40K FAQ first draft posted (ALL CODEX FINAL FAQS added 1/20)

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.

**blaktoof**

Some of their rulings are counter intuitive, and a few are just as confusing as always. Like the Tau Seeker hitting at BS5 question,

Another odd part is, this still is supposed to work when the special rules are on the unit's datasheet, but not the detachments'.

It does not work for rules from unit datasheet s either, as they state in the faq and reference dunestrider. The rule has to state it affects the IC when joined specifically, or call out it affects all models in the unit. Which is what the rules for ICs joining units with different special rules has always stated.

That some people were of the opinion that saying they count as a member for all rules purposes invalidated the rules for ICs that followed after that statement was their opinion, and the FAQ has clarified that said statement is not the end of the rules for ICs.

**Elric Greywolf**

They ask for clarifications and etc to be posted to the page. Here's the list I've come up with so far. Feel free to add to it.

Q: Can a Monstrous Creature charge multiple units?
A: Yes.
Q: Can a single model make a disordered charge against two or more enemy units?
A: Yes.
This requires geometry so precise as to be practically impossible. In the Charge sub-phase I must move my base to touch the closest enemy model. Two enemy models from two enemy units must be exactly equidistant, down to the nanometer, from two separate points on my model’s base in order to touch both separate enemy bases at the exact same time. With a round base, while this is theoretically possible, in practical terms with normal tape measures and jostling it’s impossible.
Did you mean to say “No”? Or will I have to insist on being annoyingly precise in measurements in order to prevent my opponent from doing this?

Q: If a unit includes multiple IC Psykers, can they cast the same power (eg. Psychic Shriek) multiple times, once for each IC [that knows the power]?
A: No.
Q: How many dice does a ML2 Librarian joined with a ML1 GK Strike Squad generate for their Warp charge pool?
A: Three.
Can you please explain why you treat the multiple ICs as the same psychic unit (and limit their casting to one attempt at each power), but the IC attached to a unit is treated as two separate psychic units (and add their mastery levels together)?
Followup: Can the Librarian and the GK Strike Squad each cast Hammerhand, resulting in a +4 bonus? Note that they are not multiple ICs.
And followup followup I’d love to chat with you more one-on-one about this issue, because these two answers seem very inconsistent from a rules standpoint.

Some of your answers seem to indicate that ICs remain a sort of separate unit from the unit they are joined to (Ex: Killing an IC but not his unit gives up First Blood. Ex: A Level 2 GK Librarian joined to a Strike Squad will generate 3 Warp Charges.). But some of your answers seem to indicate that an IC is not at all separate from the unit he is joined to (Ex: Two IC psykers in the same unit cannot separately cast the same power.).
This is really inconsistent and confusing. Is there any common sense rule-of-thumb that players can use to solve dilemmas, or are the answers just going to be inconsistent?

The third Destroyer Weapons question is unclear. Can you please revise the answer to address the question?

Q: Are Super-heavy Walkers limited, like normal Walkers, to a 45d. arc of fire from the facing of the model?
A: No.
Can you explain why this is the case?

The fourth question in “Jink” seems to have had its answer cut off.

The second question under “Grenades” seems to indicate that grenades are thrown in the assault phase, even though they use a profile with the “Melee” special rule. Does this mean that my troops throw their chainswords or CCWs when attacking in close combat? If so, shouldn’t this limit them to one attack each since they are disarming themselves?

Q: Do Gauss, Haywire, and Graviton special rules affect void shields?
A: Yes, Graviton hits cause the field to collapse on a roll of 6.
This goes directly against the rule in Stronghold Assault, which says that Graviton has “no effect” on Void Shields. Is your answer correct? If your answer stands, can you please add an Errata to Stronghold Assault that changes the rules?

The question about area terrain and 25% obscured… Did you mean to say, in the answer, “Swooping Flying Monstrous Creature,” or did you purposefully change the wording in the answer from the wording in the question?

Q: Does Move Through Cover allow units to strike at their normal Initiative?
A: No.
If this is the case, what does it mean in Move Through Cover when it says, “[find the rules for not slowed by terrain]”

**JimOnMars**

Elric Greywolf wrote:
Q: Can a single model make a disordered charge against two or more enemy units?
A: Yes.
This requires geometry so precise as to be practically impossible. In the Charge sub-phase I must move my base to touch the closest enemy model. Two enemy models from two enemy units must be exactly equidistant, down to the nanometer, from two separate points on my model’s base in order to touch both separate enemy bases at the exact same time. With a round base, while this is theoretically possible, in practical terms with normal tape measures and jostling it’s impossible.
Did you mean to say “No”? Or will I have to insist on being annoyingly precise in measurements in order to prevent my opponent from doing this?

