This is the Weekly Question thread designed to allow players to ask their one-off tactical or rules clarification questions in one easy to find place on the sub.
This means that those questions will get guaranteed visibility, while also limiting the amount of one-off question posts that can usually be answered by the first commenter.
Have a question? Post it here! Know the answer? Don't be shy!
NOTE - this thread is also intended to be for higher level questions about the meta, rules interactions, FAQ/Errata clarifications, etc. This is not strictly for beginner questions only!
Reminders
When do pre-orders and new releases go live?
Pre-orders and new releases go live on Saturdays at the following times:
What happens if a Custodes terminator unit is selected as your Beacon unit, then uses Unleash The Lions to split into units of 1? Are each of them a Beacon unit due to consistent effects? Or does the Beacon "fall off" upon the split?
In the recon vs purge matchup, are objectives permanently triangulated/consecrated once you mark them? Not sure if I'm missing something but I can't see anything about being able to remove the markers on the mission cards.
Yes, both of those status's on the objectives are permanent, and so scoring in additional rounds based on the number of them you have is "free" so to speak in additional rounds, even if you are completely tabled with zero units on the board.
Regarding Charge Moves, I was watching this section of Tactical Tortoise's video and he's basically saying that on a model-by-model basis he can disregard the "within 1 inch if possible, within 2 inches if possible" rules if that would mean his unit does not end in coherency.
While I agree and understand that a Move can only be completed if it is in Coherency, and since you move model-by-model, when you get to the very last model, you are able to disregard While Moving rules to satisfy After Moving rules (namely Coherency). But I don't understand why in his video he is able to not move his 4th marine within 2 inches of the enemy, since Coherency cannot be assessed at that point.
In other words, since obviously Coherency can be temporarily broken in the middle of a Move, how far ahead can you use the argument "otherwise my unit will not be in Coherency" to bypass "if possible" rules?
Not watched the video, but If he used coherency as a reason to not move within 1" when he could, he did it wrong.
That's how 10th edition worked, where you could use coherency to void other rules to be able to go where you wanted. In 11th, coherency is only checked after the whole move is completed and if it isn't adhered to, the whole move is reset.
If you can move into 1", you have to. If that fact means you can't stay in coherency afterwards, the charge is impossible.
The problem with that is that it creates ways for you to for example fail a charge where your opponent is 2.1 inches away from you with a high roll of for example 10 if there is anything potentially blocking in the middle. You would have to put some models within 1 on the left side and some within 1 on the right side without being able to hold coherency and fail the charge when by all logic it should be impossible to fail a charge that low without rolling two 1s. That genuinely feels like your opponent is trying to cheat you if they explain that reasoning to you and its a terrible fail case that does actually come up a lot when you know it exists, even more so when charging multiple different units at once, and can be manipulated to happen more when you know about it by for example deliberately standing in front of such a blocking piece of terrain that restricts coherency.
That fail case(failing charges that you definetely could make with your roll because you have to move within 1 or 2) is worse than the potential abuse of allowing a unit to restrict where it can go via coherency during a move. As such WTC for example ruled exactly how Trevy explained it in his video for their event which a lot of people just continued using.
I think it would benefit a lot from an official rules change to make it clearer but I'm not about to tell someone their 12 inch charge roll fails because they have to go within 1 which breaks their coherency in either my own games or my own events so i will rule it as WTC and Trevy have.
And yes, it does create ways to abuse coherency to limit how far your unit needs to go by letting the last model limit how you're able to move via 9 inch coherency as has happened in 10th before but that is an acceptable downside compared to the other option.
Why is a charge failing so abhorrent though? It’s just part of the game.
Shooting doesn’t always succeed due to movement not facilitating LOS or range and most players will specifically pre-measure their opponents units movement next turn to establish what LOS or range they could get and stand 1mm back from it. Now they must take two turns to get that LOS or range and be at risk in the interim.
Same situation here; stand in just the right spot to mitigate the charge or make it really difficult and force the opponent to take two turns to get it and be at risk in the interim.
Because a charge roll failing or succeeding is be the single most important dice roll in all of 40k, excluding the "who goes first" rolloff before the game starts in some metas. It is the make or break of games in some matchups, a single charge reroll succeeding or not can change the outcome of a game entirely. This is also why command point rerolls are used on charge rolls more than any other and why "i failed my charges" is such a common bad beats story, a charge succeeding or not is the difference between a unit doing nothing at all or doing everything you wanted it to do as a very binary check.
