53985
Post by: TheKbob
So since Codex Inquisition Coteaz now has different rules from Codex Grey Knights Coteaz, can you field both of them?
49616
Post by: grendel083
Is it that time of month already?
This question again?
9158
Post by: Hollismason
Are you not feeling fresh?
Kind of wondering this as well.
27684
Post by: Thaanos
The rulebook states "you can only ever include one of each Unique model in an army"
And as he has the same name in each codex, and both are stated to be unique, I would say no you can not.
Although if your gaming group does not mind you can house rule that you can field one from each codex, and fluff it out as a warpstorm(which would be really funny with their names)
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
They are not the same unique character, since they have different rules, so RAW you can field both.
It would probably raise a few eyebrows though.
41407
Post by: Bludbaff
They must move toward each other at maximum speed, then fight in a challenge until one is dead. Once that happens, the other can behave normally.
/not intended to be a factual statement
27684
Post by: Thaanos
DeathReaper wrote:They are not the same unique character, since they have different rules, so RAW you can field both.
It would probably raise a few eyebrows though.
What rules are different? They have the exact same rules, and statline. The only difference is which book they come from, and one of those books does not have an FAQ as of yet.
81927
Post by: Farseer Anath'lan
Bludbaff wrote:They must move toward each other at maximum speed, then fight in a challenge until one is dead. Once that happens, the other can behave normally.
/not intended to be a factual statement
Why not? Destroy the impostor, let only the righteous triumph!
But no, I'd say that, since they both have the name 'Inquisitor Coteaz', that you can't. I'd be game for it, provided it was friendly and you gave me a heads up, but yeah.
41407
Post by: Bludbaff
Thaanos wrote:What rules are different? They have the exact same rules, and statline.
Well, actually, they just FAQed his Codex: Inquisition version to no longer have the rule that no longer did anything as of 7th. He is very irate in another thread, because this interferes with the way he was pretending that it worked (namely that when it said your Elites were scoring, that now translated to Elites having Objective Secured, because of reasons).
Interestingly, since the text of the rules was already different ( GK Coteaz makes your Henchmen troops, C:I Coteaz made them scoring), this should have already come up. But what it comes down to is that two models named Inquisitor Coteaz and possessing the Unique rule cannot be in the same army, regardless if one of them is a Grot that stole an Inquisitor's hat and the other is a Warlord Titan.
9158
Post by: Hollismason
Hey, there are 10 trillion Human Beings in the Galaxy in 40k and the empire has what like at least 200 billion?
Out of 200 billion people you don't think at least 2 guys are gonna have the same name?
RAW you can have Coteaz in your army from Greyknights and Ally him in with Inquisition and if you can do this you most certainly should.
Here are some actual rules on it though
ARMY LIST ENTRIES IN DIFFERENT PUBLICATIONS
There are a few units whose Army List Entries are presented in more than one Games Workshop publication. Daemon Princes, for example,..... In these instances, the unit’s Faction is determined by whichever codex it was chosen from. Be sure to keep track of which is which if you decide to take one from more than one source.
Unique Models
...... are noted as being Unique in their Army List Entry. Unique models include named characters and extraordinary units or vehicles, of which there is only one known example in the whole galaxy. Because of this, you can only ever include one of each Unique model in an army.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Thaanos wrote: DeathReaper wrote:They are not the same unique character, since they have different rules, so RAW you can field both.
It would probably raise a few eyebrows though.
What rules are different? They have the exact same rules, and statline. The only difference is which book they come from, and one of those books does not have an FAQ as of yet.
The Inquisition Coteaz has a set warlord trait, the GK Coteaz does not.
The Inquisition Coteaz does not have Frag Grenades, the GK Coteaz does.
56277
Post by: Eldarain
DeathReaper wrote: Thaanos wrote: DeathReaper wrote:They are not the same unique character, since they have different rules, so RAW you can field both.
It would probably raise a few eyebrows though.
What rules are different? They have the exact same rules, and statline. The only difference is which book they come from, and one of those books does not have an FAQ as of yet.
The Inquisition Coteaz has a set warlord trait, the GK Coteaz does not.
The Inquisition Coteaz does not have Frag Grenades, the GK Coteaz does.
The Inquisition Coteaz also doesn't have "Lord of Formosa"
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Eldarain wrote: DeathReaper wrote: Thaanos wrote: DeathReaper wrote:They are not the same unique character, since they have different rules, so RAW you can field both. It would probably raise a few eyebrows though. What rules are different? They have the exact same rules, and statline. The only difference is which book they come from, and one of those books does not have an FAQ as of yet.
The Inquisition Coteaz has a set warlord trait, the GK Coteaz does not. The Inquisition Coteaz does not have Frag Grenades, the GK Coteaz does.
The Inquisition Coteaz also doesn't have "Lord of Formosa" I am pretty sure he does. It is listed after I’ve Been Expecting You, and before Spy Network in the Inquisition Dataslate. The two rules are worded differently though.
56277
Post by: Eldarain
DeathReaper wrote: Eldarain wrote: DeathReaper wrote: Thaanos wrote: DeathReaper wrote:They are not the same unique character, since they have different rules, so RAW you can field both.
It would probably raise a few eyebrows though.
What rules are different? They have the exact same rules, and statline. The only difference is which book they come from, and one of those books does not have an FAQ as of yet.
The Inquisition Coteaz has a set warlord trait, the GK Coteaz does not.
The Inquisition Coteaz does not have Frag Grenades, the GK Coteaz does.
The Inquisition Coteaz also doesn't have "Lord of Formosa"
I am pretty sure he does. It is listed after I’ve Been Expecting You, and before Spy Network in the Inquisition Dataslate.
They just removed it in an update.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Okay then. I must need the update.
But that is another thing that is different, therefore they are not the same.
74704
Post by: Naw
You can trust Games Workshop to come up with a rule to forbid two of the same uniquely named characters and then go out of their way to actually cause an issue by screwing up the updates/ FAQs. Automatically Appended Next Post: DeathReaper wrote:Okay then. I must need the update.
But that is another thing that is different, therefore they are not the same.
How do we know that? They are similarly named.
Unique models include named characters...
9158
Post by: Hollismason
I feel if you do take both of them they have to be in the same squad just HIWPI. Just so you can maximize the annoyance,
" Okay I shoot at Coteaz"
" This Coteaz?"
" No the other Coteaz"
" Which one is that"
" This is Grey Knight Coteaz"
" Ok so you don't want to shoot at this Coteaz"
" Yes if he is the Grey Knight Coteaz"
" No this is the Inquisition Coteaz"
" Ugh I give up going home to drink".
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Naw wrote:You can trust Games Workshop to come up with a rule to forbid two of the same uniquely named characters and then go out of their way to actually cause an issue by screwing up the updates/ FAQs.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DeathReaper wrote:Okay then. I must need the update.
But that is another thing that is different, therefore they are not the same.
How do we know that? They are similarly named.
Unique models include named characters...
We know that because you do not have two of the same unique character, the two are clearly different.
74704
Post by: Naw
And that is said exactly where in the rules?
22349
Post by: portugus
I think having the same name is enough for unique to limit it.
Unique Models
...... are noted as being Unique in their Army List Entry. Unique models include named characters and extraordinary units or vehicles, of which there is only one known example in the whole galaxy. Because of this, you can only ever include one of each Unique model in an army.
There is only 1 Inq. Coteaz in the galaxy therefore you cannot have two in your army regardless of his other rules. I don't think people would let you do it in pick up games at a flgs but run it by your friends and maybe they'll let you do it.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Naw wrote:And that is said exactly where in the rules?
Right here:
"Because of this, you can only ever include one of each Unique model in an army." (Choosing your army chapter, Unique models section).
One of each Unique model = you can not have two of the same special character.
Since the Coteaz from the Inquisition book is different than the Coteaz from the Gk codex, they are not the same and if you include both in an army you do not have more than one of each Unique model, you have two different unique models.
74704
Post by: Naw
Why don't you read what the previous poster wrote as he quoted the full rule?
Your interpretation is incorrect assumption not based on actual rules.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Naw wrote:Why don't you read what the previous poster wrote as he quoted the full rule? Your interpretation is incorrect assumption not based on actual rules. My interpretation is RAW. I read the previous post. "Some models are noted as being Unique in their Army List Entry. Unique models include named characters and extraordinary units or vehicles, of which there is only one known example in the whole galaxy. Because of this, you can only ever include one of each Unique model in an army." The quote is take direct from the Unique Models section.. The part where it says "one of each Unique model" means the models have to be the same to be disallowed from taking more than one. portugus wrote:I think having the same name is enough for unique to limit it. Unique Models ...... are noted as being Unique in their Army List Entry. Unique models include named characters and extraordinary units or vehicles, of which there is only one known example in the whole galaxy. Because of this, you can only ever include one of each Unique model in an army. There is only 1 Inq. Coteaz in the galaxy therefore you cannot have two in your army regardless of his other rules. I don't think people would let you do it in pick up games at a flgs but run it by your friends and maybe they'll let you do it.
having the same name is not enough for unique to limit it, for the reasons I gave earlier in this post.
77483
Post by: wargamer1985
removed
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DeathReaper wrote:
My interpretation is RAW.
I read the previous post.
"Some models are noted as being Unique in their Army List Entry. Unique models include named characters and extraordinary units or vehicles, of which there is only one known example in the whole galaxy. Because of this, you can only ever include one of each Unique model in an army."
The quote is take direct from the Unique Models section..
The part where it says "one of each Unique model" means the models have to be the same to be disallowed from taking more than one.
Re-read your logic sir, you yourself are providing a rule that clearly states being a unique NAMED CHARACTER is all that matters. in the rule you are directly quoting underlined and boldened, where does it state that unique = name and rules? it specififically states models with the unique rule are usually characters... AKA in this case Coteaz and extraordinary units and vehicles. And that you can only apply 1 of these models to yuour army.
59251
Post by: Dozer Blades
It's not legal.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
wargamer1985 wrote:Re-read your logic sir, you yourself are providing a rule that clearly states being a unique NAMED CHARACTER is all that matters. in the rule you are directly quoting underlined and boldened, where does it state that unique = name and rules? it specififically states models with the unique rule are usually characters... AKA in this case Coteaz and extraordinary units and vehicles. And that you can only apply 1 of these models to yuour army.
(Emphasis mine) You really need to re-read the quote Because it does not say what you claim. (Specifically what I underlined above). "Some models are noted as being Unique in their Army List Entry. Unique models include named characters[/b][/u] and extraordinary units or vehicles, of which there is only one known example in the whole galaxy. Because of this, you can only ever include one of each Unique model in an army." Unique = name and rules because it says "you can only ever include one of each Unique model in an army." One of each means you can not take the same Unique character more than once. If they are not the same you many have as many different special characters as you feel like having. It actually is legal because of the rules quotes I gave above, not that many people will use two different Coteaz units.
77483
Post by: wargamer1985
Is this model Coteaz... yes
is that model Coteaz... yes
Are they BOTH Unique models... YES
sowhy are you fielding them both? well sir i am fielding both because they dont have identicle rules...
BUT wiat the BRB specifically states that uniques cannot be fielded more than once per army. You are trying to break the rules on a broken interpretation. The BRB does not state that unique means Name and rules it SPECIFICALLY states Unique is just that whether its a unit vehicle or named character.
Now please provide some actual rule s with page number paragraph and sentence number to back your claims as required by the tennents of this forum
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
wargamer1985 wrote:Is this model Coteaz... yes is that model Coteaz... yes Are they BOTH Unique models... YES sowhy are you fielding them both? well sir i am fielding both because they dont have identicle rules... BUT wiat the BRB specifically states that uniques cannot be fielded more than once per army. You are trying to break the rules on a broken interpretation. The BRB does not state that unique means Name and rules it SPECIFICALLY states Unique is just that whether its a unit vehicle or named character. Now please provide some actual rule s with page number paragraph and sentence number to back your claims as required by the tennents [sic] of this forum
(Emphasis mine). Actually I have given quotes, you are the one not backing your claims as required by the tenets of this forum. Your example could read: Is this model Dante... yes is that model Mephiston... yes Are they BOTH Unique models... YES So why are you fielding them both? well sir i am fielding both because they don't have identical rules... and it would make just as much of an impact on this discussion as your example. The underlined is not what the BRB says. The BRB actually says "Some models are noted as being Unique in their Army List Entry. Unique models include named characters[/b][/u] and extraordinary units or vehicles, of which there is only one known example in the whole galaxy. Because of this, you can only ever include one of each Unique model in an army." (Choosing your army chapter, Unique models section). It actually says "you can only ever include one of each Unique model in an army." You can only field one of each unique, so if the unique is the same you an not field more than one. (this is what one of each means). If it is a different unique you can field more than one.
