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.

I find it interesting that 'plain english' is used to justify referring to the proper name of the character only and not anything else to do with the character, but is apparently 'not' to be used to justify coming to that conclusion in the first place when parsing the word 'same' in the unique rule. Makes you think.

Also: stop that Zande4, that sort of post doesn't really help anything since it doesn't contain anything relevant to this debate.

Have you read the previous 6 pages? I don't blame you if you haven't but allow me to sum it up for you. 1.5 pages of valid points and solid arguments then 4.5 pages of copy paste. My "let it die" comment adds as much to this discussion as the last 4 and half pages, which is nothing... Neither side is going to agree about this as far as RAW goes but for the most part we all agree you shouldn't do this. Which is as good as this one is going to get, so lets stop it from bumping other threads off the front page by simply letting it die.

Kiwidru wrote:
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.

Sorry I'm six pages late, but this here deserves an exalt.

I would allow it.

What I find interesting is that I often see the argument thrown around that you can rename a special character and have them "counts as". I don't know about Coteaz in particular as I don't have either codex, but if its commonly accepted that you can field let's say Tigurius from the Space Marine book but say he's not really Tigurius (if you aren't even fielding Ultramarines), then why couldn't you apply that here? Only one Coteaz is the man himself, the other is fielded "counts as" some other Inquisitor. They're from two different codexes after all, it's not like you're taking the same guy from the same book twice, which is clearly a no-no.

Note that I'm not advocating doing this as it's clearly not in the spirit of the game or the rules, but I'm not aware of anything really preventing it - the defining factor for me is that it's the same guy (roughly) in two different books. I wasn't aware that the uniqueness was keyed to the character's name, because again I always see the "counts as" argument crop up when taking for instance Lysander (Imperial Fists) in a non-IF army. It just so happens that in most cases the character is only in one book. Besides wasn't there a special character (Tycho?) who had two different entries in one book? What about a case like that? Could you field one Tycho as the actual Captain Erasmus Tycho, and the other as some other captain?

Incidentally this is why I'm against special characters without permission and "counts as" for special characters in general

Kiwidru wrote:
Its not like there are any 'official GW sanctioned tournaments', or that their will be in the foreseeable future...

Eh? Of course there are!
Throne of Skulls at Warhammer World is going strong

This is the painful statement of non-updated faq's. Yes, if I'm taking my whole army out of GK, then one Coteaz. If he is allying in from a seperate codex, he can bring a inquisitor that has seen Coteaz and feels his way of doing the work of the inquisition is the best and has modeled his career after him, then yes he "may" bring a second Coteaz. Two completely seperate codexs allow this level of troll to happen. Friendly game it's allowable But Not Welcome. Tournaments will likely Gibbs for doing that.

Wayne, with taking a second detachment, ally, and you bring a counts as space marine special character you relegate now to having his chapter tactics. This is why a lot of people that has ultramarine vulkans got mad, because it made them change their tactics to salamanders.

wow... 7 pages over a minor rules conflict that is very very easy to interpret? no wonder gaming has gone downhill...

Two Abbadons!

viewfinder wrote:
wow... 7 pages over a minor rules conflict that is very very easy to interpret? no wonder gaming has gone downhill...

Welcome to the wonderful world of internet forums.

 DanielBeaver wrote:

viewfinder wrote:
wow... 7 pages over a minor rules conflict that is very very easy to interpret? no wonder gaming has gone downhill...

Welcome to the wonderful world of internet forums.

and rules lawyers...

And people who like to complain about either of the above without offering anything else substantive to the conversation...

Generally speaking the fact that there is a 7 page debate on something like this is a pretty good indication that it is 'not' as cut and dried as it really should be.

consider the fact that face-to-face, no one would even consider asking the original question.

I suspect they might, given it may very well be a legal play. Or at least (and again, at the risk of sounding redundant) it's not as cut and dried as some seem to think. Perhaps it'd be a better approach to use a different argument rather than simply appealing to the presumed similarity of the decision making processes for people you do not even know?

if it is 2 guys from 2 different codexs then it is allowed in my view.

 Neorealist wrote:
Generally speaking the fact that there is a 7 page debate on something like this is a pretty good indication that it is 'not' as cut and dried as it really should be.

Dakka constantly spawns sprawling argument threads about the most inane things.

Yes, the RAW are unclear about this, because it's a weird edge case born out of GW's rules publishing schedule. You'll just have to discuss it with your opponent beforehand - I would allow my opponent to play 2 Coteaz's if we wanted to play a quirky game (maybe he got himself mixed up in the warp and popped out in another time). But if an opponent shows up at my FLGS with two Coteaz's and insists that he's within his rights to include both of them in his army based on the ambiguous rules and twisted logic of arguments he read on Dakka, I'm just going to shake my head at his lack of common sense.

This whole thing wreaks of im trying tobe a beardy moron and claiming that i can fiueld 2 of the same unique character.

plain and simple he has the same name and profile and i believe wargear just different special rules... 3/4 criteria 1 and 1 only all your trying to do is get off 2 rounds of IBEY to stop your opponent even thinking of using reserves.

Learn to play having fun not being an %£$^&%&

 grendel083 wrote:

Kiwidru wrote:
Its not like there are any 'official GW sanctioned tournaments', or that their will be in the foreseeable future...

Eh? Of course there are!
Throne of Skulls at Warhammer World is going strong

Yes, but Warhammer World is as official as Forgeworld for determining what is 40k. Muhaha, I stirred the pot!

That being said...just...no. It is the same character. You can only have one of any unique character, despite different abilities/stats.

 Farseer Faenyin wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

Kiwidru wrote:
Its not like there are any 'official GW sanctioned tournaments', or that their will be in the foreseeable future...

Eh? Of course there are!
Throne of Skulls at Warhammer World is going strong

Yes, but Warhammer World is as official as Forgeworld for determining what is 40k. Muhaha, I stirred the pot!

That being said...just...no. It is the same character. You can only have one of any unique character, despite different abilities/stats.

But if they're different then can they be the same?

Nos' argument is that all that matters is the name. Which is fine. I disagree, but I don't care enough since I don't think it is intended.

champagne_socialist wrote:
if it is 2 guys from 2 different codexs then it is allowed in my view.

according to your other thread on this, your view is to bring in two Coteazes for cheese and an illegal formation.

your input is not needed.

viewfinder wrote:

champagne_socialist wrote:
if it is 2 guys from 2 different codexs then it is allowed in my view.

according to your other thread on this, your view is to bring in two Coteazes for cheese and an illegal formation.

your input is not needed.

My input is very much needed as I have more tactical knowledge of the game than you.

Coteaz from 2 different codexs is 2 different characters from 2 different armies.

champagne_socialist wrote:

viewfinder wrote:

champagne_socialist wrote:
if it is 2 guys from 2 different codexs then it is allowed in my view.

according to your other thread on this, your view is to bring in two Coteazes for cheese and an illegal formation.

your input is not needed.

My input is very much needed as I have more tactical knowledge of the game than you..

Citation needed.

IMO they are different special characters (rules -wise). I would not play it t hat way, I would not rule it that way, nor would I play against someone who plays it that way.

 Happyjew wrote:

champagne_socialist wrote:

viewfinder wrote:

champagne_socialist wrote:
if it is 2 guys from 2 different codexs then it is allowed in my view.

according to your other thread on this, your view is to bring in two Coteazes for cheese and an illegal formation.

your input is not needed.

My input is very much needed as I have more tactical knowledge of the game than you..

Citation needed.

IMO they are different special characters (rules -wise). I would not play it t hat way, I would not rule it that way, nor would I play against someone who plays it that way.

Is coteaz really that scary that you would not play against someone who took 2 of them from 2 different armies?

I run a grey knight henchmen army and I ally in the inquisition to get more hq's but I wouldn't ally in a 2nd coteaz even if the rules allowed it, one of him does the job and sending 100 points of another one of his is a waste. would rather get an inquisitor with a conversion beamer and a level 1 psyker for those points etc etc

No, it's not scary. But while I think the rules support taking 2, I am certain that GW did not intend for somebody to take 2. Just like I am certain that GW did not intend for models without eyes to not be able to shoot or charge, or for Grav weapons to ignore saves on vehicles, etc.

running the one Character that has been duplicated between two books is a neckbeard cheese move.

and it's fun y that no one ever considered taking two Inquisitor Karamazovs when he was in the Witch Hunters and Grey Knights books. but then again, rules lawyers have recently overtaken the game players.

viewfinder wrote:
running the one Character that has been duplicated between two books is a neckbeard cheese move.

and it's fun y that no one ever considered taking two Inquisitor Karamazovs when he was in the Witch Hunters and Grey Knights books. but then again, rules lawyers have recently overtaken the game players.

Probably because Grey Knights came out in 5th edition, where in normal games you did not have allies, and in Apocalypse there was no limit on special characters.

 Happyjew wrote:

viewfinder wrote:
running the one Character that has been duplicated between two books is a neckbeard cheese move.

and it's fun y that no one ever considered taking two Inquisitor Karamazovs when he was in the Witch Hunters and Grey Knights books. but then again, rules lawyers have recently overtaken the game players.

Probably because Grey Knights came out in 5th edition, where in normal games you did not have allies, and in Apocalypse there was no limit on special characters.

wrong... Witch Hunters still permitted allies.

The rhetorical pitch ITT is a bit too wound up. This is a forum about playing with toy soldiers. And we have a rule about keeping things polite. Don't let this stuff get to you, guys. Thanks!

viewfinder wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

viewfinder wrote:
running the one Character that has been duplicated between two books is a neckbeard cheese move.

and it's fun y that no one ever considered taking two Inquisitor Karamazovs when he was in the Witch Hunters and Grey Knights books. but then again, rules lawyers have recently overtaken the game players.

Probably because Grey Knights came out in 5th edition, where in normal games you did not have allies, and in Apocalypse there was no limit on special characters.

wrong... Witch Hunters still permitted allies.

And what could they ally with?

If you were running WH, you could have IG or SM allies.
If you were running loyalist SM, IG or Daemonhunters you could take WH allies.

Grey Knights is in neither list.

Consider this a warning for the entire thread--please refrain from "I'm better than you" posts. Each time a thread delves into a "Who's smarter"/personal tirade---it derails the conversation into ad hominems.

Stay objective, don't get personal and stay on topic. Thanks.

Ryan