can be entirely different, as the Sanguinor shows.

Soup and a roll wrote:

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.

Exactly. There are rules which distinguish between a sergeant or justicar and a regular squad member, even when their statlines, special rules, and weaponry are identical. And thus they cannot be said to be "identical for gaming purposes".

Soup and a roll wrote:[ 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.

As I pointed out previously, which is more obscure and complicated? If we show the rules for complex units/wound allocation to a new or random player, is he more likely to think of a sergeant as identical and interchangeable with a regular squad member, or different? I think the more intuitive answer is that a sergeant is not just another squaddie.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yet one called a sarge and one called a captain can be entirely different, as the Sanguinor shows.

But that fact is irrelevant for the purposes of the complex unit rules. I think we can all thank god that GW didn't just go with some kind of blanket 'if the models function differently in the game' bull-crap for the complex unit rules, but what that means is that they did draw a line in the sand and pick specific things that identify if two models are identical for the purpose of the complex unit rules (with those things being: characteristics, weapons, wargear and special rules).

Yes, by defining exactly what things constitute identical in can (and does) leave potential situations where a model can actually function differently from another model but is still considered 'identical' for the complex unit rules as I've already pointed out with the example of some combi-weapons in a unit being expended while others are not.

So bringing up Sainguinor is irrelevant. Yes, a model with a different name can sometimes function differently from the rest of the models in his unit even though he has the same characteristics, weapons, wargear and special rules...the fact that it happens doesn't change that the complex unit rules only care for those 4 things, of which name is not one of them.

Mannahnin wrote:

Soup and a roll wrote:

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.

Exactly. There are rules which distinguish between a sergeant or justicar and a regular squad member, even when their statlines, special rules, and weaponry are identical. And thus they cannot be said to be "identical for gaming purposes".

Again, the complex unit rules very specifically say what they mean by 'identical for gaming purposes' and there are CLEARLY situations where models function differently in the game but still would be considered 'identical' when following the rules for complex units. It is pointless to keep bringing up the fact that models can sometimes be affected separately somehow has bearing on the argument, when it actually doesn't.

The whole thing hinges upon the idea of whether or not the name is considered part of the profile of characteristics and nobody has shown any actual precedence that the name is considered by the rules to be part of the characteristic profile.

Soup and a roll wrote:[ 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.

As I pointed out previously, which is more obscure and complicated? If we show the rules for complex units/wound allocation to a new or random player, is he more likely to think of a sergeant as identical and interchangeable with a regular squad member, or different? I think the more intuitive answer is that a sergeant is not just another squaddie.

I totally disagree, and I'm being totally honest. If the sergeant is equipped exactly the same, has the same profile of characteristics and has no different special rules I don't think a new player would even think twice...in 199 out of 200 situations, that sergeant will play exactly the same as any other member of the unit so why would they have wounds allocated to them separately?

Let's be honest, the people who *really* want the sergeant to be treated differently are those people looking to dump extra wounds onto him for no other reason except that they can.

I'm disappointed now. I don't think Nos, Insaniak, or myself are arguing for personal advantage. I can't think of a good reason for you to even include that last bit.

I withdraw from the discussion. Evidently you have decided that this is not a matter of opinion or interpretation, and "the same profile of characteristics" cannot possibly mean what I think it means. It can only mean what you think it means. There is therefore no point in continuing to reiterate my interpretation & belief, as it has been read and disregarded as erroneous.

Congratulations.

Mannahnin wrote:I'm disappointed now. I don't think Nos, Insaniak, or myself are arguing for personal advantage. I can't think of a good reason for you to even include that last bit.

Then arguing for the sake of arguing?

Mannahnin wrote:I'm disappointed now. I don't think Nos, Insaniak, or myself are arguing for personal advantage. I can't think of a good reason for you to even include that last bit.

I withdraw from the discussion. Evidently this is not a matter of opinion or interpretation, and "the same profile of characteristics" cannot possibly mean what I think it means. It can only mean what you think it means. I am wrong and you are right, and clearly we can all see GW's intent. Congratulations.

Sorry about that, I wasn't trying to imply that anyone with a differing viewpoint is doing so solely because they want to take advantage of the wound allocation rules. I think you personally are arguing from the point of view of what you believe to be right. In other words, I don't think you *really* want the sergeant to be allocated separately, you just think the rules say it should be played that way.

What I was trying to say is that we have an ambiguous situation at best here, and one interpretation is definitely more beneficial for the player designing his units, and that is to have a model in the unit that is allocated separately even though he is identical in the eyes of the complex unit rules. While I do think the letter of the rules support my position, I also think that the principle of erring on the side of the less advantageous interpretation makes it a good idea to treat models with the same characteristics, weapons, warger and special rules as identical for the purposes of the complex unit rules even if they have a different name from the rest of the models in their unit.

So I apologize again for any negative connotation I may have made.

Ah. I went back and edited my rather over-dramatic phrasing a bit too late. Thanks for the apology.

The whole thing hinges upon the idea of whether or not the name is considered part of the profile of characteristics and nobody has shown any actual precedence that the name is considered by the rules to be part of the characteristic profile.

I think this is the key misunderstanding. I don't think the counter argument is that the name is part of the profile of characteristics. It is more that an identical profile of numbers is a different profile if it is a different profile. So for instance a Tactical marine has a different profile to a devastator marine even though the name is the same and so are all the number. By the nature of have a separate profile in a separate entry they have 2 different profiles which are identical.

It hinges on whether you interpret the same as meaning identical or shared rather than whether you believe the name is a characteristic of the profile (which it clearly isn't).

I've tried to expalain that a few times now, and generally DR responds with "same == identical in gaming terms", when that is an invalid mangling of two sentences.

You cannot have the same profile if there are two different profiles; while the contents may be the sam that is NOT what the rule asks for: it asks for the *same profile of characteristics", not a profile which has the same characteristics.

nosferatu1001 wrote:I've tried to expalain that a few times now, and generally DR responds with "same == identical in gaming terms", when that is an invalid mangling of two sentences.

You cannot have the same profile if there are two different profiles; while the contents may be the sam that is NOT what the rule asks for: it asks for the *same profile of characteristics", not a profile which has the same characteristics.

And what you keep ignoring is the fact that a 'profile' MEANS a 'set of characteristics', so when the rule asks to check if the models have the 'same profile of characteristics' they are asking for you to look and see if they have the same characteristics...that is EXACTLY what that means.

There is no NAME listed in the rules as being part of the profile. Every profile has to be named for it to have meaning, but as to what actually makes up a profile is just the characteristics.

We can PROVE that characteristics are what make up a profile. It cannot be proved that the name is part of the profile. As a game is permissive, you cannot simply assume that anything not mentioned makes up a profile...only the things specified as actually making up the profile do so.


So a Devestator Marine and a Tactical Marine have the SAME profile of characteristics...as a profile is a set of characteristics, and the name is not identified as being one of those characteristics.

And what you keep ignoring is the fact that a 'profile' MEANS a 'set of characteristics'

But the counter is that 2 differents sets with the same contents aren't the same sets. They are identical sets but by the very definition of not being the same set they are different sets.

Again it is a question of does same = identical or shared. (personally I feel both interpretations are valid, I'm leaning towards shared for RaW and Identical for RaI).

FlingitNow wrote:

And what you keep ignoring is the fact that a 'profile' MEANS a 'set of characteristics'

But the counter is that 2 differents sets with the same contents aren't the same sets. They are identical sets but by the very definition of not being the same set they are different sets.

Again it is a question of does same = identical or shared. (personally I feel both interpretations are valid, I'm leaning towards shared for RaW and Identical for RaI).

I think you hit this one square on the head. The word "same" can have various meanings:

1. Being the very one; identical (the same boat we rented before.)
2. Similar in kind, quality, quantity, or degree.
3. Conforming in every detail: according to the same rules as before.
4. Being the one previously mentioned or indicated; aforesaid.

Since there is no specific definition in the rulebook, this leaves it open to interpretation based on English language.

Yak - they are not the same, as there are two profiles there. The two profiles may have the same contents but they are NOT the same profiles!

The issue is whether the profiles are identical in the way they work on the table top.

That isnt what is asked - you are asked if they are the same profile as part of defining what "identical in gaming terms" really means.

If you have 2 different profiles they are never the same profile, even if the contents are identical.

Main point being the rules don't ask one to compare two profiles.

How does one know the profiles are the 'same' if one doesn't have any reason to look at the second profile. If one has located the correct profile why would one consult another?... unless one was consulting a different profile that is. But wouldn't the same profile as the one you were looking for.

If one has to look at two different profiles then one isn't looking at the same profile.

nosferatu1001 wrote:I've tried to expalain that a few times now, and generally DR responds with "same == identical in gaming terms", when that is an invalid mangling of two sentences.

You cannot have the same profile if there are two different profiles; while the contents may be the same that is NOT what the rule asks for: it asks for the *same profile of characteristics", not a profile which has the same characteristics.

Read the sentence again nos, it says identical. Then goes on to define what they mean by identical in the next sentence. the context of the paragraph is what some are missing, and why they do not read it correctly.

TC wrote:
I think you hit this one square on the head. The word "same" can have various meanings:

1. Being the very one; identical (the same boat we rented before.)
2. Similar in kind, quality, quantity, or degree.
3. Conforming in every detail: according to the same rules as before.
4. Being the one previously mentioned or indicated; aforesaid.

Since there is no specific definition in the rulebook, this leaves it open to interpretation based on English language.

There is a specific definition in the rulebook, look at the wording on page 25, It asks for things to be identical. Then it goes on to list what those 4 things are, profile, weapons, rules, and wargear.

It only asks that the Profiles be identical, it does not say that they need to share a profile.

Stop taking same to mean shared, it does not say shared anywhere, it says Identical.

2 different profiles can most certainly be 'the same/Identical.'
while they can not be 'the same/shared' the rules do not say they have to share a profile.

Mannahnin wrote:There are rules which distinguish between a sergeant or justicar and a regular squad member, even when their statlines, special rules, and weaponry are identical. And thus they cannot be said to be "identical for gaming purposes".

Except they only ask for 4 things to be identical, wargear, weapons, special rules, and characteristic values. For wound allocation purposes it cares not if the sanguinor can single out the sergeant in a unit with a special rule.

DeathReaper wrote:
2 different profiles can most certainly be 'the same/Identical.'

Antonyms by Answers.com wrote:
identical

Home > Library > Literature & Language > Antonyms

adj

Definition: alike, equal
Antonyms: different, dissimilar, distinct, diverse, opposite, unequal, unlike

I might not be a native english speaker, but I don't think so.

DR - back to mangling again.

You are asked if they are identical "in gaming terms", which is what you conveniently ignored there. Then then explain what "identical in gaming terms" means.

It doesnt mean what you repeatedly say it does.

you are asked if they are the same profile. They are different profiles, NOT the same

Jidmah wrote: I might not be a native english speaker, but I don't think so.

Actually Jidmah, both 'alike' and 'equal' fit DR's usage well. While the profiles are different in some ways, as per Nos' view, they are also the same (alike, equal), as per DR's.

yakface wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote: The issue is whether the profiles are identical in the way they work on the table top.

We can PROVE that characteristics are what make up a profile. It cannot be proved that the name is part of the profile.

this is spot on. If the value of the characteristics are the same, then they have the same profile of characteristics as far as the rules are concerned.

nosferatu1001 wrote:DR - back to mangling again.

You are asked if they are identical "in gaming terms", which is what you conveniently ignored there. Then then explain what "identical in gaming terms" means.

It doesnt mean what you repeatedly say it does.[but have not provided a page number to the contrary]

you are asked if they are the same profile[meaning Identical, not meaning shared]. They are different [Identical] profiles, NOT the same[but the game only cares if they are identical]

Fixed the above for you with the [bold].

Since A profile lists the value of its characteristics (P.7) then If you have the same listed values of characteristics, you have the same profile. It is all right there. Right here we have empirical evidence that you can have 2 separate profiles that are the same.


Jidmah, I am not 100% sure what you are saying, but If you are saying that identical means alike or equal, then profiles for an assault terminator and an assault terminator sergeant, are most definitely alike/equal.

Yes, and can one identify the profile that matters?

Conveniently each profile also contains a way to tell it apart from other profiles that would otherwise be identical--if you left part of the profile out that lets you know which profile you are looking at.

A name is part of each profile and is part of the game that is not a characteristic.
There is an identified list of the characteristics listed in a Profile of Characteristics, but names are also relevant to any listing.

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 is not a Profile of Characteristics, it is a list of numbers contained in a (non-existant example) profile.

The name can matter in gaming terms as well.

Actually Kir, as far as P.7 is concerned, 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 is a Profile of Characteristics

Since all the rule tell us is that a profile lists the value of its characteristics, It can only contain characteristic values as a part of the profile. Because it does not say that anything other than the characteristics is a part of the profile, we can not include anything other than the characteristics as a part of the profile.

The name can matter for some special rules, but as far as P.25 is concerned names do not matter, since it only cares about profile, weapons, rules, and wargear.

DeathReaper wrote:Since all the rule tell us is that a profile lists the value of its characteristics

Exactly. It does. Fortunately that is not ALL that it does. It also identifies the model it is associated with. AND the statistics those numbers are associated with.

(See: IG Orders, Vulcan, various Daemon rules, Preferred Enemy, etc.)



Automatically Appended Next Post:

DeathReaper wrote: It can only contain characteristic values as a part of the profile.

Find me a complete profile that does not contain the information that you state is irrelevent to the game.

yakface wrote:
... Fact a 'profile' MEANS a 'set of characteristics', so when the rule asks to check if the models have the 'same profile of characteristics' they are asking for you to look and see if they have the same characteristics...that is EXACTLY what that means.

There is no NAME listed in the rules as being part of the profile. Every profile has to be named for it to have meaning, but as to what actually makes up a profile is just the characteristics.

We can PROVE that characteristics are what make up a profile. It cannot be proved that the name is part of the profile. As a game is permissive, you cannot simply assume that anything not mentioned makes up a profile...only the things specified as actually making up the profile do so.

So a Devestator Marine and a Tactical Marine have the SAME profile of characteristics...as a profile is a set of characteristics, and the name is not identified as being one of those characteristics.

It is on you to find something that says the name is a part of the profile, you can not however, as the rules Yakface and I have presented are solid in this instance.

The rule tell us is that a profile lists the value of its characteristics. Fortunately that is ALL that it does. The names are just there for reference, and not a part of the profiles as far as P.25 is concerned.

And we're back round again.

I'm out guys. walls and all.

Yeah, this is definitely one of those cases where basic interpretation of language is at the heart of the disagreement so no amount of arguing is ever going to convince...especially as I think we've covered the salient points about four times over now.


As such, it seems like locking this one and moving on is the right course.