Ok so I have a Canoptek Harvest formation added to my army.
It specifies 1 canoptek spyder (p. 93)
The formation has "no restrictions"
Page 93 has the army entry list for Canoptek Spyders
On the options list it includes
"May include up to two additional spyders 50 pts/model"
"Any model may take a gloom prism 10 pts/model"
I go ahead and purchase 2 additional spyders and a gloom prism for the spyder in the formation.
I now have 3 spyders, 1 of which is part of the Canoptek Harvest formation and that will receive the benefits of membership in that formation.
Did I break any rule?
If you say I cannot then why specifically can I not add spyders but add something like a gloom prism? There is a clear chain of permission to add 1-2 spyders.
Fragile wrote: Is a unit of 3 spiders the same as 1 spider? If not then you don't have that formation
I am missing the part where you are quoting a rule.
the unit is composed of 1 canoptek spyder that is part of the formation and 2 additional spyders in the unit that were bought by a formation that has no restrictions and that gives clear access to that option on the army entry list it directly references.
I have a clear chain of permission to do what I am proposing.
You do not have access to the army list entry to get the additional spyders since the formation lists one spyder. The army list entry is for one unit of spyders, which by default has one spyder. These are not the same thing. Additionally, page 118 of the rulebook. 4th paragraph under detachments, in bold:
All units in your army must belong to a detachment and no unit can belong to more than one Detachment
For the Record, the Wraiths and Scarabs come in Units that are more than one model when first Purchased, and can add more as per their listed upgrade options.
A Spyder comes as 1 Spyder which in its upgrades can add two more spyders to it.
What constitutes a Unit of Wraiths?
What constitutes a Unit of Scarabs?
Why can you add more Wraiths or Scarabs as per upgrades options, where you cannot add more spyders as per upgrade options?
There are no restrictions to this formation explicitly stating that one and only one spyder must be taken for this to be a valid formation.
Where is the permission given explicitly to allow for more than the minimum number of Wraiths or Scarabs in this formation?
Bojazz wrote: You do not have access to the army list entry to get the additional spyders since the formation lists one spyder. The army list entry is for one unit of spyders, which by default has one spyder. These are not the same thing.
Additionally, page 118 of the rulebook. 4th paragraph under detachments, in bold:
All units in your army must belong to a detachment and no unit can belong to more than one Detachment
The formation specifies page 93 as the army entry list to use. It is that specific.
BLADERIKER wrote: Why can you add more Wraiths or Scarabs as per upgrades options, where you cannot add more spyders as per upgrade options?
Because the formation specifies "One Spyder". It also lists "One unit of Wraiths" and "One unit of Scarabs". If it tells you to take an entire unit, then it doesn't matter how many you have so long as it is a legal unit. If it tells you to specifically take one spyder, then you may only take one spyder. not three spyders.
BLADERIKER wrote: Why can you add more Wraiths or Scarabs as per upgrades options, where you cannot add more spyders as per upgrade options?
Because the formation specifies "One Spyder". It also lists "One unit of Wraiths" and "One unit of Scarabs". If it tells you to take an entire unit, then it doesn't matter how many you have so long as it is a legal unit. If it tells you to specifically take one spyder, then you may only take one spyder. not three spyders.
It tells me to use the army list entry on page 93
It also says there are no restrictions on the formation
go to page 93 and read the options. What do you see?
Col_impact, you say that you can have two spyders in your unit that do not belong to any detachment. How is this the case? Either the unit belongs to the formation detachment, and is thusly breaking a rule for having too many spyders, or it does not belong to the detachment, and is breaking the rule i quoted on page 118. There is no "part of a unit not belonging to a detachment" permission that i can find anywhere.
As per formations on page 121 "BRB" "Unless stated other wise, each individual unit maintains its normal Battlefield Role when taken as part of a Formation."
Also as per the Necron Dex, Page 93. Unit Composition= 1 Canoptek Spyder. Thus there is not a Unit of Spyders Ever as the composition is only one before upgrades are taken for the whole unit.
Bojazz wrote: Col_impact, you say that you can have two spyders in your unit that do not belong to any detachment. How is this the case? Either the unit belongs to the formation detachment, and is thusly breaking a rule for having too many spyders, or it does not belong to the detachment, and is breaking the rule i quoted on page 118. There is no "part of a unit not belonging to a detachment" permission that i can find anywhere.
Where do you find the rule that is broken for having too many spyders?
The formation says "no restrictions" not "may only have 1 spyder"
RAW I suppose it is ambiguous enough for you to have 2 or 3 spyders; however in doing so you'd break the 'Adaptive Subroutines' special rule, since it specifically talks about the Spyder. If you have more than one Spyder, which is 'the Spyder'? There's no rules present that allow you to nominate a Spyder, therefore no unit from the formation can ever be within 12" of 'the Spyder' and can never gain RP, Fleet or Shred.
RAI, however it is definitely only 1 Spyder (and that's HIWPI, though feel free to play with more than one spyder and lose the best bonus of the Canoptek Harvest)
The digital version of the codex does not reference page 93. It just says one Canoptek Spyder.
The special rule (Adaptive Subroutines) in the formation mentions "the canoptek spyder from this Formation" several times and not "the unit of canoptek spyders from thie formation". So even that specifies that only one spyder is in the formation. EDIT ^ninja'd
Bladeriker: One Canoptek Spyder is NOT the same as one unit of canoptek spyders. If it said "3 canoptek wraiths" that would not give you permission to take 6 wraiths just because the default size of a unit of wraiths is 3.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: RAW I suppose it is ambiguous enough for you to have 2 or 3 spyders; however in doing so you'd break the 'Adaptive Subroutines' special rule, since it specifically talks about the Spyder. If you have more than one Spyder, which is 'the Spyder'? There's no rules present that allow you to nominate a Spyder, therefore no unit from the formation can ever be within 12" of 'the Spyder' and can never gain RP, Fleet or Shred.
RAI, however it is definitely only 1 Spyder (and that's HIWPI, though feel free to play with more than one spyder and lose the best bonus of the Canoptek Harvest)
You don't need rules to nominate. If one spyder is benefiting from membership in the formation then it has to be played accordingly.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bojazz wrote: The digital version of the codex does not reference page 93. It just says one Canoptek Spyder.
The special rule (Adaptive Subroutines) in the formation mentions "the canoptek spyder from this Formation" several times and not "the unit of canoptek spyders from thie formation". So even that specifies that only one spyder is in the formation. EDIT ^ninja'd
Bladeriker: One Canoptek Spyder is NOT the same as one unit of canoptek spyders. If it said "3 canoptek wraiths" that would not give you permission to take 6 wraiths just because the default size of a unit of wraiths is 3.
The book version specifies page 93 so it is exceedingly clear we are dealing with the canoptek spyder army entry list and clear access to it options and a formation that has "no restrictions"
Bojazz wrote: The digital version of the codex does not reference page 93. It just says one Canoptek Spyder.
The special rule (Adaptive Subroutines) in the formation mentions "the canoptek spyder from this Formation" several times and not "the unit of canoptek spyders from thie formation". So even that specifies that only one spyder is in the formation. EDIT ^ninja'd
Bladeriker: One Canoptek Spyder is NOT the same as one unit of canoptek spyders. If it said "3 canoptek wraiths" that would not give you permission to take 6 wraiths just because the default size of a unit of wraiths is 3.
So then 1 spyder is not a unit? but 2-3 are?
If you buy 1 Spyder which fulfills the requirements of this formation is that spyder not a unit ?
If 1 spyder is the unit composition for (Canoptek Spyders) then why are 2/3 spyders not?
BLADERIKER wrote: As per formations on page 121 "BRB" "Unless stated other wise, each individual unit maintains its normal Battlefield Role when taken as part of a Formation."
Also as per the Necron Dex, Page 93. Unit Composition= 1 Canoptek Spyder. Thus there is not a Unit of Spyders Ever as the composition is only one before upgrades are taken for the whole unit.
So one spyder is a Unit.
So yeah I think that works.
The problem with your analysis is that you are quoting the unit's rules. 1 Unit of Canoptek Spyders starts with just 1 is not in question.
What is at the heart of this, is the formation states 1 Canoptek Spyder not 1 unit of Canoptek Spyders.
You will also notice the the Datasheet is titled "Canoptek Spyders" plural not "Spyder" singular as listed in the formation.
The army list entry is called "canoptek spyders" not "canoptek spyder". It consists of one canoptek spyder by default. The formation allows you to take one canoptek spyder. Therefore you have access to the rules to that model, which are on page 93. not the army entry entitled "canoptek spyders".
"canoptek spyders" the army list entry is not the same as "canoptek spyder" the model. Both of these things are found on page 93. The special rule for the formation describes a single spyder. EDIT - DAMNIT PEOPLE STOP NINJAING ME ^
You either have two detachmentless spyders, which is against the rules on page 118, or you have two extra spyders in the formation which you have no permission to take.
