Death Leaper vs...

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Yeah that is correct Mort, & you are quite a character too. :)

 

G

[Grey Mage]

He is not listed as a character according to the rules which is what is pertinent to this discussion. it has nothing to do with his point cost. You can define him as a character but you are doing that outside the rules.

 

0b ;)

Yes, he is. Hes Unique, wich makes him a special character. Thats very much RAW.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

So you are advocating he gets no advantage of being a character except for the sake of the name in itself?

 

0b ;)

[Isiah]

For me fact that he [Mephiston] has a Codex 'name' makes him a character if only by MCSR (My Common Sense Rule :)) rather than by any RAW. That's certainly how I consider Sammael who is in a similar predicament of being a named non-IC, erm, 'character'.

 

I guess sort this out by roll-off if an agreement doesn't prevail.

 

Looks like another one to add to the Grey Area Rules maybe – although this is more Codex-specific. Nevertheless throws up the issue of limited character definition.

[Grey Mage]

So you are advocating he gets no advantage of being a character except for the sake of the name in itself?

 

0b :cuss

Sorry BO but your not guaranteed any advantages by being a character. He does however have plenty of them... like primarch level stats, three psychic powers a turn, special abilities, and counts as one of your compulsory slots for the army.

 

He is a character, wether or not you happen to think thats fair is your own issue.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Grey Mage I think you have missed my point, and this is an instance where I believe the RAW interpretation is correct. Let me ask you this, would you define CSM daemon prince as a character? How about Old One Eye? Both of these units operate like a monsterous creature for all practical gaming purposes that I can think of... Maybe I am missing something. Sure they are all characters in the sense of 40k background, but background & rules are two separate matters. If you look at Mephiston's description & entry in the codex he is not defined as either an upgrade character or independent character, this defines how he operates within the rules. As the Blood Angel's chief librarian he is certainly a character. Same thing would apply to a Vindicare assassin or Sly Marbo. They cannot join other units because by the rules these units are not characters.

 

0b :cuss

[rat of vengence]

Come on fellas. Even those who think he isn't a character are discomforted by that idea, as stated by DevianID and Morticon. We can see it is obviously one of those many blind spots in the rules that GW is so good at. I think in cases like this, we have to go with the bleedin' obviuos, even if it isn't RaW.

 

RoV

 

RoV - my hesitation comes from honestly not being sure what the intent of that wording was, and what the intent of Mephistons classification was.

Im CONVINCED (in my own little head) that the games developers play off of each others ideas when they are designing dexes.

 

"Oh? You're including a unit that does that? Cool!"

*runs off and includes an ability that cant be affected by such-and-such.

 

That kinda vibe.

 

Fluff-wise, I'm also hesitant for the Lord of Death to be effected by a scary bug he can totally destroy in combat.

 

Anyway, I dont think the Mephiston/Sang rules are poorly written, but the concept of "character" is poorly defined in the Nids rule. Still- i don't wanna screw anyone out of anything deserved.

 

Also, im pretty sure we agreed he was a "character" by language definition, not by rules definition, which is what BO is arguing methinks ><;

 

Yeah, I can go with that. Tricky one :)

 

RoV

[Grey Mage]

Grey Mage I think you have missed my point, and this is an instance where I believe the RAW interpretation is correct. Let me ask you this, would you define CSM daemon prince as a character? How about Old One Eye? Both of these units operate like a monsterous creature for all practical gaming purposes that I can think of... Maybe I am missing something. Sure they are all characters in the sense of 40k background, but background & rules are two separate matters. If you look at Mephiston's description & entry in the codex he is not defined as either an upgrade character or independent character, this defines how he operates within the rules. As the Blood Angel's chief librarian he is certainly a character. Same thing would apply to a Vindicare assassin or Sly Marbo. They cannot join other units because by the rules these units are not characters.

 

0b ;)

Yes, they are. Sly Marbo is 'unique' and is thus a 'special character', and so for that matter is old one eye.

 

Because the ONLY prerequisite for being a 'special character' according to the core book is that you are a model with the 'unique' rule.

 

Assassins were done before unique was an available rule, I have little doubt though that theyll be characters in their next incarnations though.

 

But your counter argument... its very flawed. It is NOT the ability to join another squad that determines wether or not something is a 'character'. It is wether or not it fulfills one of these three requirements:

 

1) Possession of the independant character rule.

2) Possession of the unique rule.

3) Are fielded as an upgrade as part of the squad, provided they represent a squad leader or something similar.

 

The last being the area with the most leeway by far.

 

It is to bad about Daemon Princes, as they certainly seem like a unit that would be a character, but in a RAW sense they are not. Mephiston though, he is a special character and is most certainly thus a character.

[Morticon]

GM - i think your logic is 100% sound.

One question though and you will put it to rest in my mind, where does it say unique = special character ? ><;

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

All the unique rule is prevent a player from taking the same unit more than once in the same FOC. For instance, you can't field two Commissar Yarricks. On page 47 the rules state there are two types of characters - independent & upgrade.

 

0b :)

[Isiah]

GM - i think your logic is 100% sound.

One question though and you will put it to rest in my mind, where does it say unique = special character ? ><;

 

Check on p49 of the BRB:

 

Special Characters

[...] these unique individuals, who stand out from normal characters because they have a personal name and not just a title, are called 'special characters'. [...]

 

Thus by dint of having a name Mephiston is a 'Special Character' as per RAW.

 

But then goes on to say:

 

Unique

Special characters can be either independent or upgrade characters, but each one of them is unique, [...]

 

Mephiston is neither yet obviously as per the BA Codex he is 'unique' in that you can't take more than one of them in an army. So in this instance unique does equate to being a special character (as Codex overrides BRB) despite him being neither an IC nor an Upgrade Character. And of course by having a name as the Special Character rule points out.

