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.

I just read on a few different forums that the rod has been house ruled by a number of tournament organizers to have ap 2 in either the shooting or assault phase, but not both. Is this true? I understand some weapons in some codices have a ruling like this, but the Stat line and wording in the current necron codex is very clear, they should get ap 2 in both phases, I don't see how this reading is controversial in the slightest. But interested on community feedback, thanks.

BRB Page 41, under "Weapons", second paragraph: "Some weapons can be used in combat as well as shooting. Where this is the case, there will be a separate line in the weapon's profile for each, and you can choose which to use each turn."

A lot of folk are reading that as that you have to choose one profile in one turn, so you wouldn't be able to use the other profile in the same turn.

I understand that to be true, but with all due respect to those individuals, that reasoning is utterly flawed. As you point out the BRB claims that weapons with this kind of utility will have two Stat lines in the profile to explain how each mode works, shooting or assaulting. The necron codex provides this double lined profile, one showing str 5, the other str user, BOTH ap 2. It indicates no where that a choice is to be made, nor does it indicate that the ap 2 is ever lost. This inference made by some has no compelling evidence or strength behind it in my opinion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In fact, if we take the BRB phrasing literally, it makes it sound like you pick one profile for the entire turn, meaning you can either shoot with it and not charge, or charge and not shoot. Which of course makes no sense as they are an assault unit with a shooting profile of assault 1, implying that the unit is intended to assault after shooting. I can't believe a poorly worded obscure sentence in the BRB would overrule a clearly stated and plainly worded codex profile.

IMO it is the same as a Star Lance or Laser Lance in C:CWE. They have the split weapon profile. It would not make sense if you could not charge with unit if you shot their laser lances.

In fairness, Ork Burnas did exactly that the last time their rules were spelled out in detail rather than referencing standard rules - if you used them as a flamer, you couldn't then use them as a power weapon in th same turn.

That's the Ork Codex, a completely different army, with completely different lore and technology.

There's no such wording in the codex that says you get to use both profiles. The weapon simply has two profiles and no further rules. The BRB says when you have a weapon like this, you must choose which profile to use. If you choose to use its ranged profile, you can't use the melee profile in the same turn. Since the model doesn't have a melee weapon it can use, it counts as having a single CCW in assault that turn.

I don't understand why you think the codex has to say anything about a choice having to be made or the weapon losing AP 2. Its a weapon with 2 profiles and is explained in the BRB.

If a TO said otherwise or if I was playing a pick up game and the person wanted to use both profiles in the same turn, I wouldn't mind. I think it's dumb and the rule should be rewritten to be applied per phase, but GW has bad rules that create never-ending arguments...so you know what; play how you want.

peteralmo wrote:
That's the Ork Codex, a completely different army, with completely different lore and technology.

I fail to see how fluff matters in a rules debate (which should be in YMDC).

Praetorians are still very good, despite being littered with errors (such as a Nightscythe DT). Judicator Battalion is still great to use.

Do you think the Judicator is still good? The only reason I thought the unit was viable was for a round of str 5 ap 2 shooting followed by 3 attacks each at str 5 ap 2. If its one or the other, in which case you'll almost always choose combat for many more attacks, you're completely vulnerable to a failed charge. With the ability to shoot and then charge with the weapon you mitigate being completely wasted if you fail the charge. I suppose you could send them against infantry so that you can shoot at str 5 ap 2 and then charge with str 5 ap - CCW's knowing you'll still be affective, but it begs the question of why are you sending ap 2 weapons against infantry and not elite units? It's another example of GW asking a unit to choose between two completely different roles - and also highlights why Eldar are so good (units with a clearly defined role that they are exceptionally good at).

Just keep in mind that if we go by this ruling of "not being used in both phases" then pistols also get hit by this as well. They do count as being a CC weapon (and in the BRB standard CC weapons have a clearly defined profile) so if you shoot a pistol in the shooting phase then you cant get the bonus attack in CC because by this logic you pick a profile (either shooting profile or CC profile) and that's what you get for the turn, not both. I find it very annoying that this "Split profile" debate didn't even come to light until the Necron's codex dropped and praetorian Rods turned out to be good.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

peteralmo wrote:
Do you think the Judicator is still good? The only reason I thought the unit was viable was for a round of str 5 ap 2 shooting followed by 3 attacks each at str 5 ap 2. If its one or the other, in which case you'll almost always choose combat for many more attacks, you're completely vulnerable to a failed charge. With the ability to shoot and then charge with the weapon you mitigate being completely wasted if you fail the charge. I suppose you could send them against infantry so that you can shoot at str 5 ap 2 and then charge with str 5 ap - CCW's knowing you'll still be affective, but it begs the question of why are you sending ap 2 weapons against infantry and not elite units? It's another example of GW asking a unit to choose between two completely different roles - and also highlights why Eldar are so good (units with a clearly defined role that they are exceptionally good at).