Bojazz wrote: The digital version of the codex does not reference page 93. It just says one Canoptek Spyder.
The special rule (Adaptive Subroutines) in the formation mentions "the canoptek spyder from this Formation" several times and not "the unit of canoptek spyders from thie formation". So even that specifies that only one spyder is in the formation. EDIT ^ninja'd
Bladeriker: One Canoptek Spyder is NOT the same as one unit of canoptek spyders. If it said "3 canoptek wraiths" that would not give you permission to take 6 wraiths just because the default size of a unit of wraiths is 3.
So then 1 spyder is not a unit? but 2-3 are?
If you buy 1 Spyder which fulfills the requirements of this formation is that spyder not a unit ?
If 1 spyder is the unit composition for (Canoptek Spyders) then why are 2/3 spyders not?
The formation rules in the BRB make it clear that we are always dealing with units
Spoiler:
Formations
Formations are a special type of Detachment, each a specific grouping of units renowned for their effectiveness on the battlefields of the 41st Millennium.
Whilst some Formations provide you with all the gaming information you will need to use them in your games, it is not uncommon for them simply to
describe a number of special rules that apply when you include several specific units together.
Instead of including a Force Organisation chart, the Army List Entries that comprise a Formation are listed on it, along with any special rules that those units gain.
Unless stated otherwise, each individual unit maintains its normal Battlefield Role when taken as part of a Formation.
Unlike other Detachments, Formations can also be taken as part of Unbound armies.
If they are, their units maintain the special rules gained for being part of the Formation.
BLADERIKER wrote: As per formations on page 121 "BRB" "Unless stated other wise, each individual unit maintains its normal Battlefield Role when taken as part of a Formation."
Also as per the Necron Dex, Page 93. Unit Composition= 1 Canoptek Spyder. Thus there is not a Unit of Spyders Ever as the composition is only one before upgrades are taken for the whole unit.
So one spyder is a Unit.
So yeah I think that works.
The problem with your analysis is that you are quoting the unit's rules. 1 Unit of Canoptek Spyders starts with just 1 is not in question.
What is at the heart of this, is the formation states 1 Canoptek Spyder not 1 unit of Canoptek Spyders.
You will also notice the the Datasheet is titled "Canoptek Spyders" plural not "Spyder" singular as listed in the formation.
1 Canoptek Spyder is 1 Unit of Canoptek Spyders, or is this wrong?
Bojazz wrote: The army list entry is called "canoptek spyders" not "canoptek spyder". It consists of one canoptek spyder by default. The formation allows you to take one canoptek spyder. Therefore you have access to the rules to that model, which are on page 93. not the army entry entitled "canoptek spyders".
"canoptek spyders" the army list entry is not the same as "canoptek spyder" the model. Both of these things are found on page 93. The special rule for the formation describes a single spyder. EDIT - DAMNIT PEOPLE STOP NINJAING ME ^
You either have two detachmentless spyders, which is against the rules on page 118, or you have two extra spyders in the formation which you have no permission to take.
The formation specifes page 93 and formations deal with units per the rules.
I am following the rules here. It's time for you to start doing the same here.
Which one? How do you know? Show me where it says which Spyder is 'the Spyder' or where it says you can nominate a Spyder to be 'the Spyder'.
One spyder will have the formation benefits granted to it like any other buff and like anything else it needs to be kept track of. No special rule needs to implement book keeping.
Lets compare it to another formation from the same codex. The Judicator Batallion. It lists 1 unit of Triarch Stalkers 2 Units of Triarch Praetorians.
Triarch Stalkers come as a single stalker by default, yet this formation specifies that you may take a unit of them. This shows that one spyder means one spyder, and one unit of spyders means one unit of spyders.
Even the wording in the special rule changes to "a stalker from this formation" rather than "THE stalker from this formation". It's glaringly obvious when you're allowed to take more than one of something.
Bojazz wrote: Lets compare it to another formation from the same codex. The Judicator Batallion. It lists
1 unit of Triarch Stalkers
2 Units of Triarch Praetorians.
Triarch Stalkers come as a single stalker by default, yet this formation specifies that you may take a unit of them. This shows that one spyder means one spyder, and one unit of spyders means one unit of spyders.
What rule do you have to back any of that up? A whole lot of gut feeling rules there.
My book says to use page 93 and the formation rules say to refer to units and their army entry list.
My argument is standing uncontested here because it has ALL THE RULES.
BLADERIKER wrote: As per formations on page 121 "BRB" "Unless stated other wise, each individual unit maintains its normal Battlefield Role when taken as part of a Formation."
Also as per the Necron Dex, Page 93. Unit Composition= 1 Canoptek Spyder. Thus there is not a Unit of Spyders Ever as the composition is only one before upgrades are taken for the whole unit.
So one spyder is a Unit.
So yeah I think that works.
The problem with your analysis is that you are quoting the unit's rules. 1 Unit of Canoptek Spyders starts with just 1 is not in question.
What is at the heart of this, is the formation states 1 Canoptek Spyder not 1 unit of Canoptek Spyders.
You will also notice the the Datasheet is titled "Canoptek Spyders" plural not "Spyder" singular as listed in the formation.
1 Canoptek Spyder is 1 Unit of Canoptek Spyders, or is this wrong?
Yes and No. A unit of Spyder can consist of just 1 model, true, but so can 3 spyders make up one unit or it could be 3 units or 2 units of 1 and 2 spyders.
Which one? How do you know? Show me where it says which Spyder is 'the Spyder' or where it says you can nominate a Spyder to be 'the Spyder'.
One spyder will have the formation benefits granted to it like any other buff and like anything else it needs to be kept track of. No special rule needs to implement book keeping.
So, in other words, no rules exist to select a Spyder to be 'the Spyder'.
If you having nothing to tell you how to or that you can, how is a Spyder being selected?
My argument is standing uncontested here because it has ALL THE RULES
Like the rule that allows you to select a Spyder? Huh, but no rules exist for that.
BLADERIKER wrote: As per formations on page 121 "BRB" "Unless stated other wise, each individual unit maintains its normal Battlefield Role when taken as part of a Formation."
Also as per the Necron Dex, Page 93. Unit Composition= 1 Canoptek Spyder. Thus there is not a Unit of Spyders Ever as the composition is only one before upgrades are taken for the whole unit.
So one spyder is a Unit.
So yeah I think that works.
The problem with your analysis is that you are quoting the unit's rules. 1 Unit of Canoptek Spyders starts with just 1 is not in question.
What is at the heart of this, is the formation states 1 Canoptek Spyder not 1 unit of Canoptek Spyders.
You will also notice the the Datasheet is titled "Canoptek Spyders" plural not "Spyder" singular as listed in the formation.
1 Canoptek Spyder is 1 Unit of Canoptek Spyders, or is this wrong?
Yes and No. A unit of Spyder can consist of just 1 model, true, but so can 3 spyders make up one unit or it could be 3 units or 2 units of 1 and 2 spyders.
Per the rules Formations add units. Can you adhere to the rules?
Which one? How do you know? Show me where it says which Spyder is 'the Spyder' or where it says you can nominate a Spyder to be 'the Spyder'.
One spyder will have the formation benefits granted to it like any other buff and like anything else it needs to be kept track of. No special rule needs to implement book keeping.
So, in other words, no rules exist to select a Spyder to be 'the Spyder'.
If you having nothing to tell you how to or that you can, how is a Spyder being selected?
It tells me specifically to use page 93 which I do. Note how I follow rules.
Bojazz wrote: Lets compare it to another formation from the same codex. The Judicator Batallion. It lists
1 unit of Triarch Stalkers
2 Units of Triarch Praetorians.
Triarch Stalkers come as a single stalker by default, yet this formation specifies that you may take a unit of them. This shows that one spyder means one spyder, and one unit of spyders means one unit of spyders.
Even the wording in the special rule changes to "a stalker from this formation" rather than "THE stalker from this formation". It's glaringly obvious when you're allowed to take more than one of something.
Noted, and GW has never in the past let a mistake go to print.
I would like to Point out that the wording for Scarab Hive Also uses the wording "The Spyder" for adding bases to the Scarabs so if I have three Spyders each within range of a unit of scarabs how do I resolve this?
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Yeah, but what rules allow you to choose a Spyder from the 2 or 3 you've taken to be 'the Spyder'?
So far, none (and that's because there are none)
So have your 3 Spyders, but then you're gaining no benefit from 'Adaptive Subroutines'.
By that logic there is no benefit for Scarab Hive as it calls out that "The Spyder" adds bases to a Unit of Scarabs. even if there is a unit of 2-3 Spyders.
Bojazz wrote: Lets compare it to another formation from the same codex. The Judicator Batallion. It lists 1 unit of Triarch Stalkers 2 Units of Triarch Praetorians.
