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.

Bro, wtf is your problem? You have been asked to curb your derailment of this thread on numerous occasions, including by the OP. Your opinion has been NOTED. Unfortunately, it is only an opinion, and we all know what we say about opinions: everybody has one, among other things. Please don't make us get a mod in here. Toot your horn in the YMDC section; it's been debated there extensively.

 The Shrike wrote:

Bro, wtf is your problem? You have been asked to curb your derailment of this thread on numerous occasions, including by the OP. Your opinion has been NOTED. Unfortunately, it is only an opinion, and we all know what we say about opinions: everybody has one, among other things. Please don't make us get a mod in here. Toot your horn in the YMDC section; it's been debated there extensively.

You are the one trying to restrict a player to running only 1 spyder in the Canoptek Harvest formation. This restriction has no rules basis.

People who run the Canoptek Harvest are able to run up to 3 Spyders in that formation since they have access to the Army Entry List. That is the rules. I have shown redundantly how that works out with rules. You keep telling me that that is just my opinion while offering no rules support for your counter argument. I am sorry but you are failing on your part to provide actual rules supporting your counter-argument.

People can of course 'houserule' the Canoptek Harvest however which way they want but the actual rules are exceedingly clear that you can add additional Spyders to the unit of 1 Spyder that is part of the formation. Sorry folks, thems the rules. And if a Necron player shows up at your local FLGS and runs it that way, it is fully within the rules for them to run it that way. If you feel otherwise, show me in the rules!

Your hard edge stance on this particular instance is a violation of the rules. Pg 10 of Warhammer 40K: The Rules entitled "The Most Important Rule"

Codex: Necrons pg 108 describes the Canoptek Harvest as being "1 Canoptek Spyder, 1 UNIT of Wraiths and 1 UNIT of Scarabs" and has a paragraph of fluff above that further leads on to appear that the formation is intended to be just 1 spyder. In this case I think you are probably right and could field 3 spyders legally due to the codex spyder entry stating in the unit composition "1 Canoptek Spyder". The formation is likely just copying that from the entry........ However you neglect "The Most Important Rule" which at the end of the day makes you wrong. My decision to continue this thread using a 1 Spyder limit was based on the general consensus and by the decision of the various tournaments that have also decided to go with the single spyder interpretation. It was also to abide by the most important rule which GW expounds on in length but in the end is just a long, round about way of saying "Don't be a Douche" . You sir, have violated that rule by leaps and bounds.


Col_impact you are a prime example of what is wrong with the hobby today, just by waltzing into this thread and being just as much of douchebag here as you likely are in real life. I hope you eventually learn that nobody likes "that guy" and are able to take some joy in the game even when you lose a match. Until its FAQed, its up to the players to decide how best to handle GWs often vague descriptions...thems the rules... I suggest you go read them.

The Shrike and others... thank you for your input, I think I have a solid base of a shopping list now to begin my Necron army.

 Lunchbox739 wrote:
Your hard edge stance on this particular instance is a violation of the rules. Pg 10 of Warhammer 40K: The Rules entitled "The Most Important Rule"

Codex: Necrons pg 108 describes the Canoptek Harvest as being "1 Canoptek Spyder, 1 UNIT of Wraiths and 1 UNIT of Scarabs" and has a paragraph of fluff above that further leads on to appear that the formation is intended to be just 1 spyder. In this case I think you are probably right and could field 3 spyders legally due to the codex spyder entry stating in the unit composition "1 Canoptek Spyder". The formation is likely just copying that from the entry........ However you neglect "The Most Important Rule" which at the end of the day makes you wrong. My decision to continue this thread using a 1 Spyder limit was based on the general consensus and by the decision of the various tournaments that have also decided to go with the single spyder interpretation. It was also to abide by the most important rule which GW expounds on in length but in the end is just a long, round about way of saying "Don't be a Douche" . You sir, have violated that rule by leaps and bounds.


Col_impact you are a prime example of what is wrong with the hobby today, just by waltzing into this thread and being just as much of douchebag here as you likely are in real life. I hope you eventually learn that nobody likes "that guy" and are able to take some joy in the game even when you lose a match. Until its FAQed, its up to the players to decide how best to handle GWs often vague descriptions...thems the rules... I suggest you go read them.

