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.

One per army as he is unique. So no.

Waaaghpower wrote:

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

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

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


You could look into generic inquisitors though

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers

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