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.

Ah Neos sarcasm, so helpful.

Yes, the definition states an SC has a personal name, making it an SC.

YOu have still made an intense logical leap to decide that a rule which states how SCs handle Warlord Traits has anything to determining if one SC is the same as another.

You are failing to provide a rfule that states "having a different warlord trait is enough to make you not the same SC", when the definition of an SC is having a personal name

Nothing more.

You are then told how an SC interacts with the game, but that is NOT the same as saying this is a defnining characteristic that shows how one SC is different to another; or rather, how to tell if they are the same SC

Coteaz is an SC, the same SC as Coteaz, as SCs are special because they have a personal name.

PAge 110 is and remains irrelevant to this, as it does not help your case that stats etc are allowed to be looked at to determine "sameness" - you have not provided a single shred of evidence, despite your offensive manner of posting.

Unless you continue to make personal attacks, I will not respond to your lack-of-argument posts further

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Unless you continue to make personal attacks, I will not respond to your lack-of-argument posts further

Suits me fine. I find it odd that you do not consider the actual rules governing special characters to be relevant to a discussion of the rules governing special characters, but what can you do eh?

 Neorealist wrote:
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

This doesn't actually say what you think it says.

It doesn't state that the warlord traits are defining elements of a character.

It states that special characters roll for warlord traits as normal, unless their profile specifically notes they have a fixed one.

That does not mean the warlord trait makes them different or the same.


Using the logic that warlord trait makes models Different I could take two copies of Draigo, and roll for a warlord trait for one and not for the other which would give me 1 draigo with a warlord trait, and 1 without, according to your logic they are no longer unique.

All that you quoted is saying is if something that is a special character is a warlord here is how you determine its warlord traits, it doesn't state that that is part of what makes them unique.

Additionaly the warlord rules part on p.110 of the rulebook is actually a separate section under special characters than the unique section, therefore it has nothing to do with them being unique. Which is why you cannot take two Asdrubel Vects and roll once on the warlord chart for one of them and say "hey they are different!"

Sure it does. One of the SCs has a profile indicating you'll need to roll on the warlord traits table if it is selected as your warlord. The other one has a fixed trait.

This indicates at least one difference between their two profiles

If there is a quantifiable difference between two things, can they be considered the 'same'?

You obviously did not read anything I have written for you.

1.) You are saying that special characters can be taken more than once if you select one as your warlord and the other as a non warlord.

2.) You ignored that "Warlord Traits" is listed completely separately from "unique" under special characters. If it is listed under a separate section that Unique then it doesn't pertain to them being unqiue unless it specifically says so in that section, ie you have no permission to say warlord traits make them unique as it is not listed under "unique" and under the section for warlord traits, which is separate and not part of the unique section, it doesn't state or grant permission for warlord traits to be unique.

EDIT-

The profile for a model does not include special rules, wargear, or warlord traits. I suggest you refer to the rulebook p.3. The profile Includes only the model name and characteristics line.

The only thing that makes a model a "special character' is if it has a name in place of a title. Ie instead of saying "space marine chapter master" it will say "Marneus Calgar". This item is often founder under section "2" of the diagram for unit entries for each codex, you can find it in the current Inquisition codex on p.157 or so. It actually uses inquisitor Coteaz as an example. If he were not a special character instead of saying "Inquisitor Coteaz" it would say "Inquisitor"

You will notice under the unit entry for Inquisitor Coteaz for Inquisition detachments on p.162 that it says "Inquisitor Coteaz" in area 2. You will notice under the Unit entry for Inquisitor Coteaz in the GK codex on p.86 area 2 it says "Inquisitor Coteaz"

As You can see they are the same Name. As you can see it is a name and not a title like plain "Inquisitor"

The 4lst Millennium is filled with famous characters renowned as
legendary heroes or infamous villains - these unique individuals,
who stand out from normal characters because they have a
personal name and not just a title, are called
'special' characters.