77483
Post by: wargamer1985
But that is not raw!!! raw is clear 1 coteaz end of story provide actual brb or faq rules to back your argument!!!
Your extrapolating things which do not exist withinj the rules set
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
wargamer1985 wrote:But that is not raw!!! raw is clear 1 coteaz end of story provide actual brb or faq rules to back your argument!!!
Your extrapolating things which do not exist withinj the rules set
I have proven it, look at the actual rules quotes I have provided.
RAW is clear.
The BRB actually says "Some models are noted as being Unique in their Army List Entry. Unique models include named characters[/b][/u] and extraordinary units or vehicles, of which there is only one known example in the whole galaxy. Because of this, you can only ever include one of each Unique model in an army." (Choosing your army chapter, Unique models section).
You can only field one of each unique, so if the unique is the same you an not field more than one. (this is what one of each means). If it is a different unique you can field more than one.
That is the RAW. 2 Coteaz. The RAW is clear end of story.
77483
Post by: wargamer1985
so 2 marneus calgars are legal 2 lysanders 2 mephistonbs and anyo other by your non-raw ruling
76717
Post by: CrownAxe
But both coteaz would be the same model so you can't do that.
78937
Post by: Lshowell
According to reaper why yes you CAN field two Calgars! One in regular armor and one in terminator armor! because I mean come that means they arent the same unique character, they have different armor
86552
Post by: GoonBandito
Put a goatee on one of them. Then claim it's his Evil Twin.
56924
Post by: Captyn_Bob
Unique Models
...... are noted as being Unique in their Army List Entry. Unique models include named characters and extraordinary units or vehicles, of which there is only one known example in the whole galaxy. Because of this, you can only ever include one of each Unique model in an army.
Note "Model", not "set of rules"
There is only ONE official model for Coteaz.
If you are not using the official model then you aren't playing RAW anyway.
Stop trying to cheat. Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lol two calgars sounds legit.
46128
Post by: Happyjew
Captyn_Bob wrote:Unique Models
...... are noted as being Unique in their Army List Entry. Unique models include named characters and extraordinary units or vehicles, of which there is only one known example in the whole galaxy. Because of this, you can only ever include one of each Unique model in an army.
Note "Model", not "set of rules"
There is only ONE official model for Coteaz.
If you are not using the official model then you aren't playing RAW anyway.
Stop trying to cheat.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lol two calgars sounds legit.
So what if there is no official model for something? And what about models that have multiple models?
74704
Post by: Naw
DeathReaper wrote:Naw wrote:Why don't you read what the previous poster wrote as he quoted the full rule?
Your interpretation is incorrect assumption not based on actual rules.
My interpretation is RAW.
Let's see..
"Unique models include named characters"
Inquisitor Coteaz in two sources. Is it a named character? Yes, it is.
You wrote:
The part where it says "one of each Unique model" means the models have to be the same to be disallowed from taking more than one.
And what was the definition of a unique model? Did it specify rules anywhere? Let's find out:
"Some models are noted as being Unique in their Army List Entry. Unique models include named characters and extraordinary units or vehicles, of which there is only one known example in the whole galaxy. Because of this, you can only ever include one of each Unique model in an army."
Nope, it is not specified. Only that named characters, extraordinary units and vehicles are unique models.
The quote is take direct from the Unique Models section..
The part where it says "one of each Unique model" means the models have to be the same to be disallowed from taking more than one.
And you are incorrect here, as shown above.
having the same name is not enough for unique to limit it, for the reasons I gave earlier in this post.
Then what is? You have provided the rules, please quote the exact sentence where the above claim is supported.
9158
Post by: Hollismason
That's a good point about the "model" and not unit phrasing. Because isn't there a Formation that has a named character in it? I forget which one.
By that logic you could take that formation and then take another one of those models?
Changing my decision because of that and the phrasing of in your army which would include all of your army allies as well.
So I've changed my RAW to not being allowed.
34439
Post by: Formosa
As I stated before when this subject came up, if this is attempted at any events I and others run we will treat it as a blatant attempt to cheat and exploit the rules.
Others and t.o can do as they please of course.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
Formosa wrote:As I stated before when this subject came up, if this is attempted at any events I and others run we will treat it as a blatant attempt to cheat and exploit the rules
It, technically, is not cheating because the army list would be rejected before the tournament, asking the player to correct it.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Can you field Mephiston and Calgar in the same army?
If so why?
78937
Post by: Lshowell
They are two completely different characters. whats your reasoning behind not being able to field both of them? As stated above, with your logic I could run TWO Calgar...
74704
Post by: Naw
Fine, I'll play: Yes.
If so why?
Because they are unique characters with different names.
49999
Post by: Frozen Ocean
I'd go with the precedent set by Supplements, in which you can't field the same named character twice in both the primary and allied detachments (e.g. a Codex: CSM Abaddon and a Supplement: Black Legion Abaddon). However, them being in separate books (Inquisition and Grey Knights) makes it a unique situation which the rules don't cover.
Personally, I'd allow it.
Lshowell: That is not at all what Reaper was arguing. The premise of the argument is that Coteaz from the Inquisition book and Coteaz from the Grey Knights Codex are different characters because they are in different books, and have different rules.
Fielding two of the same character in different detachments is specifically forbidden by Supplements, but it doesn't cover what you're allowed to do when the characters are from completely different sources because normally this situation wouldn't happen. Supplements have specific wording to forbid duplicates of the same unique character, but the Inquisition book does not. Therefore, it is not forbidden by RAW.
74704
Post by: Naw
Frozen Ocean wrote:Supplements have specific wording to forbid duplicates of the same unique character, but the Inquisition book does not. Therefore, it is not forbidden by RAW.
Luckily BRB lays out the rule so we don't have to guess..
78937
Post by: Lshowell
You're right Frozen, I was only trying to make a point. You're also correct in the fact that there is no FAQ for it. However, given what I'm sure we all know GW was trying to make a point of when stating their rules on having multiples of the same unique character, Coteaz in either codex is obviously the same, just slightly different. BFor all intensive purposes he is the same, I personally would not allow it in any game or tourney. Until there is a clearer answer, all we will get is the two sides of the same coin.
46128
Post by: Happyjew
Actually an argument could be made that you could field 2 Marneus Calgar or 2 Khan. If you take the optional wargear (armour or bike) on one, they have different profiles, thus meaning they are different models.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Naw wrote:
Fine, I'll play: Yes.
If so why?
Because they are unique characters with different names.
So why does this not apply?
"you can only ever include one of each Unique model in an army."
They are both unique models.
Is it the "one of each Unique model in an army" that lets us take them both? Is it because they are different?
41407
Post by: Bludbaff
Happyjew wrote:Actually an argument could be made that you could field 2 Marneus Calgar or 2 Khan. If you take the optional wargear (armour or bike) on one, they have different profiles, thus meaning they are different models.
Also jetbike Sammael and Land Speeder Sammael.
6589
Post by: Boss GreenNutz
Simple way to end this. Just provide them the blister number for the GK Coteaz and the I one. Since GW obviously has them as separate characters they have different models for them.
49999
Post by: Frozen Ocean
So this means you can take duplicates of characters who don't have models? The rules have no connection to the blister numbers or any other "real world" considerations.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
First of all: you can NOT restrict unique to the physical model. If you did this, even basic troops would be "unique" as there are different poses per sprue - and what if I decide to convert one of my models? Secondly: stop throwing RAW around. We simply do not have any RAW at this point as there is no RAW definition of "unique" - it is not laid out in how you would define the uniqueness of a model. So, what is left is RAI which is 100% clear. ...and really, anyone who seriously plays such a list should not be played.
15582
Post by: blaktoof
rules do not determine if a model is "unique" our english language has a different defination than.
uniqued models include named characters.
if the models have the same name they are unique, rules do not matter.
If the models have the same rank they are not unique as a rank is not a name. ie marine, sgt, boy, git, nob, are ranks.
If coteaz is listed as coteaz in the profile of both army list entries then they are both the same coteaz. Their individual rules do not matter.
35241
Post by: HawaiiMatt
Frozen Ocean wrote:So this means you can take duplicates of characters who don't have models? The rules have no connection to the blister numbers or any other "real world" considerations.
And Duplicates of models who have multiple models. Hello assassins.
-Matt
74704
Post by: Naw
DeathReaper wrote:Naw wrote:
Fine, I'll play: Yes.
If so why?
Because they are unique characters with different names.
So why does this not apply?
"you can only ever include one of each Unique model in an army."
They are both unique models.
By what logic are they the same unique model?
Is it the "one of each Unique model in an army" that lets us take them both? Is it because they are different?
They are unique, but do not have the same name, as per the rules.
Was there a point here that I for some reason missed?
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Naw wrote: DeathReaper wrote:Naw wrote:
Fine, I'll play: Yes.
If so why?
Because they are unique characters with different names.
So why does this not apply?
"you can only ever include one of each Unique model in an army."
They are both unique models.
By what logic are they the same unique model?
Okay, so they have to be the same Unique model to be restricted? so since the two different Coteaz units are not the same they can both be fielded.
They are unique, but do not have the same name, as per the rules.
Was there a point here that I for some reason missed?
Yes, they have to be the same model to be restricted from taking more than one.
72001
Post by: troa
Stop arguing, let this thread die, and just go re-read the old threads. No need to rehash what's already been answered.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
DeathReaper wrote:
Okay, so they have to be the same Unique model to be restricted? so since the two different Coteaz units are not the same they can both be fielded.
That's your personal, likely to not be accepted anywhere, house rule.
81759
Post by: BaconCatBug
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 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.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
BaconCatBug wrote: 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.
The other cases in your signature are different. The " LoS from behind a helmet" issue is a problem that's solely limited to the internet and "people" claiming it to be RAW. The Cortez issue is different because there is no RAW on this. For a RAW solution, we would require a clear definition of what constitues the "unique"ness of a model. Since there is none, there is no RAW. No possible RAW means you go to RAI and RAI is perfectly clear.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Sigvatr wrote: DeathReaper wrote:
Okay, so they have to be the same Unique model to be restricted? so since the two different Coteaz units are not the same they can both be fielded.
That's your personal, likely to not be accepted anywhere, house rule.
Actually that is the by the book, likely to not be accepted anywhere, RAW.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
Where in the book does it define what constitutes being "unique"?
Page and para please, nothing else.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Sigvatr wrote:Where in the book does it define what constitutes being "unique"?
Page and para please, nothing else.
It does not define unique in the BRB, so we need to use the common english definition to define unique, which of course is 'being the only one of its kind; unlike anything else'
A Unique model is the only one of its kind, so you can not take Mephiston twice, since he is the same, but The two Coteaz are different and clearly each are unique.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
DeathReaper wrote: Sigvatr wrote:Where in the book does it define what constitutes being "unique"? Page and para please, nothing else.
It does not define unique in the BRB [...] Exactly. This means that there is no RAW. We would NEED a definition because of - this thread, basically. What does "unique" mean? Unique model? Unique profile? Unique war gear? Unique name? Unique combination of some of the aforementioned? We simply do not have an answer to this RAW and therefore, it's a rules "issue" that has no RAW answer. You then resort to RAI and that is perfectly clear.
49616
Post by: grendel083
DeathReaper wrote: Sigvatr wrote:Where in the book does it define what constitutes being "unique"?
Page and para please, nothing else.
It does not define unique in the BRB, so we need to use the common english definition to define unique, which of course is 'being the only one of its kind; unlike anything else'
A Unique model is the only one of its kind, so you can not take Mephiston twice, since he is the same, but The two Coteaz are different and clearly each are unique.
You believe the two Coteaz's represent two entirely different characters then?
They're not the same person?
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
Everyone knows that RAI is that you cannot field the same unique model twice and that this means not fielding two unique models with the same name. This isn't in question
85656
Post by: Oberron
just my two cents on the matter but how many different models does coteaz have to represent him in game? Could that be what they mean by unique model?
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Sigvatr wrote: DeathReaper wrote: Sigvatr wrote:Where in the book does it define what constitutes being "unique"?
Page and para please, nothing else.
It does not define unique in the BRB [...]
Exactly. This means that there is no RAW.
There is RAW as the BRB does not define every word used in its pages...
We would NEED a definition because of - this thread, basically. What does "unique" mean? Unique model? Unique profile? Unique war gear? Unique name? Unique combination of some of the aforementioned? We simply do not have an answer to this RAW and therefore, it's a rules "issue" that has no RAW answer. You then resort to RAI and that is perfectly clear.
