Here's an interesting question: Can you take Coteaz (Or that other inquisitor on the giant chair) twice? Once from the Grey Knights codex, once from the Inquisition codex? They're technically different units with the same name, and since they're from a different codex I would assume there's nothing stopping it exceot the cheese.
Also, if two Coteaz were in the same squad, would they get to fire I've Been Expecting You twice?

One per army as he is unique. So no.

teban wrote:
One per army as he is unique. So no.

But it's two different Coteaz's. Two models, two different entries, from two different codices. One can enter Grey Knights transports. The other can't. They even use different warlord trait charts. They just happen to have the same name, stats, and special rules.

Waaaghpower wrote:

teban wrote:
One per army as he is unique. So no.

But it's two different Coteaz's. Two models, two different entries, from two different codices. One can enter Grey Knights transports. The other can't. They even use different warlord trait charts. They just happen to have the same name, stats, and special rules.

And they are both unique characters with the same name. So no you can't take him twice

Where does the rulebook say that having the same name matters? It says you can't take the same unique character twice. Not that you can't take two unique characters with the same name.

I realize it's stupid, and I would never take 2 Coteaz' in a game, but there really isn't any RAW against it.

Where in the rulebook does it say different codex entries makes the same special character different?

 CrownAxe wrote:
Where in the rulebook does it say different codex entries makes the same special character different?

What if you had two models with the same fluff, rules, and stats, were in the same codex, and they had a different name? Can they be taken separately then?

Waaaghpower wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
Where in the rulebook does it say different codex entries makes the same special character different?

What if you had two models with the same fluff, rules, and stats, were in the same codex, and they had a different name? Can they be taken separately then?

Yeah

 CrownAxe wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
Where in the rulebook does it say different codex entries makes the same special character different?

What if you had two models with the same fluff, rules, and stats, were in the same codex, and they had a different name? Can they be taken separately then?

Yeah

Because the two different Coteaz have a lot more difference. Their allies are different. Their Warlord trait is different. Their codex entry is different. The vehicles they can enter and units they can join are different. They are not the same. So why are you counting them as the same?

They are both are the same unit because they are both denominated as Coteaz.

Changing gear and rules don't matter. A Tactical Marine who bought a flamer and has chapter tactics salamanders is still a Tactical Marine. A Chosen CSM with Mark of Nurgle is still a Chosen CSM. a Chapter Master on a bike is still a Chapter Master They're still the same kind of unit either way, so why should a Special Character change?

They are both the same guy. So unless you get your opponent to agree I wouldn't do it.

Try some type of warp storm fluff and 2 of Coteaz show up. That could be cool in a fun game but in a tournament I bet you'd get ruled against.

They have difference rules, so i say you can

Wow.

The only thing you can take from Coteaz being in C:I and C:GK is that there will be no Inquisitors in the new GK dex.

Until that happens we have to put up with a little bit of odd stuff.

That fact that this question has been asked makes it pretty clear that you know they are the same guy, albeit from different Codexes.

So really, why ask? Unique is unique and they are obviously the same character.

"Coteas" is unique, you cannot have more than one coteaz. Nothing in the rule for unique characters states that this denomination is relative to the codex, so you don't get to say "he is coteaz(gk) so is not coteaz(I) " as codex, nor rules, are considered.

No, you don't get him twice

This is actually a legitimate question or trolling?

Legitimate question i do believe.

I have once seen the argument that "Unique character" on page 5 or 6 says that they have "the same profile", but Coteaz(GK) and Coteaz(I) have different stat values. (Do they?)

If one has WS4 the other WS5, they are "different" unique characters.

I am however clearly on the side that the name of the (Unique) makes him the same character

Coteaz has the same profile in both Codexes

I just remember it as an argument (if it was ever changed). If he is the exact same profile, wargear etc, then the Rule for (unique) in the first pages of the BRB is what RaW bans you from taking both.

Waaaghpower wrote:
Where does the rulebook say that having the same name matters? It says you can't take the same unique character twice. Not that you can't take two unique characters with the same name.

I realize it's stupid, and I would never take 2 Coteaz' in a game, but there really isn't any RAW against it.

Sammael in his Jetbike and Sammael in his Landspeeder are actually vastly different in terms of stat-line, and what they bring to the battlefield. The Coteaz in both those books as far as I know is completely identical, save which army he's a part of.

Well , since you are obviously cheating by using a the fact the Inquisitors got there own codex to try and justify fielding two of the same character... I can't fathom how anyone could respond to this apart from bursting out laughing?

page 110 under unique it says
"Each special character is unique, so a player cannot include multiples of the same special character in an army."
So the way it reads to me, if the entry says Coteaz, you get one Coteaz(Choose either GK or INQ), regardless of codex source since it says one unique special character in "An army" not per detachment.

Per page 3 of the rulebook, each model has a profile, unit type, and possibly wargear (including weapons and armour) and possibly special rules.

The question is if two models have the same name, the same profile, the same unit type, the same wargear, but different rules, are they the same unit?

If so, then you cannot take multiple Coteaz. If not then you can. Both readings of RAW in this case are correct. However, I seriously doubt RAI would be 2 Coteaz.

Still curious:
Can anyone name any other unit that has a similar problem?
Or is it just Coteaz being included in multiple current codex/supplements?

JinxDragon wrote:
Still curious:
Can anyone name any other unit that has a similar problem?
Or is it just Coteaz being included in multiple current codex/supplements?

There's also that other Inquisitor on a fancy walker thing. Same deal, he's in the Inquisition book and the GK book.

Which means he won't be a good precedent case.... though I doubt, even if we found one other, that the problem would of been officially addressed.

Waaaghpower wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
Still curious:
Can anyone name any other unit that has a similar problem?
Or is it just Coteaz being included in multiple current codex/supplements?

There's also that other Inquisitor on a fancy walker thing. Same deal, he's in the Inquisition book and the GK book.

You are referring to Karamazov and he is also another unique character. Same as Coteaz. One per army, mate


You could look into generic inquisitors though

This maybe not the best example but red scorpions have two versions of carab culln, veteran sgt and chapter master. Although the rules are forgeworld they specifically forbid you taking both as it represents the same character at different points in his career.

I'd personally treat the two coteaz's (plural coteii?) the same way.

Blood Angels Chapter Master Dante, in the codex he is one price with a couple of extra buffs, in the data slate he is cheaper without the hit & run or precision strike.

However you are limited to choosing one or the other in my opinion.

 Tarthenal wrote:
This maybe not the best example but red scorpions have two versions of carab culln, veteran sgt and chapter master. Although the rules are forgeworld they specifically forbid you taking both as it represents the same character at different points in his career.

I'd personally treat the two coteaz's (plural coteii?) the same way.

Same with Tycho, from BA. Again though, the BA codex specifically disallows you to take both versions.

He's the same guy....

I usually dislike such black and white statements as this but hey ho here we go.

No, and anyone who tries to justify it otherwise is trying to rules lawyer/cheat and abuse raw nonsense to gain advantage for whatever reason.

I hate to dig my heels in on such things but this case is so blackand white I see no alternative to just stating that it is tantamount to cheating in my eyes and the person/s in question would be bared from my club and any events for such blatant abuse.

How will it be played? I doubt very much anyone would actually try this in a game or tourny.. At least I'd hope not

So we have some precedent that this has occurred before, but a little problem that half the time they address it and half the time they have not. The very fact they have addressed it at all can be held up as evidence that an additional restriction is required in order for one entry to meet the (unique) status of the other. The fact they have addressed it can also be held up as evidence that the Writers Intent is clear that they always trigger the (unique) status of each other, as every time they have addressed the matter it is always been in the same fashion to deny allowing both in an Army.

Rule as Written might be legal, if debatable, but I think the Intention has been proven well enough given past precedent and I have no reason to believe they will rule differently on this one.

It isnt that debateable. Nothing states that the defining factor is anything more than the name of the unit. No mention is made that the stats, rules, etc must be the same.

Why not just field him as an Inquisitor with a similar loadout but different stats?

BEcause the person is presumably wanting to get scoring, cheap units in the ally, and another IBEY.

RAW I can repair barge any model I want into a necron warrior squad with a ghost ark. Please show me in the rule book where it says I can't.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
BEcause the person is presumably wanting to get scoring, cheap units in the ally, and another IBEY.

Its got to be the I've Been Expecting You rules. If you don't care about that at all you can get 6 dirt cheap scoring units after spending a measly 50 points on HQ slots, plus you have what ever scoring units an allied detachment can bring. No need for a single Coteaz, let alone two.

sonicaucie wrote:
RAW I can repair barge any model I want into a necron warrior squad with a ghost ark. Please show me in the rule book where it says I can't.

This is on topic how?

RAW you cannot take two Coteaz.

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

The two Coteaz's are not the same special character though.

Oh look this thread again! I'm going to say the same thing I said last 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!

 DeathReaper wrote:
The rule is "Unique Each special character is unique, so a player cannot include multiples of the same special character in an army." (110)

The two Coteaz's are not the same special character though.

I think some common sense would go far here.

 Elgrun wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The rule is "Unique Each special character is unique, so a player cannot include multiples of the same special character in an army." (110)

The two Coteaz's are not the same special character though.

I think some common sense would go far here.

There's no such thing as common sense in 40K.

 Elgrun wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The rule is "Unique Each special character is unique, so a player cannot include multiples of the same special character in an army." (110)

The two Coteaz's are not the same special character though.

I think some common sense would go far here.

Real World Common sense/Real World Logic/how it works in the real world has no bearing on the 40k Ruleset.

Remember: The rules were not written to be "Modern day real world" logical.

The rules are an abstract system used to simulate a battle in the year 40,000.

What would happen in the modern day real world has nothing to do with the RAW, or the simulation of a battle fought 38,000 years from now. (and maybe not even on a planet with the same physical makeup as our earth, and probably different physics as well).

As such they need to have some compromises to make the game playable.

 DeathReaper wrote:
The rule is "Unique Each special character is unique, so a player cannot include multiples of the same special character in an army." (110)

The two Coteaz's are not the same special character though.

What makes them characters is the same, what makes them special is the same. They are two slightly different versions of the same special character.

 DeathReaper wrote:
The rule is "Unique Each special character is unique, so a player cannot include multiples of the same special character in an army." (110)

The two Coteaz's are not the same special character though.

What makes them an sc is apt he name. The name is the same. They are the same.

Please cite rules to show they are not the same, as you simply asserted that as fact here.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Elgrun wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The rule is "Unique Each special character is unique, so a player cannot include multiples of the same special character in an army." (110)

The two Coteaz's are not the same special character though.

I think some common sense would go far here.

Real World Common sense/Real World Logic/how it works in the real world has no bearing on the 40k Ruleset.

Remember: The rules were not written to be "Modern day real world" logical.

The rules are an abstract system used to simulate a battle in the year 40,000.

What would happen in the modern day real world has nothing to do with the RAW, or the simulation of a battle fought 38,000 years from now. (and maybe not even on a planet with the same physical makeup as our earth, and probably different physics as well).

As such they need to have some compromises to make the game playable.

Shooting in turns is a compromise, rolling dice is a compromise.

Taking two of the same character is not.

 Elgrun wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Elgrun wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The rule is "Unique Each special character is unique, so a player cannot include multiples of the same special character in an army." (110)

The two Coteaz's are not the same special character though.

I think some common sense would go far here.

