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.

I run Grey Knights, but to be able to win in today's tournaments the henchmen spam is the only way. well i want to make it better. so i am looking at the new Inquisition codex. It seems pretty cool... except they are elites.. all of them. the only way to fix this is to make coteaz the HQ for the inquisition and that is where i have a problem. that destroys my army list because i cant run coteaz in the GK detachment. now here is my question... sence they are coming from 2 codecs can i run 2 coteaz. i dont care if it sint logical, i just want to know if "by the rules" i can or cant and what page it has that i cant. i know somewhere in the rule book it mentions something about this, but i have no idea where. can someone help me out?

You can not.

If you look at the unit composition section you will likely find a tag called unique. This was a special rule that appears to be in place from several editions, though why the hell they decided the best place to put it was in the section reserved for 'this unit composes of x model.' While not entirely happy with the character subtyping, they could of at least put it there to keep it constant. In any case this tag refers to a specific rule found on almost completely hidden on page 110 of the basic rule book designed for one purpose. As that purpose is to prevent you putting two specifically named characters, tagged as unique, models into the same "Army" the answer is a no from that point of view.

But I will not take this as to mean your army list needs to be completely rebuilt!

I do not have this codex supplement and have not even thumbed through it so while I can answer your question based on the basic rules, I do not know if this question is even accurate to ask in this situation. From the last few hours just drifting around on this board I have seen a few questions that make me wonder how the supplement even plays out with the basic rules, but can not review them for lack of material. This whole 'they only have elite' thing is one such thing as I can't see how that works on an allied force organization chart or how Corteaz interacts with them because it seems they have identical named units and Corteaz's rule uses army wide terminology too.

Though that brings the debate of 5th edition use of army compared to 6th edition use of army and all sorts of other problems that can be interesting if you want to witness Game Workshop's lack of good editorial preview.

see that is one of the problems, i cant use the henchmen for GKs unless i use Coteaz from the GK codex and his rule is army wide. But the new codex states that he makes all henchmen in primary or not scoring. the reason for change is because the new dex Inquisitional Force org has up to 2 HQs and 3 Eliets so even if it did work i still wouldn't be able to because the inquisitional dex states they done have "Troops" and there is no point in running them without troops, defeats the purpose.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And thank you for that page number.

Hopefully someone with the Inquisition Codex can confirm or deny this, but I believe that if you take an Inquisition army as your Primary detachment, Henchmen Warbands count as Troops so you wouldn't actually need Coteaz at all.

Dra'al Nacht wrote:
Hopefully someone with the Inquisition Codex can confirm or deny this, but I believe that if you take an Inquisition army as your Primary detachment, Henchmen Warbands count as Troops so you wouldn't actually need Coteaz at all.

This is correct. You would then need to ally in GK.

I'm not sure that you can't run two Coteazs, one in each detachment. If I was playing GK against GK, it would be legal for both of us to have Coteaz or any other duplicate unique. And although Coteaz in INQ is named the same (and has the same rules and stats) as Coteaz in GK, this does not necessarily mean they are mutually exclusive.

I've never seen a "Unique" cross over from one book to the other. In 6e, unique means (I think) that you may take one of those things from that book in your army. But when multiple books are involved....

The 'Unique' USR states that you cannot play multiple copies of the same character in any 'army'. (note, not just detachment)

I'd say the verbiage of the rule runs towards 'no you may not run multiple Coteazs', since they appear to be representing the same character.

That said, wether or not a character counts as 'the same' if it has ever so slightly different abilities (C:Inq Coteaz has a fixed warlord trait I believe) and is from a different codex to boot? That I cannot tell you with any authority, I expect we'll have to wait for a FAQ to know definitively.

Dra'al Nacht wrote:
Hopefully someone with the Inquisition Codex can confirm or deny this, but I believe that if you take an Inquisition army as your Primary detachment, Henchmen Warbands count as Troops so you wouldn't actually need Coteaz at all.

They are scoring, but not troops. You dont need to have any troops with codex inquisition either as primary or as ally detachment.

You could take an army that only consists of 1 Inquisitor as a primary detachment.

 Neorealist wrote:
The 'Unique' USR states that you cannot play multiple copies of the same character in any 'army'. (note, not just detachment)

I'd say the verbiage of the rule runs towards 'no you may not run multiple Coteazs', since they appear to be representing the same character.

That said, wether or not a character counts as 'the same' if it has ever so slightly different abilities (C:Inq Coteaz has a fixed warlord trait I believe) and is from a different codex to boot? That I cannot tell you with any authority, I expect we'll have to wait for a FAQ to know definitively.

Well, they aren't the same character because they're not the same unit from the same codex, despite any similarities in the name/rules. (One is a Codex:Grey Knights' unit, the other a Codex: Inquisition unit).

I don't personally believe that is the intended effect though.