The Shrike and others... thank you for your input, I think I have a solid base of a shopping list now to begin my Necron army.

So basically you call me a douche for standing up for a necron players right to follow the rules and field 3 Canoptek Spyders in the Canoptek Harvest formation because the rules unequivocally support doing just that (which you admit to above). I am sorry but collectively gathering together in a mob fashion and calling a person a douche for simply standing up and obeying the rules is the epitome of douchebaggery.

And yes I am just as principled in real life as I am in this forum. I will stand up to any douche mob. Cheers!

 The Shrike wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Lunchbox739 wrote:
I was looking at the codex entry where it said that 2 more could be taken for 50 points per model.

This is correct. You have access to the Army Entry List and you can add 2 spyders to the Canoptek Harvest. The same rules apply to the Necron codex as they apply to every other codex.

This hasn't been settled by an FAQ yet and it's misleading to tell the OP definitively that he can do this. The tournament community (just one of several factions of 40k players, not authoritative) has come to the consensus that only one spider is allowed in a Harvest. Of course, outside the formation, 3 would be allowed.

Again, it is plausible (and preferable) that GW could issue definitive errata; but that as yet has not occurred. And the entry is pretty clear That it is "1" spider.

Yeah I'm not really sure. The restriction sections does say none...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lunchbox739 wrote:
Your hard edge stance on this particular instance is a violation of the rules. Pg 10 of Warhammer 40K: The Rules entitled "The Most Important Rule"

Codex: Necrons pg 108 describes the Canoptek Harvest as being "1 Canoptek Spyder, 1 UNIT of Wraiths and 1 UNIT of Scarabs" and has a paragraph of fluff above that further leads on to appear that the formation is intended to be just 1 spyder. In this case I think you are probably right and could field 3 spyders legally due to the codex spyder entry stating in the unit composition "1 Canoptek Spyder". The formation is likely just copying that from the entry........ However you neglect "The Most Important Rule" which at the end of the day makes you wrong. My decision to continue this thread using a 1 Spyder limit was based on the general consensus and by the decision of the various tournaments that have also decided to go with the single spyder interpretation. It was also to abide by the most important rule which GW expounds on in length but in the end is just a long, round about way of saying "Don't be a Douche" . You sir, have violated that rule by leaps and bounds.


Col_impact you are a prime example of what is wrong with the hobby today, just by waltzing into this thread and being just as much of douchebag here as you likely are in real life. I hope you eventually learn that nobody likes "that guy" and are able to take some joy in the game even when you lose a match. Until its FAQed, its up to the players to decide how best to handle GWs often vague descriptions...thems the rules... I suggest you go read them.

The Shrike and others... thank you for your input, I think I have a solid base of a shopping list now to begin my Necron army.

I believe the bolded part along with the fact the restrictions say none is why you can take 3.

People going with the other interpretation are just wrong. The only thing that matters is who is "technically" right when talking about rules to something, because otherwise rules serve no purpose and there isn't a game to play


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 The Shrike wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Lunchbox739 wrote:
I was looking at the codex entry where it said that 2 more could be taken for 50 points per model.

This is correct. You have access to the Army Entry List and you can add 2 spyders to the Canoptek Harvest. The same rules apply to the Necron codex as they apply to every other codex.

This hasn't been settled by an FAQ yet and it's misleading to tell the OP definitively that he can do this. The tournament community (just one of several factions of 40k players, not authoritative) has come to the consensus that only one spider is allowed in a Harvest. Of course, outside the formation, 3 would be allowed.

Again, it is plausible (and preferable) that GW could issue definitive errata; but that as yet has not occurred. And the entry is pretty clear That it is "1" spider.

Yeah I'm not really sure. The restriction sections does say none...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lunchbox739 wrote:
Your hard edge stance on this particular instance is a violation of the rules. Pg 10 of Warhammer 40K: The Rules entitled "The Most Important Rule"

Codex: Necrons pg 108 describes the Canoptek Harvest as being "1 Canoptek Spyder, 1 UNIT of Wraiths and 1 UNIT of Scarabs" and has a paragraph of fluff above that further leads on to appear that the formation is intended to be just 1 spyder. In this case I think you are probably right and could field 3 spyders legally due to the codex spyder entry stating in the unit composition "1 Canoptek Spyder". The formation is likely just copying that from the entry........ However you neglect "The Most Important Rule" which at the end of the day makes you wrong. My decision to continue this thread using a 1 Spyder limit was based on the general consensus and by the decision of the various tournaments that have also decided to go with the single spyder interpretation. It was also to abide by the most important rule which GW expounds on in length but in the end is just a long, round about way of saying "Don't be a Douche" . You sir, have violated that rule by leaps and bounds.


