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.

Murrdox wrote:
It doesn't MATTER if they're different.

It actually does, because you can include multiple different unique models in your army.

There is only ONE Coteaz in the galaxy.

Fluff

There are not two Coteazes in existence, one from the Inquisition, and one from the Grey Knights.

Again Fluff, there are if you look at the respective codexes and dataslates.

There is ONE.

Fluff

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.

actually rules. Nice job.

It's not that difficult to comprehend.

It isnt if you stick to the rules and not the fluff.

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.

It defines unique as: "Some models are noted as being Unique in their Army List Entry."

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

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.

I am not doing that, the rules do that.

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

We can have multiple unique models as long as they are different as we are restricted from taking the same Unique entry twice.

Coteaz from GK and Coteaz from Inquisition are not the same.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fragile wrote:
Its a "fluff" sentence because it proves you wrong.

No it is a fluff sentence because the actual rules definition is right here: "Some models are noted as being Unique in their Army List Entry." This is what tells us what a Unique model is. A unique model will be noted as Unique in their Army List Entry.

Yet another YMDC thread devolves into "Deathreaper vs. Everyone". Guess I shouldn't have bothered posting.

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

How is it fluff? "Named character" is fluff? Are you serious?

It is an example, so not strictly fluff, but it is an example of the rule that states "Some models are noted as being Unique in their Army List Entry."

That is what defines a unique character. It is a model that is noted as being Unique in its army list entry.

Is Deathreaper always this... belligerent? Its obvious RAI that you cannot take him twice. From a RAW pov the only actual difference is that Coteaz Inquisition makes henchmen scoring rather than Objective Secured.

And the reason for that is because Inquisition doesn't take a slot on the CAD. So additional troops in addition to Main and Allied would provide the Imperium a unfair advantage.

However since everything scores in 7th they REMOVED this rule as it was redundant. Soooo they are the same character again.

Quickjager wrote:
Is Deathreaper always this... belligerent?

No, in the contrary, he most often is straight on spot with the rules. It's just that sometimes, you realize you made a mistake way too late, when you already got your back up to the wall, and instead of admitting or just letting it cool down, you defend your claim by all means, whether right or not. Happens to all of us.

Quickjager wrote:
Is Deathreaper always this... belligerent?

Umm Rule #1 maybe?

Its obvious RAI that you cannot take him twice.

I have said that I do not think this was Intended and I do not play it that way.

From a RAW pov the only actual difference is that Coteaz Inquisition makes henchmen scoring rather than Objective Secured.

Actually the Inquisition Coteaz has a specific Warlord Trait and does not have Frag grenades so there are a few more differences as well.

And the reason for that is because Inquisition doesn't take a slot on the CAD. So additional troops in addition to Main and Allied would provide the Imperium a unfair advantage.

However since everything scores in 7th they REMOVED this rule as it was redundant. Soooo they are the same character again.

No they are not the same as they have different rules (Namely the Static Warlord Trait on the Inquisition Coteaz).

I'm actually with DeathReaper on this one! I wouldn't play it this way either but by RAW it seems he's right for the reasons he's given multiple times.

Regardless, I have no vested interest in this topic. Just pointing out that I agree with DeathReaper and while I wouldn't condone the use of this idea nor would I play it that way, it does seem to be the right way to do it.

How are they not the same ? Please Explain WhatNot the Same




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ok both are Coteaz. Both unique. Can't take both. They are not separated by rules differences, just in name only.

Lungpickle wrote:
How are they not the same ? Please Explain WhatNot the Same




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ok both are Coteaz. Both unique. Can't take both. They are not separated by rules differences, just in name only.

GK Coteaz has "Lord of Formosa" special rule, making Henchmen Troops choices. He also has frag grenades. Inq Coteaz has a Warlord Trait, does not have "Lord of Formosa" (since it doesn't do anything), and does not have frag grenades.

I might have it backwards on the grenades.

If something is different it cannot be unique.

Example every snowflake is unique however they are all called snowflake hense they are all special snowflakes.

