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.

rigeld2 wrote:
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.

"...these unique individuals, who stand out from normal characters because they have a personal name and not just a title, are called 'special characters'. Special characters are highly skilled and dangerous heroes who have incredible traits or skills that make them particularly valuable to an army." 110

"Unique Each special character is unique, so a player cannot include multiples of the same special character in an army" (110)

In the case of Coteaz, the two units are not the same.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
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.

"...these unique individuals, who stand out from normal characters because they have a personal name and not just a title, are called 'special characters'. Special characters are highly skilled and dangerous heroes who have incredible traits or skills that make them particularly valuable to an army." 110

"Unique Each special character is unique, so a player cannot include multiples of the same special character in an army" (110)

In the case of Coteaz, the two units are not the same.

Can you cite a rule that defines a special character other than by name? How are you determining "sameness" - please support with actual rules instead of assumptions. So far all you've quoted is that they're defined by name, and the 2 names are demonstrably the same.

I remember not to long ago a debate existed over a particular Tau HQ unit. This particular unit had a title, not a name, but thanks to the Tau's particular naming schematics it was very difficult to tell. There where quite a few number of people believed that the unit's name was a unique name, or at the very least the title was enough to trigger page 110. It isn't a particularly overpowered HQ, but it's abilities do contain a multiplier for a standard troops so it is alluring to take more then one of them for a larger boost to your army for the same price as a single HQ unit. Some people where more then willing to argue that their title and HQ slot marked them as a clear unique character that should not be allowed more then once.

That debate was settled not by trying to argue that the unit's name was a 'generic title' but by pointing to the unit compositions lack of the tag (unique).

Then there is the particular tank upgrade that allows you to put a clearly uniquely named character on the field: Longstriker. There are still people out there that wish to use page 110 as permission to claim that Longstriker is a special character and if you look at the section of page 110 Rigeld2 is quoting then it is very difficult to deny them. Longstriker is a unique name and he has a whole page dedicated to him within the Tau codex, much like you would find for every other character that clearly is 'special.' It wouldn't matter that all the rules concerning characters can never apply to a non-walker vehicle, page 110 states he is a special character so therefore he gains all the rules under that section.

Now that was settled by pointing out it is an update to a tank, one that doesn't modify the profile... hence the lack of both a (character) tag and a (unique) tag.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rigeld2,

For me it has always been the inclusion of the (unique) tag on the profile that informed me the character was somehow 'special.'

As for explaining how they can be considered different units via rules as written:
At the start of each Army List section is a page detailing what this section involves and how one is meant to read the entries. Within this section there is a single sentence that reads the following, found I believe in all codex's: Each entry is a separate unit. This means we have a solid rule informing us that each individual entry in a single unit for all rule purposes. Now, I am unsure if a a rule exists to state that each Codex's Army List's are separate from each other but that is pretty much given if it is not there. The (unique) tag prevents us from selecting that unit twice for a single army but in this case we are selecting two separate units.

I doubt, very much so, this was an intended outcome but again... this is what happens when you use identical name for units and don't give a damn about how the rules interact!

JinxDragon wrote:
Rigeld2,

For me it has always been the inclusion of the (unique) tag on the profile that informed me the character was somehow 'special.'

So you just flat out ignore the rule on page 110 defining what denotes a special character?

They're from different codices, so they're different units. Different units can be included in the same army, otherwise Warhammer 40k would be Tactical Marine spam.

 BrotherOfBone wrote:
They're from different codices, so they're different units. Different units can be included in the same army, otherwise Warhammer 40k would be Tactical Marine spam.

It's almost like you're comparing a special character to a normal unit. That would be a poor argument though so I'm sure you weren't actually doing that and you actually meant something else.

Rigeld2,

In the same way people ignore other 'fluffy' content in found within other sections of this book, even in some situations where the rules could apply without breaking but are simply not clear enough. I also have a problem if the 'fluffy' like content could be used in a way that clearly is not intended or can be applied to situations in which to break rules. As I pointed out in the rest of that post, it is far too easy to expand the part of page 110 that you are quoting to include things it was not intended to include. It is also possible to apply the definition you are quoting in ways that will lead to broken situations, making it even more questionable if it is nothing more then a fluffy explanation on why a model with the (unique) tag is special.

The problem here, as I keep pointing out, is not the definition on page 110 and 'is it fluffy?' It is Game Workshops complete lack of respect for their own terminology when they penned this thrice-damned "detachment." A good game writer would never have taken an identical named unit from another books and not have them linked via rules. There would be a single sentence, at least, which states 'Taking this entry prevents you from taking the same unit from codex X.' There would be something solid instead of having to fall back on a 'questionably fluffy' definition that is stuffed out of the way in a location where it is very easily overlooked.

But then again a good rule writer wouldn't of released half a Codex as a 'detachment....'

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
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.

