This may be obvious but seeing as allied detachments are considered different armies and special characters may be taken once per ARMY, would it be legal to take a GK primary with coteaz plus an inquisition detachment with coteaz?

Detachments are not considered separate armies.
Page 110 has your answer.

Oh haha, my bad. Seemed kind of weird to me if you could but I was just checking.

They are different units in different codices though.

But unique

While Rigeld2 is correct there is some debate on this particular combination of 'unique characters.'

This debate stems not from the, very weak, argument that 'detachments are separate armies' but from the fact Coteaz exists in more then one codex. Technically, as each entry is a separate unit and we are talking about completely different codex's at that, it is possible to state one is not selecting Coteaz twice but are simply selecting two completely different units that happen to have a similar name. There is even other president that support this argument as there are a few 'same name' units out there, often which have very different rules from each other, and it is not possible to use their entries interchangeability in these situations. That is a problem with the Inquisition Detachment: They re-used the name of units without a care to how it will effect existing rules...

A bigger question is how you can take an Inquisitor detachment, which has no troop slots, and a character which forces their main unit to become troop choices?

fossing wrote:
But unique

Sure they are each their own unique character that are different units which reside in in different codexes.

Ergo you can take Coteaz from GK and from Inquisition in the same army (Not to be confused with what the Codexes define as an army which is something different than what the BRB defines as army).

 DeathReaper wrote:

fossing wrote:
But unique

Sure they are each their own unique character that are different units which reside in in different codexes.

Ergo you can take Coteaz from GK and from Inquisition in the same army (Not to be confused with what the Codexes define as an army which is something different than what the BRB defines as army).

Special characters are defined by name according to page 110. Since the names are the same you cannot take both.

What have I done?!

walkiflalka wrote:
What have I done?!

You! This is your fault!
May the fleas of a thousand camels infest your backside, and your arms be too short to scratch sir!

Edit: That was a bit harsh. I shall grant a 10 camel reduction.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

fossing wrote:
But unique

Sure they are each their own unique character that are different units which reside in in different codexes.

Ergo you can take Coteaz from GK and from Inquisition in the same army (Not to be confused with what the Codexes define as an army which is something different than what the BRB defines as army).

Special characters are defined by name according to page 110. Since the names are the same you cannot take both.

Except they are different.

Unless you are saying they are identical, which of course is silly.

So the names aren't the same?

 grendel083 wrote:

walkiflalka wrote:
What have I done?!

You! This is your fault!
May the fleas of a thousand camels infest your backside, and your arms be too short to scratch sir!

Edit: That was a bit harsh. I shall grant a 10 camel reduction.

LOL, I should have known. Too late now :p I honestly wasn't trolling when I started this thread haha.

fossing wrote:

have an exalt!

 raiden wrote:

fossing wrote:

have an exalt!

Now its trolling, haha, just exalted too.

Jinx, the inquisition inquisitor coteaz does not make henchmen troops.

To my knowledge, the Gray Knight Coteaz does it for the entire army so if you somehow took both....

rigeld2 wrote:
So the names aren't the same?

This does not matter, as the two unique characters are not the same unique character.

They are not even from the same Codex.

Yup. This is a rules-black hole at the moment. You will find people claiming both, neither, etc.

Until GW definitively rules in favour of them either being 'the same' or 'different' use your best discretion and talk it over with your opponents. Personally I find compelling arguments for both. they do have the same name, and they do use different rules for each.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So the names aren't the same?

This does not matter, as the two unique characters are not the same unique character.

They are not even from the same Codex.

Could you explain what this means?

these unique individuals, who stand out from normal characters because they have a personal name and not just a title, are called 'special characters'.

We know names determine special characters status. We know names determine uniqueness. Why are you allowing two models with the same name in the same list?

It does explain what the Unique rule does a few paragraphs lower. It is difficult to claim what you do from the first paragraph which is more fluffy than anything.

Unique
Each special character is unique, so a player cannot include multiples of the same character in an army.

 Shandara wrote:
It does explain what the Unique rule does a few paragraphs lower. It is difficult to claim what you do from the first paragraph which is more fluffy than anything.

Unique
Each special character is unique, so a player cannot include multiples of the same character in an army.

I'm sorry - the definition of special character is fluff?
And that's a useless quote as "same" is exactly what's being debated.
Based on the fact that the name is what makes a character special and not it's profile, gear, etc. I don't see any other way to determine uniqueness.

rigeld2 wrote:
I'm sorry - the definition of special character is fluff?

It's not the definition, it's just some fluff about special characters having cool names and titles. The actual definition is a character with the "unique" rule. And what we have here is a GK unit with the "unique" rule, and a different C:I unit with the "unique" rule. They're two separate units, just like tactical squads from different marine armies are separate units even though they have the same name. So taking one of each does not violate the "unique" rule. The fluff that they're supposed to be representing the same person in the background fiction is irrelevant.

If so you can presumably take two Farsights in the same army, one from the Tau codex and one from the supplement.

 King Pyrrhus wrote:
If so you can presumably take two Farsights in the same army, one from the Tau codex and one from the supplement.

No, because the Farsight supplement tells you to use the Tau list with some modifications. If you took Farsight in both detachments you'd be taking the same unit twice, which violates the "unique" rule.. C:I is a different situation because you have two separate army lists containing two separate units with different rules that just happen to share a name and some fluff (kind of like tactical squads in BA vs. C:SM).

 Peregrine wrote:
C:I is a different situation because you have two separate army lists containing two separate units with different rules that just happen to share a name and some fluff (kind of like tactical squads in BA vs. C:SM).

Poor example as tactical squads do not bear the "Unique" rule with them.

I'm of the opinion that Coteaz is unique, regardless of which codex he is from.

Unique
Each special character is unique, so a player cannot include multiples of the same character in an army.

Ok, so we have a rule for unique. Unique calls a "special character" unique. What is a special character then? According to the BRB under Special Characters, "these unique individuals, who stand out from normal characters because they have a personal name and not just a title, are called 'special characters'." There is no other reference.

A special character is not a special character *because* it is tagged unique, but rather because it bears a "personal name".

Does the 'unique' (without capitalisation) in that sentence refer to the 'Unique' special rule though?

It only says that some units are called special characters and that those have a personal name and title.

 Peregrine wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
I'm sorry - the definition of special character is fluff?

