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:
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.

Tbh i didn't read it. I gave an answer to your statement thus proving its fundamental flaw. How many people on earth have the same name? Are they the same people? No. Didn't think so.

I care not if people take 2 or 1 or 0 the fact is RAW they can. That is Fact the definition for unique is broken therefore it cannot apply in this instance. That is the only fact that is relevant.

This is a forum based for rules upon fact not your assumption that names = the same.

Fact is everyone in this topic knows and understands that they are the same person in the 40k universe but this is irrelevant when talking about the game.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
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

Sure thing. We are also told that special characters have certain rules. Notably for this conversation, we are told they either have fixed warlord traits 'or' can roll on the warlord trait table. Given one of the models 'can' and the other one 'cannot', there is a distinct 'difference' there.

Now it is your turn, can you provide rules support that you are 'only' to compare the name of the model? I'm very interested where you are getting that from.

Stratos wrote:

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.

Tbh i didn't read it. I gave an answer to your statement thus proving its fundamental flaw. How many people on earth have the same name? Are they the same people? No. Didn't think so.

I care not if people take 2 or 1 or 0 the fact is RAW they can. That is Fact the definition for unique is broken therefore it cannot apply in this instance. That is the only fact that is relevant.

This is a forum based for rules upon fact not your assumption that names = the same.

Fact is everyone in this topic knows and understands that they are the same person in the 40k universe but this is irrelevant when talking about the game.

Sadly it's not irrelevant, it's quite poignant infact, trying to abuse rules and justify borderline cheating, that's what matters. Here, simple answer is no you can't take 2 coteazs as they are the same character and trying to justify it is utter nonsense and a thinly veiled attempt to waac or powergame, it would never pass in real life so I'm amazed people are trying to legitimise it online.

Do what you like in your area, this would result in a dq or ban if attempted in mine.

Formosa - do you understand the difference between discussing what the rules say and how an individual plays them?

Rules are as people play them. TO's will often change or clarify rules for there tournaments, FLGS's often have official house rules.

 Formosa wrote:

Stratos wrote:

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.

Tbh i didn't read it. I gave an answer to your statement thus proving its fundamental flaw. How many people on earth have the same name? Are they the same people? No. Didn't think so.

I care not if people take 2 or 1 or 0 the fact is RAW they can. That is Fact the definition for unique is broken therefore it cannot apply in this instance. That is the only fact that is relevant.

This is a forum based for rules upon fact not your assumption that names = the same.

Fact is everyone in this topic knows and understands that they are the same person in the 40k universe but this is irrelevant when talking about the game.

Sadly it's not irrelevant, it's quite poignant infact, trying to abuse rules and justify borderline cheating, that's what matters. Here, simple answer is no you can't take 2 coteazs as they are the same character and trying to justify it is utter nonsense and a thinly veiled attempt to waac or powergame, it would never pass in real life so I'm amazed people are trying to legitimise it online.

Do what you like in your area, this would result in a dq or ban if attempted in mine.

I asked my local GW manager today about people fielding this and he told he would have a chuckle about it for 5 mins then if they continued, the player would be asked to gather his stuff and leave.

Really I wouldn't bother with this topic , they are essentially making an idiotic claim in hopes of eliciting an angry response from people with common sense, they know what they are doing is inane but are getting a kick out of provoking people.

Ironic that the George bush pictures got told off when they are at the bottom of the troll list in this topic.

Anyone who is new to 40k reading this topic, I beg you not to judge its fanbase's by this. This is an example of rules interpretation that is basically limited to Internet forums and is most likely one of the reasons a lot of people stay away from them.

Don't feed the trolls

I would be very much surprised if ANY of the respondents in this thread will play 2 Coteaz's and be 100% convinced that is intended.

But there's a difference between playing it RAW and _knowing_ exactly what the RAW is.

We're discussing the latter.

 Shandara wrote:
I would be very much surprised if ANY of the respondents in this thread will play 2 Coteaz's and be 100% convinced that is intended.

RaW: Maybe.
RAI: No.
HIWPI: Hell no!

 Neorealist wrote:
Sure thing. We are also told that special characters have certain rules. Notably for this conversation, we are told they either have fixed warlord traits 'or' can roll on the warlord trait table. Given one of the models 'can' and the other one 'cannot', there is a distinct 'difference' there.

Now it is your turn, can you provide rules support that you are 'only' to compare the name of the model? I'm very interested where you are getting that from.

No, actually, we're told you roll on a warlord table unless it's included in the profile.

Does being included in the profile make it a different unit? No. Tactical Marines from 5th Ed are still Tactical Marines in 6th Ed, but the rules changed. Doesn't make them a different unit. We have an updated Coteaz now written for the current edition of the game. It's still the same person. It's still the same units. It has newer, updated rules. If anything, I'd argue taking Coteaz from Grey Knights you should use him as listed in the 6E Inquisition codex.

I'd have significantly less of a problem with that than someone trying to bring the same guy twice.

 SRSFACE wrote:

 Neorealist wrote:
Sure thing. We are also told that special characters have certain rules. Notably for this conversation, we are told they either have fixed warlord traits 'or' can roll on the warlord trait table. Given one of the models 'can' and the other one 'cannot', there is a distinct 'difference' there.

Now it is your turn, can you provide rules support that you are 'only' to compare the name of the model? I'm very interested where you are getting that from.

No, actually, we're told you roll on a warlord table unless it's included in the profile.

Does being included in the profile make it a different unit? No.

But not having the same warlord trait does make it not the same special character, as they are different.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 SRSFACE wrote:

 Neorealist wrote:
Sure thing. We are also told that special characters have certain rules. Notably for this conversation, we are told they either have fixed warlord traits 'or' can roll on the warlord trait table. Given one of the models 'can' and the other one 'cannot', there is a distinct 'difference' there.

Now it is your turn, can you provide rules support that you are 'only' to compare the name of the model? I'm very interested where you are getting that from.

No, actually, we're told you roll on a warlord table unless it's included in the profile.

Does being included in the profile make it a different unit? No.

But not having the same warlord trait does make it not the same special character, as they are different.

Are special characters particular people: Yes
Is it the same person: Yes
Thus, they are the same character.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Are special characters particular people: Yes
Is it the same person: Yes
Thus, they are the same character.

I am not seeing the rules for "particular people" in the BRB, citation please.

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

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

A fixed warlord trait is a part of some special characters, if they are different then it is not the same special character as per the rules on 110.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Are special characters particular people: Yes
Is it the same person: Yes
Thus, they are the same character.

I am not seeing the rules for "particular people" in the BRB, citation please.

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

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

A fixed warlord trait is a part of some special characters, if they are different then it is not the same special character as per the rules on 110.

What if he's not your warlord though? then both would be exactly alike in every way.

if "same" is so ambiguous though, then shouldn't the interpretation end up:

special characters are unique, you can't have multiple special characters in a army.

as a "unique special character" is the same as "unique special character", And those are the only terms used in the rule.

therefore you just get 1 special character in your army. As there is no RAW support for what makes something the same or different, than this is the only conclusion that can be made based on the information in that one sentence.

sirlynchmob wrote:
What if he's not your warlord though? then both would be exactly alike in every way.

The above is false. Just because he is not using the warlord trait does not mean the two are Identical...

He does not magically lose the Warlord trait from his rules if he is not the warlord.

if "same" is so ambiguous though, then shouldn't the interpretation end up:

special characters are unique, you can't have multiple special characters in a army.

as a "unique special character" is the same as "unique special character", And those are the only terms used in the rule.

therefore you just get 1 special character in your army. As there is no RAW support for what makes something the same or different, than this is the only conclusion that can be made based on the information in that one sentence.

this is also partially false, the rule clearly states you can not have multiples of the SAME special character.

If the SC's are not the same you can include both SC's.

 SRSFACE wrote:
If anything, I'd argue taking Coteaz from Grey Knights you should use him as listed in the 6E Inquisition codex.

I'd have significantly less of a problem with that than someone trying to bring the same guy twice.

I'd hope you are not seriously proposing that Codex: Inquisition is in part or in whole the 6th edition version of Codex: Grey Knights? That is so fundamentally wrong I do not even know where to begin to understand where you feel there is support for 'that' idea.