Not really. Just move the model such that the nearer, secondary unit is almost completely obscuring the primary. Then to get to the primary you will need to skim along one model of secondary, constantly engaging it as you slide by to the primary. You CAN get closer than 1" during charges, so that's OK.

**insaniak**

Elric Greywolf wrote:

Qoes Move Through Cover allow units to strike at their normal Initiative?
A: No.
If this is the case, what does it mean in Move Through Cover when it says, “[find the rules for not slowed by terrain]”

Move Through Cover affects movement. It has no effect on Initiative, and never has. This one isn't a new ruling... it's worked this way for as long as Move Through Cover has been a rule, as far as I can remember.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

JimOnMars wrote:
Not really. Just move the model such that the nearer, secondary unit is almost completely obscuring the primary. Then to get to the primary you will need to skim along one model of secondary, constantly engaging it as you slide by to the primary. You CAN get closer than 1" during charges, so that's OK.

This doesn't work.

The Rulebook: Multiple Combats wrote:
...a charging model is not permitted to move into base contact with a model in a secondary target, unless it cannot move into base contact with an unengaged model in the primary target.

So moving a single model into base contact with models from both the primary and secondary targets is prohibited by the rules. It's not a matter of geometry.... if you can move into base contact with an unengaged model from the primary target, you are specifically forbidden from moving into contact with the secondary target.

**Charistoph**

blaktoof wrote:
That some people were of the opinion that saying they count as a member for all rules purposes invalidated the rules for ICs that followed after that statement was their opinion, and the FAQ has clarified that said statement is not the end of the rules for ICs.

We did not invalidate those rules. We took the example to its natural conclusion. We took the standard which we were to use and applied it.

Stubborn doesn't specifically mention ICs, so why should other rules? The only place it could include it was by considering the fact that it counts as a part of the unit receiving the benefit. Nothing invalidated, except in your corrupted view of the position that you never really properly understood (as noted by your improper statement of the position).

**Cindis**

Turns out I was right about heavy weapons disembarking from wrecked vehicles firing normally.

Not surprised at all.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

gungo wrote:
My favorite has got to be the independsnt characters can not benefit from formation and detachment special rules!

Finally ending the nonsense on this board from a handful of people.

Was painfully obvious to anyone that could read beforehand, it's actually quite amusing how many topics in the new FAQ that handful got wrong.

**nekooni**

Cindis wrote:
Turns out I was right about heavy weapons disembarking from wrecked vehicles firing normally.

Not surprised at all.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

gungo wrote:
My favorite has got to be the independsnt characters can not benefit from formation and detachment special rules!

Finally ending the nonsense on this board from a handful of people.

Was painfully obvious to anyone that could read beforehand, it's actually quite amusing how many topics in the new FAQ that handful got wrong.

It's not about being right or wrong, it was about how the rules as they are written - without commentary from the game developers - are to be read. I'm fine with them ruling it that way, but it wasn't disputed without a reason. There are FAQ answers which clearly contradict the written rules, and that's an indication to how badly written the rules are, not a "commentary" on how stupid people who disagree with you are.

**casvalremdeikun**

Now that FMCs can target Flyers with Blasts and Templates, something is going to need to be done to balance them since most Flyers lost Skyfire and will not be able to shoot them down. In essence, the already unbalanced relationship between FMCs and Flyers was terrible since most Flyers lost Skyfire, now it is even worse.

**Intercessor**

Rapier Laser Destroyers can now be used as AA...

**jokerkd**

casvalremdeikun wrote:
Now that FMCs can target Flyers with Blasts and Templates, something is going to need to be done to balance them since most Flyers lost Skyfire and will not be able to shoot them down. In essence, the already unbalanced relationship between FMCs and Flyers was terrible since most Flyers lost Skyfire, now it is even worse.

