Brotherhood of Psykers and Wound Allocation

[Legatus]

BRB p.25 is asking for models to use the same profile, not for having identical characteristics.

[dswanick]

GM,

 

Are you really trying to argue that 4/4/4/4/1/2/9/3+ isn't identicle to 4/4/4/4/1/2/9/3+?

No, he is arguing that

Purifier 4/4/4/4/1/2/9/3+

Knight of the Flame 4/4/4/4/1/2/9/3+

Are two profiles, not one profile.

Of course they are two profiles. I don't think anyone doubts that.

 

But they are two profile of characterists that are identicle to each other. That's the point.

@Legatus, I think the sticking point for Grey Mage's and your argument is this :

MODEL PROFILES

All models have a profile similar to the one shown below, representing their abilities with in the game. The different Characteristics are explained briefly on these pages(see page 6 for more details),

WS Weapon Skill

BS BallisticSkill

S Strength

T Toughness

W Wounds

I Initiat ive

A Attacks

Ld leadership

Sv Armour Save

CHARACTERISTICS

In Warhammer 40,000, there are many different types of warriors, ranging from the mighty Space Marines to the brutal Orks, the agile Eldar to the dreaded Tyranids. 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.

 

The characteristics are: Weapon Skill (WS), Ballistic Skill (BS). Strength (S), Toughness (T), Wounds (W), Initiative (I), Attacks(A), leadership (Ld) and Armour Save (Sv).

 

For all models except vehicles these characteristics are given a value on a scale of 0 to 10 - the higher, the better (except for a model's Armour Save, where the opposite is true!).

CHARCTERISTIC PROFILES

Each model in Warhammer 40,000 has a profile that lists the value of its characteristics. At the back of this book, and in the Codex books for each army, you will find profiles for many races and creatures.

 

As you can see, they are similar in some respects. They have the same Weapon Skill and the same Toughness value. They both have 1 Wound, which is the norm for man-sized creatures. The Ork has more Attacks in dose combat, representing its great ferocity, but when it comes to BS, S, I, Ld and Sv, the Space Marine is superior. The Space Marines Ballistic Skill of 4 means that he will hit more often when shooting. In hand-to-hand combat, the greater Strength value gives the Space Marine a better chance of killing the Ork and his superior Initiative means that he gets to strike first. The Space Marine has a leadership of 8, which is slightly higher than the average. The Space Marine's thicker armour gives him another marked advantage over the Ork, as most shots or blows that hit the Space Marine are deflected on a D6 roll of 3 or more. The Ork instead needs a result of 6 to be saved by its primitive type of armour.

All of these quotes show that Characteristics are only those listed WS/BS/S/T/W/I/A/Ld/Sv, notice 'name' is not listed as a Characteristic by RAW.

All Characteristics are given a numerical value between 0 and 10. 'Space Marine' is not a numerical value in that range by RAW.

A 'Profile of Characteristics' is defined as nine numbers by RAW. So a 'Profile of Characteristics' consisting of nine number and no label would still be a valid 'Profile of Characteristics'.

A 'Profile of Characteristics' is the block of text enumerating the Characteristics that a model has. But notice in the text example where GW compares and contrasts the Characteristic Profiles of two models (one Ork and one Space Marine), nowhere do they mention that the Characteristic Profile differs in name. They only compare and contrast the numerical Characteristics, further indicating that the name is nothing more than a label so that the reader has a clear frame of reference but that said name has no bearing on the similarity of a 'Profile of Characteristics'.

[Legatus]

Some amendmends:

 

@Legatus, I think the sticking point for Grey Mage's and your argument is this :

MODEL PROFILES

All models have a profile similar to the one shown below, representing their abilities with in the game. The different Characteristics are explained briefly on these pages(see page 6 for more details),

WS Weapon Skill

BS BallisticSkill

S Strength

T Toughness

W Wounds

I Initiat ive

A Attacks

Ld leadership

Sv Armour Save

---

Space Marine WS4 BS4 S4 T4 W1 I4 A1 Ld8 Sv3+

---

CHARACTERISTICS

In Warhammer 40,000, there are many different types of warriors, ranging from the mighty Space Marines to the brutal Orks, the agile Eldar to the dreaded Tyranids. 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.

