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.

So I did a search and didn't find anything regarding this. Apologies if it has been mentioned and my search foo is fail.

Anyway, to the rules.

Page 411 of the 6th ed rules lists Wolf Guard as "In (ch)" universally.

Space Wolves FAQ under the "Amendments" section says in magenta (so new for 6th) the following:

Page 86 - Wolf Guard, Pack Leaders
Add the following sentence to the end of the paragraph

"Furthermore, a Wolf Guard Pack Leader's Unit Type becomes 'Character' in addition to its normal type."

So we have the 6th ed rule book saying they are always considered a character. Then we have the Space Wolves FAQ saying they are only a character when using the Pack Leader rules.

Which is "correct"? Does Codex (via FAQ) trump the BRB in this case?

It doesnt say they are only characters when using Pack leader. It says they are characters in addition to their normal type...which is listed as In (ch) in the book. I think the redundancy is there to prevent rule lawyer-ing that when the wolf guard leaves to lead say grey hunters he doesn't become their unit type since the previous wording of Pack Leader. might make it possible to argue he takes on the unit type he joins.

Get ready for super broken wolf guard units armed with 1-2 models conferring terminator saves to everyone, lol challenges, and 10 guys with precision fire. All for half the cost of something like nobz/paladins

mch21689 wrote:It doesnt say they are only characters when using Pack leader.

The only place it says they are a "character" is under the Pack Leaders rules. Ignoring the BRB of course.

So for example, would you interpret that they are always considered a "character" if the BRB didnt have them listed as "In (ch)" and all you had to go on was the Pack Leaders section (with FAQ) wording?

If you agree that, ignoring the BRB, they would only count as characters when used as Pack Leaders, then you can understand why I think there is a conflict here.

We clearly cannot ignore the BRB. But the rules are in conflict. The BRB gives a general statement and the Codex (with FAQ) gives a specific statement. When it comes to BRB v Codex rules, doesn't the specific Codex rules take precedence?

Marius Xerxes wrote:

mch21689 wrote:It doesnt say they are only characters when using Pack leader.

The only place it says they are a "character" is under the Pack Leaders rules. Ignoring the BRB of course.

So for example, would you interpret that they are always considered a "character" if the BRB didnt have them listed as "In (ch)" and all you had to go on was the Pack Leaders section (with FAQ) wording?

If you agree that, ignoring the BRB, they would only count as characters when used as Pack Leaders, then you can understand why I think there is a conflict here.

We clearly cannot ignore the BRB. But the rules are in conflict. The BRB gives a general statement and the Codex (with FAQ) gives a specific statement. When it comes to BRB v Codex rules, doesn't the specific Codex rules take precedence?

A valid point, but you have to take the BRB type into account. Don't have my book on me at the moment but there is somewhere either in book or FAQs talks about older edition codex and to use the unit type listed in the BRB. Same argument could be used for paladins....the BRB says they are In (CH) but my codex just says infantry...and there is no rule conferring In (CH) to them like Pack leader "does" for Wolf Guard. So am I then to assume they aren't characters because my codex overrides the BRB? No. They are Infantry Characters, because possibly the only exception to the specific overriding general is in regards to older codices and unit types listed in the 6th edition BRB.

And again as I pointed out, your specific statement says they are characters ALONG with their normal type. And the BRB sets their normal type to In (ch). Nowhere does your codex invalidate the In (ch) in the Pack Leader rule....you simply are told you are a character twice. They must have some personality.

The rules are not in conflict, so much as they are redundant, but probably not needlessly so in the end.

Without the FAQ, you would have people trying to say WGPL lose the Character trait because they take on the traits of the unit they join.

Just because that clarification was made, does not mean it retroactively nullifies their traits in the BRB, especially since there isn't even any prohibitive language in the FAQ entry.

Another guy asked this question, here is the link:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/461044.page

mch21689 wrote: A valid point, but you have to take the BRB type into account. Don't have my book on me at the moment but there is somewhere either in book or FAQs talks about older edition codex and to use the unit type listed in the BRB. Same argument could be used for paladins....the BRB says they are In (CH) but my codex just says infantry...and there is no rule conferring In (CH) to them like Pack leader "does" for Wolf Guard. So am I then to assume they aren't characters because my codex overrides the BRB? No. They are Infantry Characters, because possibly the only exception to the specific overriding general is in regards to older codices and unit types listed in the 6th edition BRB.