Real World Common sense/Real World Logic/how it works in the real world has no bearing on the 40k Ruleset.

Remember: The rules were not written to be "Modern day real world" logical.

The rules are an abstract system used to simulate a battle in the year 40,000.

What would happen in the modern day real world has nothing to do with the RAW, or the simulation of a battle fought 38,000 years from now. (and maybe not even on a planet with the same physical makeup as our earth, and probably different physics as well).

As such they need to have some compromises to make the game playable.

Shooting in turns is a compromise, rolling dice is a compromise.

Taking two of the same character is not.

I was sinply alerting you to the fact that Real World Common sense/Real World Logic/how it works in the real world has no bearing on the 40k Ruleset.

Same name. True
Unique. True
Same stats. False
Same rules. False

Result = 2 coteazes in the same army.

Legal, but probably only until the new GK codex drops or next faq,

Nosferatu1001,
Given that people have debated the point in the past and the Writers have not yet Frequently Asked Questioned it, and if we let this thread go long enough, it would be yet another debate on the topic would it not?

As much as you and I might believe the matter has been settled, particularly with past precedent showing the Writers Intention, that does not mean everyone else is so easily convinced. They are going to want something more solid then a person online stating 'the name is the same, and that is all that matters' and that means an argument is going to form between the two sides again. I don't hold much hopes for such an argument to come to a conclusion, we simply do not have enough information to allow one side to 'win' over the other given the two interpretations both claim to fit page 110, but the debate will at least let people to once more air their sides and sway new comers to this stupid situation one way or the other.

Though, with that precedent, they will be easier to sway to 'two Coteaz forbidden' as that is how the Writers have ruled in the past.
Now if we could only slap them over the head for releasing a half-written codex as a supplement....

I think the answer is: "If you are asking because you truly care what your opponent thinks, go with whatever he says."

Its not like there are any 'official GW sanctioned tournaments', or that their will be in the foreseeable future... so what does it actually matter what the 'rules' say.

What you are asking is akin to "Does Volcano beats TNT in paper-rock-scissors." There is no answer because there is no authority to consult. GW is a collectors hobby not a gamers hobby, and they do everything in their power to keep it that way.

The sooner you accept this the better your life will be.

Deviant - rules support for why the rules for the model matter. Page and para, as per the tenets

It would be pitiful if this actually needs to be faq'd to give you the obvious answer. I hope they put "Lol, no" instead of just "No".

This is so stupid... Words can't describe the people trying to pass this one off.

RAI= no, just because a "hero" is willing to work for two different armies does not make him two different people.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Deviant - rules support for why the rules for the model matter. Page and para, as per the tenets

Page 110

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

Traits and Skills are a part of each Special character.

If they do not have the same Traits and Skills they are not the same Special Character.

For the sake of sanity, just this one time drop RAW... It's the same guy! Seriously they're the same person. I've never said this about anything in 40k before but I guess there's a first for everything. If you took Coteaz twice, I would not play with you.

I'll happily play against Revenants, Deathstars, Knights and hell even the Primarchs from the HH but I draw the line at this stupidity. If you do this, you're bad and you should feel bad.

define traits and skills? I do believe they have the same traits (bald guy with a psyber eagle) and the same skills (ability to smooth talk the pants of a lady ork) or are you referring to their profile becouse yup, you guessed it they have the same profile too. In fact in addition to having the same profile, they have the same war gear, unit type, unit compisition, special rules. If it looks like coteaz, walks like coteaz, and talks like coteaz it is coteaz.

They are the same special character, you can't have both in the same army.

 DJGietzen wrote:
define traits and skills? I do believe they have the same traits (bald guy with a psyber eagle) and the same skills (ability to smooth talk the pants of a lady ork) or are you referring to their profile becouse yup, you guessed it they have the same profile too. In fact in addition to having the same profile, they have the same war gear, unit type, unit compisition, special rules. If it looks like coteaz, walks like coteaz, and talks like coteaz it is coteaz.

They are the same special character, you can't have both in the same army.

Except they do not have the same rules. They have some of the same rules, however, one of them also has a Warlord Trait that the other can never have.

This is kinda hurting my brain.

You can make the case both ways... eh? Very silly take though.

LOL... just say the 2nd Coteaz is really Bizarro Coteaz or, even Alpharius!

Like I said, it all depends on how similar the two units need to be to make them "the same".

Just the name?
Name and stats?
Name, stats and special rules?

Personally, while I believe that RAW they are different units, I do not thing the intent is for you to be able to include multiples (unlike the old Apocalypse rules).

How is it not obvious that this is a unforeseen and obvious "bug" created by codex transition? I mean end of, right there.

I assume everyone can see how this situation has been inadvertently created and once you understand that then you know that you can't field two Coteaz. Leave RAW out of it and go with common sense and some empathy for the people writing the codex's.
Do you really need to waste there time with a FAQ?

 Elgrun wrote:
How is it not obvious that this is a unforeseen and obvious "bug" created by codex transition? I mean end of, right there.

I assume everyone can see how this situation has been inadvertently created and once you understand that then you know that you can't field two Coteaz. Leave RAW out of it and go with common sense and some empathy for the people writing the codex's.
Do you really need to waste there time with a FAQ?

This guy gets it.

I say this can't happen... Think of the other circumstances this could happen. Be'lakor he can be in daemons or c:sm but that doesn't mean hey why not I'll take one in each....

 Elgrun wrote:
How is it not obvious that this is a unforeseen and obvious "bug" created by codex transition? I mean end of, right there.

I assume everyone can see how this situation has been inadvertently created and once you understand that then you know that you can't field two Coteaz. Leave RAW out of it and go with common sense and some empathy for the people writing the codex's.
Do you really need to waste there time with a FAQ?

This. 1000x this.

I'm glad these type of deliberately ignorant shenanigans don't fly about my meta, not only would I stop playing the game, I wouldn't offer that person another game in future.

Lamo wrote:
I say this can't happen... Think of the other circumstances this could happen. Be'lakor he can be in daemons or c:sm but that doesn't mean hey why not I'll take one in each....

The the dataslate show different rules for Be'lakor between CSM and Deamon list? If not... it isn't the same thing as GK: Coteaz vs IQ: Coteaz.

Abaddon can upgrade terminators in Black Legion Supplement, but cannot in Codex: CSM. Guess I'm bringing 2 warmasters *eyeroll*

 DeathReaper wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Deviant - rules support for why the rules for the model matter. Page and para, as per the tenets

Page 110

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

Traits and Skills are a part of each Special character.

If they do not have the same Traits and Skills they are not the same Special Character.

Define "traits". Page and para. Oh, don't capitalise, as they are not defined terms in 40k, unlike Special Rules, or Characteristics.

Or, don't quote fluff as rules. Define the rule around "incredibly valuable to an army"

Here's some straws for you to clutch.

Traits or skills are clearly referring to special rules...

 DeathReaper wrote:
Traits or skills are clearly referring to special rules...

Special Rules are a defined term, with a precise meaning in 40k. Your implication that a line of fluff text has a single shred to do with rules is cute, but not relevant to a rules discussion.

"Clearly referring" means you must have a rule stating "traits" are Special Rules? If so page and para

IF you cannot provide one, then please provide something other then your p110 quote that states that the Special Rules are important. I can point out where an SC is defined by the name alone....can you point out where it requires rule, codex etc to be considered? You have yet to do so.

Then what are a models traits and skills?

the BRB does not define traits or skills so we use the common English Definition of those words.

Using the common English definition of those words we can tell that the models abilities aka special rules, fit into traits and skills.

Which of course does not matter because the two different coteaz units are not the same.

This is like the "RAW units without eyes cannot shoot" thing. Technically, straight RAW, you could have dual Coteazes (if that is even the plural for Coteaz). No one is ever going to let you do it; so whatever. Also by straight RAW the Inquisition Coteaz has no gun, as the Inquisition Codex does not have rules for his Psyber Eagle (although maybe this has been fixed in the ipad version)

 DeathReaper wrote:
Then what are a models traits and skills?

In rules terms models don't have traits and skills. The statement has no functional weight.

 DeathReaper wrote:
the BRB does not define traits or skills so we use the common English Definition of those words.

The BRB does not define them because they are not rules terms.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Using the common English definition of those words we can tell that the models abilities aka special rules, fit into traits and skills.

While I disagree with this leap of logic, lets pretend traits = special rules. The two Coteaz have the same special rules. They both have Independent Character, Psyker(2), Stubborn, I've been Expecting You, Lord od Formosa, and Spy Network. Before you say anything Warlord traits are not special rules, they are war lord traits and you've only claimed that special rules are traits and skills, but I'll assume you meant war lord traits as well since that is literally the only difference between the two.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Which of course does not matter because the two different coteaz units are not the same.

Actually, no it doesn't. The BRB says that special characters have traits and skills, not that they are differentiated or defined by those traits and skills. Assuming that "traits and skills" means everything under the sun on a model's profile then all you've proven is that the same special character has two different profiles, not that they are two different special characters. In fact how to differentiate two special characters is not defined by the BRB, so we have to use common English and all that jazz and what all that boils down to is that a special character is an identifiable individual. Coteaz, no matter the version is still Coteaz and remains the same special character. If they were to publish Codex: Space Toddlers and created versions of all the special characters in the books so far as adorable 7 year olds with completely reworked profiles they would stiull be those same characters and you still could not include more then on in your force.

Games Workshop once again fails to define their terms. They never provided a definition of what a special character is. Now, I know that it seems silly at first since it would be obvious from reading the book but if they are going to publish the same character in different books they should at least tell us what they mean by "Special Character".

As it stands... it's hard to say. Since a "Special Character" is a poorly defined entity at best you can make an argument either way. You can't take Coteaz more than once since the name Coteaz is marked with the "Unique" rule preventing any other "Coteaz" from being taken. You can take two because they are from different codices with different rules. They just happen to share a name. Since the name isn't part of what the rulebook defines a special character to be that argument holds little weight. I would say that RAW is inconclusive and to await a FAQ for a ruling.

"Lord of Formosa: Inquisitorial Henchmen Warbands are troops in an army that includes Inquisitor Torquemada Coteaz, and are not limited by the number of Inquisitors in your army."

Does Inquisition Coteaz unlock Formosan Warbands as troops for Grey Knights?

Eg. You take Draigo and a Librarian as your GK HQ and ally in Coteaz and then take 1 Paladin and 1 Formosan Warband (From Codex: Grey Knights) as troops. Legal list?

DeathReaper wrote:Then what are a models traits and skills?

Literally? In game rules terms? Nothing.

You have, as stated, taken a fluff, zero rules content sentence and claimed it as rules.

DeathReaper wrote:the BRB does not define traits or skills so we use the common English Definition of those words.

Only as pertains rules. traits and skills are not rules, so while you can use plain English, you cannot do so to make up that they are a rule.

DeathReaper wrote:Using the common English definition of those words we can tell that the models abilities aka special rules, fit into traits and skills.

Except, as you well know, Special Rules are a well defined term within 40k. You cannot simply decide that traits are close enough to "fit" with Special Rules.

If Special Rules were called "FYKY<", their game function woudl not alter, but your fluff mangling would no longer work. Proof that your fluff sentence is irrelevant.

DeathReaper wrote:Which of course does not matter because the two different coteaz units are not the same.

Thats cool. You have yet to prove this assertion, so could you please follow the tenets? I have rebutted every argument you have put forth, meaning you are back to asserting.

PLease mark your argument as "HYWPI" as it is not a rules argument.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Which of course does not matter because the two different coteaz units are not the same.

Thats cool. You have yet to prove this assertion, so could you please follow the tenets? I have rebutted every argument you have put forth, meaning you are back to asserting.

PLease mark your argument as "HYWPI" as it is not a rules argument.

You have not rebutted anything, as the two are not the same. (The same means identical, the two are not identical).

The Two different Coteaz units are not the same. It is RAW. They have a different Warlord trait, thus they are not the same. RAW they are not the same character. One if from the Grey Knights Codex, one is from the Inquisition Codex.

Two separate units that share a name.

No, I showed that the BRB defines SC through a name, and they share the same name. Thus they aer the same SC, as the BRB only cares about the name

You have to prove that the BRB cares about more than the name, hence your attempt at using p110. You failed to do so.

"Warlord Traits
Special characters roll for Warlord traits as normal, unless their profile specifically notes that they have a fixed Warlord trait" (110)

SC's take warlord traits into account for the definition.

 DeathReaper wrote:
"Warlord Traits
Special characters roll for Warlord traits as normal, unless their profile specifically notes that they have a fixed Warlord trait" (110)

SC's take warlord traits into account for the definition.

Show me where in the BRB it says exactly this. Not the unrelated stuff you have been pulling out, I want to see where it says "Special Characters take their Warlord Traits into account to differentiate themselves from other Special Characters." You can't because you made this up. This is how you think it should be.

Now considering Coteaz from Codex: GK doesn't actually have codex specific Warlord Traits because he's from a pre-6th codex makes your argument even weaker. It's blatantly obvious that this is just a result of an outdated codex...

 Zande4 wrote:
"Lord of Formosa: Inquisitorial Henchmen Warbands are troops in an army that includes Inquisitor Torquemada Coteaz, and are not limited by the number of Inquisitors in your army."

Does Inquisition Coteaz unlock Formosan Warbands as troops for Grey Knights?

Eg. You take Draigo and a Librarian as your GK HQ and ally in Coteaz and then take 1 Paladin and 1 Formosan Warband (From Codex: Grey Knights) as troops. Legal list?

Lord of Formosa: If an Inquistorial detachment includes Inquisitor Coteaz, all units of
Inquisitorial Henchmen Warbands in the same detachment are scoring units, even if they
are not from your primary detachment.

That does not look the same as what was posted in the above quote. Ergo, Lord of Formosa (GK) and Lord of Formosa (=I=) are not the same rule, despite having the same name.

 DeathReaper wrote:
"Warlord Traits
Special characters roll for Warlord traits as normal, unless their profile specifically notes that they have a fixed Warlord trait" (110)

SC's take warlord traits into account for the definition.

No, it tells you that SCs are considered as other Warlords, unless they have fixed traits

This does not state that an SC is defined as being differnt to another SC BECAUSE they have different warlord traits, which is what you have to prove (or actually, that anythign other than the name being different counts)

To make it clear: SCs are defined by name, so you know if you have the same SC by looking at the name. Your claim thatr Coteaz and Coteaz are not the same requires you to find a rule stating that something else than the name (e.g. codex, special rules, etc) can be considered in your determination of "is this Coteaz the same as THIS Coteaz?"

So far you have not done so.

(Note: I agree they can have different warlord traits, and may have different other rules. I am saying this is irrelevant to the question o f whether they are the same SC or not, as the rulebook only consides the name important

 DeathReaper wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Which of course does not matter because the two different coteaz units are not the same.

Thats cool. You have yet to prove this assertion, so could you please follow the tenets? I have rebutted every argument you have put forth, meaning you are back to asserting.

PLease mark your argument as "HYWPI" as it is not a rules argument.

You have not rebutted anything, as the two are not the same. (The same means identical, the two are not identical).

The Two different Coteaz units are not the same. It is RAW. They have a different Warlord trait, thus they are not the same. RAW they are not the same character. One if from the Grey Knights Codex, one is from the Inquisition Codex.

Two separate units that share a name.

Saying they have a different warlord trait is a red herring as well. In neither Codex does Coteaz have a fixed Warlord trait that would be a discernible difference. Coteaz can always roll on the Command, Personal, and Strategic charts regardless if he is fielded as part of a Grey Knights detachment or an Inquisition detachment. If he is fielded as the warlord while part of an Inquisition detachment, he may then choose to roll on the Inquisition warlord traits.

Coteaz is Coteaz. Codex: Inquisition gives you an option to field him in a different detachment but does not create a new, discreet unit from the one in Codex: Grey Knights.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
"Warlord Traits
Special characters roll for Warlord traits as normal, unless their profile specifically notes that they have a fixed Warlord trait" (110)

SC's take warlord traits into account for the definition.

No, it tells you that SCs are considered as other Warlords, unless they have fixed traits

This does not state that an SC is defined as being differnt to another SC BECAUSE they have different warlord traits, which is what you have to prove (or actually, that anythign other than the name being different counts)

To make it clear: SCs are defined by name, so you know if you have the same SC by looking at the name. Your claim thatr Coteaz and Coteaz are not the same requires you to find a rule stating that something else than the name (e.g. codex, special rules, etc) can be considered in your determination of "is this Coteaz the same as THIS Coteaz?"

So far you have not done so.

(Note: I agree they can have different warlord traits, and may have different other rules. I am saying this is irrelevant to the question o f whether they are the same SC or not, as the rulebook only consides the name important

Where in the rulebook is it stated that special characters are defined by name?

Nowhere, it just says special characters have a personal name and not just a title in the first paragraph of page 110, 2nd column.

The Unique rule defiend below that refers to 'special characters' but to infer from that that it's purely based on their 'personal name' is a leap too far for me.

Are there any Unique units that do not have a 'personal name' by the way?

EDIT:
I see Grey Knight Assassins have a title (i.e. Vindicare Assassin) but no 'personal name'.

The only thing we know that makes you an SC - a defining requirement - is having a personal name.

That is all we know. So it is all we can possibly use to determine if we have two of the same SC - we cannot use anything else, as we have no other information

 Zande4 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
"Warlord Traits
Special characters roll for Warlord traits as normal, unless their profile specifically notes that they have a fixed Warlord trait" (110)

SC's take warlord traits into account for the definition.

Show me where in the BRB it says exactly this. Not the unrelated stuff you have been pulling out, I want to see where it says "Special Characters take their Warlord Traits into account to differentiate themselves from other Special Characters." You can't because you made this up. This is how you think it should be.

Now considering Coteaz from Codex: GK doesn't actually have codex specific Warlord Traits because he's from a pre-6th codex makes your argument even weaker. It's blatantly obvious that this is just a result of an outdated codex...

Page 110 under the Warlord traits section.

This shows us that warlord traits are a part of what a special character is (If they have a warlord trait).

Now show us where it says that special characters with different profiles are two different special characters?

 DJGietzen wrote:
Now show us where it says that special characters with different profiles are two different special characters?

it says that on page 110.

"...a player cannot include multiples of the same special character in an army." (110)

if they are different they are not the same...

 DeathReaper wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
Now show us where it says that special characters with different profiles are two different special characters?

it says that on page 110.

"...a player cannot include multiples of the same special character in an army." (110)

if they are different they are not the same...

Here are two different pictures of the same man. The man is not identical in these pictures but he is still the same man.



Can you please show us where in the BRB it states that special characters that are not identical can't be the same special character? Coteaz is the same special character, regardless of the differences that may or may not exist between the two entries because they are both entries that represent the same individual.

Great President or greatest President ever?

DeathReaper wrote:

 Zande4 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
"Warlord Traits
Special characters roll for Warlord traits as normal, unless their profile specifically notes that they have a fixed Warlord trait" (110)

SC's take warlord traits into account for the definition.

Show me where in the BRB it says exactly this. Not the unrelated stuff you have been pulling out, I want to see where it says "Special Characters take their Warlord Traits into account to differentiate themselves from other Special Characters." You can't because you made this up. This is how you think it should be.

Now considering Coteaz from Codex: GK doesn't actually have codex specific Warlord Traits because he's from a pre-6th codex makes your argument even weaker. It's blatantly obvious that this is just a result of an outdated codex...

Page 110 under the Warlord traits section.

This shows us that warlord traits are a part of what a special character is (If they have a warlord trait).

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
"Warlord Traits
Special characters roll for Warlord traits as normal, unless their profile specifically notes that they have a fixed Warlord trait" (110)

SC's take warlord traits into account for the definition.

No, it tells you that SCs are considered as other Warlords, unless they have fixed traits

This does not state that an SC is defined as being differnt to another SC BECAUSE they have different warlord traits, which is what you have to prove (or actually, that anythign other than the name being different counts)

To make it clear: SCs are defined by name, so you know if you have the same SC by looking at the name. Your claim thatr Coteaz and Coteaz are not the same requires you to find a rule stating that something else than the name (e.g. codex, special rules, etc) can be considered in your determination of "is this Coteaz the same as THIS Coteaz?"

So far you have not done so.

(Note: I agree they can have different warlord traits, and may have different other rules. I am saying this is irrelevant to the question o f whether they are the same SC or not, as the rulebook only consides the name important

Dr, page 110 was already removed as proof that the brb gives a damn about warlord traits via a vis determining whether coteaz is the same as coteaz

Your concession on this is accepted, as you have still failed to provide an argument. You have simply stated they are different,but have not managed to find a single rule that backs you up

Not one.

 deviantduck wrote:
Great President or greatest President ever?

Wait, some people still like him? Both the republicans and democrats I know hate him (Ds for destroying the country and the legislation he pushed though, Rs for destroying the country and hurting their election chances).

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 deviantduck wrote:
Great President or greatest President ever?

Wait, some people still like him? Both the republicans and democrats I know hate him (Ds for destroying the country and the legislation he pushed though, Rs for destroying the country and hurting their election chances).

Both? You only know one of each?

 DJGietzen wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 deviantduck wrote:
Great President or greatest President ever?

Wait, some people still like him? Both the republicans and democrats I know hate him (Ds for destroying the country and the legislation he pushed though, Rs for destroying the country and hurting their election chances).

Both? You only know one of each?

Whoos, I mean all. Just me being a moron .

I highly suggest you guys get back on topic...

 DJGietzen wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
Now show us where it says that special characters with different profiles are two different special characters?

it says that on page 110.

"...a player cannot include multiples of the same special character in an army." (110)

if they are different they are not the same...

Here are two different pictures of the same man. The man is not identical in these pictures but he is still the same man.

Can you please show us where in the BRB it states that special characters that are not identical can't be the same special character? Coteaz is the same special character, regardless of the differences that may or may not exist between the two entries because they are both entries that represent the same individual.

They are not the same unit by virtue of not being the same unit entry in the same book. A superficial resemblance in name and rules does not make them the same. We are talking about 2 separate unit entries in 2 separate codices. Nothing in the Unique rule tells us they can be the same or whether a resemblance or partial overlap in name, rules, etc.. is grounds for triggering the Unique rule.

 Shandara wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
...they are both entries that represent the same individual.

A superficial resemblance in name and rules does not make them the same.

Nobody's claiming that a superficial resemblance of name and rules makes them the same. The claim is that they're the same because they literally both represent the same individual. You're not going to get anywhere by completely ignoring the meat of the argument and pretending it doesn't exist.

