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.

There can only be one inquisitor coteaz in the galaxy right, that much is clear. Inq and gk have different rules, that's half way there. Regardless of his specific rules he still has the exact same name and unique says there can only be one named unique character in the galaxy. Why not then ally all the old marine codexies together and play with Calgar, Calgar, Calgar and Tiberius, Tiberius, and Tiberius? Same name but different rules right?

 portugus wrote:
There can only be one inquisitor coteaz in the galaxy right, that much is clear. Inq and gk have different rules, that's half way there. Regardless of his specific rules he still has the exact same name and unique says there can only be one named unique character in the galaxy. Why not then ally all the old marine codexies together and play with Calgar, Calgar, Calgar and Tiberius, Tiberius, and Tiberius? Same name but different rules right?

The old Codexes are not legal anymore.

and it seems you are hung up on fluff.

Hung up on the exact same name in the unit entry, not fluff. Reading about the rule unique it talks about only one in the galaxy. That's not flavor or fluff text, that's part of the paragraph where it talks about unique.

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

So, do both Coteaz share the same model?

 extremefreak17 wrote:

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

So, do both Coteaz share the same model?

The physical model you use to represent them have no bearing on the rules for Unique models.

 portugus wrote:
Hung up on the exact same name in the unit entry, not fluff. Reading about the rule unique it talks about only one in the galaxy. That's not flavor or fluff text, that's part of the paragraph where it talks about unique.

It is actually fluff because "only one known example in the whole galaxy." does not have any actual rules attached to it.

Basically this line " Unique models include named characters and extraordinary units or vehicles, of which there is only one known example in the whole galaxy." is not rules, it is fluff. Well the part that says "of which there is only one known example in the whole galaxy." is fluff.

As an example the Invincible Behemoth rule states "A Super-heavy vehicle is so large and strongly built that weapons which degrade the armour of smaller vehicles will not effect it. Because of this, any attack that says that the target model is destroyed, wrecked, Explodes! or is otherwise removed from play inflicts D3 Hull Points of damage on a Super-heavy vehicle instead." (Vehicles Chapter, Super Heavy Vehicles section, Special Rules heading).

See how the first line is fluff and then the rules are after the "Because of this" part of the entry, the same is happening in the Unique models entry.

touche

 DeathReaper wrote:

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.

It is completely supported by the rule. You just ignore half the sentence "Unique models include named characters.." Include Named characters. Not named characters with X gear or Y special rules. The Name is what determines if you can have a second character.

My inquisition I pub editions up to date with both being the same. So no you cannot field both. In addition coteaz is unique by name not rules, that's prevention enough.

Fragile wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

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.

It is completely supported by the rule. You just ignore half the sentence "Unique models include named characters.." Include Named characters. Not named characters with X gear or Y special rules. The Name is what determines if you can have a second character.

All that tells us is that if a character has a name it is a unique model. and we know that we can only ever include one of each Unique model in an army, but remember that says one of each Unique model which means two of the same unique model, two unique models with different Rules are not the same, and as such can both be included.

Lungpickle wrote:
My inquisition I pub editions up to date with both being the same. So no you cannot field both. In addition coteaz is unique by name not rules, that's prevention enough.

Incorrect, The Inquisition Coteaz is not the same as Coteaz in the GK rules and as such each is a different Unique Character.

So yes you can field both since they are not the same special character. and we know we can field different special characters in one army.

Deathreaper, you keep forgetting to say "in my opinioin" when discussing things that are not covered by the RAW.

In your opinion the Inq Coteaz and the GK Coteaz are not the same. In my opinion they are the same. There is no official way to determine if the unit or model is the same or not. Several methods, with equal standing, can be provided and no common answer can be derived from all available methods.

 DJGietzen wrote:
Deathreaper, you keep forgetting to say "in my opinioin" when discussing things that are not covered by the RAW.

It is a good thing that this is actually covered, so it is not my opinion it is the rules as written.

In your opinion the Inq Coteaz and the GK Coteaz are not the same.

Actually in the rules the two are not the same. since they are not identical.

In my opinion they are the same.

Well your opinion is incorrect because they are not identical.

There is no official way to determine if the unit or model is the same or not.

What do you mean? We can determine if they are identical or not, the BRB does not describe how to do this, luckily the English language, which the rules are written in and we need to use to have the rules function at all, does define how to see if two things are identical or different.

The Two Coteaz's are not identical.

Several methods, with equal standing, can be provided and no common answer can be derived from all available methods.

Several methods to determine if one unit is different than another unit?

A common answer can be derived. The Coteaz from the Inquisition book is not Identical to the Coteaz from the GK Codex.

Please explain the method that shows that they are identical and I will point out the flaws in that methodology.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
Deathreaper, you keep forgetting to say "in my opinioin" when discussing things that are not covered by the RAW.

