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.

Hi everyone.

Seen it done a few times but wanted to confirm.

Do the Silent Kings Menhirs count for earning Victory points for secondaries.

Especially looking at code of combat, but also against them as well.

I'm not familiar with what specific secondaries you are talking about. However, the menhirs are vehicle models with their own entries on The Silent King's datasheet. If you destroy them on their own then they count as vehicle models destroyed. However, any secondary that requires you to kill an entire unit would force you to take out Szarekh as well.

khsofsos wrote:
Hi everyone.

Seen it done a few times but wanted to confirm.

Do the Silent Kings Menhirs count for earning Victory points for secondaries.

Especially looking at code of combat, but also against them as well.

Well
Code of Combat basically says gain 3 VP whenever a noble unit destroys an enemy unit.

The Silent King and his Triarchal Menhir are all one unit, so you would have to destroy the unit, and not just the two Triarchal Menhir in his unit.

Ah, so then I think the reverse is the sticking point. Zharekh is NOBLE but his menhirs are not. So if the menhirs finish something off with their annhilator beams then did you kill something with a noble unit? If Szarekh smites a unit of grots with his staff then does that count, since he may be noble but his unit partially is not?

Since you have to declare all attacks for the unit together then I think it is fair to make the judgement that anything that is destroyed by the unit represented on this datasheet has been destroyed by a noble unit. The rules as written are unclear though.

 Bilge Rat wrote:
Ah, so then I think the reverse is the sticking point. Zharekh is NOBLE but his menhirs are not. So if the menhirs finish something off with their annhilator beams then did you kill something with a noble unit?

yes, because the unit has the keyword NOBLE by virtue of one model having the keyword.

If Szarekh smites a unit of grots with his staff then does that count, since he may be noble but his unit partially is not?

The unit has the keyword NOBLE by virtue of one model having the keyword.

Since you have to declare all attacks for the unit together then I think it is fair to make the judgement that anything that is destroyed by the unit represented on this datasheet has been destroyed by a noble unit. The rules as written are unclear though.

Not really all that unclear, as the unit shoots as a whole, and the unit has the NOBLE keyword.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Bilge Rat wrote:
Ah, so then I think the reverse is the sticking point. Zharekh is NOBLE but his menhirs are not. So if the menhirs finish something off with their annhilator beams then did you kill something with a noble unit?

yes, because the unit has the keyword NOBLE by virtue of one model having the keyword.

I suppose that is the real question does the whole unit gain the Noble keyword as the Menhirs don’t have it on their section.

They don't need it. It is a Noble unit, as at least one part of it has the right keyword.

Core Rulebook wrote:While a unit has models with different keywords, it is considered to have all the keywords of all of its models

While Szarekh is still alive, his Menhirs are considered to have the NOBLE keyword.

I'd like to piggy back on this question and add another.

Does the King get to push off his wounds to the Menhirs from melee combat? That section of the rules starts by talking about the "look out sir" rule but never specifically limits the transfer to ranged attacks.

I think that the melee damage shouldn't be transferred. Otherwise why would the rules discuss that fact that if the king is removed so are the other models. If the damage was transferred then there would never be a case where the king would be removed before the menhirs.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
I'd like to piggy back on this question and add another.

Does the King get to push off his wounds to the Menhirs from melee combat? That section of the rules starts by talking about the "look out sir" rule but never specifically limits the transfer to ranged attacks.

I think that the melee damage shouldn't be transferred. Otherwise why would the rules discuss that fact that if the king is removed so are the other models. If the damage was transferred then there would never be a case where the king would be removed before the menhirs.

Melee damage is still allocated to the Menhirs.

The relevant rule:

Triarchal Menhir: While this unit contains any Triarchal Menhirs models, it does not count as a CHARACTER for the purposes of the Look Out, Sir rule and each time an attack successfully wounds this unit, that attack must be allocated to one of those models. The destruction of Triarchal Menhirs is ignored for the purposes of Morale tests. If Szarekh is ever destroyed, any remaining Triarchal Menhirs in this unit are also destroyed.

The bit about "look out sir" is specifically about the the character targeting rule not applying, but doesn't change that "...each time an attack successfully wounds..." which covers melee as well as shooting.

As for when when/how the Silent King could be removed before the Menhirs, the rule is only for attacks. There are a number of ways to cause mortal wounds/damage without making attacks eg psychic powers, mortal wounds when charging, exploding vehicles etc.

Attacks are defined in the core rules:

Making Attacks
Attacks are made using ranged or melee weapons.

How do you put mortal wounds or any other form of wounds onto the King? The King's player would have to allocate those wounds and he get his choice of which specific model in the unit is wounded. I guess you could always hope that your opponent is an idiot and puts them on the King before the Menhirs but I don't think you should.

I also feel the rule that you quoted was phrased poorly. I think that the attack referred to is any ranged attack and not all attacks as mentioned in your second rules quote.

The rule would need to say "... each time a ranged attack successfully wounds..." for it to only apply to ranged attacks.

As for when someone might allocate a mortal wound to the Silent King, I can't think of anything outside of the player's own oversight as you say. Are there any psychic powers or abilities currently that allow you to target a specific model in a unit? If there are, maybe it is to account for this, or to future proof against this in the future?

There does appear to be a possible rules conflict, though I doubt it would ever show up in a real game. If the silent king unit was targeted by Smite and (who knows why) the player decided to take the mortal wound on the Silent King model, the Allocate Attack rule says:

If a model in the target unit has already lost any wounds ... the attack must be allocated to that model.

So subsequent attacks need to be allocated to the Silent King not the Menhirs in conflict with the Triarchal Menhir rule.

I agree the rule is not well written.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
How do you put mortal wounds or any other form of wounds onto the King?

The psychic power sacrifice from a master of posession says :

Sacrifice
If manifested, choose any model within 2" of the psyker; that model suffers a mortal wound.

If the silent king is within 2" of the psyker he would suffer a mortal wound.

 p5freak wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
How do you put mortal wounds or any other form of wounds onto the King?

The psychic power sacrifice from a master of posession says :

Sacrifice
If manifested, choose any model within 2" of the psyker; that model suffers a mortal wound.

If the silent king is within 2" of the psyker he would suffer a mortal wound.

Thanks for the example, I suspected there was still a way to target a specific model.

Any ideas how this would then interact with the conflicting rules on allocating wounds? I’m leaning towards the datasheet rule overriding the core rules, but do you know if this is covered anywhere?

This could indeed result in multiple models in a unit having lost wounds. I guess the player who owns the unit could allocate wounds to any model which already has lost wounds. But thats just HIWPI. There are no rules how to handle this situation, because it shouldnt exist.

So, let me ask this - how would you handle an attack on the King that has special effects if the attack is made against a character? For example, Shelaxi Helbrand (sp?) has a spear that if she rolls a six to wound the spear inflicts 6 wounds if the attack is against a character. Since challenges went out the window editions ago how do you decide whether that six to wound is automatically 6 wounds or not (assume armor save fails for those of you sticklers)?

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
So, let me ask this - how would you handle an attack on the King that has special effects if the attack is made against a character? For example, Shelaxi Helbrand (sp?) has a spear that if she rolls a six to wound the spear inflicts 6 wounds if the attack is against a character. Since challenges went out the window editions ago how do you decide whether that six to wound is automatically 6 wounds or not (assume armor save fails for those of you sticklers)?

You said "the spear inflicts 6 wounds" did you mean damage?

SHALAXI HELBANE has Soulpiercer that "When resolving an attack made with this weapon against a CHARACTER unit, on a wound roll of 6+ this weapon has a Damage characteristic of 6 for that attack."

And since the unit has the CHARACTER keyword, you handle it like you would any other unit with the CHARACTER keyword. It would do 6 damage since a unit is considered to have all the keywords of all of its models.

Core Rulebook wrote:While a unit has models with different keywords, it is considered to have all the keywords of all of its models