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.

Like I said, it all depends on how similar the two units need to be to make them "the same".

Just the name?
Name and stats?
Name, stats and special rules?

Personally, while I believe that RAW they are different units, I do not thing the intent is for you to be able to include multiples (unlike the old Apocalypse rules).

How is it not obvious that this is a unforeseen and obvious "bug" created by codex transition? I mean end of, right there.

I assume everyone can see how this situation has been inadvertently created and once you understand that then you know that you can't field two Coteaz. Leave RAW out of it and go with common sense and some empathy for the people writing the codex's.
Do you really need to waste there time with a FAQ?

 Elgrun wrote:
How is it not obvious that this is a unforeseen and obvious "bug" created by codex transition? I mean end of, right there.

I assume everyone can see how this situation has been inadvertently created and once you understand that then you know that you can't field two Coteaz. Leave RAW out of it and go with common sense and some empathy for the people writing the codex's.
Do you really need to waste there time with a FAQ?

This guy gets it.

I say this can't happen... Think of the other circumstances this could happen. Be'lakor he can be in daemons or c:sm but that doesn't mean hey why not I'll take one in each....

 Elgrun wrote:
How is it not obvious that this is a unforeseen and obvious "bug" created by codex transition? I mean end of, right there.

I assume everyone can see how this situation has been inadvertently created and once you understand that then you know that you can't field two Coteaz. Leave RAW out of it and go with common sense and some empathy for the people writing the codex's.
Do you really need to waste there time with a FAQ?

This. 1000x this.

I'm glad these type of deliberately ignorant shenanigans don't fly about my meta, not only would I stop playing the game, I wouldn't offer that person another game in future.

Lamo wrote:
I say this can't happen... Think of the other circumstances this could happen. Be'lakor he can be in daemons or c:sm but that doesn't mean hey why not I'll take one in each....

The the dataslate show different rules for Be'lakor between CSM and Deamon list? If not... it isn't the same thing as GK: Coteaz vs IQ: Coteaz.

Abaddon can upgrade terminators in Black Legion Supplement, but cannot in Codex: CSM. Guess I'm bringing 2 warmasters *eyeroll*

 DeathReaper wrote:

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.

Define "traits". Page and para. Oh, don't capitalise, as they are not defined terms in 40k, unlike Special Rules, or Characteristics.

Or, don't quote fluff as rules. Define the rule around "incredibly valuable to an army"

Here's some straws for you to clutch.

Traits or skills are clearly referring to special rules...

 DeathReaper wrote:
Traits or skills are clearly referring to special rules...

Special Rules are a defined term, with a precise meaning in 40k. Your implication that a line of fluff text has a single shred to do with rules is cute, but not relevant to a rules discussion.

"Clearly referring" means you must have a rule stating "traits" are Special Rules? If so page and para

IF you cannot provide one, then please provide something other then your p110 quote that states that the Special Rules are important. I can point out where an SC is defined by the name alone....can you point out where it requires rule, codex etc to be considered? You have yet to do so.

Then what are a models traits and skills?

the BRB does not define traits or skills so we use the common English Definition of those words.

Using the common English definition of those words we can tell that the models abilities aka special rules, fit into traits and skills.

Which of course does not matter because the two different coteaz units are not the same.

This is like the "RAW units without eyes cannot shoot" thing. Technically, straight RAW, you could have dual Coteazes (if that is even the plural for Coteaz). No one is ever going to let you do it; so whatever. Also by straight RAW the Inquisition Coteaz has no gun, as the Inquisition Codex does not have rules for his Psyber Eagle (although maybe this has been fixed in the ipad version)

 DeathReaper wrote:
Then what are a models traits and skills?

In rules terms models don't have traits and skills. The statement has no functional weight.

 DeathReaper wrote:
the BRB does not define traits or skills so we use the common English Definition of those words.

The BRB does not define them because they are not rules terms.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Using the common English definition of those words we can tell that the models abilities aka special rules, fit into traits and skills.

While I disagree with this leap of logic, lets pretend traits = special rules. The two Coteaz have the same special rules. They both have Independent Character, Psyker(2), Stubborn, I've been Expecting You, Lord od Formosa, and Spy Network. Before you say anything Warlord traits are not special rules, they are war lord traits and you've only claimed that special rules are traits and skills, but I'll assume you meant war lord traits as well since that is literally the only difference between the two.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Which of course does not matter because the two different coteaz units are not the same.

Actually, no it doesn't. The BRB says that special characters have traits and skills, not that they are differentiated or defined by those traits and skills. Assuming that "traits and skills" means everything under the sun on a model's profile then all you've proven is that the same special character has two different profiles, not that they are two different special characters. In fact how to differentiate two special characters is not defined by the BRB, so we have to use common English and all that jazz and what all that boils down to is that a special character is an identifiable individual. Coteaz, no matter the version is still Coteaz and remains the same special character. If they were to publish Codex: Space Toddlers and created versions of all the special characters in the books so far as adorable 7 year olds with completely reworked profiles they would stiull be those same characters and you still could not include more then on in your force.