It's not the definition, it's just some fluff about special characters having cool names and titles. The actual definition is a character with the "unique" rule. And what we have here is a GK unit with the "unique" rule, and a different C:I unit with the "unique" rule. They're two separate units, just like tactical squads from different marine armies are separate units even though they have the same name. So taking one of each does not violate the "unique" rule. The fluff that they're supposed to be representing the same person in the background fiction is irrelevant.

Could you share where that definition exists?
The unique rule says that you cannot have two of the same special character. Define what a special character is.

You may find more willing people, but overall I think a solid judgment call on this is, 'No, only one.'

If you play someone who has both, and argues that both are allowed, look for another game, because that is the tip of what will probably be an ice berg of arguments.

rigeld2 wrote:
Could you share where that definition exists?
The unique rule says that you cannot have two of the same special character. Define what a special character is.

"...these unique individuals, who stand out from normal characters because they have a personal name and not just a title, are called 'special characters'. Special characters are highly skilled and dangerous heroes who have incredible traits or skills that make them particularly valuable to an army." 110

"Unique Each special character is unique, so a player cannot include multiples of the same special character in an army" (110)

In the case of Coteaz, the two units are not the same.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Could you share where that definition exists?
The unique rule says that you cannot have two of the same special character. Define what a special character is.

"...these unique individuals, who stand out from normal characters because they have a personal name and not just a title, are called 'special characters'. Special characters are highly skilled and dangerous heroes who have incredible traits or skills that make them particularly valuable to an army." 110

"Unique Each special character is unique, so a player cannot include multiples of the same special character in an army" (110)

In the case of Coteaz, the two units are not the same.

Can you cite a rule that defines a special character other than by name? How are you determining "sameness" - please support with actual rules instead of assumptions. So far all you've quoted is that they're defined by name, and the 2 names are demonstrably the same.

I remember not to long ago a debate existed over a particular Tau HQ unit. This particular unit had a title, not a name, but thanks to the Tau's particular naming schematics it was very difficult to tell. There where quite a few number of people believed that the unit's name was a unique name, or at the very least the title was enough to trigger page 110. It isn't a particularly overpowered HQ, but it's abilities do contain a multiplier for a standard troops so it is alluring to take more then one of them for a larger boost to your army for the same price as a single HQ unit. Some people where more then willing to argue that their title and HQ slot marked them as a clear unique character that should not be allowed more then once.

That debate was settled not by trying to argue that the unit's name was a 'generic title' but by pointing to the unit compositions lack of the tag (unique).

Then there is the particular tank upgrade that allows you to put a clearly uniquely named character on the field: Longstriker. There are still people out there that wish to use page 110 as permission to claim that Longstriker is a special character and if you look at the section of page 110 Rigeld2 is quoting then it is very difficult to deny them. Longstriker is a unique name and he has a whole page dedicated to him within the Tau codex, much like you would find for every other character that clearly is 'special.' It wouldn't matter that all the rules concerning characters can never apply to a non-walker vehicle, page 110 states he is a special character so therefore he gains all the rules under that section.

Now that was settled by pointing out it is an update to a tank, one that doesn't modify the profile... hence the lack of both a (character) tag and a (unique) tag.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rigeld2,

For me it has always been the inclusion of the (unique) tag on the profile that informed me the character was somehow 'special.'

As for explaining how they can be considered different units via rules as written:
At the start of each Army List section is a page detailing what this section involves and how one is meant to read the entries. Within this section there is a single sentence that reads the following, found I believe in all codex's: Each entry is a separate unit. This means we have a solid rule informing us that each individual entry in a single unit for all rule purposes. Now, I am unsure if a a rule exists to state that each Codex's Army List's are separate from each other but that is pretty much given if it is not there. The (unique) tag prevents us from selecting that unit twice for a single army but in this case we are selecting two separate units.

I doubt, very much so, this was an intended outcome but again... this is what happens when you use identical name for units and don't give a damn about how the rules interact!

JinxDragon wrote:
Rigeld2,

For me it has always been the inclusion of the (unique) tag on the profile that informed me the character was somehow 'special.'

So you just flat out ignore the rule on page 110 defining what denotes a special character?

They're from different codices, so they're different units. Different units can be included in the same army, otherwise Warhammer 40k would be Tactical Marine spam.

 BrotherOfBone wrote:
They're from different codices, so they're different units. Different units can be included in the same army, otherwise Warhammer 40k would be Tactical Marine spam.

It's almost like you're comparing a special character to a normal unit. That would be a poor argument though so I'm sure you weren't actually doing that and you actually meant something else.

Rigeld2,

In the same way people ignore other 'fluffy' content in found within other sections of this book, even in some situations where the rules could apply without breaking but are simply not clear enough. I also have a problem if the 'fluffy' like content could be used in a way that clearly is not intended or can be applied to situations in which to break rules. As I pointed out in the rest of that post, it is far too easy to expand the part of page 110 that you are quoting to include things it was not intended to include. It is also possible to apply the definition you are quoting in ways that will lead to broken situations, making it even more questionable if it is nothing more then a fluffy explanation on why a model with the (unique) tag is special.

The problem here, as I keep pointing out, is not the definition on page 110 and 'is it fluffy?' It is Game Workshops complete lack of respect for their own terminology when they penned this thrice-damned "detachment." A good game writer would never have taken an identical named unit from another books and not have them linked via rules. There would be a single sentence, at least, which states 'Taking this entry prevents you from taking the same unit from codex X.' There would be something solid instead of having to fall back on a 'questionably fluffy' definition that is stuffed out of the way in a location where it is very easily overlooked.

But then again a good rule writer wouldn't of released half a Codex as a 'detachment....'

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Could you share where that definition exists?
The unique rule says that you cannot have two of the same special character. Define what a special character is.

"...these unique individuals, who stand out from normal characters because they have a personal name and not just a title, are called 'special characters'. Special characters are highly skilled and dangerous heroes who have incredible traits or skills that make them particularly valuable to an army." 110

"Unique Each special character is unique, so a player cannot include multiples of the same special character in an army" (110)

In the case of Coteaz, the two units are not the same.

Can you cite a rule that defines a special character other than by name? How are you determining "sameness" - please support with actual rules instead of assumptions. So far all you've quoted is that they're defined by name, and the 2 names are demonstrably the same.

I quoted it, but I will quote it again...

"Special characters are highly skilled and dangerous heroes who have incredible traits or skills that make them particularly valuable to an army." 110

this is what Special characters are. So if two SC's do not have the same "traits or skills" then they are not the same even if they have the same name.

So you're just going to ignore the sentence before that ... why exactly?

