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.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
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.

No it doesn't. It says that every unique character has a name. It does not say that the name is the defining characteristic.

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

You're right. You can't take two copies of the GK Coteaz in your army.

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

No, because the C:I Coteaz is not the same Coteaz, just like BA tactical squads are not C:SM tactical squads. They are two different units in two different army lists that just happen to share a name and some fluff.

Except nothing gives you permission to use the codex as the differentiator; you are told the unit name is the only determiner of "unique"

No you aren't. Read the "unique" rule again, it just says that you can't have two copies of a unique character. Nothing about the name is mentioned, so we use the same standard we use for telling what any other unit is: the entry in the army list. Therefore all the "unique" rule says is that you can't make the same choice from the army list twice.

 Peregrine wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
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.

No it doesn't. It says that every unique character has a name. It does not say that the name is the defining characteristic.

100% of what Peregrine said is true.

It does not say that the name is the defining characteristic.

DR - so you recant that the second line has any bearing on your argument? Just to be clear.

Peregrine - no, it says a SC is defined by their name. That is the only char. we have to know what an SC is. AS it is the only way we are told we can know what an SC is, it is the only determiner we have for telling when we have two of the same, or two different ones.

GK Coteaz is the same as I Coteaz *as regards being an SC* because that is what we are told we look out for when determining what SC we have. We know we can have ONE Coteaz only, not one "GK" Coteaz.

Stop strawmanning with Tac vs BA Tac. When normal units have a rule stating their name defines that they are unique, then you can include them.

DJGietzen wrote: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.

What I'm saying is that some 'unique' models such as vindicare assassins do not have personally identifiable names, but are still unique characters nonetheless. Therefore, the contravention of the unique tag is not solely determined by having a specific name, but rather also something intrinsic to a given writeup. (since non-named unique characters still qualify)

We know how to identify a special character - by its name. Agreed?

We know that we are only allowed to have one of a special character. Agreed?

How do I know if I have 2 of a special character? Well, let's look at identifying the models in my army. Tac Squad - nope not a special character. Marneus? Special character. Assault Squad - not a special character. Marneus? Special character and I already have one. Whoops.

rigeld2 wrote:
We know how to identify a special character - by its name. Agreed?

Nope. you identify a unique character by it having the unique and character rules. The name is interesting, but as there are unique characters without a specifically identifiable name, verifying it solely by the name doesn't work.

 Neorealist wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
We know how to identify a special character - by its name. Agreed?

Nope. you identify a unique character by it having the unique and character rules. The name is interesting, but as there are unique characters without a specifically identifiable name, verifying it solely by the name doesn't work.

Despite the actual rules on page 110?
And despite the fact that the Vindicaire still works fine using the name? The difference is that not all special characters have the Unique rule in their profile - page 110 gives them that.

Indeed, the vindicare 'does' work fine without having ...a personal name and not just a title.... Therefore there is more to the unique rules than just the name of the character: The presence of the unique rule specifically, regardless of what the character is named.

As such we default to the generic definition of the word 'same' in the sentence further on in the rules rather than the one defined by having 'a personal name'.

The Vindicare is Unique and a Character, but not a Special Character.

Cortez is a Special Character because he is a Named, Unique Character.

Jefffar wrote:
The Vindicare is Unique and a Character, but not a Special Character.

Cortez is a Special Character because he is a Named, Unique Character.

not entirely true, or at least that raises further rules issues. The unique rule "...Each special character is unique so a player cannot include multiples of the same special character in an army..." is the only thing preventing the presence of multiple assassins in one army, so perforce they (coteaz and our non-named example) both must be subject to it's rules.

 Neorealist wrote:
Indeed, the vindicare 'does' work fine without having ...a personal name and not just a title.... Therefore there is more to the unique rules than just the name of the character: The presence of the unique rule specifically, regardless of what the character is named.

As such we default to the generic definition of the word 'same' in the sentence further on in the rules rather than the one defined by having 'a personal name'.