RAW Good. Rai Bad (presumably)

 DeathReaper wrote:
It is an example, so not strictly fluff, but it is an example of the rule that states "Some models are noted as being Unique in their Army List Entry."

That is what defines a unique character. It is a model that is noted as being Unique in its army list entry.

Yes, and unique means having the same name. That example is given in the book. Your gear does not matter, unless your claiming you can run two Marneus Calgar just by buying the Armor of Antilochus on one? Or two Khan, one with MoodDraken... etc etc...

Your interpretation obviously fails.

Fragile wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
It is an example, so not strictly fluff, but it is an example of the rule that states "Some models are noted as being Unique in their Army List Entry."

That is what defines a unique character. It is a model that is noted as being Unique in its army list entry.

Yes, and unique means having the same name. That example is given in the book. Your gear does not matter, unless your claiming you can run two Marneus Calgar just by buying the Armor of Antilochus on one? Or two Khan, one with MoodDraken... etc etc...

Your interpretation obviously fails.

Unique does not mean having the same name. What defines a unique character? It is a model that is noted as being Unique in its army list entry. "Some models are noted as being Unique in their Army List Entry."

Gear may not matter, but differing rules do.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Fragile wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
It is an example, so not strictly fluff, but it is an example of the rule that states "Some models are noted as being Unique in their Army List Entry."

That is what defines a unique character. It is a model that is noted as being Unique in its army list entry.

Yes, and unique means having the same name. That example is given in the book. Your gear does not matter, unless your claiming you can run two Marneus Calgar just by buying the Armor of Antilochus on one? Or two Khan, one with MoodDraken... etc etc...

Your interpretation obviously fails.

Unique does not mean having the same name. What defines a unique character? It is a model that is noted as being Unique in its army list entry. "Some models are noted as being Unique in their Army List Entry."

Gear may not matter, but differing rules do.

Now you changing your tune. Obviously if they do not have the same gear, they are different according to your entire argument. Sounds like your definition of "unique" is changing.

 DeathReaper wrote:


Gear may not matter, but differing rules do.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 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:
being the only one of its kind; unlike anything else'

 DeathReaper wrote:

Quickjager wrote:
Is Deathreaper always this... belligerent?

Umm Rule #1 maybe?

What? I didn't attack you, I'm new to the forums and I read through the entire thread, and it seems like the rule would be against RAI which everyone including you is agreeing with. It seems as though you refuse to admit something based on a technicality. Sooo now we are discussing what makes a unique character, unique.

Rather you've been making an argument that a name doesn't suffice, neither does a model (understandably), and we are reduced to the point of a Warlord trait and a Frag Grenade.

Now lets do a quick step solution.

1. Codex: Inquisition was written to be a rather unique detachment for your army.
2. Special rules were written to ensure it functioned with the armies coherently in 6th.
3. These rules do not allow this Codex to function as a standalone army.
4. The way it is currently setup is 1 HQ and 3 Elites
5. You cannot ally this army with itself as it would not be legal, as such you are limited to one HQ
6. However GW thought it prudent enough to state that each of the Inquisitor choices was unique.
7. If it wasn't possible to have multiple HQ's with this Codex to begin with why bother with the Unique tag?
8. That is because the NAMED HQ's are already present in another Codex, which is also tagged Unique.
9. Thus this Unique tag is solely for the purpose of ensuring double Coteaz/Karamazov/Valeria does not exist.

EDIT: I've been corrected.

An Inquisitorial detachment can have 2 HQs. So the Unique serves the same purpose as it does in every other Codex.

Can 2 models be unique in the case of being exactly the same model, from the same codex, but with different options?

For example, Marneus Calgar with his two options of armor.

One unique profile will be different from another because once you choose that model's options, it could in theory be different from another model.

And you have to supply a different model in order to properly field that different choice in the same profile.