And again as I pointed out, your specific statement says they are characters ALONG with their normal type. And the BRB sets their normal type to In (ch). Nowhere does your codex invalidate the In (ch) in the Pack Leader rule....you simply are told you are a character twice. They must have some personality.

Yeah I am not discounting the BRB at all, which is why I said we cannot ignore it. Im just saying I think there is a conflict.

You are correct that it is stated to use the BRB because of the age of the Codex's. However, I feel in this case it could be overridden by the fact that the FAQ that is causing this discussion is brand new (listed in magenta to indicate new anyway). So in effect the change to the rules is as new as 6th itself. If Paladins (and Nobs for that matter) had something in their FAQ similar to this, then I would bring it up. However, only Wolf Guard do so those others are a hard sell as a comparison.

As for "along with their normal type" I feel that is referring to their ability to be either "Infantry" or "Bike" when separated off as Pack Leaders. I say this because a "character" is not a "Unit Type" as defined in the BRB. It is something totally separate. This is reinforced in the "Unit Type" rules on page 44 under the bold heading "Characters" which reads as follows: "In addition to their unit type, some models might also be noted as being characters."

So one can interpret "along with their normal type" to be reenforcing that they are a "character" in addition to being either "Infantry" when combined with Long fangs, Grey Hunters, Blood Claws and Wolf Scouts, or a "Bike" when combined with Swift Claw Bikers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wild wrote:Another guy asked this question, here is the link:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/461044.page

I don't care about answers given by random GW staffer in an E-mail. But I did see that. What I didn't see was anyone give my specific reasoning to the question.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Beamo wrote:Without the FAQ, you would have people trying to say WGPL lose the Character trait because they take on the traits of the unit they join.

With how the rules are given in the Codex and FAQ on how Wolf Guard work when joining units, I don't see how anyone could make this argument. No where does it say they take on the traits of the unit they join. The FAQ simply says they count as being a "Troop" if they join a Troops unit (and therefore count as scoring) or a "Heavy Support" if they join a Long Fangs pack etc. Though my not being able to see it certainly doesn't mean an argument cant be made.

The evidence is the first amendment to the SW FAQ.

It states "Older Codex blah blah blah consult the Reference section of the Warhammer 40k rulebook for an up to date list of UNIT TYPES and vehicle hull points."

So ur FAQ says to use the BRB unit type as the units new "normal" type. And its type is Infantry (ch). The book states alongside being infantry they may have special traits conferred by being a character. Remember this is a permissive ruleset...no where does the Pack Leader entry say when you don't split off you lose the character trait. It simply states you gain character along with the normal type when you do split off.

Marius Xerxes wrote:

Beamo wrote:Without the FAQ, you would have people trying to say WGPL lose the Character trait because they take on the traits of the unit they join.

With how the rules are given in the Codex and FAQ on how Wolf Guard work when joining units, I don't see how anyone could make this argument. No where does it say they take on the traits of the unit they join. The FAQ simply says they count as being a "Troop" if they join a Troops unit (and therefore count as scoring) or a "Heavy Support" if they join a Long Fangs pack etc. Though my not being able to see it certainly doesn't mean an argument cant be made.

I've seen people make obtuse arguments over a lot of things.

In any case, think about this: The FAQ adds that a WGPL is a character, in addition to his other rules. The end. But he's already a character, per the BRB. There's no prohibitive language in the FAQ to suggest that a WGPL becoming a character removes the character trait that's already present in the BRB, so a Wolfguard is a Character, and a Wolfguard Pack leader is a Character who is also a Character... you know, in case you didn't catch that first part where he was a character. I can't begin to rationalize some of the things GW feels like they need to address versus the things they will leave out of a FAQ for years, but there you go.

mch21689 wrote:The evidence is the first amendment to the SW FAQ.

It states "Older Codex blah blah blah consult the Reference section of the Warhammer 40k rulebook for an up to date list of UNIT TYPES and vehicle hull points."

So ur FAQ says to use the BRB unit type as the units new "normal" type. And its type is Infantry (ch). The book states alongside being infantry they may have special traits conferred by being a character. Remember this is a permissive ruleset...no where does the Pack Leader entry say when you don't split off you lose the character trait. It simply states you gain character along with the normal type when you do split off.

And people COULD make the argument they lose character without the line. You join long fangs you become Heavy Support. Not Heavy Support (ch). So the redundancy is needed to ensure when the wolf guard pack leader AND happen to also be conferred a changed in their normal type, they retain character.

You missed what I said about "Unit Types" in my previous post. And its good you emphasized what the FAQ says to reference in regard to the BRB. "Unit Types"

"Character" is not a "Unit Type" as defined by the BRB. The only "Unit Types" in the game are those listed between pages 44 - 49 of the BRB. Again, as stated on page 44 it clearly says that "character' is not a unit type. See my quote of this in my above post.

Where a model is located in an army list entry in regards to FOC is also not a "Unit Type". Heavy Support, Troops, Elites, Fast Attack etc are not "Unit Types" as defined in the BRB. So using that as any kind of argument is totally invalid.

Beamo wrote:

Marius Xerxes wrote:

Beamo wrote:Without the FAQ, you would have people trying to say WGPL lose the Character trait because they take on the traits of the unit they join.

With how the rules are given in the Codex and FAQ on how Wolf Guard work when joining units, I don't see how anyone could make this argument. No where does it say they take on the traits of the unit they join. The FAQ simply says they count as being a "Troop" if they join a Troops unit (and therefore count as scoring) or a "Heavy Support" if they join a Long Fangs pack etc. Though my not being able to see it certainly doesn't mean an argument cant be made.

I've seen people make obtuse arguments over a lot of things.

In any case, think about this: The FAQ adds that a WGPL is a character, in addition to his other rules. The end. But he's already a character, per the BRB. There's no prohibitive language in the FAQ to suggest that a WGPL becoming a character removes the character trait that's already present in the BRB, so a Wolfguard is a Character, and a Wolfguard Pack leader is a Character who is also a Character... you know, in case you didn't catch that first part where he was a character. I can't begin to rationalize some of the things GW feels like they need to address versus the things they will leave out of a FAQ for years, but there you go.

Ignoring my brain fart regarding the FoC and Unit Type lol, had like2 hrs of sleep. But there is same argument I am making right there. Character may not be a Unit Type, but it is a "trait". And in a permissive rule set they are GRANTED character in the reference of the BRB which the FAQ states to use in place of their listed codex unit type. The Pack Leader rule DOES NOT state if they stay as a unit of wolfguard they lose character, it GRANTS them character along with their new unit type when they split off. Honestly I can't think of a type off my head they would become other than infantry (unless they can thunderwolf?), but no where does the Pack Leader entry GRANT that wolf guard in a unit of wolf guard lose character.

Beamo wrote:

Marius Xerxes wrote:

Beamo wrote:Without the FAQ, you would have people trying to say WGPL lose the Character trait because they take on the traits of the unit they join.

With how the rules are given in the Codex and FAQ on how Wolf Guard work when joining units, I don't see how anyone could make this argument. No where does it say they take on the traits of the unit they join. The FAQ simply says they count as being a "Troop" if they join a Troops unit (and therefore count as scoring) or a "Heavy Support" if they join a Long Fangs pack etc. Though my not being able to see it certainly doesn't mean an argument cant be made.

I've seen people make obtuse arguments over a lot of things.

In any case, think about this: The FAQ adds that a WGPL is a character, in addition to his other rules. The end. But he's already a character, per the BRB. There's no prohibitive language in the FAQ to suggest that a WGPL becoming a character removes the character trait that's already present in the BRB, so a Wolfguard is a Character, and a Wolfguard Pack leader is a Character who is also a Character... you know, in case you didn't catch that first part where he was a character. I can't begin to rationalize some of the things GW feels like they need to address versus the things they will leave out of a FAQ for years, but there you go.

Your missing my point. I agree that the BRB has "In (ch)" listed for Wolf Guard. But the special rules for Wolf Guard seem to heavily imply that they are only given that "character" status when using the Pack Leaders rule.

Another example. Say that in 5th edition this FAQ was already in place. Then 6th hits and we see the back of the book saying it in general. Would you then say it now always applies regardless of using the Pack Leader rule or not? Or would you be on the side saying "yeah it says that, but with the FAQ having already been in place we know they meant only to apply when they join another unit." ?

Point being if you can agree with the above statement of how it could have been argued, then my point still has merit as neither this FAQ nor the BRB existed (in wide circulation) before one another. They came out at the same time. So what makes the BRB take precedence over an FAQ that most of us would probably be defending had it come out a month or more ago?

Yes that is a hypothetical. But I only use it to encourage thinking in a different way. Much the same as another post post of mine above.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mch21689 wrote:Honestly I can't think of a type off my head they would become other than infantry (unless they can thunderwolf?), but no where does the Pack Leader entry GRANT that wolf guard in a unit of wolf guard lose character.

They can become "Bike" when used to join Swift Claw Bike Packs if they (Wolf Guard) are themselves upgraded with a Bike.

I guess after all this is what it comes down to for me. Adding that extra bit of FAQ changed nothing from what they were already given in the BRB in the opinion of the the majority in this thread. Since "character" isn't a "Unit Type" then switching around from Infantry to a Bike etc would have no effect on their status as a "character" as given in the BRB. We all agree on that.

So your left with two options. 1) They are GW and added in something entirely useless to the FAQ. 2) They added it in so that they were only given the "character" status when added to one of the listed units.

Is it really that much easier to go with the GW adds in 100% useless extra FAQ over the possibility of option 2?

I think we do all agree that character doesnt change with unit type. And I think GW just did option 1 and put redundancy in for a largely unapparent reason.

I mean the BRB grants them character status as a unit of wolf guard. The Pack Rule grants them character status just to hammer it home no matter their unit type they will always be characters.

I can see where you come from 100%, but as GW proves in the past you can't infer something because of how a rule appears in regards to affecting something else. In this case Pack Leader only addresses how they change when you squad them off, it does nothing to them if you choose to not Pack Leader.

Marius Xerxes wrote:
Another example. Say that in 5th edition this FAQ was already in place. Then 6th hits and we see the back of the book saying it in general. Would you then say it now always applies regardless of using the Pack Leader rule or not? Or would you be on the side saying "yeah it says that, but with the FAQ having already been in place we know they meant only to apply when they join another unit." ?

In that case, I would say that in 5th, only pack leaders are characters, because we have no frame of reference for the non-pack leaders to be characters.

However, the minute 6th hits, and they are blanket listed as characters, they all become characters - firstly because a 5th edition FAQ has no jurisdiction over a 6th edition game, and secondly because even when the faq is updated to 6th edition and the entry remains, there is still nothing prohibitive in the language to suggest that it takes away the character trait that is already present in the model's stats.

Well in our case we got 6th and the FAQ at the same time. The same FAQ that says to look to the BRB for their unit type is the same FAQ that says a page later they are only characters when using a special rule of theirs.

So really, and my mistake, it's a conflict within the FAQ itself and not with the FAQ v BRB.

I think the full pack leader wording would be beneficial though. We are throwing ideas back and forth based solely on an addendum line added to the end.

Isn't the first line something like Wolf guard MAY break off to lead a unit of their comrades? If so then I simply choose not to use Pack Leader right there at line 1 when I leave them as a unit of wolf guard....so the line in the FAQ never even comes into play. And so referring to the BRB appendix they are still In(ch)

Then as mentioned, the FAQ is worthless. FAQ that gets viewed as serverng no purpose, especially FAQ that came out before anyone even had a chance to question the extent of other copy and pasted FAQ that was not out yet either, gives me pause.

GW hammering things in is one thing. Doing it preemptively rather then after its brought up as a question is not common.

Not saying I am unable to agree with the consensus, but it overall still stinks of a conflict to me that needs fixed.

The brb gives examples of CH's also stating they might have special war gear, etc etc which is what wolf guard do...each one can be different. It also says that a SGT is a CH and when a WG joins a pack he is basically a SGT for the unit...this is how I looked at why a WG kept its CH status no matter how he was deployed.

mch21689 wrote:I think the full pack leader wording would be beneficial though. We are throwing ideas back and forth based solely on an addendum line added to the end.

Isn't the first line something like Wolf guard MAY break off to lead a unit of their comrades? If so then I simply choose not to use Pack Leader right there at line 1 when I leave them as a unit of wolf guard....so the line in the FAQ never even comes into play. And so referring to the BRB appendix they are still In(ch)

You do realize that if this is true, it's going to be almost impossible to actually form a unit of wolf guard bigger than just a few models, right?

If they are all CHARACTERS, they all have to be equipped differently. Every. Single. One.

I guarantee you could make 10 model units easily. Paladins can do it and have far fewer wargear options

rigeld2 wrote:I guarantee you could make 10 model units easily. Paladins can do it and have far fewer wargear options

It's going to get quite cost prohibitive, relative to what they did cost.

Try to make a full unit carrying bolters and something else.

It gets expensive.

Marius Xerxes wrote:Then as mentioned, the FAQ is worthless. FAQ that gets viewed as serverng no purpose, especially FAQ that came out before anyone even had a chance to question the extent of other copy and pasted FAQ that was not out yet either, gives me pause.

GW hammering things in is one thing. Doing it preemptively rather then after its brought up as a question is not common.

Not saying I am unable to agree with the consensus, but it overall still stinks of a conflict to me that needs fixed.

I'm with Marius here, to take a FAQ and reduce it to be functionally meaningless by your reading of RAW suggests that in this instance the RAW isn't the best way to handle the situation.

I can't tell you what RAI was, nobody can, but I can tell you GW didn't FAQ that rule just for the hell of it, they didn't add something to deal with the new character system just because they felt like writing words, they did it to serve some purpose.

You really have to question the validity of your argument when you are rendering an entire section of Errata functionally superfluous.

Drunkspleen wrote:

Marius Xerxes wrote:Then as mentioned, the FAQ is worthless. FAQ that gets viewed as serverng no purpose, especially FAQ that came out before anyone even had a chance to question the extent of other copy and pasted FAQ that was not out yet either, gives me pause.

GW hammering things in is one thing. Doing it preemptively rather then after its brought up as a question is not common.

Not saying I am unable to agree with the consensus, but it overall still stinks of a conflict to me that needs fixed.

I'm with Marius here, to take a FAQ and reduce it to be functionally meaningless by your reading of RAW suggests that in this instance the RAW isn't the best way to handle the situation.

I can't tell you what RAI was, nobody can, but I can tell you GW didn't FAQ that rule just for the hell of it, they didn't add something to deal with the new character system just because they felt like writing words, they did it to serve some purpose.

You really have to question the validity of your argument when you are rendering an entire section of Errata functionally superfluous.

Unless the leader of the pack rule only applies to hq choices, as perhaps pg 81 hints at...

rigeld2 wrote:I guarantee you could make 10 model units easily. Paladins can do it and have far fewer wargear options

it's not on a per unit basis, no two characters can have the same wargear, that means, your wolf guard with just a bolter and nothing else, He's the only one with that loadout amongst all wolfguards in all units.

Sure they have a lot of options, but it will restrict an army that leans heavily on them since plenty of those combinations aren't very practical.

I, like many, I'd wager, chose to hope that perhaps the summary in the back of the rulebook listing which models were characters was simply written a little too broadly but was actually just supposed to represent the versions of those models when leading actual units. So a Nob in a Nobs mob wouldn't be a character but one leading another unit of boys would be.

However, upon looking through the whole summary it became very apparent that this was simply not the case. Paladins, for example, never are leaders of a unit on their own but are still listed as being characters, as are a bunch of monstrous creatures (like Dreadknights, Wraithlords, etc) while other Monstrous Creatures are not (Carnifexes, Trygons, etc).

Therefore, it is very clear that GW has defined 'characters' based not specifically upon models being squad leaders, but rather certain models who fit their ideal of being a 'character' for whatever reason they decide.


So yes, the Space Wolf FAQ specifies that you add 'character' to a Wolf Guard's profile when it gets split off to join another unit, but that in and of itself does not suddenly invalidate the fact that Wolf Guard base in the summary are listed as being characters. A very likely reason to include this in the FAQ is simply to head off the inevitable questions that some people could have about a Wolf Guard potentially having its 'type' changed when becoming part of a new unit (as they do when they are split off to lead different units).