Rigeld2,

One simple question: Do you consider a Longstrike Hammerhead to be a special character as per your definition?

JinxDragon wrote:
Rigeld2,

One simple question: Do you consider a Longstrike Hammerhead to be a special character as per your definition?

Not having the codex in question I can't answer that.

He is chosen as an upgrade to a Hammerhead, his rules in the army selection say once per army... I'd say he's as much a special character as Chronus is a special character...

rigeld2 wrote:
So you're just going to ignore the sentence before that ... why exactly?

Not ignoring it the first sentence tells you that things with names are special characters, the second sentence tells you what they are.

The two sentences define what a SC is.

Not just the first sentence.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So you're just going to ignore the sentence before that ... why exactly?

Not ignoring it the first sentence tells you that things with names are special characters, the second sentence tells you what they are.

The two sentences define what a SC is.

Not just the first sentence.

Right - and for coteaz to clone himself in one army you have to ignore the first sentence. You're asserting that it's only the second sentence that matters.

Matt1785,

Yes Longstrike is nothing more then a upgrade purchased for a standard HammerHead tank. While it is one which over-write key elements of the Hammerheads existing profile, much like a few other upgrades which are 'special characters,' it has one big difference. The other specialized character 'upgrades' replace the entire profile and this new profile contains a tag within the unit composition section to inform us that it is a (unique) character. None of the changes made by Longstriker have anything to do with a profile, all they do is add a few special rules and change a few of the profile numbers around to the existing profile. It doesn't add the (character) tag or the (unique) tag.

Yet, if Rigeld2 is correct and all you need is a unique name in order to evoke page 110's boons and banes, then nothing can deny Longstriker. After all Longstriker does have an entire page dedicated to how he is a hero of the Tau army, highlighting his unique skills when it comes to piloting a Hammerhead and how he earned his very unique name for being such a keen shot. This page is formatted exactly as every other 'special characters' information page, and if I am remembering correctly is found in the same section as the other 'special characters.' This entry matches all the criteria put forth, not just the unique name section, so it would be very difficult to state Longstriker is not a special character. Interestingly enough, it even refers to the Hammerhead afterwards by the name of "Longstriker's Hammerhead" repetitively so it sort of cements it in there.

The fact there is always a Unit Composition section, which will have the (unique) tag for a special character, is it not possible to state this is how Game Workshop informs us if a unit is 'special?'

An army with two Coteai is a symbolic metaphor for his double headed eagle.

rigeld2 wrote:
Right - and for coteaz to clone himself...

Since he appears in almost every Grey Knight army list in existence, I think the Imperium must be doing a roaring trade on clones.

"Unique Each special character is unique, so a player cannot include multiples of the same special character in an army" (110)

.

that each SP C is unique is the defining rule here.

we have two special characters, that are different to one another.

they share the same name, but they have differences, making each one unique,

RAW yes you can take two, they are two sets of rules with differences between them, meaning each one is unique and not identical to the other.

HIWPI if obviously you can only take one or the other of coteaz and karamazov (who also has different rules between dexes)

I doubt anyone would let you really, pretty obvious what the intent is, but RAW is stupid sometimes

 easysauce wrote:

they share the same name, but they have differences, making each one unique,

RAW yes you can take two, they are two sets of rules with differences between them, meaning each one is unique and not identical to the other.

Thats not RAW, that is an unfounded assertion. The only way the BRB tells us to differentiate one special character from another is their name. We are never told that their unit, nor their codex, nor their wargear, nor their rules will differentiate them. If you want to have the opinion that the characters are different because something other then the name is different go right ahead, but if you want to claim that your opinion is supported by RAW, then show how it is supported.

The only RAW we have tells us that character's with a personal name are unique. Characters with the same must be the same character regardless of any other factor.

I'd like to point out that not all 'unique' characters even have a personally identifiable name.

I mean I'm sure 'vindicare assassin' mk XIVII has 'something' that his friends call him when they all gather around the pile of skulls to talk shop, but we never actually learn what it is and there is no indication in it's writeup of such.

If the name is the only rules-specific indication of something that is unique then we are free to field as many of the above as we like, subject to FOC restrictions? obviously the answer is 'no', and just as obviously not having a specific name doesn't make a model any less subject to the unique rules. (the corollary of this is that there are other factors than name which indicate unique status within an army)

Have to agree with rigeld2 on this. Per BRB pg110; Named Characters are also Unique and you can not field more than one Unique (Named) Character in any Army.

Now their are some Unique units that are not named, The Emperors Champion for example, but every named character is unique.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So you're just going to ignore the sentence before that ... why exactly?

Not ignoring it the first sentence tells you that things with names are special characters, the second sentence tells you what they are.

The two sentences define what a SC is.

Not just the first sentence.

Right - and for coteaz to clone himself in one army you have to ignore the first sentence. You're asserting that it's only the second sentence that matters.

No you don't.

"Unique Each special character is unique, so a player cannot include multiples of the same special character in an army" (110)

Coteaz with one set of rules from C:I is a different SC than Coteaz from the GK book as they are in fact different, they are not the "the same special character"

 Neorealist wrote:

If the name is the only rules-specific indication of something that is unique then we are free to field as many of the above as we like, subject to FOC restrictions? obviously the answer is 'no', and just as obviously not having a specific name doesn't make a model any less subject to the unique rules. (the corollary of this is that there are other factors than name which indicate unique status within an army)

I'm not sure what you are getting at so I appoloigise if I'm just repeating what you meant, but if a model is a character and if that character has a personal name then it is a special character and that special character is unique. Other models that are not special characters may also be unique but we need special instruction, like we have with the vindicare assassin, to know this about the model.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Coteaz with one set of rules from C:I is a different SC than Coteaz from the GK book as they are in fact different, they are not the "the same special character"

That is your opinion, and that opinion is not founded nor is it supported by anything within the rules.


We know that a special character is defined by its name, pg110, so special characters with the same name must be the same special character unless we have been told otherwise. We have absolutely not been told that special characters in different books with the same name are two different special characters, nor have we been told that about two special characters with different rules with same name are two different characters.

As rigeld2 pointed out we are told that special characters "stand out from normal characters because they have a personal name".

To be honest i dont really get the discussion here. Not only do we have this little bit that tells us that the characters name is indeed important but additionally if we disregard it we get to a ridiculous interpretation of fielding 2x Coteaz.

RAW: No double Coteaz
Hiwpi: No double Coteaz
RAI: No double Coteaz

It doesn't say they have a _unique_ personal name though.