"...these unique individuals, who stand out from normal characters because they have a personal name and not just a title, are called 'special characters'. Special characters are highly skilled and dangerous heroes who have incredible traits or skills that make them particularly valuable to an army." 110

"Unique Each special character is unique, so a player cannot include multiples of the same special character in an army" (110)

In the case of Coteaz, the two units are not the same.

Can you cite a rule that defines a special character other than by name? How are you determining "sameness" - please support with actual rules instead of assumptions. So far all you've quoted is that they're defined by name, and the 2 names are demonstrably the same.

I quoted it, but I will quote it again...

"Special characters are highly skilled and dangerous heroes who have incredible traits or skills that make them particularly valuable to an army." 110

this is what Special characters are. So if two SC's do not have the same "traits or skills" then they are not the same even if they have the same name.

So you're just going to ignore the sentence before that ... why exactly?

Rigeld2,

One simple question: Do you consider a Longstrike Hammerhead to be a special character as per your definition?

JinxDragon wrote:
Rigeld2,

One simple question: Do you consider a Longstrike Hammerhead to be a special character as per your definition?

Not having the codex in question I can't answer that.

He is chosen as an upgrade to a Hammerhead, his rules in the army selection say once per army... I'd say he's as much a special character as Chronus is a special character...

rigeld2 wrote:
So you're just going to ignore the sentence before that ... why exactly?

Not ignoring it the first sentence tells you that things with names are special characters, the second sentence tells you what they are.

The two sentences define what a SC is.

Not just the first sentence.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So you're just going to ignore the sentence before that ... why exactly?

Not ignoring it the first sentence tells you that things with names are special characters, the second sentence tells you what they are.

The two sentences define what a SC is.

Not just the first sentence.

Right - and for coteaz to clone himself in one army you have to ignore the first sentence. You're asserting that it's only the second sentence that matters.

Matt1785,

Yes Longstrike is nothing more then a upgrade purchased for a standard HammerHead tank. While it is one which over-write key elements of the Hammerheads existing profile, much like a few other upgrades which are 'special characters,' it has one big difference. The other specialized character 'upgrades' replace the entire profile and this new profile contains a tag within the unit composition section to inform us that it is a (unique) character. None of the changes made by Longstriker have anything to do with a profile, all they do is add a few special rules and change a few of the profile numbers around to the existing profile. It doesn't add the (character) tag or the (unique) tag.

Yet, if Rigeld2 is correct and all you need is a unique name in order to evoke page 110's boons and banes, then nothing can deny Longstriker. After all Longstriker does have an entire page dedicated to how he is a hero of the Tau army, highlighting his unique skills when it comes to piloting a Hammerhead and how he earned his very unique name for being such a keen shot. This page is formatted exactly as every other 'special characters' information page, and if I am remembering correctly is found in the same section as the other 'special characters.' This entry matches all the criteria put forth, not just the unique name section, so it would be very difficult to state Longstriker is not a special character. Interestingly enough, it even refers to the Hammerhead afterwards by the name of "Longstriker's Hammerhead" repetitively so it sort of cements it in there.

The fact there is always a Unit Composition section, which will have the (unique) tag for a special character, is it not possible to state this is how Game Workshop informs us if a unit is 'special?'

An army with two Coteai is a symbolic metaphor for his double headed eagle.

rigeld2 wrote:
Right - and for coteaz to clone himself...

Since he appears in almost every Grey Knight army list in existence, I think the Imperium must be doing a roaring trade on clones.

"Unique Each special character is unique, so a player cannot include multiples of the same special character in an army" (110)

.

that each SP C is unique is the defining rule here.

we have two special characters, that are different to one another.

they share the same name, but they have differences, making each one unique,

RAW yes you can take two, they are two sets of rules with differences between them, meaning each one is unique and not identical to the other.

HIWPI if obviously you can only take one or the other of coteaz and karamazov (who also has different rules between dexes)

I doubt anyone would let you really, pretty obvious what the intent is, but RAW is stupid sometimes

 easysauce wrote:

they share the same name, but they have differences, making each one unique,

RAW yes you can take two, they are two sets of rules with differences between them, meaning each one is unique and not identical to the other.

Thats not RAW, that is an unfounded assertion. The only way the BRB tells us to differentiate one special character from another is their name. We are never told that their unit, nor their codex, nor their wargear, nor their rules will differentiate them. If you want to have the opinion that the characters are different because something other then the name is different go right ahead, but if you want to claim that your opinion is supported by RAW, then show how it is supported.

The only RAW we have tells us that character's with a personal name are unique. Characters with the same must be the same character regardless of any other factor.

I'd like to point out that not all 'unique' characters even have a personally identifiable name.

I mean I'm sure 'vindicare assassin' mk XIVII has 'something' that his friends call him when they all gather around the pile of skulls to talk shop, but we never actually learn what it is and there is no indication in it's writeup of such.