Simply put: we do not have a specific rules definition of what counts as 'Same' .

Given there appears to be no rules-explicit indication that we need only refer to the name of a given character to determine whether or not it is 'the same' and anyone arguing that is RAW has yet to bring forth a specific argument to validate that opinion; I'd say it's pretty clear they have a number of differences, and therefore 'are' different.

You'll note I agree with you on some points: I do not think this was GWs plan (ie: RAI) when they released the codex, and I'm shocked that there hasn't been errata issued to that effect long ago.

As written however, there hasn't yet been a sensible rules based argument to exclude using both of them in the same army.

Oh so you can take 2 Abaddons then? The Black Legion one has the "Bringers of Despair" special rule where as the Chaos Space Marine doesn't. No you can't... It's really simple stuff with special characters. Same name = same character = can't be taken twice.

 Neorealist wrote:
If anything, I'd argue taking Coteaz from Grey Knights you should use him as listed in the 6E Inquisition codex.

I'd have significantly less of a problem with that than someone trying to bring the same guy twice.

I'd hope you are not seriously proposing that Codex: Inquisition is in part or in whole the 6th edition version of Codex: Grey Knights? That is so fundamentally wrong I do not even know where to begin to understand where you feel there is support for 'that' idea.


Simply put: we do not have a specific rules definition of what counts as 'Same' .

Given there appears to be no rules-explicit indication that we need only refer to the name of a given character to determine whether or not it is 'the same' and anyone arguing that is RAW has yet to bring forth a specific argument to validate that opinion; I'd say it's pretty clear they have a number of differences, and therefore 'are' different.

You'll note I agree with you on some points: I do not think this was GWs plan (ie: RAI) when they released the codex, and I'm shocked that there hasn't been errata issued to that effect long ago.

As written however, there hasn't yet been a sensible rules based argument to exclude using both of them in the same army.

If they both have different warlord traits, and there is no rule saying you cannot, then yes? That is the point I've been making all along.

I'm not saying it's ethical, or sensible, or advisable even, I'm saying it's RAW.

 Neorealist wrote:
If they both have different warlord traits, and there is no rule saying you cannot, then yes? That is the point I've been making all along.

I'm not saying it's ethical, or sensible, or advisable even, I'm saying it's RAW.

But it doesn't say "For a SC to be considered the same model across two different codices they need to have the same Warlord Trait, otherwise for all intensive purposes they are a different unit" It doesn't say anything even remotely close.

Sure it does. Referring back to one of my earlier posts in this topic:

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...

One profile for Coteaz requires you to roll for warlord traits as normal. The other one does not, given it has a fixed Warlord trait.

I'm not sure why folk are not seemingly getting that the above makes one profile different from the other, I'm really not.

All the actual rule says is that you cannot use the 'same' unique character. It does not define the word 'same' in any relevant way, so I've been using the plain English definition of such: So, C: I Coteaz differs from C:GK Coteaz on at least one salient and thoroughly unambiguous point, and is therefore not the 'same'.

 Neorealist wrote:
I'm not saying it's ethical, or sensible, or advisable even, I'm saying it's RAW.

It's also RAW that a model without eyes cannot shoot.
Both are clearly not the intent.

 grendel083 wrote:

 Neorealist wrote:
I'm not saying it's ethical, or sensible, or advisable even, I'm saying it's RAW.

It's also RAW that a model without eyes cannot shoot.
Both are clearly not the intent.

Yep. And?

I've been very clear in the delineation between RAW and RAI that I have been making in my posts on this topic.

 Zande4 wrote:
Saying SC's need to have the same Warlord trait to be the same character has no basis and it doesn't say it in the BRB. Therefor we go with the common sense variety of same because it really doesn't need a rules clarification...

on the contrary, the rule for how special characters can select a warlord trait is quite clearly quoted directly from the BRB. I'd suggest reviewing the special characters section if you do not feel my quote is accurate.

 Neorealist wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 Neorealist wrote:
I'm not saying it's ethical, or sensible, or advisable even, I'm saying it's RAW.

It's also RAW that a model without eyes cannot shoot.
Both are clearly not the intent.

Yep. And?

I've been very clear in the delineation between RAW and RAI that I have been making in my posts on this topic.

So they're both RAW.
And neither should ever be considered during an actual game.

I'm all for a rules debate, but this one should have been drowned at birth, so to speak.
Why is it continuing?

Because I'm waiting for some rules support that would prevent one in this case from being able to essentially field 2 of the same special character? I'd really like there to be, but so far an accurate rebuttal to my contention hasn't surfaced in anyone else's arguments.

Two Corteaz? Pfffffft, why am I not even surprised.

Honestly, its just par for the course here.

 grendel083 wrote:

 Neorealist wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 Neorealist wrote:
I'm not saying it's ethical, or sensible, or advisable even, I'm saying it's RAW.

It's also RAW that a model without eyes cannot shoot.
Both are clearly not the intent.

Yep. And?

I've been very clear in the delineation between RAW and RAI that I have been making in my posts on this topic.

So they're both RAW.
And neither should ever be considered during an actual game.

I'm all for a rules debate, but this one should have been drowned at birth, so to speak.
Why is it continuing?

Because both sides, while they agree the intent is only one, claim different requirements for "sameness".

 Happyjew wrote:
Because both sides, while they agree the intent is only one, claim different requirements for "sameness".

yep, or that. Got to love how much GW seems to take for granted without spelling out in the interpretation of their rules eh?

 Happyjew wrote:
Because both sides, while they agree the intent is only one, claim different requirements for "sameness".

As I said, I'm all for a rules debate. It's just this one (same with the "eyes") just serves no point. Especially at this point, where the same arguments have just been repeated for 3 pages with nothing new.

Since everyone has agreed it has no place in an actual game, the conclusion is irrelevant. It's also clear there will be no conclusion, without FAQ, as neither side will agree. The same points are just being repeated now, and will continue to be repeated until the thread is locked.

It stopped being a rules debate 3 pages ago, it's just repeated points.hence why I ask "why is it continuing?".
With nothing new, each side can only hope the other gets bored and gives up. That's not a debate.

Neo - again, nothing in that warlord rule states that this is a defining determinant for "sameness". It doesnt.

AGain, you are told they have a personal name. That defines an SC as being an SC (you do not need the unique rule to be an SC, just a personal name) - Mad Dok is a SC, for example.

So now find where you are allowed to look at the profile IN ADDITION to the name to determine if they are the same. Page and graph. Repeating the warlord trait rule is irrelevant, as this does not lay out how you determien if the two are the same, it simply states they can have a fixed warlord trait, or roll as normal. THat does not say anything about comparing two SCs for "sameness"

Page, para, or concede.

(Oh, and permissive - I have shown permission to use the Name as a defining characteristic, i do not need to show how Special rules et al are NOT - you have to prove you CAN use them to determine "sameness")

You have not, however, shown that you use the name to determine equivalency between units in different units. And you can't, because the text does not say so.

You're putting an assumption into the text that's not there.

I love debating with you. Such 'conviction'.

To answer your question despite finding the tone of your comment to be rather personally offensive: page 110, specifically the 'Special Character' rules, with particular reference to the 'Unique' and 'Warlord Trait' sub-sections of same. What's that you say? you need to be walked through the connection because you simply do not see it even with the exact rules right in front of you? Sure thing.

First: the initial definition of what a special character is:
"... these unique individuals, who stand out from normal characters because they have a personal name and not just a title, are called 'special characters'..."

Second: The only rule preventing multiple copies of the same special character from being fielded is the 'Unique' rule and another defining characteristic of a special character
"...Each special character is unique, so a player cannot include multiples of the same special character in an army..."

Third: The Warlord Traits rule and the final defining characteristic of a special character
"... Special characters roll for Warlord traits as normal, unless their profile specifically notes that they have a fixed Warlord trait..."

Why are all of the above indications of what exactly constitutes a special character? because they are the rules which specifically tell you what a special character is and does. They in effect, define the special character. So tell me again how the Unique rule doesn't matter and you need to solely refer to a character's name in order to determine if you can take more than one of them in your army list?


edit: font modifications are hard