 DJGietzen wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Coteaz with one set of rules from C:I is a different SC than Coteaz from the GK book as they are in fact different, they are not the "the same special character"

That is your opinion, and that opinion is not founded nor is it supported by anything within the rules.


We know that a special character is defined by its name, pg110, so special characters with the same name must be the same special character unless we have been told otherwise. We have absolutely not been told that special characters in different books with the same name are two different special characters, nor have we been told that about two special characters with different rules with same name are two different characters.

(Emphasis mine)

As I have shown, with rules quotes, your statement is incorrect. (The underlined)

The two characters are different SC's

"...these unique individuals, who stand out from normal characters because they have a personal name and not just a title, are called 'special characters'. Special characters are highly skilled and dangerous heroes who have incredible traits or skills that make them particularly valuable to an army." 110

In the case of Coteaz, the two units are not the same. The traits and skills, as well as the name have to be accounted for as per P. 110

Unless they are the twin brothers Dave and Tom Coteaz, then they are the same special/unique/independent/individual/whatever-adjective-you-choose character, and to field two would make you a) a feth-hat and b) break the rules.

DR - no, that second sentence does not define what an SC is, and how you know you have one. It is pure fluff, with no in game rule. It says they are "highly skilled" - not that "they have unique skills" which is where you assertion that this matters in determinign if Coteaz from GK is the same character as the one from I would be based on.

The first line states the definition of an SC, and how you determine their uniqueness - the personal name. This first is the same, therefore they ARE the same.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The first line states the definition of an SC, and how you determine their uniqueness - the personal name. This first is the same, therefore they ARE the same.

No it doesn't. It just says that all unique characters have a name. Nothing in that rule says that the test for duplicate uniques is having the same name rather than being two copies of the same unit (from the same army list). So what we have is two different unique characters named Coteaz. They are indisputably unique characters, so you can't take two copies of GK Coteaz or C:I Coteaz. You can, however, take one of each, since they are not the same unit.

Nothing in that rule states the test for duplicates; it says you cannot have two of the same unique character, and tells you the name is the defining characteristic you need to use for this.

You know that GK Coteaz is a unique char called ""Coteaz". There is therefore only one possibly COTEAZ in the entire army

You try to buy another Coteaz - source irrelevant - but cannot do so, as you are allowed only ONE COTEAZ in your army.

You are making the claim that you can, in essence, append "GK" or "I" to the char name, to make the Coteaz that is unique to GK different to the Coteaz that is unique to I. Except nothing gives you permission to use the codex as the differentiator; you are told the unit name is the only determiner of "unique"

Coteaz, from either book, is the unique character Coteaz. You cannot have more than one.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Nothing in that rule states the test for duplicates; it says you cannot have two of the same unique character, and tells you the name is the defining characteristic you need to use for this.

No it doesn't. It says that every unique character has a name. It does not say that the name is the defining characteristic.

You know that GK Coteaz is a unique char called ""Coteaz". There is therefore only one possibly COTEAZ in the entire army

You're right. You can't take two copies of the GK Coteaz in your army.

You try to buy another Coteaz - source irrelevant - but cannot do so, as you are allowed only ONE COTEAZ in your army.

No, because the C:I Coteaz is not the same Coteaz, just like BA tactical squads are not C:SM tactical squads. They are two different units in two different army lists that just happen to share a name and some fluff.

Except nothing gives you permission to use the codex as the differentiator; you are told the unit name is the only determiner of "unique"

No you aren't. Read the "unique" rule again, it just says that you can't have two copies of a unique character. Nothing about the name is mentioned, so we use the same standard we use for telling what any other unit is: the entry in the army list. Therefore all the "unique" rule says is that you can't make the same choice from the army list twice.

 Peregrine wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Nothing in that rule states the test for duplicates; it says you cannot have two of the same unique character, and tells you the name is the defining characteristic you need to use for this.

No it doesn't. It says that every unique character has a name. It does not say that the name is the defining characteristic.

100% of what Peregrine said is true.

It does not say that the name is the defining characteristic.

DR - so you recant that the second line has any bearing on your argument? Just to be clear.

Peregrine - no, it says a SC is defined by their name. That is the only char. we have to know what an SC is. AS it is the only way we are told we can know what an SC is, it is the only determiner we have for telling when we have two of the same, or two different ones.

GK Coteaz is the same as I Coteaz *as regards being an SC* because that is what we are told we look out for when determining what SC we have. We know we can have ONE Coteaz only, not one "GK" Coteaz.

Stop strawmanning with Tac vs BA Tac. When normal units have a rule stating their name defines that they are unique, then you can include them.

DJGietzen wrote:I'm not sure what you are getting at so I appoloigise if I'm just repeating what you meant, but if a model is a character and if that character has a personal name then it is a special character and that special character is unique. Other models that are not special characters may also be unique but we need special instruction, like we have with the vindicare assassin, to know this about the model.

What I'm saying is that some 'unique' models such as vindicare assassins do not have personally identifiable names, but are still unique characters nonetheless. Therefore, the contravention of the unique tag is not solely determined by having a specific name, but rather also something intrinsic to a given writeup. (since non-named unique characters still qualify)

We know how to identify a special character - by its name. Agreed?

We know that we are only allowed to have one of a special character. Agreed?

How do I know if I have 2 of a special character? Well, let's look at identifying the models in my army. Tac Squad - nope not a special character. Marneus? Special character. Assault Squad - not a special character. Marneus? Special character and I already have one. Whoops.

rigeld2 wrote:
We know how to identify a special character - by its name. Agreed?

Nope. you identify a unique character by it having the unique and character rules. The name is interesting, but as there are unique characters without a specifically identifiable name, verifying it solely by the name doesn't work.

 Neorealist wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
We know how to identify a special character - by its name. Agreed?

Nope. you identify a unique character by it having the unique and character rules. The name is interesting, but as there are unique characters without a specifically identifiable name, verifying it solely by the name doesn't work.

Despite the actual rules on page 110?
And despite the fact that the Vindicaire still works fine using the name? The difference is that not all special characters have the Unique rule in their profile - page 110 gives them that.

Indeed, the vindicare 'does' work fine without having ...a personal name and not just a title.... Therefore there is more to the unique rules than just the name of the character: The presence of the unique rule specifically, regardless of what the character is named.

As such we default to the generic definition of the word 'same' in the sentence further on in the rules rather than the one defined by having 'a personal name'.

The Vindicare is Unique and a Character, but not a Special Character.

Cortez is a Special Character because he is a Named, Unique Character.

