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.

Other than the rules being the same, is there anything that forbids duplicates of Deathleaper? Is the Dataslate parented with the Codex in the same way a Supplement would be?

From the Introduction:

Each datasheet list its Faction (the codex it is considered part of).

That's the problem we're having, though. It is explicitly forbidden that you take a duplicate character from the same Codex. At least, I think it is. I don't have any Supplements, so I can't cite that. The Deathleaper Dataslate seems to fall under the same ruling as Supplements, and that's something to do with the parent Codex/Faction.

The problem with Coteaz is that the Inquisition book is wholly independent of the Grey Knights book from which it was all-but copied and pasted. This gives rise to a completely unprecedented situation. If Marneus Calgar were present in Codex: Space Marines and Codex: Space Wolves for some reason, nothing actually forbids him being taken twice in a SM-with-SW-allies army. The Inquisition/Grey Knights situation is unique because, unlike similar situations (aforementioned characters like Tycho and Sammael, and the interaction between Codexes and their Supplements), there is no rule denying it.

It's a murky area, is the problem.

Until GW says something we have no idea what they mean by "unique". So one can claim that since Coteaz (GK) and Coteaz (Inq) have different rules, they are not the same, as being RAW is just as correct as someone saying Coteaz (GK) and Coteaz (Inq) have the same name so they are the same.

Oh, certainly. I'm not arguing that it's allowed, just that there is neither permission nor denial and that there are multiple situations where explicit denial has been given, which implies it needs to be. The problem is with the word "implies", because that's really not strong enough to base rules on.

Like I said, I'd be fine with it. Even if I weren't, I don't think it's at all significant enough to not play. Something like "full squads of Vindicare Assassins" would be more worthy of that (even though they're not in Codex: Inquisition, as far as I am aware).

 Happyjew wrote:
It's a murky area, is the problem.

Until GW says something we have no idea what they mean by "unique". So one can claim that since Coteaz (GK) and Coteaz (Inq) have different rules, they are not the same, as being RAW is just as correct as someone saying Coteaz (GK) and Coteaz (Inq) have the same name so they are the same.

Not really, the current rule (in this case) says you can only have 1 of a named character with Unique tag. So only one Inquistor Coteaz of any type can be in your army. It would not matter if they were in completely unrelated codexes like Eldar and Tyranids with completely unrelated skills. If they have the same Name, then you cannot have more than 1.

Fragile wrote:
Not really, the current rule (in this case) says you can only have 1 of a named character with Unique tag. So only one Inquistor Coteaz of any type can be in your army. It would not matter if they were in completely unrelated codexes like Eldar and Tyranids with completely unrelated skills. If they have the same Name, then you cannot have more than 1.

See that just is not true.

The actual rule is "you can only ever include one of each Unique model in an army."

You can have two or more Unique characters in an army if they are all different right?

For example you can take Dante, and Mephiston, and Death Company Tycho and Lemartes all in one army right?

Fragile wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Until GW says something we have no idea what they mean by "unique".

Actually, we do.

the current rule (in this case) says you can only have 1 of a named character with Unique tag. So only one Inquistor Coteaz of any type can be in your army.

Exactly. The rule states this clearly. I do not understand how people can argue otherwise.

Naw wrote:

Fragile wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Until GW says something we have no idea what they mean by "unique".

Actually, we do.

the current rule (in this case) says you can only have 1 of a named character with Unique tag. so only one Inquistor Coteaz of any type can be in your army.

Exactly. The rule states this clearly. I do not understand how people can argue otherwise.

(Emphasis mine)

The underlined is not quite what the rules say, and as such the violet text is incorrect. you can only include one of each Unique model in your army. so if they are the same Unique character you can not have more than one, if they are different then multiples can be included.

The rules do not say "you can only have 1 of a named character with Unique tag"

The actual rule is "you can only ever include one of each Unique model in an army."

Can someone answer my questions please.

So let's go back to page 1 for the rule as written:

Unique Models
...... are noted as being Unique in their Army List Entry. Unique models include named characters and extraordinary units or vehicles, of which there is only one known example in the whole galaxy. Because of this, you can only ever include one of each Unique model in an army.

1) noted being Unique in their army list entry

Is Coteaz marked as such?