 

The characteristics are: Weapon Skill (WS), Ballistic Skill (BS). Strength (S), Toughness (T), Wounds (W), Initiative (I), Attacks(A), leadership (Ld) and Armour Save (Sv).

 

For all models except vehicles these characteristics are given a value on a scale of 0 to 10 - the higher, the better (except for a model's Armour Save, where the opposite is true!).

CHARCTERISTIC PROFILES

Each model in Warhammer 40,000 has a profile that lists the value of its characteristics. At the back of this book, and in the Codex books for each army, you will find profiles for many races and creatures.

 

Below are the profiles for an Ork Boy and a Space Marine of the Imperium:

 

---

Ork Boy WS4 BS2 S3 T4 W1 I2 A2 Ld7 Sv6+

Space Marine WS4 BS4 S4 T4 W1 I4 A1 Ld8 Sv3+

---

 

As you can see, they are similar in some respects. They have the same Weapon Skill and the same Toughness value. They both have 1 Wound, which is the norm for man-sized creatures. The Ork has more Attacks in dose combat, representing its great ferocity, but when it comes to BS, S, I, Ld and Sv, the Space Marine is superior. The Space Marines Ballistic Skill of 4 means that he will hit more often when shooting. In hand-to-hand combat, the greater Strength value gives the Space Marine a better chance of killing the Ork and his superior Initiative means that he gets to strike first. The Space Marine has a leadership of 8, which is slightly higher than the average. The Space Marine's thicker armour gives him another marked advantage over the Ork, as most shots or blows that hit the Space Marine are deflected on a D6 roll of 3 or more. The Ork instead needs a result of 6 to be saved by its primitive type of armour.

Purifiers

---

Purifier WS4 BS4 S4 T4 W1 I4 A2 Ld9 Sv3+

Knight of the Flame WS4 BS4 S4 T4 W1 I4 A2 Ld9 Sv3+

---

 

All of these quotes show that Characteristics are only those listed WS/BS/S/T/W/I/A/Ld/Sv, notice 'name' is not listed as a Characteristic by RAW.

The name is not a characteristic. But the name is none the less an essential part of a profile, because each profile is associated to specific models. As is pointed out on most of those quotes, each model has a profile. A collection of characteristics without any model being assiciated to them would be completely useless in the game. E.g.

 

---

WS6 BS4 S8 T6 W3 I5 A4 Ld10 Sv2+

---

 

That looks awesome, right? A great set of characteristics. What are they good for? Nothing. But whatever model could have had those characteristics in its profile would have been awesome.

 

So obviously every profile will also include the name of the model it is associated with. That is why the examples you quoted all include the model's name. It does not say

This is the Profile of a Space Marine:

---

WS4 BS4 S4 T4 W1 I4 A1 Ld8 Sv3+

---

No, it says:

This is the Profile of a Space Marine:

---

Space Marine WS4 BS4 S4 T4 W1 I4 A1 Ld8 Sv3+

---

 

 

notice in the text example where GW compares and contrasts the Characteristic Profiles of two models (one Ork and one Space Marine), nowhere do they mention that the Characteristic Profile differs in name.

It quite explicitely states that the one profile is the profile of a Space Marine and the other profile is the profile of an Ork Boy.

 

It states

"As you can see, they are similar in some respects. They have the same Weapon Skill and the same Toughness value."

"They" in this case refers to the profile of the Space Marine and the profile of the Ork Boy. If all of their characteristics happened to be the same, it could read:

"As you can see, they are pretty much identical. They have the same characteristics."

"They" (the profiles) would have the same characteristics. But it would still be the profile of the Space Marine and the profile of the Ork Boy. Same characteristics, but two separate profiles.

 

 

I had added a quote from the Grey Knights Codex to the ones you had provided. Would you refer to that page (and two other pages that list the Purifiers) as listing the same profile twice, or as listing the profile for Purifiers and the profile for Knights of the Flame?

[Gentlemanloser]

That looks awesome, right? A great set of characteristics. What are they good for? Nothing.

 

Same as points value.

 

Same as FoC slot, and limits on taking a unit.

 

A viable unit needs all of these, or it means nothing.

 

But Points costs, FoC slot, limits, etc, aren't part of that units profile of charcateristics.

 

or as listing the profile for Purifiers and the profile for Knights of the Flame?

 

It lists two different models profiles. These are used to (among other things) show what upgrades these models can take.

 

These two different models however, have identicle profiles of characteristics.

 

nowhere do they mention that the Characteristic Profile differs in name. They only compare and contrast the numerical Characteristics, further indicating that the name is nothing more than a label so that the reader has a clear frame of reference but that said name has no bearing on the similarity of a 'Profile of Characteristics'.

 

This really.

[Legatus]

That looks awesome, right? A great set of characteristics. What are they good for? Nothing.

Same as points value.

 

Same as FoC slot, and limits on taking a unit.

 

A viable unit needs all of these, or it means nothing.

 

But Points costs, FoC slot, limits, etc, aren't part of that units profile of charcateristics.

And, true enough, when we look at the basic examples of what profiles are, they include neither point costs, FoC slots or model limitations.

[dswanick]

That looks awesome, right? A great set of characteristics. What are they good for? Nothing.

Same as points value.

 

Same as FoC slot, and limits on taking a unit.

 

A viable unit needs all of these, or it means nothing.

 

But Points costs, FoC slot, limits, etc, aren't part of that units profile of charcateristics.

And, true enough, when we look at the basic examples of what profiles are, they include neither point costs, FoC slots or model limitations.

I'm sorry, but all you've proven with all the additions is that people are not omniscient and need to be told which Profile of Characteristics belongs to which models. Nowhere do the rules state or imply that the label is a necessary part of the PoC or relevant to a comparison of PoCs. As I stated earlier, there are two camps in this debate - one looking at the PoC as a list of nine numerical variables which only differ if any of the values differ, the other looking at the PoC as a container which differs if the container is different regardless of the value of the information contained within. Since we're just going round and round a this point - I'm done, unless something new gets added. :ermm:

[Legatus]

I'm sorry, but all you've proven with all the additions is that people are not omniscient and need to be told which Profile of Characteristics belongs to which models. Nowhere do the rules state or imply that the label is a necessary part of the PoC or relevant to a comparison of PoCs.

Actually, when if rulebook, on two occasions, states:

This is what a profile is

---

Space Marine WS4 BS4 S4 T4 W1 I4 A1 Ld8 Sv3+

---

Then the Rules indeed not only imply but outright define that a name is part of a profile.

[DarkGuard]

OK then, here's a thought. Could we not postulate that names in profiles are pointers? For example, if we have a string of numbers like from a profile, but no name, then I could use that profile for a Marine, or similarly for a Grot. Names just help as assign profiles to models, but then the name does little in game.

 

Blimey this is all confusing. You make good points Legatus, but I still cannot agree that models with the same equipment, stats, weapons, special rules etc but different names aren't different in gaming terms. My army doesn't care that the Terminator Sergeant is a Sergeant, he's the same as the other models in gaming terms so he rolls with them. But then those new Necron abilities annoy things, along with BoP.

 

I think I'll revise my opinion to the name not counting unless a special rule specifically makes mention of it. Bit of having your cake and eating it but still consistent between them, makes most sense to me overall and still accounts for those rare occasions that aren't the norm.

 

Don't worry, I won't expect you guys to follow my thinking. ;)

[Legatus]

Blimey this is all confusing. You make good points Legatus, but I still cannot agree that models with the same equipment, stats, weapons, special rules etc but different names aren't different in gaming terms. My army doesn't care that the Terminator Sergeant is a Sergeant, he's the same as the other models in gaming terms so he rolls with them. But then those new Necron abilities annoy things, along with BoP.

