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.

 DeathReaper wrote:
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.

Thats not the problem. The problem is that you are insisting that according to the rule book the two Coteaz entries are not the same unique character. This is not in the rule book. It is your opinion.

 DJGietzen wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
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.

Thats not the problem. The problem is that you are insisting that according to the rule book the two Coteaz entries are not the same unique character. This is not in the rule book. It is your opinion.

It is not my opinion, the two coteaz units are not the same, and as such you can field both Unique characters because they are not the same.

They are different Unique characters.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
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.

Thats not the problem. The problem is that you are insisting that according to the rule book the two Coteaz entries are not the same unique character. This is not in the rule book. It is your opinion.

It is not my opinion, the two coteaz units are not the same, and as such you can field both Unique characters because they are not the same.

They are different Unique characters.

In your opinion they are different unique characters. In my opinion they are the same unique character with different rules.

Except there is no support at all for them to be the same, as they are different.

So They are different unique characters RAW.

This is RAW because the rules are written in English and, for words not defined in the BRB, we must apply the common English definition to them to make the rules function at all.

P.S. they can not be the same if they are different.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Except there is no support at all for them to be the same, as they are different.

So They are different unique characters RAW.

This is RAW because the rules are written in English and, for words not defined in the BRB, we must apply the common English definition to them to make the rules function at all.

P.S. they can not be the same if they are different.

0) You still haven't proven any of this is actually in the rules. Its time to put up or shut up. Quote the rule that clearly states that the same unique character cannot have two different entries. If you can't then please quote the rule that says a narrow interpretation of the common english definition of a word must be used when the the rule book fails to provide its own.

Failure to do either of those things will only serve to illustrate that those are your opinions, and are not rules.

1) I'm not saying the rules say they are the same. I'm saying the rules don't say they are different. Claiming they are different is RAW is a mistake. Claiming the rules say they are the same would also be a mistake.

2)The common english definition has some 'wiggle room'. Here are two pictures, The man in the right picture has facial hair and sunglasses. The man in the left picture does not. The man in the picture on the right is not identical to the man in the picture on the left.. The man in the pictre on the right and the manin in the picture on the left is the same man.


The trouble you'll have is that the same unique thing can be presented in different ways. The change in the presentation (in the case of Coteaz, his rules or entry) does not automatically make the thing a different thing.

3) Conclusions based on your opinion, cannot ever be called RAW.

They are not the same, one has glasses and facial hair one does not.

 DJGietzen wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Except there is no support at all for them to be the same, as they are different.

So They are different unique characters RAW.

This is RAW because the rules are written in English and, for words not defined in the BRB, we must apply the common English definition to them to make the rules function at all.

P.S. they can not be the same if they are different.

0) You still haven't proven any of this is actually in the rules. Its time to put up or shut up. Quote the rule that clearly states that the same unique character cannot have two different entries. If you can't then please quote the rule that says a narrow interpretation of the common english definition of a word must be used when the the rule book fails to provide its own.

Failure to do either of those things will only serve to illustrate that those are your opinions, and are not rules.

1) I'm not saying the rules say they are the same. I'm saying the rules don't say they are different. Claiming they are different is RAW is a mistake. Claiming the rules say they are the same would also be a mistake.

2)The common english definition has some 'wiggle room'. Here are two pictures, The man in the right picture has facial hair and sunglasses. The man in the left picture does not. The man in the picture on the right is not identical to the man in the picture on the left.. The man in the pictre on the right and the manin in the picture on the left is the same man.


The trouble you'll have is that the same unique thing can be presented in different ways. The change in the presentation (in the case of Coteaz, his rules or entry) does not automatically make the thing a different thing.

3) Conclusions based on your opinion, cannot ever be called RAW.

The man on the left is Robert Downey Jr. ... the man on the right is Tony Stark.

The thing is that the entries for Coteaz are different ... name is the same, therefore technically they are not identical.

I do not know any person who would play it as this but ...

And RAW having the same name is all that is required to not have multiples.

Fragile wrote:
And RAW having the same name is all that is required to not have multiples.

That is simply not true.

Let's have a look on the Unique rule again...
"Unique Models

Some 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."

Now, bear with me as I split it and kinda ramble as I see it

Since the sentence(s) is (are) in the rules section, any part helps in defining the rules.

Some models are noted as being Unique in their Army List Entry.

This was easy: we all know this from any codex.

Unique models include

And here the rules list what are defined as unique:

named characters and
extraordinary units or
(extraordinary) vehicles,

Side note: named characters, not special characters, neither particular characters, nor extraordinary characters... The name is what identifies the character.

of which there is only one known example in the whole galaxy.

Of which named character (etc) exist one. No mention of SR, stat lines, physical model (or we would have a problem with Inquisitor Valeria, for instance).

Paraphrasing what is always claimed, concerning rules, since the rules do not specify stat lines nor model's SR, but just mention named characters, the only point is the name.

And this may extend to unit and vehicles (e.g. Mordrak Ghost Knights)

Because of this, you can only ever include one of each Unique model in an army.

Gets "easy" again, stating the effect of the rule.

It could be written more clearly, as: you can only ever include one of each Unique model with the same name in an army.
Three words more to rub off any doubt.

I just wonder... What will happen first? A faq on the issue, or new edition GK Codex (without inquisitors)?

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.

Also this part is fluff: "of which there is only one known example in the whole galaxy"

 DeathReaper wrote:
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.

Also this part is fluff: "of which there is only one known example in the whole galaxy"

Is it part of the background, having two "Lord inquisitor Torquemada Coteaz, lord of Formosa"?
I found it strange

Also, I find unusual you refer to the definition of "unique", disregarding the second half of the statement

in·clude [in-klood]
verb (used with object), in·clud·ed, in·clud·ing.
1.
to contain, as a whole does parts or any part or element: The package includes the computer, program, disks, and a manual.
2.
to place in an aggregate, class, category, or the like.
3.
to contain as a subordinate element; involve as a factor

Point 1 is our case, as "include" is followed by a list (named char, unit, vehicle).

 DeathReaper wrote:
They are not the same, one has glasses and facial hair one does not.

Pretty weak.. If I put on my sunglasses I am suddenly not me? Give it up already.

 DeathReaper wrote:
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.

Also this part is fluff: "of which there is only one known example in the whole galaxy"

Interesting - the post immediately before yours says otherwise. Unique models include...

 DeathReaper wrote:

Fragile wrote:
And RAW having the same name is all that is required to not have multiples.

That is simply not true.

It simply is. The rule states as much (which you continue to ignore). And you have precedent with Tycho, (which you ignore).

You cling to a definition that you made up. You have nothing in the rules that supports your position.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
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.

Also this part is fluff: "of which there is only one known example in the whole galaxy"

Interesting - the post immediately before yours says otherwise. Unique models include...

Right it tells us what is considered a Unique model, it makes no mention of the determination if one named Unique model is different than another named Unique model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fragile wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Fragile wrote:
And RAW having the same name is all that is required to not have multiples.

That is simply not true.

It simply is. The rule states as much (which you continue to ignore). And you have precedent with Tycho, (which you ignore).

You cling to a definition that you made up. You have nothing in the rules that supports your position.

It simply is not true. the rules do not say what you claim they say.

The do not say [having the same name is all that is required to not have multiples] that is your fabrication and a wildly inaccurate assertation.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
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.

Also this part is fluff: "of which there is only one known example in the whole galaxy"

Interesting - the post immediately before yours says otherwise. Unique models include...

Right it tells us what is considered a Unique model, it makes no mention of the determination if one named Unique model is different than another named Unique model.

Great, so you agree we have a process to determine a Unique model.
If you determine that you have Unique model A and Unique model B, how do you tell the difference between the two Unique models?
Named characters are unique. What makes a model unique? Being a named character. So if you have to characters both named the same thing in a list, how can you claim they're unique?

It tells us what is considered a unique model, but we also know that we can only ever have one of a unique model, and Coteaz from GK Codex is not the same as Coteaz from Inquisition dataslate.

Since we can have two different named unique models, and the Coteaz models are different, you can include them both.

There is at least something in the rules to support that. There is absolutely nothing that says "the same" means that everything is identical, including rules, as you claim.

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'

 DeathReaper wrote:
It does not define unique in the BRB

It does. Unique models are defined by being a named character. Pretty explicit and has been quoted. You cannot include duplicate Unique models in your army list.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
It does not define unique in the BRB

It does. Unique models are defined by being a named character. Pretty explicit and has been quoted. You cannot include duplicate Unique models in your army list.

It does not, it tell us the rules then gives some fluff then more rules.
And the two cotaz models are not the same, they are different and as such can include both because they are not duplicates.


This is rules:

"Some models are noted as being Unique in their Army List Entry."

This is a fluff sentence:

"Unique models include named characters and extraordinary units or vehicles, of which there is only one known example in the whole galaxy."

This is rules:

"Because of this, you can only ever include one of each Unique model in an army"

So we have established that we disagree what BRB says unique means. I go by the BRB definition and you go by a dictionary definition to suit you. Our views will not ever meet on this until FAQ'ed, so it is time for me to move on to other topics.

No the BRB has a fluff sentence about unique models you are basing your definition on, I am basing my definition on RAW.

 DeathReaper wrote:
The do not say [having the same name is all that is required to not have multiples] that is your fabrication and a wildly inaccurate assertation.

"Unique models include named characters"

Is Coteaz a named character?
My proof is in writing, yours has never been established.

And actually the brb does define what is and what is not unique right here:

"Some models are noted as being Unique in their Army List Entry."

So forget the dictionary.

if a model has "Unique in their Army List Entry" then it is a unique model. That is our definition.

The result is still the same though, you can include both coteaz because both have Unique in their Army List Entry and you can only include one of each unique model, and they are not the same unique model as they have different army list entries..


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fragile wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The do not say [having the same name is all that is required to not have multiples] that is your fabrication and a wildly inaccurate assertation.

"Unique models include named characters"

Is Coteaz a named character?
My proof is in writing, yours has never been established.

That is a fluff sentence.

The actual definition I posted above.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
It does not define unique in the BRB

It does. Unique models are defined by being a named character. Pretty explicit and has been quoted. You cannot include duplicate Unique models in your army list.

And the two cotaz models are not the same, they are different and as such can include both because they are not duplicates.

It doesn't MATTER if they're different.

There is only ONE Coteaz in the galaxy. There are not two Coteazes in existence, one from the Inquisition, and one from the Grey Knights. There is ONE. He has one set of rules if you choose to take him from the Grey Knights, and he has a different set of rules if you choose to take him from Inquisition.

It's not that difficult to comprehend.

Nowhere in the unique model description does it spell out that in order to qualify as a "unique model" that spans across different codexes that the units must be carbon-copies of each other, otherwise they are, in fact, different models.

You're slapping additional requirements into the "unique" qualifier that don't exist. And you keep repeating that "what I say is RAW". Repeating that doesn't make it true.

Murrdox wrote:
Repeating that doesn't make it true.

Nonono, if you wish hard enough for it to become true, it will become true. Truth is subjective to some.

 DeathReaper wrote:
And actually the brb does define what is and what is not unique right here:

"Some models are noted as being Unique in their Army List Entry."

So forget the dictionary.

if a model has "Unique in their Army List Entry" then it is a unique model. That is our definition.

The result is still the same though, you can include both coteaz because both have Unique in their Army List Entry and you can only include one of each unique model, and they are not the same unique model as they have different army list entries..


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fragile wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The do not say [having the same name is all that is required to not have multiples] that is your fabrication and a wildly inaccurate assertation.

"Unique models include named characters"

Is Coteaz a named character?
My proof is in writing, yours has never been established.

That is a fluff sentence.

The actual definition I posted above.

Its a "fluff" sentence because it proves you wrong.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
It does not define unique in the BRB

It does. Unique models are defined by being a named character. Pretty explicit and has been quoted. You cannot include duplicate Unique models in your army list.

It does not, it tell us the rules then gives some fluff then more rules.
And the two cotaz models are not the same, they are different and as such can include both because they are not duplicates.


This is rules:

"Some models are noted as being Unique in their Army List Entry."

This is a fluff sentence:

"Unique models include named characters and extraordinary units or vehicles, of which there is only one known example in the whole galaxy."

This is rules:

"Because of this, you can only ever include one of each Unique model in an army"

A qualifier that points out what a Unique model is, is not 'fluff" its rules.

You not wanting to qualify it doesnt mean its not part of the Unique Character rules

Now you're just cherry-picking.