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.

Is it just me or did Matt Ward really fail at explaining rules in that codex. Maybe I have been blissfully ignorant to the last few codex releases, but it seems there is a lot more heated debates going on over rules interpretation for this codex.

On one hand, some of the rules seem a little too general and could have done with another sentence or two to clarify things. On the other hand, in most of the threads I've read, certain usages of rules have been disallowed by citing the BRB. This is followed by some people using theoryhammer rather than RAW to argue what people have pointed out from the rules.

So what do you guys think? Poorly written, or are a handful of slighted 'Crons players hunting for .

To me, I feel it is a combination of both.

Lax35 wrote:Is it just me or did Matt Ward really fail at explaining rules in that codex. Maybe I have been blissfully ignorant to the last few codex releases, but it seems there is a lot more heated debates going on over rules interpretation for this codex.

On one hand, some of the rules seem a little too general and could have done with another sentence or two to clarify things. On the other hand, in most of the threads I've read, certain usages of rules have been disallowed by citing the BRB. This is followed by some people using theoryhammer rather than RAW to argue what people have pointed out from the rules.

So what do you guys think? Poorly written, or are a handful of slighted 'Crons players hunting for .

To me, I feel it is a combination of both.

There were quite a few issues, but most of them were cleared up by the FAQ. I've seen a lot less rules debates since that came out.

There are some poorly written entries and some players looking for extra advantages, just like every codex.

Also bear in mind that Necron's new codex was also written with 6th edition rule changes in mind.

I play crons and everything Nurgle in 40k in a mixed list regardless of what the children say is in the codex. From my reading I have noticed that Mathew didnt have much to break other than the we will be back rule. The fluff was just
RAWR IM A SOULESS ROBOT CONTROLED BY A GIANT GOLDEN GOD WITH A SIX PACK!!!!

Other words nothing to much was broken. I have seen some typos though, might just be a translation from Britsh Engish to American English.

Objectively? No.

Necrons FAQ has 6 pieces of errata and just under 3 pages of FAQ total. About average (though not quite as good as the stellar Grey Knight codex admittedly).

But really poor books like Space Wolves rack up as much as 9 pieces of errata and 6 pages of FAQ in order to be halfway comprehensible and playable. Dark Eldar actually have 11 pieces of Errata, if slightly less FAQ. Still the sloppiest written 5th Edition Codex by a good margin.