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.

Thank you Grendel083,

This explains why I constantly overlooked where that long dead debate point was stemming from... damn you Frequently Asked Questions, daaaaamn you!

Interesting that they single out non-walker vehicles, keeping in mind that forge world has produced a few special character walkers along the same lines as Bjorn. It would still allow the possibility of applying the Special Character rules to Longstrike and his kin, giving them the 'title' even though it does not provide any additional boon or bane in these situations. In fact, it still raises the possibility that page 110 is quite redundant in nearly every situation*. After all, everything which could trigger as a 'Special Character' has some other rule informing us they where a one-per-army choice.

*The situation being discussed at the core of this thread might make this page a spooky level of clairvoyance on the behalf of Game Workshop writers, if the name is meant to be a defining limitation.

rigeld2 wrote:
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.

Funny how that works eh? The rules you are looking for are on page 2 and 3: "...Models represent a huge variety of troops, from noble Space Marines and brutal Orks to Warp-spawned Daemons. To reflect all their differences, each model has its own characteristics profile..."

Please feel free to find rules which support only comparing 'one' of a models' rules in order to verify if they are 'the same'?

 Neorealist wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
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.

Funny how that works eh? The rules you are looking for are on page 2 and 3: "...Models represent a huge variety of troops, from noble Space Marines and brutal Orks to Warp-spawned Daemons. To reflect all their differences, each model has its own characteristics profile..."

Please feel free to find rules which support only comparing 'one' of a models' rules in order to verify if they are 'the same'?

Fair enough. Given that rule I'll concede that the stupidity is legal, though obviously not intended.

rigeld2 567671 6337371 wrote: Given that rule I'll concede that the stupidity is legal, though obviously not intended.

I agree with you: I do not feel GW had multiple Coteii in mind when they put him into the Inquisitor book either and fully expect the eventual FAQ will support that contention.

I am thinking that it may have been intended though ... GW has often copy and pasted from one dex to the next when writing the books .... why would they go through the trouble of copy and paste the points and name then change some of the rules that Coteaz has unless you wanted to distinguish between the two. Not sure but that is the only thing that I can come up with for changing anything from one dex to the next.

rigeld2 wrote:

 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.

Neorealist beat me to it, but as he said:

page 2 and 3: "...Models represent a huge variety of troops, from noble Space Marines and brutal Orks to Warp-spawned Daemons. To reflect all their differences, each model has its own characteristics profile..."

Ergo: you can have Coteaz from C:I and Coteaz from C:GK in the same army (Different detachments), as the two are not the same.

I do think we are all in agreement that the ability to select the 'same' Special Character twice, simply because it is two different codex entries, was not intended. Hell I still have this nagging feeling that this 'detachment' was never intended to be released like this. They where working on a replacement for the Gray Knights, completed the more interesting stuff and then struck on the idea of releasing 'detachments,' 'formations' and other micro-transaction like developments we are now starting to see. It really does feel they just threw half a codex into production....

OK, pages 2 and 3 are extremely relevant here, but its a nail in the coffin of a double Coteaz lists. The characteristic profile is only the name and nine characteristics. Both GK:Coteaz and I:Coteaz have identical characteristic profiles. Regardless of any other differences the models are the same character according to page 2 and 3.

JinxDragon wrote:
I do think we are all in agreement that the ability to select the 'same' Special Character twice, simply because it is two different codex entries, was not intended. Hell I still have this nagging feeling that this 'detachment' was never intended to be released like this. They where working on a replacement for the Gray Knights, completed the more interesting stuff and then struck on the idea of releasing 'detachments,' 'formations' and other micro-transaction like developments we are now starting to see. It really does feel they just threw half a codex into production....

Except they are not the same SC...

They are two different SC's from two different books and they are not Identical.

 DeathReaper wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
I do think we are all in agreement that the ability to select the 'same' Special Character twice, simply because it is two different codex entries, was not intended. Hell I still have this nagging feeling that this 'detachment' was never intended to be released like this. They where working on a replacement for the Gray Knights, completed the more interesting stuff and then struck on the idea of releasing 'detachments,' 'formations' and other micro-transaction like developments we are now starting to see. It really does feel they just threw half a codex into production....

Except they are not the same SC...

They are two different SC's from two different books and they are not Identical.

They are 100% identical as far as pages 2,3 and 110 are concerned. They have the same personal name and the same characteristic profile. Nothing else matters. Ergo same special character.

 DeathReaper wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
I do think we are all in agreement that the ability to select the 'same' Special Character twice, simply because it is two different codex entries, was not intended. Hell I still have this nagging feeling that this 'detachment' was never intended to be released like this. They where working on a replacement for the Gray Knights, completed the more interesting stuff and then struck on the idea of releasing 'detachments,' 'formations' and other micro-transaction like developments we are now starting to see. It really does feel they just threw half a codex into production....

Except they are not the same SC...

They are two different SC's from two different books and they are not Identical.

So you agree that other than the book they come from they are identical?
You are only allowed 1 per army, not 1 per book.
Anyone who tries to play with 2 Coteaz...is probably not worth playing against IMO.

