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.

False, each Chaos Lord is a IC. In HtH the are seperate units and need to be allocated wounds seperately, but evenly.

However for shooting they are NOT a separate unit, so would be one wound group.

don_mondo wrote:Look in the codex. Is there a name at the beginning of the profile. Yes. There's your proof.

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."(No mention of name)

This tells us what a profile is.

Where does it mention name?

(Hint: It doesn't.)

They only need to be identical, it does not matter if they are different profiles, because the rules only ask for them to be identical.

Same on P.25 means Identical, as I have proven, not shared as you are claiming.

But this is not going anywhere, just like last time, we should probably just let it go.

-TY for the discussion.

"made up of" /= "only made up of"

Stop conflating the two

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. Casualties can then be chosen by the owning player from amongst these identical models. If there is another group of identical models in the unit, the player then takes all of their saves in one batch, and so on.

Finally, the player rolls separately for each model that stands out in gaming terms. If one of these different models suffers an unsaved wound, then that specific model must be removed.

The key phrases are "Identical in gaming terms" and "stands out in gaming terms". If the sergeant is not identical in gaming terms or stands out, for example affecting the squads leadership value, then he must be rolled separately. Really, the question will it matter later if the sergeant dies versus any other member of the squad who has the same weapons? If so, then he is not identical in gaming terms.

Not sure why it takes 4 pages to figure this out, but really, the only reason it would take 4 pages is because it matters, if it matters then they aren't identical.

He became the sergeant by standing out, so the sergeant gets rolled separately,

DeathReaper wrote:

don_mondo wrote:Look in the codex. Is there a name at the beginning of the profile. Yes. There's your proof.

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."(No mention of name)

This tells us what a profile is.

Where does it mention name?

(Hint: It doesn't.)

They only need to be identical, it does not matter if they are different profiles, because the rules only ask for them to be identical.

Same on P.25 means Identical, as I have proven, not shared as you are claiming.

But this is not going anywhere, just like last time, we should probably just let it go.

-TY for the discussion.

Actually it DOES mention name. It in fact calls that entry for EACH model the "profile". So if you are going to cast out name, then I'm going to say that you must roll INDIVIDUALLY and not group any models when allocating. Otherwise, to what material do you reference to "profile" said models. Are you going to use the "profile" for characteristics? Then you're using the profile for THAT model. As I said before, if you are playing squads with out Sergeants, then you in fact ARE cheating.

You keep making the argument on "Characteristics" but Pg.25 clearly states "profile" repeatedly when consulting similar models.

Tye_Informer wrote:The key phrases are "Identical in gaming terms" and "stands out in gaming terms". If the sergeant is not identical in gaming terms or stands out, for example affecting the squads leadership value, then he must be rolled separately. Really, the question will it matter later if the sergeant dies versus any other member of the squad who has the same weapons? If so, then he is not identical in gaming terms.

Not sure why it takes 4 pages to figure this out, but really, the only reason it would take 4 pages is because it matters, if it matters then they aren't identical.

He became the sergeant by standing out, so the sergeant gets rolled separately,

I don't follow this argument. The sergeant being a "sergeant" has no bearing on the unit, he is functionally identical to all of the other models - equal characteristics, same wargear, same weapons. The only time it would matter to remove the sergeant rather than another model would be if the sergeant were in an advantageous (or disadventageous) position on the board. Wound allocation rules don't care about the position of the models, that's supposed to be up to the person removing casualties.

If there's some additional rule in the codex I'm missing that grants some special benefit to having a sergeant, then he should be rolled separately because he's not "identical in game terms." Otherwise, it's trying to create an advantage through wound-allocation shenanigans that wouldn't be available to a functionally identical group of 5 terminators without a leader.

edit: also, I see that my question about the Chaos Lords doesn't really help, I thought it might be illustrative, but at that point you're looking at a subdivision with multi-wound models and those rules would take care of the problem of allocating wounds to A or B. Please disregard.

biccat wrote:
He became the sergeant by standing out, so the sergeant gets rolled separately,

I don't follow this argument. The sergeant being a "sergeant" has no bearing on the unit, he is functionally identical to all of the other models - equal characteristics, same wargear, same weapons. The only time it would matter to remove the sergeant rather than another model would be if the sergeant were in an advantageous (or disadventageous) position on the board. Wound allocation rules don't care about the position of the models, that's supposed to be up to the person removing casualties.

Dracheous wrote:

biccat wrote:

He became the sergeant by standing out, so the sergeant gets rolled separately,

I don't follow this argument. The sergeant being a "sergeant" has no bearing on the unit, he is functionally identical to all of the other models - equal characteristics, same wargear, same weapons. The only time it would matter to remove the sergeant rather than another model would be if the sergeant were in an advantageous (or disadventageous) position on the board. Wound allocation rules don't care about the position of the models, that's supposed to be up to the person removing casualties.

You're right, wound allocation does not care about the position of a model, but it does care about the profile; a Sergeant has its own separate profile and is required for the squad otherwise the Codex would have just said Unit Composition: 5 Terminators.