Col_impact you are a prime example of what is wrong with the hobby today, just by waltzing into this thread and being just as much of douchebag here as you likely are in real life. I hope you eventually learn that nobody likes "that guy" and are able to take some joy in the game even when you lose a match. Until its FAQed, its up to the players to decide how best to handle GWs often vague descriptions...thems the rules... I suggest you go read them.

The Shrike and others... thank you for your input, I think I have a solid base of a shopping list now to begin my Necron army.

I believe the bolded part along with the fact the restrictions say none is why you can take 3.

People going with the other interpretation are just wrong. The only thing that matters is who is "technically" right when talking about rules to something, because otherwise rules serve no purpose and there isn't a game to play

I'd like to also point out that Col_impact derailed nothing. He talked about the list, and was less of a douche than anyone else who addressed him. It's okay if you don't like someone telling you that you're wrong guys... but you are wrong, and someone telling you that and CLEARLY explaining why they are right in a way that leaves you with absolutely zero counter points doesn't make them a douche. You wouldn't want to run more than two anyway.

The list looks pretty good except I don't think destroyers are very good. I'd run a few transports and just more troops instead probably

col_impact:

Let me get this right: you are arguing that it is allowed to take more than one Spyder because per rules of the BRB a formation is composed out of army entry lists. I gues you agree on that.
You quoted corectly that the Harvest contains "1 Spyder" which you believe to be pointing to the army list entry of "Spyder". But there is no such army entry list if you only see the titles of the pages with units on it as their army entry list. The titel of the page with the spyder things on it is "SpyderS". With a plural s.
So following your logic you are not allowed to field the Canoptek Harvest, because you had to field a Spyder - wich in itselfe is not an army list entry.
Well we all agree that this is clearly not intentional - so lets look around and try to find a way that does not break any rules which would allow us to field it:
Why tabout the army list entrys anyway? What are they? Do they have any kind of formal specification? I cant find any. What to do now? How about we not only take the names of the UNITS (the titles of the pages) but also the names of the models as part of the army list. And suddenly we have a match! *Huray* There is the entry of "Spyder"!
Lets determin some effects other rules have: All the options are written as "each modell may [...]" except the first one that just states "it may take up to 2 additional" (or similiar - im looking at the german codex right now). This it referes to the whole pages unit - but were not taking the unit - were taking the model. So it cant come in affect. Which im unshure of is: is the scarab hive rule a rule for the unit or for the model - its mere positioning on the site does not make it clear - but its contents RAI is clear to me. In the end we also have to face the fact, that GW rules are not written by technical writers so we allways have to interpret them to some extend and imo its best to use the rules in a way that they dont break any other. With the use of the named stat lines as model as own army list entry (in addition to its unit name) we can achiev this in this special situation. One addition that just now crosses my mind but is somehow important: we do make an exception here - in a CAD we are tolt to compose units - not models as we do here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
OP: sorry for abusing this thread but col_impacts rant about this topic is anoying and all over dakka someone has to finaly stop him - he is clearly not on topic.

To fit back in some words to your list: using both a Harvest and destroyers is kind of a double sided sword: youre left with verry litle models and some decent but not that overwhelming fire power. I dont think this is the way to go in a tac list especially because it clearly sets the optimal targets for your enemies weappons. The idear of having no vehicles on the other hand renders some of your opponents weapons "useless" to "sub optimal use" but criples your mobility. Another thing is: wraith dont realy work better with 6 than with 3 so those 3 extra in your squad are lost money. If you remove them and the Destroyer cult you have >600p to put somewhere else. Imo you have 3 options: going full horde stile, adding some kind of death star yourselfe or going wraith wing. For the first two options id recomend getting 3-6 more characters and for all options id go with 3X5 or even 3X6 tomb blades.