So your saying that unique can only ever refer to that unit and no other unit?

Pyrian wrote:

 Shandara wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
...they are both entries that represent the same individual.

A superficial resemblance in name and rules does not make them the same.

Nobody's claiming that a superficial resemblance of name and rules makes them the same. The claim is that they're the same because they literally both represent the same individual. You're not going to get anywhere by completely ignoring the meat of the argument and pretending it doesn't exist.

Granted that is clearly the intent, however, if a group were to assume that the two units must either be completely identical, or have a special rule forbidding both versions from being used (such as Tycho), then the two Coteaz are not the same unit.

So, if I model one coteaz with a mustache and say hes the Inq codex Coteaz, and one without and say hes the GK Coteaz, I can bring both?

Theoretically. As I've said before, it all comes down to how you interpret "uniqueness". Some claim just the name is enough, meaning Coteaz (GK) and Coteaz (=I=) cannot both be taken, RAW. Others say you must include everything to determine uniqueness, meaning since Coteaz (GK) and Coteaz (=I=) have different rules (Lord of Formosa does different things, and Coteaz (=I=) has a fixed Warlord Trait) then RAW you can take both.

While RAW I could go either way (like a bi-sex-u-al), I think that the intent is clear that you can only take one or the other, but not both.

I tend to go with 'same' meaning 'in all possible points of correlation'. Given there is no specific 40k/FAQ/GW connotation to the word 'same' we are forced to rely on the plain English definition of such. There is no specifically compelling reason to only compare one aspect of a given special character's profile over another (for example: the name, the stats, and/or the special rules); they must all be compared.

To begin with: RAI-wise I'd definitely have to agree with any and all stating that it wasn't 'intended' that one could take both.

RAW? There is a fine argument that one is different from the other solely by virtue of having slightly but concretely differing rules.

One specific rule for special characters is that ...Special Characters roll for Warlord traits as normal, unless their profile specifically notes they have a fixed Warlord trait...

Inquisition: Coteaz is a special character whose profile includes a fixed warlord trait.
Grey Knight: Coteaz is a special character whose profile does not include a fixed warlord trait and therefore that rolls for Warlord traits as normal.

They do not have the same profile and are not the same special character as a result.

From reading the 3 paragraphs before the unique rule, it would seem the intent is by name. They are Unique because they have a personal name.

So corteaz=corteaz Limit of 1.

"Personal name and not just a title" is flavour text, not rules. There are plenty of Unique characters with 'just a title', of easiest reference are the 4 assassins in the grey knight codex along with Coteaz. Or is 'Vindicare Assassin' supposedly his/her actual name perhaps?

Waaaghpower wrote:
Here's an interesting question: Can you take Coteaz (Or that other inquisitor on the giant chair) twice? Once from the Grey Knights codex, once from the Inquisition codex? They're technically different units with the same name, and since they're from a different codex I would assume there's nothing stopping it exceot the cheese.
Also, if two Coteaz were in the same squad, would they get to fire I've Been Expecting You twice?

This question alone leads me to believe that you don't really care if your opponent likes you or not

I cant believe this question has spanned 4 pages worth of gak.

The rule book was written before the Inquisition codex was made. It is the same guy. This is getting ridiculous.

The Book is not dynamic by nature. They can't just print a BRB 1.1 or 1.2.1 everytime a new codex or new rule set comes along, just like Stronghold Assault or Escalation. FAQs havent been updated for a while either.

What are you guys trying to prove? That GW didnt foresee this? Now that'd be a surprise, wouldnt it? [/sarcasm].

We're in the middle of a transition and arguing that he isn't the same guy just put you right there with ' TFG '.

Cheers

Yet the flavour text, as you call it, is the only guide to the rules if you discount them as actual rules (and you cant, as "personal name" does have an ingame function) - you are still not told "same", in the context of a rule that ONLY talks about a personal name, can be anything other than referring to that name.

Coteaz is Coteaz.

It makes me wonder if the OP and those who claim Coteaz GK ≠ Coteaz =I= even care about the people they play with.

Rules lawyers and such generally don't care about such things, they just want to try to justify cheating and such but make it look legit within the rules, even if everyone think they stink to high heaven

 Formosa wrote:
Rules lawyers and such generally don't care about such things, they just want to try to justify cheating and such but make it look legit within the rules, even if everyone think they stink to high heaven

Justify cheating ? I am accused of cheating for trying to get theright answer andnot just 4+ it , or use "common sense" as some put it. It must be beatiful world out there for people who doesnt want what the rules actually say and just go with how they feel it should work.

Agree with happyjew here where i can see the point of both arguments yet conclude that they are different.

This is not about cheating (personally I don't play it like you can take 2xCoteaz). It is about pointing out that the rule is vague and inconclusive (and really it is incomplete too).

It does not cover all the bases and merely claiming 'The rules say you can't' without actually backing it up is equally as bad as cheating to me.

Firstly, the blurb about Special Characters says that there individuals with a personal name, not just a title.
But there are no units with type Special Characters or any unit entry that mentions those words or has a special rule with the name, is there? So which units are Special Characters, what defines a personal name, instead of a title? We don't know because we're not told.

Secondly, the Unique rule says that Special Characters may only be taken once. That's it. Yet what about Unique units that aren't Special Characters? Again we're not told anything about that. And linking 2 separate units in separate codices because of the same name? Again, not enough information.

From the tiny amount of rules we have I can only say that if you have:
a) a unit entry with the 1 (Unique) composition type
b) it has a personal name, not just a title (whatever defines that)
c) it is a Special Character because of b)
then that specific unit entry may only be taken once in your army.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

 Zande4 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
"Warlord Traits
Special characters roll for Warlord traits as normal, unless their profile specifically notes that they have a fixed Warlord trait" (110)

SC's take warlord traits into account for the definition.

Show me where in the BRB it says exactly this. Not the unrelated stuff you have been pulling out, I want to see where it says "Special Characters take their Warlord Traits into account to differentiate themselves from other Special Characters." You can't because you made this up. This is how you think it should be.

Now considering Coteaz from Codex: GK doesn't actually have codex specific Warlord Traits because he's from a pre-6th codex makes your argument even weaker. It's blatantly obvious that this is just a result of an outdated codex...

Page 110 under the Warlord traits section.

This shows us that warlord traits are a part of what a special character is (If they have a warlord trait).

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
"Warlord Traits
Special characters roll for Warlord traits as normal, unless their profile specifically notes that they have a fixed Warlord trait" (110)

SC's take warlord traits into account for the definition.

No, it tells you that SCs are considered as other Warlords, unless they have fixed traits

This does not state that an SC is defined as being differnt to another SC BECAUSE they have different warlord traits, which is what you have to prove (or actually, that anythign other than the name being different counts)

To make it clear: SCs are defined by name, so you know if you have the same SC by looking at the name. Your claim thatr Coteaz and Coteaz are not the same requires you to find a rule stating that something else than the name (e.g. codex, special rules, etc) can be considered in your determination of "is this Coteaz the same as THIS Coteaz?"

So far you have not done so.

(Note: I agree they can have different warlord traits, and may have different other rules. I am saying this is irrelevant to the question o f whether they are the same SC or not, as the rulebook only consides the name important

Dr, page 110 was already removed as proof that the brb gives a damn about warlord traits via a vis determining whether coteaz is the same as coteaz

Your concession on this is accepted, as you have still failed to provide an argument. You have simply stated they are different,but have not managed to find a single rule that backs you up

Not one.

How about the fact they have different rules. Thats a rule that back's it up quite nicely.

You can take both they are different. It is obviously not intended but it is written that way. That is all this forum cares about.

Stratos - cute, you ignored everything posted and added the4 same debunked argument?

RAW they are the same, as the only thing SCs are defined by is tyheir personal name. IS their personal name the same? Yes. Then they are the same.

Thats it.

It takes a person of great intelligence to decipher the great riddle of Coteaz! You see in one book there's a guy called Inquisitor Torquemada Coteaz with a page detailing his history, exploits and stat-line and also includes a nice little photo of him. But then there's this other book with this guy with the same name, history, exploits, stat-line and even looks the same! But you see it takes a keen mind to crack the true nature of this riddle! One has a pre-determined Warlord Trait and one of his special rules is worded differently, so he's OBVIOUSLY a completely different person! You'd have to be an incompetent fool not to know this. While you're at it take 2 Karamazov's, he's got a different Warlord Trait too! Oh wait.... no... let's not make that argument because he's crap in game and we don't want to spam him...

This comes down to one thing.

Do you have common sense?
Yes - You can only take one Coteaz.
No - You can take 2 Coteaz' and models without eyes can't shoot because they never have LoS, also when Pyrovores are killed by Instant Death they inflict hits on every unit, ever.

 Zande4 wrote:
It takes a person of great intelligence to decipher the great riddle of Coteaz! You see in one book there's a guy called Inquisitor Torquemada Coteaz with a page detailing his history, exploits and stat-line and also includes a nice little photo of him. But then there's this other book with this guy with the same name, history, exploits, stat-line and even looks the same! But you see it takes a keen mind to crack the true nature of this riddle! One has a pre-determined Warlord Trait and one of his special rules is worded differently, so he's OBVIOUSLY a completely different person! You'd have to be an incompetent fool not know this. While you're at take 2 Karamazov's, he's got a different Warlord Trait too! Oh wait.... no... let's not make that argument because he's crap in game and we don't want to spam him...

This comes down to one thing.

Do you have common sense?
Yes - You can only take one Coteaz.
No - You can take 2 Coteaz' and models without eyes can't shoot because they never have LoS, also when Pyrovores are killed by Instant Death they inflict hits on every unit, ever.

This is pure gold.

For what it's worth, regardless of what the rules actually say, you're a bit of a wanka if you actually press the issue and try to take both.

RAI: absolutely not. RAW: yes, they do not have the same rules and are from different books.

 spacewolved wrote:
RAI: absolutely not. RAW: yes, they do not have the same rules and are from different books.

AS per the tenets, please prove that the distinction you have made is relevant.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Stratos - cute, you ignored everything posted and added the4 same debunked argument?

RAW they are the same, as the only thing SCs are defined by is tyheir personal name. IS their personal name the same? Yes. Then they are the same.

Thats it.

No, if you take GK's Coteaz unit entry twice they are the same.

The only thing the blurb says is that Special Characters have a personal name. Not that it must be a _unique_ name. Or that this restriction or rule works across codices.

1) Coteaz (GK) is a Special Character because he has a personal name.
2) You can only take a specific Special Character once.

That does not imply in any way that he is the same as Coteaz (Inq), which is a separate unit entry in another codex.

Prove that the distinction you have made -that the codex the unit entry is found in - is one that the rules state are to be considered.

You are told an SC has a personal name, and cannot take the same SC more than once. You have no means of determining "Same" except throught he name, as that is the only classification you are given within the rules

Coteaz (GK) is not the same model as COteaz(I) IFF you are allowed to consider more than the name

Prove you are allowed to consider more than the name. Dont assert. THere have been assertions for four pages now.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Stratos - cute, you ignored everything posted and added the4 same debunked argument?

RAW they are the same, as the only thing SCs are defined by is tyheir personal name. IS their personal name the same? Yes. Then they are the same.

Thats it.

Tbh i didn't read it. I gave an answer to your statement thus proving its fundamental flaw. How many people on earth have the same name? Are they the same people? No. Didn't think so.