The only RAW for what makes a character special is that it has a name under area 2 of a unit entry instead of a Title. Obviously the name of Inquisitor Coteaz is the same in both Codexes, therefore it is the same special character.

The unique rule in the brb on p.110, which you have completely misused, only tells us if the character is a special character than they are unique and you may not have more than one of the same character.

as The unit entry for the name area on both the INQ and Gk entry are the same, they are the same character.

There is no requirement RAW for the entries to be completely Identical beyond the name.

The unique section =DOES NOT= have anything to do with stats, wargear, rules pertaining to the model on the tabletop, or anything else- only that the model with a name instead of a title in its unit entry cannot be taken more than one time in an army.

1) No I am not. having a fixed warlord trait or not does not change depending on if the character is selected as your warlord. Either the model has it on it's profile, or it does not, regardless of wether or not it ever applies in a game. Ergo, You've misinterpreted 'my' point, at no juncture did I ever intend or imply that selecting the SC as your warlord would ever allow you to select the SC again as a non-warlord.

2) They are both rules applicable to special characters, so I fail to see why being listed lower on the page makes one any less relevant than the other. I'm saying that different warlord traits makes their profiles 'different'. Given we have no rules-specific definition of the word 'same', using the plain English one should suffice.

At it's most basic, what do you look at to compare wether or not a unit is the same as another unit? What defining characteristics are you told to compare? Who knows. The rules certainly do not tell us which differences are important and which are trivial. Given a lack of such a specific definition, I am saying 'any' differences are enough for their profiles to be considered different.

You are confused, the only thing that matters in the case of special characters being the same is their unit name, please read my above post.

The wargear, special rules, even the profile has no bearing on if a special character is a special character. Only the unit entry matters, if it is a name its a special character, if it is a title its not a special character.

blaktoof wrote:
You are confused, the only thing that matters in the case of special characters being the same is their unit name, please read my above post.

The wargear, special rules, even the profile has no bearing on if a special character is a special character. Only the unit entry matters, if it is a name its a special character, if it is a title its not a special character.

I'm not confused, your point is just unsubstantiated (or at least, unproven 'yet') within the rules as written. Also your later contention is directly contradicted by the fact that Unique characters like the cullexus and eversor assassins are most definitely unique models, but are only ever referred to by their title in leiu of their proper name.

 Neorealist wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
You are confused, the only thing that matters in the case of special characters being the same is their unit name, please read my above post.

The wargear, special rules, even the profile has no bearing on if a special character is a special character. Only the unit entry matters, if it is a name its a special character, if it is a title its not a special character.

I'm not confused, your point is just unsubstantiated (or at least, unproven 'yet') within the rules as written. Also your later contention is directly contradicted by the fact that Unique characters like the cullexus and eversor assassins are most definitely unique models, but are only ever referred to by their title in leiu of their proper name.

That doesn't contradict his contention if you consider that 'cullexus assassins' are not special characters. They simply have the 'unique' special rule which means you can not take two units with the name 'cullexus assassin' in the same army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Which I suppose leads to the conclusion that the fact a 'special character' is a 'special character' doesn't matter when looking at the 'unique' rule. What exactly is the 'unique' rule? (Don't have my BRB on me)

The only place the 'Unique' rule is found is as part of the rules for special characters. The specifically relevant text is: "...Each special character is unique, so a player cannot include multiples of the same special character in an army..."

As you can see, the concept of being a special character is integral to the application of the rule.

Zimko wrote:

 Neorealist wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
You are confused, the only thing that matters in the case of special characters being the same is their unit name, please read my above post.

The wargear, special rules, even the profile has no bearing on if a special character is a special character. Only the unit entry matters, if it is a name its a special character, if it is a title its not a special character.

I'm not confused, your point is just unsubstantiated (or at least, unproven 'yet') within the rules as written. Also your later contention is directly contradicted by the fact that Unique characters like the cullexus and eversor assassins are most definitely unique models, but are only ever referred to by their title in leiu of their proper name.

