Switch Theme:

Can you take Coteaz twice?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Preacher of the Emperor





St. Louis, Missouri USA

Great President or greatest President ever?

 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




DeathReaper wrote:
 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 It's blatantly obvious that this is just a result of an outdated codex...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).


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

Dr, page 110 was already removed as proof that the brb gives a damn about warlord traits via a vis determining whether coteaz is the same as coteaz

Your concession on this is accepted, as you have still failed to provide an argument. You have simply stated they are different,but have not managed to find a single rule that backs you up

Not one.
   
Made in us
Wise Ethereal with Bodyguard




Catskills in NYS

 deviantduck wrote:
Great President or greatest President ever?

Wait, some people still like him? Both the republicans and democrats I know hate him (Ds for destroying the country and the legislation he pushed though, Rs for destroying the country and hurting their election chances).

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/03/19 21:27:56


Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
 kronk wrote:
Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
 sebster wrote:
Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
 BaronIveagh wrote:
Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






 Co'tor Shas wrote:
 deviantduck wrote:
Great President or greatest President ever?

Wait, some people still like him? Both the republicans and democrats I know hate him (Ds for destroying the country and the legislation he pushed though, Rs for destroying the country and hurting their election chances).


Both? You only know one of each?
   
Made in us
Wise Ethereal with Bodyguard




Catskills in NYS

 DJGietzen wrote:
 Co'tor Shas wrote:
 deviantduck wrote:
Great President or greatest President ever?

Wait, some people still like him? Both the republicans and democrats I know hate him (Ds for destroying the country and the legislation he pushed though, Rs for destroying the country and hurting their election chances).


Both? You only know one of each?

Whoos, I mean all. Just me being a moron .

Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
 kronk wrote:
Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
 sebster wrote:
Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
 BaronIveagh wrote:
Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
 
   
Made in ca
Blood Angel Chapter Master with Wings






Sunny SoCal

I highly suggest you guys get back on topic...

   
Made in nl
Confessor Of Sins






 DJGietzen wrote:
 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.



They are not the same unit by virtue of not being the same unit entry in the same book. A superficial resemblance in name and rules does not make them the same. We are talking about 2 separate unit entries in 2 separate codices. Nothing in the Unique rule tells us they can be the same or whether a resemblance or partial overlap in name, rules, etc.. is grounds for triggering the Unique rule.

Cratfworld Alaitoc (Gallery)
Order of the Red Mantle (Gallery)
Grand (little) Army of Chaos, now painting! (Blog
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




 Shandara wrote:
 DJGietzen wrote:
...they are both entries that represent the same individual.
A superficial resemblance in name and rules does not make them the same.
Nobody's claiming that a superficial resemblance of name and rules makes them the same. The claim is that they're the same because they literally both represent the same individual. You're not going to get anywhere by completely ignoring the meat of the argument and pretending it doesn't exist.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






So your saying that unique can only ever refer to that unit and no other unit?
   
Made in us
Powerful Phoenix Lord





Buffalo, NY

Pyrian wrote:
 Shandara wrote:
 DJGietzen wrote:
...they are both entries that represent the same individual.
A superficial resemblance in name and rules does not make them the same.
Nobody's claiming that a superficial resemblance of name and rules makes them the same. The claim is that they're the same because they literally both represent the same individual. You're not going to get anywhere by completely ignoring the meat of the argument and pretending it doesn't exist.


Granted that is clearly the intent, however, if a group were to assume that the two units must either be completely identical, or have a special rule forbidding both versions from being used (such as Tycho), then the two Coteaz are not the same unit.

Greebo had spent an irritating two minutes in that box. Technically, a cat locked in a box may be alive or it may be dead. You never know until you look. In fact, the mere act of opening the box will determine the state of the cat, although in this case there were three determinate states the cat could be in: these being Alive, Dead, and Bloody Furious.
Orks always ride in single file to hide their strength and numbers.
Gozer the Gozerian, Gozer the Destructor, Volguus Zildrohar, Gozer the Traveler, and Lord of the Sebouillia 
   
Made in us
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus





So, if I model one coteaz with a mustache and say hes the Inq codex Coteaz, and one without and say hes the GK Coteaz, I can bring both?

3000
4000 
   
Made in us
Powerful Phoenix Lord





Buffalo, NY

Theoretically. As I've said before, it all comes down to how you interpret "uniqueness". Some claim just the name is enough, meaning Coteaz (GK) and Coteaz (=I=) cannot both be taken, RAW. Others say you must include everything to determine uniqueness, meaning since Coteaz (GK) and Coteaz (=I=) have different rules (Lord of Formosa does different things, and Coteaz (=I=) has a fixed Warlord Trait) then RAW you can take both.

While RAW I could go either way (like a bi-sex-u-al), I think that the intent is clear that you can only take one or the other, but not both.