 

Is that the right interpretation?

 

Cheers

I

[Morticon]

Isiah - I get what you're saying and that would be accurate, however the rule says:

 

All Special Characters can be either IC or upgrade (and unique).

 

But, its logically fallacious to assert that: ALL unique characters are Special Characters.

 

(its the all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares argument).

 

We still have to show one of two things for GM to be 100% irrefutable.

 

1: Unique = Special Character or

2: Mephiston = Special Character (as defined by the rules).

 

 

Again- i gotta say, I dislike this kind of "rules lawyering" that i'm advocating since the intent is for him to be a Special Character, I feel.

 

The only reason i'm still continuing is because i'm unsure of the Death Leaper's intent.

 

Theres no point us sticking to our guns 100% RAW with the Leaper's wording and then not doing so with Meph/Sang/Marbo etc.

[Isiah]

2: Mephiston = Special Character (as defined by the rules).

 

He is a special character by having a name

[Morticon]

2: Mephiston = Special Character (as defined by the rules).

 

He is a special character by having a name

 

 

DING DING DING DING****

:)

Sold to the mod from Bath !!!

Good catch there, mate. Reading that paragraph again I agree entirely with you!

 

 

 

(But what do we do about the problem that a SC is defined as being either an IC or an upgrade and Meph is neither, though ><; ?)

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

And so is Mort, our very own BA SC.

 

;)

 

0b :P

[Mordekiem]

GM - i think your logic is 100% sound.

One question though and you will put it to rest in my mind, where does it say unique = special character ? ><;

 

Check on p49 of the BRB:

 

Special Characters

[...] these unique individuals, who stand out from normal characters because they have a personal name and not just a title, are called 'special characters'. [...]

 

Thus by dint of having a name Mephiston is a 'Special Character' as per RAW.

 

But then goes on to say:

 

Unique

Special characters can be either independent or upgrade characters, but each one of them is unique, [...]

 

Mephiston is neither yet obviously as per the BA Codex he is 'unique' in that you can't take more than one of them in an army. So in this instance unique does equate to being a special character (as Codex overrides BRB) despite him being neither an IC nor an Upgrade Character. And of course by having a name as the Special Character rule points out.

 

Is that the right interpretation?

 

Cheers

I

Isiah is correct and Meph is a character. Death Leaper away. :P

[DevianID]

I must have just missed something. For example, if a tank is unique, then it becomes a special character? I dont see it. You can indeed be Unique but NOT a "special character" by my reading of the quoted passage.

 

"Special characters can be either independent or upgrade characters, but each one of them is unique"

 

So special characters are always unique, but things that are unique are not always special characters. AKA, you have a giant pizza representing all the unique stuff. The pepperoni on the pizza are characters which become special characters by virtue of being on the unique pizza. However, a mushroom representing a model that is not a character, when put on the unique pizza, does not transform into pepperoni (a character), it remains whatever it was to begin with (a mushroom).

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I agree with DevianID. And in fact nowhere in the codex does it state Mephiston is a special character.

 

0b :)

[Grey Mage]

2: Mephiston = Special Character (as defined by the rules).

 

He is a special character by having a name

 

 

DING DING DING DING****

:)

Sold to the mod from Bath !!!

Good catch there, mate. Reading that paragraph again I agree entirely with you!

 

 

 

(But what do we do about the problem that a SC is defined as being either an IC or an upgrade and Meph is neither, though ><; ?)

There is no problem. They "can" be either ICs or Upgrades, but they dont have to be. It just means that you can be both a special AND an independant character without issue.

 

Isiah Im glad you were able to phrase it properly, because Ive been trying to show this for a couple days now :P

[Morticon]

I agree with DevianID. And in fact nowhere in the codex does it state Mephiston is a special character.

 

0b :D

 

BO- hes def a Special Character as Isiah showed by him having a name. (pg 49 says that if he has a name he is a special character).

 

However, I still think there is a problem. I'll try clarify my thoughts, and hopefully someone can show me where im off.

 

 

* DLs ability affects Characters.

* Characters are defined as being either ICs or Upgrade Characters.

 

* All Special Characters can be ICs or upgrade characters.

 

* Mephiston is a Special Character.

* Mephiston is not an Upgrade or IC.

 

So- this is where i get stuck again in my mind. Because even though the DL effects ICs and Upgrades, he does not effect SCs by virtue of them being SCs alone.

I think we get confused with that 3rd point.

I think we believe that because he is a Special Character, he falls under the Character definition, which as we've shown is not true (rectangles/squares issue).

 

Heeelp !!!!

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Very well put Mort. You have struck at the root of the matter. You win a cookie.

 

0b :D

[Morticon]

Truth be told, I dont think I could (as mentioned) in good faith argue against the ability working in a friendly environment. I just want to be sure of the rule regardless.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

It just depends on your own perspective. Nothing wrong either way.

 

0b :P

[DevianID]

I still dont see where a unique model is a special character. The rules for unique say that a special character can be independant or upgrade; however, those are special character specific rules. The overarching rules for unique models is that you can only have 1 of them in an army.

 

Take Bjorn for example... he is a vehicle [Walker] and unique. He is not a special character as defined as being a character with a name. Bjorn is a Unique walker with a name. While the difference may amount to nothing, who knows when another rule will come out and make it an issue.

 

So as for Mephiston, I still only see that he is a unique 1 model unit. I do not believe in rules lingo that all uniques MUST be special characters, as is being put forth here, simply because unique and special character are not 100% interchangable words.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I completely agree with you DevianID.

 

0b :rolleyes: