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.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:


Okay, so they have to be the same Unique model to be restricted? so since the two different Coteaz units are not the same they can both be fielded.

That's your personal, likely to not be accepted anywhere, house rule.

Actually that is the by the book, likely to not be accepted anywhere, RAW.

Where in the book does it define what constitutes being "unique"?

Page and para please, nothing else.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Where in the book does it define what constitutes being "unique"?

Page and para please, nothing else.

It does not define unique in the BRB, so we need to use the common english definition to define unique, which of course is 'being the only one of its kind; unlike anything else'

A Unique model is the only one of its kind, so you can not take Mephiston twice, since he is the same, but The two Coteaz are different and clearly each are unique.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Where in the book does it define what constitutes being "unique"?

Page and para please, nothing else.

It does not define unique in the BRB [...]

Exactly. This means that there is no RAW.

We would NEED a definition because of - this thread, basically. What does "unique" mean? Unique model? Unique profile? Unique war gear? Unique name? Unique combination of some of the aforementioned? We simply do not have an answer to this RAW and therefore, it's a rules "issue" that has no RAW answer. You then resort to RAI and that is perfectly clear.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Where in the book does it define what constitutes being "unique"?

Page and para please, nothing else.

It does not define unique in the BRB, so we need to use the common english definition to define unique, which of course is 'being the only one of its kind; unlike anything else'

A Unique model is the only one of its kind, so you can not take Mephiston twice, since he is the same, but The two Coteaz are different and clearly each are unique.

You believe the two Coteaz's represent two entirely different characters then?
They're not the same person?

Everyone knows that RAI is that you cannot field the same unique model twice and that this means not fielding two unique models with the same name. This isn't in question

just my two cents on the matter but how many different models does coteaz have to represent him in game? Could that be what they mean by unique model?

 Sigvatr wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Where in the book does it define what constitutes being "unique"?

Page and para please, nothing else.

It does not define unique in the BRB [...]

Exactly. This means that there is no RAW.

There is RAW as the BRB does not define every word used in its pages...

We would NEED a definition because of - this thread, basically. What does "unique" mean? Unique model? Unique profile? Unique war gear? Unique name? Unique combination of some of the aforementioned? We simply do not have an answer to this RAW and therefore, it's a rules "issue" that has no RAW answer. You then resort to RAI and that is perfectly clear.

We do have RAW since Unique is defined as 'unlike anything else' so a model that is 'unlike anything else' can not be duplicated.

Coteaz from the Inquisition book is 'unlike anything else' except for another Coteaz from the Inquisition book.

Just like Coteaz from the GK book is 'unlike anything else' except for another Coteaz from the GK book.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Oberron wrote:
just my two cents on the matter but how many different models does coteaz have to represent him in game? Could that be what they mean by unique model?

No, because some unique characters do not even have models.

 DeathReaper wrote:


Exactly. This means that there is no RAW.

There is RAW as the BRB does not define every word used in its pages....

1) Please do not misquote me.

2) it does have to define terms that are important when it comes to rules, but here it fails to do so therefore we must fall back on the common English definition of the word. There is RAW in this case as unique has a meaning, but one that is not defined in the BRB.

3) Also The "and:..." in your post does not apply here as the BRB does not define unique, so unique, in the general English language, can not have a broader meanings than those in the rules, since the rules do not define Unique.

We must use the definition of a word in the dictonary if the rules do not define that word. If we dont then the game becomes unplayable.

What character doesn't have a model? I thought gw was cleaning that whole mess up since chapter house.

lol no...

 DeathReaper wrote:
1) Please do not misquote me.

I did not intend to, I merely shorten posts to make the replies more clearly.

2) it does have to define terms that are important when it comes to rules, but here it fails to do so therefore we must fall back on the common English definition of the word.

That's RAI then as there is a gap in the rules that has to be filled by our very own interpretations. In a RAW case, the rules would be clear as given and this ain't the case here. The "unlike any other" definition isn't sufficient either, if we want to use this, as the very same named model with a single difference would then be allowed - for example, I could take a Kutlakh on foot and a Kutlakh on a CCB - they would even have a different model type. That is why this is RAI and not RAW.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
1) Please do not misquote me.

I did not intend to, I merely shorten posts to make the replies more clearly.

2) it does have to define terms that are important when it comes to rules, but here it fails to do so therefore we must fall back on the common English definition of the word.

That's RAI then as there is a gap in the rules that has to be filled by our very own interpretations. In a RAW case, the rules would be clear as given and this ain't the case here. The "unlike any other" definition isn't sufficient either, if we want to use this, as the very same named model with a single difference would then be allowed - for example, I could take a Kutlakh on foot and a Kutlakh on a CCB - they would even have a different model type. That is why this is RAI and not RAW.

No it is not RAI, it is RAW. There is no gap. Unique has meaning.

Unless you are saying that anything involving words that are not defined in the BRB are RAI and not RAW...

Unique does have a meaning, as pretty much most words.

The problem is that we're not talking about general meanings here, we're talking about rules and we need a clear-cut definition for a RAW statement.

There is no clue as to what "unique" is related to. Same model, different profile might be unique. Just the same name might be unique. Same profile, different model might be unique.

With the mere rules, as presented by GW's blind typewriter monkeys, you cannot argue for or against a certain definition of "unique".

Thus, it's impossible to give any RAW statement.

You can field Marneus Calgar in Terminator Armor, or in Power Armor. These are different models, and have different profiles. However, Marneus Calgar is still a single unique character. You can field Kosarro Khan on or off Bike, and he is still a single unique character.

Thus, it appears that a different model with a different profile, does not constitute a different unique character.

This indicates that what makes a character unique is one of three things:

You can only field one character of that name (even if you decide to call him something else, like Marmalade Calzone).

You can only field one character of that name per Codex or Codex Supplement which includes that character. That doesn't seem to be contraindicated by any rules, but it's so nitpicky and pedantic that I'd generally class you as a tool for doing so. "This is GK Coteaz and this is Inquisition Coteaz. They are NOT the same character."

You can field multiple characters with the SAME model providing it has a different profile for each 'unique' iteration. This also doesn't seem to be contraindicated by the rules, but it is so contrary to common sense that I would hesitate to play you as I can't imagine what else you might think was acceptable. Note that under this concept, you CAN field multiple Ghazghuls, because he has the option to take squigs and grots and those modify his profile accordingly. Given the variations possible between combinations of ammo runts and an attack squig, you could fill up a good sized army list with nothing but Ghazzy and the grots.

Da Butcha, Marneus Calgar is a poor example.

Try Captain Tycho. He has two profiles with different rules, however, GW felt it necessary to include the following:

Note that there are two different profiles for Captain Tycho,
one for the relatively sane Captain, and one to represent
Tycho following his induction into the Death Company
(and of course you may only field one of them in your force).

And then in his Army List Entry:

You must choose which
version of Tycho you wish
to use when you select
your army

Of course with Captain Tycho, he is either Captain Tycho or Death Company Tycho, so it might also be a poor example.

 Happyjew wrote:
Try Captain Tycho. He has two profiles with different rules, however, GW felt it necessary to include the following:

Note that there are two different profiles for Captain Tycho,
one for the relatively sane Captain, and one to represent
Tycho following his induction into the Death Company
(and of course you may only field one of them in your force).

And then in his Army List Entry:

You must choose which
version of Tycho you wish
to use when you select
your army

Of course with Captain Tycho, he is either Captain Tycho or Death Company Tycho, so it might also be a poor example.

Happyjew, I think that is a great example. However, the fact that the phrase "of course" is listed, indicates that they are stating what they think is obvious, that you can only field one of those models in an army.

I think it is a decent precedent to point to in saying that you can have only one Coteaz in an army. I can't imagine a TO of an event allowing both, despite the ambiguity in the RAW / possible loophole due to the two different profiles.

As you point out, this is a named model with two different profiles and it's clear how GW ruled on it... so, it is a good precedent for what they would rule on Coteaz, should they ever get around to doing so

Unique is defined by "first" names.
Sammael is the same, regardless if he's on jetbike or speeder (notably, the Corvex is unique)
Calgar is the same, regardless of the armour donned.
Vindicare assassin is limited to one but is not unique (as an apoc formation demonstrates)
Mordrak ghost knights form a unique unit for a unique character.
Schaeffer's Last Chancers are unique in a unique unit for a unique character.
Coteaz, following the same scheme, is the same unique character, regardless of the Codex listing him, I really don't see the confusion.

RiTides, the thing is this discussion is not about RAI. I'm fairly certain everyone discussing, as well as about 99% of the gaming world, agrees that the intent is only one. I believe this is more of a strict RAW discussion , in which case the question arises, what does GW mean by "Unique"?

As pointed out above -
If just the name, then regardless of where the model comes from you can only have one (which is probably the intent). This means the only time it breaks down would be with Tycho, as he is either Captain Tycho or Death Company Tycho. Fortunately, they cover this situation.
If you use the definition of "model" as put forth in the rules (which includes staline and unit type), then only certain models can be taken multiple times. Marneus has the same profile with or without his Terminator Armour and the same Unit Type. Khan has two different profiles, and two different Unit Types depending on whether or not you take his bike.
If you use the normal English definition of the word (which is viable, as there is no in game definition), then you could take 2 Marneus Calgar - one in Terminator Armour, one not. You could take 2 Sammael - one on a jetbike, one in a land speeder. Etc.

Kerrathyr, Vindicare Assassins are Unique. The Apocalypse Formation you refer to is from when Apocalypse allowed you to field multiple Unique models. Originally you could field nothing but Marneus Calgars if you wanted. With the new release, apparently there is only one of each assassin in the whole galaxy (which I think is silly).

 RiTides wrote:
Happyjew, I think that is a great example. However, the fact that the phrase "of course" is listed, indicates that they are stating what they think is obvious, that you can only field one of those models in an army.

I think it is a decent precedent to point to in saying that you can have only one Coteaz in an army. I can't imagine a TO of an event allowing both, despite the ambiguity in the RAW / possible loophole due to the two different profiles.