I assume you meant that you cannot agree that they are different in gaming terms. Actually, the first rule that specifically adressed characters that came to my mind was the one from the previous Codex Dark Angels, where one of the enemy characters could potentially have knowledge of the Fallen and killing him in close combat allowed the Dark Angels to capture him and get extra victory points. I did not mention this rule earlier because it is outdated since the release of the 4th Edition Codex Dark Angels. So while these rules are not common, they do exist since 3rd Edition. (2nd Edition worked on a model-by-model basis, so there was no need to specifically distinguish between characters and non characters, except for victory points and army composition limitations). But then in 3rd Edition Characters of any type fought differently in HtH than ordinary models, being able to allocate their attacks against specific models in BtB contact, so there was no question in 3rd Edition that Characters were quite distinct from other models. In 4th Edition, their ability to pick their targets (and to be specifically targeted themselves) was removed, and they worked more like a "normal member of the squad, but usually with better characteristics or equipment". But they still kept being highlighted as "characters" in 4th and 5th Edition, and there still occasionally are rules that affect either your own (such as 'Brotherhood of Psykers') or enemy characters (like Imotelh's 'Humiliating Defeat').

[DarkGuard]

Hopefully GW will FAQ it. Doubt it, but then hopefully this will all be cleared up in the next edition. With some of the rules rumours it looks like it has been.

[Leonaides]

I'll be honest - for me and my associated gaming cronies the whole thing hinges on the simple 'identical for gaming purposes'... Since there are rules which have a different effect on the knight, he isnt the same for gaming purposes so has to be in a separate wound allocation unit.

[Grey Mage]

Of course they are two profiles. I don't think anyone doubts that.

 

But they are two profile of characterists that are identicle to each other. That's the point.

 

They are equivalent, not identical. IE, they are not the same thing, they are just identical in function.

 

I know its a fine line, but in my opinion its quite real and important.

[Gentlemanloser]

identical in function

 

Identicle for gaming?

 

^_^

[SeattleDV8]

As a Dark Angel player this is something that comes up often in my Death wing army.

The Terminator Sgt. is identical to the other terminators , except for name(if I drop the power sword/storm bolter, which I always do).

That is also how I treat him as it is the less powerful way to play.

Having another sub-group in the squad allows the even more allotment games.

It is a small but real advanance to play him as different from the other Thunder Hammer/ Storm Shield Terminators.

Both sides have good points but neither has the answer.

That said since both sides can be 'proven'(or at least just as good an argument/not disproven) I alway play the weaker version.

 

Truth to tell the difference is so very slight it really isn't worth a debate.

Generally I run a TH/SS with a Cyclone, a Chain fist/ Stormbolter and 3 TH/SS termies.

If I treated the Sgt. (TH/SS) as seperate from the other TH/SS is generally makes no difference unless there are multiple fails in the saving throws.

for example 8 wounds on the squad allocating 1 to the cyclone, 1 to the chain fist, 2 to the Sgt. and the other 4 to the TH/SS's.

If I fail 2 rolls on the Sgt. or three on the TH/SS's I actually get to ignore the 'extra' wound, where if I treat them as identical I lose another terminator.

 

The only time this ever became an issue in one of my games, an opponent protested that I rolled the Sgt. with the other TH/SS termies.

I gladly changed and allocated the wounds to the Sgt.,though the rest of the game it made no difference, but in the last turn and as fate would have it,I had the Sgt. and two TH/SS terminators on an objective.

He shot every thing he could from his last squad.8 wounds so 2 on the Sgt. and 6 on the squad. The TH/SS terminators died twice over.(4 fails)

The Sgt. survived and held the winnig objective.

[Legatus]

Look, you could either see two different profiles with the same characteristics and say "all their stats are the same, so they are idendical in the game". Or you could see two different profiles with the same characteristics and say "since they are kept separate, there probably is some reason for that". One such reason could be to distinguish between the characters and non-characters of the unit, even if they happened to have the same characteristics. So when the rules for when models are considered to be indentical in gaming terms ask for models that use the same profile, it may well be intentional that it does not ask for models that have the same characteristics, fully aware that the characters and non-characters of a unit should be treated differently.