Triarch Stalkers come as a single stalker by default, yet this formation specifies that you may take a unit of them. This shows that one spyder means one spyder, and one unit of spyders means one unit of spyders.
Even the wording in the special rule changes to "a stalker from this formation" rather than "THE stalker from this formation". It's glaringly obvious when you're allowed to take more than one of something.
Noted, and GW has never in the past let a mistake go to print.
I would like to Point out that the wording for Scarab Hive Also uses the wording "The Spyder" for adding bases to the Scarabs so if I have three Spyders each within range of a unit of scarabs how do I resolve this?
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Yeah, but what rules allow you to choose a Spyder from the 2 or 3 you've taken to be 'the Spyder'?
So far, none (and that's because there are none)
So have your 3 Spyders, but then you're gaining no benefit from 'Adaptive Subroutines'.
By that logic there is no benefit for Scarab Hive as it calls out that "The Spyder" adds bases to a Unit of Scarabs. even if there is a unit of 2-3 Spyders.
The first sentence of 'Scarab Hive' states that 'each Canoptek Spyder can use this special rule', covering this. (You do it once for each Spyder in the unit)
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Yeah, but what rules allow you to choose a Spyder from the 2 or 3 you've taken to be 'the Spyder'?
So far, none (and that's because there are none)
So have your 3 Spyders, but then you're gaining no benefit from 'Adaptive Subroutines'.
By that logic there is no benefit for Scarab Hive as it calls out that "The Spyder" adds bases to a Unit of Scarabs. even if there is a unit of 2-3 Spyders.
Not exactly because every Spyder has that rule not just one from the unit
I don't really see what the debate is here.
RAW you are allowed one Spyder in the formation
RAI clearly intends for there to be one Spyder in the formation.
BLADERIKER wrote: I would like to Point out that the wording for Scarab Hive Also uses the wording "The Spyder" for adding bases to the Scarabs so if I have three Spyders each within range of a unit of scarabs how do I resolve this?
All three of the spyders have the scarab hive special rule. They can all use it. "The Spyder" is whichever spyder's scarab hive you are currently resolving. This is clearly outlined in the rule itself.
Alright, I've provided rules quotes, wording differences between army list entries and model names, differences between similarly worded formations, and supportive text from special rules, and all you keep saying is "nope! p93 has a whole unit on it! the rulebook says units!"
If you're that hell-bent on taking three spyders, then go ahead and take three spyders, I'm done repeating myself. I imagine most people who've read the codex will disagree with you about it, but then again that's just a gut feeling.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Yeah, but what rules allow you to choose a Spyder from the 2 or 3 you've taken to be 'the Spyder'?
So far, none (and that's because there are none)
So have your 3 Spyders, but then you're gaining no benefit from 'Adaptive Subroutines'.
By that logic there is no benefit for Scarab Hive as it calls out that "The Spyder" adds bases to a Unit of Scarabs. even if there is a unit of 2-3 Spyders.
Not exactly because every Spyder has that rule not just one from the unit
Sure, and 1 Spyder in this 3 Spyder unit would have the formation benefit. And the rules have zero problem with that. Otherwise feel free to find in the rules a problem with that.
I have added 2 spyders to the unit by following RULES!
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Yeah, but what rules allow you to choose a Spyder from the 2 or 3 you've taken to be 'the Spyder'?
So far, none (and that's because there are none)
So have your 3 Spyders, but then you're gaining no benefit from 'Adaptive Subroutines'.
By that logic there is no benefit for Scarab Hive as it calls out that "The Spyder" adds bases to a Unit of Scarabs. even if there is a unit of 2-3 Spyders.
Not exactly because every Spyder has that rule not just one from the unit
MonumentOfRibs wrote: I don't really see what the debate is here.
RAW you are allowed one Spyder in the formation
RAI clearly intends for there to be one Spyder in the formation.
The formation refers to page 93 which has the canoptek spyder army entry list
The formaton has "no restrictions"
The army entry list has options which you are permitted to take
On the options is the option to add 1-2 additional spyders.
No rule is blocking that permission!
I suggest you modify your sense of RAW versus RAI here because so far no one has come up with any rule to block this clear chain in the rules!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Which Spyder, though?
You have yet to show a rule that says which spyder is 'the Spyder' or a rule that allows you to nominate one to be 'the Spyder'.
Your argument is wholly inconsequential. It's just book-keeping like any buff given to a subset of a unit.
As I said earlier, the first sentence of 'Scarab Hive' state that 'each Spyder can use this special rule' before it goes on to explain how a Spyder can use it.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Which Spyder, though?
You have yet to show a rule that says which spyder is 'the Spyder' or a rule that allows you to nominate one to be 'the Spyder'.
Your argument is wholly inconsequential. It's just book-keeping like any buff given to a subset of a unit.
Again, how do you determine which one gains the benefit? Typically you'd be told to nominate one, 'Adaptive Subroutines' doesn't say such a thing.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Which Spyder, though?
You have yet to show a rule that says which spyder is 'the Spyder' or a rule that allows you to nominate one to be 'the Spyder'.
Your argument is wholly inconsequential. It's just book-keeping like any buff given to a subset of a unit.
Again, how do you determine which one gains the benefit? Typically you'd be told to nominate one, 'Adaptive Subroutines' doesn't say such a thing.
So they decided to do this in an atypical way. I will rest my argument on the rules provided thank you.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Which Spyder, though?
You have yet to show a rule that says which spyder is 'the Spyder' or a rule that allows you to nominate one to be 'the Spyder'.
Your argument is wholly inconsequential. It's just book-keeping like any buff given to a subset of a unit.
Again, how do you determine which one gains the benefit? Typically you'd be told to nominate one, 'Adaptive Subroutines' doesn't say such a thing.
So they decided to do this in an atypical way. I will rest my argument on the rules provided thank you.
Again, what rules? You can't just say you have rules as proof and then not present them to us (thereby not proving anything to anyone but yourself)
If you have these so-called rules as proof, maybe you should have initially replied to me by presenting them, instead of dodging or giving me a not-answer?
I can see both sides of this argument, and Alas GW has given Overly Clear (Sarcasm) Formation/Unit/Rule entries which cannot ever (More sarcasm) be misread or misinterpreted.
And yes I can see where the Op's prospective lies.
However, let us consider that in the GK codex's formation there is no mention of a DT of any kind, so would you be able to take DT in that formation as there is no restriction on the formation, or are you prohibited from taking any form of DT due to lack of unit entry in the Formation list of units?
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Which Spyder, though?
You have yet to show a rule that says which spyder is 'the Spyder' or a rule that allows you to nominate one to be 'the Spyder'.
Your argument is wholly inconsequential. It's just book-keeping like any buff given to a subset of a unit.
Again, how do you determine which one gains the benefit? Typically you'd be told to nominate one, 'Adaptive Subroutines' doesn't say such a thing.
So they decided to do this in an atypical way. I will rest my argument on the rules provided thank you.
Again, what rules? You can't just say you have rules as proof and then not present them to us (thereby not proving anything to anyone but yourself)
If you have these so-called rules as proof, maybe you should have initially replied to me by presenting them, instead of dodging or giving me a not-answer?
first post in the thread. your argument is wholly inconsequential as you are trying to defeat me on a matter of book-keeping?? Do the rules specify exactly how to keep track of a model that has been psychically buffed? Your argument will need to be better to get any further attention from me.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Which Spyder, though? You have yet to show a rule that says which spyder is 'the Spyder' or a rule that allows you to nominate one to be 'the Spyder'.
Your argument is wholly inconsequential. It's just book-keeping like any buff given to a subset of a unit.
Again, how do you determine which one gains the benefit? Typically you'd be told to nominate one, 'Adaptive Subroutines' doesn't say such a thing.
So they decided to do this in an atypical way. I will rest my argument on the rules provided thank you.
Again, what rules? You can't just say you have rules as proof and then not present them to us (thereby not proving anything to anyone but yourself)
If you have these so-called rules as proof, maybe you should have initially replied to me by presenting them, instead of dodging or giving me a not-answer?
first post in the thread. your argument is wholly inconsequential as you are trying to defeat me on a matter of book-keeping?? Do the rules specify exactly how to keep track of a model that has been psychically buffed? Your argument will need to be better to get any further attention from me.
Every blessing psychic power I know of specify in them who or what they effect. 'Adaptive Subroutines' specifies it effects all units within 12" of 'the Spyder', yet with 2 or 3 Spyders, who do you know who 'the Spyder' is?
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Which Spyder, though?
You have yet to show a rule that says which spyder is 'the Spyder' or a rule that allows you to nominate one to be 'the Spyder'.
Your argument is wholly inconsequential. It's just book-keeping like any buff given to a subset of a unit.
Again, how do you determine which one gains the benefit? Typically you'd be told to nominate one, 'Adaptive Subroutines' doesn't say such a thing.
So they decided to do this in an atypical way. I will rest my argument on the rules provided thank you.
Again, what rules? You can't just say you have rules as proof and then not present them to us (thereby not proving anything to anyone but yourself)
If you have these so-called rules as proof, maybe you should have initially replied to me by presenting them, instead of dodging or giving me a not-answer?
first post in the thread. your argument is wholly inconsequential as you are trying to defeat me on a matter of book-keeping?? Do the rules specify exactly how to keep track of a model that has been psychically buffed? Your argument will need to be better to get any further attention from me.
Every blessing psychic power I know of specify in them who or what they effect (target).
'Adaptive Subroutines' specifies it effects all units within 12" of 'the Spyder', yet with 2 or 3 Spyders, who do you know who 'the Spyder' is?
You keep track. Is this not obvious? Why is this even being discussed?
I thought it was clear that the intention was 1 Spyder.
Problem is, in the cryptek edition, there are these Formation cards that show the maxed out Decurion formations and there are 3 Spyders in those. Someone posted a scan of that somewhere here.
So now im not sure anymore what is RAI in this case...
CrownAxe wrote: If you bring more then one spyder then you formation idoesn't have "a canoptek spyder" and you would be breaking the rules.
Which rule? Page and paragraph please?
I have provided ample documentation of the rules I am following.
Its right in the formation. Under unit composition. "A Canoptek Spyder"
Can't get more simple then that.
And I have a canoptek spyder to satisfy the formations composition. Can't get more simple than that. Do you have an actual rule to suggest an actual violation has taken place? I am waiting.
So what this boils down to is that because the Formation entry calls for 1 Spyder leading many to believe that you can only have 1 Spyder. So then as per its Unit entry on page 93 you are restricted to just the 1 Spyder sans upgrades. Yet the Formation clearly states No Restrictions... This seems to cause a Paradox.
Kind of like; can you take a Ven Dread in the GK formation when the Formation calls for a Dread?.It calls for two Brother Caps and requires one to be upgraded to Grandmaster even though there is no Data sheet titled Grand Master... Can you take DT's as part of a unit? even though they are not part of the formation? Again just like the issues with the Canoptek harvest the Gk formation brings up a Paradox as there are No Restrictions on the formation but it does not spell out how to deal with those issues.
Again how can you keep track of which Spyder is 'the Spyder' when no rules are present to define which is 'the Spyder' when you have multiple or allow you to select one to be 'the Spyder'?
You can't as 'the Spyder' would exist for you to keep track of it!
If that picture (not a picture of a rule at that, just an image of a purely background-based work) is directed at me, it doesn't answer the my question.
CrownAxe wrote: If you bring more then one spyder then you formation idoesn't have "a canoptek spyder" and you would be breaking the rules.
Which rule? Page and paragraph please?
I have provided ample documentation of the rules I am following.
Its right in the formation. Under unit composition. "A Canoptek Spyder"
Can't get more simple then that.
And I have a canoptek spyder to satisfy the formations composition. Can't get more simple than that. Do you have an actual rule to suggest an actual violation has taken place? I am waiting.
No you don't. You don't have "a Canoptek Spyder" you have "Canoptek Spyders". Not the same thing
By your logic I can take multiple units of wraiths in the formation and would be fine because you are meeting the "a unit of canoptek wraiths" composition.
Seriously this is basic english. A plural does not also count as a singular.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Again how can you keep track of which Spyder is 'the Spyder' when no rules are present to define which is 'the Spyder' when you have multiple or allow you to select one to be 'the Spyder'?
You can't as 'the Spyder' would exist for you to keep track of it!
Again, I keep track. One spyder is part of the formation. 2 Spyders in the unit are not. Simple. Simple. Simple. Simple.
CrownAxe wrote: If you bring more then one spyder then you formation idoesn't have "a canoptek spyder" and you would be breaking the rules.
Which rule? Page and paragraph please?
I have provided ample documentation of the rules I am following.
Its right in the formation. Under unit composition. "A Canoptek Spyder"
Can't get more simple then that.
And I have a canoptek spyder to satisfy the formations composition. Can't get more simple than that. Do you have an actual rule to suggest an actual violation has taken place? I am waiting.
No you don't. You don't have "a Canoptek Spyder" you have "Canoptek Spyders". Not the same thing
By your logic I can take multiple units of wraiths in the formation and would be fine because you are meeting the "a unit of canoptek wraiths" composition.
Seriously this is basic english. A plural does not also count as a singular.
I most assuredly have a canoptek spyder in a unit of 3 canoptek spyders.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Again how can you keep track of which Spyder is 'the Spyder' when no rules are present to define which is 'the Spyder' when you have multiple or allow you to select one to be 'the Spyder'?
You can't as 'the Spyder' would exist for you to keep track of it!
Again, I keep track. One spyder is part of the formation. 2 Spyders in the unit are not. Simple. Simple. Simple. Simple.
CrownAxe wrote: If you bring more then one spyder then you formation idoesn't have "a canoptek spyder" and you would be breaking the rules.
Which rule? Page and paragraph please?
I have provided ample documentation of the rules I am following.
Its right in the formation. Under unit composition. "A Canoptek Spyder"
Can't get more simple then that.
And I have a canoptek spyder to satisfy the formations composition. Can't get more simple than that. Do you have an actual rule to suggest an actual violation has taken place? I am waiting.
No you don't. You don't have "a Canoptek Spyder" you have "Canoptek Spyders". Not the same thing
By your logic I can take multiple units of wraiths in the formation and would be fine because you are meeting the "a unit of canoptek wraiths" composition.
Seriously this is basic english. A plural does not also count as a singular.
I most assuredly have a canoptek spyder in a unit of 3 canoptek spyders.
And I most assuredly have a unit of wraiths with my 5 units of wraiths.
How can 2 Spyders from the same unit NOT be from the formation? Show me where in the rules where an entire unit (not including attached characters) don't have to be a part of the same detachment/formation?
Hell show me the rules that tell us what the other 2 Spyders are a part of? Do they form their own detachment? If so, what rules tell us that? (Hint: None do)
Matt.Kingsley wrote: How can 2 Spyders from the same unit NOT be from the formation? Show me where in the rules where an entire unit (not including attached characters) don't have to be a part of the same detachment/formation?
Hell show me the rules that tell us what the other 2 Spyders are a part of? Do they form their own detachment? If so, what rules tell us that? (Hint: None do)
You are mistaken who has the burden of proof here. I have shown abundantly a CLEAR CHAIN OF PERMISSION. It's up to you to break that chain.
Can you provide any rules that allow you to select a Spyder to be 'the Spyder' or allow you to have 2 Spyders from the same unit not be a part of the formation (as you claim they can) and rules that tell us what becomes of those 2 Spyders?
col_impact wrote: I most assuredly have a canoptek spyder in a unit of 3 canoptek spyders.
Really?
The others are right for this part, you can't have 6 HQs in a Bound CAD because 2 HQs are in the 6 you picked....
Huh? One spyder is part of the formation. I follow the rules and add two additional spyders. After that there is still one spyder that is part of the formation.
Again, what rule did I break? Page and paragraph please.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: How can 2 Spyders from the same unit NOT be from the formation? Show me where in the rules where an entire unit (not including attached characters) don't have to be a part of the same detachment/formation?
Hell show me the rules that tell us what the other 2 Spyders are a part of? Do they form their own detachment? If so, what rules tell us that? (Hint: None do)
You are mistaken who has the burden of proof here. I have shown abundantly a CLEAR CHAIN OF PERMISSION. It's up to you to break that chain.
What? I have the burden of proof?
YOU have to prove you can choose a Spyder.
YOU have to prove that 1 model in a unit can be a part of a formation while the other models in it aren't (not including joined characters)
If you want to convince ANYONE that you are right, you need to back your claims.
I have one Spyder. I add one more Spyder. How many Spyders do I have?
Now how many does the formation say I can have?
If a formation says "one Necron warrior", you get one - not 5-20 because that's the min unit size and it can purchase options. Just one. This entire argument is ridiculous - you're literally arguing that 1=2
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Can you provide any rules that allow you to select a Spyder to be 'the Spyder' or allow you to have 2 Spyders from the same unit not be a part of the formation (as you claim they can) and rules that tell us what becomes of those 2 Spyders?
Also that picture isn't a rule, sorry.
Book-keeping is an implied task in 40k. I treat this scenario just as I treat the tracking of wounds.
col_impact wrote: I most assuredly have a canoptek spyder in a unit of 3 canoptek spyders.
Really?
The others are right for this part, you can't have 6 HQs in a Bound CAD because 2 HQs are in the 6 you picked....
Huh? One spyder is part of the formation. I follow the rules and add two additional spyders. After that there is still one spyder that is part of the formation.
Again, what rule did I break? Page and paragraph please.
It doesn't matter what rules we quote you. If this is what you actually think then you don't know how the English language works.
And that is the (IMHO not very RaI) idea that you may purchase Dedicated Transports for Units that may do so in Formations.
So if a formation of 3 Tactical Squads can purchase an additional 3 Units, which are / are not? part of the formation, why is a Unit of 1 Spyder not allowed to purchase an additional option of 2 Spyders?
Eyjio wrote: I have one Spyder. I add one more Spyder. How many Spyders do I have?
Now how many does the formation say I can have?
If a formation says "one Necron warrior", you get one - not 5-20 because that's the min unit size and it can purchase options. Just one. This entire argument is ridiculous - you're literally arguing that 1=2
No I am following rules.
The formation says no restriction.
The options allow the addition of 1-2 spyders.
It is clear that the formation itself has 1 spyder in it. But you have failed to provide a rule that says a formation can't pull from a subset of a unit. That is your gut feeling. It's not in the rules.
The counter argument fails because the formation itself does not provide a restriction where it would need to to wind up with the result that the counter-argument is looking for.
And that is the (IMHO not very RaI) idea that you may purchase Dedicated Transports for Units that may do so in Formations.
So if a formation of 3 Tactical Squads can purchase an additional 3 Units, which are / are not? part of the formation, why is a Unit of 1 Spyder not allowed to purchase an additional option of 2 Spyders?
As in, counter to everyone else, and agreeing with the method listed by col_impact...
col_impact wrote: I most assuredly have a canoptek spyder in a unit of 3 canoptek spyders.
Really?
The others are right for this part, you can't have 6 HQs in a Bound CAD because 2 HQs are in the 6 you picked....
Huh? One spyder is part of the formation. I follow the rules and add two additional spyders. After that there is still one spyder that is part of the formation.
Again, what rule did I break? Page and paragraph please.
It doesn't matter what rules we quote you. If this is what you actually think then you don't know how the English language works.
I am pretty sure my educational qualifications far exceed yours. Just a safe bet based on probability more than anything. I suggest you stick to arguing the rules rather than resorting to a thinly veiled ad hominem attack.
col_impact wrote: I most assuredly have a canoptek spyder in a unit of 3 canoptek spyders.
Really?
The others are right for this part, you can't have 6 HQs in a Bound CAD because 2 HQs are in the 6 you picked....
Huh? One spyder is part of the formation. I follow the rules and add two additional spyders. After that there is still one spyder that is part of the formation.
Again, what rule did I break? Page and paragraph please.
It doesn't matter what rules we quote you. If this is what you actually think then you don't know how the English language works.
I am pretty sure my educational qualifications far exceed yours. I suggest you stick to arguing the rules rather than resorting to a thinly veiled ad hominem attacks.
So what prevents me from taking 5 wraith units in the formation then?
However you are told how to determine who has taken wounds.
There are no rules that tell you how to determine which Spyder is 'the Spyder'.
Also you have yet to prove that one Spyder can be a part of the formation while the others in his aren't, and what those Spyders are then a part of.
Unless you answer the above I'll assume you are ignoring me because you have no rules to prove that a unit can have one model be a part of a formation while the rest are not and that you agree that, unlike for Wounds, there are no rules that tell you how to determine who 'the Spyder' is.
col_impact wrote: I most assuredly have a canoptek spyder in a unit of 3 canoptek spyders.
Really?
The others are right for this part, you can't have 6 HQs in a Bound CAD because 2 HQs are in the 6 you picked....
Huh? One spyder is part of the formation. I follow the rules and add two additional spyders. After that there is still one spyder that is part of the formation.
Again, what rule did I break? Page and paragraph please.
It doesn't matter what rules we quote you. If this is what you actually think then you don't know how the English language works.
I am pretty sure my educational qualifications far exceed yours. I suggest you stick to arguing the rules rather than resorting to a thinly veiled ad hominem attacks.
So what prevents me from taking 5 wraith units in the formation then?
However you are told how to determine who has taken wounds.
There are no rules that tell you how to determine which Spyder is 'the Spyder'.
Also you have yet to prove that one Spyder can be a part of the formation while the others in his aren't, and what those Spyders are then a part of.
Unless you answer the above I'll assume you are ignoring me because you have no rules to prove that a unit can have one model be a part of a formation while the rest are not and that you agree that, unlike for Wounds, there are no rules that tell you how to determine who 'the Spyder' is.
Huh? My answer until you give me something worth directly replying to will be 'I keep track'
However you are told how to determine who has taken wounds.
There are no rules that tell you how to determine which Spyder is 'the Spyder'.
Also you have yet to prove that one Spyder can be a part of the formation while the others in his aren't, and what those Spyders are then a part of.
Unless you answer the above I'll assume you are ignoring me because you have no rules to prove that a unit can have one model be a part of a formation while the rest are not and that you agree that, unlike for Wounds, there are no rules that tell you how to determine who 'the Spyder' is.
I'm quite sure the whole Unit ends up being part of the formation. You'd have to ask the players who purchase DT for their formations what they end up belonging to....
col_impact wrote: I most assuredly have a canoptek spyder in a unit of 3 canoptek spyders.
Really?
The others are right for this part, you can't have 6 HQs in a Bound CAD because 2 HQs are in the 6 you picked....
Huh? One spyder is part of the formation. I follow the rules and add two additional spyders. After that there is still one spyder that is part of the formation.
Again, what rule did I break? Page and paragraph please.
It doesn't matter what rules we quote you. If this is what you actually think then you don't know how the English language works.
I am pretty sure my educational qualifications far exceed yours. I suggest you stick to arguing the rules rather than resorting to a thinly veiled ad hominem attacks.
So what prevents me from taking 5 wraith units in the formation then?
The formations rule in the BRB.
But I'm meet the formation requirement because I have a Wraith unit
col_impact wrote: I most assuredly have a canoptek spyder in a unit of 3 canoptek spyders.
Really?
The others are right for this part, you can't have 6 HQs in a Bound CAD because 2 HQs are in the 6 you picked....
Huh? One spyder is part of the formation. I follow the rules and add two additional spyders. After that there is still one spyder that is part of the formation.
Again, what rule did I break? Page and paragraph please.
It doesn't matter what rules we quote you. If this is what you actually think then you don't know how the English language works.
I am pretty sure my educational qualifications far exceed yours. I suggest you stick to arguing the rules rather than resorting to a thinly veiled ad hominem attacks.
So what prevents me from taking 5 wraith units in the formation then?
The formations rule in the BRB.
But I'm meet the formation requirement because I have a Wraith unit
Re-read the formation rules in the BRB. What makes you think you do not have to adhere to them? The formation adds on a unit by unit basis. So you have a unit of wraiths. Go from there.
col_impact wrote: I most assuredly have a canoptek spyder in a unit of 3 canoptek spyders.
Really?
The others are right for this part, you can't have 6 HQs in a Bound CAD because 2 HQs are in the 6 you picked....
Huh? One spyder is part of the formation. I follow the rules and add two additional spyders. After that there is still one spyder that is part of the formation.
Again, what rule did I break? Page and paragraph please.
It doesn't matter what rules we quote you. If this is what you actually think then you don't know how the English language works.
I am pretty sure my educational qualifications far exceed yours. I suggest you stick to arguing the rules rather than resorting to a thinly veiled ad hominem attacks.
So what prevents me from taking 5 wraith units in the formation then?
The formations rule in the BRB.
But I'm meet the formation requirement because I have a Wraith unit
Re-read the formation rules in the BRB. What makes you think you do not have to adhere to them?
col_impact wrote: I most assuredly have a canoptek spyder in a unit of 3 canoptek spyders.
Really?
The others are right for this part, you can't have 6 HQs in a Bound CAD because 2 HQs are in the 6 you picked....
Huh? One spyder is part of the formation. I follow the rules and add two additional spyders. After that there is still one spyder that is part of the formation.
Again, what rule did I break? Page and paragraph please.
It doesn't matter what rules we quote you. If this is what you actually think then you don't know how the English language works.
I am pretty sure my educational qualifications far exceed yours. I suggest you stick to arguing the rules rather than resorting to a thinly veiled ad hominem attacks.
So what prevents me from taking 5 wraith units in the formation then?
The formations rule in the BRB.
But I'm meet the formation requirement because I have a Wraith unit
Re-read the formation rules in the BRB. What makes you think you do not have to adhere to them?
I'm just following your logic
If you followed my logic you would be quoting rules and adhering to them.
However you are told how to determine who has taken wounds.
There are no rules that tell you how to determine which Spyder is 'the Spyder'.
Also you have yet to prove that one Spyder can be a part of the formation while the others in his aren't, and what those Spyders are then a part of.
Unless you answer the above I'll assume you are ignoring me because you have no rules to prove that a unit can have one model be a part of a formation while the rest are not and that you agree that, unlike for Wounds, there are no rules that tell you how to determine who 'the Spyder' is.