Pg. 86 of Codex GK in Coteaz entry: Unit Composition: 1 (Unique)

Pg. 162 (?) of Codex Inquisition:Unit Composition: 1 (Unique)

Rule nr 1 has been fulfilled.

2) Unique models include named characters... of which there is only one known example in the whole galaxy

Same pages, both are Inquisitor Coteaz

2nd rule is also fulfilled.

Then it goes on to state that because of the above only one similarly named Unique model can be included in the whole army.

There is absolutely zero requirement for their rules to be identical, as was shown yet again.

 DeathReaper wrote:


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

I do respect your opinion and do not want to offend you, but please do not spread false information by saying that this is RAW when what you're stating is, as explained in detail above, HYWPI.

Why then, Naw, do Supplements specifically forbid you from taking two of the same character in both detachments?

 Frozen Ocean wrote:
Why then, Naw, do Supplements specifically forbid you from taking two of the same character in both detachments?

Despite GW's usual complete lack of forsight, even they were able to predict people trying to pull this gak.

They didn't, though! Not for the Inquisition book, anyway. I think it's a symptom of how lazy the book was.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:


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

I do respect your opinion and do not want to offend you, but please do not spread false information by saying that this is RAW when what you're stating is, as explained in detail above, HYWPI.

Except it is not how I play it, it is the actual RAW of the situation.

Can someone answer my questions please.It is important to the discussion.

I don't have the GK codex anymore, just the INQ digital version, but is the history or fluff the same for each Coteaz listing?

 DeathReaper wrote:

Except it is not how I play it, it is the actual RAW of the situation.

If you want to make the point that your interpretation is RAW, you need to precisely tell us how "unique" is defined by the rules. Unless you do so, you do not prove RAW, you state the rules given to you and fill in a rules gap with your own interpretation of what "unique" means in this context - which is HYWPI by definition.

This is not a "lesser" way of solving the problem, mind you, as in this very case, there simply isn't a RAW way to handle it. RAI or HYWPI are the only possible ways.

mtnoyster wrote:

I don't have the GK codex anymore, just the INQ digital version, but is the history or fluff the same for each Coteaz listing?

Why does that matter, history and fluff are not rules.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Except it is not how I play it, it is the actual RAW of the situation.

If you want to make the point that your interpretation is RAW, you need to precisely tell us how "unique" is defined by the rules. Unless you do so, you do not prove RAW, you state the rules given to you and fill in a rules gap with your own interpretation of what "unique" means in this context - which is HYWPI by definition.

Since the rules do not define "unique" we are forced to use the normal English definition. Since by the normal English definition of the word, Coteaz (GK) and Coteaz (Inq) are not th same, then fielding both does not violate the rules regarding unique models.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Except it is not how I play it, it is the actual RAW of the situation.

If you want to make the point that your interpretation is RAW, you need to precisely tell us how "unique" is defined by the rules. Unless you do so, you do not prove RAW, you state the rules given to you and fill in a rules gap with your own interpretation of what "unique" means in this context - which is HYWPI by definition.

Since the rules do not define "unique" we are forced to use the normal English definition. Since by the normal English definition of the word, Coteaz (GK) and Coteaz (Inq) are not th same, then fielding both does not violate the rules regarding unique models.

That is the exact mistake that's made here. Rules and standard language are mixed up - not to mention that even the standard language definition is insufficient to define the case. What definition would you even use? Since we're talking GW, Oxford Dictionary?

Being the only one of its kind; unlike anything else

Remember we're talking rules terms (!) here. What does "unlike anything else" mean? The rules are talking of "models" here. So any "unique" "model" that is "unlike any other model" would still be unique. Do you agree that by posing the same model differently, we suddenly have two different models again and fielding those two would be legal?

Long story short: never, ever mix up rules with standard English language. It's a terrible way of talking about rules and leads to no good. When talking rules, only refer to rules. Anything else is not RAW.

And I remind you of:

6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.

@Deathreaper

1) Your interpretation is not RAW, please stop saying that. You are taking facts, inserting new ones and drawing conclusions. Its true, the BRB does not allow you to take two of the same unique character, however you have drawn a conclusion that the same unique character can only ever mean models and units that are identical all all aspects. This is not stated in the rules and therefore is not RAW.

In fact, the BRB would seem to contradict you in this regard. The "Army List Entries in Different Publications" section describes a unit entry that is printed in different books with different rules. Clearly it is possible for a unit to have two different unit entries and still be the same unit.

