This was pointed out to me yesterday, so I grabbed it and figured I would share the image. Because the language of where it came from is not one that I know, it was very hard to find any additional information. Are there more of these hanging out?

Do not take this as real, there are just too many problems with it. I posted it because its fun to see these.

The page itself is supposed to be the summary sheet from the Necron Codex. Instead it refers to the page as the reference sheet, and the vehicles listed are a little messed up. So I am going to call this one a complete hoax. I was told this was a digital copy of the real codex, but even that does not seem to hold much weight against the current line of rumors for Necrons.

So while this may be fun to read through, please to not take this as real. Even the chance that this might have been a copy of a first draft playtest codex should be taken with enough salt to drown with. I am posting it, because it is simply interesting.

10 Comments:

  1. rules don´t say much with OUT pointcosts IMO

    ReplyDelete
  2. That's a good fake or a custom codex someone has written, it has the border of the old codex and I also think that the background image is old too. Background images are no longer in reference sheets, nor are special rules realy.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Fake for sure. When was the last time a codex had page number references in the 20's and 30's? All the new codex's have page references in the 50's and 60's. Fake.

    ReplyDelete
  4. fake from aprils fool day of 2009

    ReplyDelete
  5. Certainly false..
    Warriors & Immortals having the same statline?
    The idea of a Gauss Flamer and a Power Matrix using fragmentation rounds, both of which defy the fluff description of the weapons (unless filler names which is still unlikely).
    Also the idea that Warscythes still ignore invulnerable seems very unlikely as GW has phased out all other weapons which used to do similar (see callidus assassins).

    ReplyDelete
  6. The wording on the right side gives it away if you were fooled by the actual stats themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  7. that's the page that was "released" at april fools in 2008 (or was it 2007?). Check your sources.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Most definately fake!

    I really don't get why people put out stuff like this. What is to be gained if even one person believes it? its not like the creator is gonna make milloions of the back of this fake, and its not like if enough people believe it, then it becomes real!!!

    its totally pointless.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Indeed, that page has been floating around the net for at least a year, if not more.

    Fake, without a shred of doubt

    ReplyDelete

 
Top
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...