We do have RAW since Unique is defined as 'unlike anything else' so a model that is 'unlike anything else' can not be duplicated.
Coteaz from the Inquisition book is 'unlike anything else' except for another Coteaz from the Inquisition book.
Just like Coteaz from the GK book is 'unlike anything else' except for another Coteaz from the GK book.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oberron wrote:just my two cents on the matter but how many different models does coteaz have to represent him in game? Could that be what they mean by unique model?
No, because some unique characters do not even have models.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
There is RAW as the BRB does not define every word used in its pages....
Precisely. It, however, has to define terms that are important when it comes to rules - as in this case.
We do have RAW since Unique is defined as 'unlike anything else' so a model that is 'unlike anything else' can not be duplicated.
Incorrect as stated above and:
Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
1) Please do not misquote me.
2) it does have to define terms that are important when it comes to rules, but here it fails to do so therefore we must fall back on the common English definition of the word. There is RAW in this case as unique has a meaning, but one that is not defined in the BRB.
3) Also The "and:..." in your post does not apply here as the BRB does not define unique, so unique, in the general English language, can not have a broader meanings than those in the rules, since the rules do not define Unique.
We must use the definition of a word in the dictonary if the rules do not define that word. If we dont then the game becomes unplayable.
85656
Post by: Oberron
What character doesn't have a model? I thought gw was cleaning that whole mess up since chapter house.
49696
Post by: zombiekila707
lol no...
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
I did not intend to, I merely shorten posts to make the replies more clearly.
2) it does have to define terms that are important when it comes to rules, but here it fails to do so therefore we must fall back on the common English definition of the word.
That's RAI then as there is a gap in the rules that has to be filled by our very own interpretations. In a RAW case, the rules would be clear as given and this ain't the case here. The "unlike any other" definition isn't sufficient either, if we want to use this, as the very same named model with a single difference would then be allowed - for example, I could take a Kutlakh on foot and a Kutlakh on a CCB - they would even have a different model type. That is why this is RAI and not RAW.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Sigvatr wrote:
I did not intend to, I merely shorten posts to make the replies more clearly.
2) it does have to define terms that are important when it comes to rules, but here it fails to do so therefore we must fall back on the common English definition of the word.
That's RAI then as there is a gap in the rules that has to be filled by our very own interpretations. In a RAW case, the rules would be clear as given and this ain't the case here. The "unlike any other" definition isn't sufficient either, if we want to use this, as the very same named model with a single difference would then be allowed - for example, I could take a Kutlakh on foot and a Kutlakh on a CCB - they would even have a different model type. That is why this is RAI and not RAW.
No it is not RAI, it is RAW. There is no gap. Unique has meaning.
Unless you are saying that anything involving words that are not defined in the BRB are RAI and not RAW...
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
Unique does have a meaning, as pretty much most words.
The problem is that we're not talking about general meanings here, we're talking about rules and we need a clear-cut definition for a RAW statement.
There is no clue as to what "unique" is related to. Same model, different profile might be unique. Just the same name might be unique. Same profile, different model might be unique.
With the mere rules, as presented by GW's blind typewriter monkeys, you cannot argue for or against a certain definition of "unique".
Thus, it's impossible to give any RAW statement.
30766
Post by: Da Butcha
You can field Marneus Calgar in Terminator Armor, or in Power Armor. These are different models, and have different profiles. However, Marneus Calgar is still a single unique character. You can field Kosarro Khan on or off Bike, and he is still a single unique character.
Thus, it appears that a different model with a different profile, does not constitute a different unique character.
This indicates that what makes a character unique is one of three things:
You can only field one character of that name (even if you decide to call him something else, like Marmalade Calzone).
You can only field one character of that name per Codex or Codex Supplement which includes that character. That doesn't seem to be contraindicated by any rules, but it's so nitpicky and pedantic that I'd generally class you as a tool for doing so. "This is GK Coteaz and this is Inquisition Coteaz. They are NOT the same character."
You can field multiple characters with the SAME model providing it has a different profile for each 'unique' iteration. This also doesn't seem to be contraindicated by the rules, but it is so contrary to common sense that I would hesitate to play you as I can't imagine what else you might think was acceptable. Note that under this concept, you CAN field multiple Ghazghuls, because he has the option to take squigs and grots and those modify his profile accordingly. Given the variations possible between combinations of ammo runts and an attack squig, you could fill up a good sized army list with nothing but Ghazzy and the grots.
46128
Post by: Happyjew
Da Butcha, Marneus Calgar is a poor example.
Try Captain Tycho. He has two profiles with different rules, however, GW felt it necessary to include the following:
Note that there are two different profiles for Captain Tycho,
one for the relatively sane Captain, and one to represent
Tycho following his induction into the Death Company
(and of course you may only field one of them in your force).
And then in his Army List Entry:
You must choose which
version of Tycho you wish
to use when you select
your army
Of course with Captain Tycho, he is either Captain Tycho or Death Company Tycho, so it might also be a poor example.
9594
Post by: RiTides
Happyjew wrote:Try Captain Tycho. He has two profiles with different rules, however, GW felt it necessary to include the following:
Note that there are two different profiles for Captain Tycho,
one for the relatively sane Captain, and one to represent
Tycho following his induction into the Death Company
(and of course you may only field one of them in your force).
And then in his Army List Entry:
You must choose which
version of Tycho you wish
to use when you select
your army
Of course with Captain Tycho, he is either Captain Tycho or Death Company Tycho, so it might also be a poor example.
Happyjew, I think that is a great example. However, the fact that the phrase "of course" is listed, indicates that they are stating what they think is obvious, that you can only field one of those models in an army.
I think it is a decent precedent to point to in saying that you can have only one Coteaz in an army. I can't imagine a TO of an event allowing both, despite the ambiguity in the RAW / possible loophole due to the two different profiles.
As you point out, this is a named model with two different profiles and it's clear how GW ruled on it... so, it is a good precedent for what they would rule on Coteaz, should they ever get around to doing so
71038
Post by: Kerrathyr
Unique is defined by "first" names.
Sammael is the same, regardless if he's on jetbike or speeder (notably, the Corvex is unique)
Calgar is the same, regardless of the armour donned.
Vindicare assassin is limited to one but is not unique (as an apoc formation demonstrates)
Mordrak ghost knights form a unique unit for a unique character.
Schaeffer's Last Chancers are unique in a unique unit for a unique character.
Coteaz, following the same scheme, is the same unique character, regardless of the Codex listing him, I really don't see the confusion.
46128
Post by: Happyjew
RiTides, the thing is this discussion is not about RAI. I'm fairly certain everyone discussing, as well as about 99% of the gaming world, agrees that the intent is only one. I believe this is more of a strict RAW discussion , in which case the question arises, what does GW mean by "Unique"?
As pointed out above -
If just the name, then regardless of where the model comes from you can only have one (which is probably the intent). This means the only time it breaks down would be with Tycho, as he is either Captain Tycho or Death Company Tycho. Fortunately, they cover this situation.
If you use the definition of "model" as put forth in the rules (which includes staline and unit type), then only certain models can be taken multiple times. Marneus has the same profile with or without his Terminator Armour and the same Unit Type. Khan has two different profiles, and two different Unit Types depending on whether or not you take his bike.
If you use the normal English definition of the word (which is viable, as there is no in game definition), then you could take 2 Marneus Calgar - one in Terminator Armour, one not. You could take 2 Sammael - one on a jetbike, one in a land speeder. Etc.
Kerrathyr, Vindicare Assassins are Unique. The Apocalypse Formation you refer to is from when Apocalypse allowed you to field multiple Unique models. Originally you could field nothing but Marneus Calgars if you wanted. With the new release, apparently there is only one of each assassin in the whole galaxy (which I think is silly).
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
RiTides wrote:Happyjew, I think that is a great example. However, the fact that the phrase "of course" is listed, indicates that they are stating what they think is obvious, that you can only field one of those models in an army.
I think it is a decent precedent to point to in saying that you can have only one Coteaz in an army. I can't imagine a TO of an event allowing both, despite the ambiguity in the RAW / possible loophole due to the two different profiles.
As you point out, this is a named model with two different profiles and it's clear how GW ruled on it... so, it is a good precedent for what they would rule on Coteaz, should they ever get around to doing so
Not a good example at all, The two different Inquisitors come from two different factions. Something that does not happen with Tycho, Calgar or any others.
61964
Post by: Fragile
DeathReaper wrote: RiTides wrote:Happyjew, I think that is a great example. However, the fact that the phrase "of course" is listed, indicates that they are stating what they think is obvious, that you can only field one of those models in an army.
I think it is a decent precedent to point to in saying that you can have only one Coteaz in an army. I can't imagine a TO of an event allowing both, despite the ambiguity in the RAW / possible loophole due to the two different profiles.
As you point out, this is a named model with two different profiles and it's clear how GW ruled on it... so, it is a good precedent for what they would rule on Coteaz, should they ever get around to doing so
Not a good example at all, The two different Inquisitors come from two different factions. Something that does not happen with Tycho, Calgar or any others.
Which is immaterial to the fact that they are named the same. Unique requires nothing more than being named characters by RAW. Nothing in the rule requires that any of there gear/rules be the same.
78937
Post by: Lshowell
Reaper will cry and wine until we either accept his very wrong opinion, or stop posting. Let's do the latter and shut him up already.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Lshowell wrote:Reaper will cry and wine until we either accept his very wrong opinion, or stop posting. Let's do the latter and shut him up already.
1) I did not "cry and wine" I presented facts. and your assertation of such is rude and against forum rules.
2) Those facts show the RAW of the rules in question and they are not my opinion.
Please be more polite in the future. Automatically Appended Next Post: Lshowell wrote:Coteaz in either codex is obviously the same, just slightly different.
You contradict yourself here.
If they are "obviously the same" they can not be "just slightly different" they would have to be clones to be the same.
9594
Post by: RiTides
Fragile wrote: DeathReaper wrote: RiTides wrote:Happyjew, I think that is a great example. However, the fact that the phrase "of course" is listed, indicates that they are stating what they think is obvious, that you can only field one of those models in an army.
I think it is a decent precedent to point to in saying that you can have only one Coteaz in an army. I can't imagine a TO of an event allowing both, despite the ambiguity in the RAW / possible loophole due to the two different profiles.
As you point out, this is a named model with two different profiles and it's clear how GW ruled on it... so, it is a good precedent for what they would rule on Coteaz, should they ever get around to doing so
Not a good example at all, The two different Inquisitors come from two different factions. Something that does not happen with Tycho, Calgar or any others.
Which is immaterial to the fact that they are named the same. Unique requires nothing more than being named characters by RAW. Nothing in the rule requires that any of there gear/rules be the same.
Agreed, Fragile. That difference is totally immaterial and the FAQ clarification is a clear indication of GW's ruling on a similar situation. We have no ruling here, it's a hole in the rules... but that's the closest thing you can look to for a ruling, imo.
So, maybe I should have said it is the "best available example", which I think it is. Do you have a better example, DeathReaper?
That said, to the thread, please simply make the best argument you can and do not resort to name-calling, please. Also, if you think someone is breaking the rules please simply hit the yellow triangle and do not post that they are breaking the rules in-thread, as this can also derail the thread. Thanks.
78937
Post by: Lshowell
You're right reaper and I apologize
I simply feel you are arguing the situation for the sake of an argument. In all honesty would you want to use, or go against someone trying to say that both character models, being the exact same entity just with a slightly different 'effect' count as a completely different person/character therefore makes it legal? Personally I wouldn't. I'd pack it up right there and request a different opponent. We all understand there is a hole in the system, but we all also understand that hole isn't meant to be there, therefore exploiting it is kind of jerkish
49999
Post by: Frozen Ocean
It's not really a big deal. If they were exploiting a rule gap that allowed them to field infinite numbers of BS10 Jokaero, it would be a problem. Coteaz is, to my understanding, quite a good character to have - but I really don't think having two of him would be so game-shatteringly powerful that it merits a refusal of play. That's just really, really petty, refusing to play someone on this basis when there are plenty of far worse things that are completely backed up by rules (remember those 2+++s?).
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
@ RiTides, Deathleaper from the Tyranid Codex and the Deathleaper from the Dataslate are identical, so there is an example of two unique characters that are the same, and as such can not include both in a single army. Lshowell wrote:You're right reaper and I apologize I simply feel you are arguing the situation for the sake of an argument. In all honesty would you want to use, or go against someone trying to say that both character models, being the exact same entity just with a slightly different 'effect' count as a completely different person/character therefore makes it legal? Personally I wouldn't. I'd pack it up right there and request a different opponent. We all understand there is a hole in the system, but we all also understand that hole isn't meant to be there, therefore exploiting it is kind of jerkish I am showing the RAW of the situation. Which clearly shows that you can take both different unique characters. I do not play it like this, and no one I know also plays Grey Knights.
