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.

So I got my hands on the new Necron Codex today, and I like the new rules. However, I have come across a few things that strike me as odd/daft. In addition, I have a question regarding the Wraiths' rules you guys might be able to help me out with.


1. Ghost ark.
This has been mentioned several other places, but I'll include it anyway. The rule for the Ghost Ark states that it can carry 10 models and those models must be either Warriors or Necron Characters of the infantry type. However, the minimum unit size for Warriors is 10 now, so apparently there's no way of attaching a Overlord/Lord/Cryptek/IC to a unit if you want that unit to be able to ride the Ghost Ark. It's likely due to an oversight after they decided to increase the minimum Warrior squad to 10 models and frankly it's just embarrassing for a corporation that's supposed to professional and a lead manufacturer of miniature wargames.

2. Praetorians and the Night Scythe.
Reading the Praetorians' codex entry reveals that they are granted the option of taking the Night Scythe as a dedicated transport. Reading the BRB rules for a transport, however, reveals that a transport can only transport infantry unless otherwise specifically stated (Praetorians are Jump Infantry). Flipping to the page with the rules for the Night Scythe shows us that there is no such specification to be found. I'm sure most players will allow the Praetorians to embark, but it still shows the lack of quality in this codex.

3. Cryptek chronometron.
Crypteks are allowed to take wargear from Technoarcana and/or Artefacts of the Aeons list (with a few execeptions from both). Furthermore, the Cryptek is allowed to take the Chronometron (Cryptek-only) special rule that grants a 5+ invul against shooting attacks for 25 pts. However, in the Technoarcana you find the phase shifter that grants a 4+ invul against all attacks for 25 pts. That renders the chronometron completely redundant and only the ignorant would ever buy that option. Again, embarrassing GW!

Edit: I'm a half-wit. People have pointed out that Chronometron is for the whole unit - at least I don't charge anyone for this post...

4. Wraith Options.
This is more of a question. Listed under the Wraiths' options is an entry that states that "Any model may take one of the following", and then the three options is listed (coils, caster, and beamer). Does this mean that the wraith is only allowed to take a coil OR a caster OR a beamer? Or does it mean that it can only take one of each per model? I.e. the Wraith is allowed to take all three upgrades, but only once. I'm asking because there seems to be different opinions in this matter. Again, it would have been great if GW learned to formulate themselves less ambiguously.

5. Proofreading.
I'll include this little pedantic comment as a bonus. The Stalker options states that "May include up two additional Triarch Stalkers". I mean, come on? Do you even read the gak you write?


That's all I can think of at the moment. I've excluded some issues as I find the debate complely unfounded or far-fetched (e.g. whether or not the Wraith receives the charge through DT initiative penalty).

I find it very disturbing that a multimillion-dollar international corporation can't figure out how their own rules work. I know many 14-year old kids that could have done a better job. When reading this codex, I get the feeling that it was written over night by some stressed-out sleep depraved half-wit. GW have had 4 years to observe how Necrons needed to change from 5th to 7th. They have had at least 9 months to implement these changes in a 7th ed. framework. How is it still possible to end up with such a poor end product ? I mean, this is a £30 book! Had it been an issue of WD, I would have let it slide, but at that price I find it unacceptable. And this is just the new Necron Codex - as far as I can tell, there are a ton of other examples from other Codices as well as the BRB. Had this been any other publishing house, the responsible people would have been sacked. Were I a member of the GW board, I would demand the CEO's resignation. Were I a shareholder, I would demand that drastic measures be taken in order to prevent this steady stream of fail.



What do you guys think? Am I being too hard on GW?

Also, if you have found other "fails", I'd like to know of them!

/e. Chronometron edit.

You're not being too hard on them, no. It's ridiculous that were paying £30 for ~100 pages and they can't even write it properly, or be arsed to actually proofread and edit.

The Chronometron grants the save to the whole unit.

But, yes, I agree there are a lot of writing issues with the new codex. One that bugs the crap out of me is that Imotekh doesn't have a close combat weapon now.

3. Chronometron.
The Chronometron works for the entire unit, a Phase Shifter only for the Cryptek itself.

4. Wraiths.
This is pretty clear to me: One of the following.
It's a wording they have been using for a long time, you have that list and you can take one of them.

6. I would include the issue with Wraithflight, since that is incredibly unclear.

7. How about the "Scarab Spyder" from the Canoptek Harvest?
Can I take more, can I not take more?

My personal favourite:
#8: Reanimation Protocol!
"the required dice roll can never be improved to be better than 4+"
Well, that hardly matters since the required dice roll is a 5+ and NOTHING in the Codex improves the required dice roll.
Those benefits do increase the amount you rolled, but there is no limitation on such a thing.
RAW I could get a 1+ Reanimation Protocol with enough Crypteks.

"Quantum Deflection: If the Doomsday Ark from this Formation's quantum shielding is deactivated at the start of any of the controlling player's Movement phases,..."

This seems to imply that this rule only comes in to effect if the ark loses its shield in the controlling player's movement phase, which isn't very likely to happen.

It just needs a comma after "deactivated."

Needless to say I lost a lot of sleep over this and considered returning the codex the next morning.

Quantum Deflection is actually correct in the wording.
QS can be active or deactivated.

What bothers me more is that you need to wait an entire turn before you can re-activate it.
He's not going to survive that long!

Talking about Quantum Shielding..
Thank you GW for nerfing my Tesseract Ark from AV14 to AV13.
You wouldn't be in financial problems if you weren't actively sabotaging your sister-company.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
The Chronometron grants the save to the whole unit.

But, yes, I agree there are a lot of writing issues with the new codex. One that bugs the crap out of me is that Imotekh doesn't have a close combat weapon now.

Fixed!

4. Wraiths.
This is pretty clear to me: One of the following.
It's a wording they have been using for a long time, you have that list and you can take one of them.

Yep, that was my view as well, but I saw some other dude talking about him wanting to take them all had he had the spare points.

My personal favourite:
#8: Reanimation Protocol!
"the required dice roll can never be improved to be better than 4+"
Well, that hardly matters since the required dice roll is a 5+ and NOTHING in the Codex improves the required dice roll.
Those benefits do increase the amount you rolled, but there is no limitation on such a thing.
RAW I could get a 1+ Reanimation Protocol with enough Crypteks.

Oh god, I hadn't heard of that one. Duh! ><

6. I would include the issue with Wraithflight, since that is incredibly unclear.

RAW I guess it's debatable, but I think the intent is pretty clear. I know others disagree, and that alone might be a reason for inclusion.

7. How about the "Scarab Spyder" from the Canoptek Harvest?
Can I take more, can I not take more?

To me it's pretty clear that it's only a single Spyder and not a unit, but I haven't heard the arguments against that view. Care to elaborate?

I'm very impressed by the Codex. As far as rules and points go that is. As far as editing...well...the Obelisk has the "Living Meta" Special rule.

4. Wraiths: Well, the guy is wrong. "One of the following" is pretty clear if you ask me.

8. Reanimation Protocols is pretty hilarious.
It has one upside! The Apocalypse-model called 'The Undying' keeps his RP"2+".

6. What is your interpretation?
Personally I think they ignore the penalty for charging through terrain since Wraithflight is not limited to the Movement Phase and RAW the Charge Move is also a 'move'. I also think that this sounds quite logical.

7. Well, for one: A Canoptek Spyder is not an entry in the Codex. It simply does not exist.
A Canoptek Spyder also has no point-cost.
We do have a unit of Canoptek Spyders which is 50 points and you can pay 50 ppm to add more models.

What do you think of the Conclave of the Burning One?
Which C'tan Shard are you going to add? I'm not sure since I haven't found a C'tan Shard in my Codex.

Perhaps you should list all errors, mistakes and typo's in the first post so we can mail them to GW.

 TheCrazyCryptek wrote:
I'm very impressed by the Codex. As far as rules and points go that is. As far as editing...well...the Obelisk has the "Living Meta" Special rule.

I was soooo hoping that was ePub only.

Kangodo wrote:
4. Wraiths: Well, the guy is wrong. "One of the following" is pretty clear if you ask me.

8. Reanimation Protocols is pretty hilarious.
It has one upside! The Apocalypse-model called 'The Undying' keeps his RP"2+".

6. What is your interpretation?
Personally I think they ignore the penalty for charging through terrain since Wraithflight is not limited to the Movement Phase and RAW the Charge Move is also a 'move'. I also think that this sounds quite logical.

7. Well, for one: A Canoptek Spyder is not an entry in the Codex. It simply does not exist.
A Canoptek Spyder also has no point-cost.
We do have a unit of Canoptek Spyders which is 50 points and you can pay 50 ppm to add more models.

