Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 DJGietzen wrote:
Well, no taking GK:Coteaz and CI:Coteaz is not the same as taking R'alai in a Tau detachment and another R'alai in a farsight detachment. In the former they are different units, in the later they are the same unit you just have permission to include them in a different detachment.

You can't do either though. Check page 110 again. You can't include multiple copies of the same special character in an army. Special character, not unit. Special characters are defined as characters with personal names, not just a title. Inquisitor Coteaz is the same special character in both books because he is the same character and has the same personal name; the unique rule will prevent us from having two of him regardless of what codex he is printed in. Same goes for R'alai or any other special character with unique.

Except he is not "the same special character" he is a different SC with the same name.

still in different armies.... even if he is the same

same army. You only have one army.

was it not you that pointed out what "army " means in the GK codex? by detachment which means that there are 2 armies in question comming from 2 codex with 2 characters with there own special profile...

 DeathReaper wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
Well, no taking GK:Coteaz and CI:Coteaz is not the same as taking R'alai in a Tau detachment and another R'alai in a farsight detachment. In the former they are different units, in the later they are the same unit you just have permission to include them in a different detachment.

You can't do either though. Check page 110 again. You can't include multiple copies of the same special character in an army. Special character, not unit. Special characters are defined as characters with personal names, not just a title. Inquisitor Coteaz is the same special character in both books because he is the same character and has the same personal name; the unique rule will prevent us from having two of him regardless of what codex he is printed in. Same goes for R'alai or any other special character with unique.

Except he is not "the same special character" he is a different SC with the same name.

Please explain how they are different characters. That is like suggesting that Hon Solo is a different character in episode 4 and episode 6.

Different codex.... separate profiles.... separate armies... even if the 2 weren't different they are still coming from 2 armies.

 DJGietzen wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
Well, no taking GK:Coteaz and CI:Coteaz is not the same as taking R'alai in a Tau detachment and another R'alai in a farsight detachment. In the former they are different units, in the later they are the same unit you just have permission to include them in a different detachment.

You can't do either though. Check page 110 again. You can't include multiple copies of the same special character in an army. Special character, not unit. Special characters are defined as characters with personal names, not just a title. Inquisitor Coteaz is the same special character in both books because he is the same character and has the same personal name; the unique rule will prevent us from having two of him regardless of what codex he is printed in. Same goes for R'alai or any other special character with unique.

Except he is not "the same special character" he is a different SC with the same name.

Please explain how they are different characters. That is like suggesting that Hon Solo is a different character in episode 4 and episode 6.

Is he the same special character (Same means Identical in this case) or is he a different (AKA Not Identical) SC with Different rules?

Well sense a special character is a character with a personal name, and he is the same character, and has the same name then he is an identical special character with different rules.

 DJGietzen wrote:
Well sense a special character is a character with a personal name, and he is the same character, and has the same name then he is an identical special character with different rules.

If he has different rules he is not the same now is he?

sure he is, because a special character is not defined by its rules.

Again, different unit (becouse different rules) but same character.

 DJGietzen wrote:
sure he is, because a special character is not defined by its rules.

Again, different unit (becouse different rules) but same character.

No, different character as one is not Identical to the other.

A special character is defined as having a name, but all units have rules.

If the rules are different the SC is different, because certainly they are not identical.

 DJGietzen wrote:
sure he is, because a special character is not defined by its rules.

Again, different unit (becouse different rules) but same character.

So he is both different and the same, he is differame.

Joking aside, there is no right answer. He is listed with the same name and dose something similar, but comes from two different books and has different rules. This is like GW had a previous edition codex able to ally with it's current codex, wait...

On one hand, they do share the same name, but on the otherhand, they have their own rules that are not equivalent. Both are equally valid but can not be both true. The only real answer is to pound on GW's door until they FAQ this. Rules wise, this is like a RRoD that bricks consoles because they have no way of dealing with this.

The only thing we can answer is how would we play it?

The BRB states on pg 110:

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

An "Army" is made up of multiple primary detachments in games of 2000 or more points, but still only has one Warlord for the entire army.
It doesn't matter how many detachments there are, there is still just one army.

Coteaz cannot be taken more than once in an army since he is unique.

DeathReaper wrote:
Again, different unit (becouse different rules) but same character.

No, different character as one is not Identical to the other.
The characters are identical.

DeathReaper wrote:
A special character is defined as having a name, but all units have rules.

Stop right there. You've done it again. You've confused the character and the unit/rules and as a result have raised a perfectly correct but irrelevant point. The units are different, the rules are different but the character in those units is the same. Corteaz is not a different character just because his is in a different book/unit. Hell he is the same character that is in "The Inquisition" from Black Library, and there he is not in a unit and does not have any rules.

