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.

With the seemingly buffed overall Codex and stupidly good Wraiths, how do Necrons hold up in the rankings? Are they up there with Eldar? Do they completely crush lower tiered armies? What if Eldar gets a nerves Codex in the near future? Have GW fethed up the recent trend of Codexes with similar power levels with the Necron Codex, and we'll have to return to Eldar/Tau levels of crazy to beat them?

They have not been out long enough to tell. The existing Necron meta definitely changed, but how well they will do, noone knows. Once some major tournament results roll in, we will start to see.

Things that were hit hard: HQ wargear options and ability to act as unit sergeants, tesla, super heavies except for the Obelisk which is now viable.

Things that were improved: Number of useful units in all slots, resurrection and thus combat durability.

Things that are excessive: Wraiths, buffing a unit that was already at the high end of utility for points spent, the fact that the Decurion grants a old style resurrection orb to every unit for free on top of individual formation benefits.

There's some claims we've stayed the same because Tesla Destructor Spam is gone, but to be blunt that was a horribly bland and unimaginative type of spam list anyhow, and I'm sure the same people who leaned on it will find something else to let them ignore 90% of the codex soon enough. Overall this is definitely a huge buff to what's already one of the tougher armies.

CAD crons are good, arguably better due to having a beautifully internally balanced book where you can almost throw darts to determine your army list and have it still be viable. You won't get any fail-picks like vespids or tactical terminators, because they just aren't there.

Decurion crons are over the top ridiculous. Anyone playing a decurion should be relegated to playing against wave serpents, riptides, and 2++ reroll daemons.

Even with tau and eldar last year, I saw some less-than-competitive players struggle and lose games with them. While getting our group to test out the decurion, even with a newbie bringing in about a quarter of the game results, there has only been a single necron loss due to a ridiculous line of card draws in a maelstrom game that we'll never see again. And the crons still almost won that one. >.>

niv-mizzet wrote:
CAD crons are good, arguably better due to having a beautifully internally balanced book where you can almost throw darts to determine your army list and have it still be viable. You won't get any fail-picks like vespids or tactical terminators, because they just aren't there.

Decurion crons are over the top ridiculous. Anyone playing a decurion should be relegated to playing against wave serpents, riptides, and 2++ reroll daemons.

Even with tau and eldar last year, I saw some less-than-competitive players struggle and lose games with them. While getting our group to test out the decurion, even with a newbie bringing in about a quarter of the game results, there has only been a single necron loss due to a ridiculous line of card draws in a maelstrom game that we'll never see again. And the crons still almost won that one. >.>

Really love this post. I think that this poster nails it when saying that, on its own, the Necron Codex is an accomplishment. It is a wonderful, internally balanced book, that I would love to have an equal of as someone who enjoys Grey Knights, and Tyranids.

It really is just that in GW's 7th edition rush towards crazy formations, and alternate detachments, they let stuff like Decurion slip through the cracks.

I think if we were talking pure Necron CAD, this book would be a high-water-mark for how we would like every book to be.

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:

I think if we were talking pure Necron CAD, this book would be a high-water-mark for how we would like every book to be.

Eh, the internal balance is good, but the HQ section was gutted (Low price Lord and Cryptek unit sergeants were an important part of the army's personality given the lack of specialist upgrades), and the fluff section is so sparse it may as well not exist (There's less than one page of vague overview for the Necron's history, if you just look at how much space is taken up by words).

Oh, and besides the Decurion issue, there's also that whilst nerfing the Transcendent C'tan harshly makes perfect sense, removing it as a superheavy entirely and inserting a lazily tossed together generic C'tan shard with the same name to retcon it out then acting like we won't notice there's no effort make to have it be interesting or fit it's own fluff... Is actively insulting. It's like if an Italian restaurant gave you a plain buttered roll when you ordered a pizza and claimed it's a "New pizza recipe".