I'm quite sure the whole Unit ends up being part of the formation. You'd have to ask the players who purchase DT for their formations what they end up belonging to....
That's what I thought, the whole unit has to be a part of the formation.
Yet again it seems col keeps dodging how he can keep track of which Spyder is 'the Spyder' when we aren't told which one is 'the Spyder' or if/how we can niminate one to be 'the Spyder'.
I'll concede that col is not only correct that RAW you can have 2-3 Spyders (as I said in my first post in this thread) but that you can benefit from 'Adaptive Subroutines' as there is a rule/multiple rules that specifically allow you to nominate a Spyder to be 'the Spyder'.
Until then until he gives me something of worth I'll stick with my attitude of 'He can't select a Spyder as 'the Spyder' to keep track of and can't benefit from 'Adaptive Subroutines'.
Are all the selections for formations that only say one of x have a minimum squad size of one?
If that is the case, the reason they say one of x instead of a unit of x may be because there is only one model in the unit instead of 2 or higher before you buy extra members.
col_impact wrote: I most assuredly have a canoptek spyder in a unit of 3 canoptek spyders.
Really?
The others are right for this part, you can't have 6 HQs in a Bound CAD because 2 HQs are in the 6 you picked....
Huh? One spyder is part of the formation. I follow the rules and add two additional spyders. After that there is still one spyder that is part of the formation.
Again, what rule did I break? Page and paragraph please.
It doesn't matter what rules we quote you. If this is what you actually think then you don't know how the English language works.
I am pretty sure my educational qualifications far exceed yours. I suggest you stick to arguing the rules rather than resorting to a thinly veiled ad hominem attacks.
So what prevents me from taking 5 wraith units in the formation then?
The formations rule in the BRB.
But I'm meet the formation requirement because I have a Wraith unit
Re-read the formation rules in the BRB. What makes you think you do not have to adhere to them?
I'm just following your logic
If you followed my logic you would be quoting rules and adhering to them.
No because your logic is based on ignoreing how the english language functions and interpreting rules how you see fit.
Are all the selections for formations that only say one of x have a minimum squad size of one?
If that is the case, the reason they say one of x instead of a unit of x is because there is only one model in the unit instead of 2 or height before you buy extra members.
Stalkers (min-size 1) say '1 Unit of Stalkers'.
Again, though I agree that the wording for the Canoptek Harvest is ambiguous enough that, RAW, you can have a unit of 2-3 Spyders in it.
However you are told how to determine who has taken wounds.
There are no rules that tell you how to determine which Spyder is 'the Spyder'.
Also you have yet to prove that one Spyder can be a part of the formation while the others in his aren't, and what those Spyders are then a part of.
Unless you answer the above I'll assume you are ignoring me because you have no rules to prove that a unit can have one model be a part of a formation while the rest are not and that you agree that, unlike for Wounds, there are no rules that tell you how to determine who 'the Spyder' is.
I'm quite sure the whole Unit ends up being part of the formation. You'd have to ask the players who purchase DT for their formations what they end up belonging to....
That's what I thought, the whole unit has to be a part of the formation.
Yet again it seems col keeps dodging how he can keep track of which Spyder is 'the Spyder' when we aren't told which one is 'the Spyder' or if/how we can niminate one to be 'the Spyder'.
I'll concede that col is not only correct that RAW you can have 2-3 Spyders (as I said in my first post in this thread) but that you can benefit from 'Adaptive Subroutines' as there is a rule/multiple rules that specifically allow you to nominate a Spyder to be 'the Spyder'.
Until then until he gives me something of worth I'll stick with my attitude of 'He can't select a Spyder as 'the Spyder' to keep track of and can't benefit from 'Adaptive Subroutines'.
It would depend on whether the 'Adaptive Subroutines' becomes plural because you now have 3 Spyders, or if it must stay singular (you usually are not allowed to modify - even making plural- Rules as they are written).
If singular, there will be either a HYWPI method or RaW conclusion of which one out of the 3 is concerned.
For example i'd say that by RaW there is 1 Spyder 'selected', while the 2 chosen as options (just like the DTs) will not benefit from the rule. It must be "marked" throughout the game.( "I keep track")
col_impact wrote: I most assuredly have a canoptek spyder in a unit of 3 canoptek spyders.
Really?
The others are right for this part, you can't have 6 HQs in a Bound CAD because 2 HQs are in the 6 you picked....
Huh? One spyder is part of the formation. I follow the rules and add two additional spyders. After that there is still one spyder that is part of the formation.
Again, what rule did I break? Page and paragraph please.
It doesn't matter what rules we quote you. If this is what you actually think then you don't know how the English language works.
I am pretty sure my educational qualifications far exceed yours. I suggest you stick to arguing the rules rather than resorting to a thinly veiled ad hominem attacks.
So what prevents me from taking 5 wraith units in the formation then?
The formations rule in the BRB.
But I'm meet the formation requirement because I have a Wraith unit
Re-read the formation rules in the BRB. What makes you think you do not have to adhere to them?
I'm just following your logic
If you followed my logic you would be quoting rules and adhering to them.
No because your logic is based on ignoreing how the english language functions and interpreting rules how you see fit.
I'll stand by my own self-assessment of my capability of using the English language, thank you. Probability-wise, no one in this thread exceeds my qualifications on that count.
No because your logic is based on ignoreing how the english language functions and interpreting rules how you see fit.
I'll stand by my own self-assessment of my capability of using the English language, thank you. Probability-wise, no one in this thread exceeds my qualifications on that count.
The history of you debating on YMDC is proof of you lack of english comprehension. Why else is almost every thread you have a long standing argument in that you are the only one arguing your case? Because you are the only one misinterpreting the rules.
No because your logic is based on ignoreing how the english language functions and interpreting rules how you see fit.
I'll stand by my own self-assessment of my capability of using the English language, thank you. Probability-wise, no one in this thread exceeds my qualifications on that count.
The history of you debating on YMDC is proof of you lack of english comprehension. Why else is almost every thread you have a long standing argument in that you are the only one arguing your case? Because you are the only one misinterpreting the rules.
I suggest you use rules to argue your case instead of an ad-hominem attack.
The number of units don't add up correctly. Too many scarabs for it to be a single formation as detailed in the data slate or even 2 formations and then if we're three then there are not enough wraiths to fill three so the pic really doesn't help at all.
However you are told how to determine who has taken wounds.
There are no rules that tell you how to determine which Spyder is 'the Spyder'.
Also you have yet to prove that one Spyder can be a part of the formation while the others in his aren't, and what those Spyders are then a part of.
Unless you answer the above I'll assume you are ignoring me because you have no rules to prove that a unit can have one model be a part of a formation while the rest are not and that you agree that, unlike for Wounds, there are no rules that tell you how to determine who 'the Spyder' is.
I'm quite sure the whole Unit ends up being part of the formation. You'd have to ask the players who purchase DT for their formations what they end up belonging to....
That's what I thought, the whole unit has to be a part of the formation.
Yet again it seems col keeps dodging how he can keep track of which Spyder is 'the Spyder' when we aren't told which one is 'the Spyder' or if/how we can niminate one to be 'the Spyder'.
I'll concede that col is not only correct that RAW you can have 2-3 Spyders (as I said in my first post in this thread) but that you can benefit from 'Adaptive Subroutines' as there is a rule/multiple rules that specifically allow you to nominate a Spyder to be 'the Spyder'.
Until then until he gives me something of worth I'll stick with my attitude of 'He can't select a Spyder as 'the Spyder' to keep track of and can't benefit from 'Adaptive Subroutines'.
It would depend on whether the 'Adaptive Subroutines' becomes plural because you now have 3 Spyders, or if it must stay singular (you usually are not allowed to modify - even making plural- Rules as they are written).
If singular, there will be either a HYWPI method or RaW conclusion of which one out of the 3 is concerned.
For example i'd say that by RaW there is 1 Spyder 'selected', while the 2 chosen as options (just like the DTs) will not benefit from the rule. It must be "marked" throughout the game.( "I keep track")
I disagree that RAW 1 Spyder (the 'first' Spyder in this unit) is 'the Spyder' because there are no written rules that say that, you'd be assuming that 'the Spyder' is the first Spyder in the unit.
As reference 'Adaptive Subroutines' states
[irrelevant info (when the rules is activated and the special rules you can choose from] ... The Canoptek Spyder from this Formation, and all units from this Formation within 12" of the Canoptek Spyder from this Formation, benefits from the effects of the chosen special rule, ... [States when the effect ends]
The number of units don't add up correctly. Too many scarabs for it to be a single formation as detailed in the data slate or even 2 formations and then if we're three then there are not enough wraiths to fill three so the pic really doesn't help at all.
It is evidence that there is enough of a confusion on the writing/editing part that 3 spyders is seen by at least a few to be a legitimate Canoptek Harvest formation.
This counts as circumstantial evidence and should raise quite the eyebrow.