If the name is the only rules-specific indication of something that is unique then we are free to field as many of the above as we like, subject to FOC restrictions? obviously the answer is 'no', and just as obviously not having a specific name doesn't make a model any less subject to the unique rules. (the corollary of this is that there are other factors than name which indicate unique status within an army)

Have to agree with rigeld2 on this. Per BRB pg110; Named Characters are also Unique and you can not field more than one Unique (Named) Character in any Army.

Now their are some Unique units that are not named, The Emperors Champion for example, but every named character is unique.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So you're just going to ignore the sentence before that ... why exactly?

Not ignoring it the first sentence tells you that things with names are special characters, the second sentence tells you what they are.

The two sentences define what a SC is.

Not just the first sentence.

Right - and for coteaz to clone himself in one army you have to ignore the first sentence. You're asserting that it's only the second sentence that matters.

No you don't.

"Unique Each special character is unique, so a player cannot include multiples of the same special character in an army" (110)

Coteaz with one set of rules from C:I is a different SC than Coteaz from the GK book as they are in fact different, they are not the "the same special character"

 Neorealist wrote:

If the name is the only rules-specific indication of something that is unique then we are free to field as many of the above as we like, subject to FOC restrictions? obviously the answer is 'no', and just as obviously not having a specific name doesn't make a model any less subject to the unique rules. (the corollary of this is that there are other factors than name which indicate unique status within an army)

I'm not sure what you are getting at so I appoloigise if I'm just repeating what you meant, but if a model is a character and if that character has a personal name then it is a special character and that special character is unique. Other models that are not special characters may also be unique but we need special instruction, like we have with the vindicare assassin, to know this about the model.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Coteaz with one set of rules from C:I is a different SC than Coteaz from the GK book as they are in fact different, they are not the "the same special character"

That is your opinion, and that opinion is not founded nor is it supported by anything within the rules.


We know that a special character is defined by its name, pg110, so special characters with the same name must be the same special character unless we have been told otherwise. We have absolutely not been told that special characters in different books with the same name are two different special characters, nor have we been told that about two special characters with different rules with same name are two different characters.

As rigeld2 pointed out we are told that special characters "stand out from normal characters because they have a personal name".

To be honest i dont really get the discussion here. Not only do we have this little bit that tells us that the characters name is indeed important but additionally if we disregard it we get to a ridiculous interpretation of fielding 2x Coteaz.

RAW: No double Coteaz
Hiwpi: No double Coteaz
RAI: No double Coteaz

It doesn't say they have a _unique_ personal name though.

 DJGietzen wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Coteaz with one set of rules from C:I is a different SC than Coteaz from the GK book as they are in fact different, they are not the "the same special character"

That is your opinion, and that opinion is not founded nor is it supported by anything within the rules.


We know that a special character is defined by its name, pg110, so special characters with the same name must be the same special character unless we have been told otherwise. We have absolutely not been told that special characters in different books with the same name are two different special characters, nor have we been told that about two special characters with different rules with same name are two different characters.

(Emphasis mine)

As I have shown, with rules quotes, your statement is incorrect. (The underlined)

The two characters are different SC's

"...these unique individuals, who stand out from normal characters because they have a personal name and not just a title, are called 'special characters'. Special characters are highly skilled and dangerous heroes who have incredible traits or skills that make them particularly valuable to an army." 110

In the case of Coteaz, the two units are not the same. The traits and skills, as well as the name have to be accounted for as per P. 110

Unless they are the twin brothers Dave and Tom Coteaz, then they are the same special/unique/independent/individual/whatever-adjective-you-choose character, and to field two would make you a) a feth-hat and b) break the rules.

DR - no, that second sentence does not define what an SC is, and how you know you have one. It is pure fluff, with no in game rule. It says they are "highly skilled" - not that "they have unique skills" which is where you assertion that this matters in determinign if Coteaz from GK is the same character as the one from I would be based on.

The first line states the definition of an SC, and how you determine their uniqueness - the personal name. This first is the same, therefore they ARE the same.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The first line states the definition of an SC, and how you determine their uniqueness - the personal name. This first is the same, therefore they ARE the same.

No it doesn't. It just says that all unique characters have a name. Nothing in that rule says that the test for duplicate uniques is having the same name rather than being two copies of the same unit (from the same army list). So what we have is two different unique characters named Coteaz. They are indisputably unique characters, so you can't take two copies of GK Coteaz or C:I Coteaz. You can, however, take one of each, since they are not the same unit.

Nothing in that rule states the test for duplicates; it says you cannot have two of the same unique character, and tells you the name is the defining characteristic you need to use for this.

You know that GK Coteaz is a unique char called ""Coteaz". There is therefore only one possibly COTEAZ in the entire army

You try to buy another Coteaz - source irrelevant - but cannot do so, as you are allowed only ONE COTEAZ in your army.

You are making the claim that you can, in essence, append "GK" or "I" to the char name, to make the Coteaz that is unique to GK different to the Coteaz that is unique to I. Except nothing gives you permission to use the codex as the differentiator; you are told the unit name is the only determiner of "unique"

Coteaz, from either book, is the unique character Coteaz. You cannot have more than one.