Jefffar wrote:
The Vindicare is Unique and a Character, but not a Special Character.

Cortez is a Special Character because he is a Named, Unique Character.

not entirely true, or at least that raises further rules issues. The unique rule "...Each special character is unique so a player cannot include multiples of the same special character in an army..." is the only thing preventing the presence of multiple assassins in one army, so perforce they (coteaz and our non-named example) both must be subject to it's rules.

 Neorealist wrote:
Indeed, the vindicare 'does' work fine without having ...a personal name and not just a title.... Therefore there is more to the unique rules than just the name of the character: The presence of the unique rule specifically, regardless of what the character is named.

As such we default to the generic definition of the word 'same' in the sentence further on in the rules rather than the one defined by having 'a personal name'.

Vindi's have the Unique special rule.
Therefore, for the rule to ever apply, they are a special character (the definition of the Unique SR applies only to special characters).
We know that the thing that separates a unit into being a Special Character is the name, as I've quoted on page 110.
Therefore, for them to be special characters, Vindicare Assassin must be a name.

rigeld2 wrote:
Vindi's have the Unique special rule.
Therefore, for the rule to ever apply, they are a special character (the definition of the Unique SR applies only to special characters).
We know that the thing that separates a unit into being a Special Character is the name, as I've quoted on page 110.
Therefore, for them to be special characters, Vindicare Assassin must be a name.

This is logical, true. That said it has no more or less rules support than the supposition that you need to refer to a models' rules text to determine wether or not it is 'the same' as any other given model.

 Neorealist wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Vindi's have the Unique special rule.
Therefore, for the rule to ever apply, they are a special character (the definition of the Unique SR applies only to special characters).
We know that the thing that separates a unit into being a Special Character is the name, as I've quoted on page 110.
Therefore, for them to be special characters, Vindicare Assassin must be a name.

This is logical, true. That said it has no more or less rules support than the supposition that you need to refer to a models' rules text to determine wether or not it is 'the same' as any other given model.

Please, cite rules support for Unique to apple solely to wargear and special rules and not the name. You'd be the first.
edit: And the unit's name is absolutely part of the rules text. You can pretend it's not, but that's not actually rules.

rigeld2 wrote:
Please, cite rules support for Unique to apple solely to wargear and special rules and not the name. You'd be the first.
edit: And the unit's name is absolutely part of the rules text. You can pretend it's not, but that's not actually rules.

I'm not claiming a units name is not part of it's rules-text. Please refer to what I actually said, not some strangely convoluted inference.

What I 'am' saying is that the vindicare does not have a personal name rather than a title and yet is obviously subject to the unique rules. Therefore a definition indicating that one should be looking only at the personal name of a given special character to determine if it is 'the same' is obviously flawed.

 Neorealist wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Please, cite rules support for Unique to apple solely to wargear and special rules and not the name. You'd be the first.
edit: And the unit's name is absolutely part of the rules text. You can pretend it's not, but that's not actually rules.

I'm not claiming a units name is not part of it's rules-text. Please refer to what I actually said, not some strangely convoluted inference.

What I 'am' saying is that the vindicare does not have a personal name rather than a title and yet is obviously subject to the unique rules. Therefore a definition indicating that one should be looking only at the personal name of a given special character to determine if it is 'the same' is obviously flawed.

It must have a name, or the unique rule doesn't apply. Those are the two options - one renders a rule irrelevant (Unique on assassins) the other works perfectly. Therefore the one that renders a rule irrelevant should be ignored as incorrect.

Rules wise the Vindicare is a unquie special character.
It's only the fluff that would suggest there's more than one.

rigeld2 wrote:
It must have a name, or the unique rule doesn't apply. Those are the two options - one renders a rule irrelevant (Unique on assassins) the other works perfectly. Therefore the one that renders a rule irrelevant should be ignored as incorrect.

on the contrary, the unique rule functions just fine without the model having a 'personal name'. The reason it does so is because it refers to the entirety of the models' rules to determine similarity, not just it's 'personal name'.

 Neorealist wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
It must have a name, or the unique rule doesn't apply. Those are the two options - one renders a rule irrelevant (Unique on assassins) the other works perfectly. Therefore the one that renders a rule irrelevant should be ignored as incorrect.

on the contrary, the unique rule functions just fine without the model having a 'personal name'. The reason it does so is because it refers to the entirety of the models' rules to determine similarity, not just it's 'personal name'.

The Unique rule only applies to Special Characters. Agreed? (I hope so, because that's what the rules say)
Therefore the Vindicare must have a personal name. Agreed?
We know that Special Characters are identified by their personal name. Agreed? (I hope so, because that's what the rules say)

rigeld2 wrote:
The Unique rule only applies to Special Characters. Agreed? (I hope so, because that's what the rules say)
Therefore the Vindicare must have a personal name. Agreed?
We know that Special Characters are identified by their personal name. Agreed? (I hope so, because that's what the rules say)

I agree with your first statement. Your second however is pure supposition, presumably stated in order to form a coherent bridge to your last statement.

I'd just as easily say: "The vindicare is a special character because it has the 'unique and 'character' rules in it's rules-text" and "Special characters are identified by the entirety of their rules-text" and be just as correct, rules-wise.

 Neorealist wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
The Unique rule only applies to Special Characters. Agreed? (I hope so, because that's what the rules say)
Therefore the Vindicare must have a personal name. Agreed?
We know that Special Characters are identified by their personal name. Agreed? (I hope so, because that's what the rules say)

I agree with your first statement. Your second however is pure supposition, presumably stated in order to form a coherent bridge to your last statement.

I'd just as easily say: "The vindicare is a special character because it has the 'unique and 'character' rules in it's rules-text" and "Special characters are identified by the entirety of their rules-text" and be just as correct, rules-wise.

Except you'd need to actually cite something to support "Special characters are identified by the entirety of their rules-text". Pesky rules and all.

IF the 2 coteazs have the same name, the same stats, and the same cost. They are obviously the same person, and are therefore two entries of the same unique character.

"...these unique individuals, who stand out from normal characters because they have a personal name and not just a title, are called 'special characters'. Special characters are highly skilled and dangerous heroes who have incredible traits or skills that make them particularly valuable to an army." 110

"Unique Each special character is unique, so a player cannot include multiples of the same special character in an army" (110)

In the case of Coteaz, the two units are not the same.

This is rules lawyering at its worst, if anyone tries this at any event I run I will consider it cheating in the highest regard and they will be dq'd, you are all of course free as usual to do as you please, just stating my stance on this

You can have them both, but according to the legend rule they destroy each other when they are on the battlefield at the same time!

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
You can have them both, but according to the legend rule they destroy each other when they are on the battlefield at the same time!

Haha this I like

Before I head back and re-read what has been posted since, I do have an interesting pondering from yesterday's research:
Where is it written that Special Characters are "Characters?"

This is a curious line of thought because I fear I might have a walked away with a misconception the last time the Longstriker and Special Character situation was brought up. That possible misconception, that Special Characters are bound by Character rules, may have led to an erroneous conclusion in the idea that non-walker vehicles can not be Special Characters. Page 110 would be, effectively, useless in this conclusion but it would not be in conflict with the idea of Longstriker being a Special Character.

 Formosa wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
You can have them both, but according to the legend rule they destroy each other when they are on the battlefield at the same time!

Haha this I like

MTG FTW!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JinxDragon wrote:
Before I head back and re-read what has been posted since, I do have an interesting pondering from yesterday's research:
Where is it written that Special Characters are "Characters?"

This is a curious line of thought because I fear I might have a walked away with a misconception the last time the Longstriker and Special Character situation was brought up. That possible misconception, that Special Characters are bound by Character rules, may have led to an erroneous conclusion in the idea that non-walker vehicles can not be Special Characters. Page 110 would be, effectively, useless in this conclusion but it would not be in conflict with the idea of Longstriker being a Special Character.

Well, he isn't technically a character, but vehicle wargear that is one per army (assuming that you are talking about Longstike or the honorific I like to call him by, Titan-slayer).

Indeed, but the argument was that his unique name would make him a Special Character and that in turn binds him to the Character rules. There was an argument that this couldn't be correct because it would lead to some very oddities within the rules themselves, therefore he could not be a Special Character. For example, it would make it possible for him to accept and issue challenges during assaults. While Longstriker is amazing, I don't think he makes a habit of personally coming out of his tank to whack the Titans in the knees with his over-sized.... In any case, if it was a misconception then nothing would really make Longstriker being a 'Special Character' broken in any regards.

It does render page 110 redundant because all Special Characters have some rule or another that makes them (unique) like that wouldn't need to use page 110 for permission.

Page 9

Q: Do models classified as unique count as characters? (p63)
A: Yes, but not in the case of vehicles (with the exception of Bjorn the Fell-handed).

 DeathReaper wrote:
"...these unique individuals, who stand out from normal characters because they have a personal name and not just a title, are called 'special characters'. Special characters are highly skilled and dangerous heroes who have incredible traits or skills that make them particularly valuable to an army." 110

"Unique Each special character is unique, so a player cannot include multiples of the same special character in an army" (110)

In the case of Coteaz, the two units are not the same.

I'm curious, where in the rule you quoted does it say "Special characters are identified by the entirety of their rules text."? Could you bold it for me? I apologize for apparently being blind.

Thank you Grendel083,

This explains why I constantly overlooked where that long dead debate point was stemming from... damn you Frequently Asked Questions, daaaaamn you!

Interesting that they single out non-walker vehicles, keeping in mind that forge world has produced a few special character walkers along the same lines as Bjorn. It would still allow the possibility of applying the Special Character rules to Longstrike and his kin, giving them the 'title' even though it does not provide any additional boon or bane in these situations. In fact, it still raises the possibility that page 110 is quite redundant in nearly every situation*. After all, everything which could trigger as a 'Special Character' has some other rule informing us they where a one-per-army choice.

*The situation being discussed at the core of this thread might make this page a spooky level of clairvoyance on the behalf of Game Workshop writers, if the name is meant to be a defining limitation.

rigeld2 wrote:
Except you'd need to actually cite something to support "Special characters are identified by the entirety of their rules-text". Pesky rules and all.

Funny how that works eh? The rules you are looking for are on page 2 and 3: "...Models represent a huge variety of troops, from noble Space Marines and brutal Orks to Warp-spawned Daemons. To reflect all their differences, each model has its own characteristics profile..."

Please feel free to find rules which support only comparing 'one' of a models' rules in order to verify if they are 'the same'?

 Neorealist wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Except you'd need to actually cite something to support "Special characters are identified by the entirety of their rules-text". Pesky rules and all.

Funny how that works eh? The rules you are looking for are on page 2 and 3: "...Models represent a huge variety of troops, from noble Space Marines and brutal Orks to Warp-spawned Daemons. To reflect all their differences, each model has its own characteristics profile..."

Please feel free to find rules which support only comparing 'one' of a models' rules in order to verify if they are 'the same'?

Fair enough. Given that rule I'll concede that the stupidity is legal, though obviously not intended.

rigeld2 567671 6337371 wrote: Given that rule I'll concede that the stupidity is legal, though obviously not intended.

I agree with you: I do not feel GW had multiple Coteii in mind when they put him into the Inquisitor book either and fully expect the eventual FAQ will support that contention.

I am thinking that it may have been intended though ... GW has often copy and pasted from one dex to the next when writing the books .... why would they go through the trouble of copy and paste the points and name then change some of the rules that Coteaz has unless you wanted to distinguish between the two. Not sure but that is the only thing that I can come up with for changing anything from one dex to the next.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
"...these unique individuals, who stand out from normal characters because they have a personal name and not just a title, are called 'special characters'. Special characters are highly skilled and dangerous heroes who have incredible traits or skills that make them particularly valuable to an army." 110

"Unique Each special character is unique, so a player cannot include multiples of the same special character in an army" (110)

In the case of Coteaz, the two units are not the same.

I'm curious, where in the rule you quoted does it say "Special characters are identified by the entirety of their rules text."? Could you bold it for me? I apologize for apparently being blind.

Neorealist beat me to it, but as he said:

page 2 and 3: "...Models represent a huge variety of troops, from noble Space Marines and brutal Orks to Warp-spawned Daemons. To reflect all their differences, each model has its own characteristics profile..."

Ergo: you can have Coteaz from C:I and Coteaz from C:GK in the same army (Different detachments), as the two are not the same.

I do think we are all in agreement that the ability to select the 'same' Special Character twice, simply because it is two different codex entries, was not intended. Hell I still have this nagging feeling that this 'detachment' was never intended to be released like this. They where working on a replacement for the Gray Knights, completed the more interesting stuff and then struck on the idea of releasing 'detachments,' 'formations' and other micro-transaction like developments we are now starting to see. It really does feel they just threw half a codex into production....

OK, pages 2 and 3 are extremely relevant here, but its a nail in the coffin of a double Coteaz lists. The characteristic profile is only the name and nine characteristics. Both GK:Coteaz and I:Coteaz have identical characteristic profiles. Regardless of any other differences the models are the same character according to page 2 and 3.

JinxDragon wrote:
I do think we are all in agreement that the ability to select the 'same' Special Character twice, simply because it is two different codex entries, was not intended. Hell I still have this nagging feeling that this 'detachment' was never intended to be released like this. They where working on a replacement for the Gray Knights, completed the more interesting stuff and then struck on the idea of releasing 'detachments,' 'formations' and other micro-transaction like developments we are now starting to see. It really does feel they just threw half a codex into production....

Except they are not the same SC...

They are two different SC's from two different books and they are not Identical.

 DeathReaper wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
I do think we are all in agreement that the ability to select the 'same' Special Character twice, simply because it is two different codex entries, was not intended. Hell I still have this nagging feeling that this 'detachment' was never intended to be released like this. They where working on a replacement for the Gray Knights, completed the more interesting stuff and then struck on the idea of releasing 'detachments,' 'formations' and other micro-transaction like developments we are now starting to see. It really does feel they just threw half a codex into production....

Except they are not the same SC...

They are two different SC's from two different books and they are not Identical.

They are 100% identical as far as pages 2,3 and 110 are concerned. They have the same personal name and the same characteristic profile. Nothing else matters. Ergo same special character.

 DeathReaper wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
I do think we are all in agreement that the ability to select the 'same' Special Character twice, simply because it is two different codex entries, was not intended. Hell I still have this nagging feeling that this 'detachment' was never intended to be released like this. They where working on a replacement for the Gray Knights, completed the more interesting stuff and then struck on the idea of releasing 'detachments,' 'formations' and other micro-transaction like developments we are now starting to see. It really does feel they just threw half a codex into production....

Except they are not the same SC...

They are two different SC's from two different books and they are not Identical.

So you agree that other than the book they come from they are identical?
You are only allowed 1 per army, not 1 per book.
Anyone who tries to play with 2 Coteaz...is probably not worth playing against IMO.

Ok in a tournament I think the TO is going to say no even tho they aren't the same exactly(even tho I think the RAW would allow it) and if you try it in a friendly game you are gonna be that guy. I mean it is the exact same model used. Are they making a 2nd official Coteaz model? It is obvious it is the same person. Shouldn't be allowed because of what I'll call the, "Silly Factor".

I don't have either the GK or Inq Codices, but if Coteaz's name is spelled the same in both books, and his characteristics, ie. statline, are the same in both, then it's very clearly the same Coteaz. Do the pro-twin theorists really expect anybody to accept this being used in real game?

But if it's decided by GW or a TO that you can take 2 Coteaz's because they're in a different book, then do I get to use 2 Abaddons or Kharns? Cuz that would AWESOME! or are they not actually in the Black Legion supplement? On my Christmas list......

DeathReaper,

Hence the use of the ' ' marks around same as it could be disputable.

 DJGietzen wrote:
OK, pages 2 and 3 are extremely relevant here, but its a nail in the coffin of a double Coteaz lists. The characteristic profile is only the name and nine characteristics. Both GK:Coteaz and I:Coteaz have identical characteristic profiles. Regardless of any other differences the models are the same character according to page 2 and 3.

You are missing the rule on page 3 referring to Other Important Information, notably that a model: "...might have one or more special rules (see page 32)...". Some of these are different for Inq: Coteaz and GK: Coteaz.

Also please note: (on page 110) "...Special characters roll for Warlord traits as normal, unless their profiles specifically notes that they have a fixed Warlord trait..."
One does. The other just as clearly does not.

Different Profiles. Very similar, mind you but different in at least that aspect.

Hypothetically (unlikely though it may be) if there was an Eldar Special Character named, "The Ghost (unique)" and a Dark Eldar Special Character named, "The Ghost (unique)" with identical statlines (but different special rules), they could not be taken in the same allied army?

For me, that's the problem here. If the two Coteazes were identical in all respects, then I would agree that they cannot both be fielded. Since they are, genuinely, different units (however similar) I think it's reasonable to view them as 'unique' with regards to the their own Codex, but not between each other.

RAW - Two Coteaz allowed (if they are taken from C:I and C:GK, respectively)
HIWPI - A single Coteaz, taken from either Codex.

DoW

One interesting thing to note here: when FW published rules for two different versions of the same special character (sergeant and chapter master) their rules explicitly said "this represents the same character at a different time in his career, you can't include both in the same army". Likewise for GW and the BA character with two sets of rules. This implies that the "same name" rule would not have been sufficient to prevent you from taking both of them in the absence of that explicit rule. So we can conclude that since GW didn't include a similar rule for Coteaz the two similar units are in fact different enough to be taken at the same time.

 Lord Krungharr wrote:
But if it's decided by GW or a TO that you can take 2 Coteaz's because they're in a different book, then do I get to use 2 Abaddons or Kharns? Cuz that would AWESOME! or are they not actually in the Black Legion supplement? On my Christmas list......

The difference is that the other supplements say "make your army using the codex army list, with these modifications". So if you take the same character in each detachment you're picking the exact same unit twice. C:I is different because instead of saying "use the GK army list" it contains its own separate army list. So if you take both versions of Coteaz you're actually taking two different units from two different army lists. People just simplify it to "double Coteaz" in casual conversation because they're so similar that it makes sense to talk about them as two copies of the same character.

 Neorealist wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
OK, pages 2 and 3 are extremely relevant here, but its a nail in the coffin of a double Coteaz lists. The characteristic profile is only the name and nine characteristics. Both GK:Coteaz and I:Coteaz have identical characteristic profiles. Regardless of any other differences the models are the same character according to page 2 and 3.

You are missing the rule on page 3 referring to Other Important Information, notably that a model: "...might have one or more special rules (see page 32)...". Some of these are different for Inq: Coteaz and GK: Coteaz.

Also please note: (on page 110) "...Special characters roll for Warlord traits as normal, unless their profiles specifically notes that they have a fixed Warlord trait..."
One does. The other just as clearly does not.

Different Profiles. Very similar, mind you but different in at least that aspect.

100% this.

Neorealist is correct.

a model: "...might have one or more special rules (see page 32)...". Some of these are different for Inq: Coteaz and GK: Coteaz.

"...Special characters roll for Warlord traits as normal, unless their profiles specifically notes that they have a fixed Warlord trait..."

