C:SM - Just HOW MANY "Unique" models can you have?

[Starion]

OK, from reading the thread title, I know you're already thinking "Duh - 1 of each!"

BUT

Here's where RAI vs RAW _really_ breaks down.
Take a GOOD look at page 128 in C:SM. That's the page that breaks down an army list entry.
Now pay good attention to parts 2 & 3. That's Unit Composition and Unit Type.
Then compare that to some of the named characters in the army list. Those observant types out there should by now have noticed a discrepancy. It's this:
Unit TYPE has rules for Unique units. saying "If the Unit Type box includes the word 'Unique', you may only include one of this unit in your army."
Unit entries, however, place the word Unique in the Unit Composition, which has no bearing on how many you can take per army (there's no ruling for "Unique" under the Unit Composition definition).
Note also this has not been Errata'd or FAQ'd on the GW website.
OK, I don't play Marines (Well, Space Wolves, but we run from a different, unaffected, Codex, for now), so I'm not going to pull a fast one with this. But it's food for thought for the hardcore tourney boys out there. And one I feel has an arguable ground, too. Granted, it's easy enough to say "No, not playing you" in a pick-up store game, but if you HAVE to play against that, in a tourney?
Have at it, guys (and gals).....

Footnote:
This seems to be C:SM specific. The recent pre-5th ed Codices, and C:IG, either have the "Unique" ruling/rule in the right place, or use other methods to show uniqueness (eg, C:CSM states that "all units on these two pages are unique and may only be taken once per army. eg, No two Abadons. (or something to that effect))

[SeattleDV8]

Doesn't matter that the C:SM has a typo, check the BRB pg.49.
Sorry no loophole .

[Khestra the Unbeheld]

Doesn't matter that the C:SM has a typo, check the BRB pg.49.
Sorry no loophole .

Ahh, but then that triggers the automated response mechanism built into every cheesemongering rules lawyer player whose Codex is in question: CODEX TRUMPS RULEBOOK.

[Xai]

Well it says "If the Unit Type box includes the word "Unique", you may only include on of this unit in your army. It's stating that you can only take one of a specific Unit with the Unique type, no matter the force organization, not stating that you can only include one of this Unit Type in your army. In my opinion.

[Old_Paladin]

I think the unit type vs. unit composition might be so your opponent can't screw you out of some things.

If a unique unit has a jump pack, and the the type is jump infanty; then you can use it with the jump infantry rules.

If Shrike had a jump pack (but it wasn't included in inventory) he'd be screwed if his type just said unique.
It would be...
"Um, sorry Shrike cannot move that far."
"He has a jump pack, he's jump infanty."
"Um, no! He's unique. Show me where it says jump infanty."

They are all unique (only one! ever! no question!), but you also get the right kinds of rules (infantry, jump infantry, bikers, vehicle; or beast/cavalry, MC, etc. if necessary).

[Starion]

Ahh, but then that triggers the automated response mechanism built into every cheesemongering rules lawyer player whose Codex is in question: CODEX TRUMPS RULEBOOK.

That's something else - I thought of that after the first reply - but the only time I can see that it's mentioned is in the USR section - specifically referencing that it's only the USRs that are affected by 'codex over rulebook'...

[BuFFo]

Simple test to see is this is a case of 40k fact or fiction....

Take two Abaddons in your army list and see if ANYONE will play you in either friendly, pick up or tourney games.

"Have to let someone play it in a tourney?"

You won't find one tourneyon the planet run by a competent 40k hobbyist that would allow that in any shape or form.

Fact trumps fiction.

[Playa]

Hey,

You won't find one tourneyon the planet run by a competent 40k hobbyist that would allow that

Tourneys generally use the BRB text.
Can you cite a BRB ref to back your claim?

Fact trumps fiction

Which is SUPER convenient when you invent your own "facts".
Sorry - Ref, or it didn't happen.


Playa

[Jwolf]

Are you asking for BRB references about tournament organization? Or are you asking for a quote from P.49 of the BRB in the section titled "UNIQUE"? That there is an obvious typographical error in C:SM (the note about Unique should be under Unit Composition, not Unit Type) does not exempt C:SM from the basic rule in the BRB that Special Characters are unique and a player can only have one of them in their army.

[BuFFo]

Tourneys generally use the BRB text.

Wrong.

Tourneys generally use whatever the organizers want to use. As you can see from the different US GT websites, each GT has its own faqs and erratas.

Can you cite a BRB ref to back your claim?

No, I have something better.

Real life.

Go enter ANY tourney and take two Abaddons, then get back to me.

Luckily, 40k forums on the internet is far different than 40k in real life. Yes, by the wording you are right ONLINE, but try taking two Abaddons in real life and see how far you get.

Which is SUPER convenient when you invent your own "facts".

Hello kettle.

Sorry - Ref, or it didn't happen.

If you can enter any GW sanctioned GT with 2 Abaddons, then you will be right.

In the end, 40k threads like this ultimately have one redeeming factor to them.

+1