49999
Post by: Frozen Ocean
I don't have any of the Dataslates, so I can't say for certain. However, doesn't the Dataslate say something along the lines of "Complete rules for Deathleaper can be found in Codex: Tyranids ... has the following additional special rules when taken as part of this formation", in a similar vein as the Daemonology cards?
46128
Post by: Happyjew
Nope. The Dataslate includes the rules for Deathleaper, and are exactly the same as laid out in the codex.
49999
Post by: Frozen Ocean
Other than the rules being the same, is there anything that forbids duplicates of Deathleaper? Is the Dataslate parented with the Codex in the same way a Supplement would be?
46128
Post by: Happyjew
From the Introduction:
Each datasheet list its Faction (the codex it is considered part of).
49999
Post by: Frozen Ocean
That's the problem we're having, though. It is explicitly forbidden that you take a duplicate character from the same Codex. At least, I think it is. I don't have any Supplements, so I can't cite that. The Deathleaper Dataslate seems to fall under the same ruling as Supplements, and that's something to do with the parent Codex/Faction.
The problem with Coteaz is that the Inquisition book is wholly independent of the Grey Knights book from which it was all-but copied and pasted. This gives rise to a completely unprecedented situation. If Marneus Calgar were present in Codex: Space Marines and Codex: Space Wolves for some reason, nothing actually forbids him being taken twice in a SM-with-SW-allies army. The Inquisition/Grey Knights situation is unique because, unlike similar situations (aforementioned characters like Tycho and Sammael, and the interaction between Codexes and their Supplements), there is no rule denying it.
46128
Post by: Happyjew
It's a murky area, is the problem.
Until GW says something we have no idea what they mean by "unique". So one can claim that since Coteaz (GK) and Coteaz (Inq) have different rules, they are not the same, as being RAW is just as correct as someone saying Coteaz (GK) and Coteaz (Inq) have the same name so they are the same.
49999
Post by: Frozen Ocean
Oh, certainly. I'm not arguing that it's allowed, just that there is neither permission nor denial and that there are multiple situations where explicit denial has been given, which implies it needs to be. The problem is with the word "implies", because that's really not strong enough to base rules on.
Like I said, I'd be fine with it. Even if I weren't, I don't think it's at all significant enough to not play. Something like "full squads of Vindicare Assassins" would be more worthy of that (even though they're not in Codex: Inquisition, as far as I am aware).
61964
Post by: Fragile
Happyjew wrote:It's a murky area, is the problem.
Until GW says something we have no idea what they mean by "unique". So one can claim that since Coteaz ( GK) and Coteaz ( Inq) have different rules, they are not the same, as being RAW is just as correct as someone saying Coteaz ( GK) and Coteaz ( Inq) have the same name so they are the same.
Not really, the current rule (in this case) says you can only have 1 of a named character with Unique tag. So only one Inquistor Coteaz of any type can be in your army. It would not matter if they were in completely unrelated codexes like Eldar and Tyranids with completely unrelated skills. If they have the same Name, then you cannot have more than 1.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Fragile wrote:Not really, the current rule (in this case) says you can only have 1 of a named character with Unique tag. So only one Inquistor Coteaz of any type can be in your army. It would not matter if they were in completely unrelated codexes like Eldar and Tyranids with completely unrelated skills. If they have the same Name, then you cannot have more than 1.
See that just is not true. The actual rule is "you can only ever include one of each Unique model in an army." You can have two or more Unique characters in an army if they are all different right? For example you can take Dante, and Mephiston, and Death Company Tycho and Lemartes all in one army right?
74704
Post by: Naw
Actually, we do.
the current rule (in this case) says you can only have 1 of a named character with Unique tag. So only one Inquistor Coteaz of any type can be in your army.
Exactly. The rule states this clearly. I do not understand how people can argue otherwise.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Naw wrote: Actually, we do. the current rule (in this case) says you can only have 1 of a named character with Unique tag. so only one Inquistor Coteaz of any type can be in your army. Exactly. The rule states this clearly. I do not understand how people can argue otherwise.
(Emphasis mine) The underlined is not quite what the rules say, and as such the violet text is incorrect. you can only include one of each Unique model in your army. so if they are the same Unique character you can not have more than one, if they are different then multiples can be included. The rules do not say "you can only have 1 of a named character with Unique tag" The actual rule is "you can only ever include one of each Unique model in an army." Can someone answer my questions please.
74704
Post by: Naw
So let's go back to page 1 for the rule as written:
Unique Models
...... are noted as being Unique in their Army List Entry. Unique models include named characters and extraordinary units or vehicles, of which there is only one known example in the whole galaxy. Because of this, you can only ever include one of each Unique model in an army.
1) noted being Unique in their army list entry
Is Coteaz marked as such?
Pg. 86 of Codex GK in Coteaz entry: Unit Composition: 1 (Unique)
Pg. 162 (?) of Codex Inquisition: Unit Composition: 1 (Unique)
Rule nr 1 has been fulfilled.
2) Unique models include named characters... of which there is only one known example in the whole galaxy
Same pages, both are Inquisitor Coteaz
2nd rule is also fulfilled.
Then it goes on to state that because of the above only one similarly named Unique model can be included in the whole army.
There is absolutely zero requirement for their rules to be identical, as was shown yet again.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
DeathReaper wrote: 2) Those facts show the RAW of the rules in question and they are not my opinion. I do respect your opinion and do not want to offend you, but please do not spread false information by saying that this is RAW when what you're stating is, as explained in detail above, HYWPI.
49999
Post by: Frozen Ocean
Why then, Naw, do Supplements specifically forbid you from taking two of the same character in both detachments?
79209
Post by: extremefreak17
Frozen Ocean wrote:Why then, Naw, do Supplements specifically forbid you from taking two of the same character in both detachments?
Despite GW's usual complete lack of forsight, even they were able to predict people trying to pull this gak.
49999
Post by: Frozen Ocean
They didn't, though! Not for the Inquisition book, anyway. I think it's a symptom of how lazy the book was.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Sigvatr wrote: DeathReaper wrote:
2) Those facts show the RAW of the rules in question and they are not my opinion.
I do respect your opinion and do not want to offend you, but please do not spread false information by saying that this is RAW when what you're stating is, as explained in detail above, HYWPI.
Except it is not how I play it, it is the actual RAW of the situation.
Can someone answer my questions please.It is important to the discussion.
37915
Post by: mtnoyster
I don't have the GK codex anymore, just the INQ digital version, but is the history or fluff the same for each Coteaz listing?
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
If you want to make the point that your interpretation is RAW, you need to precisely tell us how "unique" is defined by the rules. Unless you do so, you do not prove RAW, you state the rules given to you and fill in a rules gap with your own interpretation of what "unique" means in this context - which is HYWPI by definition. This is not a "lesser" way of solving the problem, mind you, as in this very case, there simply isn't a RAW way to handle it. RAI or HYWPI are the only possible ways.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
mtnoyster wrote:
I don't have the GK codex anymore, just the INQ digital version, but is the history or fluff the same for each Coteaz listing?
Why does that matter, history and fluff are not rules.
46128
Post by: Happyjew
Sigvatr wrote:
If you want to make the point that your interpretation is RAW, you need to precisely tell us how "unique" is defined by the rules. Unless you do so, you do not prove RAW, you state the rules given to you and fill in a rules gap with your own interpretation of what "unique" means in this context - which is HYWPI by definition.
Since the rules do not define "unique" we are forced to use the normal English definition. Since by the normal English definition of the word, Coteaz ( GK) and Coteaz ( Inq) are not th same, then fielding both does not violate the rules regarding unique models.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
Happyjew wrote: Sigvatr wrote:
If you want to make the point that your interpretation is RAW, you need to precisely tell us how "unique" is defined by the rules. Unless you do so, you do not prove RAW, you state the rules given to you and fill in a rules gap with your own interpretation of what "unique" means in this context - which is HYWPI by definition.
Since the rules do not define "unique" we are forced to use the normal English definition. Since by the normal English definition of the word, Coteaz ( GK) and Coteaz ( Inq) are not th same, then fielding both does not violate the rules regarding unique models.
That is the exact mistake that's made here. Rules and standard language are mixed up - not to mention that even the standard language definition is insufficient to define the case. What definition would you even use? Since we're talking GW, Oxford Dictionary?
Being the only one of its kind; unlike anything else
Remember we're talking rules terms (!) here. What does "unlike anything else" mean? The rules are talking of "models" here. So any "unique" "model" that is "unlike any other model" would still be unique. Do you agree that by posing the same model differently, we suddenly have two different models again and fielding those two would be legal?
Long story short: never, ever mix up rules with standard English language. It's a terrible way of talking about rules and leads to no good. When talking rules, only refer to rules. Anything else is not RAW.
And I remind you of:
6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.
70326
Post by: DJGietzen
@Deathreaper
1) Your interpretation is not RAW, please stop saying that. You are taking facts, inserting new ones and drawing conclusions. Its true, the BRB does not allow you to take two of the same unique character, however you have drawn a conclusion that the same unique character can only ever mean models and units that are identical all all aspects. This is not stated in the rules and therefore is not RAW.
In fact, the BRB would seem to contradict you in this regard. The "Army List Entries in Different Publications" section describes a unit entry that is printed in different books with different rules. Clearly it is possible for a unit to have two different unit entries and still be the same unit.
2) What questions? You've asked a few and they have been answered.
70626
Post by: Dakkamite
I agree completely with Reaper, bring on the double Coteaz and troll the rules.
Oh god this.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
DJGietzen wrote:@Deathreaper
1) Your interpretation is not RAW, please stop saying that. You are taking facts, inserting new ones and drawing conclusions. Its true, the BRB does not allow you to take two of the same unique character, however you have drawn a conclusion that the same unique character can only ever mean models and units that are identical all all aspects. This is not stated in the rules and therefore is not RAW.
In fact, the BRB would seem to contradict you in this regard. The "Army List Entries in Different Publications" section describes a unit entry that is printed in different books with different rules. Clearly it is possible for a unit to have two different unit entries and still be the same unit.
2) What questions? You've asked a few and they have been answered.
1) it is actually RAW. Since the rules do not define "unique" we are forced to use the normal English definition. Since by the normal English definition of the word, Coteaz ( GK) and Coteaz ( Inq) are not th same, then fielding both does not violate the rules regarding unique models.
2 These questions http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/90/603520.page#6997728
Namely:
You can have two or more Unique characters in an army if they are all different right? (Yes or No?)
For example you can take Dante, and Mephiston, and Death Company Tycho and Lemartes all in one army right? (Yes or No?)
70326
Post by: DJGietzen
DeathReaper wrote:
1) it is actually RAW. Since the rules do not define "unique" we are forced to use the normal English definition. Since by the normal English definition of the word, Coteaz ( GK) and Coteaz ( Inq) are not th same, then fielding both does not violate the rules regarding unique models.
But that's not RAW. You've taken it upon yourself to determine how two things can be considered the same or not. We are not 'forced to use the normal English definitions'. That's another assertion on your part. I believe we should use best possible evidence when the rule book does not provide a clear definition. We are personally deciding the intent of a rule. Thats RAI not RAW.
Yes.
Why? Because nothing suggests they are the same model.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
So only the same unique can not be fielded more than once?
70326
Post by: DJGietzen
Yes, more than one unique models that are not the same can be fielded in an army.
46128
Post by: Happyjew
Just want to make sure I'm 100% sure on your assertions.
If two Unique models are not the same I can field both of them?
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
DJGietzen wrote:Yes, more than one unique models that are not the same can be fielded in an army. So as HJ has said If two Unique models are not the same I can field both of them? (I say this is correct).
61964
Post by: Fragile
DeathReaper wrote:Fragile wrote:Not really, the current rule (in this case) says you can only have 1 of a named character with Unique tag. So only one Inquistor Coteaz of any type can be in your army. It would not matter if they were in completely unrelated codexes like Eldar and Tyranids with completely unrelated skills. If they have the same Name, then you cannot have more than 1.
See that just is not true.
The actual rule is "you can only ever include one of each Unique model in an army."
You can have two or more Unique characters in an army if they are all different right?
For example you can take Dante, and Mephiston, and Death Company Tycho and Lemartes all in one army right?
You appear to be deliberately trying to twist what I said.