2) What questions? You've asked a few and they have been answered.

I agree completely with Reaper, bring on the double Coteaz and troll the rules.

GoonBandito wrote:
Put a goatee on one of them. Then claim it's his Evil Twin.

Oh god this.

 DJGietzen wrote:
@Deathreaper

1) Your interpretation is not RAW, please stop saying that. You are taking facts, inserting new ones and drawing conclusions. Its true, the BRB does not allow you to take two of the same unique character, however you have drawn a conclusion that the same unique character can only ever mean models and units that are identical all all aspects. This is not stated in the rules and therefore is not RAW.

In fact, the BRB would seem to contradict you in this regard. The "Army List Entries in Different Publications" section describes a unit entry that is printed in different books with different rules. Clearly it is possible for a unit to have two different unit entries and still be the same unit.

2) What questions? You've asked a few and they have been answered.

1) it is actually RAW. Since the rules do not define "unique" we are forced to use the normal English definition. Since by the normal English definition of the word, Coteaz (GK) and Coteaz (Inq) are not th same, then fielding both does not violate the rules regarding unique models.

2 These questions http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/90/603520.page#6997728

Namely:

You can have two or more Unique characters in an army if they are all different right? (Yes or No?)

For example you can take Dante, and Mephiston, and Death Company Tycho and Lemartes all in one army right? (Yes or No?)

 DeathReaper wrote:


1) it is actually RAW. Since the rules do not define "unique" we are forced to use the normal English definition. Since by the normal English definition of the word, Coteaz (GK) and Coteaz (Inq) are not th same, then fielding both does not violate the rules regarding unique models.

But that's not RAW. You've taken it upon yourself to determine how two things can be considered the same or not. We are not 'forced to use the normal English definitions'. That's another assertion on your part. I believe we should use best possible evidence when the rule book does not provide a clear definition. We are personally deciding the intent of a rule. Thats RAI not RAW.

2 These questions http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/90/603520.page#6997728

Namely:

You can have two or more Unique characters in an army if they are all different right? (Yes or No?)

For example you can take Dante, and Mephiston, and Death Company Tycho and Lemartes all in one army right? (Yes or No?)

Yes.
Why? Because nothing suggests they are the same model.

So only the same unique can not be fielded more than once?

Yes, more than one unique models that are not the same can be fielded in an army.

Just want to make sure I'm 100% sure on your assertions.

If two Unique models are not the same I can field both of them?

 DJGietzen wrote:
Yes, more than one unique models that are not the same can be fielded in an army.

So as HJ has said

If two Unique models are not the same I can field both of them?

(I say this is correct).

 DeathReaper wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Not really, the current rule (in this case) says you can only have 1 of a named character with Unique tag. So only one Inquistor Coteaz of any type can be in your army. It would not matter if they were in completely unrelated codexes like Eldar and Tyranids with completely unrelated skills. If they have the same Name, then you cannot have more than 1.

See that just is not true.

The actual rule is "you can only ever include one of each Unique model in an army."

You can have two or more Unique characters in an army if they are all different right?

For example you can take Dante, and Mephiston, and Death Company Tycho and Lemartes all in one army right?

You appear to be deliberately trying to twist what I said.

There are only 2 questions to ask for this case. Do you have a named character. If yes, does that named character have Unique in the unit composition? If that is also yes, then you cannot have another character with that same name in your army. So, if Coteaz has Unique in his unit composition, then there cannot be another Coteaz in your army.

Fragile wrote:
You appear to be deliberately trying to twist what I said.

There are only 2 questions to ask for this case. Do you have a named character. If yes, does that named character have Unique in the unit composition? If that is also yes, then you cannot have another character with that same name in your army. So, if Coteaz has Unique in his unit composition, then there cannot be another Coteaz in your army.

(Emphasis mine)

The underlined is 100% unsupported by the rules.

Nowhere does it say that "you cannot have another character with that same name in your army."

The actual rule is "you can only ever include one of each Unique model in an army."

What makes a model unique? well it says that Some models are noted as being Unique in their Army List Entry.

So, since you can have two different special characters in an army, and Inquisition Coteaz is different from Grey Knight Coteaz (They do not even share a army entry, unlike Death Company Tycho/Tycho) then you can field both of them as far as the RAW goes.