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.

This may be obvious but seeing as allied detachments are considered different armies and special characters may be taken once per ARMY, would it be legal to take a GK primary with coteaz plus an inquisition detachment with coteaz?

Detachments are not considered separate armies.
Page 110 has your answer.

Oh haha, my bad. Seemed kind of weird to me if you could but I was just checking.

They are different units in different codices though.

But unique

While Rigeld2 is correct there is some debate on this particular combination of 'unique characters.'

This debate stems not from the, very weak, argument that 'detachments are separate armies' but from the fact Coteaz exists in more then one codex. Technically, as each entry is a separate unit and we are talking about completely different codex's at that, it is possible to state one is not selecting Coteaz twice but are simply selecting two completely different units that happen to have a similar name. There is even other president that support this argument as there are a few 'same name' units out there, often which have very different rules from each other, and it is not possible to use their entries interchangeability in these situations. That is a problem with the Inquisition Detachment: They re-used the name of units without a care to how it will effect existing rules...

A bigger question is how you can take an Inquisitor detachment, which has no troop slots, and a character which forces their main unit to become troop choices?

fossing wrote:
But unique

Sure they are each their own unique character that are different units which reside in in different codexes.

Ergo you can take Coteaz from GK and from Inquisition in the same army (Not to be confused with what the Codexes define as an army which is something different than what the BRB defines as army).

 DeathReaper wrote:

fossing wrote:
But unique

Sure they are each their own unique character that are different units which reside in in different codexes.

Ergo you can take Coteaz from GK and from Inquisition in the same army (Not to be confused with what the Codexes define as an army which is something different than what the BRB defines as army).

Special characters are defined by name according to page 110. Since the names are the same you cannot take both.

What have I done?!

walkiflalka wrote:
What have I done?!

You! This is your fault!
May the fleas of a thousand camels infest your backside, and your arms be too short to scratch sir!

Edit: That was a bit harsh. I shall grant a 10 camel reduction.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

fossing wrote:
But unique

Sure they are each their own unique character that are different units which reside in in different codexes.

Ergo you can take Coteaz from GK and from Inquisition in the same army (Not to be confused with what the Codexes define as an army which is something different than what the BRB defines as army).

Special characters are defined by name according to page 110. Since the names are the same you cannot take both.

Except they are different.

Unless you are saying they are identical, which of course is silly.

So the names aren't the same?

 grendel083 wrote:

walkiflalka wrote:
What have I done?!

You! This is your fault!
May the fleas of a thousand camels infest your backside, and your arms be too short to scratch sir!

Edit: That was a bit harsh. I shall grant a 10 camel reduction.

LOL, I should have known. Too late now :p I honestly wasn't trolling when I started this thread haha.

fossing wrote:

have an exalt!

 raiden wrote:

fossing wrote:

have an exalt!

Now its trolling, haha, just exalted too.

Jinx, the inquisition inquisitor coteaz does not make henchmen troops.

To my knowledge, the Gray Knight Coteaz does it for the entire army so if you somehow took both....

rigeld2 wrote:
So the names aren't the same?

This does not matter, as the two unique characters are not the same unique character.

They are not even from the same Codex.

Yup. This is a rules-black hole at the moment. You will find people claiming both, neither, etc.

Until GW definitively rules in favour of them either being 'the same' or 'different' use your best discretion and talk it over with your opponents. Personally I find compelling arguments for both. they do have the same name, and they do use different rules for each.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So the names aren't the same?

This does not matter, as the two unique characters are not the same unique character.

They are not even from the same Codex.

Could you explain what this means?

these unique individuals, who stand out from normal characters because they have a personal name and not just a title, are called 'special characters'.

We know names determine special characters status. We know names determine uniqueness. Why are you allowing two models with the same name in the same list?

It does explain what the Unique rule does a few paragraphs lower. It is difficult to claim what you do from the first paragraph which is more fluffy than anything.

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

 Shandara wrote:
It does explain what the Unique rule does a few paragraphs lower. It is difficult to claim what you do from the first paragraph which is more fluffy than anything.

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

I'm sorry - the definition of special character is fluff?
And that's a useless quote as "same" is exactly what's being debated.
Based on the fact that the name is what makes a character special and not it's profile, gear, etc. I don't see any other way to determine uniqueness.

rigeld2 wrote:
I'm sorry - the definition of special character is fluff?

It's not the definition, it's just some fluff about special characters having cool names and titles. The actual definition is a character with the "unique" rule. And what we have here is a GK unit with the "unique" rule, and a different C:I unit with the "unique" rule. They're two separate units, just like tactical squads from different marine armies are separate units even though they have the same name. So taking one of each does not violate the "unique" rule. The fluff that they're supposed to be representing the same person in the background fiction is irrelevant.

If so you can presumably take two Farsights in the same army, one from the Tau codex and one from the supplement.

 King Pyrrhus wrote:
If so you can presumably take two Farsights in the same army, one from the Tau codex and one from the supplement.

No, because the Farsight supplement tells you to use the Tau list with some modifications. If you took Farsight in both detachments you'd be taking the same unit twice, which violates the "unique" rule.. C:I is a different situation because you have two separate army lists containing two separate units with different rules that just happen to share a name and some fluff (kind of like tactical squads in BA vs. C:SM).

 Peregrine wrote:
C:I is a different situation because you have two separate army lists containing two separate units with different rules that just happen to share a name and some fluff (kind of like tactical squads in BA vs. C:SM).

Poor example as tactical squads do not bear the "Unique" rule with them.

I'm of the opinion that Coteaz is unique, regardless of which codex he is from.

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

Ok, so we have a rule for unique. Unique calls a "special character" unique. What is a special character then? According to the BRB under Special Characters, "these unique individuals, who stand out from normal characters because they have a personal name and not just a title, are called 'special characters'." There is no other reference.

A special character is not a special character *because* it is tagged unique, but rather because it bears a "personal name".

Does the 'unique' (without capitalisation) in that sentence refer to the 'Unique' special rule though?

It only says that some units are called special characters and that those have a personal name and title.

 Peregrine wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
I'm sorry - the definition of special character is fluff?

It's not the definition, it's just some fluff about special characters having cool names and titles. The actual definition is a character with the "unique" rule. And what we have here is a GK unit with the "unique" rule, and a different C:I unit with the "unique" rule. They're two separate units, just like tactical squads from different marine armies are separate units even though they have the same name. So taking one of each does not violate the "unique" rule. The fluff that they're supposed to be representing the same person in the background fiction is irrelevant.

Could you share where that definition exists?
The unique rule says that you cannot have two of the same special character. Define what a special character is.

You may find more willing people, but overall I think a solid judgment call on this is, 'No, only one.'

If you play someone who has both, and argues that both are allowed, look for another game, because that is the tip of what will probably be an ice berg of arguments.