 

As has been pointed out, there still are actual differences between a character in a unit and a non-character, even if their equipment and stats are otherwise identical. Since those differences do exist, we can either assume that GW completely forgot to mention that as a criterion for models being identical in gaming terms (but acknowledge it as a difference anyway, to stick to the intention of that rule), or we can assume that being listed with a separate profile was meant to highlight exactly that difference.

[Gentlemanloser]

Or you could see two different profiles with the same characteristics and say "since they are kept separate, there probably is some reason for that"

 

Until 6th rolls in and makes Upgrade Characters have thier own rules, there is an obvious reason for this, in every 5th edition Codex.

 

The reason is (I've mentioned this before) that is dictates which options those specific models can take in thier unit entry.

 

A Keeper (for examle only) isn't allowed to purchase a special ranged weapon. While he is allowed to master craft a weapon, which normal purifiers can't.

 

That's the reason they are seperate, but with the same characteristics.

 

That *exact* same reason is why GK Terminator Justicars have seperate entires, and GK Paladin don't. The Paladin all have access to exactly the same options, so there is no need to differentiate.

[Grey Mage]

identical in function

 

Identicle for gaming?

 

:D

I wish, life would be so much simpler.

 

For example, apothecaries could buy wargear.....

[Legatus]

The reason is (I've mentioned this before) that is dictates which options those specific models can take in thier unit entry.

 

A Keeper (for examle only) isn't allowed to purchase a special ranged weapon. While he is allowed to master craft a weapon, which normal purifiers can't.

 

That's the reason they are seperate, but with the same characteristics.

That they are also characters (which are distinct from non-characters in certain gameplay respects) is purely incidental. ;)

[SeattleDV8]

That they are also characters (which are distinct from non-characters in certain gameplay respects) is purely incidental. ;)

Yes , it is incidental as it is not one of the things which make a model 'identical in game terms'

I find good points on both sides, I don't know which is correct, thats why I use the weaker version.

Really guys , this one is a Grey Area, no one is going to change the others mind.

This debate has run it's course.

[Gentlemanloser]

That they are also characters (which are distinct from non-characters in certain gameplay respects) is purely incidental.

 

While one (maybe 2?) Codex has funky rules for dealing with upgrade characters, they have no specific rules in the BRB.

 

They exist, but apart form that they don't have anything of thier own.

 

As said, it's likely 6th will change this, but until then, upgrade characters has the same rules as normal minis in a unit.

 

Unless I'm missing something! :P

[Stormshadow]

Ok then. Let’s just assume everyone here has played 40k long enough to realize that the KoF is NOT identical to the other purifiers. Now it comes down to, can RAW allow us to ignore this fact wen making our wound allocations.

 

There is no doubt in my mind that the sections from the rule buck quoted are attempts from GW to inform new players that “these two Space Marines with bolters, from the same unit, are treated as the same when allocating wounds, it doesn’t matter that one of them is standing to the right and the other doesn’t have a helmet on”. And that there intention (RAI) is that only the models that impact the game in the same way are in the same wound group.

 

I hope this will not turn in to a RAW better/worse than RAI discussion. No one can know exactly what GW intended and more often than not people can’t agree on what the “written rule” actually is saying.

 

When the codex first came out, there were several people in my gaming area that tried to get me to treat my dread knights as jump infantry. This would allow them to ride in Stormravens, join characters and get a cover save from almost anything. I found this ridiculous, and refused to do something that I considered as cheating. Their response was “No it’s just RAW, hurry up and do it before the FAQ comes out”. Of core they understood that this was not what GW intended, but they justified their actions with RAW. GW actually had to make an FAQ on this to stop people from doing it, my thought is why?

 

I will not get into the “is the name a part of the profile” part of this decision. I think that the important thing her is the “Identical in game terms” part, and not GW’s bad attempt of clarifying what this means.

 

So my question is: Do you not consider it as cheating as long as it doesn’t go against RAW?

 

On a side note, RAW doesn’t say you can’t use loaded dice. But on the other hand it doesn’t say you can ether ^_^. It has to be six sided though :)