To be fair, the Judicator would still be good but the Void blades would become the better option (which it's debatable that they already are). The +1 BS in a decurion plus the high amount of attacks the void blades have makes it justifiable to still bring.

Sounds like a dirty way to screw Necrons to me.

 Chosen Praetorian wrote:
Just keep in mind that if we go by this ruling of "not being used in both phases" then pistols also get hit by this as well. They do count as being a CC weapon (and in the BRB standard CC weapons have a clearly defined profile) so if you shoot a pistol in the shooting phase then you cant get the bonus attack in CC because by this logic you pick a profile (either shooting profile or CC profile) and that's what you get for the turn, not both. I find it very annoying that this "Split profile" debate didn't even come to light until the Necron's codex dropped and praetorian Rods turned out to be good.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

peteralmo wrote:
Do you think the Judicator is still good? The only reason I thought the unit was viable was for a round of str 5 ap 2 shooting followed by 3 attacks each at str 5 ap 2. If its one or the other, in which case you'll almost always choose combat for many more attacks, you're completely vulnerable to a failed charge. With the ability to shoot and then charge with the weapon you mitigate being completely wasted if you fail the charge. I suppose you could send them against infantry so that you can shoot at str 5 ap 2 and then charge with str 5 ap - CCW's knowing you'll still be affective, but it begs the question of why are you sending ap 2 weapons against infantry and not elite units? It's another example of GW asking a unit to choose between two completely different roles - and also highlights why Eldar are so good (units with a clearly defined role that they are exceptionally good at).

To be fair, the Judicator would still be good but the Void blades would become the better option (which it's debatable that they already are). The +1 BS in a decurion plus the high amount of attacks the void blades have makes it justifiable to still bring.

Pistols don't have a dual profile, so you aren't using their profile in assault. They just have a special rule that gives the model an extra attack if it is armed with another assault weapon (that of course is not specialized/two handed/etc..)

Its the rules.

it is not making the unit choose between being good at two things, its making you choose to shoot or assault and not have the weapon do both each time you use it. If your already locked in assault, it does not matter. If you kill what you are shooting, it does not matter. I believe given the rules for picking weapons to fire you are not required to fire all the weapons of the same type in an unit so you can pick to fire some and use some in assault.

It's a rules interpretation that exists solely on the Internet. You can safely ignore it.

 MasterSlowPoke wrote:
It's a rules interpretation that exists solely on the Internet. You can safely ignore it.

if by interpretation you mean exactly what the rules say you are correct

BRB Page 41, under "Weapons", second paragraph: "Some weapons can be used in combat as well as shooting. Where this is the case, there will be a separate line in the weapon's profile for each, and you can choose which to use each turn."

if turn was replaced by phase, similar to how you replaced rules as written with interpretation, then you could use it in both phases a-ok

I really wish it did say phase, cause praetorians would be my go to for anti TEQ, with that rules interpretation I see them more as MEQ hunters at best, which other units do better imo.

Pretty sure this thread is in the wrong forum, but I agree totally with OP and others who say this is a dirty rules lawyer way to nerf necrons.
Anyone I play against who inforces this nerf loses the +1 Attacks from pistols, plus any other similar items (looking at eldar players here).
There are loads of examples of the exact same thing in other books, which has been cannon for years.
Praetorians can use the rod in shooting attacks, then charge and fight using the rod, it's the rules of the game. Anyone who says otherwise is just being TFG.

CaptainSuperglue wrote:
Pretty sure this thread is in the wrong forum, but I agree totally with OP and others who say this is a dirty rules lawyer way to nerf necrons.
Anyone I play against who inforces this nerf loses the +1 Attacks from pistols, plus any other similar items (looking at eldar players here).
There are loads of examples of the exact same thing in other books, which has been cannon for years.
Praetorians can use the rod in shooting attacks, then charge and fight using the rod, it's the rules of the game. Anyone who says otherwise is just being TFG.

Because your rule interpretation is 100% accurate and anyone who disagrees is just being a terrible person? You realize how looks? People who see the rules (using the wording within the rulebook) and draw a conclusion from it are not ''Dirty'' because they interpret it a certain way as long the wording supports it. In this case, the wording supports it. It's very rude to make sweeping assumptions of everyone over a single thing.