I don't even play escalation and apocalypse! I just don't appreciate lazy deception.

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:

niv-mizzet wrote:
CAD crons are good, arguably better due to having a beautifully internally balanced book where you can almost throw darts to determine your army list and have it still be viable. You won't get any fail-picks like vespids or tactical terminators, because they just aren't there.

Decurion crons are over the top ridiculous. Anyone playing a decurion should be relegated to playing against wave serpents, riptides, and 2++ reroll daemons.

Even with tau and eldar last year, I saw some less-than-competitive players struggle and lose games with them. While getting our group to test out the decurion, even with a newbie bringing in about a quarter of the game results, there has only been a single necron loss due to a ridiculous line of card draws in a maelstrom game that we'll never see again. And the crons still almost won that one. >.>

Really love this post. I think that this poster nails it when saying that, on its own, the Necron Codex is an accomplishment. It is a wonderful, internally balanced book, that I would love to have an equal of as someone who enjoys Grey Knights, and Tyranids.

It really is just that in GW's 7th edition rush towards crazy formations, and alternate detachments, they let stuff like Decurion slip through the cracks.

I think if we were talking pure Necron CAD, this book would be a high-water-mark for how we would like every book to be.

Quoted both these posts for truth. However, strong as the Decurion is, it's extremely fluffy, and makes Necrons feel like Necrons, which was one of the biggest reasons I was growing bored of the old book. Now, everything is useful and fun, AND its a very strong book. I've won both games so far, without any Canoptek units (And using the Nightbringer both time). So, I'm enjoying myself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

changemod wrote:

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:

I think if we were talking pure Necron CAD, this book would be a high-water-mark for how we would like every book to be.

Eh, the internal balance is good, but the HQ section was gutted (Low price Lord and Cryptek unit sergeants were an important part of the army's personality given the lack of specialist upgrades), and the fluff section is so sparse it may as well not exist (There's less than one page of vague overview for the Necron's history, if you just look at how much space is taken up by words).

Oh, and besides the Decurion issue, there's also that whilst nerfing the Transcendent C'tan harshly makes perfect sense, removing it as a superheavy entirely and inserting a lazily tossed together generic C'tan shard with the same name to retcon it out then acting like we won't notice there's no effort make to have it be interesting or fit it's own fluff... Is actively insulting. It's like if an Italian restaurant gave you a plain buttered roll when you ordered a pizza and claimed it's a "New pizza recipe".

I don't even play escalation and apocalypse! I just don't appreciate lazy deception.

I will admit, I like what they did with the Ctan and all of the powers. They made them all on the same level, and they get better when you use the Tesseract Vault. I don't, however, like that now we don't have an effective Apoc model that can contest with spamming IKs or Titans. That being said, our entire book can still shoot at ANYTHING (Gargantuan, Super Heavy, ext) and still kill it. So there is that.

changemod wrote:

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:

I think if we were talking pure Necron CAD, this book would be a high-water-mark for how we would like every book to be.

Eh, the internal balance is good, but the HQ section was gutted (Low price Lord and Cryptek unit sergeants were an important part of the army's personality given the lack of specialist upgrades), and the fluff section is so sparse it may as well not exist (There's less than one page of vague overview for the Necron's history, if you just look at how much space is taken up by words).

I think he was just talking about from a strict game mechanics perspective. Which I agree with. Ignoring fluff, or what units used to be, or how imaginative (or lacking imagination) some of the abilities and rules are, and without the decurion formations, the book is some of the best internal balance I've seen in 40k.

If someone asked me to play one of those "make the worst possible list and then swap" games with the 7crons, I don't know what I'd do...I think even the worst list that I come up with would still be far more valid on the table than the worst lists I can come up with from almost any other book.

I like the fact that at least one C'tan is in the Heavy Support section as (at least for me) the Elites section in the Necron dex is insanely crowded.