There are only 2 questions to ask for this case. Do you have a named character. If yes, does that named character have Unique in the unit composition? If that is also yes, then you cannot have another character with that same name in your army. So, if Coteaz has Unique in his unit composition, then there cannot be another Coteaz in your army.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Fragile wrote:You appear to be deliberately trying to twist what I said. There are only 2 questions to ask for this case. Do you have a named character. If yes, does that named character have Unique in the unit composition? If that is also yes, then you cannot have another character with that same name in your army. So, if Coteaz has Unique in his unit composition, then there cannot be another Coteaz in your army.
(Emphasis mine) The underlined is 100% unsupported by the rules. Nowhere does it say that "you cannot have another character with that same name in your army." The actual rule is "you can only ever include one of each Unique model in an army." What makes a model unique? well it says that Some models are noted as being Unique in their Army List Entry. So, since you can have two different special characters in an army, and Inquisition Coteaz is different from Grey Knight Coteaz (They do not even share a army entry, unlike Death Company Tycho/Tycho) then you can field both of them as far as the RAW goes.
22349
Post by: portugus
There can only be one inquisitor coteaz in the galaxy right, that much is clear. Inq and gk have different rules, that's half way there. Regardless of his specific rules he still has the exact same name and unique says there can only be one named unique character in the galaxy. Why not then ally all the old marine codexies together and play with Calgar, Calgar, Calgar and Tiberius, Tiberius, and Tiberius? Same name but different rules right?
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
portugus wrote:There can only be one inquisitor coteaz in the galaxy right, that much is clear. Inq and gk have different rules, that's half way there. Regardless of his specific rules he still has the exact same name and unique says there can only be one named unique character in the galaxy. Why not then ally all the old marine codexies together and play with Calgar, Calgar, Calgar and Tiberius, Tiberius, and Tiberius? Same name but different rules right?
The old Codexes are not legal anymore.
and it seems you are hung up on fluff.
22349
Post by: portugus
Hung up on the exact same name in the unit entry, not fluff. Reading about the rule unique it talks about only one in the galaxy. That's not flavor or fluff text, that's part of the paragraph where it talks about unique.
79209
Post by: extremefreak17
DeathReaper wrote:The actual rule is "you can only ever include one of each Unique model in an army."
So, do both Coteaz share the same model?
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
The physical model you use to represent them have no bearing on the rules for Unique models. portugus wrote:Hung up on the exact same name in the unit entry, not fluff. Reading about the rule unique it talks about only one in the galaxy. That's not flavor or fluff text, that's part of the paragraph where it talks about unique.
It is actually fluff because "only one known example in the whole galaxy." does not have any actual rules attached to it. Basically this line " Unique models include named characters and extraordinary units or vehicles, of which there is only one known example in the whole galaxy." is not rules, it is fluff. Well the part that says "of which there is only one known example in the whole galaxy." is fluff. As an example the Invincible Behemoth rule states "A Super-heavy vehicle is so large and strongly built that weapons which degrade the armour of smaller vehicles will not effect it. Because of this, any attack that says that the target model is destroyed, wrecked, Explodes! or is otherwise removed from play inflicts D3 Hull Points of damage on a Super-heavy vehicle instead." (Vehicles Chapter, Super Heavy Vehicles section, Special Rules heading). See how the first line is fluff and then the rules are after the "Because of this" part of the entry, the same is happening in the Unique models entry.
22349
Post by: portugus
touche
61964
Post by: Fragile
DeathReaper wrote:Fragile wrote:You appear to be deliberately trying to twist what I said.
There are only 2 questions to ask for this case. Do you have a named character. If yes, does that named character have Unique in the unit composition? If that is also yes, then you cannot have another character with that same name in your army. So, if Coteaz has Unique in his unit composition, then there cannot be another Coteaz in your army.
(Emphasis mine)
The underlined is 100% unsupported by the rules.
Nowhere does it say that "you cannot have another character with that same name in your army."
The actual rule is "you can only ever include one of each Unique model in an army."
What makes a model unique? well it says that Some models are noted as being Unique in their Army List Entry.
So, since you can have two different special characters in an army, and Inquisition Coteaz is different from Grey Knight Coteaz (They do not even share a army entry, unlike Death Company Tycho/Tycho) then you can field both of them as far as the RAW goes.
It is completely supported by the rule. You just ignore half the sentence "Unique models include named characters.." Include Named characters. Not named characters with X gear or Y special rules. The Name is what determines if you can have a second character.
60145
Post by: Lungpickle
My inquisition I pub editions up to date with both being the same. So no you cannot field both. In addition coteaz is unique by name not rules, that's prevention enough.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Fragile wrote: DeathReaper wrote:Fragile wrote:You appear to be deliberately trying to twist what I said. There are only 2 questions to ask for this case. Do you have a named character. If yes, does that named character have Unique in the unit composition? If that is also yes, then you cannot have another character with that same name in your army. So, if Coteaz has Unique in his unit composition, then there cannot be another Coteaz in your army.
(Emphasis mine) The underlined is 100% unsupported by the rules. Nowhere does it say that "you cannot have another character with that same name in your army." The actual rule is "you can only ever include one of each Unique model in an army." What makes a model unique? well it says that Some models are noted as being Unique in their Army List Entry. So, since you can have two different special characters in an army, and Inquisition Coteaz is different from Grey Knight Coteaz (They do not even share a army entry, unlike Death Company Tycho/Tycho) then you can field both of them as far as the RAW goes. It is completely supported by the rule. You just ignore half the sentence "Unique models include named characters.." Include Named characters. Not named characters with X gear or Y special rules. The Name is what determines if you can have a second character. All that tells us is that if a character has a name it is a unique model. and we know that we can only ever include one of each Unique model in an army, but remember that says one of each Unique model which means two of the same unique model, two unique models with different Rules are not the same, and as such can both be included. Lungpickle wrote:My inquisition I pub editions up to date with both being the same. So no you cannot field both. In addition coteaz is unique by name not rules, that's prevention enough.
Incorrect, The Inquisition Coteaz is not the same as Coteaz in the GK rules and as such each is a different Unique Character. So yes you can field both since they are not the same special character. and we know we can field different special characters in one army.
70326
Post by: DJGietzen
Deathreaper, you keep forgetting to say "in my opinioin" when discussing things that are not covered by the RAW.
In your opinion the Inq Coteaz and the GK Coteaz are not the same. In my opinion they are the same. There is no official way to determine if the unit or model is the same or not. Several methods, with equal standing, can be provided and no common answer can be derived from all available methods.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
DJGietzen wrote:Deathreaper, you keep forgetting to say "in my opinioin" when discussing things that are not covered by the RAW.
It is a good thing that this is actually covered, so it is not my opinion it is the rules as written.
In your opinion the Inq Coteaz and the GK Coteaz are not the same.
Actually in the rules the two are not the same. since they are not identical.
In my opinion they are the same.
Well your opinion is incorrect because they are not identical.
There is no official way to determine if the unit or model is the same or not.
What do you mean? We can determine if they are identical or not, the BRB does not describe how to do this, luckily the English language, which the rules are written in and we need to use to have the rules function at all, does define how to see if two things are identical or different.
The Two Coteaz's are not identical.
Several methods, with equal standing, can be provided and no common answer can be derived from all available methods.
Several methods to determine if one unit is different than another unit?
A common answer can be derived. The Coteaz from the Inquisition book is not Identical to the Coteaz from the GK Codex.
Please explain the method that shows that they are identical and I will point out the flaws in that methodology.
70326
Post by: DJGietzen
DeathReaper wrote: DJGietzen wrote:Deathreaper, you keep forgetting to say "in my opinioin" when discussing things that are not covered by the RAW.
It is a good thing that this is actually covered, so it is not my opinion it is the rules as written.
In your opinion the Inq Coteaz and the GK Coteaz are not the same.
Actually in the rules the two are not the same. since they are not identical.
In your opinion they are not the same because they are not identical. Its your opinion, its not in the rules. Its a lie to claim otherwise.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DeathReaper wrote: DJGietzen wrote:
In my opinion they are the same.
Well your opinion is incorrect because they are not identical.
There is no official way to determine if the unit or model is the same or not.
What do you mean? We can determine if they are identical or not, the BRB does not describe how to do this, luckily the English language, which the rules are written in and we need to use to have the rules function at all, does define how to see if two things are identical or different.
The Two Coteaz's are not identical.
Several methods, with equal standing, can be provided and no common answer can be derived from all available methods.
Several methods to determine if one unit is different than another unit?
A common answer can be derived. The Coteaz from the Inquisition book is not Identical to the Coteaz from the GK Codex.
Please explain the method that shows that they are identical and I will point out the flaws in that methodology.
They have the same name, and the name is all that matters. Or They a represented by the same citadel miniature. Feel free to point out any flaws you want, I will concur right now that there are several, but then again I'm not suggesting either of these methods must be the correct way to determine sameness. Just that these methods or no more official then the one you have dreamed up.
You've decided that identical in every facet MUST be how to determine sameness, that in the absence of a clear definition the common English definition MUST be used. This is bull scat and unless you can provide a proper rule instructing us that it MUST be so there is no evidence to support it. Its just an opinion and as such has no bases being passed off as RAW.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
DJGietzen wrote:In your opinion they are not the same because they are not identical. Its your opinion, its not in the rules. Its a lie to claim otherwise.
No it is RAW, I actually supported my argument fully with rules quotes. Prove this. (You can't so debunked). Or They a represented by the same citadel miniature.
Models that GW sells have nothing to do with the Unique rule. You've decided that identical in every facet MUST be how to determine sameness
No I have not decided this, the English language has. that in the absence of a clear definition the common English definition MUST be used. This is bull scat and unless you can provide a proper rule instructing us that it MUST be so there is no evidence to support it. Its just an opinion and as such has no bases being passed off as RAW.
If you can define what immediately, automatically, or fully mean using only the BRB then I will concede that the rulese does not use common English definitions to have the ruleset make sense at all. But if you cannot you have to admit that the common English definitions of words MUST be used in order for the ruleset to function at all.
70326
Post by: DJGietzen
DeathReaper wrote:
No it is RAW, I actually supported my argument fully with rules quotes.
Prove this. (You can't so debunked).
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
I have, look at my previous posts in this very thread!
81689
Post by: Klerych
Oh man, and they say that Peregrine is the one that loves arguing..
DeathReaper, I am fairly sure that your idea of what does the rule stand for RAW is just your interpretation of that wording.
In my opinion you can't field both because they're, fluff-wise, the exact same person - they're the same named character with slightly different rules from two different books, but they're both Inquisitor Coteaz. They have the same name.
Big issue is also that if you see lots of people use their common sense and treat it at RAW(unique named character = unique by name) or RAI(it -is- the same inquisitor after all - by name, fluff and everything else than the rules that didn't seem to be intentional change), you're going to be fighting an uphill battle and not too many people will agree with you and you'll be seen as argumentative conflict seeker. :-) I know that you're doing it as a part of conversation(and a way to fuel it), but if this was the FLGS and everyone was here in person you'd probably get branded TFG for arguing like that and refusing to even consider that you might be using interpretation rather than RAW and trying to force your vision of it on others calling it a fact.
18698
Post by: kronk
HIWPI: There can be only one!
70326
Post by: DJGietzen
When exactly? I looked through this thread and I have found no evidence of you supporting the claim that the two Coteaz entries are not the same unique character with anything from the rule book. You have repeatedly, however, supported that claim with the argument that the entries are not identical in every facet and that the common English use of 'same' must mean they must be identical in every facet and in the absence of an official method for determining 'sameness' the come English definition is required. This is also an unsupported claim. These are your opinions Deathreaper. They are not RAW.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
41672
Post by: herpguy
Wow this really needs 5 pages of discussion?
If you think that you should legally be able to field 2 Coteaz' in the same army then you are the kind of person who is killing the game.
70326
Post by: DJGietzen
DeathReaper wrote:
Right here:
"Because of this, you can only ever include one of each Unique model in an army." (Choosing your army chapter, Unique models section).
One of each Unique model = you can not have two of the same special character.
Since the Coteaz from the Inquisition book is different than the Coteaz from the Gk codex, they are not the same and if you include both in an army you do not have more than one of each Unique model, you have two different unique models.
The problem is "Since the Coteaz from the Inquisition book is different than the Coteaz from the Gk codex, they are not the same and if you include both in an army you do not have more than one of each Unique model, you have two different unique models." is your opinion and is not supported by the rules.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
DeathReaper wrote:
The physical model you use to represent them have no bearing on the rules for Unique models.
Why? Where are you getting your HYWPI definition from?
46128
Post by: Happyjew
herpguy wrote:Wow this really needs 5 pages of discussion?
If you think that you should legally be able to field 2 Coteaz' in the same army then you are the kind of person who is killing the game.
We are discussing strict RAW. So far everyone has agreed RAI (and by extension HYWPI) is they are the same.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
Happyjew wrote: herpguy wrote:Wow this really needs 5 pages of discussion?
If you think that you should legally be able to field 2 Coteaz' in the same army then you are the kind of person who is killing the game.
We are discussing strict RAW. So far everyone has agreed RAI (and by extension HYWPI) is they are the same.
Most agree on HYWPI and RAI being the same, it's just one user having a different HYWPI version. Which would be fine, if said user did not falsely claim it being RAW.
46128
Post by: Happyjew
Sigvatr wrote: Happyjew wrote: herpguy wrote:Wow this really needs 5 pages of discussion?
If you think that you should legally be able to field 2 Coteaz' in the same army then you are the kind of person who is killing the game.
We are discussing strict RAW. So far everyone has agreed RAI (and by extension HYWPI) is they are the same.
Most agree on HYWPI and RAI being the same, it's just one user having a different HYWPI version. Which would be fine, if said user did not falsely claim it being RAW.
Except ( IIRC) DR has said that how he would play it is only one. Without GW defining unique, we are forced to rely on the dictionary definition, which basically says that the two must be completely identical (note I'm not defining unique here, just sort of...paraphrasing). One side says that the only thing that matters is the name of the model. Logically this makes sense as the only model this breaks for would be Tycho, and the BA codex covers it. The other side includes rules and wargear, which means according to that side, you can have 2 Calgars as long as one of them has terminator armour.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
As stated before, if marked as HYWPI, that's perfectly fine as HYWPI cannot be wrong
It is not, however, okay to spread misinformation as this might confuse other users, especially when important terms like RAW / RAI are mixed up.
79467
Post by: DanielBeaver
Man, this thread has been a long slog to read through.
DeathReaper wrote:
No it is RAW, I actually supported my argument fully with rules quotes.
I appreciate your effort to really dive into the rules, but they just aren't as clear as you're making them out to be. At best, the RAW are ambiguous about this issue (and it is such an edge case, that I don't think it has really occurred to GW that there is an ambiguity).
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
DJGietzen wrote: DeathReaper wrote:
Right here:
"Because of this, you can only ever include one of each Unique model in an army." (Choosing your army chapter, Unique models section).
One of each Unique model = you can not have two of the same special character.
Since the Coteaz from the Inquisition book is different than the Coteaz from the Gk codex, they are not the same and if you include both in an army you do not have more than one of each Unique model, you have two different unique models.
The problem is "Since the Coteaz from the Inquisition book is different than the Coteaz from the Gk codex, they are not the same and if you include both in an army you do not have more than one of each Unique model, you have two different unique models." is your opinion and is not supported by the rules.
Actually that is the RAW. (I dont play it that way, but that is the RAW).
Can you have more than one unique model in an army? (Yes).
Can you have one of each Unique model in an army? (Yes).
Can you have more than one of each Unique model in an army? (No).
So we can have different unique models in the same army, as such, since the Coteaz from the inquisiton book is different than the Coteaz from the GK Codex, you can, RAW, include them both.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Sigvatr wrote: Happyjew wrote: herpguy wrote:Wow this really needs 5 pages of discussion?
If you think that you should legally be able to field 2 Coteaz' in the same army then you are the kind of person who is killing the game.
We are discussing strict RAW. So far everyone has agreed RAI (and by extension HYWPI) is they are the same.
Most agree on HYWPI and RAI being the same, it's just one user having a different HYWPI version. Which would be fine, if said user did not falsely claim it being RAW.
Who has a different HYWPI version?
70326
Post by: DJGietzen
DeathReaper wrote:
Actually that is the RAW. (I dont play it that way, but that is the RAW).
Can you have more than one unique model in an army? (Yes).
True and RAW
Can you have more than one of each Unique model in an army? (No).
True and RAW
Can you have one of each Unique model in an army? (Yes).
True and RAW
So we can have different unique models in the same army, as such, since the Coteaz from the inquisiton book is different than the Coteaz from the GK Codex, you can, RAW, include them both.
Not RAW. You have not provided any rules tp determine that Coteaz from the inquisition book is not the same unique character from the GK Codex. This is your opinion. You are drawing a conclusion from your opinion. Please stop insisting your opinion is written in the rule book.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
It is not my opinion it is RAW, since you can have one of each Unique model in an army, and you can have more than one unique model in an army, then if the unique models are different they both can be included RAW.
70326
Post by: DJGietzen
DeathReaper wrote:It is not my opinion it is RAW, since you can have one of each Unique model in an army, and you can have more than one unique model in an army, then if the unique models are different they both can be included RAW.
Thats not the problem. The problem is that you are insisting that according to the rule book the two Coteaz entries are not the same unique character. This is not in the rule book. It is your opinion.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
DJGietzen wrote: DeathReaper wrote:It is not my opinion it is RAW, since you can have one of each Unique model in an army, and you can have more than one unique model in an army, then if the unique models are different they both can be included RAW.
Thats not the problem. The problem is that you are insisting that according to the rule book the two Coteaz entries are not the same unique character. This is not in the rule book. It is your opinion.
It is not my opinion, the two coteaz units are not the same, and as such you can field both Unique characters because they are not the same. They are different Unique characters.
70326
Post by: DJGietzen
DeathReaper wrote: DJGietzen wrote: DeathReaper wrote:It is not my opinion it is RAW, since you can have one of each Unique model in an army, and you can have more than one unique model in an army, then if the unique models are different they both can be included RAW.
Thats not the problem. The problem is that you are insisting that according to the rule book the two Coteaz entries are not the same unique character. This is not in the rule book. It is your opinion.
It is not my opinion, the two coteaz units are not the same, and as such you can field both Unique characters because they are not the same.
They are different Unique characters.
In your opinion they are different unique characters. In my opinion they are the same unique character with different rules.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Except there is no support at all for them to be the same, as they are different. So They are different unique characters RAW. This is RAW because the rules are written in English and, for words not defined in the BRB, we must apply the common English definition to them to make the rules function at all. P.S. they can not be the same if they are different.
70326
Post by: DJGietzen
DeathReaper wrote:Except there is no support at all for them to be the same, as they are different.
So They are different unique characters RAW.
This is RAW because the rules are written in English and, for words not defined in the BRB, we must apply the common English definition to them to make the rules function at all.
P.S. they can not be the same if they are different.
0) You still haven't proven any of this is actually in the rules. Its time to put up or shut up. Quote the rule that clearly states that the same unique character cannot have two different entries. If you can't then please quote the rule that says a narrow interpretation of the common english definition of a word must be used when the the rule book fails to provide its own.
Failure to do either of those things will only serve to illustrate that those are your opinions, and are not rules.
1) I'm not saying the rules say they are the same. I'm saying the rules don't say they are different. Claiming they are different is RAW is a mistake. Claiming the rules say they are the same would also be a mistake.
2)The common english definition has some 'wiggle room'. Here are two pictures, The man in the right picture has facial hair and sunglasses. The man in the left picture does not. The man in the picture on the right is not identical to the man in the picture on the left.. The man in the pictre on the right and the manin in the picture on the left is the same man.
The trouble you'll have is that the same unique thing can be presented in different ways. The change in the presentation (in the case of Coteaz, his rules or entry) does not automatically make the thing a different thing.
3) Conclusions based on your opinion, cannot ever be called RAW.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
They are not the same, one has glasses and facial hair one does not.
66727
Post by: OIIIIIIO
DJGietzen wrote: DeathReaper wrote:Except there is no support at all for them to be the same, as they are different.
So They are different unique characters RAW.
This is RAW because the rules are written in English and, for words not defined in the BRB, we must apply the common English definition to them to make the rules function at all.
P.S. they can not be the same if they are different.
0) You still haven't proven any of this is actually in the rules. Its time to put up or shut up. Quote the rule that clearly states that the same unique character cannot have two different entries. If you can't then please quote the rule that says a narrow interpretation of the common english definition of a word must be used when the the rule book fails to provide its own.
Failure to do either of those things will only serve to illustrate that those are your opinions, and are not rules.
1) I'm not saying the rules say they are the same. I'm saying the rules don't say they are different. Claiming they are different is RAW is a mistake. Claiming the rules say they are the same would also be a mistake.
2)The common english definition has some 'wiggle room'. Here are two pictures, The man in the right picture has facial hair and sunglasses. The man in the left picture does not. The man in the picture on the right is not identical to the man in the picture on the left.. The man in the pictre on the right and the manin in the picture on the left is the same man.
The trouble you'll have is that the same unique thing can be presented in different ways. The change in the presentation (in the case of Coteaz, his rules or entry) does not automatically make the thing a different thing.
3) Conclusions based on your opinion, cannot ever be called RAW.
The man on the left is Robert Downey Jr. ... the man on the right is Tony Stark.
The thing is that the entries for Coteaz are different ... name is the same, therefore technically they are not identical.
I do not know any person who would play it as this but ...
61964
Post by: Fragile
And RAW having the same name is all that is required to not have multiples.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Fragile wrote:And RAW having the same name is all that is required to not have multiples.
That is simply not true.
71038
Post by: Kerrathyr
Let's have a look on the Unique rule again...
"Unique Models
Some models are noted as being Unique in their Army List Entry. Unique models include named characters and extraordinary units or vehicles, of which there is only one known example in the whole galaxy. Because of this, you can only ever include one of each Unique model in an army."
Now, bear with me as I split it and kinda ramble as I see it
Since the sentence(s) is (are) in the rules section, any part helps in defining the rules.
Some models are noted as being Unique in their Army List Entry.
This was easy: we all know this from any codex.
Unique models include
And here the rules list what are defined as unique:
named characters and
extraordinary units or
(extraordinary) vehicles,
Side note: named characters, not special characters, neither particular characters, nor extraordinary characters... The name is what identifies the character.
of which there is only one known example in the whole galaxy.
Of which named character (etc) exist one. No mention of SR, stat lines, physical model (or we would have a problem with Inquisitor Valeria, for instance).
Paraphrasing what is always claimed, concerning rules, since the rules do not specify stat lines nor model's SR, but just mention named characters, the only point is the name.
And this may extend to unit and vehicles (e.g. Mordrak Ghost Knights)
Because of this, you can only ever include one of each Unique model in an army.
Gets "easy" again, stating the effect of the rule.
It could be written more clearly, as: you can only ever include one of each Unique model with the same name in an army.
Three words more to rub off any doubt.
I just wonder... What will happen first? A faq on the issue, or new edition GK Codex (without inquisitors)?
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
It does not define unique in the BRB, so we need to use the common english definition to define unique, which of course is 'being the only one of its kind; unlike anything else'
A Unique model is the only one of its kind, so you can not take Mephiston twice, since he is the same, but The two Coteaz are different and clearly each are unique.
Also this part is fluff: "of which there is only one known example in the whole galaxy"
71038
Post by: Kerrathyr
DeathReaper wrote:It does not define unique in the BRB, so we need to use the common english definition to define unique, which of course is 'being the only one of its kind; unlike anything else'
A Unique model is the only one of its kind, so you can not take Mephiston twice, since he is the same, but The two Coteaz are different and clearly each are unique.
Also this part is fluff: "of which there is only one known example in the whole galaxy"
Is it part of the background, having two "Lord inquisitor Torquemada Coteaz, lord of Formosa"?
I found it strange
Also, I find unusual you refer to the definition of "unique", disregarding the second half of the statement
in·clude [in-klood]
verb (used with object), in·clud·ed, in·clud·ing.
1.
to contain, as a whole does parts or any part or element: The package includes the computer, program, disks, and a manual.
2.
to place in an aggregate, class, category, or the like.
3.
to contain as a subordinate element; involve as a factor
Point 1 is our case, as "include" is followed by a list (named char, unit, vehicle).
74704
Post by: Naw
Pretty weak.. If I put on my sunglasses I am suddenly not me? Give it up already.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
DeathReaper wrote:It does not define unique in the BRB, so we need to use the common english definition to define unique, which of course is 'being the only one of its kind; unlike anything else'
A Unique model is the only one of its kind, so you can not take Mephiston twice, since he is the same, but The two Coteaz are different and clearly each are unique.
Also this part is fluff: "of which there is only one known example in the whole galaxy"
Interesting - the post immediately before yours says otherwise. Unique models include...
61964
Post by: Fragile
It simply is. The rule states as much (which you continue to ignore). And you have precedent with Tycho, (which you ignore).
You cling to a definition that you made up. You have nothing in the rules that supports your position.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
rigeld2 wrote: DeathReaper wrote:It does not define unique in the BRB, so we need to use the common english definition to define unique, which of course is 'being the only one of its kind; unlike anything else'
A Unique model is the only one of its kind, so you can not take Mephiston twice, since he is the same, but The two Coteaz are different and clearly each are unique.