WarOne - according to DRs definition of unique, it is possible to field two Marneus Calgars, as while wearing the armour he has different rules / profile to the other model, meaning he is different

According to those reading the written rule stating that the Name is the defining characteristics, then you could not do so, and that therefore both Coteaz could not be fielded. This is based on the fact that what DR calls "fluff" is actually a rule.

Just for example, let's say our beloved Marneus was put in a Dreadnought. Dread-Marneus, a Forge World special character, would certainly include in his entry "If Dread-Marneus is taken in an army, Marneus Calgar can not be taken", or something to that effect. If this line was not added, this is absolutely nothing in the rules that would prevent Marneus meeting his future Dreadnought-wearing self. Is Marneus Calgar in the same Codex as Marneus Calgar? Yes, so you can't take him twice, regardless of wargear - they are also the same entry, which is important. My hypothetical Dread-Marneus would not be in the same Codex, so a specific rule would have to be applied as they are not the same character by the rules. Inquisition Coteaz and Grey Knights Coteaz are not in the same entry because they are in completely separate books.

I'm also with DeathReaper, so it really isn't "DeathReaper vs everyone". Anyone who mentions RAI in this thread obviously hasn't been around YMDC very long.

Frozen, unique is defined as named characters. Which book they are in does not matter. If they share the same name, then you cannot duplicate them. Unless you care to give rules support to your statements other than creating a fictional dreadnought.

I will agree with those who say that you cannot take both. Nowhere in the rules does it say they have to share stats/rules/gear it just says "named characters."

No rules support 2 coteaz and none has shown a valid argument pro 2 coteaz.

The unique word could be changed to cake since it's just a qualifier and not a part of a rule description.

Food for thought: There are a small handful of ICs with more than one different profile. (captain Tycho of the Blood Angels, or Commander Farsight of the Tau for example)

Generally because they were introduced in a later splatbook or with variant stats. I'm fairly certain almost all of them state some verbiage along these lines: "Only one of these ________ (whatever the IC's name is) can be fielded in an army at a time".

For some reason, this is lacking in the case of the two Coteii. They are the sole exception so far as I can tell. (examples of two uniques with the same name and different stats)


As such: I'm of the opinion RAW: yes you can field them as they are different. RAI? no, you should not field them as they appear to be referring to the same character.

That said, I do not think anyone is going to find anything that definitively states one way or the other, I for one am hoping for a FAQ update to clear this up, have been for a while now...

Fragile wrote:Frozen, unique is defined as named characters. Which book they are in does not matter. If they share the same name, then you cannot duplicate them. Unless you care to give rules support to your statements other than creating a fictional dreadnought.

What part of the RAW says that? The actual line about the Unique rule is really, really vague, which is why we're having problems here. Furthermore, Coteaz is completely unique in this regard. Neither of us can give rules to support our statements because this situation is not at all covered by the rules, hence why we are falling back on secondary arguments to discern the actual meaning of the Unique rule.

Neorealist wrote:Food for thought: There are a small handful of ICs with more than one different profile. (captain Tycho of the Blood Angels, or Commander Farsight of the Tau for example)

Generally because they were introduced in a later splatbook or with variant stats. I'm fairly certain almost all of them state some verbiage along these lines: "Only one of these ________ (whatever the IC's name is) can be fielded in an army at a time".

For some reason, this is lacking in the case of the two Coteii. They are the sole exception so far as I can tell. (examples of two uniques with the same name and different stats)

This is what I've been pointing out. Also, taking two of the same (as in, same unit entry) character when allying a Supplement with its parent Codex (for example, an army of Codex: Chaos Space Marines with Supplement: Black Legion allies can take Abaddon in either detachment, not both) is expressly forbidden. Codex: Grey Knights is not a parent Codex to Codex: Inquisition. As far as the rules are concerned, there is nothing linking the two. This is because the Inquisition book is a lazy, haphazard copy and paste of part of an actual Codex, made without consideration for the consequences or how it should fit into the rules. Of course I don't think that this is RAI. However, it's not something I care to deny an opponent and there are examples supporting it, as Neorealist has said (along others in this thread, including me). Supporting the idea that different versions of the same Unique character must be specifically ruled to be exclusive to each other.