DeathReaper wrote:
If the rules are different the SC is different, because certainly they are not identical.

Burden of proof time. Show me how the characters cannot be the same because the rules for that character are different.

I'd side with DJGietzen. In both cases its Coteaz.

Of course they are not identical because their rules differ. But the Unique rule doesnt call for having the same rules. Its calling for being the same character. Arguing that the rules differ and hes not being the same is valid though from a RAW perspective. So what exactly does "multipes of the same special character" mean?

HIWPI it means to prevent having more than 1 coteaz on the field. So i wouldnt allow/try to field multiple incarnations of coteaz.

 DJGietzen wrote:
Burden of proof time. Show me how the characters cannot be the same because the rules for that character are different.

Easy. Fluff is not rules. The fluff of what a given unit represents is completely irrelevant. So what we have is two different units with the same name, just like C:SM and BA both have a unit called "tactical squad".

Yes, and apoc accept either one as a "tactical squad" for its formations, meaning that although the are slightly different rulewise, the game looks at them both as the same on their core.

In the same manner Azreal counts as a chapter master, Tycho as a commander, mephiston/ezkiel are still librarians, all versions of the scout squad are scouts, etc...(the apoc book is filled with these, especially the SM parts)

So by that logic, the game should look at two coteaz as the same at his core, and as such triggering the unique limits.

 Happyjew wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
Feel free to take 2 Coteaz, if you are willing to face 2 longstrike hammerheads. its makes the same amount of sense.

I wonder how two R'alai would work in a list?

There is a difference though. There are two different Inquisitor Coteaz from different codices. Until GW says otherwise you could field both. Where is there permission to field two longstrikes or R'alai?

Then we can take two farsights no?, he is in Enclaves and Tau dex, imagine that two farsight bombs!

MarkyMark wrote:
Then we can take two farsights no?, he is in Enclaves and Tau dex, imagine that two farsight bombs!

No. The Farsight book says to take your units from the Tau codex, which means you would be taking the same unit twice and violating the "unique" rule. It works with the C:I characters because you have two separate units (with different rules) that just happen to share a name.

 BoomWolf wrote:
Yes, and apoc accept either one as a "tactical squad" for its formations, meaning that although the are slightly different rulewise, the game looks at them both as the same on their core.

Apocalypse is not regular 40k. The rules for Apocalypse are deliberately flexible and allow you to do many things that aren't permitted in a normal game. So how Apocalypse treats units with similar names is irrelevant.

In the same manner Azreal counts as a chapter master, Tycho as a commander, mephiston/ezkiel are still librarians, all versions of the scout squad are scouts, etc...(the apoc book is filled with these, especially the SM parts)

Only because (or if) those units specifically say "X counts as a Y". If, say, Azrael's rules do not say "counts as a chapter master" then he does not count as one for any rule that refers to a chapter master.

So by that logic, the game should look at two coteaz as the same at his core, and as such triggering the unique limits.

Except the game doesn't do that. You're making assumptions based on fluff and Apocalypse, not standard-40k rules.

Allies are taken within a army, you have 1 warlord per army. Army is in reference to primary and allied detachments as a whole.

Special characters

stand out from normal characters because they have a name, not just a title

, Special characters represent specific people on the battle field, the differential is the name.


Were not given much direction on this between codex's because Inq is really the first of its kind. Unlikely to be answered until if and when we get a FAQ, until then I'm willing to put money on a resounding no, as it seems quite illogical to allow it.
Same generally refers to a named instance in 40k rules, alike to same powers, same special rules - its not what they do or where they come from, its the title that matters. On this I would vote they would constitute as the same character in one army.

My question I guess would be which henchmen are you taking and could you not get the same effect in a different way

I.e. if you were running a bunch of acolytes

Run GK primary with Cotaez
Inquisitorial Detachement
IG allies.

Just spam psykers. for 135pts you get a chimera and 8 dudes firing a S10 ap1 assault 1 large blast that will only scatter 1d6 -3 when within 12" of a servo skull.

 Peregrine wrote:

MarkyMark wrote:
Then we can take two farsights no?, he is in Enclaves and Tau dex, imagine that two farsight bombs!

No. The Farsight book says to take your units from the Tau codex, which means you would be taking the same unit twice and violating the "unique" rule. It works with the C:I characters because you have two separate units (with different rules) that just happen to share a name.

Thats sad, so no Ovesa star then?, none of the 8 appear in the tau dex after all.