Greebo had spent an irritating two minutes in that box. Technically, a cat locked in a box may be alive or it may be dead. You never know until you look. In fact, the mere act of opening the box will determine the state of the cat, although in this case there were three determinate states the cat could be in: these being Alive, Dead, and Bloody Furious.
Orks always ride in single file to hide their strength and numbers.
Gozer the Gozerian, Gozer the Destructor, Volguus Zildrohar, Gozer the Traveler, and Lord of the Sebouillia 
   
Made in ca
Grisly Ghost Ark Driver





I tend to go with 'same' meaning 'in all possible points of correlation'. Given there is no specific 40k/FAQ/GW connotation to the word 'same' we are forced to rely on the plain English definition of such. There is no specifically compelling reason to only compare one aspect of a given special character's profile over another (for example: the name, the stats, and/or the special rules); they must all be compared.

To begin with: RAI-wise I'd definitely have to agree with any and all stating that it wasn't 'intended' that one could take both.

RAW? There is a fine argument that one is different from the other solely by virtue of having slightly but concretely differing rules.

One specific rule for special characters is that ...Special Characters roll for Warlord traits as normal, unless their profile specifically notes they have a fixed Warlord trait...

Inquisition: Coteaz is a special character whose profile includes a fixed warlord trait.
Grey Knight: Coteaz is a special character whose profile does not include a fixed warlord trait and therefore that rolls for Warlord traits as normal.

They do not have the same profile and are not the same special character as a result.


This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/03/20 01:42:16


 
   
Made in ca
Mekboy on Kustom Deth Kopta




From reading the 3 paragraphs before the unique rule, it would seem the intent is by name. They are Unique because they have a personal name.

So corteaz=corteaz Limit of 1.

 
   
Made in ca
Grisly Ghost Ark Driver





"Personal name and not just a title" is flavour text, not rules. There are plenty of Unique characters with 'just a title', of easiest reference are the 4 assassins in the grey knight codex along with Coteaz. Or is 'Vindicare Assassin' supposedly his/her actual name perhaps?

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/03/20 03:25:44


 
   
Made in us
Stalwart Veteran Guard Sergeant





SF Bay Area

Waaaghpower wrote:
Here's an interesting question: Can you take Coteaz (Or that other inquisitor on the giant chair) twice? Once from the Grey Knights codex, once from the Inquisition codex? They're technically different units with the same name, and since they're from a different codex I would assume there's nothing stopping it exceot the cheese.
Also, if two Coteaz were in the same squad, would they get to fire I've Been Expecting You twice?


This question alone leads me to believe that you don't really care if your opponent likes you or not

Tyler


 
   
Made in us
Sister Vastly Superior






I cant believe this question has spanned 4 pages worth of gak.

The rule book was written before the Inquisition codex was made. It is the same guy. This is getting ridiculous.

The Book is not dynamic by nature. They can't just print a BRB 1.1 or 1.2.1 everytime a new codex or new rule set comes along, just like Stronghold Assault or Escalation. FAQs havent been updated for a while either.

What are you guys trying to prove? That GW didnt foresee this? Now that'd be a surprise, wouldnt it? [/sarcasm].

We're in the middle of a transition and arguing that he isn't the same guy just put you right there with ' TFG '.

Cheers

   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Yet the flavour text, as you call it, is the only guide to the rules if you discount them as actual rules (and you cant, as "personal name" does have an ingame function) - you are still not told "same", in the context of a rule that ONLY talks about a personal name, can be anything other than referring to that name.

Coteaz is Coteaz.
   
Made in us
Sister Vastly Superior






It makes me wonder if the OP and those who claim Coteaz GK ≠ Coteaz =I= even care about the people they play with.

   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Earth

Rules lawyers and such generally don't care about such things, they just want to try to justify cheating and such but make it look legit within the rules, even if everyone think they stink to high heaven
   
Made in tr
Willing Inquisitorial Excruciator





 Formosa wrote:
Rules lawyers and such generally don't care about such things, they just want to try to justify cheating and such but make it look legit within the rules, even if everyone think they stink to high heaven


Justify cheating ? I am accused of cheating for trying to get theright answer andnot just 4+ it , or use "common sense" as some put it. It must be beatiful world out there for people who doesnt want what the rules actually say and just go with how they feel it should work.

Agree with happyjew here where i can see the point of both arguments yet conclude that they are different.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/03/20 10:34:50


Weyland-Yutani
Building Better Terrains

https://www.weyland-yutani-inc.com/

https://www.facebook.com/weylandyutaniinc/

 Grey Templar wrote:
The Riptide can't be a giant death robot, its completely lacking a sword or massive chainsaw. All giant death robots have swords or massive chainsaws.
 
   
Made in nl
Confessor Of Sins






This is not about cheating (personally I don't play it like you can take 2xCoteaz). It is about pointing out that the rule is vague and inconclusive (and really it is incomplete too).

It does not cover all the bases and merely claiming 'The rules say you can't' without actually backing it up is equally as bad as cheating to me.

Firstly, the blurb about Special Characters says that there individuals with a personal name, not just a title.
But there are no units with type Special Characters or any unit entry that mentions those words or has a special rule with the name, is there? So which units are Special Characters, what defines a personal name, instead of a title? We don't know because we're not told.

Secondly, the Unique rule says that Special Characters may only be taken once. That's it. Yet what about Unique units that aren't Special Characters? Again we're not told anything about that. And linking 2 separate units in separate codices because of the same name? Again, not enough information.