CaptainSuperglue wrote:
Pretty sure this thread is in the wrong forum, but I agree totally with OP and others who say this is a dirty rules lawyer way to nerf necrons.
Anyone I play against who inforces this nerf loses the +1 Attacks from pistols, plus any other similar items (looking at eldar players here).
There are loads of examples of the exact same thing in other books, which has been cannon for years.
Praetorians can use the rod in shooting attacks, then charge and fight using the rod, it's the rules of the game. Anyone who says otherwise is just being TFG.

Suddenly you cannot Throw Arjac's hammer, then use it in assault, making it's ranged ability pretty useless.

CaptainSuperglue wrote:
Pretty sure this thread is in the wrong forum, but I agree totally with OP and others who say this is a dirty rules lawyer way to nerf necrons.
Anyone I play against who inforces this nerf loses the +1 Attacks from pistols, plus any other similar items (looking at eldar players here).
There are loads of examples of the exact same thing in other books, which has been cannon for years.
Praetorians can use the rod in shooting attacks, then charge and fight using the rod, it's the rules of the game. Anyone who says otherwise is just being TFG.

It's clearly stated that Praetorians can shoot with their rod, that suddenly disappear while charging, so they're gonna kick the enemy
Also, when charged, thay can overwatch and then bite their foe to death

I have no problem in friendly games playing them the way I think they should be played, and my play group won't mind, but I also care about TO rules.

peteralmo wrote:
I have no problem in friendly games playing them the way I think they should be played, and my play group won't mind, but I also care about TO rules.

Ask your TO about the Eldar Chainsabers, Scorpian Claw, Triskele, Laser Lance, Singing Spear and any other of the dual profile weapons they have in their codex. I personally would have no issue with this Rod of Covenant ruling so long as it applied to all of these weapons as well. HIWPI in a friendly game however is you can use both profiles in the same turn unless the codex says otherwise (burna boyz)

 Javorra wrote:


Also, when charged, thay can overwatch and then bite their foe to death

Wow lots of hostility in this thread, I am sorry if I came accross as rude but I am just saying what I think.

Javorra you sum up my point better than I did, well done, and as you've pointed out if we play by this nonsense then if a unit of praetorians are charged, and perform an overwatch attack, then they would not be allowed to fight in the close combat using their Rods, which is pretty dumb in my book.
Silly rules lawyering at it's finest if you enforce this rule.

This thread is now a hiwpi thread

Sadly, from what I have seen of this debate those that only want one profile used a turn tend to side with those that think the Necrons are to strong a codex.

so until there is an FAQ to straighten it out (Fat chance that happening) There is a weapon that can shoot 12 in at ap 2 and hit in CC at ap2. pretty simple if you ask me.

RAW, one profile per turn.

HIWPI, one profile per phase. This means you can shoot with it and charge, or Overwatch and not be able to use it (that turn).

 jokerkd wrote:
This thread is now a hiwpi thread

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:
RAW, one profile per turn.

HIWPI, one profile per phase. This means you can shoot with it and charge, or Overwatch and not be able to use it (that turn).

If everybody wrote their posts in this format, i think there would be so much less arguing

Yeah looks like it just needs to be FAQ'd, I just can't imagine you only get to use one mode per turn at full affect, makes some weapons terrible, like rod or singing spear.

 Happyjew wrote:
RAW, one profile per turn.

HIWPI, one profile per phase. This means you can shoot with it and charge, or Overwatch and not be able to use it (that turn).

I second this. Though actually, I might even say per sub-phase. It's silly to me to allow shooting + charge, but not overwatch + ensuing melee.

RAW though it's clear, one profile per turn. Not sure why so many people are getting angry at others pointing this out. The text could not be any clearer. The text could also not be any dumber, but there you go. No grudge needed.

Unahim wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
RAW, one profile per turn.

HIWPI, one profile per phase. This means you can shoot with it and charge, or Overwatch and not be able to use it (that turn).

I second this. Though actually, I might even say per sub-phase. It's silly to me to allow shooting + charge, but not overwatch + ensuing melee.

RAW though it's clear, one profile per turn. Not sure why so many people are getting angry at others pointing this out. The text could not be any clearer. The text could also not be any dumber, but there you go. No grudge needed.

If you want a fluff explanation, imagine there is a "switch". Models have time to toggle the switch between the shooting phase and fight sub-phase, but not between firing Overwatch and the fight sub-phase.

Oh yeah, there's certainly ways to explain it and it's totally a legit HIWPI. Just personal preference.