Also this part is fluff: "of which there is only one known example in the whole galaxy"
Interesting - the post immediately before yours says otherwise. Unique models include...
Right it tells us what is considered a Unique model, it makes no mention of the determination if one named Unique model is different than another named Unique model. Automatically Appended Next Post: Fragile wrote:
It simply is. The rule states as much (which you continue to ignore). And you have precedent with Tycho, (which you ignore).
You cling to a definition that you made up. You have nothing in the rules that supports your position.
It simply is not true. the rules do not say what you claim they say.
The do not say [having the same name is all that is required to not have multiples] that is your fabrication and a wildly inaccurate assertation.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
DeathReaper wrote:rigeld2 wrote: DeathReaper wrote:It does not define unique in the BRB, so we need to use the common english definition to define unique, which of course is 'being the only one of its kind; unlike anything else'
A Unique model is the only one of its kind, so you can not take Mephiston twice, since he is the same, but The two Coteaz are different and clearly each are unique.
Also this part is fluff: "of which there is only one known example in the whole galaxy"
Interesting - the post immediately before yours says otherwise. Unique models include...
Right it tells us what is considered a Unique model, it makes no mention of the determination if one named Unique model is different than another named Unique model.
Great, so you agree we have a process to determine a Unique model.
If you determine that you have Unique model A and Unique model B, how do you tell the difference between the two Unique models?
Named characters are unique. What makes a model unique? Being a named character. So if you have to characters both named the same thing in a list, how can you claim they're unique?
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
It tells us what is considered a unique model, but we also know that we can only ever have one of a unique model, and Coteaz from GK Codex is not the same as Coteaz from Inquisition dataslate.
Since we can have two different named unique models, and the Coteaz models are different, you can include them both.
74704
Post by: Naw
There is at least something in the rules to support that. There is absolutely nothing that says "the same" means that everything is identical, including rules, as you claim.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
It does not define unique in the BRB, so we need to use the common english definition to define unique, which of course is 'being the only one of its kind; unlike anything else'
47462
Post by: rigeld2
It does. Unique models are defined by being a named character. Pretty explicit and has been quoted. You cannot include duplicate Unique models in your army list.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
rigeld2 wrote: It does. Unique models are defined by being a named character. Pretty explicit and has been quoted. You cannot include duplicate Unique models in your army list.
It does not, it tell us the rules then gives some fluff then more rules. And the two cotaz models are not the same, they are different and as such can include both because they are not duplicates. This is rules: "Some models are noted as being Unique in their Army List Entry." This is a fluff sentence: "Unique models include named characters and extraordinary units or vehicles, of which there is only one known example in the whole galaxy." This is rules: "Because of this, you can only ever include one of each Unique model in an army"
74704
Post by: Naw
So we have established that we disagree what BRB says unique means. I go by the BRB definition and you go by a dictionary definition to suit you. Our views will not ever meet on this until FAQ'ed, so it is time for me to move on to other topics.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
No the BRB has a fluff sentence about unique models you are basing your definition on, I am basing my definition on RAW.
61964
Post by: Fragile
DeathReaper wrote:The do not say [having the same name is all that is required to not have multiples] that is your fabrication and a wildly inaccurate assertation.
"Unique models include named characters"
Is Coteaz a named character?
My proof is in writing, yours has never been established.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
And actually the brb does define what is and what is not unique right here: "Some models are noted as being Unique in their Army List Entry." So forget the dictionary. if a model has "Unique in their Army List Entry" then it is a unique model. That is our definition. The result is still the same though, you can include both coteaz because both have Unique in their Army List Entry and you can only include one of each unique model, and they are not the same unique model as they have different army list entries.. Automatically Appended Next Post: Fragile wrote: DeathReaper wrote:The do not say [having the same name is all that is required to not have multiples] that is your fabrication and a wildly inaccurate assertation. "Unique models include named characters" Is Coteaz a named character? My proof is in writing, yours has never been established.
That is a fluff sentence. The actual definition I posted above.
36241
Post by: Murrdox
DeathReaper wrote:rigeld2 wrote:
It does. Unique models are defined by being a named character. Pretty explicit and has been quoted. You cannot include duplicate Unique models in your army list.
And the two cotaz models are not the same, they are different and as such can include both because they are not duplicates.
It doesn't MATTER if they're different.
There is only ONE Coteaz in the galaxy. There are not two Coteazes in existence, one from the Inquisition, and one from the Grey Knights. There is ONE. He has one set of rules if you choose to take him from the Grey Knights, and he has a different set of rules if you choose to take him from Inquisition.
It's not that difficult to comprehend.
Nowhere in the unique model description does it spell out that in order to qualify as a "unique model" that spans across different codexes that the units must be carbon-copies of each other, otherwise they are, in fact, different models.
You're slapping additional requirements into the "unique" qualifier that don't exist. And you keep repeating that "what I say is RAW". Repeating that doesn't make it true.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
Nonono, if you wish hard enough for it to become true, it will become true. Truth is subjective to some.
61964
Post by: Fragile
DeathReaper wrote:And actually the brb does define what is and what is not unique right here:
"Some models are noted as being Unique in their Army List Entry."
So forget the dictionary.
if a model has "Unique in their Army List Entry" then it is a unique model. That is our definition.
The result is still the same though, you can include both coteaz because both have Unique in their Army List Entry and you can only include one of each unique model, and they are not the same unique model as they have different army list entries..
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fragile wrote: DeathReaper wrote:The do not say [having the same name is all that is required to not have multiples] that is your fabrication and a wildly inaccurate assertation.
"Unique models include named characters"
Is Coteaz a named character?
My proof is in writing, yours has never been established.
That is a fluff sentence.
The actual definition I posted above.
Its a "fluff" sentence because it proves you wrong.
81364
Post by: WrentheFaceless
DeathReaper wrote:rigeld2 wrote:
It does. Unique models are defined by being a named character. Pretty explicit and has been quoted. You cannot include duplicate Unique models in your army list.
It does not, it tell us the rules then gives some fluff then more rules.
And the two cotaz models are not the same, they are different and as such can include both because they are not duplicates.
This is rules:
"Some models are noted as being Unique in their Army List Entry."
This is a fluff sentence:
"Unique models include named characters and extraordinary units or vehicles, of which there is only one known example in the whole galaxy."
This is rules:
"Because of this, you can only ever include one of each Unique model in an army"
A qualifier that points out what a Unique model is, is not 'fluff" its rules.
You not wanting to qualify it doesnt mean its not part of the Unique Character rules
Now you're just cherry-picking.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
It actually does, because you can include multiple different unique models in your army. There is only ONE Coteaz in the galaxy.
Fluff There are not two Coteazes in existence, one from the Inquisition, and one from the Grey Knights.
Again Fluff, there are if you look at the respective codexes and dataslates. There is ONE.
Fluff He has one set of rules if you choose to take him from the Grey Knights, and he has a different set of rules if you choose to take him from Inquisition.
actually rules. Nice job. It's not that difficult to comprehend.
It isnt if you stick to the rules and not the fluff. Nowhere in the unique model description does it spell out that in order to qualify as a "unique model" that spans across different codexes that the units must be carbon-copies of each other, otherwise they are, in fact, different models.
It defines unique as: "Some models are noted as being Unique in their Army List Entry." if a model has "Unique in their Army List Entry" then it is a unique model. That is our definition. You're slapping additional requirements into the "unique" qualifier that don't exist. And you keep repeating that "what I say is RAW". Repeating that doesn't make it true.
I am not doing that, the rules do that. if a model has "Unique in their Army List Entry" then it is a unique model. We can have multiple unique models as long as they are different as we are restricted from taking the same Unique entry twice. Coteaz from GK and Coteaz from Inquisition are not the same. Automatically Appended Next Post:
No it is a fluff sentence because the actual rules definition is right here: "Some models are noted as being Unique in their Army List Entry." This is what tells us what a Unique model is. A unique model will be noted as Unique in their Army List Entry.
36241
Post by: Murrdox
Yet another YMDC thread devolves into "Deathreaper vs. Everyone". Guess I shouldn't have bothered posting.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
DeathReaper wrote:No the BRB has a fluff sentence about unique models you are basing your definition on, I am basing my definition on RAW.
How is it fluff? "Named character" is fluff? Are you serious?
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
It is an example, so not strictly fluff, but it is an example of the rule that states "Some models are noted as being Unique in their Army List Entry."
That is what defines a unique character. It is a model that is noted as being Unique in its army list entry.
86074
Post by: Quickjager
Is Deathreaper always this... belligerent? Its obvious RAI that you cannot take him twice. From a RAW pov the only actual difference is that Coteaz Inquisition makes henchmen scoring rather than Objective Secured.
And the reason for that is because Inquisition doesn't take a slot on the CAD. So additional troops in addition to Main and Allied would provide the Imperium a unfair advantage.
However since everything scores in 7th they REMOVED this rule as it was redundant. Soooo they are the same character again.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
No, in the contrary, he most often is straight on spot with the rules. It's just that sometimes, you realize you made a mistake way too late, when you already got your back up to the wall, and instead of admitting or just letting it cool down, you defend your claim by all means, whether right or not. Happens to all of us.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Umm Rule #1 maybe?
Its obvious RAI that you cannot take him twice.
I have said that I do not think this was Intended and I do not play it that way.
From a RAW pov the only actual difference is that Coteaz Inquisition makes henchmen scoring rather than Objective Secured.
Actually the Inquisition Coteaz has a specific Warlord Trait and does not have Frag grenades so there are a few more differences as well.
And the reason for that is because Inquisition doesn't take a slot on the CAD. So additional troops in addition to Main and Allied would provide the Imperium a unfair advantage.
However since everything scores in 7th they REMOVED this rule as it was redundant. Soooo they are the same character again.
No they are not the same as they have different rules (Namely the Static Warlord Trait on the Inquisition Coteaz).
53886
Post by: Ignatius
I'm actually with DeathReaper on this one! I wouldn't play it this way either but by RAW it seems he's right for the reasons he's given multiple times.
Regardless, I have no vested interest in this topic. Just pointing out that I agree with DeathReaper and while I wouldn't condone the use of this idea nor would I play it that way, it does seem to be the right way to do it.
60145
Post by: Lungpickle
How are they not the same ? Please Explain WhatNot the Same
Automatically Appended Next Post: Ok both are Coteaz. Both unique. Can't take both. They are not separated by rules differences, just in name only.
46128
Post by: Happyjew
Lungpickle wrote:How are they not the same ? Please Explain WhatNot the Same
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ok both are Coteaz. Both unique. Can't take both. They are not separated by rules differences, just in name only.
GK Coteaz has "Lord of Formosa" special rule, making Henchmen Troops choices. He also has frag grenades. Inq Coteaz has a Warlord Trait, does not have "Lord of Formosa" (since it doesn't do anything), and does not have frag grenades.
I might have it backwards on the grenades.
76545
Post by: Stratos
If something is different it cannot be unique.
Example every snowflake is unique however they are all called snowflake hense they are all special snowflakes.
RAW Good. Rai Bad (presumably)
61964
Post by: Fragile
DeathReaper wrote:It is an example, so not strictly fluff, but it is an example of the rule that states "Some models are noted as being Unique in their Army List Entry."
That is what defines a unique character. It is a model that is noted as being Unique in its army list entry.
Yes, and unique means having the same name. That example is given in the book. Your gear does not matter, unless your claiming you can run two Marneus Calgar just by buying the Armor of Antilochus on one? Or two Khan, one with MoodDraken... etc etc...
Your interpretation obviously fails.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Fragile wrote: DeathReaper wrote:It is an example, so not strictly fluff, but it is an example of the rule that states "Some models are noted as being Unique in their Army List Entry." That is what defines a unique character. It is a model that is noted as being Unique in its army list entry. Yes, and unique means having the same name. That example is given in the book. Your gear does not matter, unless your claiming you can run two Marneus Calgar just by buying the Armor of Antilochus on one? Or two Khan, one with MoodDraken... etc etc... Your interpretation obviously fails.
Unique does not mean having the same name. What defines a unique character? It is a model that is noted as being Unique in its army list entry. "Some models are noted as being Unique in their Army List Entry." Gear may not matter, but differing rules do.
61964
Post by: Fragile
DeathReaper wrote:Fragile wrote: DeathReaper wrote:It is an example, so not strictly fluff, but it is an example of the rule that states "Some models are noted as being Unique in their Army List Entry."
That is what defines a unique character. It is a model that is noted as being Unique in its army list entry.