Introducing something as gimmicky as "I was X away and rolled Y and failed the charge anyway" when Y is bigger than X creates too high impact failure points of the rules that then led to heated arguments and generally a bad time for everyone involved. Most players will simply not care enough or be skilled/knowledgable enough to abuse the coherency restrictions as much as theoretically possible, especcially since shenanigans often come with their own downsides, but if you are strictly enforcing getting into 1 inch or 2 inches over keeping coherency and making that unit fail that charge its a matter of time before you have ruin some players game including new players. Top tables can be trusted with having to deal with shenanigans if it means the majority of players have higher quality games.
That’s all very true and fair - I wasn’t disputing that.
My point is more/so that the charging player either needs to accept that the charge they are attempting is risky due to the opponents positioning and manage their expectations and / or take steps to reduce that risk by making use of better positioning on their part or taking an extra turn to shuffle up and make the charge easier to succeed.
In your example presumably the charging unit is 2.1” from an enemy unit with a ruin wall between them. Which they need to now go around to complete their charge.
Why didn’t they instead move off to one side of the wall originally to avoid having to go around both sides? To avoid OW? So they’re trading risk from OW for risk in completing the charge? That was their choice.
Maybe so more of their models would be closer in case they low rolled and could just base the wall to get in engagement? So they hedged their bet in case they rolled low that they could get everyone in on a 2 rather than only on a 3 or 4 or 5 if they’d instead moved to the side more? Fair; but then again they traded one form of risk for another.
And so on with their movement leading up to the charge.
The player is trading the risk of one fail condition for another and it’s rather unfair to then moan when the fail condition they felt was least likely or found most acceptable came to be.
I mean situations like this where the unit was previously standing in front of the wall with the X on it on the other side of the vehicle for "situations with terrain in the way". This charge for example would be a failure because, while every model can easily get within 2 inches, having to get within 1 inch makes coherency fail if the charge roll is high enough and the charge becomes invalid.
Situations like that are just going to happen because of how terrain and charges work if you interpret the rules this way. Coherency errors like that become easier to produce the bigger the base size, the higher the charge and the more things are in the way but even just for example charging a unit with Ghazgkull or Guilliman first who have a large enough base size to block coherency from being established from one side of his base to the other without any intervening terrain and then charging with a 10 man unit of boyz or whatever afterwards creates a situation where on a high enough charge roll the boyz have to all be within 1 inch of the opponents units which means none of them can be used to maintain coherency behind Ghaz/Guilliman to connect the boyz on Ghazs left to the ones on his right which means a charge roll of 4 might succeed but a 10 fail.
Thats just too common and too impactful to accept in my opinion. It will happen without deliberately being caused.
Yep; and in that example if they had instead positioned further left or right or back then it wouldn’t be an issue. The player moved them there before charging and so accepted the risk that came with that.
I disagree with Tactical Tortoise on this one, fairly sure he's mistaken about this. There is nothing to suggest that you must maintain coherency mid-move.
Let's say the two red-based models in the video are unable to get within 2" of the enemy unit, so the only applicable "while moving" restriction is that they end their move closer, and that you move those two models as he did in the video. Then you go to move the other 3, since they're all able to get within 1" or 2", so you must move them within that range. Then, only after completing that move do you check the after moving conditions. And here, because the red-based models were not moved very far, the unit is not in coherency, And as per 03.01: "that unit cannot make that move and its models are returned to their positions at the start of that move."
I agree with you here. I don’t know if there is a clear rule but generally in my scene people start with the charging models that can satisfy the 1” requirement then those that can make the 2” requirement and then everyone else in coherency.
I disagree with Tactical Tortoise on this one, fairly sure he's mistaken about this. There is nothing to suggest that you must maintain coherency mid-move.
Yea, not mid move, just "must end any move in coherency" and also set up. If you can't end it, you can't charge
In my opinion, you can't. If you can't both follow the While Moving rules and end the move in coherency then your move is illegal.
The While Moving condition does not care about coherency, it cares about whether it is possible to place the model within 1" or 2" of a charge target. If it is, then you must do so.
If it's not possible to fulfill both conditions, then your move is simply illegal: reset the models, and try again.
This is different from last edition where, if we used the same rules format, "can end in coherency" was part of the While Moving condition and would have been assessed when determining possibility. In this edition there is no reason, IMO, to believe there is any sort of lookahead.