Ok in a tournament I think the TO is going to say no even tho they aren't the same exactly(even tho I think the RAW would allow it) and if you try it in a friendly game you are gonna be that guy. I mean it is the exact same model used. Are they making a 2nd official Coteaz model? It is obvious it is the same person. Shouldn't be allowed because of what I'll call the, "Silly Factor".

I don't have either the GK or Inq Codices, but if Coteaz's name is spelled the same in both books, and his characteristics, ie. statline, are the same in both, then it's very clearly the same Coteaz. Do the pro-twin theorists really expect anybody to accept this being used in real game?

But if it's decided by GW or a TO that you can take 2 Coteaz's because they're in a different book, then do I get to use 2 Abaddons or Kharns? Cuz that would AWESOME! or are they not actually in the Black Legion supplement? On my Christmas list......

DeathReaper,

Hence the use of the ' ' marks around same as it could be disputable.

 DJGietzen wrote:
OK, pages 2 and 3 are extremely relevant here, but its a nail in the coffin of a double Coteaz lists. The characteristic profile is only the name and nine characteristics. Both GK:Coteaz and I:Coteaz have identical characteristic profiles. Regardless of any other differences the models are the same character according to page 2 and 3.

You are missing the rule on page 3 referring to Other Important Information, notably that a model: "...might have one or more special rules (see page 32)...". Some of these are different for Inq: Coteaz and GK: Coteaz.

Also please note: (on page 110) "...Special characters roll for Warlord traits as normal, unless their profiles specifically notes that they have a fixed Warlord trait..."
One does. The other just as clearly does not.

Different Profiles. Very similar, mind you but different in at least that aspect.

Hypothetically (unlikely though it may be) if there was an Eldar Special Character named, "The Ghost (unique)" and a Dark Eldar Special Character named, "The Ghost (unique)" with identical statlines (but different special rules), they could not be taken in the same allied army?

For me, that's the problem here. If the two Coteazes were identical in all respects, then I would agree that they cannot both be fielded. Since they are, genuinely, different units (however similar) I think it's reasonable to view them as 'unique' with regards to the their own Codex, but not between each other.

RAW - Two Coteaz allowed (if they are taken from C:I and C:GK, respectively)
HIWPI - A single Coteaz, taken from either Codex.

DoW

One interesting thing to note here: when FW published rules for two different versions of the same special character (sergeant and chapter master) their rules explicitly said "this represents the same character at a different time in his career, you can't include both in the same army". Likewise for GW and the BA character with two sets of rules. This implies that the "same name" rule would not have been sufficient to prevent you from taking both of them in the absence of that explicit rule. So we can conclude that since GW didn't include a similar rule for Coteaz the two similar units are in fact different enough to be taken at the same time.

 Lord Krungharr wrote:
But if it's decided by GW or a TO that you can take 2 Coteaz's because they're in a different book, then do I get to use 2 Abaddons or Kharns? Cuz that would AWESOME! or are they not actually in the Black Legion supplement? On my Christmas list......

The difference is that the other supplements say "make your army using the codex army list, with these modifications". So if you take the same character in each detachment you're picking the exact same unit twice. C:I is different because instead of saying "use the GK army list" it contains its own separate army list. So if you take both versions of Coteaz you're actually taking two different units from two different army lists. People just simplify it to "double Coteaz" in casual conversation because they're so similar that it makes sense to talk about them as two copies of the same character.

 Neorealist wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
OK, pages 2 and 3 are extremely relevant here, but its a nail in the coffin of a double Coteaz lists. The characteristic profile is only the name and nine characteristics. Both GK:Coteaz and I:Coteaz have identical characteristic profiles. Regardless of any other differences the models are the same character according to page 2 and 3.

You are missing the rule on page 3 referring to Other Important Information, notably that a model: "...might have one or more special rules (see page 32)...". Some of these are different for Inq: Coteaz and GK: Coteaz.

Also please note: (on page 110) "...Special characters roll for Warlord traits as normal, unless their profiles specifically notes that they have a fixed Warlord trait..."
One does. The other just as clearly does not.

Different Profiles. Very similar, mind you but different in at least that aspect.

100% this.

Neorealist is correct.

a model: "...might have one or more special rules (see page 32)...". Some of these are different for Inq: Coteaz and GK: Coteaz.

"...Special characters roll for Warlord traits as normal, unless their profiles specifically notes that they have a fixed Warlord trait..."

Also a profile is not just the nuumbers according to Page 3, the Special rules are included in that.

Ergo they are not the same Special Character.

 Neorealist wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
OK, pages 2 and 3 are extremely relevant here, but its a nail in the coffin of a double Coteaz lists. The characteristic profile is only the name and nine characteristics. Both GK:Coteaz and I:Coteaz have identical characteristic profiles. Regardless of any other differences the models are the same character according to page 2 and 3.

You are missing the rule on page 3 referring to Other Important Information, notably that a model: "...might have one or more special rules (see page 32)...". Some of these are different for Inq: Coteaz and GK: Coteaz.

Also please note: (on page 110) "...Special characters roll for Warlord traits as normal, unless their profiles specifically notes that they have a fixed Warlord trait..."
One does. The other just as clearly does not.