I care not if people take 2 or 1 or 0 the fact is RAW they can. That is Fact the definition for unique is broken therefore it cannot apply in this instance. That is the only fact that is relevant.

This is a forum based for rules upon fact not your assumption that names = the same.

Fact is everyone in this topic knows and understands that they are the same person in the 40k universe but this is irrelevant when talking about the game.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You are told an SC has a personal name, and cannot take the same SC more than once. You have no means of determining "Same" except throught he name, as that is the only classification you are given within the rules

Sure thing. We are also told that special characters have certain rules. Notably for this conversation, we are told they either have fixed warlord traits 'or' can roll on the warlord trait table. Given one of the models 'can' and the other one 'cannot', there is a distinct 'difference' there.

Now it is your turn, can you provide rules support that you are 'only' to compare the name of the model? I'm very interested where you are getting that from.

Stratos wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Stratos - cute, you ignored everything posted and added the4 same debunked argument?

RAW they are the same, as the only thing SCs are defined by is tyheir personal name. IS their personal name the same? Yes. Then they are the same.

Thats it.

Tbh i didn't read it. I gave an answer to your statement thus proving its fundamental flaw. How many people on earth have the same name? Are they the same people? No. Didn't think so.

I care not if people take 2 or 1 or 0 the fact is RAW they can. That is Fact the definition for unique is broken therefore it cannot apply in this instance. That is the only fact that is relevant.

This is a forum based for rules upon fact not your assumption that names = the same.

Fact is everyone in this topic knows and understands that they are the same person in the 40k universe but this is irrelevant when talking about the game.

Sadly it's not irrelevant, it's quite poignant infact, trying to abuse rules and justify borderline cheating, that's what matters. Here, simple answer is no you can't take 2 coteazs as they are the same character and trying to justify it is utter nonsense and a thinly veiled attempt to waac or powergame, it would never pass in real life so I'm amazed people are trying to legitimise it online.

Do what you like in your area, this would result in a dq or ban if attempted in mine.

Formosa - do you understand the difference between discussing what the rules say and how an individual plays them?

Rules are as people play them. TO's will often change or clarify rules for there tournaments, FLGS's often have official house rules.

 Formosa wrote:

Stratos wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Stratos - cute, you ignored everything posted and added the4 same debunked argument?

RAW they are the same, as the only thing SCs are defined by is tyheir personal name. IS their personal name the same? Yes. Then they are the same.

Thats it.

Tbh i didn't read it. I gave an answer to your statement thus proving its fundamental flaw. How many people on earth have the same name? Are they the same people? No. Didn't think so.

I care not if people take 2 or 1 or 0 the fact is RAW they can. That is Fact the definition for unique is broken therefore it cannot apply in this instance. That is the only fact that is relevant.

This is a forum based for rules upon fact not your assumption that names = the same.

Fact is everyone in this topic knows and understands that they are the same person in the 40k universe but this is irrelevant when talking about the game.

Sadly it's not irrelevant, it's quite poignant infact, trying to abuse rules and justify borderline cheating, that's what matters. Here, simple answer is no you can't take 2 coteazs as they are the same character and trying to justify it is utter nonsense and a thinly veiled attempt to waac or powergame, it would never pass in real life so I'm amazed people are trying to legitimise it online.

Do what you like in your area, this would result in a dq or ban if attempted in mine.

I asked my local GW manager today about people fielding this and he told he would have a chuckle about it for 5 mins then if they continued, the player would be asked to gather his stuff and leave.

Really I wouldn't bother with this topic , they are essentially making an idiotic claim in hopes of eliciting an angry response from people with common sense, they know what they are doing is inane but are getting a kick out of provoking people.

Ironic that the George bush pictures got told off when they are at the bottom of the troll list in this topic.

Anyone who is new to 40k reading this topic, I beg you not to judge its fanbase's by this. This is an example of rules interpretation that is basically limited to Internet forums and is most likely one of the reasons a lot of people stay away from them.

Don't feed the trolls

I would be very much surprised if ANY of the respondents in this thread will play 2 Coteaz's and be 100% convinced that is intended.

But there's a difference between playing it RAW and _knowing_ exactly what the RAW is.

We're discussing the latter.

 Shandara wrote:
I would be very much surprised if ANY of the respondents in this thread will play 2 Coteaz's and be 100% convinced that is intended.

RaW: Maybe.
RAI: No.
HIWPI: Hell no!

 Neorealist wrote:
Sure thing. We are also told that special characters have certain rules. Notably for this conversation, we are told they either have fixed warlord traits 'or' can roll on the warlord trait table. Given one of the models 'can' and the other one 'cannot', there is a distinct 'difference' there.

Now it is your turn, can you provide rules support that you are 'only' to compare the name of the model? I'm very interested where you are getting that from.

No, actually, we're told you roll on a warlord table unless it's included in the profile.

Does being included in the profile make it a different unit? No. Tactical Marines from 5th Ed are still Tactical Marines in 6th Ed, but the rules changed. Doesn't make them a different unit. We have an updated Coteaz now written for the current edition of the game. It's still the same person. It's still the same units. It has newer, updated rules. If anything, I'd argue taking Coteaz from Grey Knights you should use him as listed in the 6E Inquisition codex.

I'd have significantly less of a problem with that than someone trying to bring the same guy twice.

 SRSFACE wrote:

 Neorealist wrote:
Sure thing. We are also told that special characters have certain rules. Notably for this conversation, we are told they either have fixed warlord traits 'or' can roll on the warlord trait table. Given one of the models 'can' and the other one 'cannot', there is a distinct 'difference' there.

Now it is your turn, can you provide rules support that you are 'only' to compare the name of the model? I'm very interested where you are getting that from.

No, actually, we're told you roll on a warlord table unless it's included in the profile.

Does being included in the profile make it a different unit? No.

But not having the same warlord trait does make it not the same special character, as they are different.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 SRSFACE wrote:

 Neorealist wrote:
Sure thing. We are also told that special characters have certain rules. Notably for this conversation, we are told they either have fixed warlord traits 'or' can roll on the warlord trait table. Given one of the models 'can' and the other one 'cannot', there is a distinct 'difference' there.

Now it is your turn, can you provide rules support that you are 'only' to compare the name of the model? I'm very interested where you are getting that from.

No, actually, we're told you roll on a warlord table unless it's included in the profile.

Does being included in the profile make it a different unit? No.

But not having the same warlord trait does make it not the same special character, as they are different.

Are special characters particular people: Yes
Is it the same person: Yes
Thus, they are the same character.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Are special characters particular people: Yes
Is it the same person: Yes
Thus, they are the same character.

I am not seeing the rules for "particular people" in the BRB, citation please.

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

"Special characters roll for Warlord traits as normal, unless their profile specifically notes that they have a fixed Warlord trait."(110)

A fixed warlord trait is a part of some special characters, if they are different then it is not the same special character as per the rules on 110.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Are special characters particular people: Yes
Is it the same person: Yes
Thus, they are the same character.

I am not seeing the rules for "particular people" in the BRB, citation please.

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

"Special characters roll for Warlord traits as normal, unless their profile specifically notes that they have a fixed Warlord trait."(110)

A fixed warlord trait is a part of some special characters, if they are different then it is not the same special character as per the rules on 110.

What if he's not your warlord though? then both would be exactly alike in every way.

if "same" is so ambiguous though, then shouldn't the interpretation end up:

special characters are unique, you can't have multiple special characters in a army.

as a "unique special character" is the same as "unique special character", And those are the only terms used in the rule.

therefore you just get 1 special character in your army. As there is no RAW support for what makes something the same or different, than this is the only conclusion that can be made based on the information in that one sentence.

sirlynchmob wrote:
What if he's not your warlord though? then both would be exactly alike in every way.

The above is false. Just because he is not using the warlord trait does not mean the two are Identical...

He does not magically lose the Warlord trait from his rules if he is not the warlord.

if "same" is so ambiguous though, then shouldn't the interpretation end up:

special characters are unique, you can't have multiple special characters in a army.

as a "unique special character" is the same as "unique special character", And those are the only terms used in the rule.

therefore you just get 1 special character in your army. As there is no RAW support for what makes something the same or different, than this is the only conclusion that can be made based on the information in that one sentence.

this is also partially false, the rule clearly states you can not have multiples of the SAME special character.

If the SC's are not the same you can include both SC's.

 SRSFACE wrote:
If anything, I'd argue taking Coteaz from Grey Knights you should use him as listed in the 6E Inquisition codex.

I'd have significantly less of a problem with that than someone trying to bring the same guy twice.

I'd hope you are not seriously proposing that Codex: Inquisition is in part or in whole the 6th edition version of Codex: Grey Knights? That is so fundamentally wrong I do not even know where to begin to understand where you feel there is support for 'that' idea.


Simply put: we do not have a specific rules definition of what counts as 'Same' .

Given there appears to be no rules-explicit indication that we need only refer to the name of a given character to determine whether or not it is 'the same' and anyone arguing that is RAW has yet to bring forth a specific argument to validate that opinion; I'd say it's pretty clear they have a number of differences, and therefore 'are' different.

You'll note I agree with you on some points: I do not think this was GWs plan (ie: RAI) when they released the codex, and I'm shocked that there hasn't been errata issued to that effect long ago.

As written however, there hasn't yet been a sensible rules based argument to exclude using both of them in the same army.

Oh so you can take 2 Abaddons then? The Black Legion one has the "Bringers of Despair" special rule where as the Chaos Space Marine doesn't. No you can't... It's really simple stuff with special characters. Same name = same character = can't be taken twice.

 Neorealist wrote:
If anything, I'd argue taking Coteaz from Grey Knights you should use him as listed in the 6E Inquisition codex.

I'd have significantly less of a problem with that than someone trying to bring the same guy twice.

I'd hope you are not seriously proposing that Codex: Inquisition is in part or in whole the 6th edition version of Codex: Grey Knights? That is so fundamentally wrong I do not even know where to begin to understand where you feel there is support for 'that' idea.


Simply put: we do not have a specific rules definition of what counts as 'Same' .

Given there appears to be no rules-explicit indication that we need only refer to the name of a given character to determine whether or not it is 'the same' and anyone arguing that is RAW has yet to bring forth a specific argument to validate that opinion; I'd say it's pretty clear they have a number of differences, and therefore 'are' different.

You'll note I agree with you on some points: I do not think this was GWs plan (ie: RAI) when they released the codex, and I'm shocked that there hasn't been errata issued to that effect long ago.

As written however, there hasn't yet been a sensible rules based argument to exclude using both of them in the same army.

If they both have different warlord traits, and there is no rule saying you cannot, then yes? That is the point I've been making all along.

I'm not saying it's ethical, or sensible, or advisable even, I'm saying it's RAW.

 Neorealist wrote:
If they both have different warlord traits, and there is no rule saying you cannot, then yes? That is the point I've been making all along.

I'm not saying it's ethical, or sensible, or advisable even, I'm saying it's RAW.

But it doesn't say "For a SC to be considered the same model across two different codices they need to have the same Warlord Trait, otherwise for all intensive purposes they are a different unit" It doesn't say anything even remotely close.

Sure it does. Referring back to one of my earlier posts in this topic:

One specific rule for special characters is that ...Special Characters roll for Warlord traits as normal, unless their profile specifically notes they have a fixed Warlord trait...

One profile for Coteaz requires you to roll for warlord traits as normal. The other one does not, given it has a fixed Warlord trait.

