Wednesday, 9 November 2011

First Necron Errata (GW Spain)!

Looks like Games Workshop Spain got the scoop with the first Necron errata (link). Roughly translated it helps to resolve a loophole in the Spanish translation of the codex (Ghost Ark), does nothing to explain the Death Ray wording, yet also opens up the door to even more Monolith trickery!

P47 .- dimensional corridor. Replace the first sentence "[...] Choose a friendly Necron unit other than a vehicle[...]"

This removes the 'unengaged' segment from the rules, thus making Monolith's phasing even more versatile.

P50 .- Death Ray. Replace the third sentence: "Every unit (both friendly and enemy) under the line, suffers a number of hits equal to the number of models in the unit underneath the line "

This puts the wording of the Spanish and English codices on one line. Personally I think it isn't all to clear how this one work, though it makes sense that a unit hit only suffers as many hits as the numbers of models of that unit that are hit. Still a clearer decision would have been nice. Personally I'm reading the rule in the codex as "equal to the number of models of that unit who are under the line.", makes the most sense and keeps things fair!

P53 .- Repair Barge. Replace the third sentence "[...] add 1D3 models to the unit (models can move and act normally that turn). This cannot let the number of models in the unit exceeds their initial number. "

Makes perfect sense, especially given that Reanimation Protocols already restrict repairs to be limited to the number of models a unit starts out with. So purely logical, but given the wording in the Spanish codex it is nice to see GW solve this so rapidly.

So, what does this mean for the rest of us? Hopefully we will see an English errata in the next couple of days that will solve the wording of the Death Ray and some of the other odd ends in the codex.


  1. There have indeed been some intense discussions over aspects of the English Codex on some forums I post at. I can’t wait to have these cleared up.

    Thanks for heads–up on the Spanish errata/FAQ.

  2. My pleasure, it did struck me as odd that there were so many grammatical issues between codices. But the real suprize was the extra information, now to hope GW actually give us a full codex FAQ / errata soon!