Yes, and unique means having the same name. That example is given in the book. Your gear does not matter, unless your claiming you can run two Marneus Calgar just by buying the Armor of Antilochus on one? Or two Khan, one with MoodDraken... etc etc...
Your interpretation obviously fails.
Unique does not mean having the same name. What defines a unique character? It is a model that is noted as being Unique in its army list entry. "Some models are noted as being Unique in their Army List Entry."
Gear may not matter, but differing rules do.
Now you changing your tune. Obviously if they do not have the same gear, they are different according to your entire argument. Sounds like your definition of "unique" is changing.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
DeathReaper wrote: DJGietzen wrote:Yes, more than one unique models that are not the same can be fielded in an army. So as HJ has said If two Unique models are not the same I can field both of them? (I say this is correct). Is this going to be a "DeathReaper proves DeathReaper wrong" thread now?
86074
Post by: Quickjager
What? I didn't attack you, I'm new to the forums and I read through the entire thread, and it seems like the rule would be against RAI which everyone including you is agreeing with. It seems as though you refuse to admit something based on a technicality. Sooo now we are discussing what makes a unique character, unique.
Rather you've been making an argument that a name doesn't suffice, neither does a model (understandably), and we are reduced to the point of a Warlord trait and a Frag Grenade.
Now lets do a quick step solution.
1. Codex: Inquisition was written to be a rather unique detachment for your army.
2. Special rules were written to ensure it functioned with the armies coherently in 6th.
3. These rules do not allow this Codex to function as a standalone army.
4. The way it is currently setup is 1 HQ and 3 Elites
5. You cannot ally this army with itself as it would not be legal, as such you are limited to one HQ
6. However GW thought it prudent enough to state that each of the Inquisitor choices was unique.
7. If it wasn't possible to have multiple HQ's with this Codex to begin with why bother with the Unique tag?
8. That is because the NAMED HQ's are already present in another Codex, which is also tagged Unique.
9. Thus this Unique tag is solely for the purpose of ensuring double Coteaz/Karamazov/Valeria does not exist.
EDIT: I've been corrected.
52163
Post by: Shandara
An Inquisitorial detachment can have 2 HQs. So the Unique serves the same purpose as it does in every other Codex.
25220
Post by: WarOne
Can 2 models be unique in the case of being exactly the same model, from the same codex, but with different options?
For example, Marneus Calgar with his two options of armor.
One unique profile will be different from another because once you choose that model's options, it could in theory be different from another model.
And you have to supply a different model in order to properly field that different choice in the same profile.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
WarOne - according to DRs definition of unique, it is possible to field two Marneus Calgars, as while wearing the armour he has different rules / profile to the other model, meaning he is different
According to those reading the written rule stating that the Name is the defining characteristics, then you could not do so, and that therefore both Coteaz could not be fielded. This is based on the fact that what DR calls "fluff" is actually a rule.
49999
Post by: Frozen Ocean
Just for example, let's say our beloved Marneus was put in a Dreadnought. Dread-Marneus, a Forge World special character, would certainly include in his entry "If Dread-Marneus is taken in an army, Marneus Calgar can not be taken", or something to that effect. If this line was not added, this is absolutely nothing in the rules that would prevent Marneus meeting his future Dreadnought-wearing self. Is Marneus Calgar in the same Codex as Marneus Calgar? Yes, so you can't take him twice, regardless of wargear - they are also the same entry, which is important. My hypothetical Dread-Marneus would not be in the same Codex, so a specific rule would have to be applied as they are not the same character by the rules. Inquisition Coteaz and Grey Knights Coteaz are not in the same entry because they are in completely separate books.
I'm also with DeathReaper, so it really isn't "DeathReaper vs everyone". Anyone who mentions RAI in this thread obviously hasn't been around YMDC very long.
61964
Post by: Fragile
Frozen, unique is defined as named characters. Which book they are in does not matter. If they share the same name, then you cannot duplicate them. Unless you care to give rules support to your statements other than creating a fictional dreadnought.
41311
Post by: ashikenshin
I will agree with those who say that you cannot take both. Nowhere in the rules does it say they have to share stats/rules/gear it just says "named characters."
No rules support 2 coteaz and none has shown a valid argument pro 2 coteaz.
The unique word could be changed to cake since it's just a qualifier and not a part of a rule description.
58920
Post by: Neorealist
Food for thought: There are a small handful of ICs with more than one different profile. (captain Tycho of the Blood Angels, or Commander Farsight of the Tau for example)
Generally because they were introduced in a later splatbook or with variant stats. I'm fairly certain almost all of them state some verbiage along these lines: "Only one of these ________ (whatever the IC's name is) can be fielded in an army at a time".
For some reason, this is lacking in the case of the two Coteii. They are the sole exception so far as I can tell. (examples of two uniques with the same name and different stats)
As such: I'm of the opinion RAW: yes you can field them as they are different. RAI? no, you should not field them as they appear to be referring to the same character.
That said, I do not think anyone is going to find anything that definitively states one way or the other, I for one am hoping for a FAQ update to clear this up, have been for a while now...
49999
Post by: Frozen Ocean
Fragile wrote:Frozen, unique is defined as named characters. Which book they are in does not matter. If they share the same name, then you cannot duplicate them. Unless you care to give rules support to your statements other than creating a fictional dreadnought.
What part of the RAW says that? The actual line about the Unique rule is really, really vague, which is why we're having problems here. Furthermore, Coteaz is completely unique in this regard. Neither of us can give rules to support our statements because this situation is not at all covered by the rules, hence why we are falling back on secondary arguments to discern the actual meaning of the Unique rule.
Neorealist wrote:Food for thought: There are a small handful of ICs with more than one different profile. (captain Tycho of the Blood Angels, or Commander Farsight of the Tau for example)
Generally because they were introduced in a later splatbook or with variant stats. I'm fairly certain almost all of them state some verbiage along these lines: "Only one of these ________ (whatever the IC's name is) can be fielded in an army at a time".
For some reason, this is lacking in the case of the two Coteii. They are the sole exception so far as I can tell. (examples of two uniques with the same name and different stats)
This is what I've been pointing out. Also, taking two of the same (as in, same unit entry) character when allying a Supplement with its parent Codex (for example, an army of Codex: Chaos Space Marines with Supplement: Black Legion allies can take Abaddon in either detachment, not both) is expressly forbidden. Codex: Grey Knights is not a parent Codex to Codex: Inquisition. As far as the rules are concerned, there is nothing linking the two. This is because the Inquisition book is a lazy, haphazard copy and paste of part of an actual Codex, made without consideration for the consequences or how it should fit into the rules. Of course I don't think that this is RAI. However, it's not something I care to deny an opponent and there are examples supporting it, as Neorealist has said (along others in this thread, including me). Supporting the idea that different versions of the same Unique character must be specifically ruled to be exclusive to each other.
70326
Post by: DJGietzen
Lets not confuse the issue with a misrepresentation of information. The book does not define how to differentiate unique things from one another, the closest we get is
"Unique models include named characters and extraordinary units or vehicles, of which there is only one known example in the whole galaxy."
All this tells us is that a named character should be unique. There is no way to determine within the framework of the game if entry A and entry B are for the same unique model.
And thats the problem I had with DeathReaper's stance. The two Coteaz entries being different does not within the rules as written mean they are different characters. Even if the profiles where identical it would not mean they are the same (as far as a RAW stance goes) becouse the Rules as Written are incomplete (what a shock) and we, as the players, must find a way to determine the 'sameness' of two unique models.
Death Reaper suggests that we must use the common english definition of the term "unique" as a benchmark. The problem with that is the entries are not the models themselves, they are representations of the models. its quite possible to have several wildly different representations of a single unique thing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just some food for thought. Each entry contains a section called "composition" and this section will show the number and type of models that make up the basic unit. So this is what matters for determining sameness of two models. The trouble is that unique characters just list "1 (unique)" and leave you to connect the does on what you have "1" of. Luckily the models all have a profile and that profile includes a model name. Since unique characters only have 1 model profile then the only model name given in that profile is the thing you have "1" of.
Both Coetaz units contain the model "Inquisitor Coteaz" and in both of those units that model is unique so I can't have the two different units in the same army because they are both using the same unique model.
Not strictly RAW, because we have to connect the dots a couple of times, but the best RAI argument I've seen to date.
61964
Post by: Fragile
Frozen Ocean wrote:Fragile wrote:Frozen, unique is defined as named characters. Which book they are in does not matter. If they share the same name, then you cannot duplicate them. Unless you care to give rules support to your statements other than creating a fictional dreadnought.
What part of the RAW says that? The actual line about the Unique rule is really, really vague, which is why we're having problems here.
Unique models include named characters. There is no "can include" or "may include". Named characters are by default unique. Therefore how do you tell a "named" character from any other character? The only way to tell is by its name. Therefore if 2 characters share the same name, regardless of faction or rules source, they are considered the same whether intended or not.
49999
Post by: Frozen Ocean
Fragile wrote: Frozen Ocean wrote:Fragile wrote:Frozen, unique is defined as named characters. Which book they are in does not matter. If they share the same name, then you cannot duplicate them. Unless you care to give rules support to your statements other than creating a fictional dreadnought.
What part of the RAW says that? The actual line about the Unique rule is really, really vague, which is why we're having problems here.
Unique models include named characters. There is no "can include" or "may include". Named characters are by default unique. Therefore how do you tell a "named" character from any other character? The only way to tell is by its name. Therefore if 2 characters share the same name, regardless of faction or rules source, they are considered the same whether intended or not.
That is completely speculation, however. The point is that the rules themselves do not say that, and therefore it is not RAW. The RAW is terribly vague and does not provide an answer to either argument, as it does not set the criteria for what defines a character as Unique.
61964
Post by: Fragile
Frozen Ocean wrote:That is completely speculation, however. The point is that the rules themselves do not say that, and therefore it is not RAW. The RAW is terribly vague and does not provide an answer to either argument, as it does not set the criteria for what defines a character as Unique.
That is exactly what they say.
11771
Post by: gameandwatch
The name is the only defining characteristic you need to know. Are they both named/ listed as "Inquisitor Coteaz" in their codex entry? Then they are the same unique. The rules may differ between them, but if they are named the same then they may not both be fielded in the same army.
Name is all that is important, strictly how the name is LISTED. If one entry was "The inquisitor Coteaz" and the other was "Inquisitor Coteaz" then both could be fielded as they would be listed as different NAMED characters/ different uniques, even if they had wholly identical rules.
Thats my 2 cents, probably stepped into this too late though
71563
Post by: lordwellingstone
For what it's worth by RAW i think you can field two. However if anyone puts down two Coteaz models across the table for me, I'm glad to shake their hand and give them the massacre and move on to either grabbing another beer or playing someone more worthwhile. Chances are I can tell what type of person I am playing if there are two in their army.
42414
Post by: thedunator
Can Coteaz from the Inquisitor book interact with an allied GK attachment the same way as if he was fielded as a GK? Or will rules prevent him from being a fully functional GK as well as a fully functional Inquisitor?
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
You use the rules for the codex or dataslate you get the unit from.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
thedunator wrote:Can Coteaz from the Inquisitor book interact with an allied GK attachment the same way as if he was fielded as a GK? Or will rules prevent him from being a fully functional GK as well as a fully functional Inquisitor?
You can't field two Corteaz at the same time.
53985
Post by: TheKbob
Wow, yea this wasn't supposed to go this long.
As far as I'm concerend, poorly written RAW is yes, you field both if you wish. RAI, I wouldn't.
And I love the first post lambasting me about being upset that Coteaz was changed. I was. However it's because we already had significant precedent that the warbands should have gotten objective secured through how Pedro was FAQ'd. But sure, hand wave rational logic away for GW Brand Finelogic™
49999
Post by: Frozen Ocean
Ultimately this thread has shown, TheKbob, that you will face three kinds of opponent if you do this. The first is the one who will not really care, and allow it on basis of vague rules. The second is the one who will disallow it on basis of RAI, and the third is the one who will disallow it because they don't like it, and will outright refuse to play you and consider you a bad person.
64721
Post by: Yoshidwyn
portugus wrote:I think having the same name is enough for unique to limit it.
Unique Models
...... are noted as being Unique in their Army List Entry. Unique models include named characters and extraordinary units or vehicles, of which there is only one known example in the whole galaxy. Because of this, you can only ever include one of each Unique model in an army.
You just hit the nail on the head though because the army each have one therefore it is unique to each army to as opposed to a singular army thus I would vote you could have both no matter how akward it is
9158
Post by: Hollismason
RETURN TO YOUR GRAVE YOU DO NOT BELONG AMONG THE LIVING!
|
|