Also a profile is not just the nuumbers according to Page 3, the Special rules are included in that.

Ergo they are not the same Special Character.

 Neorealist wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
OK, pages 2 and 3 are extremely relevant here, but its a nail in the coffin of a double Coteaz lists. The characteristic profile is only the name and nine characteristics. Both GK:Coteaz and I:Coteaz have identical characteristic profiles. Regardless of any other differences the models are the same character according to page 2 and 3.

You are missing the rule on page 3 referring to Other Important Information, notably that a model: "...might have one or more special rules (see page 32)...". Some of these are different for Inq: Coteaz and GK: Coteaz.

Also please note: (on page 110) "...Special characters roll for Warlord traits as normal, unless their profiles specifically notes that they have a fixed Warlord trait..."
One does. The other just as clearly does not.

Different Profiles. Very similar, mind you but different in at least that aspect.

No, I read that bit. I just didn't misunderstand it. Page 3 is very clear on what a characteristic profile is, and what it is not. Other important information is not part of a models characteristic profile, and page explains that by telling you that a model has a characteristic profile and it also has other important information. That information, like a models warlord trait, is part of the models profile, but not part of the models characteristic profile. A characteristic profile is only one part of a model's profile.

Page 2 does not say that to reflect all their differences each model has its own profile. It specifically calls out the models characteristic profile. The rest of the profile need not be the same for the special character to be the same.

What part of Coteaz characteristic profile is different between the books?

 DJGietzen wrote:

 Neorealist wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
OK, pages 2 and 3 are extremely relevant here, but its a nail in the coffin of a double Coteaz lists. The characteristic profile is only the name and nine characteristics. Both GK:Coteaz and I:Coteaz have identical characteristic profiles. Regardless of any other differences the models are the same character according to page 2 and 3.

You are missing the rule on page 3 referring to Other Important Information, notably that a model: "...might have one or more special rules (see page 32)...". Some of these are different for Inq: Coteaz and GK: Coteaz.

Also please note: (on page 110) "...Special characters roll for Warlord traits as normal, unless their profiles specifically notes that they have a fixed Warlord trait..."
One does. The other just as clearly does not.

Different Profiles. Very similar, mind you but different in at least that aspect.

No, I read that bit. I just didn't misunderstand it. Page 3 is very clear on what a characteristic profile is, and what it is not. Other important information is not part of a models characteristic profile, and page explains that by telling you that a model has a characteristic profile and it also has other important information. That information, like a models warlord trait, is part of the models profile, but not part of the models characteristic profile. A characteristic profile is only one part of a model's profile.

Page 2 does not say that to reflect all their differences each model has its own profile. It specifically calls out the models characteristic profile. The rest of the profile need not be the same for the special character to be the same.

What part of Coteaz characteristic profile is different between the books?

Well they are different models as each one has its own Characteristics profile.

"...Models represent a huge variety of troops, from noble Space Marines and brutal Orks to Warp-spawned Daemons. To reflect all their differences, each model has its own characteristics profile..." (3)

Therefore they are not the same.

 DJGietzen wrote:
What part of Coteaz characteristic profile is different between the books?

Just to be clear: Are you implying that the models 'profile' is something different from it's 'characteristics profile'? Since the two phrases are used interchangeably within the various descriptions of the rules on page 2 and 3. (and in other places throughout the book)

To be brief: One has a fixed warlord Trait. The other does not have a fixed warlord trait. This is a 'Difference'

I think logically you should only be allowed to take one (because in the 40k universe there is only one coteaz), but if you go by how the rule is (or rather isn't) written thn yeah you can take two.
Regardless - why would you want two?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Then again... You could counter the "only one coteaz in the 40k universe" argument with, he's my own inquisitor using coteaz's rules like people do with special characters all the time (using telion's rules for a vet scout serg in a chapter if your creation for example)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Another thing... With this whole special character definition business - why does it even matter?
The specialness of a character doesn't affect his rule set in any way, it's the "unique" that does.
Who cares which defines the other?!

Not sure if this is true or not but as I understand it the "unique" rule prevents you from taking two of the same unit entry (kind of like a 0-1 restriction).

Funny you should mention this...

The last Invasion Tournament I attended at Warhammer World was a doubles tournament with 600 points each. The guys that dominated all day actually ran double Cotez (which was legal since it was considered 2 separate armies as per the rules). Double Coteaz, double Stormraven and Plasma Servitor spam at 1200 points, padded out with Strike Squads and an ADL/Quad Gun... Yeah, not fun to play against... lol.

The inquisition coteaz does make henchman from inquisition troops. Also just don't do it. Ask yourself this. Does it break the game, if yes then don't do it.

Clearly Coteaz, after long years of searching, has finally found a worthy successor to carry on his legacy without having to resort to foul daemonic powers to prolong his life.

Cloning.

 Badablack wrote:
Clearly Coteaz, after long years of searching, has finally found a worthy successor to carry on his legacy without having to resort to foul daemonic powers to prolong his life.

Cloning.

Blam! Narrative forged.

 Peregrine wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
I'm sorry - the definition of special character is fluff?

It's not the definition, it's just some fluff about special characters having cool names and titles. The actual definition is a character with the "unique" rule. And what we have here is a GK unit with the "unique" rule, and a different C:I unit with the "unique" rule. They're two separate units, just like tactical squads from different marine armies are separate units even though they have the same name. So taking one of each does not violate the "unique" rule. The fluff that they're supposed to be representing the same person in the background fiction is irrelevant.

Great SCOTT! TIME TRAVEL!!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Badablack wrote:
Clearly Coteaz, after long years of searching, has finally found a worthy successor to carry on his legacy without having to resort to foul daemonic powers to prolong his life.

Cloning.

I prefer it to be more like the Dread Pirate Roberts. "I am actually the fourth Coteaz to bear the name...."

- J

I suspect the only plausible explanation for coteaz is that he is secretly a time-lord.

Deathreaper,

In reading your arguments, all you do is post something and claim it's proof.

For example, you kept stating ""...these unique individuals, who stand out from normal characters because they have a personal name and not just a title, are called 'special characters'. Special characters are highly skilled and dangerous heroes who have incredible traits or skills that make them particularly valuable to an army." 110"

Then you ignored the fact that that is actually not any sort of gameplay definition. Nor does it say anything about how many you may take. Other quotes provided by others with explanations were vastly more helpful, and actually addressed what was going on. Please choose your quotes more wisely, and explain your reasoning behind ones that don't actually say anything.