Games Workshop once again fails to define their terms. They never provided a definition of what a special character is. Now, I know that it seems silly at first since it would be obvious from reading the book but if they are going to publish the same character in different books they should at least tell us what they mean by "Special Character".

As it stands... it's hard to say. Since a "Special Character" is a poorly defined entity at best you can make an argument either way. You can't take Coteaz more than once since the name Coteaz is marked with the "Unique" rule preventing any other "Coteaz" from being taken. You can take two because they are from different codices with different rules. They just happen to share a name. Since the name isn't part of what the rulebook defines a special character to be that argument holds little weight. I would say that RAW is inconclusive and to await a FAQ for a ruling.

"Lord of Formosa: Inquisitorial Henchmen Warbands are troops in an army that includes Inquisitor Torquemada Coteaz, and are not limited by the number of Inquisitors in your army."

Does Inquisition Coteaz unlock Formosan Warbands as troops for Grey Knights?

Eg. You take Draigo and a Librarian as your GK HQ and ally in Coteaz and then take 1 Paladin and 1 Formosan Warband (From Codex: Grey Knights) as troops. Legal list?

DeathReaper wrote:Then what are a models traits and skills?

Literally? In game rules terms? Nothing.

You have, as stated, taken a fluff, zero rules content sentence and claimed it as rules.

DeathReaper wrote:the BRB does not define traits or skills so we use the common English Definition of those words.

Only as pertains rules. traits and skills are not rules, so while you can use plain English, you cannot do so to make up that they are a rule.

DeathReaper wrote:Using the common English definition of those words we can tell that the models abilities aka special rules, fit into traits and skills.

Except, as you well know, Special Rules are a well defined term within 40k. You cannot simply decide that traits are close enough to "fit" with Special Rules.

If Special Rules were called "FYKY<", their game function woudl not alter, but your fluff mangling would no longer work. Proof that your fluff sentence is irrelevant.

DeathReaper wrote:Which of course does not matter because the two different coteaz units are not the same.

Thats cool. You have yet to prove this assertion, so could you please follow the tenets? I have rebutted every argument you have put forth, meaning you are back to asserting.

PLease mark your argument as "HYWPI" as it is not a rules argument.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Which of course does not matter because the two different coteaz units are not the same.

Thats cool. You have yet to prove this assertion, so could you please follow the tenets? I have rebutted every argument you have put forth, meaning you are back to asserting.

PLease mark your argument as "HYWPI" as it is not a rules argument.

You have not rebutted anything, as the two are not the same. (The same means identical, the two are not identical).

The Two different Coteaz units are not the same. It is RAW. They have a different Warlord trait, thus they are not the same. RAW they are not the same character. One if from the Grey Knights Codex, one is from the Inquisition Codex.

Two separate units that share a name.

No, I showed that the BRB defines SC through a name, and they share the same name. Thus they aer the same SC, as the BRB only cares about the name

You have to prove that the BRB cares about more than the name, hence your attempt at using p110. You failed to do so.

"Warlord Traits
Special characters roll for Warlord traits as normal, unless their profile specifically notes that they have a fixed Warlord trait" (110)

SC's take warlord traits into account for the definition.

 DeathReaper wrote:
"Warlord Traits
Special characters roll for Warlord traits as normal, unless their profile specifically notes that they have a fixed Warlord trait" (110)

SC's take warlord traits into account for the definition.

Show me where in the BRB it says exactly this. Not the unrelated stuff you have been pulling out, I want to see where it says "Special Characters take their Warlord Traits into account to differentiate themselves from other Special Characters." You can't because you made this up. This is how you think it should be.

Now considering Coteaz from Codex: GK doesn't actually have codex specific Warlord Traits because he's from a pre-6th codex makes your argument even weaker. It's blatantly obvious that this is just a result of an outdated codex...

 Zande4 wrote:
"Lord of Formosa: Inquisitorial Henchmen Warbands are troops in an army that includes Inquisitor Torquemada Coteaz, and are not limited by the number of Inquisitors in your army."

Does Inquisition Coteaz unlock Formosan Warbands as troops for Grey Knights?

Eg. You take Draigo and a Librarian as your GK HQ and ally in Coteaz and then take 1 Paladin and 1 Formosan Warband (From Codex: Grey Knights) as troops. Legal list?

Lord of Formosa: If an Inquistorial detachment includes Inquisitor Coteaz, all units of
Inquisitorial Henchmen Warbands in the same detachment are scoring units, even if they
are not from your primary detachment.

That does not look the same as what was posted in the above quote. Ergo, Lord of Formosa (GK) and Lord of Formosa (=I=) are not the same rule, despite having the same name.

 DeathReaper wrote:
"Warlord Traits
Special characters roll for Warlord traits as normal, unless their profile specifically notes that they have a fixed Warlord trait" (110)

SC's take warlord traits into account for the definition.

