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, let's say I have 18 Wych Cult units crammed into a list.

I take each of the six drugs on the first six units-but then what? I know I can select the same bonus again, but do I have to cycle through the six again, or can I just take the six drugs, then spam +1 Toughness on everyone else?

 JNAProductions wrote:
So, let's say I have 18 Wych Cult units crammed into a list.

I take each of the six drugs on the first six units-but then what? I know I can select the same bonus again, but do I have to cycle through the six again, or can I just take the six drugs, then spam +1 Toughness on everyone else?

You can spam +1 T on everyone else.

you can pick the bonus the unit receives, but if you do this you cannot choose a bonus that has already been taken by another unit until all six combat drugs have been taken once each."

Once they have all been taken once, there is no restriction on choosing.

Neat! Thanks BCB.

RAW BCB is correct. But, I think that RAI GW means for you to go through each cycle before reslecting a drug. So, in your example you could only have 3 of each drug (assuming you picked them rather than rolling).

I suspect Leo is right about what they intended, and it might get FAQ'd soon enough. Until then it should be legal to spam after selecting 1 of every version of the drug; after that you probably reach the point where you take everything once, choose the +1 T a second time then roll for the rest to see if you can get the result to show up that way.

RaW is RaI. If they change it, then they change the RaW.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
RaW is RaI...

That is demonstrably false...

 BaconCatBug wrote:
RaW is RaI. If they change it, then they change the RaW.

This statement is patent nonsense, and can disproved in all of two seconds by the fact that there have been numerous instances where they've made clear errors (such that the RaW was not the RaI) and quickly corrected them in FAQ, such as giving Stinger Pistols RaW the same profile as Splinter Pistols, when they intended to give them a different profile,

AnFéasógMór wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
RaW is RaI. If they change it, then they change the RaW.

This statement is patent nonsense, and can disproved in all of two seconds by the fact that there have been numerous instances where they've made clear errors (such that the RaW was not the RaI) and quickly corrected them in FAQ, such as giving Stinger Pistols RaW the same profile as Splinter Pistols, when they intended to give them a different profile,

You realise that Errata changes the RaW (and thus the RaI) right? Special Snowflake FAQs are Special Snowflake for a reason.

Example: They first intended for Flyers to control objectives, after feedback and bellyaching, they changed their mind and now flyers don't capture objectives.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

AnFéasógMór wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
RaW is RaI. If they change it, then they change the RaW.

This statement is patent nonsense, and can disproved in all of two seconds by the fact that there have been numerous instances where they've made clear errors (such that the RaW was not the RaI) and quickly corrected them in FAQ, such as giving Stinger Pistols RaW the same profile as Splinter Pistols, when they intended to give them a different profile,

You realise that Errata changes the RaW (and thus the RaI) right? Special Snowflake FAQs are Special Snowflake for a reason.

Example: They first intended for Flyers to control objectives, after feedback and bellyaching, they changed their mind and now flyers don't capture objectives.

When did they say "flyers don't capture objectives"?

I cant find it in the FAQ here:
https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/40K_8th_ed_Update_Rulebook_ver_1.1.pdf

 DeathReaper wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

AnFéasógMór wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
RaW is RaI. If they change it, then they change the RaW.

This statement is patent nonsense, and can disproved in all of two seconds by the fact that there have been numerous instances where they've made clear errors (such that the RaW was not the RaI) and quickly corrected them in FAQ, such as giving Stinger Pistols RaW the same profile as Splinter Pistols, when they intended to give them a different profile,

You realise that Errata changes the RaW (and thus the RaI) right? Special Snowflake FAQs are Special Snowflake for a reason.

Example: They first intended for Flyers to control objectives, after feedback and bellyaching, they changed their mind and now flyers don't capture objectives.

When did they say "flyers don't capture objectives"?

I cant find it in the FAQ here:
https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/40K_8th_ed_Update_Rulebook_ver_1.1.pdf

My bad, I meant "count for sudden death". I am senile in my old age. My point still stands. They first intended for Flyers to do something, then changed their mind (and thus intent) by changing the actual rules.

Edit: I am so senile I forgot it was in Chapter Approved. Time for bed methinks.

It’s in Chapter Approved and was previewed on WHC;



An update is not proof that RAW always = RAI. It Just means this update is well-worded.

If RAW always = RAI this subforum wouldn’t exist. Besides, BCB’s own signature provides plenty of proof that RAW does not always equal RAI but claiming RAW=RAI at all times serves his “I’m always right then GW change it” agenda (not being rude here, it was something he actually posted without a shred of irony).

 BaconCatBug wrote:

AnFéasógMór wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
RaW is RaI. If they change it, then they change the RaW.

This statement is patent nonsense, and can disproved in all of two seconds by the fact that there have been numerous instances where they've made clear errors (such that the RaW was not the RaI) and quickly corrected them in FAQ, such as giving Stinger Pistols RaW the same profile as Splinter Pistols, when they intended to give them a different profile,

You realise that Errata changes the RaW (and thus the RaI) right? Special Snowflake FAQs are Special Snowflake for a reason.

Example: They first intended for Flyers to control objectives, after feedback and bellyaching, they changed their mind and now flyers don't capture objectives.

If you look at the newly posted The Big FAQ 1 2018 you'll see area in there where they discuss what their intention had been and that they found out the rules weren't matching up with their intentions, prompting some rules changes. These statements indicate that RAW was not the same as RAI before they made those changes. They'll probably find out that some of these changes aren't doing what they want and will modify them again. It's a change of RAW without a change of RAI.