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.

He's the same guy....

I usually dislike such black and white statements as this but hey ho here we go.

No, and anyone who tries to justify it otherwise is trying to rules lawyer/cheat and abuse raw nonsense to gain advantage for whatever reason.

I hate to dig my heels in on such things but this case is so blackand white I see no alternative to just stating that it is tantamount to cheating in my eyes and the person/s in question would be bared from my club and any events for such blatant abuse.

How will it be played? I doubt very much anyone would actually try this in a game or tourny.. At least I'd hope not

So we have some precedent that this has occurred before, but a little problem that half the time they address it and half the time they have not. The very fact they have addressed it at all can be held up as evidence that an additional restriction is required in order for one entry to meet the (unique) status of the other. The fact they have addressed it can also be held up as evidence that the Writers Intent is clear that they always trigger the (unique) status of each other, as every time they have addressed the matter it is always been in the same fashion to deny allowing both in an Army.

Rule as Written might be legal, if debatable, but I think the Intention has been proven well enough given past precedent and I have no reason to believe they will rule differently on this one.

It isnt that debateable. Nothing states that the defining factor is anything more than the name of the unit. No mention is made that the stats, rules, etc must be the same.

Why not just field him as an Inquisitor with a similar loadout but different stats?

BEcause the person is presumably wanting to get scoring, cheap units in the ally, and another IBEY.

RAW I can repair barge any model I want into a necron warrior squad with a ghost ark. Please show me in the rule book where it says I can't.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
BEcause the person is presumably wanting to get scoring, cheap units in the ally, and another IBEY.

Its got to be the I've Been Expecting You rules. If you don't care about that at all you can get 6 dirt cheap scoring units after spending a measly 50 points on HQ slots, plus you have what ever scoring units an allied detachment can bring. No need for a single Coteaz, let alone two.

sonicaucie wrote:
RAW I can repair barge any model I want into a necron warrior squad with a ghost ark. Please show me in the rule book where it says I can't.

This is on topic how?

RAW you cannot take two Coteaz.

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

The two Coteaz's are not the same special character though.

Oh look this thread again! I'm going to say the same thing I said last 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!

 DeathReaper wrote:
The rule is "Unique Each special character is unique, so a player cannot include multiples of the same special character in an army." (110)

The two Coteaz's are not the same special character though.

I think some common sense would go far here.

 Elgrun wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The rule is "Unique Each special character is unique, so a player cannot include multiples of the same special character in an army." (110)

The two Coteaz's are not the same special character though.

I think some common sense would go far here.

There's no such thing as common sense in 40K.

 Elgrun wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The rule is "Unique Each special character is unique, so a player cannot include multiples of the same special character in an army." (110)

The two Coteaz's are not the same special character though.

I think some common sense would go far here.

Real World Common sense/Real World Logic/how it works in the real world has no bearing on the 40k Ruleset.

Remember: The rules were not written to be "Modern day real world" logical.

The rules are an abstract system used to simulate a battle in the year 40,000.

What would happen in the modern day real world has nothing to do with the RAW, or the simulation of a battle fought 38,000 years from now. (and maybe not even on a planet with the same physical makeup as our earth, and probably different physics as well).

As such they need to have some compromises to make the game playable.

 DeathReaper wrote:
The rule is "Unique Each special character is unique, so a player cannot include multiples of the same special character in an army." (110)

The two Coteaz's are not the same special character though.

What makes them characters is the same, what makes them special is the same. They are two slightly different versions of the same special character.

 DeathReaper wrote:
The rule is "Unique Each special character is unique, so a player cannot include multiples of the same special character in an army." (110)

The two Coteaz's are not the same special character though.

What makes them an sc is apt he name. The name is the same. They are the same.

Please cite rules to show they are not the same, as you simply asserted that as fact here.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Elgrun wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The rule is "Unique Each special character is unique, so a player cannot include multiples of the same special character in an army." (110)

The two Coteaz's are not the same special character though.

I think some common sense would go far here.

Real World Common sense/Real World Logic/how it works in the real world has no bearing on the 40k Ruleset.

Remember: The rules were not written to be "Modern day real world" logical.

The rules are an abstract system used to simulate a battle in the year 40,000.

What would happen in the modern day real world has nothing to do with the RAW, or the simulation of a battle fought 38,000 years from now. (and maybe not even on a planet with the same physical makeup as our earth, and probably different physics as well).

As such they need to have some compromises to make the game playable.

Shooting in turns is a compromise, rolling dice is a compromise.

Taking two of the same character is not.