Inksoul wrote:
see that is one of the problems, i cant use the henchmen for GKs unless i use Coteaz from the GK codex and his rule is army wide. But the new codex states that he makes all henchmen in primary or not scoring. the reason for change is because the new dex Inquisitional Force org has up to 2 HQs and 3 Eliets so even if it did work i still wouldn't be able to because the inquisitional dex states they done have "Troops" and there is no point in running them without troops, defeats the purpose.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And thank you for that page number.

You've missed something crucial. If the inquisitional detachment is your primary detachment then henchmen in that detachment are all scoring, even if you don't have corteaz as the HQ.

This list for Example

Codex Inquisition (Primary Detachment)
-HQ: Ordo Herecticus Inquisitor
-Elite: Henchmen Warband
-Elite: Henchmen Warband
-Elite: Henchmen Warband
Codex Grey Knights (Allied Detachment)
-HQ: Inquisitor Corteaz
-Troop: Henchmen Warband
-Troop: Henchmen Warband

Is completely legal and will produce 5 scoring units of henchmen. Alternatively you could run GK as the Primary detachment with Coteaz and have 6 scoring units, then run an Inquisition detachment for another 3 non scoring units of henchmen and still be allowed to run an allied detachment of something else with 2 more scoring units. All depends on if you need Priests in scoring units or not, or if you want your scoring units to have Land Raiders or Valkyries.

Problem is, once you take GK Corteaz, your INQ henchmen turn into troops (because his rule is army-wide), and INQ can't even TAKE troops, so he actually blocks it if you use him.

coteaz' rule does NOT apply across force org charts,

just as with 99% of all other character special rules, it only applies to stuff from the same codex.

Is it? because his rule say "army" rather then "detachment", and by the same logic people state you can't have shadowsun/anuva in an allied detachment to a farsight enclave army.

Either "army" rules apply across detachments, or they don't. you can't have it swing from one side to another.

army, would be codex GK, and all detachments of GK,

allies, or using another codex, is another army.


not talking about detachments of the SAME army

 easysauce wrote:
army, would be codex GK, and all detachments of GK,

allies, or using another codex, is another army.


not talking about detachments of the SAME army

That's the problem with 5th edition codices. Army was intended to mean units chosen from that codex, but in 6th edition army means all models in all detachments. C:GK needs an errata to reflect that.

And while RAW BoomWolf is right, in practice I doubt you will find an opponent who will refuse to play against you if you treat the GK Lord of Formosa rule to mean IHW units chosen from codex grey knights.

I know that the FAQ's on the 5th ed books, all say something to the effect of "units chosen from codex:XXXX"

for almost every rule that applies to the army:xxx

IE IG orders, and so on,

just like you cant buy a marine special character, to say unlock bikers as troops,

then ally with marines, and count THEIR bikers as troops as well.

 easysauce wrote:
I know that the FAQ's on the 5th ed books, all say something to the effect of "units chosen from codex:XXXX"

for almost every rule that applies to the army:xxx

IE IG orders, and so on,

Almost every rule... and yet not all of them.

just like you cant buy a marine special character, to say unlock bikers as troops,

then ally with marines, and count THEIR bikers as troops as well.

I wonder why that is - let's look at the rule.
Oh - because it specifies detachment. Wow. It's almost like the rules are worded differently or something.

 DJGietzen wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
army, would be codex GK, and all detachments of GK,

allies, or using another codex, is another army.


not talking about detachments of the SAME army

That's the problem with 5th edition codices. Army was intended to mean units chosen from that codex, but in 6th edition army means all models in all detachments. C:GK needs an errata to reflect that.

And while RAW BoomWolf is right, in practice I doubt you will find an opponent who will refuse to play against you if you treat the GK Lord of Formosa rule to mean IHW units chosen from codex grey knights.

The problem is even new books, like the Farsight Enclave Supplement, say army for a lot of things that should only be for the primary detachment. Thus causing Tau Empire allies to be able to take Crisis Suits as troops and giving Eldar and Space Marines PE: Orks in melee, which is actually useful.

Though I do enjoy the idea of Farsight schooling some Space Marines on how to fight aliens using a reversed engineered version of the Codex Astartes

EDIT: I should also add to the discussion that the Inquisition Codex adds a new detachment slot called an Inquisition Detachment that is different from the allied detachment and the inquisitor can be made the Warlord from the inquisition detachment.

Primary Detachment <- Can be Warlord
Inquisition Detachment <- Can be Warlord
Allied Detachment <- Nope

If you ask me the issue can be traced back to the Basic Rule Book and where it details what an 'Army' is. I can not remember the exact page it is found on, somewhere around 110, but it quickly becomes apparent the writer did not put much thought into the matter. It opens up by informing us that an Army contains both allied and primary detachments, the closest thing we come to a definition of Army, and while it could be better written it is pretty defined. Then, on the very same page and only a few sentences later, it closes by stating that different combinations of Armies and Allies are better then others. Either this section was written by two people with very different ideas of 'Army', and no editor to catch such a conflict, or even the person penning the section had no clue what they intended to use it.

If Game Workshop can't use terminology coherently, on the page they defined the terminology none the less, then what hope would we have?

So we have people saying i cant take 2 coteaz because they are in the same "army" and other people saying that coteaz cant effect the henchmen from the other detachment in my "army" rules dont apply for one and not the other. i can either have 2 coteaz or GK coteaz makes the henchmen troops once game is in motion. or GW made an allies det out of Grey knights units so you cant use coteaz from the GK without srewing yourself.. so could i have a simple vote?
1 Should be able to run 2 coteaz
2 GK Coteaz makes INQ henchmen troops
3 GK Coteaz can not be played with Inquisitors

Inksoul wrote:
So we have people saying i cant take 2 coteaz because they are in the same "army" and other people saying that coteaz cant effect the henchmen from the other detachment in my "army" rules dont apply for one and not the other. i can either have 2 coteaz or GK coteaz makes the henchmen troops once game is in motion. or GW made an allies det out of Grey knights units so you cant use coteaz from the GK without srewing yourself.. so could i have a simple vote?
1 Should be able to run 2 coteaz
2 GK Coteaz makes INQ henchmen troops
3 GK Coteaz can not be played with Inquisitors

RAW? Unknown until GW gets off their high horse and figures some things out.
HIWPI - You can have 2 Coteaz (not that I would run 2), and they only affect their codex. At least until GW releases the GK iDex where Inquisitors are removed entirely.

Inksoul wrote:
So we have people saying i cant take 2 coteaz because they are in the same "army" and other people saying that coteaz cant effect the henchmen from the other detachment in my "army" rules dont apply for one and not the other. i can either have 2 coteaz or GK coteaz makes the henchmen troops once game is in motion. or GW made an allies det out of Grey knights units so you cant use coteaz from the GK without srewing yourself.. so could i have a simple vote?
1 Should be able to run 2 coteaz
2 GK Coteaz makes INQ henchmen troops
3 GK Coteaz can not be played with Inquisitors

What I'm saying is that I believe the GK lord of Formosa rule is intended to only affect units from codex grey knighs, while the unique rule for special characters is intended to be army wide. HIWPI (and how I expect most others will play it) is by what I think the intent is, and not by what the RAW actually is.

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?

 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?

again BOOM,

you are not taking two coteaz....

there is a coteaz unit in GK, he has his own rules,

there is a coteaz unit in C:I,
and if you actually OWNED C:I, you would see his rules,
are DIFFERENT from those in GK,

ergo,

two totally different units,

sharing the same name does not make them the same unit.

quote raw other wise please,

its not hard to figure out though... we know dreadnaughts are different units codex to codex, despite having the same name, we dont try to use BA dreadnaught options in a GK army do we?



RAI, probably not supposed to have two coteaz', RAW, absolutely you can.

RAI maybe coteaz IS supposed to affect the totally different C:I henchmen units in another detachment, instead of just the GK henchmen unit his rule makes reference to.

RAW, two coteaz' have two sets of rules, each applying to one of the TWO specific henchmen units.

The question if you can have two copies is not the same as if he effects across codcies, if you can have two copies-then any unique that comes from two different "codecies" (and supplements are treated as such) are two different uniques.

You want different rules? sure. R'alai/R'myr/whoever from farsight got "Ork Hunters" unlike the ones in TE.
Its a silly argument, and that's the point. it makes no sense for 2 of the same guy, even across codcies with some alteration of rules.

Heck, I'm not even sure you can run two truly distinct versions of the same person (say, two different hurons, if it somehow came up. probably in apoc where the allied matrix is thrown off the window.)

Unfortunately the rules on page 110 are really vauge on what is a "unique", so a direct RAW statement is impossible, simply because there is no RAW to work with, at all.

If you find any turny that will allow it to fly, go for it. but nobody will, because its a silly ruling with silly arguments. only a rules lawyer would even try to pull this off.

yep, this is a totally 'unique' (lol) situation, never before has what appears to be the same character appeared in more than one concurrently-legal-to-play-together codex.

I suspect the eventual FAQ will make you pick one or the other, but to be honest it's just as easy to say rules-wise that they are from different books and therefore ipso facto are different.

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.

 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 isn't the same in both books, which is the problem. He has different rules that do different things. A better comparison would be a special character that has the same name appearing in both SM and BA codices but do different things. In the R'alai example, it was the same special character that both armies can use.

not true, you are forgetting that word "army" as you pointed out in the GK codex in the other forum. Page 81 states what is an army. meaning that they are from different armies and both Coteaz have there own personal profile.

 Nilok 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 isn't the same in both books, which is the problem. He has different rules that do different things. A better comparison would be a special character that has the same name appearing in both SM and BA codices but do different things. In the R'alai example, it was the same special character that both armies can use.

No, he is the same character and does have the same name. Thats all that matters. Subsequently his rules do not change who he is.