What do you think of the Conclave of the Burning One?
Which C'tan Shard are you going to add? I'm not sure since I haven't found a C'tan Shard in my Codex.

Perhaps you should list all errors, mistakes and typo's in the first post so we can mail them to GW.

 TheCrazyCryptek wrote:
I'm very impressed by the Codex. As far as rules and points go that is. As far as editing...well...the Obelisk has the "Living Meta" Special rule.

I was soooo hoping that was ePub only.

4. As would be my opinion.

8. I seriously hope no one tries to take advantage of that wording. I'm not familiar with "The Undying" model. Is that from the apocalypse book?

6. I'll argue that they ignore the initiative penalty. The "as if it's open ground" from the Wraithflight rule settles that debate for me.

7. Well, in the formation it says "1 Canoptek Spyder" and then refers the reader to page 93 that has the heading "Canoptek Spyders". The only units without a heading in plural are unique/named characters and vehicles/Lords/Overlords etc. that can't be taking in units. The unit composition of the Spyder says "1 Canoptek Spyder". In any case, it should have been clarified under the Canoptek Harvest formation restrictions as it is with the Destroyer Cult.

With regard to Conclave of the Burning one, I'm not sure what you mean. Is that a formation from WD or Exterminatus? Anyway, I've got two C'tan Shards in my dex; C'tan Shard of the Nightbringer and C'tan Shard of the Deceiver...

I might compile a full list from what you guys bring sometime tomorrow. Tonight I'm trying to have some fun building lists capable of crushing both my older brothers' Orks as well as my younger brothers' Chaos Space Maringes (it's actually rather challenging with the new dex and its point-heavy formations - as we're relatively new to the game, so we're only playing 750 point max games at the moment - we've only recently stopped playing Combat Patrol 400 point games).

I'm very impressed by the Codex. As far as rules and points go that is. As far as editing...well...the Obelisk has the "Living Meta" Special rule.

Fortunately, my paper dex has an Obelisk with Living Metal. Although, "Living Meta" also sounds quite interesting. I wonder what that is... Some kind of physical manifestation of the games' meta tactics? Could someone please draw a picture of what that would look like

Are you too hard on GW? No. But when someone has to start calling names that usually means they can't prove what they want to say.

Very well said until the name slinging started. It just makes your post juvenile like you claim GW is doing.

1. Ghost ark.
This has been mentioned several other places, but I'll include it anyway. The rule for the Ghost Ark states that it can carry 10 models and those models must be either Warriors or Necron Characters of the infantry type. However, the minimum unit size for Warriors is 10 now, so apparently there's no way of attaching a Overlord/Lord/Cryptek/IC to a unit if you want that unit to be able to ride the Ghost Ark. It's likely due to an oversight after they decided to increase the minimum Warrior squad to 10 models and frankly it's just embarrassing for a corporation that's supposed to professional and a lead manufacturer of miniature wargames.

You're assuming this IS an oversight and isn't deliberatly done to force a CHOICE on you at unit design. If you wanna put warriors with an IC you can put em in a Night scythe. not every transport is made with ICs in mind. Space Marines cannot take an IC with their troops in razorbacks or landspeeder storms. we don't assume that's incompetance on GW's part. (especially as they downgraded a buncha transports from 5th ed's 12 troops to 10, so it's obvious GW specificly wanted that to be a choice)

2. Praetorians and the Night Scythe.
Reading the Praetorians' codex entry reveals that they are granted the option of taking the Night Scythe as a dedicated transport. Reading the BRB rules for a transport, however, reveals that a transport can only transport infantry unless otherwise specifically stated (Praetorians are Jump Infantry). Flipping to the page with the rules for the Night Scythe shows us that there is no such specification to be found. I'm sure most players will allow the Praetorians to embark, but it still shows the lack of quality in this codex.

Generally I tend to read an obvious exception for units that can take something as a dedicated transport.
it's not spelled out but it's a fair assumption to make.

4. Wraith Options.
This is more of a question. Listed under the Wraiths' options is an entry that states that "Any model may take one of the following", and then the three options is listed (coils, caster, and beamer). Does this mean that the wraith is only allowed to take a coil OR a caster OR a beamer? Or does it mean that it can only take one of each per model? I.e. the Wraith is allowed to take all three upgrades, but only once. I'm asking because there seems to be different opinions in this matter. Again, it would have been great if GW learned to formulate themselves less ambiguously.

