# Necron FAQ Soonish?



## Scarab17 (Jul 20, 2011)

I was just checking GW's site and it seems like the old Necron FAQ and Errata file has been pulled sometime in the past couple days. May be just to avoid confusion with the new rules or may be that the new FAQ is almost ready to go up. Only time will tell.:dunno:


----------



## SavageConvoy (Sep 21, 2011)

Well with the new codex the old FAQ would be rather pointless to clarify rules that don't exist. And you can't have Frequently Asked Questions when they are only recently asked.


----------



## Eleven (Nov 6, 2008)

Though I don't believe that there will be a necron FAQ any time soon, it does amuse me that GWS fans trust the rules writers so little that they expect an FAQ to clarify problems only 1 month after the release. 

In my opinion, it would be nice if there had to be new codices released before there are problems with a codex just released. However, I remember when I first read the newcrondex and though some of the things were written a little bit ambiguously. I think if a rule appears ambiguous to a fan upon the first read, they should take that rule into question. I also always wonder if some things are lost in translation because I'm American, but I would like to think that it's not a problem.


----------



## Scarab17 (Jul 20, 2011)

Eleven said:


> Though I don't believe that there will be a necron FAQ any time soon, it does amuse me that GWS fans trust the rules writers so little that they expect an FAQ to clarify problems only 1 month after the release.
> 
> In my opinion, it would be nice if there had to be new codices released before there are problems with a codex just released. However, I remember when I first read the newcrondex and though some of the things were written a little bit ambiguously. I think if a rule appears ambiguous to a fan upon the first read, they should take that rule into question. I also always wonder if some things are lost in translation because I'm American, but I would like to think that it's not a problem.



Well you hit the nail on the head. If someone can, upon first reading the codex, immediately spot errors and ambiguity like you and I did then it doesn't exactly lend the writers any credibility.


----------



## Eviltim (Sep 25, 2008)

Eleven said:


> Though I don't believe that there will be a necron FAQ any time soon, it does amuse me that GWS fans trust the rules writers so little that they expect an FAQ to clarify problems only 1 month after the release.


^this, give it time for the dust to clear, they'l be at least an FAQ soon,

Errata, can't tell as this _MAY_ have been written with 6th in mind, like ork & chaos were for 4th/5th

Also, you just got sigged!


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

do we have any examples of ambiguous rules in the cron dex?


----------



## Callistarius (Aug 17, 2010)

bitsandkits said:


> do we have any examples of ambiguous rules in the cron dex?


Doom Scythes death ray ability (p.50). 
"To fire the death ray, nominate a point on the battlefield anywhere within the weapon's range, then nominate a second point within 3d6" of the first. Then, draw a straight line between the two points. Every unit (friendly or enemy) underneath the line suffers a number of hits equal to the number of models in the unit underneath the line."

I can see this as taken two ways: for example, tac squad 1 has 10 models, 2 are struck by the death ray line. Does is take 10 hits (as could be seen by a literal reading of "number of hitd equal to the number of models in the unit underneath the line) or just the 2 models (as the models underneath the line).


----------



## the-ad-man (Jan 22, 2010)

bitsandkits said:


> do we have any examples of ambiguous rules in the cron dex?


this, what are these vague fuck ups?


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

Callistarius said:


> Doom Scythes death ray ability (p.50).
> "To fire the death ray, nominate a point on the battlefield anywhere within the weapon's range, then nominate a second point within 3d6" of the first. Then, draw a straight line between the two points. Every unit (friendly or enemy) underneath the line suffers a number of hits *equal to the number of models* in the *unit* underneath the line."
> 
> I can see this as taken two ways: for example, tac squad 1 has 10 models, 2 are struck by the death ray line. Does is take 10 hits (as could be seen by a literal reading of "number of hitd equal to the number of models in the unit underneath the line) or just the 2 models (as the models underneath the line).


nothing vague about that rule, tac squad gets 10 hits,it never mentions anything about the number of models touched by the line. clearly states "equal to the number of models in the unit"


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

bitsandkits said:


> nothing vague about that rule, tac squad gets 10 hits,it never mentions anything about the number of models touched by the line. clearly states "equal to the number of models in the unit"


Erm except you are flat wrong. 

The rule



> To Fire the death ray,.....
> 
> ...Every unit (friendly or enemy) underneath the line suffers a number of hits equal to the number of models in the unit underneath the line.


It doesn't just vaporise whole units, you would have to be truly derpy to think that. Use your big boy reading skills and the truth becomes apparent, hits equal to the number of models in the unit under the line, not the number of models in the unit. Hurrrrrr.


----------



## elmir (Apr 14, 2011)

The plural here is right. That would be stupidly OP if it was just versus one unit that the line touches. No imagine the same carnage against any other unit within 4D6"...