Different Profiles. Very similar, mind you but different in at least that aspect.

No, I read that bit. I just didn't misunderstand it. Page 3 is very clear on what a characteristic profile is, and what it is not. Other important information is not part of a models characteristic profile, and page explains that by telling you that a model has a characteristic profile and it also has other important information. That information, like a models warlord trait, is part of the models profile, but not part of the models characteristic profile. A characteristic profile is only one part of a model's profile.

Page 2 does not say that to reflect all their differences each model has its own profile. It specifically calls out the models characteristic profile. The rest of the profile need not be the same for the special character to be the same.

What part of Coteaz characteristic profile is different between the books?

 DJGietzen wrote:

 Neorealist wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
OK, pages 2 and 3 are extremely relevant here, but its a nail in the coffin of a double Coteaz lists. The characteristic profile is only the name and nine characteristics. Both GK:Coteaz and I:Coteaz have identical characteristic profiles. Regardless of any other differences the models are the same character according to page 2 and 3.

You are missing the rule on page 3 referring to Other Important Information, notably that a model: "...might have one or more special rules (see page 32)...". Some of these are different for Inq: Coteaz and GK: Coteaz.

Also please note: (on page 110) "...Special characters roll for Warlord traits as normal, unless their profiles specifically notes that they have a fixed Warlord trait..."
One does. The other just as clearly does not.

Different Profiles. Very similar, mind you but different in at least that aspect.

No, I read that bit. I just didn't misunderstand it. Page 3 is very clear on what a characteristic profile is, and what it is not. Other important information is not part of a models characteristic profile, and page explains that by telling you that a model has a characteristic profile and it also has other important information. That information, like a models warlord trait, is part of the models profile, but not part of the models characteristic profile. A characteristic profile is only one part of a model's profile.

Page 2 does not say that to reflect all their differences each model has its own profile. It specifically calls out the models characteristic profile. The rest of the profile need not be the same for the special character to be the same.

What part of Coteaz characteristic profile is different between the books?

Well they are different models as each one has its own Characteristics profile.

"...Models represent a huge variety of troops, from noble Space Marines and brutal Orks to Warp-spawned Daemons. To reflect all their differences, each model has its own characteristics profile..." (3)

Therefore they are not the same.

 DJGietzen wrote:
What part of Coteaz characteristic profile is different between the books?

Just to be clear: Are you implying that the models 'profile' is something different from it's 'characteristics profile'? Since the two phrases are used interchangeably within the various descriptions of the rules on page 2 and 3. (and in other places throughout the book)

To be brief: One has a fixed warlord Trait. The other does not have a fixed warlord trait. This is a 'Difference'

I think logically you should only be allowed to take one (because in the 40k universe there is only one coteaz), but if you go by how the rule is (or rather isn't) written thn yeah you can take two.
Regardless - why would you want two?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Then again... You could counter the "only one coteaz in the 40k universe" argument with, he's my own inquisitor using coteaz's rules like people do with special characters all the time (using telion's rules for a vet scout serg in a chapter if your creation for example)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Another thing... With this whole special character definition business - why does it even matter?
The specialness of a character doesn't affect his rule set in any way, it's the "unique" that does.
Who cares which defines the other?!

Not sure if this is true or not but as I understand it the "unique" rule prevents you from taking two of the same unit entry (kind of like a 0-1 restriction).

Funny you should mention this...

The last Invasion Tournament I attended at Warhammer World was a doubles tournament with 600 points each. The guys that dominated all day actually ran double Cotez (which was legal since it was considered 2 separate armies as per the rules). Double Coteaz, double Stormraven and Plasma Servitor spam at 1200 points, padded out with Strike Squads and an ADL/Quad Gun... Yeah, not fun to play against... lol.

The inquisition coteaz does make henchman from inquisition troops. Also just don't do it. Ask yourself this. Does it break the game, if yes then don't do it.

Clearly Coteaz, after long years of searching, has finally found a worthy successor to carry on his legacy without having to resort to foul daemonic powers to prolong his life.

Cloning.

 Badablack wrote:
Clearly Coteaz, after long years of searching, has finally found a worthy successor to carry on his legacy without having to resort to foul daemonic powers to prolong his life.

Cloning.

Blam! Narrative forged.

 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.

Great SCOTT! TIME TRAVEL!!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Badablack wrote:
Clearly Coteaz, after long years of searching, has finally found a worthy successor to carry on his legacy without having to resort to foul daemonic powers to prolong his life.

Cloning.

I prefer it to be more like the Dread Pirate Roberts. "I am actually the fourth Coteaz to bear the name...."

- J

I suspect the only plausible explanation for coteaz is that he is secretly a time-lord.

Deathreaper,

In reading your arguments, all you do is post something and claim it's proof.

For example, you kept stating ""...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"

Then you ignored the fact that that is actually not any sort of gameplay definition. Nor does it say anything about how many you may take. Other quotes provided by others with explanations were vastly more helpful, and actually addressed what was going on. Please choose your quotes more wisely, and explain your reasoning behind ones that don't actually say anything.