That way for regular CAD users you can take Triarch Stalker, Praetorian/Lychguard, Flayed Ones and a C'tan in higher points games.

 krodarklorr wrote:
However, strong as the Decurion is, it's extremely fluffy... I've won both games so far... So, I'm enjoying myself.

Pentyrant and serp spam are also quite fluffy.

 koooaei wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:
However, strong as the Decurion is, it's extremely fluffy... I've won both games so far... So, I'm enjoying myself.

Pentyrant and serp spam are also quite fluffy.

It's true. There's nothing unfluffy about playing Serpent Spam or having a ton of Imperial Knights or a some Farsight Enclave with three Riptides. They fit the background perfectly.

As far as the Necrons are concerned, there was tournament here a week ago where about 40 to 50 players participated to my knowledge. Superheavies weren't allowed. Necrons won it and got a couple other high placements. The winner had three units of Wraiths.

I'm curious though if Necrons can do well in a competitive tournament where people do use superheavies. It seems to me that a Revenant would be a pretty solid counter to nearly everything in the codex, except the flyers, and they aren't as effective as before. And it's not just the Revenant, there's other decent (or better) superheavies in the game than that.

 Therion wrote:

 koooaei wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:
However, strong as the Decurion is, it's extremely fluffy... I've won both games so far... So, I'm enjoying myself.

Pentyrant and serp spam are also quite fluffy.

It's true. There's nothing unfluffy about playing Serpent Spam or having a ton of Imperial Knights or a some Farsight Enclave with three Riptides. They fit the background perfectly.

As far as the Necrons are concerned, there was tournament here a week ago where about 40 to 50 players participated to my knowledge. Superheavies weren't allowed. Necrons won it and got a couple other high placements. The winner had three units of Wraiths.

I'm curious though if Necrons can do well in a competitive tournament where people do use superheavies. It seems to me that a Revenant would be a pretty solid counter to nearly everything in the codex, except the flyers, and they aren't as effective as before. And it's not just the Revenant, there's other decent (or better) superheavies in the game than that.

Technically Escalation is still a legal source so you can use the Transcendant C'tan datasheet from there (unless the Tourney house rules otherwise)

People complaining about the Decurion make me laugh. The CAD is still the most competitive option. The Decurion isn't not competitive but objec secured is too important and the tax from the formations makes making a decent list under 1850 very difficult.

Decurion is good, CAD is more competitive. Necrons are tough to kill but this is 7th edition get the kill the unit mentality out of your mind and play the mission. Oh they took the decurion and are even harder to kill? Then run up to their objective with your objective secured troops and take it from them. The Decurion will slaughter bad generals but the CAD is the better option against more competent opponents that you'll face in competitive environments like a tournament.

Punisher wrote:
People complaining about the Decurion make me laugh. The CAD is still the most competitive option. The Decurion isn't not competitive but objec secured is too important and the tax from the formations makes making a decent list under 1850 very difficult.

Decurion is good, CAD is more competitive. Necrons are tough to kill but this is 7th edition get the kill the unit mentality out of your mind and play the mission. Oh they took the decurion and are even harder to kill? Then run up to their objective with your objective secured troops and take it from them. The Decurion will slaughter bad generals but the CAD is the better option against more competent opponents that you'll face in competitive environments like a tournament.

I hear this here and there, but I literally see obsec actually be important like once every 10 games. And then I've only ever seen the game's winner change because of it ONCE EVER. Usually they just say "oh I need that objective that your obsec unit is on. Okay, I throw a bunch of dice at them and they die."

So yeah, people saying obsec is more important than having a free 5th ed. invisible res orb on every squad make me laugh.

Meanwhile, the decurion games here have kept ending in landslide victories. Our newbie necron player just rubbed out another easy win with the decurion list I wrote him about 30 minutes ago, bringing the total decurion performance to 17-1-1. One more win and we're banning the decurion for pick up games at our group hands down.