But the main thing is the actual preponderance of RULES that support my argument and the lack of any clear rule to refute my argument.
No because your logic is based on ignoreing how the english language functions and interpreting rules how you see fit.
I'll stand by my own self-assessment of my capability of using the English language, thank you. Probability-wise, no one in this thread exceeds my qualifications on that count.
The history of you debating on YMDC is proof of you lack of english comprehension. Why else is almost every thread you have a long standing argument in that you are the only one arguing your case? Because you are the only one misinterpreting the rules.
I suggest you use rules to argue your case instead of an ad-hominem attack.
I tried and you keep refusing to believe me because of you false notion that a plural is also singular. So now I'm trying to point out that your grasp on the English language has errors in it.
No because your logic is based on ignoreing how the english language functions and interpreting rules how you see fit.
I'll stand by my own self-assessment of my capability of using the English language, thank you. Probability-wise, no one in this thread exceeds my qualifications on that count.
The history of you debating on YMDC is proof of you lack of english comprehension. Why else is almost every thread you have a long standing argument in that you are the only one arguing your case? Because you are the only one misinterpreting the rules.
I suggest you use rules to argue your case instead of an ad-hominem attack.
I tried and you keep refusing to believe me because of you false notion that a plural is also singular. So now I'm trying to point out that your grasp on the English language has errors in it.
I think you need to re-acquaint yourself with the rules.
No because your logic is based on ignoreing how the english language functions and interpreting rules how you see fit.
I'll stand by my own self-assessment of my capability of using the English language, thank you. Probability-wise, no one in this thread exceeds my qualifications on that count.
The history of you debating on YMDC is proof of you lack of english comprehension. Why else is almost every thread you have a long standing argument in that you are the only one arguing your case? Because you are the only one misinterpreting the rules.
I suggest you use rules to argue your case instead of an ad-hominem attack.
I tried and you keep refusing to believe me because of you false notion that a plural is also singular. So now I'm trying to point out that your grasp on the English language has errors in it.
I think you need to re-acquaint yourself with the rules.
No, you need to. I and many people here have told you the rules that disprove your argument and you insist on ignoring it.
No because your logic is based on ignoreing how the english language functions and interpreting rules how you see fit.
I'll stand by my own self-assessment of my capability of using the English language, thank you. Probability-wise, no one in this thread exceeds my qualifications on that count.
The history of you debating on YMDC is proof of you lack of english comprehension. Why else is almost every thread you have a long standing argument in that you are the only one arguing your case? Because you are the only one misinterpreting the rules.
I suggest you use rules to argue your case instead of an ad-hominem attack.
I tried and you keep refusing to believe me because of you false notion that a plural is also singular. So now I'm trying to point out that your grasp on the English language has errors in it.
I think you need to re-acquaint yourself with the rules.
No, you need to. I and many people here have told you the rules that disprove your argument and you insist on ignoring it.
This isn't a popularity contest. You need to actually come up with rules and not just '20 Sallys agree.' Who the fudge cares about Sally's opinion?
However you are told how to determine who has taken wounds.
There are no rules that tell you how to determine which Spyder is 'the Spyder'.
Also you have yet to prove that one Spyder can be a part of the formation while the others in his aren't, and what those Spyders are then a part of.
Unless you answer the above I'll assume you are ignoring me because you have no rules to prove that a unit can have one model be a part of a formation while the rest are not and that you agree that, unlike for Wounds, there are no rules that tell you how to determine who 'the Spyder' is.
I'm quite sure the whole Unit ends up being part of the formation. You'd have to ask the players who purchase DT for their formations what they end up belonging to....
That's what I thought, the whole unit has to be a part of the formation.
Yet again it seems col keeps dodging how he can keep track of which Spyder is 'the Spyder' when we aren't told which one is 'the Spyder' or if/how we can niminate one to be 'the Spyder'.
I'll concede that col is not only correct that RAW you can have 2-3 Spyders (as I said in my first post in this thread) but that you can benefit from 'Adaptive Subroutines' as there is a rule/multiple rules that specifically allow you to nominate a Spyder to be 'the Spyder'.
Until then until he gives me something of worth I'll stick with my attitude of 'He can't select a Spyder as 'the Spyder' to keep track of and can't benefit from 'Adaptive Subroutines'.
It would depend on whether the 'Adaptive Subroutines' becomes plural because you now have 3 Spyders, or if it must stay singular (you usually are not allowed to modify - even making plural- Rules as they are written).
If singular, there will be either a HYWPI method or RaW conclusion of which one out of the 3 is concerned.
For example i'd say that by RaW there is 1 Spyder 'selected', while the 2 chosen as options (just like the DTs) will not benefit from the rule. It must be "marked" throughout the game.( "I keep track")
I disagree that RAW 1 Spyder (the 'first' Spyder in this unit) is 'the Spyder' because there are no written rules that say that, you'd be assuming that 'the Spyder' is the first Spyder in the unit.
As reference 'Adaptive Subroutines' states
[irrelevant info (when the rules is activated and the special rules you can choose from] ... The Canoptek Spyder from this Formation, and all units from this Formation within 12" of the Canoptek Spyder from this Formation, benefits from the effects of the chosen special rule, ... [States when the effect ends]
It comes down to the order of things (If there even is one?)
You purchase the Formation, and the Spyder has 'Adaptive Subroutines'. The spider then takes an additional Option of +2 Spyders. I don't think they'd get 'Adaptive Subroutines'.
Just as you don't buy the DT, then take the formation that lets you select them. You buy the formation, which has rules, then purchase Options for it (such as Transports)
Matt.Kingsley wrote: What, like the rules you gave me that allow you to choose/tell you which of the multiple Spyders are 'the Spyder'?
Oh, wait...
There is a formation spyder and I add 2 spyders to the unit and I keep track. I am not sure why you keep trying to task me with this argument that has been settled pages ago.
No because your logic is based on ignoreing how the english language functions and interpreting rules how you see fit.
I'll stand by my own self-assessment of my capability of using the English language, thank you. Probability-wise, no one in this thread exceeds my qualifications on that count.
The history of you debating on YMDC is proof of you lack of english comprehension. Why else is almost every thread you have a long standing argument in that you are the only one arguing your case? Because you are the only one misinterpreting the rules.
I suggest you use rules to argue your case instead of an ad-hominem attack.
I tried and you keep refusing to believe me because of you false notion that a plural is also singular. So now I'm trying to point out that your grasp on the English language has errors in it.
I think you need to re-acquaint yourself with the rules.
No, you need to. I and many people here have told you the rules that disprove your argument and you insist on ignoring it.
This isn't a popularity contest. You need to actually come up with rules and not just '20 Sallys agree.' Who the fudge cares about Sally's opinion?
There you go again. You used a strawman to dismiss and ignore my argument.
However you are told how to determine who has taken wounds.
There are no rules that tell you how to determine which Spyder is 'the Spyder'.
Also you have yet to prove that one Spyder can be a part of the formation while the others in his aren't, and what those Spyders are then a part of.
Unless you answer the above I'll assume you are ignoring me because you have no rules to prove that a unit can have one model be a part of a formation while the rest are not and that you agree that, unlike for Wounds, there are no rules that tell you how to determine who 'the Spyder' is.
I'm quite sure the whole Unit ends up being part of the formation. You'd have to ask the players who purchase DT for their formations what they end up belonging to....
That's what I thought, the whole unit has to be a part of the formation.
Yet again it seems col keeps dodging how he can keep track of which Spyder is 'the Spyder' when we aren't told which one is 'the Spyder' or if/how we can niminate one to be 'the Spyder'.
I'll concede that col is not only correct that RAW you can have 2-3 Spyders (as I said in my first post in this thread) but that you can benefit from 'Adaptive Subroutines' as there is a rule/multiple rules that specifically allow you to nominate a Spyder to be 'the Spyder'.
Until then until he gives me something of worth I'll stick with my attitude of 'He can't select a Spyder as 'the Spyder' to keep track of and can't benefit from 'Adaptive Subroutines'.
It would depend on whether the 'Adaptive Subroutines' becomes plural because you now have 3 Spyders, or if it must stay singular (you usually are not allowed to modify - even making plural- Rules as they are written).
If singular, there will be either a HYWPI method or RaW conclusion of which one out of the 3 is concerned.
For example i'd say that by RaW there is 1 Spyder 'selected', while the 2 chosen as options (just like the DTs) will not benefit from the rule. It must be "marked" throughout the game.( "I keep track")
I disagree that RAW 1 Spyder (the 'first' Spyder in this unit) is 'the Spyder' because there are no written rules that say that, you'd be assuming that 'the Spyder' is the first Spyder in the unit.
As reference 'Adaptive Subroutines' states
[irrelevant info (when the rules is activated and the special rules you can choose from] ... The Canoptek Spyder from this Formation, and all units from this Formation within 12" of the Canoptek Spyder from this Formation, benefits from the effects of the chosen special rule, ... [States when the effect ends]
It comes down to the order of things (If there even is one?)