It is a good thing that this is actually covered, so it is not my opinion it is the rules as written.

In your opinion the Inq Coteaz and the GK Coteaz are not the same.

Actually in the rules the two are not the same. since they are not identical.

In your opinion they are not the same because they are not identical. Its your opinion, its not in the rules. Its a lie to claim otherwise.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:

In my opinion they are the same.

Well your opinion is incorrect because they are not identical.

There is no official way to determine if the unit or model is the same or not.

What do you mean? We can determine if they are identical or not, the BRB does not describe how to do this, luckily the English language, which the rules are written in and we need to use to have the rules function at all, does define how to see if two things are identical or different.

The Two Coteaz's are not identical.

Several methods, with equal standing, can be provided and no common answer can be derived from all available methods.

Several methods to determine if one unit is different than another unit?

A common answer can be derived. The Coteaz from the Inquisition book is not Identical to the Coteaz from the GK Codex.

Please explain the method that shows that they are identical and I will point out the flaws in that methodology.

They have the same name, and the name is all that matters. Or They a represented by the same citadel miniature. Feel free to point out any flaws you want, I will concur right now that there are several, but then again I'm not suggesting either of these methods must be the correct way to determine sameness. Just that these methods or no more official then the one you have dreamed up.

You've decided that identical in every facet MUST be how to determine sameness, that in the absence of a clear definition the common English definition MUST be used. This is bull scat and unless you can provide a proper rule instructing us that it MUST be so there is no evidence to support it. Its just an opinion and as such has no bases being passed off as RAW.

 DJGietzen wrote:
In your opinion they are not the same because they are not identical. Its your opinion, its not in the rules. Its a lie to claim otherwise.

No it is RAW, I actually supported my argument fully with rules quotes.

 DJGietzen wrote:
They have the same name, and the name is all that matters.

Prove this. (You can't so debunked).

Or They a represented by the same citadel miniature.

Models that GW sells have nothing to do with the Unique rule.

You've decided that identical in every facet MUST be how to determine sameness

No I have not decided this, the English language has.

that in the absence of a clear definition the common English definition MUST be used. This is bull scat and unless you can provide a proper rule instructing us that it MUST be so there is no evidence to support it. Its just an opinion and as such has no bases being passed off as RAW.

If you can define what immediately, automatically, or fully mean using only the BRB then I will concede that the rulese does not use common English definitions to have the ruleset make sense at all.

But if you cannot you have to admit that the common English definitions of words MUST be used in order for the ruleset to function at all.

 DeathReaper wrote:

No it is RAW, I actually supported my argument fully with rules quotes.

Prove this. (You can't so debunked).

 DJGietzen wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

No it is RAW, I actually supported my argument fully with rules quotes.

Prove this. (You can't so debunked).

I have, look at my previous posts in this very thread!

Oh man, and they say that Peregrine is the one that loves arguing..

DeathReaper, I am fairly sure that your idea of what does the rule stand for RAW is just your interpretation of that wording.

In my opinion you can't field both because they're, fluff-wise, the exact same person - they're the same named character with slightly different rules from two different books, but they're both Inquisitor Coteaz. They have the same name.

Big issue is also that if you see lots of people use their common sense and treat it at RAW(unique named character = unique by name) or RAI(it -is- the same inquisitor after all - by name, fluff and everything else than the rules that didn't seem to be intentional change), you're going to be fighting an uphill battle and not too many people will agree with you and you'll be seen as argumentative conflict seeker. :-) I know that you're doing it as a part of conversation(and a way to fuel it), but if this was the FLGS and everyone was here in person you'd probably get branded TFG for arguing like that and refusing to even consider that you might be using interpretation rather than RAW and trying to force your vision of it on others calling it a fact.

HIWPI: There can be only one!

 DeathReaper wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

No it is RAW, I actually supported my argument fully with rules quotes.

Prove this. (You can't so debunked).

I have, look at my previous posts in this very thread!

When exactly? I looked through this thread and I have found no evidence of you supporting the claim that the two Coteaz entries are not the same unique character with anything from the rule book. You have repeatedly, however, supported that claim with the argument that the entries are not identical in every facet and that the common English use of 'same' must mean they must be identical in every facet and in the absence of an official method for determining 'sameness' the come English definition is required. This is also an unsupported claim. These are your opinions Deathreaper. They are not RAW.

Righr here:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/603520.page#6993345

Wow this really needs 5 pages of discussion?

If you think that you should legally be able to field 2 Coteaz' in the same army then you are the kind of person who is killing the game.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Right here:

"Because of this, you can only ever include one of each Unique model in an army." (Choosing your army chapter, Unique models section).

One of each Unique model = you can not have two of the same special character.

Since the Coteaz from the Inquisition book is different than the Coteaz from the Gk codex, they are not the same and if you include both in an army you do not have more than one of each Unique model, you have two different unique models.