"one of the following" seems clear and unambiguous to me. would it help if GW also published it en francis?

I'll include this little pedantic comment as a bonus. The Stalker options states that "May include up two additional Triarch Stalkers". I mean, come on? Do you even read the gak you write?

eh it's a typo. they happen.

AbyssalisCuriositas wrote:
8. I seriously hope no one tries to take advantage of that wording. I'm not familiar with "The Undying" model. Is that from the apocalypse book?

It's the best formation I have ever read.


The Conclave is a Formation from Exterminatus, which has one C'tan Shard.
But GW didn't want to spoil anything from the new Codex, so they wrote down C'tan Shard instead of C'tan Shard of Nightbringer/Deceiver.
It is quite logical, but RAW it is wrong. And there is no reason to do such a thing except to not spoil such a silly change.

Kangodo wrote:

My personal favourite:
#8: Reanimation Protocol!
"the required dice roll can never be improved to be better than 4+"
Well, that hardly matters since the required dice roll is a 5+ and NOTHING in the Codex improves the required dice roll.
Those benefits do increase the amount you rolled, but there is no limitation on such a thing.
RAW I could get a 1+ Reanimation Protocol with enough Crypteks.

RAI though it's obvious they're saying you can't. and anyone who'd argue otherwise quite frankly is the type of moron I'd not wanna play with.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kangodo wrote:

AbyssalisCuriositas wrote:
8. I seriously hope no one tries to take advantage of that wording. I'm not familiar with "The Undying" model. Is that from the apocalypse book?

It's the best formation I have ever read.

Spoiler:

It are basically three Lords and a Cryptek with specific gear.
Undying: Warscythe, Phase Shifter, +2 to his RP and Fearless to all Troops within 24"
Stormcaller: Staff of Light, Tachyon Arrow and an 18" wide 'Imothek-storm' that always hits even outside Night.
Voidbringer: Staff of Light, ResOrb and Stealth to all Necrons in 24" (This gave my entire army Stealth in the last Apoc battle )
Ankh: Harbinger of Transmog with Harp and Stave, let's the entire unit re-roll failed saves.

But they count as one unit and cannot separate.
Since they are a High Command, they also give a full-out attack, which lets my Wraiths move 36" each turn or my Infinite Phalanx move 18".

The Conclave is a Formation from Exterminatus, which has one C'tan Shard.
But GW didn't want to spoil anything from the new Codex, so they wrote down C'tan Shard instead of C'tan Shard of Nightbringer/Deceiver.
It is quite logical, but RAW it is wrong. And there is no reason to do such a thing except to not spoil such a silly change.

I don't see what's wrong here. It says "one C'tan shard" clearly both those units are types of C'tan shards.

BrianDavion wrote:
RAI though it's obvious they're saying you can't. if thats a problem with you maybe 40k isn't for you and you should go try "Lawyer Wars: courtroom battles to the deaaaaaath!"

No, MTG is more my thing.
That's where I do get well-written rules and I don't even have to pay for those rules!

But is their intent clear?
How about models that give a +2 to RP?
Why do we have a million ways to add +1 to RP?
How exactly does it work with Instant Death?

BrianDavion wrote:
I don't see what's wrong here. It says "one C'tan shard" clearly both those units are types of C'tan shards.

And since when is that a type?
According to the fluff, the T-C'tan is ALSO a C'tan Shard.

Kangodo wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
RAI though it's obvious they're saying you can't. if thats a problem with you maybe 40k isn't for you and you should go try "Lawyer Wars: courtroom battles to the deaaaaaath!"

No, MTG is more my thing.
That's where I do get well-written rules and I don't even have to pay for those rules!

But is their intent clear?
How about models that give a +2 to RP?
Why do we have a million ways to add +1 to RP?
How exactly does it work with Instant Death?

what models give +2 to RP?
as for a million ways to add +1 RP it's almost always on ICs. clearly the intent is to spread your ICs out across your squads granting them the bonus to your RPs.

looking at RPs a little more, you subtract 1 from your roll if the weapon has instant death, add +1 to your roll if your unit has a cryptic. etc. however at the end of the day you must still roll a 4 or better to have RP activate. no matter how many bonuses you have,

the long and short of it is that no matter how much you stack things, you have to make a dice roll and get at LEAST a 4 on the die. basicly it's GW's way to preventing you from stacking a half dozen cryptics in a formation of warriors and having unkillable warrior squads.