There's not really a "tax" to the decurion. Everything is GOOD. It's not like a marine formation that forces you to take a bunch of tactical marines, or a good tau formation that gives you a unit of vespid. They have great units, and good units. By comparison some people call the good units "tax," which I find humorous.

col_impact wrote:
[

Technically Escalation is still a legal source so you can use the Transcendant C'tan datasheet from there (unless the Tourney house rules otherwise)

This would be the other way around. You would need permission to use the older versions.

Fragile wrote:

col_impact wrote:
[

Technically Escalation is still a legal source so you can use the Transcendant C'tan datasheet from there (unless the Tourney house rules otherwise)

This would be the other way around. You would need permission to use the older versions.

That's how I understand it as well. Since the unit shares the same name, players are supposed to use the latest version of it. Like, a player can't choose to use a cheaper AV12 Lynx instead of the more expensive AV11 Lynx from another book.

There is no rule stating that you need to use the unit from the book with the most recent publication date if they have the same name. It's not the first time this has occurred either e.g. Coteaz being in two books simultaneously.

Until Escalation is made obsolete or the units are errata'd out, all LOW from it can be taken.

Punisher wrote:
People complaining about the Decurion make me laugh. The CAD is still the most competitive option. The Decurion isn't not competitive but objec secured is too important and the tax from the formations makes making a decent list under 1850 very difficult.

Decurion is good, CAD is more competitive. Necrons are tough to kill but this is 7th edition get the kill the unit mentality out of your mind and play the mission. Oh they took the decurion and are even harder to kill? Then run up to their objective with your objective secured troops and take it from them. The Decurion will slaughter bad generals but the CAD is the better option against more competent opponents that you'll face in competitive environments like a tournament.

This. All day every day. CAD > Decurion. For exactly this reason. Sticky this post to the top of the thread


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tekron wrote:
There is no rule stating that you need to use the unit from the book with the most recent publication date if they have the same name. It's not the first time this has occurred either e.g. Coteaz being in two books simultaneously.

Until Escalation is made obsolete or the units are errata'd out, all LOW from it can be taken.

This is also true with the IA 12 Necrons. If you want to use Flayed Ones as troops, you have to use that unit's profile, pay its point costs as shown in IA 12 and follow its own rules and not the rules from the codex.

Tekron wrote:
There is no rule stating that you need to use the unit from the book with the most recent publication date if they have the same name. It's not the first time this has occurred either e.g. Coteaz being in two books simultaneously.

Until Escalation is made obsolete or the units are errata'd out, all LOW from it can be taken.

Yup. This is how it is. Of course you would raise a few eyebrows if you fielded the Trancendant C'tan from the escalation book and I am sure it's something players would complain and demand a hasty house rule for, but it is definitely legal.

I don't see a problem with it if Warhounds and Titans are being allowed in the same venue.

 luke1705 wrote:

Tekron wrote:
There is no rule stating that you need to use the unit from the book with the most recent publication date if they have the same name. It's not the first time this has occurred either e.g. Coteaz being in two books simultaneously.

Until Escalation is made obsolete or the units are errata'd out, all LOW from it can be taken.

This is also true with the IA 12 Necrons. If you want to use Flayed Ones as troops, you have to use that unit's profile, pay its point costs as shown in IA 12 and follow its own rules and not the rules from the codex.

Maynarkh variant units actually have different names from the original units they are based on. The only units in IA:12 that are allowed in standard Necron lists have a text box saying so (basically all the FW models have it). The Maynarkh stuff can only be played in a Maynarkh detachment which irritatingly is only an Ally of Convenience to regular Crons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:

Tekron wrote:
There is no rule stating that you need to use the unit from the book with the most recent publication date if they have the same name. It's not the first time this has occurred either e.g. Coteaz being in two books simultaneously.

Until Escalation is made obsolete or the units are errata'd out, all LOW from it can be taken.