Question: When a move says that a model or unit must move in a way if it is able, can that requirement force the unit to end their move not in coherency?
Answer: No, when a model or unit is making a move it must follow requirements while ending that move in coherency
So Tactical Tortoise is correct here, ultimately coherency overrules the other requirements.
how far ahead can you use the argument "otherwise my unit will not be in Coherency" to bypass "if possible" rules?
As far ahead as you and your opponent agree, if you can't agree, call for a judge.
I disagree with your conclusion from the given FAQ. The while moving restriction cannot allow you to end a move out of coherency, but you must still follow them. If you can’t end the move in coherency while following the while moving conditions the move is failed, and you return the models back to their starting positions
can that requirement force the unit to end their move not in coherency?
They clearly asked if one can force the other and the answer wasn't "no, you fail the move", it was "no, you have to end in coherency". The answer for the question would make no sense, if it was your way around, as then the answer would have been "no, the move just fails".
That wasn't the question and that is why your answer wouldn't make sense.
Again, the question was:
can that requirement force the unit to end their move not in coherency?
And the answer given was "no".
You want to read this as "the move is automatically illegal", but why wouldn't they say so directly? Why trying to actually say the opposite, unless they clearly wanted to say the opposite?
Hence the answer can make (a) sense or (b) be what you want.
What? I don't get what's difficult to understand about this. The FAQ was addressing whether while moving requirements could force you to end a move out of coherency, which they can't. The FAQ doesn't introduce any new rulings, it's just clarifying that you can't be forced to end a move out of coherency.
It most certainly is not saying anything about ignoring any other restrictions on a move
MONSTER/VEHICLE can now move (normal move or advance) through your models if they are themselves not MONSTER/VEHICLE. See rule 17.01.
So FLY isn’t the only thing that let you move through models.
Rules state that when a unit is no longer engaged, they must select units within 3” as a target of their consolidation.
My opponent has a rule that extends the distance of pile in/consolidate moves to 4”
The FAQ states “If a modifies how far a unit or model can move during a pile in or consolidate move does it also change the distance of the target units? “ “No”
Does this mean they can only choose targets within 3” but can then move 4”, or can they both choose a target within 4” now as well?
Hi ya’ll I’m pretty new to playing Warhammer and I’m trying to get better. I run Ultramarines and I wanted to run two bricks of five deathwatch terminators since getting my codex and I see that they’re doing well in competitive lists. I was wondering how people are generally utilizing them or advice on how to use them.
Up until now I haven’t utilized any units in deep strike and don’t have a good grasp on if that’s where the terminators belong. Also if they are in deep strike when do people usually drop them? Sorry if these are really basic questions, I only get to play once every couple months with my buddy and have been losing every match. Thank you!
Huh, i've never seen a tactical question in here before xD But the headline actually says competetive questions so i guess its all good.
No question in warhammer is stupid, its a complex game for people with too much spare time. I don't play space marines but i presume that you wanna deal damage with your termines so Rapid Ingress is always a good option. You get perfect information about opponents movement and can deploy them acordingly then move shoot and and charge easier than 9'' straight from deepstrike. Also you can heroic intervene if you see them lining up a charge^^
I remember seeing that characters being "precision" out then brought back to life were supposed to not be leading their unit anymore but I can't find the rule is it still true please ?
The rule change is only on the specifically affected revive abilities/strategems. Otherwise if they are part of an attached unit they return to it, see 01.02.03.
I have a list building question: If an model is listed as "support", then it means that they can join a unit or be on their own, correct? For example, the Warlock Conclave is a "support" unit; this means they have a choice to either join a guardian unit or be on their own, correct? Similarly, a D-Cannon doesn't have to join a guardian unit, correct? I think the answer is "yes", but have had issues with a list-building app that has made me question it.
The unit abilities dont interact with firing deck at all. They can have their abilities work just fine, but the transport counts as having the weapon and it's the transport shooting them. The transport doesnt gain the abilities of the units embarked within
No worries. Some of the rules arent super intuitive, especially if you don't know where the specific line burried in the rules is or what to search for
Yes. If like, the weapon profile has [blast] it will carry over. Think of it like cutting the whole weapon profile out of the unit in the transport and gluing it to the bottom of the transports weapon list
Yes but only its base abilities. If the embarked unit has a rule granting their weapons Sustained 2 then that doesn’t work with firing deck as it’s granting their weapons Sus2 not the transports weapons.