No, it tells you that SCs are considered as other Warlords, unless they have fixed traits

This does not state that an SC is defined as being differnt to another SC BECAUSE they have different warlord traits, which is what you have to prove (or actually, that anythign other than the name being different counts)

To make it clear: SCs are defined by name, so you know if you have the same SC by looking at the name. Your claim thatr Coteaz and Coteaz are not the same requires you to find a rule stating that something else than the name (e.g. codex, special rules, etc) can be considered in your determination of "is this Coteaz the same as THIS Coteaz?"

So far you have not done so.

(Note: I agree they can have different warlord traits, and may have different other rules. I am saying this is irrelevant to the question o f whether they are the same SC or not, as the rulebook only consides the name important

 DeathReaper wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Which of course does not matter because the two different coteaz units are not the same.

Thats cool. You have yet to prove this assertion, so could you please follow the tenets? I have rebutted every argument you have put forth, meaning you are back to asserting.

PLease mark your argument as "HYWPI" as it is not a rules argument.

You have not rebutted anything, as the two are not the same. (The same means identical, the two are not identical).

The Two different Coteaz units are not the same. It is RAW. They have a different Warlord trait, thus they are not the same. RAW they are not the same character. One if from the Grey Knights Codex, one is from the Inquisition Codex.

Two separate units that share a name.

Saying they have a different warlord trait is a red herring as well. In neither Codex does Coteaz have a fixed Warlord trait that would be a discernible difference. Coteaz can always roll on the Command, Personal, and Strategic charts regardless if he is fielded as part of a Grey Knights detachment or an Inquisition detachment. If he is fielded as the warlord while part of an Inquisition detachment, he may then choose to roll on the Inquisition warlord traits.

Coteaz is Coteaz. Codex: Inquisition gives you an option to field him in a different detachment but does not create a new, discreet unit from the one in Codex: Grey Knights.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
"Warlord Traits
Special characters roll for Warlord traits as normal, unless their profile specifically notes that they have a fixed Warlord trait" (110)

SC's take warlord traits into account for the definition.

No, it tells you that SCs are considered as other Warlords, unless they have fixed traits

This does not state that an SC is defined as being differnt to another SC BECAUSE they have different warlord traits, which is what you have to prove (or actually, that anythign other than the name being different counts)

To make it clear: SCs are defined by name, so you know if you have the same SC by looking at the name. Your claim thatr Coteaz and Coteaz are not the same requires you to find a rule stating that something else than the name (e.g. codex, special rules, etc) can be considered in your determination of "is this Coteaz the same as THIS Coteaz?"

So far you have not done so.

(Note: I agree they can have different warlord traits, and may have different other rules. I am saying this is irrelevant to the question o f whether they are the same SC or not, as the rulebook only consides the name important

Where in the rulebook is it stated that special characters are defined by name?

Nowhere, it just says special characters have a personal name and not just a title in the first paragraph of page 110, 2nd column.

The Unique rule defiend below that refers to 'special characters' but to infer from that that it's purely based on their 'personal name' is a leap too far for me.

Are there any Unique units that do not have a 'personal name' by the way?

EDIT:
I see Grey Knight Assassins have a title (i.e. Vindicare Assassin) but no 'personal name'.

The only thing we know that makes you an SC - a defining requirement - is having a personal name.

That is all we know. So it is all we can possibly use to determine if we have two of the same SC - we cannot use anything else, as we have no other information

 Zande4 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
"Warlord Traits
Special characters roll for Warlord traits as normal, unless their profile specifically notes that they have a fixed Warlord trait" (110)

SC's take warlord traits into account for the definition.

Show me where in the BRB it says exactly this. Not the unrelated stuff you have been pulling out, I want to see where it says "Special Characters take their Warlord Traits into account to differentiate themselves from other Special Characters." You can't because you made this up. This is how you think it should be.

Now considering Coteaz from Codex: GK doesn't actually have codex specific Warlord Traits because he's from a pre-6th codex makes your argument even weaker. It's blatantly obvious that this is just a result of an outdated codex...

Page 110 under the Warlord traits section.

This shows us that warlord traits are a part of what a special character is (If they have a warlord trait).

Now show us where it says that special characters with different profiles are two different special characters?

 DJGietzen wrote:
Now show us where it says that special characters with different profiles are two different special characters?

it says that on page 110.

"...a player cannot include multiples of the same special character in an army." (110)

if they are different they are not the same...

 DeathReaper wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
Now show us where it says that special characters with different profiles are two different special characters?

it says that on page 110.

"...a player cannot include multiples of the same special character in an army." (110)

if they are different they are not the same...

Here are two different pictures of the same man. The man is not identical in these pictures but he is still the same man.



Can you please show us where in the BRB it states that special characters that are not identical can't be the same special character? Coteaz is the same special character, regardless of the differences that may or may not exist between the two entries because they are both entries that represent the same individual.