Yup. This is how it is. Of course you would raise a few eyebrows if you fielded the Trancendant C'tan from the escalation book and I am sure it's something players would complain and demand a hasty house rule for, but it is definitely legal.

I don't see a problem with it if Warhounds and Titans are being allowed in the same venue.

Yeah not much has changed, it has always raised eyebrows

Agree it's totally reasonable if someone brings a titan. The new Tesseract Vault isn't exactly going to do much to a revenant.

 luke1705 wrote:

Punisher wrote:
People complaining about the Decurion make me laugh. The CAD is still the most competitive option. The Decurion isn't not competitive but objec secured is too important and the tax from the formations makes making a decent list under 1850 very difficult.

Decurion is good, CAD is more competitive. Necrons are tough to kill but this is 7th edition get the kill the unit mentality out of your mind and play the mission. Oh they took the decurion and are even harder to kill? Then run up to their objective with your objective secured troops and take it from them. The Decurion will slaughter bad generals but the CAD is the better option against more competent opponents that you'll face in competitive environments like a tournament.

This. All day every day. CAD > Decurion. For exactly this reason. Sticky this post to the top of the thread


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tekron wrote:
There is no rule stating that you need to use the unit from the book with the most recent publication date if they have the same name. It's not the first time this has occurred either e.g. Coteaz being in two books simultaneously.

Until Escalation is made obsolete or the units are errata'd out, all LOW from it can be taken.

This is also true with the IA 12 Necrons. If you want to use Flayed Ones as troops, you have to use that unit's profile, pay its point costs as shown in IA 12 and follow its own rules and not the rules from the codex.

In what publication does GW render older books obsolete? I mean, I'd just like to know what media to follow in order to know whenever some book is made obsolete.

Can't think of anything? Might be because there isn't any. There's only two ways to go about this: Either the latest rules for an army or a unit are always the only legal ones, or everything from any book is basically legal, no matter how old. This isn't limited to Forgeworld units by the way. Most supplements and codices don't make any mention of game editions.

 Therion wrote:

 luke1705 wrote:

Punisher wrote:
People complaining about the Decurion make me laugh. The CAD is still the most competitive option. The Decurion isn't not competitive but objec secured is too important and the tax from the formations makes making a decent list under 1850 very difficult.

Decurion is good, CAD is more competitive. Necrons are tough to kill but this is 7th edition get the kill the unit mentality out of your mind and play the mission. Oh they took the decurion and are even harder to kill? Then run up to their objective with your objective secured troops and take it from them. The Decurion will slaughter bad generals but the CAD is the better option against more competent opponents that you'll face in competitive environments like a tournament.

This. All day every day. CAD > Decurion. For exactly this reason. Sticky this post to the top of the thread


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tekron wrote:
There is no rule stating that you need to use the unit from the book with the most recent publication date if they have the same name. It's not the first time this has occurred either e.g. Coteaz being in two books simultaneously.

Until Escalation is made obsolete or the units are errata'd out, all LOW from it can be taken.

This is also true with the IA 12 Necrons. If you want to use Flayed Ones as troops, you have to use that unit's profile, pay its point costs as shown in IA 12 and follow its own rules and not the rules from the codex.

In what publication does GW render older books obsolete? I mean, I'd just like to know what media to follow in order to know whenever some book is made obsolete.

Can't think of anything? Might be because there isn't any. There's only two ways to go about this: Either the latest rules for an army or a unit are always the only legal ones, or everything from any book is basically legal, no matter how old. This isn't limited to Forgeworld units by the way. Most supplements and codices don't make any mention of game editions.

Nope. You take the latest of any legal source. The latest Escalation is the latest legal source. It includes a datasheet for the T C'tan that is fully legal.

This is different than saying you can use the 5th E Necron codex along with the 7th E necron codex.