The problem is "Since the Coteaz from the Inquisition book is different than the Coteaz from the Gk codex, they are not the same and if you include both in an army you do not have more than one of each Unique model, you have two different unique models." is your opinion and is not supported by the rules.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 extremefreak17 wrote:

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

So, do both Coteaz share the same model?

The physical model you use to represent them have no bearing on the rules for Unique models.

Why? Where are you getting your HYWPI definition from?

 herpguy wrote:
Wow this really needs 5 pages of discussion?

If you think that you should legally be able to field 2 Coteaz' in the same army then you are the kind of person who is killing the game.

We are discussing strict RAW. So far everyone has agreed RAI (and by extension HYWPI) is they are the same.

 Happyjew wrote:

 herpguy wrote:
Wow this really needs 5 pages of discussion?

If you think that you should legally be able to field 2 Coteaz' in the same army then you are the kind of person who is killing the game.

We are discussing strict RAW. So far everyone has agreed RAI (and by extension HYWPI) is they are the same.

Most agree on HYWPI and RAI being the same, it's just one user having a different HYWPI version. Which would be fine, if said user did not falsely claim it being RAW.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 herpguy wrote:
Wow this really needs 5 pages of discussion?

If you think that you should legally be able to field 2 Coteaz' in the same army then you are the kind of person who is killing the game.

We are discussing strict RAW. So far everyone has agreed RAI (and by extension HYWPI) is they are the same.

Most agree on HYWPI and RAI being the same, it's just one user having a different HYWPI version. Which would be fine, if said user did not falsely claim it being RAW.

Except (IIRC) DR has said that how he would play it is only one. Without GW defining unique, we are forced to rely on the dictionary definition, which basically says that the two must be completely identical (note I'm not defining unique here, just sort of...paraphrasing). One side says that the only thing that matters is the name of the model. Logically this makes sense as the only model this breaks for would be Tycho, and the BA codex covers it. The other side includes rules and wargear, which means according to that side, you can have 2 Calgars as long as one of them has terminator armour.

As stated before, if marked as HYWPI, that's perfectly fine as HYWPI cannot be wrong

It is not, however, okay to spread misinformation as this might confuse other users, especially when important terms like RAW / RAI are mixed up.

Man, this thread has been a long slog to read through.

 DeathReaper wrote:

No it is RAW, I actually supported my argument fully with rules quotes.

I appreciate your effort to really dive into the rules, but they just aren't as clear as you're making them out to be. At best, the RAW are ambiguous about this issue (and it is such an edge case, that I don't think it has really occurred to GW that there is an ambiguity).

 DJGietzen wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Right here:

"Because of this, you can only ever include one of each Unique model in an army." (Choosing your army chapter, Unique models section).

One of each Unique model = you can not have two of the same special character.

Since the Coteaz from the Inquisition book is different than the Coteaz from the Gk codex, they are not the same and if you include both in an army you do not have more than one of each Unique model, you have two different unique models.

The problem is "Since the Coteaz from the Inquisition book is different than the Coteaz from the Gk codex, they are not the same and if you include both in an army you do not have more than one of each Unique model, you have two different unique models." is your opinion and is not supported by the rules.

Actually that is the RAW. (I dont play it that way, but that is the RAW).

Can you have more than one unique model in an army? (Yes).

Can you have one of each Unique model in an army? (Yes).

Can you have more than one of each Unique model in an army? (No).

So we can have different unique models in the same army, as such, since the Coteaz from the inquisiton book is different than the Coteaz from the GK Codex, you can, RAW, include them both.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 herpguy wrote:
Wow this really needs 5 pages of discussion?

If you think that you should legally be able to field 2 Coteaz' in the same army then you are the kind of person who is killing the game.

We are discussing strict RAW. So far everyone has agreed RAI (and by extension HYWPI) is they are the same.

Most agree on HYWPI and RAI being the same, it's just one user having a different HYWPI version. Which would be fine, if said user did not falsely claim it being RAW.

Who has a different HYWPI version?

 DeathReaper wrote:

Actually that is the RAW. (I dont play it that way, but that is the RAW).

Can you have more than one unique model in an army? (Yes).

True and RAW

Can you have more than one of each Unique model in an army? (No).

True and RAW

Can you have one of each Unique model in an army? (Yes).

True and RAW

So we can have different unique models in the same army, as such, since the Coteaz from the inquisiton book is different than the Coteaz from the GK Codex, you can, RAW, include them both.

Not RAW. You have not provided any rules tp determine that Coteaz from the inquisition book is not the same unique character from the GK Codex. This is your opinion. You are drawing a conclusion from your opinion. Please stop insisting your opinion is written in the rule book.

It is not my opinion it is RAW, since you can have one of each Unique model in an army, and you can have more than one unique model in an army, then if the unique models are different they both can be included RAW.