That doesn't contradict his contention if you consider that 'cullexus assassins' are not special characters. They simply have the 'unique' special rule which means you can not take two units with the name 'cullexus assassin' in the same army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Which I suppose leads to the conclusion that the fact a 'special character' is a 'special character' doesn't matter when looking at the 'unique' rule. What exactly is the 'unique' rule? (Don't have my BRB on me)

The only mention of Unique in regards to units is that "Each special character is Unique, so a player cannot include multiples of the same special character in an army".

I am of the opinion that, while units such as the Vindicare Assassin is Unique and a Character this does not make them a Special Character as they do not have a name (as the rules for Special Characters state they should), so using the Assassins from C: Grey Knights as an argument with regards to Special Characters is a red herring. They have no bearing on the discussion.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Neorealist wrote:
The only place the 'Unique' rule is found is as part of the rules for special characters. The specifically relevant text is: "...Each special character is unique, so a player cannot include multiples of the same special character in an army..."

As you can see, the concept of being a special character is integral to the application of the rule.

If being Unique means being a Special Character then the GK Assassins break the rules. Using everything regarding Special Characters means they must have a name. They do not have a name, ergo they cannot be Special Characters (simply Characters (Unique)).

Perhaps there are other defining characteristics than name with which to determine if a given model is a special character or not? like for example, the presence of the 'Unique' rule on their profile somewhere?

 Neorealist wrote:
Perhaps there are other defining characteristics than name with which to determine if a given model is a special character or not? like for example, the presence of the 'Unique' rule on their profile somewhere?

Perhaps, if unique were specific to only Special Characters, which it clearly is not.

All Special Characters are Unique, but not all Unique Characters are Special Characters. Unique, therefore, is not what determines if the Coteaz from C:GK = the Coteaz from C:I

The only thing that makes a special character a special character is the name in the unity entry. If its a name, they are special character, if its not a name, they are not a special character.

There is nothing else to it. at all.

IF they are a special character they also have the "unqiue" rule, which states you may not take more than one of the same.

What makes them the same? Its already spelled out for you RAW, the name. ONLY THE NAME.

THERE ARE NO OTHER DEFINING CHARACTERISTICS FOR WHAT MAKES A CHARACTER A SPECIAL CHARACTER.

Does the special character have further characteristics past its name? Yes. Do they make it a special character? No. It is a special character solely by the virtue of having a name. This is fully substantiated by the rules on p.110, which state a special character has a name instead of a title. That section then ends, there are no other rules at all towards what makes it a special character. There is some fluff about yarrick and some fluff about kharn, then it tells you if you are a special character you are also Unique. Unique doesn't make you a special character, its something you have by being a special character.

Furthermore the section unique is a rule that special characters have, not what makes them special characters.

Rorschach9 wrote:
Perhaps, if unique were specific to only Special Characters, which it clearly is not.

All Special Characters are Unique, but not all Unique Characters are Special Characters. Unique, therefore, is not what determines if the Coteaz from C:GK = the Coteaz from C:I

Clearly, the unique rule can only be taken within the context of a special character as it specifically references only special characters. Anything with the unique rule perforce needs to be a special character in order for the rule to have any meaning.

I digress however. The rules state there are many discrete aspects of a special character. Amongst them are rules which indicate special characters are unique, and special characters have warlord traits.

What i am not seeing, is any specific reason to treat a rule that says you cannot take more than one of the same special character as any more or less relevant than a rule which states a special character has warlord traits if selected as a warlord, or for that matter a rule which indicates a special character has a proper name.

There really is no rule telling one to just check the name of the unit to confirm whether or not it is the same. Ergo, checking everything about the unit to discern 'same'-ness is the most logical approach.

Man. The only rule that needs to be quoted is the rule of immense douschebaggery. Anyone ever tries to take two you are clearly in violation of aforementioned rule.
I will yell HERESY and hammer fist the poser coteaz.