From the BRB

col_impact wrote:

 Therion wrote:

 luke1705 wrote:

Punisher wrote:
People complaining about the Decurion make me laugh. The CAD is still the most competitive option. The Decurion isn't not competitive but objec secured is too important and the tax from the formations makes making a decent list under 1850 very difficult.

Decurion is good, CAD is more competitive. Necrons are tough to kill but this is 7th edition get the kill the unit mentality out of your mind and play the mission. Oh they took the decurion and are even harder to kill? Then run up to their objective with your objective secured troops and take it from them. The Decurion will slaughter bad generals but the CAD is the better option against more competent opponents that you'll face in competitive environments like a tournament.

This. All day every day. CAD > Decurion. For exactly this reason. Sticky this post to the top of the thread


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tekron wrote:
There is no rule stating that you need to use the unit from the book with the most recent publication date if they have the same name. It's not the first time this has occurred either e.g. Coteaz being in two books simultaneously.

Until Escalation is made obsolete or the units are errata'd out, all LOW from it can be taken.

This is also true with the IA 12 Necrons. If you want to use Flayed Ones as troops, you have to use that unit's profile, pay its point costs as shown in IA 12 and follow its own rules and not the rules from the codex.

In what publication does GW render older books obsolete? I mean, I'd just like to know what media to follow in order to know whenever some book is made obsolete.

Can't think of anything? Might be because there isn't any. There's only two ways to go about this: Either the latest rules for an army or a unit are always the only legal ones, or everything from any book is basically legal, no matter how old. This isn't limited to Forgeworld units by the way. Most supplements and codices don't make any mention of game editions.

Nope. You take the latest of any legal source. The latest Escalation is the latest legal source. It includes a datasheet for the T C'tan that is fully legal.

This is different than saying you can use the 5th E Necron codex along with the 7th E necron codex.

Ok I follow. So, since IA11 is also a legal source for a ton of units, I can use the 100 points cheaper AV12 version of the Lynx instead of the 420 point AV11 version in IA: Apoc? That's handy! Pick and choose.

The latest legal source for the Transcendent C'tan isn't Escalation. It's Codex: Necrons. But don't let that get in the way. I'm sure you can still argue that the older book hasn't been made obsolete anywhere so that's still legal too.

 Therion wrote:

In what publication does GW render older books obsolete? I mean, I'd just like to know what media to follow in order to know whenever some book is made obsolete.

Can't think of anything? Might be because there isn't any. There's only two ways to go about this: Either the latest rules for an army or a unit are always the only legal ones, or everything from any book is basically legal, no matter how old. This isn't limited to Forgeworld units by the way. Most supplements and codices don't make any mention of game editions.

They are made obsolete when a newer book supersedes them and GW stops publishing the old book. I don't think this is controversial. Escalation has not been superseded, is still available for sale, and has a full 7th ed FAQ to keep it up to date.

Tekron wrote:

 Therion wrote:

In what publication does GW render older books obsolete? I mean, I'd just like to know what media to follow in order to know whenever some book is made obsolete.

Can't think of anything? Might be because there isn't any. There's only two ways to go about this: Either the latest rules for an army or a unit are always the only legal ones, or everything from any book is basically legal, no matter how old. This isn't limited to Forgeworld units by the way. Most supplements and codices don't make any mention of game editions.

They are made obsolete when a newer book supersedes them and GW stops publishing the old book. I don't think this is controversial. Escalation has not been superseded, is still available for sale, and has a full 7th ed FAQ to keep it up to date.

Where's that printed? When GW doesn't print or produce something then it's obsolete and not legal? You might want to re-think that a little bit in the case of a few armies. But, I'm curious if that applies to miniatures too? Is that an actual rule? I mean we're talking about rules here aren't we?

 Therion wrote:


Ok I follow. So, since IA11 is also a legal source for a ton of units, I can use the 100 points cheaper AV12 version of the Lynx instead of the 420 point AV11 version in IA: Apoc? That's handy! Pick and choose.