We can never know for sure why GW decided to include that in their FAQ, but what we do know is that Wolf Guard base are listed as being characters no matter what, and this is entirely consistent with how GW has made other models of a similar type that can both be fielded as a squad together but also as unit leaders (Nobs, Warlocks, Crypteks, etc).


But as for the 'leader of the pack' rule, yes as it stands it pretty much screws over Wolf Guard from being fielded in any mass numbers, but we know for a fact that it wasn't written with 6th edition's character classification in mind, so I think it should be pretty easy for most to simply recalibrate it back to where it was supposed to apply and that was onto HQ models. Obviously GW *should* have FAQ'd that, but honestly that's a pretty easy rule to miss when focusing on the tons of other things that required tweaking.

I see absolutely zero redundancy in the BRB or the SW FAQ. Follow along on a RAW adventure!

The first thing that you have to acknowledge is that Wolf Guard =/= Wolf Guard Pack Leader. Wolf Guard become Wolf Guard Pack Leaders when they split off from their pack and join one of the eligible units as listed. This is reinforced by the SW FAQ in regard to the special rules when they join a unit and become part of that unit to all intents and purposes. He is no longer a Wolf Guard, he is a Wolf Guard Pack Leader.

Now we all know that the Wolf Guard entry in the core rulebook tells us that they are now classed as type, In(ch). However what the core rulebook is specifically missing is an entry for Wolf Guard Pack Leader. As they are two distinctly different entries, we have the following SW FAQ come to the rescue;

Page 86 - Wolf Guard, Pack Leaders
Add the following sentence to the end of the paragraph

"Furthermore, a Wolf Guard Pack Leader's Unit Type becomes 'Character' in addition to its normal type."

To break it down step by step for easier digestion;

Wolf Guard, Infantry Character (per the core rulebook, pg 411) is split off to a Grey Hunter pack and becomes a Wolf Guard Pack Leader, Infantry(per Codex SW, pg 86 and SW FAQ, pg 6). Said aforementioned Wolf Guard Pack Leader then becomes a Wolf Guard Pack Leader, Infantry Character (per SW FAQ, pg 3).

Zero conflicts, zero redundancy, pure RAW.

So yak,

You dont think the unique wargear rule for characters was written specifically to apply to hq characters only?

imweasel wrote:So yak,

You dont think the unique wargear rule for characters was written specifically to apply to hq characters only?

That's precisely what I said in my last post, actually!

The funny thing about that rule is that squad leaders in 5th edition were still technically 'characters' back then too, but I never heard a peep from people about trying to apply 'leaders of the pack' restrictions to squad leader models...of course now that character models are crazy cool with look out sir, the interest in sticking it to those units filled with characters is much, much higher!

yakface wrote:

imweasel wrote:So yak,

You dont think the unique wargear rule for characters was written specifically to apply to hq characters only?

That's precisely what I said in my last post, actually!

The funny thing about that rule is that squad leaders in 5th edition were still technically 'characters' back then too, but I never heard a peep from people about trying to apply 'leaders of the pack' restrictions to squad leader models...of course now that character models are crazy cool with look out sir, the interest in sticking it to those units filled with characters is much, much higher!

That position is incorrect Yak, Here's a 4-point explanation why:
-6th page of the FAQ, second Question asks for exact Clarification on the Leaders of the Pack Special rule.

-The resulting Clarification First discusses where Sagas are found. It then tells us that: "no two HQ Characters, including Special characters, may have the exact same wargear and Weapons, even if they are different HQ units."(Emphasis mine)

-The Leaders of the Pack rule is written on page 81 with a Asterisk; that asterisk is also listed on the FOC(which is the whole of the boxout the Leaders of the Pack rule is written in) Meaning that the rule applies only to the Asterisked slots(HQ).

-The subject of the Leaders of the Pack rule is established in the first paragraph as HQ units; the Second paragraph makes no indication it is deviating from that subject(especially when you take into account the last point).

Just a question here, where does it say characters have to be equipped differently for every army?

I know SW have the line in their codex that no "characterr" may have the same wargear or psychic powers. But I do not see a line in the BRB saying that about say paladins.

Or were we just referencing how paladins could do it for wound wrapping in 5th?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also the FAQ clarifies it applies only to HQ characters. You cans till have 10 wolf guard all in same gear in 1 unit and all be characters.