I personally don't see the new flyer rules being adopted by many tournaments or gaming groups tbh

**casvalremdeikun**

jokerkd wrote:
casvalremdeikun wrote:
Now that FMCs can target Flyers with Blasts and Templates, something is going to need to be done to balance them since most Flyers lost Skyfire and will not be able to shoot them down. In essence, the already unbalanced relationship between FMCs and Flyers was terrible since most Flyers lost Skyfire, now it is even worse.

I personally don't see the new flyer rules being adopted by many tournaments or gaming groups tbh

Here is hoping. In my gaming group I was the only one that was negatively affected by the nerf, but I don't think any of us are going to get the book. I would definitely give it a second look if Flyers losing Skyfire only pertained to the Dogfight phase, but it doesn't seem to be the case.

**gery81**

labmouse42 wrote:
Psychic Shriek gets a buff

"However, some witchfire powers do not have a weapon profile (such as the Telepathy power Psychic Shriek); where this is the case, no To Hit roll is required -- the weapon hits automatically.

This means that there is no price for jinking for your farseer. Jink away and still shriek all day.

Sadly, it doesn't work like that. "Any shooting attacks that does not use ballistic skill cannot be fired as snap-shots". BRB, pg 33. :(

**Kriswall**

Charistoph wrote:
gungo wrote:
My favorite has got to be the independsnt characters can not benefit from formation and detachment special rules!

Finally ending the nonsense on this board from a handful of people.

So a CAD Cryptek cannot benefit from a Reclamation Legion's Move Through Cover.

A Blood Angel Captain in a SM Demi-Company Assault Squad doesn't count for Objective Secured.

A LOT of problems with this ruling that I am not sure they considered.

Yeah. They basically said "This doesn't work the way some of you think it works" but then didn't actually tell us how it works. Many of these FAQs flat out contradict the written rules. They would have been better off either rewriting 90% of the rules regarding ICs or abilities that could impact ICs OR just get rid of ICs altogether. Age of Sigmar got rid of "ICs" and it works fine from a gameplay standpoint. You just have to make them more durable since they're easier to target.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

nekooni wrote:
Cindis wrote:
Turns out I was right about heavy weapons disembarking from wrecked vehicles firing normally.

Not surprised at all.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

gungo wrote:
My favorite has got to be the independsnt characters can not benefit from formation and detachment special rules!

Finally ending the nonsense on this board from a handful of people.

Was painfully obvious to anyone that could read beforehand, it's actually quite amusing how many topics in the new FAQ that handful got wrong.

It's not about being right or wrong, it was about how the rules as they are written - without commentary from the game developers - are to be read. I'm fine with them ruling it that way, but it wasn't disputed without a reason. There are FAQ answers which clearly contradict the written rules, and that's an indication to how badly written the rules are, not a "commentary" on how stupid people who disagree with you are.

Agreed. If the rules weren't ambiguous, there wouldn't have been any debates. Plus, many of these debates are between the "this is what the rules actually say" crowd and the "this is what the rules were obviously intended to say" crowd. I think the second crowd tends to suffer from confirmation bias while the first generally doesn't line up with authorial intent and eventual FAQs/Errata.

I am disappointed to see the number of "I told you so" posts. It's juvenile and unnecessary. I argued against many of the rulings that were made in this batch of FAQs when they were brought up on this forum because I felt RaW didn't justify the answer. HOWEVER, I'm ecstatic that GW answered these questions. I think we all just want an unambiguous, balanced rule set. These FAQs and Erratas work on the unambiguous part. The balanced part will probably require a total rewrite of the core rules and all codices at this point. I think GW has painted themselves into a corner with all the detachments/formations/allied shenanigans. I think 30k is so popular because all of this stuff was pretty much eliminated.

**Yarium**

Elric Greywolf wrote:
They ask for clarifications and etc to be posted to the page. Here's the list I've come up with so far. Feel free to add to it.

Q: Can a Monstrous Creature charge multiple units?
A: Yes.
Q: Can a single model make a disordered charge against two or more enemy units?
A: Yes.
This requires geometry so precise as to be practically impossible. In the Charge sub-phase I must move my base to touch the closest enemy model. Two enemy models from two enemy units must be exactly equidistant, down to the nanometer, from two separate points on my model’s base in order to touch both separate enemy bases at the exact same time. With a round base, while this is theoretically possible, in practical terms with normal tape measures and jostling it’s impossible.
Did you mean to say “No”? Or will I have to insist on being annoyingly precise in measurements in order to prevent my opponent from doing this?

I think this might have been misappropriately answered due to the way the question was asked. I'd ask GW:

"Perhaps the question wasn't clear, so I just want to confirm; Is it possible for a single model unit to charge an enemy unit, but end up locking two units in combat? For example, a Carnifex charges a Space Marine squad with models each 1" away from each other, and with Scouts 1/2" back inbetween them. Currently it seems that I can only come in contact with the Space Marines, but I have to manoeuvre in such a way that I stay 1" away from the Scouts, which is impossible, and thus I can't charge either of them. Or, can I charge the Space Marines, and because I end up being within 1" of the Scouts, even though I don't contact them, I lock both the Space Marines and the Scouts in combat, and count as having made a disordered charge?"

Elric Greywolf wrote:
Q: If a unit includes multiple IC Psykers, can they cast the same power (eg. Psychic Shriek) multiple times, once for each IC [that knows the power]?
A: No.
Q: How many dice does a ML2 Librarian joined with a ML1 GK Strike Squad generate for their Warp charge pool?
A: Three.
Can you please explain why you treat the multiple ICs as the same psychic unit (and limit their casting to one attempt at each power), but the IC attached to a unit is treated as two separate psychic units (and add their mastery levels together)?
Followup: Can the Librarian and the GK Strike Squad each cast Hammerhand, resulting in a +4 bonus? Note that they are not multiple ICs.
And followup followup I’d love to chat with you more one-on-one about this issue, because these two answers seem very inconsistent from a rules standpoint.

The answer here seems pretty clear, though I agree it's not intuitive. Yes, you count their Mastery Levels separately, but no, so long as any model in the unit attempted to cast a power, no one else in the same unit can cast the same power. Shrug.

Elric Greywolf wrote:
The third Destroyer Weapons question is unclear. Can you please revise the answer to address the question?

Not sure how it's unclear. If you're going to ask this, try specifying why it's unclear.

Elric Greywolf wrote:

Q: Are Super-heavy Walkers limited, like normal Walkers, to a 45d. arc of fire from the facing of the model?
A: No.
Can you explain why this is the case?

Agreed. This is confusing to me. Feels like both the regular and super-heavy versions should work the same, one way or the other.

Elric Greywolf wrote:

The fourth question in “Jink” seems to have had its answer cut off.

The side-bar version answers it. Instead of being "After." it says "Yes.". However, it's good to bring up that the side-bar version and the image version are inconsistent.

Elric Greywolf wrote:

The second question under “Grenades” seems to indicate that grenades are thrown in the assault phase, even though they use a profile with the “Melee” special rule. Does this mean that my troops throw their chainswords or CCWs when attacking in close combat? If so, shouldn’t this limit them to one attack each since they are disarming themselves?

This is grasping at straws. It's a clear, if wildly unexpected, answer. Perhaps a better way to ask would be "I thought grenades were "clamped" onto the vehicles in close combat, not thrown. Seems odd that when I purchased grenades and/or Meltabombs for everyone, they would be trying to ration them. Most gaming communities had adopted this as every model being able to make a single attack with a grenade. Perhaps the decision on this answer should be reviewed."

Elric Greywolf wrote:
Q: Do Gauss, Haywire, and Graviton special rules affect void shields?
A: Yes, Graviton hits cause the field to collapse on a roll of 6.
This goes directly against the rule in Stronghold Assault, which says that Graviton has “no effect” on Void Shields. Is your answer correct? If your answer stands, can you please add an Errata to Stronghold Assault that changes the rules?

They kind-of answered this;
Q: Does Warhammer 40,000: The Rules (7th edition) override Codex: Stronghold Assault?
A: Yes. This is an exception to the normal rules, in which expansions override the rulebook.

Which means that the "Graviton has "no effect" on Void Shields" rule in Stronghold Assault is null and void (pun not intended, but funny nonetheless).

Elric Greywolf wrote:

The question about area terrain and 25% obscured… Did you mean to say, in the answer, “Swooping Flying Monstrous Creature,” or did you purposefully change the wording in the answer from the wording in the question?

Good observation, and that answer would be appreciated.

Elric Greywolf wrote:
Q: Does Move Through Cover allow units to strike at their normal Initiative?
A: No.
If this is the case, what does it mean in Move Through Cover when it says, “[find the rules for not slowed by terrain]”

It means that they don't subtract 2 inches from their charge range, but still suffer the initiative penalty. This is a pretty clear answer, corroborated with the answer to this question;

Q: Are Beasts and Cavalry reduced to Initiative 1 when charging through difficult terrain?
A: Yes.

So, there you have it.

**Martel732**

quickfuze wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
jokerkd wrote:
The powers per turn = ML thong has ruined the conclave for me. If a 5 man conclave can only cast 2 powers per turn, then it's gone from one of the best psychic units in the game to barely even average

How small can you make it?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Also:

Based off the new FAQ, if you attach an IC to a unit in reserve from a formation that has a reroll to arrive from reserve, what happens to the IC if the first reserve roll is failed?

Does the WHOLE unit have the "re-roll to reserve" rule? If not I would think based on the rulings so far that you would not get a reroll. Kind of like mixed movement units moving at the "slowest speed among models"

The text is this:

"On a successful Reserves Roll, all of the units in this Formation arrive from Reserve."

Does this prevent an IC from being attached in reserve? It's very confusing and I want to do it correctly.

**DarknessEternal**

Martel732 wrote:

The text is this:

"On a successful Reserves Roll, all of the units in this Formation arrive from Reserve."

Does this prevent an IC from being attached in reserve? It's very confusing and I want to do it correctly.

The only relevant question is: Is the IC benefiting from a formation rule that he doesn't also have?

If it's turn 2 or 3, and you're making a regular reserve roll of 3+ (plus outside factors), he's free to join those formation units.

If that formation is letting you arrive on turn 1, the IC can't be with them, since he doesn't have any rules allowing that.

**Remmick_005**

I know this is an abrupt change, but can we take a moment to appreciate this question:
Q: Can a Fortification Scout?
A: No.
who would ever assume that?
but I now have a mental image of an Aquila Strongpoint slowly crawling while no one is looking...

**nosferatu1001**

It was asked here more than once...

They've made some flat out ru,e changes. For example stomp causing morale checks....

**Martel732**

DarknessEternal wrote:
Martel732 wrote:

The text is this:

"On a successful Reserves Roll, all of the units in this Formation arrive from Reserve."

Does this prevent an IC from being attached in reserve? It's very confusing and I want to do it correctly.

The only relevant question is: Is the IC benefiting from a formation rule that he doesn't also have?

If it's turn 2 or 3, and you're making a regular reserve roll of 3+ (plus outside factors), he's free to join those formation units.

If that formation is letting you arrive on turn 1, the IC can't be with them, since he doesn't have any rules allowing that.

It would be turn 2 or 3, but how does the IC interact with the formation's reroll?I forgot to include that:

" When making Reserve Rolls, make a single roll for the entire Formation, which you can choose to re-roll. "

**Audustum**

Elric Greywolf wrote:
They ask for clarifications and etc to be posted to the page. Here's the list I've come up with so far. Feel free to add to it.

Q: Can a Monstrous Creature charge multiple units?
A: Yes.
Q: Can a single model make a disordered charge against two or more enemy units?
A: Yes.
This requires geometry so precise as to be practically impossible. In the Charge sub-phase I must move my base to touch the closest enemy model. Two enemy models from two enemy units must be exactly equidistant, down to the nanometer, from two separate points on my model’s base in order to touch both separate enemy bases at the exact same time. With a round base, while this is theoretically possible, in practical terms with normal tape measures and jostling it’s impossible.
Did you mean to say “No”? Or will I have to insist on being annoyingly precise in measurements in order to prevent my opponent from doing this?

Q: If a unit includes multiple IC Psykers, can they cast the same power (eg. Psychic Shriek) multiple times, once for each IC [that knows the power]?
A: No.
Q: How many dice does a ML2 Librarian joined with a ML1 GK Strike Squad generate for their Warp charge pool?
A: Three.
Can you please explain why you treat the multiple ICs as the same psychic unit (and limit their casting to one attempt at each power), but the IC attached to a unit is treated as two separate psychic units (and add their mastery levels together)?
Followup: Can the Librarian and the GK Strike Squad each cast Hammerhand, resulting in a +4 bonus? Note that they are not multiple ICs.
And followup followup I’d love to chat with you more one-on-one about this issue, because these two answers seem very inconsistent from a rules standpoint.