As you point out, this is a named model with two different profiles and it's clear how GW ruled on it... so, it is a good precedent for what they would rule on Coteaz, should they ever get around to doing so

Not a good example at all, The two different Inquisitors come from two different factions. Something that does not happen with Tycho, Calgar or any others.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
Happyjew, I think that is a great example. However, the fact that the phrase "of course" is listed, indicates that they are stating what they think is obvious, that you can only field one of those models in an army.

I think it is a decent precedent to point to in saying that you can have only one Coteaz in an army. I can't imagine a TO of an event allowing both, despite the ambiguity in the RAW / possible loophole due to the two different profiles.

As you point out, this is a named model with two different profiles and it's clear how GW ruled on it... so, it is a good precedent for what they would rule on Coteaz, should they ever get around to doing so

Not a good example at all, The two different Inquisitors come from two different factions. Something that does not happen with Tycho, Calgar or any others.

Which is immaterial to the fact that they are named the same. Unique requires nothing more than being named characters by RAW. Nothing in the rule requires that any of there gear/rules be the same.

Reaper will cry and wine until we either accept his very wrong opinion, or stop posting. Let's do the latter and shut him up already.

Lshowell wrote:
Reaper will cry and wine until we either accept his very wrong opinion, or stop posting. Let's do the latter and shut him up already.

1) I did not "cry and wine" I presented facts. and your assertation of such is rude and against forum rules.

2) Those facts show the RAW of the rules in question and they are not my opinion.

Please be more polite in the future.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lshowell wrote:
Coteaz in either codex is obviously the same, just slightly different.

You contradict yourself here.

If they are "obviously the same" they can not be "just slightly different" they would have to be clones to be the same.

Fragile wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
Happyjew, I think that is a great example. However, the fact that the phrase "of course" is listed, indicates that they are stating what they think is obvious, that you can only field one of those models in an army.

I think it is a decent precedent to point to in saying that you can have only one Coteaz in an army. I can't imagine a TO of an event allowing both, despite the ambiguity in the RAW / possible loophole due to the two different profiles.

As you point out, this is a named model with two different profiles and it's clear how GW ruled on it... so, it is a good precedent for what they would rule on Coteaz, should they ever get around to doing so

Not a good example at all, The two different Inquisitors come from two different factions. Something that does not happen with Tycho, Calgar or any others.

Which is immaterial to the fact that they are named the same. Unique requires nothing more than being named characters by RAW. Nothing in the rule requires that any of there gear/rules be the same.

Agreed, Fragile. That difference is totally immaterial and the FAQ clarification is a clear indication of GW's ruling on a similar situation. We have no ruling here, it's a hole in the rules... but that's the closest thing you can look to for a ruling, imo.

So, maybe I should have said it is the "best available example", which I think it is. Do you have a better example, DeathReaper?

That said, to the thread, please simply make the best argument you can and do not resort to name-calling, please. Also, if you think someone is breaking the rules please simply hit the yellow triangle and do not post that they are breaking the rules in-thread, as this can also derail the thread. Thanks.

You're right reaper and I apologize
I simply feel you are arguing the situation for the sake of an argument. In all honesty would you want to use, or go against someone trying to say that both character models, being the exact same entity just with a slightly different 'effect' count as a completely different person/character therefore makes it legal? Personally I wouldn't. I'd pack it up right there and request a different opponent. We all understand there is a hole in the system, but we all also understand that hole isn't meant to be there, therefore exploiting it is kind of jerkish

It's not really a big deal. If they were exploiting a rule gap that allowed them to field infinite numbers of BS10 Jokaero, it would be a problem. Coteaz is, to my understanding, quite a good character to have - but I really don't think having two of him would be so game-shatteringly powerful that it merits a refusal of play. That's just really, really petty, refusing to play someone on this basis when there are plenty of far worse things that are completely backed up by rules (remember those 2+++s?).

@ RiTides, Deathleaper from the Tyranid Codex and the Deathleaper from the Dataslate are identical, so there is an example of two unique characters that are the same, and as such can not include both in a single army.

Lshowell wrote:
You're right reaper and I apologize
I simply feel you are arguing the situation for the sake of an argument. In all honesty would you want to use, or go against someone trying to say that both character models, being the exact same entity just with a slightly different 'effect' count as a completely different person/character therefore makes it legal? Personally I wouldn't. I'd pack it up right there and request a different opponent. We all understand there is a hole in the system, but we all also understand that hole isn't meant to be there, therefore exploiting it is kind of jerkish

I am showing the RAW of the situation. Which clearly shows that you can take both different unique characters.

I do not play it like this, and no one I know also plays Grey Knights.

I don't have any of the Dataslates, so I can't say for certain. However, doesn't the Dataslate say something along the lines of "Complete rules for Deathleaper can be found in Codex: Tyranids ... has the following additional special rules when taken as part of this formation", in a similar vein as the Daemonology cards?

Nope. The Dataslate includes the rules for Deathleaper, and are exactly the same as laid out in the codex.