 Elgrun wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Elgrun wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The rule is "Unique Each special character is unique, so a player cannot include multiples of the same special character in an army." (110)

The two Coteaz's are not the same special character though.

I think some common sense would go far here.

Real World Common sense/Real World Logic/how it works in the real world has no bearing on the 40k Ruleset.

Remember: The rules were not written to be "Modern day real world" logical.

The rules are an abstract system used to simulate a battle in the year 40,000.

What would happen in the modern day real world has nothing to do with the RAW, or the simulation of a battle fought 38,000 years from now. (and maybe not even on a planet with the same physical makeup as our earth, and probably different physics as well).

As such they need to have some compromises to make the game playable.

Shooting in turns is a compromise, rolling dice is a compromise.

Taking two of the same character is not.

I was sinply alerting you to the fact that Real World Common sense/Real World Logic/how it works in the real world has no bearing on the 40k Ruleset.

Same name. True
Unique. True
Same stats. False
Same rules. False

Result = 2 coteazes in the same army.

Legal, but probably only until the new GK codex drops or next faq,

Nosferatu1001,
Given that people have debated the point in the past and the Writers have not yet Frequently Asked Questioned it, and if we let this thread go long enough, it would be yet another debate on the topic would it not?

As much as you and I might believe the matter has been settled, particularly with past precedent showing the Writers Intention, that does not mean everyone else is so easily convinced. They are going to want something more solid then a person online stating 'the name is the same, and that is all that matters' and that means an argument is going to form between the two sides again. I don't hold much hopes for such an argument to come to a conclusion, we simply do not have enough information to allow one side to 'win' over the other given the two interpretations both claim to fit page 110, but the debate will at least let people to once more air their sides and sway new comers to this stupid situation one way or the other.

Though, with that precedent, they will be easier to sway to 'two Coteaz forbidden' as that is how the Writers have ruled in the past.
Now if we could only slap them over the head for releasing a half-written codex as a supplement....

I think the answer is: "If you are asking because you truly care what your opponent thinks, go with whatever he says."

Its not like there are any 'official GW sanctioned tournaments', or that their will be in the foreseeable future... so what does it actually matter what the 'rules' say.

What you are asking is akin to "Does Volcano beats TNT in paper-rock-scissors." There is no answer because there is no authority to consult. GW is a collectors hobby not a gamers hobby, and they do everything in their power to keep it that way.

The sooner you accept this the better your life will be.

Deviant - rules support for why the rules for the model matter. Page and para, as per the tenets

It would be pitiful if this actually needs to be faq'd to give you the obvious answer. I hope they put "Lol, no" instead of just "No".

This is so stupid... Words can't describe the people trying to pass this one off.

RAI= no, just because a "hero" is willing to work for two different armies does not make him two different people.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Deviant - rules support for why the rules for the model matter. Page and para, as per the tenets

Page 110

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

Traits and Skills are a part of each Special character.

If they do not have the same Traits and Skills they are not the same Special Character.

For the sake of sanity, just this one time drop RAW... It's the same guy! Seriously they're the same person. I've never said this about anything in 40k before but I guess there's a first for everything. If you took Coteaz twice, I would not play with you.

I'll happily play against Revenants, Deathstars, Knights and hell even the Primarchs from the HH but I draw the line at this stupidity. If you do this, you're bad and you should feel bad.

define traits and skills? I do believe they have the same traits (bald guy with a psyber eagle) and the same skills (ability to smooth talk the pants of a lady ork) or are you referring to their profile becouse yup, you guessed it they have the same profile too. In fact in addition to having the same profile, they have the same war gear, unit type, unit compisition, special rules. If it looks like coteaz, walks like coteaz, and talks like coteaz it is coteaz.

They are the same special character, you can't have both in the same army.

 DJGietzen wrote:
define traits and skills? I do believe they have the same traits (bald guy with a psyber eagle) and the same skills (ability to smooth talk the pants of a lady ork) or are you referring to their profile becouse yup, you guessed it they have the same profile too. In fact in addition to having the same profile, they have the same war gear, unit type, unit compisition, special rules. If it looks like coteaz, walks like coteaz, and talks like coteaz it is coteaz.

They are the same special character, you can't have both in the same army.

Except they do not have the same rules. They have some of the same rules, however, one of them also has a Warlord Trait that the other can never have.

This is kinda hurting my brain.

You can make the case both ways... eh? Very silly take though.

LOL... just say the 2nd Coteaz is really Bizarro Coteaz or, even Alpharius!