Haven't played 11th yet, can stratagems be used on units in transports, or is it like 10th where they still mostly don't exist? Specifically the "enemies without number" stratagem
The rules for Transports no longer specify that units inside can't use rules and abilities nor be targeted by them, and instead refer you to the rules for Not On the Battlefield, which itself expressly confirms that they can use rules and abilities so long as the rule doesn't actually require them to be on the battlefield, measure a distance, or other things that would require them to be on the battlefield to actually resolve the rule.
At which point are the mortal wounds from the hazardous rolls from an emergency disembark inflicted? Are the models set up and then models are removed for the hazardous mortals or are less units set up depending on how many mortals too to begin with? Hazardous roll says its "before the disembark move" but I've seen a lot of people argue they just set up less models.
I am aware the unit gets hit by a potential deadly demise aswell. The hazadous question makes a big difference in whether a unit gets to dodge lines of sight while disembarking or not however.
You do it in the order it says in the rule. You take the hazard mortals before setting up. Then you emergency disembark. And then lastly you roll for deadly demise
Drazhar gets to reroll hit rolls against foes that are below starting strength. I charge Drazhar and 10 Incubi into a Terminator brick. Can I choose to first resolve the Incubi attacks in the hope that I'll kill at least one dude, and when the time comes for Drazhar to resolve his attacks, I now get the reroll bonus?
His rule triggers with attacks that TARGET a unit that is below starting strength. It literally doesn't matter what order you resolve anything in, because it triggers or not in the Select Targets step.before you even roll dice.
What’s the best strategy for dealing with an opponent’s terminator chaplain + deathwing knights? I play CSM, and can never seem to get a handle on my friend’s DWK, they’re just so durable, especially with the chaplain and wrath of the rock. Is the proper course of action to just run?
They are slowslowslow especially without a Captain for repeated access to Assault doctrine and rr charges. Stay away from them, force them to uppy downy for CP and make 8" charges. Screen like you're playing against Grey Knights.
If he just sits on a point all game that's even better, set up a vindicator or a forgefiend and start blasting from 15" with a screen of cheap units to prevent the charge.
Thank you! This is for a casual game fortunately, but he’s also bring the lion as well. Any tips for dealing with him at the same time? Unfortunately don’t have a forgefiend on the list but i am bringing a vindicator
ETA: my list -
Night Lords 11th - Chaos Space Marines - Take and Hold - Murdertalon Raiders, Veterans of the Long War (1995 Points)
Abaddon the Despoiler - Warlord + 5 Chaos Terminator Squad (485 pts)
Chaos Lord with Jump Pack with Shadowcowl Talisman + 10 Raptors (330 pts)
Warpsmith with Mark of Legend + 5 Legionaries (170 pts)
Cypher (95 pts)
2x5 Legionaries (190 pts)
5 Chosen (140 pts)
6 Noise Marines (160 pts)
Chaos Vindicator (180 pts)
Maulerfiend (125 pts)
Venomcrawler (120 pts)
Kidding; the best way to fight the Lion is to look at the rest of your opponent's list. The Lion is 1 model with T10 2+/3++ 16W, -1 to be wounded against your coolest stuff, situational Lone Op, innate uppy-downy, and a 4+++ against psychic attacks and mortal wounds. How do you efficiently kill this quickly? You don't.
The Lion is a [MONSTER], which means he cannot gain HIDDEN in terrain. Your shooting can hit him from their maximum distance. The Lion does not want to sit on an objective and tank rounds of shooting to score points, he wants to charge you and kill you.
So force him to sit on points. Your opponent will have Intercessors or Scouts or other cheap objective holders. Kill them and make your opponent choose between sending the Lion to kill you and scoring VP. If your opponent sits the Lion on a point, well, a 415 point action monkey is very inefficient. That's your opportunity to point shooting at him and whittle him down. Maybe move up some Legionaries to toe into the point in later rounds, so you can flip the point for their command phase and deny VP. He's only OC 4.
but what about the Lion's lone op
If your opponent is keeping a unit with the Lion to give the Lion Lone Op that's fine, they're spending probably around 500 points for that and they're likely not uppy-downying him.
I'm just going to short-circuit the existing argument: you can't remove a unit from the battlefield if it is not on the battlefield. If you can't remove it from the battlefield, you can't do so and put it in reserves.