The latest legal source for the Transcendent C'tan isn't Escalation. It's Codex: Necrons. But don't let that get in the way. I'm sure you can still argue that the older book hasn't been made obsolete anywhere so that's still legal too.

Take it easy. Read the rule I posted. This shouldn't be a controversial issue. It's very straightforward. And I don't care if someone wants to house rule it.

col_impact wrote:

 Therion wrote:


Ok I follow. So, since IA11 is also a legal source for a ton of units, I can use the 100 points cheaper AV12 version of the Lynx instead of the 420 point AV11 version in IA: Apoc? That's handy! Pick and choose.

The latest legal source for the Transcendent C'tan isn't Escalation. It's Codex: Necrons. But don't let that get in the way. I'm sure you can still argue that the older book hasn't been made obsolete anywhere so that's still legal too.

Take it easy. Read the rule I posted. This shouldn't be a controversial issue. It's very straightforward. And I don't care if someone wants to house rule it.

The phrase you quoted says 'a' selection, not 'the' selection as in all-inclusive, so there's other legal lords of war than those in escalation and in codices. And of course, you can use those from older books too if they have better stats and a lower points cost, since we can't find a print anywhere saying the book was made obsolete.

I fully know anyone can argue most of GW's sloppy rules writing all they want. I just can't see why. If the next Codex: Eldar has a Revenant Titan at 1200 points you'd be hard pressed to get a game with the cheaper one in Escalation. Just like you'd be hard pressed to use the 3.5 edition Chaos Codex today, despite it actually not having been rendered obsolete anywhere. We're talking about 'customary law' here and the custom is that if there's a new version of a unit in a later publication, like a Transcendent C'tan now in Codex: Necrons, then that's the only legal source. If you can use older codices and older units in current games in your circles, more power to you, but don't act like 'this is really straightforward I'm not sure what the problem is' because that's nothing but comedy.

 Therion wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Therion wrote:


Ok I follow. So, since IA11 is also a legal source for a ton of units, I can use the 100 points cheaper AV12 version of the Lynx instead of the 420 point AV11 version in IA: Apoc? That's handy! Pick and choose.

The latest legal source for the Transcendent C'tan isn't Escalation. It's Codex: Necrons. But don't let that get in the way. I'm sure you can still argue that the older book hasn't been made obsolete anywhere so that's still legal too.

Take it easy. Read the rule I posted. This shouldn't be a controversial issue. It's very straightforward. And I don't care if someone wants to house rule it.

The phrase you quoted says 'a' selection, not 'the' selection as in all-inclusive, so there's other legal lords of war than those in escalation and in codices. And of course, you can use those from older books too if they have better stats and a lower points cost, since we can't find a print anywhere saying the book was made obsolete.

I fully know anyone can argue most of GW's sloppy rules writing all they want. I just can't see why. If the next Codex: Eldar has a Revenant Titan at 1200 points you'd be hard pressed to get a game with the cheaper one in Escalation. Just like you'd be hard pressed to use the 3.5 edition Chaos Codex today, despite it actually not having been rendered obsolete anywhere. We're talking about 'customary law' here and the custom is that if there's a new version of a unit in a later publication, like a Transcendent C'tan now in Codex: Necrons, then that's the only legal source. If you can use older codices and older units in current games in your circles, more power to you, but don't act like 'this is really straightforward I'm not sure what the problem is' because that's nothing but comedy.

Except for the part where it actually is straightforward.

 Therion wrote:

Where's that printed? When GW doesn't print or produce something then it's obsolete and not legal? You might want to re-think that a little bit in the case of a few armies. But, I'm curious if that applies to miniatures too? Is that an actual rule? I mean we're talking about rules here aren't we?

I didn't say that, not interested in arguing for a strawman.

While the Codexes are another story, the Forgeworld books have a blurb indicating that you always use the most up-to-date rules for each profile.