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....

That is an awesome idea. If someone asks to run two Coteaz, I'll just run two Belakors. Fair and I'd take that trade off any day.

My take on it is that logic says only 1 Coteaz but rule wise I don't see any problem with 2 Coteaz's.

The argument against taking him twice is that it is the same SC. Whilst they are the same SC, technically they are not as they are from 2 different codixes so they are SC's for 2 different armies but just so happen to share the same name and stats.

 Neorealist wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Unless you continue to make personal attacks, I will not respond to your lack-of-argument posts further

Suits me fine. I find it odd that you do not consider the actual rules governing special characters to be relevant to a discussion of the rules governing special characters, but what can you do eh?

Insult, so responding

yes, they are rules governing sc's. No, they are not relevant to determining whether one sc is the same as another, as nowhere I the rule you quoted does it actually say that
"What can you do eh?" Indeed. You've had this explained a few times now, and you still seem to struggle...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Neo - also you are assuming that unique makes you an SC. BASIC logical fallacy of a implies b means b implies a. Try again, without the fallacious logic, and you will realise that the only defining char for an SC is given as the name, never anything more.

Provide explicit permission, page and para, to consider ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE NAME when comparing SCs. Page and para, or concede.

Maybe the next sentence after that that speaks of Special Characters having special traits and skills that make them famous? Which is about as definite as the 'personal name'?

 Shandara wrote:
Maybe the next sentence after that that speaks of Special Characters having special traits and skills that make them famous? Which is about as definite as the 'personal name'?

And what are the rules for "special traits and skills"?

 Shandara wrote:
Maybe the next sentence after that that speaks of Special Characters having special traits and skills that make them famous? Which is about as definite as the 'personal name'?

I assume you did not bother reading back a couple of pages, when this last attempt to use fluff as rules came up?

Page and para that defines traits and skills as something rule related please. Or concede.

They're the same person. No one is over going to let you do this. It's like the old "If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to here it, does it make a sound?". You can't take 2 because no one is going to let you and if no one let's you do something it means it's not allowed! So it's pointless arguing if you can or can't.

Let. This. Thread. Die.

No

Lungpickle wrote:
No

No to taking Coteaz twice, or no to letting this thread die?

 Happyjew wrote:

 Shandara wrote:
Maybe the next sentence after that that speaks of Special Characters having special traits and skills that make them famous? Which is about as definite as the 'personal name'?

And what are the rules for "special traits and skills"?

Where are the rules for personal names? Or the 'individuals' the fluffy first paragraph speaks about.

I've yet to see a page, para that defines them from Nosferatu1001 for that too. Or will he concede?

Personal names have no definition within 40k, so you fall back on plain English.

You cannot do so with "traits", as everything else within a character is well defined - characteristic, special rules, etc.

So no, no concession. Its understanding the difference between well defined and non well defined.

Found those rrules yet?

So you equate 'personal name' with the rules defined 'Unit Name' even though there are no rules telling you to? And you disallow equating 'traits' with Warlord Traits and 'skills' with, say, Special Rules.

And we're falling back on plain English again ?

If so, what does 'the same' mean? Does it mean your arbitrary choice of just the name of a unit or does it mean that the unit has to be identical in all aspects? I.e. all characteristics, rules, descriptions, etc..

I do not see any permission to determine sameness in the way you claim.

The sentence:

'- these unique individuals, who stand out from normal characters because they have a personal name and not just a title, are called Special Characters

Doesn't seem like it contains permission to change the way we determine sameness. It merely says they have an additional characteristic, i.e a personal name. Does this sentence tell us to discount every OTHER characteristic? If so, you interpret this plain English sentence a bit different from me.

Unless you have found those rules somewhere else yet?

When you can. Personal name is fairly clear, traits is not. Well defined vs not.

Last posey on this, as you have failed to convince and this is just circular.

Let it die.