I'm not sure why folk are not seemingly getting that the above makes one profile different from the other, I'm really not.

All the actual rule says is that you cannot use the 'same' unique character. It does not define the word 'same' in any relevant way, so I've been using the plain English definition of such: So, C: I Coteaz differs from C:GK Coteaz on at least one salient and thoroughly unambiguous point, and is therefore not the 'same'.

 Neorealist wrote:
I'm not saying it's ethical, or sensible, or advisable even, I'm saying it's RAW.

It's also RAW that a model without eyes cannot shoot.
Both are clearly not the intent.

 grendel083 wrote:

 Neorealist wrote:
I'm not saying it's ethical, or sensible, or advisable even, I'm saying it's RAW.

It's also RAW that a model without eyes cannot shoot.
Both are clearly not the intent.

Yep. And?

I've been very clear in the delineation between RAW and RAI that I have been making in my posts on this topic.

 Zande4 wrote:
Saying SC's need to have the same Warlord trait to be the same character has no basis and it doesn't say it in the BRB. Therefor we go with the common sense variety of same because it really doesn't need a rules clarification...

on the contrary, the rule for how special characters can select a warlord trait is quite clearly quoted directly from the BRB. I'd suggest reviewing the special characters section if you do not feel my quote is accurate.

 Neorealist wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 Neorealist wrote:
I'm not saying it's ethical, or sensible, or advisable even, I'm saying it's RAW.

It's also RAW that a model without eyes cannot shoot.
Both are clearly not the intent.

Yep. And?

I've been very clear in the delineation between RAW and RAI that I have been making in my posts on this topic.

So they're both RAW.
And neither should ever be considered during an actual game.

I'm all for a rules debate, but this one should have been drowned at birth, so to speak.
Why is it continuing?

Because I'm waiting for some rules support that would prevent one in this case from being able to essentially field 2 of the same special character? I'd really like there to be, but so far an accurate rebuttal to my contention hasn't surfaced in anyone else's arguments.

Two Corteaz? Pfffffft, why am I not even surprised.

Honestly, its just par for the course here.

 grendel083 wrote:

 Neorealist wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 Neorealist wrote:
I'm not saying it's ethical, or sensible, or advisable even, I'm saying it's RAW.

It's also RAW that a model without eyes cannot shoot.
Both are clearly not the intent.

Yep. And?

I've been very clear in the delineation between RAW and RAI that I have been making in my posts on this topic.

So they're both RAW.
And neither should ever be considered during an actual game.

I'm all for a rules debate, but this one should have been drowned at birth, so to speak.
Why is it continuing?

Because both sides, while they agree the intent is only one, claim different requirements for "sameness".

 Happyjew wrote:
Because both sides, while they agree the intent is only one, claim different requirements for "sameness".

yep, or that. Got to love how much GW seems to take for granted without spelling out in the interpretation of their rules eh?

 Happyjew wrote:
Because both sides, while they agree the intent is only one, claim different requirements for "sameness".

As I said, I'm all for a rules debate. It's just this one (same with the "eyes") just serves no point. Especially at this point, where the same arguments have just been repeated for 3 pages with nothing new.

Since everyone has agreed it has no place in an actual game, the conclusion is irrelevant. It's also clear there will be no conclusion, without FAQ, as neither side will agree. The same points are just being repeated now, and will continue to be repeated until the thread is locked.

It stopped being a rules debate 3 pages ago, it's just repeated points.hence why I ask "why is it continuing?".
With nothing new, each side can only hope the other gets bored and gives up. That's not a debate.

Neo - again, nothing in that warlord rule states that this is a defining determinant for "sameness". It doesnt.

AGain, you are told they have a personal name. That defines an SC as being an SC (you do not need the unique rule to be an SC, just a personal name) - Mad Dok is a SC, for example.

So now find where you are allowed to look at the profile IN ADDITION to the name to determine if they are the same. Page and graph. Repeating the warlord trait rule is irrelevant, as this does not lay out how you determien if the two are the same, it simply states they can have a fixed warlord trait, or roll as normal. THat does not say anything about comparing two SCs for "sameness"

Page, para, or concede.

(Oh, and permissive - I have shown permission to use the Name as a defining characteristic, i do not need to show how Special rules et al are NOT - you have to prove you CAN use them to determine "sameness")

You have not, however, shown that you use the name to determine equivalency between units in different units. And you can't, because the text does not say so.

You're putting an assumption into the text that's not there.

I love debating with you. Such 'conviction'.

To answer your question despite finding the tone of your comment to be rather personally offensive: page 110, specifically the 'Special Character' rules, with particular reference to the 'Unique' and 'Warlord Trait' sub-sections of same. What's that you say? you need to be walked through the connection because you simply do not see it even with the exact rules right in front of you? Sure thing.

First: the initial definition of 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'..."

Second: The only rule preventing multiple copies of the same special character from being fielded is the 'Unique' rule and another defining characteristic of a special character
"...Each special character is unique, so a player cannot include multiples of the same special character in an army..."

Third: The Warlord Traits rule and the final defining characteristic of a special character
"... Special characters roll for Warlord traits as normal, unless their profile specifically notes that they have a fixed Warlord trait..."

Why are all of the above indications of what exactly constitutes a special character? because they are the rules which specifically tell you what a special character is and does. They in effect, define the special character. So tell me again how the Unique rule doesn't matter and you need to solely refer to a character's name in order to determine if you can take more than one of them in your army list?


edit: font modifications are hard

Ah Neos sarcasm, so helpful.

Yes, the definition states an SC has a personal name, making it an SC.

YOu have still made an intense logical leap to decide that a rule which states how SCs handle Warlord Traits has anything to determining if one SC is the same as another.

You are failing to provide a rfule that states "having a different warlord trait is enough to make you not the same SC", when the definition of an SC is having a personal name

Nothing more.

You are then told how an SC interacts with the game, but that is NOT the same as saying this is a defnining characteristic that shows how one SC is different to another; or rather, how to tell if they are the same SC

Coteaz is an SC, the same SC as Coteaz, as SCs are special because they have a personal name.

PAge 110 is and remains irrelevant to this, as it does not help your case that stats etc are allowed to be looked at to determine "sameness" - you have not provided a single shred of evidence, despite your offensive manner of posting.

Unless you continue to make personal attacks, I will not respond to your lack-of-argument posts further

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Unless you continue to make personal attacks, I will not respond to your lack-of-argument posts further

Suits me fine. I find it odd that you do not consider the actual rules governing special characters to be relevant to a discussion of the rules governing special characters, but what can you do eh?

 Neorealist wrote:
I love debating with you. Such 'conviction'.

To answer your question despite finding the tone of your comment to be rather personally offensive: page 110, specifically the 'Special Character' rules, with particular reference to the 'Unique' and 'Warlord Trait' sub-sections of same. What's that you say? you need to be walked through the connection because you simply do not see it even with the exact rules right in front of you? Sure thing.

First: the initial definition of 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'..."

Second: The only rule preventing multiple copies of the same special character from being fielded is the 'Unique' rule and another defining characteristic of a special character
"...Each special character is unique, so a player cannot include multiples of the same special character in an army..."

Third: The Warlord Traits rule and the final defining characteristic of a special character

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

Why are all of the above indications of what exactly constitutes a special character? because they are the rules which specifically tell you what a special character is and does. They in effect, define the special character. So tell me again how the Unique rule doesn't matter and you need to solely refer to a character's name in order to determine if you can take more than one of them in your army list?


edit: font modifications are hard

This doesn't actually say what you think it says.

It doesn't state that the warlord traits are defining elements of a character.

It states that special characters roll for warlord traits as normal, unless their profile specifically notes they have a fixed one.

That does not mean the warlord trait makes them different or the same.


Using the logic that warlord trait makes models Different I could take two copies of Draigo, and roll for a warlord trait for one and not for the other which would give me 1 draigo with a warlord trait, and 1 without, according to your logic they are no longer unique.

All that you quoted is saying is if something that is a special character is a warlord here is how you determine its warlord traits, it doesn't state that that is part of what makes them unique.

Additionaly the warlord rules part on p.110 of the rulebook is actually a separate section under special characters than the unique section, therefore it has nothing to do with them being unique. Which is why you cannot take two Asdrubel Vects and roll once on the warlord chart for one of them and say "hey they are different!"

Sure it does. One of the SCs has a profile indicating you'll need to roll on the warlord traits table if it is selected as your warlord. The other one has a fixed trait.

This indicates at least one difference between their two profiles

If there is a quantifiable difference between two things, can they be considered the 'same'?

You obviously did not read anything I have written for you.

1.) You are saying that special characters can be taken more than once if you select one as your warlord and the other as a non warlord.

2.) You ignored that "Warlord Traits" is listed completely separately from "unique" under special characters. If it is listed under a separate section that Unique then it doesn't pertain to them being unqiue unless it specifically says so in that section, ie you have no permission to say warlord traits make them unique as it is not listed under "unique" and under the section for warlord traits, which is separate and not part of the unique section, it doesn't state or grant permission for warlord traits to be unique.

EDIT-

The profile for a model does not include special rules, wargear, or warlord traits. I suggest you refer to the rulebook p.3. The profile Includes only the model name and characteristics line.

The only thing that makes a model a "special character' is if it has a name in place of a title. Ie instead of saying "space marine chapter master" it will say "Marneus Calgar". This item is often founder under section "2" of the diagram for unit entries for each codex, you can find it in the current Inquisition codex on p.157 or so. It actually uses inquisitor Coteaz as an example. If he were not a special character instead of saying "Inquisitor Coteaz" it would say "Inquisitor"

You will notice under the unit entry for Inquisitor Coteaz for Inquisition detachments on p.162 that it says "Inquisitor Coteaz" in area 2. You will notice under the Unit entry for Inquisitor Coteaz in the GK codex on p.86 area 2 it says "Inquisitor Coteaz"

As You can see they are the same Name. As you can see it is a name and not a title like plain "Inquisitor"

The 4lst Millennium is filled with famous characters renowned as
legendary heroes or infamous villains - these unique individuals,
who stand out from normal characters because they have a
personal name and not just a title, are called
'special' characters.

The only RAW for what makes a character special is that it has a name under area 2 of a unit entry instead of a Title. Obviously the name of Inquisitor Coteaz is the same in both Codexes, therefore it is the same special character.

The unique rule in the brb on p.110, which you have completely misused, only tells us if the character is a special character than they are unique and you may not have more than one of the same character.

as The unit entry for the name area on both the INQ and Gk entry are the same, they are the same character.

There is no requirement RAW for the entries to be completely Identical beyond the name.

The unique section =DOES NOT= have anything to do with stats, wargear, rules pertaining to the model on the tabletop, or anything else- only that the model with a name instead of a title in its unit entry cannot be taken more than one time in an army.

1) No I am not. having a fixed warlord trait or not does not change depending on if the character is selected as your warlord. Either the model has it on it's profile, or it does not, regardless of wether or not it ever applies in a game. Ergo, You've misinterpreted 'my' point, at no juncture did I ever intend or imply that selecting the SC as your warlord would ever allow you to select the SC again as a non-warlord.

2) They are both rules applicable to special characters, so I fail to see why being listed lower on the page makes one any less relevant than the other. I'm saying that different warlord traits makes their profiles 'different'. Given we have no rules-specific definition of the word 'same', using the plain English one should suffice.