Let me put it this way; lets assume the following:

Ork Boy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Space Marine 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Is an Ork Boy now a Space Marine?

I'm simply asking about the argument that the poster made.

The question isn't "is X Y", but whether X and Y are identical in game terms. I think a strong argument could be made that the Ork Boy and Space Marine in your example are identical in game terms.

biccat wrote:
I'm simply asking about the argument that the poster made.

The question isn't "is X Y", but whether X and Y are identical in game terms. I think a strong argument could be made that the Ork Boy and Space Marine in your example are identical in game terms.

But you must remember that Pg.25 states that each model has its own profile; now applying the rest of BRB to this equation, you could never have a squad made of both Ork Boyz and Space Marines, because of Unit Compositions. Applying Unit Compositions states that you must have a Sargent Model; which has its own profile; which brings us back to Pg.25 saying that PROFILES must be the same, an Ork Boy is not a Space Marine and thus have a different profile.

Dracheous wrote:Ork Boy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Space Marine 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Those two profiles ARE Identical in gaming terms, they have the same profile of characteristics.

Dracheous wrote:But you must remember that Pg.25 states that each model has its own profile

But if each model has its own profile, how could you claim that the 4 non-sergeant terminators have "the same profile"?

Dracheous wrote:you could never have a squad made of both Ork Boyz and Space Marines, because of Unit Compositions.

Uh...yeah, I suppose, because the relevant rule books don't give this as an option (SM & Ork codices).

Dracheous wrote:Applying Unit Compositions states that you must have a Sargent Model; which has its own profile

I'm not sure where you're going with this.

Dracheous wrote:which brings us back to Pg.25 saying that PROFILES must be the same, an Ork Boy is not a Space Marine and thus have a different profile.

So...a terminator sergeant must be allocated wounds separately because you can't have a unit of Ork Boyz and Space Marines and therefore Ork Boyz are not Space Marines? What?

DeathReaper wrote:

Dracheous wrote:Ork Boy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Space Marine 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Those two profiles ARE Identical in gaming terms, they have the same profile of characteristics.

ARE they?

suppose i take your logic, and now consider that further
Ork Boy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Space Marine 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Kabalite Warrior 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

They are are identical in gaming terms, by your logic.

Let's apply a gaming situation:

suppose I have Vect in my army
he has the Ancient Nemesis special rule: " He has preferred Enemy rule against all units. Against Eldar or Dark Eldar units, Vect also re-rolls failed to Wound rolls"

All three profiles are identical.

or does one in particular stand out? can Vect re-roll failed wounds rolls on all profile of characteristics? (my answer would be no, he can re-roll failed wound rolls only on the kabalite warrior)
how could this be? we proved that they were identical, no?

or did we just apply a difference in gaming terms?

Hence, the name cannot be considered outside of characteristics.

my $.02

I know I am kinda kicking a hornet's nest here, but in what way does a terminator sergeant function any differently than a terminator on the tabletop? What can the sergeant or the terminator do that the other can't?

I would feel quite beardy indeed if I tried to pull this in a game.

Thaylen wrote:I know I am kinda kicking a hornet's nest here, but in what way does a terminator sergeant function any differently than a terminator on the tabletop? What can the sergeant or the terminator do that the other can't?

I would feel quite beardy indeed if I tried to pull this in a game.

I completely agree. I imagine I would get stern looks if I tried wound allocation games with a model that doesn't have any different impact on the table from the rest of the unit.

NeonPhoenix wrote:suppose I have Vect in my army
he has the Ancient Nemesis special rule: " He has preferred Enemy rule against all units. Against Eldar or Dark Eldar units, Vect also re-rolls failed to Wound rolls"

All three profiles are identical.

or does one in particular stand out? can Vect re-roll failed wounds rolls on all profile of characteristics? (my answer would be no, he can re-roll failed wound rolls only on the kabalite warrior)
how could this be? we proved that they were identical, no?

As far as wound distribution is concerned, yes. Vects rule has nothing to do with wound distribution - it's similar to the Daemonhunter stuff that GKs get.

First of all - AHAHAHAHAHAHA --- I love this thread!

A: *pedantic deconstruction of B's argument* "You'd realize that if you'd stop being pedantic."

B: *pedantic deconstruction of A's argument* "You'd realize that if you'd stop being pedantic."

Repeat ad nauseum.

Just gotta say, I'm picking up my 5th rulebook tomorrow (my little gaming circle didn't feel we needed to fix what wasn't broken, and have been playing mostly WHFB and MtG for the last couple years anyway) - and I just can't wait to be person C in this little ordeal.

The only unit that comes to mind that is like this is assault terminators, I can't think of any others off the top of my head. Can anyone think of other units in which the squad leader is (or can be) identical to the rest of the unit both stat-wise and wargear?

I'm still on the fence but sorta leaning towards death reapers's side of things

My take hinges on 'identical in game terms'. I think that if the model, as per Biccat's comment above, is no different in wargear, stats, or in-game effect, then its rolled as one group.

I've never seen termie sargeants rolled separately unless armed differently, which regular termies are since the sarge has powerweapon while the rest have fists.