There are things that need a bit of FAQ love however. BoLS did an article about it. Timing of entropic strike being one issue, the other being the ability to scarab "congaline" when you put a max unit of scarabs on the table and have 3 spiders creating more scarabs to basically enter the opponents deployement zone in turn 1, before any movement is even done.


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

Aramoro said:


> Erm except you are flat wrong.
> 
> The rule
> 
> ...


its a death ray, it does death! death death death tea break death lunch death death death afternoon tea death death bedtime.

but in all honesty im most likely wrong, but thats kinda the point isnt it, GW need to either write rules better or bosh out some Errta asap


----------



## the-ad-man (Jan 22, 2010)

death ray rules arent vague at all...

'every unit under the line suffers a number of hits equal to the number of models in the unit under the line'

so the unit passes over a 10 man tac squad, spacificaly going over 3 marines, that unit would suffer 3 wounds.....

the scarab thing is interesting, how exactly does that work?


----------



## misinformed (Mar 29, 2010)

the-ad-man said:


> death ray rules arent vague at all...
> 
> 'every unit under the line suffers a number of hits equal to the number of models in the unit under the line'
> 
> ...


The wording was poorly done, because if you took the sentence very literally, it can be read to sound as though every unit under the line would take a number of hits equal to the number of models in the unit... The issue is that the wording is "...number of models in the unit underneath the line." instead of "...number of models underneath the line from that unit." The way written makes the statement "underneath the line" appear to be modifying the word "unit" rather than "models." So, technically speaking, the editor needs to learn how to do his frigging job...

It was just bad editing, but the German faq already corrected it to be as it was intended (reportedly - I have not read it firsthand). That being if the line passes over 3 models, that unit would take 3 wounds.


As for the scarabs, the idea is relatively simple. The rules state that at the start of the movement phase, the spyder makes another scarab base to join a unit of scarabs within 6 inches. However, it doesn't say anything about where those scarabs would join (i.e. within 6" of the spyder). So, what people were doing was adding the new scarabs to the unit on the far side in order to be slightly closer to the enemy. Fair enough, but then people were bringing 9 spyders and placing them one at a time towards the enemy. This allowed them to place one towards a vehicle (or whatever) then use that new scarab as the new edge to reach out from with the next... then the next... then the next... until they had a long line of 9 scarabs reaching across the board. Ultimately, it lead to a few Land Raiders getting assaulted by scarabs on the first turn and with usually around 8 reaching it, that is 40 attacks designed to nuke vehicles. It will likely be changed to either within 6 inches of the scarabs for the new base or they are all created at the same time preventing them using each other to reach out. However, currently, it is a bit broken.


----------



## elmir (Apr 14, 2011)

Yeah, you described it well here. Worse still is that it's possibly the necron players first turn... So autohits combined with possible multicharges in these sort of situations. That's game over before the game even started with this little "trick". That needs to be faq'ed away much like the old scouting/shunt jump GK dreadknights.

People will always try these sort of douche moves.


----------



## Lord Commissar Lennard (Jul 17, 2010)

So because Matt Ward changes canon about as often as often as parents change babies diapers, simply because someone kills his precious Ultramarines, I am going to try my hand at it. Rowboat Girlyman died immediately after writing the Codex Astartes from a Necron Gauss Cannon going off right up his ass. What do you think of that Matt Ward? QUIT CHANGING SHIT!!!!!!!!!


----------



## the-ad-man (Jan 22, 2010)

yeah, thats a massive dick move haha

someone tried that on me, i wouldnt stop them, but i'd make sure they knew how a felt about the move


----------



## Eleven (Nov 6, 2008)

"every unit under the line suffers a number of hits equal to the number of models in the unit under the line"

Yeah this is one of the problems here. It could be read as the number of models in the unit ( the unit which is under the line).

So a wound for each model in the 'unit under the line.'

Alternatively it could be read a wound is dealt to the unit for each model under the line.


They should have written it either like this: "Each unit under the line takes a wound for each model under the line within that unit."

Or like this: "Each unit under the line takes a wound for each model in that unit."

These phrases are clear, but the way GWS said it could have been either of these ways.


----------



## Scarab17 (Jul 20, 2011)

There were several things that jumped out at me as being a tad vague. Strangely enough the Death ray wasn't one of them. Without my codex handy I can only recall the trouble I had getting a straight answer on whether a single model unit that failed his leadership check against mindshackle scarabs would hit himself. The codex wasn't helpful, GW was useless and I only got an answer here. (thanks all by the way). 

The fact is this couldn't have been an unanticipated circumstance. Necrons do sometimes get in close combat with Independent Characters after all. They are a thing, that exists, and existed before the codex came out. So clarity on this should be expected. But the way the rule itself was written, right after the fluff part said "turns on his allies" or some such left several people besides myself confused.

I'm not trying to gripe, I like the new rules, I'm just hoping to have one or two fewer arguments next time I play.


----------