At it's most basic, what do you look at to compare wether or not a unit is the same as another unit? What defining characteristics are you told to compare? Who knows. The rules certainly do not tell us which differences are important and which are trivial. Given a lack of such a specific definition, I am saying 'any' differences are enough for their profiles to be considered different.

You are confused, the only thing that matters in the case of special characters being the same is their unit name, please read my above post.

The wargear, special rules, even the profile has no bearing on if a special character is a special character. Only the unit entry matters, if it is a name its a special character, if it is a title its not a special character.

blaktoof wrote:
You are confused, the only thing that matters in the case of special characters being the same is their unit name, please read my above post.

The wargear, special rules, even the profile has no bearing on if a special character is a special character. Only the unit entry matters, if it is a name its a special character, if it is a title its not a special character.

I'm not confused, your point is just unsubstantiated (or at least, unproven 'yet') within the rules as written. Also your later contention is directly contradicted by the fact that Unique characters like the cullexus and eversor assassins are most definitely unique models, but are only ever referred to by their title in leiu of their proper name.

 Neorealist wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
You are confused, the only thing that matters in the case of special characters being the same is their unit name, please read my above post.

The wargear, special rules, even the profile has no bearing on if a special character is a special character. Only the unit entry matters, if it is a name its a special character, if it is a title its not a special character.

I'm not confused, your point is just unsubstantiated (or at least, unproven 'yet') within the rules as written. Also your later contention is directly contradicted by the fact that Unique characters like the cullexus and eversor assassins are most definitely unique models, but are only ever referred to by their title in leiu of their proper name.

That doesn't contradict his contention if you consider that 'cullexus assassins' are not special characters. They simply have the 'unique' special rule which means you can not take two units with the name 'cullexus assassin' in the same army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Which I suppose leads to the conclusion that the fact a 'special character' is a 'special character' doesn't matter when looking at the 'unique' rule. What exactly is the 'unique' rule? (Don't have my BRB on me)

The only place the 'Unique' rule is found is as part of the rules for special characters. The specifically relevant text is: "...Each special character is unique, so a player cannot include multiples of the same special character in an army..."

As you can see, the concept of being a special character is integral to the application of the rule.

Zimko wrote:

 Neorealist wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
You are confused, the only thing that matters in the case of special characters being the same is their unit name, please read my above post.

The wargear, special rules, even the profile has no bearing on if a special character is a special character. Only the unit entry matters, if it is a name its a special character, if it is a title its not a special character.

I'm not confused, your point is just unsubstantiated (or at least, unproven 'yet') within the rules as written. Also your later contention is directly contradicted by the fact that Unique characters like the cullexus and eversor assassins are most definitely unique models, but are only ever referred to by their title in leiu of their proper name.

That doesn't contradict his contention if you consider that 'cullexus assassins' are not special characters. They simply have the 'unique' special rule which means you can not take two units with the name 'cullexus assassin' in the same army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Which I suppose leads to the conclusion that the fact a 'special character' is a 'special character' doesn't matter when looking at the 'unique' rule. What exactly is the 'unique' rule? (Don't have my BRB on me)

The only mention of Unique in regards to units is that "Each special character is Unique, so a player cannot include multiples of the same special character in an army".

I am of the opinion that, while units such as the Vindicare Assassin is Unique and a Character this does not make them a Special Character as they do not have a name (as the rules for Special Characters state they should), so using the Assassins from C: Grey Knights as an argument with regards to Special Characters is a red herring. They have no bearing on the discussion.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Neorealist wrote:
The only place the 'Unique' rule is found is as part of the rules for special characters. The specifically relevant text is: "...Each special character is unique, so a player cannot include multiples of the same special character in an army..."

As you can see, the concept of being a special character is integral to the application of the rule.

If being Unique means being a Special Character then the GK Assassins break the rules. Using everything regarding Special Characters means they must have a name. They do not have a name, ergo they cannot be Special Characters (simply Characters (Unique)).

Perhaps there are other defining characteristics than name with which to determine if a given model is a special character or not? like for example, the presence of the 'Unique' rule on their profile somewhere?

 Neorealist wrote:
Perhaps there are other defining characteristics than name with which to determine if a given model is a special character or not? like for example, the presence of the 'Unique' rule on their profile somewhere?

Perhaps, if unique were specific to only Special Characters, which it clearly is not.

All Special Characters are Unique, but not all Unique Characters are Special Characters. Unique, therefore, is not what determines if the Coteaz from C:GK = the Coteaz from C:I

The only thing that makes a special character a special character is the name in the unity entry. If its a name, they are special character, if its not a name, they are not a special character.

There is nothing else to it. at all.

IF they are a special character they also have the "unqiue" rule, which states you may not take more than one of the same.

What makes them the same? Its already spelled out for you RAW, the name. ONLY THE NAME.

THERE ARE NO OTHER DEFINING CHARACTERISTICS FOR WHAT MAKES A CHARACTER A SPECIAL CHARACTER.

Does the special character have further characteristics past its name? Yes. Do they make it a special character? No. It is a special character solely by the virtue of having a name. This is fully substantiated by the rules on p.110, which state a special character has a name instead of a title. That section then ends, there are no other rules at all towards what makes it a special character. There is some fluff about yarrick and some fluff about kharn, then it tells you if you are a special character you are also Unique. Unique doesn't make you a special character, its something you have by being a special character.

Furthermore the section unique is a rule that special characters have, not what makes them special characters.

Rorschach9 wrote:
Perhaps, if unique were specific to only Special Characters, which it clearly is not.

All Special Characters are Unique, but not all Unique Characters are Special Characters. Unique, therefore, is not what determines if the Coteaz from C:GK = the Coteaz from C:I

Clearly, the unique rule can only be taken within the context of a special character as it specifically references only special characters. Anything with the unique rule perforce needs to be a special character in order for the rule to have any meaning.

I digress however. The rules state there are many discrete aspects of a special character. Amongst them are rules which indicate special characters are unique, and special characters have warlord traits.

What i am not seeing, is any specific reason to treat a rule that says you cannot take more than one of the same special character as any more or less relevant than a rule which states a special character has warlord traits if selected as a warlord, or for that matter a rule which indicates a special character has a proper name.

There really is no rule telling one to just check the name of the unit to confirm whether or not it is the same. Ergo, checking everything about the unit to discern 'same'-ness is the most logical approach.

Man. The only rule that needs to be quoted is the rule of immense douschebaggery. Anyone ever tries to take two you are clearly in violation of aforementioned rule.
I will yell HERESY and hammer fist the poser coteaz.

Lamo wrote:
I say this can't happen... Think of the other circumstances this could happen. Be'lakor he can be in daemons or c:sm but that doesn't mean hey why not I'll take one in each....

That is an awesome idea. If someone asks to run two Coteaz, I'll just run two Belakors. Fair and I'd take that trade off any day.

My take on it is that logic says only 1 Coteaz but rule wise I don't see any problem with 2 Coteaz's.

The argument against taking him twice is that it is the same SC. Whilst they are the same SC, technically they are not as they are from 2 different codixes so they are SC's for 2 different armies but just so happen to share the same name and stats.

 Neorealist wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Unless you continue to make personal attacks, I will not respond to your lack-of-argument posts further

Suits me fine. I find it odd that you do not consider the actual rules governing special characters to be relevant to a discussion of the rules governing special characters, but what can you do eh?

Insult, so responding

yes, they are rules governing sc's. No, they are not relevant to determining whether one sc is the same as another, as nowhere I the rule you quoted does it actually say that
"What can you do eh?" Indeed. You've had this explained a few times now, and you still seem to struggle...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Neo - also you are assuming that unique makes you an SC. BASIC logical fallacy of a implies b means b implies a. Try again, without the fallacious logic, and you will realise that the only defining char for an SC is given as the name, never anything more.

Provide explicit permission, page and para, to consider ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE NAME when comparing SCs. Page and para, or concede.

Maybe the next sentence after that that speaks of Special Characters having special traits and skills that make them famous? Which is about as definite as the 'personal name'?

 Shandara wrote:
Maybe the next sentence after that that speaks of Special Characters having special traits and skills that make them famous? Which is about as definite as the 'personal name'?

And what are the rules for "special traits and skills"?

 Shandara wrote:
Maybe the next sentence after that that speaks of Special Characters having special traits and skills that make them famous? Which is about as definite as the 'personal name'?

I assume you did not bother reading back a couple of pages, when this last attempt to use fluff as rules came up?

Page and para that defines traits and skills as something rule related please. Or concede.

They're the same person. No one is over going to let you do this. It's like the old "If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to here it, does it make a sound?". You can't take 2 because no one is going to let you and if no one let's you do something it means it's not allowed! So it's pointless arguing if you can or can't.

Let. This. Thread. Die.

No

Lungpickle wrote:
No

No to taking Coteaz twice, or no to letting this thread die?

 Happyjew wrote:

 Shandara wrote:
Maybe the next sentence after that that speaks of Special Characters having special traits and skills that make them famous? Which is about as definite as the 'personal name'?

And what are the rules for "special traits and skills"?

Where are the rules for personal names? Or the 'individuals' the fluffy first paragraph speaks about.

I've yet to see a page, para that defines them from Nosferatu1001 for that too. Or will he concede?

Personal names have no definition within 40k, so you fall back on plain English.

You cannot do so with "traits", as everything else within a character is well defined - characteristic, special rules, etc.

So no, no concession. Its understanding the difference between well defined and non well defined.

Found those rrules yet?

So you equate 'personal name' with the rules defined 'Unit Name' even though there are no rules telling you to? And you disallow equating 'traits' with Warlord Traits and 'skills' with, say, Special Rules.

And we're falling back on plain English again ?

If so, what does 'the same' mean? Does it mean your arbitrary choice of just the name of a unit or does it mean that the unit has to be identical in all aspects? I.e. all characteristics, rules, descriptions, etc..

I do not see any permission to determine sameness in the way you claim.

The sentence:

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

Doesn't seem like it contains permission to change the way we determine sameness. It merely says they have an additional characteristic, i.e a personal name. Does this sentence tell us to discount every OTHER characteristic? If so, you interpret this plain English sentence a bit different from me.

Unless you have found those rules somewhere else yet?

When you can. Personal name is fairly clear, traits is not. Well defined vs not.

Last posey on this, as you have failed to convince and this is just circular.

Let it die.

I find it interesting that 'plain english' is used to justify referring to the proper name of the character only and not anything else to do with the character, but is apparently 'not' to be used to justify coming to that conclusion in the first place when parsing the word 'same' in the unique rule. Makes you think.

Also: stop that Zande4, that sort of post doesn't really help anything since it doesn't contain anything relevant to this debate.

Have you read the previous 6 pages? I don't blame you if you haven't but allow me to sum it up for you. 1.5 pages of valid points and solid arguments then 4.5 pages of copy paste. My "let it die" comment adds as much to this discussion as the last 4 and half pages, which is nothing... Neither side is going to agree about this as far as RAW goes but for the most part we all agree you shouldn't do this. Which is as good as this one is going to get, so lets stop it from bumping other threads off the front page by simply letting it die.

Kiwidru wrote:
I think the answer is: "If you are asking because you truly care what your opponent thinks, go with whatever he says."

Its not like there are any 'official GW sanctioned tournaments', or that their will be in the foreseeable future... so what does it actually matter what the 'rules' say.

What you are asking is akin to "Does Volcano beats TNT in paper-rock-scissors." There is no answer because there is no authority to consult. GW is a collectors hobby not a gamers hobby, and they do everything in their power to keep it that way.

The sooner you accept this the better your life will be.

Sorry I'm six pages late, but this here deserves an exalt.

I would allow it.

What I find interesting is that I often see the argument thrown around that you can rename a special character and have them "counts as". I don't know about Coteaz in particular as I don't have either codex, but if its commonly accepted that you can field let's say Tigurius from the Space Marine book but say he's not really Tigurius (if you aren't even fielding Ultramarines), then why couldn't you apply that here? Only one Coteaz is the man himself, the other is fielded "counts as" some other Inquisitor. They're from two different codexes after all, it's not like you're taking the same guy from the same book twice, which is clearly a no-no.

Note that I'm not advocating doing this as it's clearly not in the spirit of the game or the rules, but I'm not aware of anything really preventing it - the defining factor for me is that it's the same guy (roughly) in two different books. I wasn't aware that the uniqueness was keyed to the character's name, because again I always see the "counts as" argument crop up when taking for instance Lysander (Imperial Fists) in a non-IF army. It just so happens that in most cases the character is only in one book. Besides wasn't there a special character (Tycho?) who had two different entries in one book? What about a case like that? Could you field one Tycho as the actual Captain Erasmus Tycho, and the other as some other captain?

Incidentally this is why I'm against special characters without permission and "counts as" for special characters in general

Kiwidru wrote:
Its not like there are any 'official GW sanctioned tournaments', or that their will be in the foreseeable future...

Eh? Of course there are!
Throne of Skulls at Warhammer World is going strong

This is the painful statement of non-updated faq's. Yes, if I'm taking my whole army out of GK, then one Coteaz. If he is allying in from a seperate codex, he can bring a inquisitor that has seen Coteaz and feels his way of doing the work of the inquisition is the best and has modeled his career after him, then yes he "may" bring a second Coteaz. Two completely seperate codexs allow this level of troll to happen. Friendly game it's allowable But Not Welcome. Tournaments will likely Gibbs for doing that.

Wayne, with taking a second detachment, ally, and you bring a counts as space marine special character you relegate now to having his chapter tactics. This is why a lot of people that has ultramarine vulkans got mad, because it made them change their tactics to salamanders.

wow... 7 pages over a minor rules conflict that is very very easy to interpret? no wonder gaming has gone downhill...

Two Abbadons!

viewfinder wrote:
wow... 7 pages over a minor rules conflict that is very very easy to interpret? no wonder gaming has gone downhill...

Welcome to the wonderful world of internet forums.

 DanielBeaver wrote:

viewfinder wrote:
wow... 7 pages over a minor rules conflict that is very very easy to interpret? no wonder gaming has gone downhill...

Welcome to the wonderful world of internet forums.

and rules lawyers...

And people who like to complain about either of the above without offering anything else substantive to the conversation...

Generally speaking the fact that there is a 7 page debate on something like this is a pretty good indication that it is 'not' as cut and dried as it really should be.

consider the fact that face-to-face, no one would even consider asking the original question.

I suspect they might, given it may very well be a legal play. Or at least (and again, at the risk of sounding redundant) it's not as cut and dried as some seem to think. Perhaps it'd be a better approach to use a different argument rather than simply appealing to the presumed similarity of the decision making processes for people you do not even know?

if it is 2 guys from 2 different codexs then it is allowed in my view.

 Neorealist wrote:
Generally speaking the fact that there is a 7 page debate on something like this is a pretty good indication that it is 'not' as cut and dried as it really should be.

Dakka constantly spawns sprawling argument threads about the most inane things.

Yes, the RAW are unclear about this, because it's a weird edge case born out of GW's rules publishing schedule. You'll just have to discuss it with your opponent beforehand - I would allow my opponent to play 2 Coteaz's if we wanted to play a quirky game (maybe he got himself mixed up in the warp and popped out in another time). But if an opponent shows up at my FLGS with two Coteaz's and insists that he's within his rights to include both of them in his army based on the ambiguous rules and twisted logic of arguments he read on Dakka, I'm just going to shake my head at his lack of common sense.

This whole thing wreaks of im trying tobe a beardy moron and claiming that i can fiueld 2 of the same unique character.

plain and simple he has the same name and profile and i believe wargear just different special rules... 3/4 criteria 1 and 1 only all your trying to do is get off 2 rounds of IBEY to stop your opponent even thinking of using reserves.

Learn to play having fun not being an %£$^&%&

 grendel083 wrote:

Kiwidru wrote:
Its not like there are any 'official GW sanctioned tournaments', or that their will be in the foreseeable future...

Eh? Of course there are!
Throne of Skulls at Warhammer World is going strong

Yes, but Warhammer World is as official as Forgeworld for determining what is 40k. Muhaha, I stirred the pot!

That being said...just...no. It is the same character. You can only have one of any unique character, despite different abilities/stats.

 Farseer Faenyin wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

Kiwidru wrote:
Its not like there are any 'official GW sanctioned tournaments', or that their will be in the foreseeable future...

Eh? Of course there are!
Throne of Skulls at Warhammer World is going strong

Yes, but Warhammer World is as official as Forgeworld for determining what is 40k. Muhaha, I stirred the pot!

That being said...just...no. It is the same character. You can only have one of any unique character, despite different abilities/stats.

But if they're different then can they be the same?

Nos' argument is that all that matters is the name. Which is fine. I disagree, but I don't care enough since I don't think it is intended.

champagne_socialist wrote:
if it is 2 guys from 2 different codexs then it is allowed in my view.

according to your other thread on this, your view is to bring in two Coteazes for cheese and an illegal formation.

your input is not needed.

viewfinder wrote:

champagne_socialist wrote:
if it is 2 guys from 2 different codexs then it is allowed in my view.

according to your other thread on this, your view is to bring in two Coteazes for cheese and an illegal formation.

your input is not needed.

My input is very much needed as I have more tactical knowledge of the game than you.

Coteaz from 2 different codexs is 2 different characters from 2 different armies.

champagne_socialist wrote:

viewfinder wrote:

champagne_socialist wrote:
if it is 2 guys from 2 different codexs then it is allowed in my view.

according to your other thread on this, your view is to bring in two Coteazes for cheese and an illegal formation.

your input is not needed.

My input is very much needed as I have more tactical knowledge of the game than you..

Citation needed.

IMO they are different special characters (rules -wise). I would not play it t hat way, I would not rule it that way, nor would I play against someone who plays it that way.

 Happyjew wrote:

champagne_socialist wrote:

viewfinder wrote:

champagne_socialist wrote:
if it is 2 guys from 2 different codexs then it is allowed in my view.

according to your other thread on this, your view is to bring in two Coteazes for cheese and an illegal formation.

your input is not needed.

My input is very much needed as I have more tactical knowledge of the game than you..

Citation needed.

IMO they are different special characters (rules -wise). I would not play it t hat way, I would not rule it that way, nor would I play against someone who plays it that way.

Is coteaz really that scary that you would not play against someone who took 2 of them from 2 different armies?

I run a grey knight henchmen army and I ally in the inquisition to get more hq's but I wouldn't ally in a 2nd coteaz even if the rules allowed it, one of him does the job and sending 100 points of another one of his is a waste. would rather get an inquisitor with a conversion beamer and a level 1 psyker for those points etc etc

No, it's not scary. But while I think the rules support taking 2, I am certain that GW did not intend for somebody to take 2. Just like I am certain that GW did not intend for models without eyes to not be able to shoot or charge, or for Grav weapons to ignore saves on vehicles, etc.

running the one Character that has been duplicated between two books is a neckbeard cheese move.

and it's fun y that no one ever considered taking two Inquisitor Karamazovs when he was in the Witch Hunters and Grey Knights books. but then again, rules lawyers have recently overtaken the game players.

viewfinder wrote:
running the one Character that has been duplicated between two books is a neckbeard cheese move.

and it's fun y that no one ever considered taking two Inquisitor Karamazovs when he was in the Witch Hunters and Grey Knights books. but then again, rules lawyers have recently overtaken the game players.

Probably because Grey Knights came out in 5th edition, where in normal games you did not have allies, and in Apocalypse there was no limit on special characters.

 Happyjew wrote:

viewfinder wrote:
running the one Character that has been duplicated between two books is a neckbeard cheese move.

and it's fun y that no one ever considered taking two Inquisitor Karamazovs when he was in the Witch Hunters and Grey Knights books. but then again, rules lawyers have recently overtaken the game players.

Probably because Grey Knights came out in 5th edition, where in normal games you did not have allies, and in Apocalypse there was no limit on special characters.

wrong... Witch Hunters still permitted allies.

The rhetorical pitch ITT is a bit too wound up. This is a forum about playing with toy soldiers. And we have a rule about keeping things polite. Don't let this stuff get to you, guys. Thanks!

viewfinder wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

viewfinder wrote:
running the one Character that has been duplicated between two books is a neckbeard cheese move.

and it's fun y that no one ever considered taking two Inquisitor Karamazovs when he was in the Witch Hunters and Grey Knights books. but then again, rules lawyers have recently overtaken the game players.

Probably because Grey Knights came out in 5th edition, where in normal games you did not have allies, and in Apocalypse there was no limit on special characters.

wrong... Witch Hunters still permitted allies.

And what could they ally with?

If you were running WH, you could have IG or SM allies.
If you were running loyalist SM, IG or Daemonhunters you could take WH allies.

Grey Knights is in neither list.

Consider this a warning for the entire thread--please refrain from "I'm better than you" posts. Each time a thread delves into a "Who's smarter"/personal tirade---it derails the conversation into ad hominems.

Stay objective, don't get personal and stay on topic. Thanks.

Ryan

 Happyjew wrote:

viewfinder wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

viewfinder wrote:
running the one Character that has been duplicated between two books is a neckbeard cheese move.

and it's fun y that no one ever considered taking two Inquisitor Karamazovs when he was in the Witch Hunters and Grey Knights books. but then again, rules lawyers have recently overtaken the game players.

Probably because Grey Knights came out in 5th edition, where in normal games you did not have allies, and in Apocalypse there was no limit on special characters.

wrong... Witch Hunters still permitted allies.

And what could they ally with?

If you were running WH, you could have IG or SM allies.
If you were running loyalist SM, IG or Daemonhunters you could take WH allies.

Grey Knights is in neither list.

I believe they had alliances available with every Imperial book. Either way, only the beardy would consider a double-Coteaz list as valid.

viewfinder, I posted exactly what WHs could ally with.

If running a WH army you could take either Inducted Imperial Guard or Space Marines allies (neither of which are GK).

Furthermore, WH can be used as allies in the following armies:

Space Marines (including BA, SW, DA, BT, Salamanders and other loyalist Index Astartes Chapters)
Imperial Guard (and variants)
Daemonhunters

Again, none of which are GK.

 AgeOfEgos wrote:
Consider this a warning for the entire thread--please refrain from "I'm better than you" posts. Each time a thread delves into a "Who's smarter"/personal tirade---it derails the conversation into ad hominems.

Stay objective, don't get personal and stay on topic. Thanks.

Ryan

Only one person in this thread has resorted to this and if you look at his post history he's full off other gems like the one he just posted. 90% of the threads he post in have a mod warning.

On topic: 1 Coteaz good, 2 Coteaz bad.

And on that note--thread's done.