Space marine vet sargeants, yes, because they have +1 Ld and A.

Going ALL the way back to the original question - can someone clarify it? I don't see where the confusion lies.

The example at the bottom of p. 25 involves a unit with a sergeant, two bolters, and two missile launchers. They're assigned their wounds before the save rolls, and because their loadouts are different, there isn't any carryover of damage unto models that aren't identical. So... what EXACTLY is the question?

Is someone saying that there is carryover of unsaved wounds from unit models to the sergeant if they're loaded identically and have the same stats? Ridiculous.

Just because for a few types of troops in the game, the upgrade character happens to have the same stats and wargear:
1) Own line in the codex - the only thing more differentiating than this, that I can think of, is own PAGE in the codex.
2) So they ONLY thing preventing ALL the other upgrade characters in the 40k universe from taking carryover damage is their slightly higher sense of duty?

Now IF I'm getting the idea wrong on the exact question, I welcome a clarification. If I got the question, and you disagree with my answer, well, guess we're in different camps.

I would argue that the sergeant's wounds should be rolled separately for two reasons, first because it does not have an identical characteristic profile and second because it is not an identical model "in gaming terms".

The example of a model's characteristic profile on page xii does include the model's name. Different name = different characteristic profile.

Also, I note that having a different name for a model can make a difference "in gaming terms". A couple of examples:

Blood Angels' Sanguinor's Blessing Rule:

"When your force is deployed, randomly choose one Sergeant in your army to recieve the sacred blessing of the sanguinor - that model has ..." Codex: Blood Angels p. 51

Chaos Space Marines' Summoning Greater Daemons Rule:

"When it becomes available from Reserve, the Greater Daemon possesses the body of either a Champion, Aspiring Sorcerer, Sorcerer of Chaos or Chaos Lord to enter the game. The controlling player chooses any suitable model in his own army and removes it from play..." Codex: Chaos Space Marines p. 61

In each case, you can't just pick a model with the same characteristic numbers as a sergeant or champion - it has to be a model named sergeant or champion. Accordingly, two models are not functionally identical "in gaming terms" just because they have the same stat line.

Hope this helps!
-GK

Warboss Fugnutz wrote:The example at the bottom of p. 25 involves a unit with a sergeant, two bolters, and two missile launchers. They're assigned their wounds before the save rolls, and because their loadouts are different, there isn't any carryover of damage unto models that aren't identical. So... what EXACTLY is the question?

The example also states that the Sergeant has a different profile. Though this may be because he's a Vet Sarge.

DeathReaper wrote:

Dracheous wrote:Ork Boy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Space Marine 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Those two profiles ARE Identical in gaming terms, they have the same profile of characteristics.

I don't think this holds water. Especially when you throw in IC's with the same 'characteristic profile'.

For instance, I have 2 HQ's that are both IC's, both in the same squad. They have the exact same wargear. Their only difference is their names.

Here are their profiles.

4 4 3 3 3 4 2/3 10 4+
4 4 3 3 3 4 2/3 10 4+

They currently have taken zero wounds. They take 5 shooting wounds, none of which would cause instant death. They fail 2 saves. How do I allocate the 2 wounds they take? Anyway I want?

I think the names are an important distinction in the 'characteristic profile'. The names are even included in the example of what makes up a characteristic profile.

imweasel wrote:
For instance, I have 2 HQ's that are both IC's, both in the same squad. They have the exact same wargear. Their only difference is their names.

Here are their profiles.

4 4 3 3 3 4 2/3 10 4+
4 4 3 3 3 4 2/3 10 4+

They currently have taken zero wounds. They take 5 wounds, none of which would cause instant death. They fail 2 saves. How do I allocate the 2 wounds they take? Anyway I want?

I think the names are an important distinction in the 'characteristic profile'. The names are even included in the example of what makes up a characteristic profile.

Is this hypothetical or actual? Which ICs are you referring to?

haendas wrote: Which ICs are you referring to?

This is the other reason names matter.

Even in gaming terms.

haendas wrote:Is this hypothetical or actual? Which ICs are you referring to?

These characteristics are actual, not hypothetical. They have identical wargear and stats.

According to some folks in this thread, the IC's 'names' I am referring to don't matter.

So why is there even a Sergeant if there's no difference?

imweasel wrote:

haendas wrote:Is this hypothetical or actual? Which ICs are you referring to?

These characteristics are actual, not hypothetical. They have identical wargear and stats.

According to some folks in this thread, the IC's 'names' I am referring to don't matter.

Fine. Would you PM me the names please? I'm just trying to become more educated.

pm sent

imweasel wrote:pm sent

I sincerely thank you imweasel. I'm going to refrain from discussing the contents of the pm and the information I've gathered through those contents since part of your point is about the importance of names.

Unfortunately I'm still not swayed into the names = separate allocation camp yet. The one thing that has come closest to bringing me to change my position is the INAT FAQ on this exact question. It mentions that certain rules may target models based on their name . In my opinion that would make names have a potential direct impact to what happens on the table. I'm still thinking it over, but the general mode of thinking about it on this thread isn't what is convincing me yet.