Some of your answers seem to indicate that ICs remain a sort of separate unit from the unit they are joined to (Ex: Killing an IC but not his unit gives up First Blood. Ex: A Level 2 GK Librarian joined to a Strike Squad will generate 3 Warp Charges.). But some of your answers seem to indicate that an IC is not at all separate from the unit he is joined to (Ex: Two IC psykers in the same unit cannot separately cast the same power.).
This is really inconsistent and confusing. Is there any common sense rule-of-thumb that players can use to solve dilemmas, or are the answers just going to be inconsistent?

The third Destroyer Weapons question is unclear. Can you please revise the answer to address the question?

Q: Are Super-heavy Walkers limited, like normal Walkers, to a 45d. arc of fire from the facing of the model?
A: No.
Can you explain why this is the case?

The fourth question in “Jink” seems to have had its answer cut off.

The second question under “Grenades” seems to indicate that grenades are thrown in the assault phase, even though they use a profile with the “Melee” special rule. Does this mean that my troops throw their chainswords or CCWs when attacking in close combat? If so, shouldn’t this limit them to one attack each since they are disarming themselves?

Q: Do Gauss, Haywire, and Graviton special rules affect void shields?
A: Yes, Graviton hits cause the field to collapse on a roll of 6.
This goes directly against the rule in Stronghold Assault, which says that Graviton has “no effect” on Void Shields. Is your answer correct? If your answer stands, can you please add an Errata to Stronghold Assault that changes the rules?

The question about area terrain and 25% obscured… Did you mean to say, in the answer, “Swooping Flying Monstrous Creature,” or did you purposefully change the wording in the answer from the wording in the question?

Q: Does Move Through Cover allow units to strike at their normal Initiative?
A: No.
If this is the case, what does it mean in Move Through Cover when it says, “[find the rules for not slowed by terrain]”

They answered your Hammerhand question. Another part of the FAQ says the same blessing can never stack.

**DarknessEternal**

Martel732 wrote:
DarknessEternal wrote:
Martel732 wrote:

The text is this:

"On a successful Reserves Roll, all of the units in this Formation arrive from Reserve."

Does this prevent an IC from being attached in reserve? It's very confusing and I want to do it correctly.

The only relevant question is: Is the IC benefiting from a formation rule that he doesn't also have?

If it's turn 2 or 3, and you're making a regular reserve roll of 3+ (plus outside factors), he's free to join those formation units.

If that formation is letting you arrive on turn 1, the IC can't be with them, since he doesn't have any rules allowing that.

It would be turn 2 or 3, but how does the IC interact with the formation's reroll?I forgot to include that:

" When making Reserve Rolls, make a single roll for the entire Formation, which you can choose to re-roll. "

Then the presence of the IC would prevent you from re-rolling.

**Martel732**

Okay. That's the easiest way to play that probably.

It seems like a bad idea to forgo the reroll, so it seems like they are going to have to come in on their own.

**Charistoph**

Martel732 wrote:
Okay. That's the easiest way to play that probably.

It seems like a bad idea to forgo the reroll, so it seems like they are going to have to come in on their own.

Indeed, since you cannot separate an IC from a unit in Reserves.

**jokerkd**

It wouldn't just be the reroll though would it? If you only have to roll once for all the units, that would also give the IC a benefit of a rule he doesn't have

**DarknessEternal**

It wouldn't be giving him a rule he already didn't have though. You can join an IC to a unit in Reserve and you only make one roll for the combined unit.

One roll is still required.

**jokerkd**

A combine unit roll is not the same as a combined formation roll

**DarknessEternal**

That's possible, just not how I was thinking about it immediately.

Yeah, you probably can't do that.

**ClassicCarraway**

jokerkd wrote:
The powers per turn = ML thong has ruined the conclave for me. If a 5 man conclave can only cast 2 powers per turn, then it's gone from one of the best psychic units in the game to barely even average

Keep in mind, the conclave is a codex specific thing, so they may errata the wording for it to allow more powers for it.

**jokerkd**

That's some high hopes right there.

It seems they really didn't intend on making marines a top tier army. All the cool stuff they could do RAW apparently wasn't RAI.......

**quickfuze**

jokerkd wrote:
That's some high hopes right there.

It seems they really didn't intend on making marines a top tier army. All the cool stuff they could do RAW apparently wasn't RAI.......

Except most of what was being done wasn't even rules as written. People were picking and choosing snippets of rules to justify what they wanted (cheese). Now they have some whine to go with it.