I generally like it, seeing a lot of the oldcron stuff making a return.

But a wee bit sad that I still can't play my VoD Nightmare Shroud Lord thanks to the wording on the relics (from what I've gathered from other users)

Davor wrote:
Are you too hard on GW? No. But when someone has to start calling names that usually means they can't prove what they want to say.

Very well said until the name slinging started. It just makes your post juvenile like you claim GW is doing.

That's funny, because I think the name calling underlines EXACTLY what I want to say, but maybe I've just spent too much time on reddit. Furthermore, I did not write this post to prove anything, I wrote it to state my opinion as well as hear other peoples' opinion regarding the subject matter. I apologise if you find these remarks offending. I find them funny, and I decided an otherwise dry post needed a bit of spice.

With regard to your comment about my post being juvenile; I did not claim that GW were being (doing?) juvenile. My remark concerning people aged 14 was to highlight the quality of work GW has delivered i.e. some of these inconsistencies are so obvious that one wouldn't need a whole lot of education to spot them. Whether or not they are juvenile, I'll refrain from passing judgement on, but you say that as if its an inherently bad thing? I mean, aren't we all a bit juvenile? Playing wargames with little plastic warriors?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:

1. Ghost ark.
This has been mentioned several other places, but I'll include it anyway. The rule for the Ghost Ark states that it can carry 10 models and those models must be either Warriors or Necron Characters of the infantry type. However, the minimum unit size for Warriors is 10 now, so apparently there's no way of attaching a Overlord/Lord/Cryptek/IC to a unit if you want that unit to be able to ride the Ghost Ark. It's likely due to an oversight after they decided to increase the minimum Warrior squad to 10 models and frankly it's just embarrassing for a corporation that's supposed to professional and a lead manufacturer of miniature wargames.

You're assuming this IS an oversight and isn't deliberatly done to force a CHOICE on you at unit design. If you wanna put warriors with an IC you can put em in a Night scythe. not every transport is made with ICs in mind. Space Marines cannot take an IC with their troops in razorbacks or landspeeder storms. we don't assume that's incompetance on GW's part. (especially as they downgraded a buncha transports from 5th ed's 12 troops to 10, so it's obvious GW specificly wanted that to be a choice)

It think it's a fair assumption given that it was possible to transport a unit of 9 warrios + an IC in the last codex. Do you think they intended the ghost ark to be used as an IC transport in addition to a warrior transport?

BrianDavion wrote:

2. Praetorians and the Night Scythe.
Reading the Praetorians' codex entry reveals that they are granted the option of taking the Night Scythe as a dedicated transport. Reading the BRB rules for a transport, however, reveals that a transport can only transport infantry unless otherwise specifically stated (Praetorians are Jump Infantry). Flipping to the page with the rules for the Night Scythe shows us that there is no such specification to be found. I'm sure most players will allow the Praetorians to embark, but it still shows the lack of quality in this codex.

Generally I tend to read an obvious exception for units that can take something as a dedicated transport.
it's not spelled out but it's a fair assumption to make.

I agree, but I still think it shows lack of quality in GWs work.

BrianDavion wrote:

4. Wraith Options.
This is more of a question. Listed under the Wraiths' options is an entry that states that "Any model may take one of the following", and then the three options is listed (coils, caster, and beamer). Does this mean that the wraith is only allowed to take a coil OR a caster OR a beamer? Or does it mean that it can only take one of each per model? I.e. the Wraith is allowed to take all three upgrades, but only once. I'm asking because there seems to be different opinions in this matter. Again, it would have been great if GW learned to formulate themselves less ambiguously.

"one of the following" seems clear and unambiguous to me. would it help if GW also published it en francis?

See my other post above.

BrianDavion wrote:

I'll include this little pedantic comment as a bonus. The Stalker options states that "May include up two additional Triarch Stalkers". I mean, come on? Do you even read the gak you write?

eh it's a typo. they happen.

They do, but again, shows lack of quality, imo.

/e. formatting.

With regards to the Canoptek Harvest: First of all, it says "Formation Restrictions: None", which is where they put the actual limitations on the unit such as minimum or maximum unit sizes, or required or forbidden upgrades.

Secondly, if you look at the poster which came with the special edition of the codex, detailing a fully maximised Decurion:



You'll see that the harvest has three Spyders.