Vindi's have the Unique special rule.
Therefore, for the rule to ever apply, they are a special character (the definition of the Unique SR applies only to special characters).
We know that the thing that separates a unit into being a Special Character is the name, as I've quoted on page 110.
Therefore, for them to be special characters, Vindicare Assassin must be a name.

rigeld2 wrote:
Vindi's have the Unique special rule.
Therefore, for the rule to ever apply, they are a special character (the definition of the Unique SR applies only to special characters).
We know that the thing that separates a unit into being a Special Character is the name, as I've quoted on page 110.
Therefore, for them to be special characters, Vindicare Assassin must be a name.

This is logical, true. That said it has no more or less rules support than the supposition that you need to refer to a models' rules text to determine wether or not it is 'the same' as any other given model.

 Neorealist wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Vindi's have the Unique special rule.
Therefore, for the rule to ever apply, they are a special character (the definition of the Unique SR applies only to special characters).
We know that the thing that separates a unit into being a Special Character is the name, as I've quoted on page 110.
Therefore, for them to be special characters, Vindicare Assassin must be a name.

This is logical, true. That said it has no more or less rules support than the supposition that you need to refer to a models' rules text to determine wether or not it is 'the same' as any other given model.

Please, cite rules support for Unique to apple solely to wargear and special rules and not the name. You'd be the first.
edit: And the unit's name is absolutely part of the rules text. You can pretend it's not, but that's not actually rules.

rigeld2 wrote:
Please, cite rules support for Unique to apple solely to wargear and special rules and not the name. You'd be the first.
edit: And the unit's name is absolutely part of the rules text. You can pretend it's not, but that's not actually rules.

I'm not claiming a units name is not part of it's rules-text. Please refer to what I actually said, not some strangely convoluted inference.

What I 'am' saying is that the vindicare does not have a personal name rather than a title and yet is obviously subject to the unique rules. Therefore a definition indicating that one should be looking only at the personal name of a given special character to determine if it is 'the same' is obviously flawed.

 Neorealist wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Please, cite rules support for Unique to apple solely to wargear and special rules and not the name. You'd be the first.
edit: And the unit's name is absolutely part of the rules text. You can pretend it's not, but that's not actually rules.

I'm not claiming a units name is not part of it's rules-text. Please refer to what I actually said, not some strangely convoluted inference.

What I 'am' saying is that the vindicare does not have a personal name rather than a title and yet is obviously subject to the unique rules. Therefore a definition indicating that one should be looking only at the personal name of a given special character to determine if it is 'the same' is obviously flawed.

It must have a name, or the unique rule doesn't apply. Those are the two options - one renders a rule irrelevant (Unique on assassins) the other works perfectly. Therefore the one that renders a rule irrelevant should be ignored as incorrect.

Rules wise the Vindicare is a unquie special character.
It's only the fluff that would suggest there's more than one.

rigeld2 wrote:
It must have a name, or the unique rule doesn't apply. Those are the two options - one renders a rule irrelevant (Unique on assassins) the other works perfectly. Therefore the one that renders a rule irrelevant should be ignored as incorrect.

on the contrary, the unique rule functions just fine without the model having a 'personal name'. The reason it does so is because it refers to the entirety of the models' rules to determine similarity, not just it's 'personal name'.

 Neorealist wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
It must have a name, or the unique rule doesn't apply. Those are the two options - one renders a rule irrelevant (Unique on assassins) the other works perfectly. Therefore the one that renders a rule irrelevant should be ignored as incorrect.

on the contrary, the unique rule functions just fine without the model having a 'personal name'. The reason it does so is because it refers to the entirety of the models' rules to determine similarity, not just it's 'personal name'.

The Unique rule only applies to Special Characters. Agreed? (I hope so, because that's what the rules say)
Therefore the Vindicare must have a personal name. Agreed?
We know that Special Characters are identified by their personal name. Agreed? (I hope so, because that's what the rules say)

rigeld2 wrote:
The Unique rule only applies to Special Characters. Agreed? (I hope so, because that's what the rules say)
Therefore the Vindicare must have a personal name. Agreed?
We know that Special Characters are identified by their personal name. Agreed? (I hope so, because that's what the rules say)

I agree with your first statement. Your second however is pure supposition, presumably stated in order to form a coherent bridge to your last statement.

I'd just as easily say: "The vindicare is a special character because it has the 'unique and 'character' rules in it's rules-text" and "Special characters are identified by the entirety of their rules-text" and be just as correct, rules-wise.

 Neorealist wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
The Unique rule only applies to Special Characters. Agreed? (I hope so, because that's what the rules say)
Therefore the Vindicare must have a personal name. Agreed?
We know that Special Characters are identified by their personal name. Agreed? (I hope so, because that's what the rules say)

I agree with your first statement. Your second however is pure supposition, presumably stated in order to form a coherent bridge to your last statement.

I'd just as easily say: "The vindicare is a special character because it has the 'unique and 'character' rules in it's rules-text" and "Special characters are identified by the entirety of their rules-text" and be just as correct, rules-wise.

Except you'd need to actually cite something to support "Special characters are identified by the entirety of their rules-text". Pesky rules and all.

IF the 2 coteazs have the same name, the same stats, and the same cost. They are obviously the same person, and are therefore two entries of the same unique character.

"...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.

This is rules lawyering at its worst, if anyone tries this at any event I run I will consider it cheating in the highest regard and they will be dq'd, you are all of course free as usual to do as you please, just stating my stance on this

You can have them both, but according to the legend rule they destroy each other when they are on the battlefield at the same time!

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
You can have them both, but according to the legend rule they destroy each other when they are on the battlefield at the same time!

Haha this I like

Before I head back and re-read what has been posted since, I do have an interesting pondering from yesterday's research:
Where is it written that Special Characters are "Characters?"

This is a curious line of thought because I fear I might have a walked away with a misconception the last time the Longstriker and Special Character situation was brought up. That possible misconception, that Special Characters are bound by Character rules, may have led to an erroneous conclusion in the idea that non-walker vehicles can not be Special Characters. Page 110 would be, effectively, useless in this conclusion but it would not be in conflict with the idea of Longstriker being a Special Character.

 Formosa wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
You can have them both, but according to the legend rule they destroy each other when they are on the battlefield at the same time!

Haha this I like

MTG FTW!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JinxDragon wrote:
Before I head back and re-read what has been posted since, I do have an interesting pondering from yesterday's research:
Where is it written that Special Characters are "Characters?"

This is a curious line of thought because I fear I might have a walked away with a misconception the last time the Longstriker and Special Character situation was brought up. That possible misconception, that Special Characters are bound by Character rules, may have led to an erroneous conclusion in the idea that non-walker vehicles can not be Special Characters. Page 110 would be, effectively, useless in this conclusion but it would not be in conflict with the idea of Longstriker being a Special Character.

Well, he isn't technically a character, but vehicle wargear that is one per army (assuming that you are talking about Longstike or the honorific I like to call him by, Titan-slayer).

Indeed, but the argument was that his unique name would make him a Special Character and that in turn binds him to the Character rules. There was an argument that this couldn't be correct because it would lead to some very oddities within the rules themselves, therefore he could not be a Special Character. For example, it would make it possible for him to accept and issue challenges during assaults. While Longstriker is amazing, I don't think he makes a habit of personally coming out of his tank to whack the Titans in the knees with his over-sized.... In any case, if it was a misconception then nothing would really make Longstriker being a 'Special Character' broken in any regards.

It does render page 110 redundant because all Special Characters have some rule or another that makes them (unique) like that wouldn't need to use page 110 for permission.

Page 9

Q: Do models classified as unique count as characters? (p63)
A: Yes, but not in the case of vehicles (with the exception of Bjorn the Fell-handed).

 DeathReaper wrote:
"...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.

I'm curious, where in the rule you quoted does it say "Special characters are identified by the entirety of their rules text."? Could you bold it for me? I apologize for apparently being blind.