Even if it's a valid target (which I think it is: you can't be within 2" of anything to be engaged), you can't complete the action, and so the strat doesn't work.
I think the argument of "well you can't prove it's not engaged" is absolutely silly and non-sensical, but the answer from u/eternalflagship isn't 100% right either.
You CAN target a unit in a transport with the strat, it would just fail because you can't actually do what the stratagem says (remove it from the battlefield), just like you technically CAN Use Fire Overwatch on a unit that is over 30" away from any visible targets, it just doesn't do anything because you can't follow the instructions of the stratagem
“Engaged” is defined as having an enemy within 2”/5” and “Unengaged” is defined as not “Engaged”.
In both cases you need to measure to show this to be the case which cannot be done due to not being on the battlefield.
If we were allowed to just assume measurements GW wouldn’t also need to specifically state that units are within range of their own abilities while off the battlefield - because we could just assume they are 0” to themselves physically.
They could easily have also specified that units not on the battlefield are unengaged but they haven’t and so we need to measure to ascertain if they are or are not unfortunately.
In any case there are multiple reasons to say no; I picked this one as there are other abilities which don’t include “remove it from the battlefield” yet still ask for unengaged / engaged.
The conditions are "within" and its negation, not "<=" and ">", which is why your reasoning doesn't hold.
You don't have to measure to know that you are not within 2"; because you cannot measure, you know you are not within 2" (or in fact any distance).
The rider about units being within range of their own abilities is because they also can't measure distances to themselves, so they aren't within any distance, including 0".
For the same reason, units not on the battlefield cannot be in coherency; fortunately incoherency only penalizes you if you're on the battlefield.
Not being able to measure doesn’t automatically mean you suddenly lose your distance to anything - it means you’re unable to measure any distances.
I am at my desk in my office and you are wherever you are in the world. There is currently a specific distance between us and we are not able to measure it. Just because we can’t measure it doesn’t mean that distance ceases to exist. I cannot prove it’s less than 2km or greater than 2km.
Just because we can assume something doesn’t make it automatically true. Yes; you can’t measure any distances but that doesn’t mean your unit is engaged / unengaged - to determine that the rules require you to measure.
Edit: and just to be totally transparent; I think it’s quite reasonable that units not on the battlefield are considered unengaged; GW should errata the rules to include that. However presently the rules require a measurement to make that determination and unfortunately that measurement may not be made and so were in a pickle. TOs will almost assuredly RAI rule that they are considered unengaged but that would be their call to make.
RAW: Not being able to measure means “we don’t know” and unfortunately “we don’t know” isn’t sufficient to meet the condition required.
“03.04 ENGAGEMENT A model’s engagement range is the area of the battlefield within 2" horizontally and 5" vertically of it.
While a friendly model is within engagement range of one or more enemy models, those models – and the units they belong to – are engaged with each other.
While a unit contains no engaged models, that unit is unengaged.”
Notably the rule defines what it means to be engaged (within 2” horizontal and / or 5” vertical of an enemy.
It then defines unengaged as “not engaged” or having “no engaged models”. In order to prove you are “not engaged” you would need to show that none of your models are engaged; ie that no enemies are within 2” / 5” of your units models.
Now; the rule for not on the battlefield:
“01.02.04 NOT ON THE BATTLEFIELD A unit that is embarked within a TRANSPORT or that is in strategic reserves is not on the battlefield. The following applies to such units:
That unit is not visible to any other units (units are visible to themselves).
Any other unit is not visible to that unit.
Players cannot measure distances to or from that unit (units are within range of their own abilities).”
The last bit is what matters here - you cannot measure distances to your unit while it is not on the battlefield such as when embarked.
As such you cannot prove that none of the models are not engaged as a result as there’s no way to measure to / from your unit.
Accordingly as it can’t qualify as unengaged it isn’t a valid target for the stratagem.
While true that still leaves you in the same predicament.
To claim “unengaged” you must show you are not “engaged” and as you’ve just pointed out, you can’t.
The rules are written to require you to measure and then determine if it’s engaged or not engaged however as you cannot measure you cannot prove either.
The unit can’t be said to be engaged or unengaged and as such can’t meet the requirements of rules looking for either of those descriptors.
24.28 says the active player can select one allocation group that contains one of those visibleCHARACTER models.
According to 24.28.01 if i attack a character in an attached unit with precision any mortals are first applied to the CHARACTER group that was selected for those [PRECISION] attacks.