Basically this is just confusion stemming from the use of singular to refer to the formation leader Spyder.

I think that wins over the RAI.
In BS I gave the option for multiple Spyders too.

 TheCrazyCryptek wrote:
I'm very impressed by the Codex. As far as rules and points go that is. As far as editing...well...the Obelisk has the "Living Meta" Special rule.

So the Obelisk is actually a Knight with Wave Serpents for feet being carried through the skies by two Flyrants?

Edit: Come to think of it, this seems like the worst book for wonky rules, poorly presented rules, and typos since... 5e Tyranids?

changemod wrote:
With regards to the Canoptek Harvest: First of all, it says "Formation Restrictions: None", which is where they put the actual limitations on the unit such as minimum or maximum unit sizes, or required or forbidden upgrades.

Secondly, if you look at the poster which came with the special edition of the codex, detailing a fully maximised Decurion:



You'll see that the harvest has three Spyders.

Basically this is just confusion stemming from the use of singular to refer to the formation leader Spyder.

That's actually a pretty good point. I think you might have convinced me. If you turn to page 34 of the standard codex, there's a little box that outlines a Canoptek Swarm (whatever that is). It says "1 unit of Canoptek Spyders. 1 unit of Canoptek Scarabs. 1 unit of Canoptek Wraiths". Anyway, as I mentioned above, it would have been a far better idea to list the entry in the formation specification as "1 unit of Canoptek Spyders" and then put the restrictions beneath if there were any.


On a side note, are the Warriors no longer able to fire their weapons when embarked on the ghost ark? I haven't played a game with mine yet, but I think I've seen a few batreps where they'd fire their arks' gauss flayer arrays as well as the embarked Warriors' gauss flayers. Looking at the Night Scythe entry, it clearly states that there are no fire points. On the opposite page, you find the Ghost Ark, but there's no mention of fire points. Is this another mistake?

/e. Wording and Ghost Ark question.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kangodo wrote:
I think that wins over the RAI.
In BS I gave the option for multiple Spyders too.

So have you made a repository for the 7th ed. Necrons? Is it up for grabs?

The Ghost Ark is open-topped, so it has infinite fire points automatically.

AbyssalisCuriositas wrote:
So have you made a repository for the 7th ed. Necrons? Is it up for grabs?

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/617215.page
'We' have a big thread for that.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
The Ghost Ark is open-topped, so it has infinite fire points automatically.

Ah, that makes sense. Thanks a bunch!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kangodo wrote:

AbyssalisCuriositas wrote:
So have you made a repository for the 7th ed. Necrons? Is it up for grabs?

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/617215.page
'We' have a big thread for that.

Cool, thanks! It's looking great!

changemod wrote:
With regards to the Canoptek Harvest: First of all, it says "Formation Restrictions: None", which is where they put the actual limitations on the unit such as minimum or maximum unit sizes, or required or forbidden upgrades.

Secondly, if you look at the poster which came with the special edition of the codex, detailing a fully maximised Decurion:



You'll see that the harvest has three Spyders.

Basically this is just confusion stemming from the use of singular to refer to the formation leader Spyder.

Do you notice the White lines going from 3 Wraiths to 1 Spyder to 1 block of scarabs?

It's a flow chart of sorts. Follow the lines...

 grendel083 wrote:

changemod wrote:
With regards to the Canoptek Harvest: First of all, it says "Formation Restrictions: None", which is where they put the actual limitations on the unit such as minimum or maximum unit sizes, or required or forbidden upgrades.

Secondly, if you look at the poster which came with the special edition of the codex, detailing a fully maximised Decurion:



You'll see that the harvest has three Spyders.

Basically this is just confusion stemming from the use of singular to refer to the formation leader Spyder.

Do you notice the White lines going from 3 Wraiths to 1 Spyder to 1 block of scarabs?

It's a flow chart of sorts. Follow the lines...

I see two white lines, one on either side of the wraith formation, moving down and connecting to both sides of the spider formation.

Three white lines. The middle Spyder also has a white line, it's just very short and partially obscured. At the top of the box, a little right to the mid.

Overall, I'm satisfied with the codex. Strong units, nothing is bad, and other than misinterpretations left and right, it's pretty solid. A couple tings need FAQs so we know what GW intended, but otherwise, typos happen, and considering I'll rarely look at the codex except for reference, it doesn't really matter much.