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.

Now at first, neither you nor I would say yes.
But let's look at the entry of the Doom (or another 'unique' entry in the Tyranid codex):

Tyranid codex page 89 wrote:
Composition:1 (unique)
Unit Type:Infantry

Then look at the Tyranid Army list at page 85.

Tyranid codex page 85 wrote:
Composition: This section will show the number and type of models that make up the basic unit, before any upgrades are taken.
Unit Type: This section refers to the Warhammer 40,000 Unit Type Rules chapter. For example, a unit may be classed as infantry, jump infantry, beast or monstrous creature, which will subject it to a number of rules regarding, movement, shooting, assualting, etc. If the Unit Type box includes the Word 'Unique' you may only include one of this unit in your army.

It seems that if the Unit Type box includes 'Unique' you can take only one of the unit. But all 'Unique' units in the codex include 'Unique' in the Composition box, instead of the Unit Type box.
Now this can't possible be true so we look at the BRB, what it says about uniqueness.

BRB page 49 wrote:
Unique: Special characters can be either independent or upgrade characters, but each of them is unique, so the player may not include multiples of the same special characters in an army.

But as special characters are either independent or upgrade characters and the Tyranid 'Unique' units are neither of those, they can be taken multiple times.

What do you think of this?

Stop splitting hairs.

It's "unique".

If you have more than one of them, they cease to be "unique".

Well, I know it was kind of a TFG move, but I came across the section and wanted to be sure if it was actually possible.
And about the uniqueness, that's why I wrote 'unique' units everytime (so not unique).
Fluff-wise it would be entirely possible but that's not relevant for YMDC.

Games Workshop struggles with keeping rules language consistent. This is not true in other companies, but it's true of GW. The intent behind the text is so blisteringly obvious that I cannot comprehend honestly believing anything else is a valid interpretation. The word "unique" is in there, it's just one line off. I would not play with someone who argued for this interpretation - or, at least not against any list built with it in mind.

Also, that line doesnt say what you think it does. It does NOT say that unique characters are *only* upgrade or independent, just that they can be.

But then again, it is in the paragraph about characters.
But it might be a counter-argument as it talks about characters with a name (which the 'unique' units have) and it also isn't possible to take multiple Mephistons (who isn't a character too).

generally speaking unique units are just that, and no amount of rule line lawyering or whatever will really change that fact. BRB says unique units in whatever form they come is limited to 1 choice of the unique unit... else we would have silly crazy lists full of calgars and draigos. as to the fluff behind the doom, its a unique "evoultion" and thus there is only one. or rather, it would be such a unique evoultion that only one would be available to your swarm at any particular time. but yea.. i agree with the "stop splitting hairs" statment.

Matty! wrote:It seems that if the Unit Type box includes 'Unique' you can take only one of the unit. But all 'Unique' units in the codex include 'Unique' in the Composition box, instead of the Unit Type box.

Well done, you found a formatting error.

Good luck actually getting that argument past anyone at the table, though.


Locking for silliness prevention.