But, if all my wounds are dev wounds, and there is no regular wound, there is no selection of that character group, selection for precision happens at 05.03, which is now skipped, because the attack sequence ends for dev wounds at 05.02, and all mortals go on the bodyguards, 24.10.
Yes, 24.28 isn't phrased well. Putting the wounds on the character "selected for the precision attacks" makes no sense as, as you said, there isn't one, as you skip the allocation sequence.
The intent is clear, though, and every tournament I've heard of plays it as "you can allocate mortal wounds from precision attacks the same way you coul've allocated regular wounds from those attacks".
The entirety of section 5 is the attack sequence. Devastating wounds says you end the attack sequence for that attack after rolling a critical wound, so the sequence ends before reaching 5.03. In need of an update same as the -1D not working against dev wounds for the same reason.
Which is why the original question was for the scenario where every individual attack rolls devastating wounds, meaning not a single one of them reaches 5.3. It's something that is obviously intended to work but technically doesn't with the way they wrote it.
Question: Would you actually play this Heavy Flamer as S6, or would you assume it's obvious a typo? None of the other Bane variants have S6 flamers, they are all the correct S5.
Absolutely wild it's made it this long. I should probably report it I guess because this is maybe the only Imperial heavy flamer to wound new Marines on 3+ lol.
There's still a ton of "identical" weapons that have different profiles. The new Space Marine codex just introduced 2 different "Heavy Bolter" weapons with different stats, depending on who is carrying them (on top of the actual differences caused by datasheet abilities).
There's basically no way to know which of those are intentional and which are mistakes GW never bothered to fix, so it's a good idea to poke them so that they may officially clarify.
It’s not uncommon; Tau have their Smart Missile Systems secondary weapons with different stats per models. Some have an extra attack, some have Twin-Linked etc based on who’s carrying it.
How does Precision wound allocation work when shooting a unit with multiple characters (such as a leader+ support)? If all my units weapons have precision is only 1 character precisioned out and the rest go to the base unit or can I choose to target the leader with everything, then the support?
Whenever you're selecting allocation groups for PRECISION attacks, the attacker can choose one visible character group to be before anyone else. Other character groups stay where they are in the order.
First when making your attacks each weapon s attacks are grouped by profile. Let’s say they all have the same weapon with precision; cool this will be one group and rolled together.
Let’s say however you positioned such that some of your models attacks were affected by cover or you could ignore hit mods but only chose to do so on some of your attacks - well now as the profiles are different you have two groups of attacks each with precision and they will be rolled separately.
When the opponent makes allocation groups each character model will be a separate group and then all non-character models with the same defensive stats get grouped up.
For each weapon group with precision you can put a character model allocation group to front of order. Usually that’s be only one however in our second scenario we manipulated things to have two weapon groups with precision and we can select independently so for weapon group 1 we can pick character A and once resolved and we move on to weapon group 2 we can decide if we want more into character A or into character B instead.
Are Daemon of Chaos Brimstone Horrors actual 'models' with a statline, using the Blue horror's one when they split from them, or just a token to use for the Exploding Horrors ablity?
The new custodes Codex has a rule where a character can return on a 2+ roll. This rule is obviously vaguely written, but I remember GW doing a mass update to Character models not returning back to their original unit if they are revived. Would this ability return the character to the unit or unattached?
Its entirely possible GW Erratas this tomorrow but wanted to get some thoughts
"ADEPTUS CUSTODES MODEL model only. At the end of a phase in which this model is destroyed, roll one D6:
On a 2+, set this model back up on the battlefield as close as possible to where it was destroyed, unengaged with 3 wounds remaining."
GW did not do a mass update preventing characters from returning to their unit. They did a targeted update, only changing the specific problem stratagems
Thats what our discord quickly figured out as its worded similar to Celestines ability which lets her stay attached. Then its means the enhancement brings back this character infinitely unless you roll a 1 and still attached if it stays RAW then
Which is why it's a bit silly to try to take out the character with this enhancement with PRECISION. It will always make more sense to kill the squad it is with, than try to kill it only for it to rejoin the squad becaize you used precision.
3
u/JockstrapJayZ 2d ago
What happens if a Custodes terminator unit is selected as your Beacon unit, then uses Unleash The Lions to split into units of 1? Are each of them a Beacon unit due to consistent effects? Or does the Beacon "fall off" upon the split?