From the tiny amount of rules we have I can only say that if you have:
a) a unit entry with the 1 (Unique) composition type
b) it has a personal name, not just a title (whatever defines that)
c) it is a Special Character because of b)
then that specific unit entry may only be taken once in your army.

Cratfworld Alaitoc (Gallery)
Order of the Red Mantle (Gallery)
Grand (little) Army of Chaos, now painting! (Blog
   
Made in gb
Fresh-Faced New User




nosferatu1001 wrote:
DeathReaper wrote:
 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).


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

Dr, page 110 was already removed as proof that the brb gives a damn about warlord traits via a vis determining whether coteaz is the same as coteaz

Your concession on this is accepted, as you have still failed to provide an argument. You have simply stated they are different,but have not managed to find a single rule that backs you up

Not one.


How about the fact they have different rules. Thats a rule that back's it up quite nicely.

You can take both they are different. It is obviously not intended but it is written that way. That is all this forum cares about.
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Stratos - cute, you ignored everything posted and added the4 same debunked argument?

RAW they are the same, as the only thing SCs are defined by is tyheir personal name. IS their personal name the same? Yes. Then they are the same.

Thats it.
   
Made in au
Infiltrating Broodlord





Brisbane

It takes a person of great intelligence to decipher the great riddle of Coteaz! You see in one book there's a guy called Inquisitor Torquemada Coteaz with a page detailing his history, exploits and stat-line and also includes a nice little photo of him. But then there's this other book with this guy with the same name, history, exploits, stat-line and even looks the same! But you see it takes a keen mind to crack the true nature of this riddle! One has a pre-determined Warlord Trait and one of his special rules is worded differently, so he's OBVIOUSLY a completely different person! You'd have to be an incompetent fool not to know this. While you're at it take 2 Karamazov's, he's got a different Warlord Trait too! Oh wait.... no... let's not make that argument because he's crap in game and we don't want to spam him...

This comes down to one thing.

Do you have common sense?
Yes - You can only take one Coteaz.
No - You can take 2 Coteaz' and models without eyes can't shoot because they never have LoS, also when Pyrovores are killed by Instant Death they inflict hits on every unit, ever.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/03/20 11:40:14


 
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






 Zande4 wrote:
It takes a person of great intelligence to decipher the great riddle of Coteaz! You see in one book there's a guy called Inquisitor Torquemada Coteaz with a page detailing his history, exploits and stat-line and also includes a nice little photo of him. But then there's this other book with this guy with the same name, history, exploits, stat-line and even looks the same! But you see it takes a keen mind to crack the true nature of this riddle! One has a pre-determined Warlord Trait and one of his special rules is worded differently, so he's OBVIOUSLY a completely different person! You'd have to be an incompetent fool not know this. While you're at take 2 Karamazov's, he's got a different Warlord Trait too! Oh wait.... no... let's not make that argument because he's crap in game and we don't want to spam him...

This comes down to one thing.

Do you have common sense?
Yes - You can only take one Coteaz.
No - You can take 2 Coteaz' and models without eyes can't shoot because they never have LoS, also when Pyrovores are killed by Instant Death they inflict hits on every unit, ever.
This is pure gold.

For what it's worth, regardless of what the rules actually say, you're a bit of a wanka if you actually press the issue and try to take both.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/03/20 11:35:38


 
   
Made in us
Death-Dealing Devastator





Southern Oregon

RAI: absolutely not. RAW: yes, they do not have the same rules and are from different books.

Chaos: 6500pts
Imperium: 2500pts
Orks: 1000pts
AoS Chaos 3000pts


 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 spacewolved wrote:
RAI: absolutely not. RAW: yes, they do not have the same rules and are from different books.

AS per the tenets, please prove that the distinction you have made is relevant.
   
Made in nl
Confessor Of Sins






nosferatu1001 wrote:
Stratos - cute, you ignored everything posted and added the4 same debunked argument?

RAW they are the same, as the only thing SCs are defined by is tyheir personal name. IS their personal name the same? Yes. Then they are the same.

Thats it.


No, if you take GK's Coteaz unit entry twice they are the same.

The only thing the blurb says is that Special Characters have a personal name. Not that it must be a _unique_ name. Or that this restriction or rule works across codices.

1) Coteaz (GK) is a Special Character because he has a personal name.
2) You can only take a specific Special Character once.

That does not imply in any way that he is the same as Coteaz (Inq), which is a separate unit entry in another codex.


Cratfworld Alaitoc (Gallery)
Order of the Red Mantle (Gallery)
Grand (little) Army of Chaos, now painting! (Blog
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Prove that the distinction you have made -that the codex the unit entry is found in - is one that the rules state are to be considered.

You are told an SC has a personal name, and cannot take the same SC more than once. You have no means of determining "Same" except throught he name, as that is the only classification you are given within the rules

Coteaz (GK) is not the same model as COteaz(I) IFF you are allowed to consider more than the name

Prove you are allowed to consider more than the name. Dont assert. THere have been assertions for four pages now.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: