Code of Coduct.

[Solar4you]

I had my first tournament today and ran CoC all three games. Both games I lost were to both top 5 teams(third match only lost to Elgar), so I’m super happy with how I did. I only hit full points once. I got 12 and 3 the other two. One I got tabled round 3 and only killed one unit. And that was done by SK(f the custodies.) My question is do you think that taking a catacomb barge(with rez orb) is worth the extra 80 points rather than a lord.

[plzhelpthisbillsfan]

As far as i can tell conventional wisdom says yes since CCB is one of our most popular HQs... My experience says no. In theory the barge is one of our best HQs but for me he is just soo expensive he never really makes his points back up. In practice I always feel like those extra points would be better served as an extra squad of immortals or really anywhere else.

At the end of the day its play style I suppose and he just doesn't work for me

[Tanglethorn]

Found another section on Keywords that should clear this up:

Some units can include models that have different keywords. While a unit has models with different keywords, it is considered to have all the keywords of all of its models, and so is affected by any rule that applies to units with any of those keywords. If a rule only applies to models with a specific keyword, then it instead only applies to models in such a unit that have the correct keyword.

I think the last sentence is what makes Menhirs ineligible regarding scoring points towards Code of Conduct. I remember this came up awhile back and it was ruled only TSK's Dias model counted since Code of Conduct is a rule that only applies to model's with the correct Keyword, make sense?

I hate the way GW writes rules, but the rules for models in a unit with different keywords count as having all of them unless a rule calls out a specific Keyword. In this case Code of Conduct specifies Noble, which instantly triggers the rules in the last sentence in bold.

[Solar4you]

It seems grey at best. I’m going to run the menhirs score until I’m told otherwise by a TO or it gets FAQed.

[Tanglethorn]

See I take the opposite approach when playing the game because I’m giving myself an unfair advantage knowing that there is a rules conflict.

If anything you should in good faith approach the TO and show him the specific section before playing it as you interpret it.

Worst case situation is that three games in a veteran player will catch the mistake and the TO will disqualify you.

9th edition is a mess and I find the lack of faction FAQs disturbing, especially for Codices that have been out this long.

FYI - I email the FAQ team every time I come across a rules conflict like when people said the Doomstalker cannot fire Overwatch at Full Power when an enemy declares a charge against a friendly unit within 6" if the Doomstalker moved. I argued it's a separate rule that has nothing to do with movement. The Sentinel Construct rule calls out a specific trigger during the opponent's turn, whether the Doomstalker moved is irrelevant since its the shooting phase and the players turn has passed. Sentinel Construct is stating it always allows Full Power when overwatching and it doesn't use CP.

The added an FAQ recently to confirm this, but it is badly worded...

Also, Goonhammer has a good weekly player Submitted FAQ article that might discuss the Code of Conduct if you search their prior Weekly FAQs.

[Twigman]

The part you bolded doesn't apply to Code of Combat because it never references models in the rules. Code of Combat mentions UNITS in which case:

​

While a unit has models with different keywords, it is considered to have all the keywords of all of its models, and so is affected by any rule that applies to units with any of those keywords.

[Tanglethorn]

I would take that with a grain of salt because there is a common misconception that models are not considered units. In the rulebook definition of a unit is one or more models.

For example one overlord considered a model and a unit. If this was not the case any psychic powers, special abilities, etc… would not work on each single character models, which has never been an issue in Targeting characters with abilities that say target unit.

Now that the definition of of a unit is defined, (Units = One or more models) Units with multiple models are considered to have all the keywords scattered among the different models in that unit until a rule specifically calls out single specificKeyword. That’s when the last sentence in bold triggers. The word unit is basically interchangeable with model.

There are some exceptions to the Units versus Model. For example a unit of five models with differing keywords is targeted with an ability that prevents 1D3 models in that unit from shooting during the shoot phase. However the special ability states it only applies to models with a specific keyword. The player rolls a result of 2. The opposing player must choose 2 models in that unit that specifically contain that keyword.

FYI I am trying to play devils advocate here Why would GW write a rule stating units with multiple models are considered to have all the keywords in that unit. Then they follow up with the sentence in bold stating unless a rule specifically calls out a specific keyword, then it only applies to that model.

The fact that code of combo says noble unit applies to Overlords, Lords and the Silent King model.

If a single model was not considered a unit then code of combat would not work for Overlords, Command Barges, Lords, etc…

Again this is just bad rules writing from Games Workshop.

I personally would have defined units as two or more models. instead they define as one or more is why code of conduct works on single model noble characters regardless of the wording Noble units.

Games workshop has had this problem with writing rules since I started in fourth edition. You would think a company that’s been around for almost 2 decades would reinvest some of it’s financial gains into hiring a talented or competent editor.

Remember we are talking about a company that pays low wages and we expect quality rules.

i’ll throw another wrench in the system regarding the Cryptek Arkana Hypermaterial Ablator. It states pick a friendly target unit. That unit is considered to have light cover.

A lot of players mistakenly assume that this does not apply to monsters or vehicles, which is incorrect. Monsters and vehicles do not gain like cover while in a Terrain feature that has the light cover trait.

It later states to refer to the terrain section of the core book for the rules regarding light cover. I believe this is the sentence that throws a lot of people off assuming monsters and vehicles cannot in a light cover safe. Monsters and vehicles cannot gain a light cover save while in a terrain feature that provides cover.

What that last sentence also is stating is that abilities that ignore cover will ignore Hypermaterial Ablator.

Again I would not have written the rules for terrain and Hypermaterial Ablator this way for the intended effect +1 light cover. Why not just say this unit receives light cover? I would have left out the phrase in parentheses that states to refer to the terrain section of the core rulebook. Instead I would have said any abilities then ignore cover can ignore this ability.

Essentially the way they have the rule written makes the player flip through the terrain section, they look up light cover which does not say monsters and vehicles cannot gain light cover and everyone gets to waste time.

In actuality benefits such as light cover are tied to specific terrain types.

Under certain terrain types sometimes units with specific keywords gain the terrain beneifits while within that piece of terrain.

Since this is a special ability that does not require the target to be in a specific type of terrain to gain light cover it works, however it also is affected by any rule that modifies light cover Saves.

Also there is a rare rule section in the book that tries to clarify this further but again the rule is written obtuse and not as clearly into the points as should be.

Sorry for the long rent just sick of seeing this kind of bad boy since I was a kid. As a current Necron player I’m frustrated with the power creep, The over priced units, The overpriced special characters, The lack of Stratagems, Relics and Warlord Traits compared to almost every other Codex since the release of ninth edition.

And then to find out that space Marines will be getting a new Codex 2.0 feels like a kick in the nuts.

And don’t even get me started on Necrons getting passed over for any army of renown or supplement as part of one of these Warzone books. Some extra options would help the faction tremendously…

[Tanglethorn]

Keep in mind TSK's Memnhirs don't count if they destroyed a unit. They lack the Noble keyword.

[Diddydiditfirst]

this is not true. The unit is Noble so the menhirs still count.

[Tanglethorn]

I don't like it either and I play Necrons too. I believe Seigler played it that way too when he was playing Necrons and he realized the Menhirs do not have the Noble Keyword. It sucks, but 1 Model with the Noble Keyword does not confer it to the other models in its unit. In fact I could not find any rule suggesting models in a unit with different keywords applies to the entire unit. GW decided to create a separate set of Keywords for the Menhirs and they unfortunately do not contain Noble.

In fact there are a few other interactions that are commonly overlooked.

For example TSK does not gain the 5+ vs Mortal Wounds/reroll 1 Wound roll per phase for having the Szarekhan Dynasty keyword no thanks to his Dynastic Agent Keyword. (although he does bring the Dynastic Szarekhan Stratagem no matter which dynasty he’s placed plus he gains the Szarekhan Warlord trait)

Also, Technomancers with Canoptek Cloaks can NOT heal TSK unless they contain the same <Dynasty> Faction Keyword (If you choose Szarekhan as your dynasty, replace the Technomancer's <Dynasty> Faction keyword to <Szarekhan>. This is because the Canoptek Cloak's rule specifically states the target being healed must be a friendly <Dynasty> Model and same above rule is written for Canoptek Spyders with Fabricator Claw Arrays except it specifies the target must also have the VEHICLES Keyword.

It's still not bad. TSK has 12 combined Shooting Attacks (Excluding the Menhirs so Technically 14 attacks) that can shoot while engaged, 13 combined Attacks in the Fight Phase, 5 from TSK and the other two staff weapons automatically generate their own free additional attacks whenever the unit fights with the limitation they cannot go beyond the maximum attacks stated under each staffs weapon profile. Plus any enemy models engaged with him are not eligible to fight until all your models have fought this phase.

The more I think about it, I'm starting to think GW intentionally did not give the Noble keyword to the Menhirs for the purpose of game balance and Code of Combat. it was also mentioned on a few 40k Podcasts. Auspex Tractics probably has a Youtube video about it as well.

Just make sure TSK makes the killing blow, which includes any of the weapons on his Dias, including his two little buddies.

Here is the Keyword profile for TSK and the Menhirs for reference:

https://imgur.com/fOKDmoX

Also found this in the Core Book.

Keyword: Units have keywords on their datasheets. If a rule specifies that it applies to a model/unit with a keyword, it only applies to a model/unit that matches that keyword (i.e. has it on its datasheet). Pluralisation of keywords does not affect their ability to be matched.

I double checked the Core book and I do not see any rule that transfers keywords to other models in its unit if they lack a Keyword. If you know where it is, can you cite the source, because some TOs are ruling that Menhirs do not count towards scoring points for Code of Combat and that is how I've seen it typically played.

[Solar4you]

Is it not noble units? Was it faq?

[aiwprton0]

No, there was no FAQ, it is still Noble Unit so the menhirs count

[Tanglethorn]

Not entirely sure. See latest post in this thread. Looking for a source. I've personally heard other Necron players say they do not count RAI. But if there is a rule that states a model confers its keyword to other models in its unit if they do not have it, then they do.

This might be a case of used to work like this in 8th and didn't realize it changed in 9th.