Lets not confuse the issue with a misrepresentation of information. The book does not define how to differentiate unique things from one another, the closest we get is
"Unique models include named characters and extraordinary units or vehicles, of which there is only one known example in the whole galaxy."
All this tells us is that a named character should be unique. There is no way to determine within the framework of the game if entry A and entry B are for the same unique model.

And thats the problem I had with DeathReaper's stance. The two Coteaz entries being different does not within the rules as written mean they are different characters. Even if the profiles where identical it would not mean they are the same (as far as a RAW stance goes) becouse the Rules as Written are incomplete (what a shock) and we, as the players, must find a way to determine the 'sameness' of two unique models.

Death Reaper suggests that we must use the common english definition of the term "unique" as a benchmark. The problem with that is the entries are not the models themselves, they are representations of the models. its quite possible to have several wildly different representations of a single unique thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just some food for thought. Each entry contains a section called "composition" and this section will show the number and type of models that make up the basic unit. So this is what matters for determining sameness of two models. The trouble is that unique characters just list "1 (unique)" and leave you to connect the does on what you have "1" of. Luckily the models all have a profile and that profile includes a model name. Since unique characters only have 1 model profile then the only model name given in that profile is the thing you have "1" of.

Both Coetaz units contain the model "Inquisitor Coteaz" and in both of those units that model is unique so I can't have the two different units in the same army because they are both using the same unique model.

Not strictly RAW, because we have to connect the dots a couple of times, but the best RAI argument I've seen to date.

 Frozen Ocean wrote:

Fragile wrote:Frozen, unique is defined as named characters. Which book they are in does not matter. If they share the same name, then you cannot duplicate them. Unless you care to give rules support to your statements other than creating a fictional dreadnought.

What part of the RAW says that? The actual line about the Unique rule is really, really vague, which is why we're having problems here.

Unique models include named characters. There is no "can include" or "may include". Named characters are by default unique. Therefore how do you tell a "named" character from any other character? The only way to tell is by its name. Therefore if 2 characters share the same name, regardless of faction or rules source, they are considered the same whether intended or not.

Fragile wrote:

 Frozen Ocean wrote:

Fragile wrote:Frozen, unique is defined as named characters. Which book they are in does not matter. If they share the same name, then you cannot duplicate them. Unless you care to give rules support to your statements other than creating a fictional dreadnought.

What part of the RAW says that? The actual line about the Unique rule is really, really vague, which is why we're having problems here.

Unique models include named characters. There is no "can include" or "may include". Named characters are by default unique. Therefore how do you tell a "named" character from any other character? The only way to tell is by its name. Therefore if 2 characters share the same name, regardless of faction or rules source, they are considered the same whether intended or not.

That is completely speculation, however. The point is that the rules themselves do not say that, and therefore it is not RAW. The RAW is terribly vague and does not provide an answer to either argument, as it does not set the criteria for what defines a character as Unique.

 Frozen Ocean wrote:
That is completely speculation, however. The point is that the rules themselves do not say that, and therefore it is not RAW. The RAW is terribly vague and does not provide an answer to either argument, as it does not set the criteria for what defines a character as Unique.

That is exactly what they say.

The name is the only defining characteristic you need to know. Are they both named/ listed as "Inquisitor Coteaz" in their codex entry? Then they are the same unique. The rules may differ between them, but if they are named the same then they may not both be fielded in the same army.

Name is all that is important, strictly how the name is LISTED. If one entry was "The inquisitor Coteaz" and the other was "Inquisitor Coteaz" then both could be fielded as they would be listed as different NAMED characters/ different uniques, even if they had wholly identical rules.

Thats my 2 cents, probably stepped into this too late though

For what it's worth by RAW i think you can field two. However if anyone puts down two Coteaz models across the table for me, I'm glad to shake their hand and give them the massacre and move on to either grabbing another beer or playing someone more worthwhile. Chances are I can tell what type of person I am playing if there are two in their army.