You purchase the Formation, and the Spyder has 'Adaptive Subroutines'. The spider then takes an additional Option of +2 Spyders. I don't think they'd get 'Adaptive Subroutines'.
Just as you don't buy the DT, then take the formation that lets you select them. You buy the formation, which has rules, then purchase Options for it (such as Transports)
However, every model in the Formation has the 'Adaptive Subroutines' special rule, not just the initial Spyder (and therefore any Spyder taken along with him will have the rule, too). I still don't see any rules that clearly, as written, tell you which Spyder is 'the Spyder'.
No because your logic is based on ignoreing how the english language functions and interpreting rules how you see fit.
I'll stand by my own self-assessment of my capability of using the English language, thank you. Probability-wise, no one in this thread exceeds my qualifications on that count.
The history of you debating on YMDC is proof of you lack of english comprehension. Why else is almost every thread you have a long standing argument in that you are the only one arguing your case? Because you are the only one misinterpreting the rules.
I suggest you use rules to argue your case instead of an ad-hominem attack.
I tried and you keep refusing to believe me because of you false notion that a plural is also singular. So now I'm trying to point out that your grasp on the English language has errors in it.
I think you need to re-acquaint yourself with the rules.
No, you need to. I and many people here have told you the rules that disprove your argument and you insist on ignoring it.
This isn't a popularity contest. You need to actually come up with rules and not just '20 Sallys agree.' Who the fudge cares about Sally's opinion?
There you go again. You used a strawman to dismiss and ignore my argument.
I am the one asking for you to debate me on the rules. So to be abundantly clear, DEBATE ME ON THE RULES.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: What, like the rules you gave me that allow you to choose/tell you which of the multiple Spyders are 'the Spyder'?
Oh, wait...
There is a formation spyder and I add 2 spyders to the unit and I keep track. I am not sure why you keep trying to task me with this argument that has been settled pages ago.
Settled by you ignoring me and not, as I asked providing me with a rule.
You can't claim 'completely RAW' when there are no rules that tell which Spyder is 'the Spyder' or allow you to choose one.
You can't just say "I'll keep track" as if the rules tell you which one is 'the Spyder'.
However you are told how to determine who has taken wounds.
There are no rules that tell you how to determine which Spyder is 'the Spyder'.
Also you have yet to prove that one Spyder can be a part of the formation while the others in his aren't, and what those Spyders are then a part of.
Unless you answer the above I'll assume you are ignoring me because you have no rules to prove that a unit can have one model be a part of a formation while the rest are not and that you agree that, unlike for Wounds, there are no rules that tell you how to determine who 'the Spyder' is.
I'm quite sure the whole Unit ends up being part of the formation. You'd have to ask the players who purchase DT for their formations what they end up belonging to....
That's what I thought, the whole unit has to be a part of the formation.
Yet again it seems col keeps dodging how he can keep track of which Spyder is 'the Spyder' when we aren't told which one is 'the Spyder' or if/how we can niminate one to be 'the Spyder'.
I'll concede that col is not only correct that RAW you can have 2-3 Spyders (as I said in my first post in this thread) but that you can benefit from 'Adaptive Subroutines' as there is a rule/multiple rules that specifically allow you to nominate a Spyder to be 'the Spyder'.
Until then until he gives me something of worth I'll stick with my attitude of 'He can't select a Spyder as 'the Spyder' to keep track of and can't benefit from 'Adaptive Subroutines'.
It would depend on whether the 'Adaptive Subroutines' becomes plural because you now have 3 Spyders, or if it must stay singular (you usually are not allowed to modify - even making plural- Rules as they are written).
If singular, there will be either a HYWPI method or RaW conclusion of which one out of the 3 is concerned.
For example i'd say that by RaW there is 1 Spyder 'selected', while the 2 chosen as options (just like the DTs) will not benefit from the rule. It must be "marked" throughout the game.( "I keep track")
I disagree that RAW 1 Spyder (the 'first' Spyder in this unit) is 'the Spyder' because there are no written rules that say that, you'd be assuming that 'the Spyder' is the first Spyder in the unit.
As reference 'Adaptive Subroutines' states
[irrelevant info (when the rules is activated and the special rules you can choose from] ... The Canoptek Spyder from this Formation, and all units from this Formation within 12" of the Canoptek Spyder from this Formation, benefits from the effects of the chosen special rule, ... [States when the effect ends]
It comes down to the order of things (If there even is one?)
You purchase the Formation, and the Spyder has 'Adaptive Subroutines'. The spider then takes an additional Option of +2 Spyders. I don't think they'd get 'Adaptive Subroutines'.
Just as you don't buy the DT, then take the formation that lets you select them. You buy the formation, which has rules, then purchase Options for it (such as Transports)
However, every model in the Formation has the 'Adaptive Subroutines' special rule, not just the initial Spyder (and therefore any Spyder taken along with him will have the rule, too). I still don't see any rules that clearly, as written, tell you which Spyder is 'the Spyder'.
What makes you think any spyder beyond the spyder in the formation would have that rule? Do you have a rule that supports that thinking?
Matt.Kingsley wrote: What, like the rules you gave me that allow you to choose/tell you which of the multiple Spyders are 'the Spyder'?
Oh, wait...
There is a formation spyder and I add 2 spyders to the unit and I keep track. I am not sure why you keep trying to task me with this argument that has been settled pages ago.
Settled by you ignoring me and not, as I asked providing me with a rule.
You can't claim 'completely RAW' when there are no rules that tell which Spyder is 'the Spyder' or allow you to choose one.
You can't just say "I'll keep track" as if the rules tell you which one is 'the Spyder'.
The formation benefits apply to 1 spyder. I add the 2 spyders because the rules allow me to. I keep track.
However you are told how to determine who has taken wounds.
There are no rules that tell you how to determine which Spyder is 'the Spyder'.
Also you have yet to prove that one Spyder can be a part of the formation while the others in his aren't, and what those Spyders are then a part of.
Unless you answer the above I'll assume you are ignoring me because you have no rules to prove that a unit can have one model be a part of a formation while the rest are not and that you agree that, unlike for Wounds, there are no rules that tell you how to determine who 'the Spyder' is.
I'm quite sure the whole Unit ends up being part of the formation. You'd have to ask the players who purchase DT for their formations what they end up belonging to....
That's what I thought, the whole unit has to be a part of the formation.
Yet again it seems col keeps dodging how he can keep track of which Spyder is 'the Spyder' when we aren't told which one is 'the Spyder' or if/how we can niminate one to be 'the Spyder'.
I'll concede that col is not only correct that RAW you can have 2-3 Spyders (as I said in my first post in this thread) but that you can benefit from 'Adaptive Subroutines' as there is a rule/multiple rules that specifically allow you to nominate a Spyder to be 'the Spyder'.
Until then until he gives me something of worth I'll stick with my attitude of 'He can't select a Spyder as 'the Spyder' to keep track of and can't benefit from 'Adaptive Subroutines'.
It would depend on whether the 'Adaptive Subroutines' becomes plural because you now have 3 Spyders, or if it must stay singular (you usually are not allowed to modify - even making plural- Rules as they are written).
If singular, there will be either a HYWPI method or RaW conclusion of which one out of the 3 is concerned.
For example i'd say that by RaW there is 1 Spyder 'selected', while the 2 chosen as options (just like the DTs) will not benefit from the rule. It must be "marked" throughout the game.( "I keep track")
I disagree that RAW 1 Spyder (the 'first' Spyder in this unit) is 'the Spyder' because there are no written rules that say that, you'd be assuming that 'the Spyder' is the first Spyder in the unit.
As reference 'Adaptive Subroutines' states
[irrelevant info (when the rules is activated and the special rules you can choose from] ... The Canoptek Spyder from this Formation, and all units from this Formation within 12" of the Canoptek Spyder from this Formation, benefits from the effects of the chosen special rule, ... [States when the effect ends]
It comes down to the order of things (If there even is one?)
You purchase the Formation, and the Spyder has 'Adaptive Subroutines'. The spider then takes an additional Option of +2 Spyders. I don't think they'd get 'Adaptive Subroutines'.
Just as you don't buy the DT, then take the formation that lets you select them. You buy the formation, which has rules, then purchase Options for it (such as Transports)
However, every model in the Formation has the 'Adaptive Subroutines' special rule, not just the initial Spyder (and therefore any Spyder taken along with him will have the rule, too). I still don't see any rules that clearly, as written, tell you which Spyder is 'the Spyder'.
I see what you mean. Thing is, i am really unsure whether we can say that these added options are "fully part" of the Formation. Transports or extra Spyders would logically be part of the formation, but no rules tell you so or mention what you do in these cases.
I am more than inclined to think of an "original Spyder", the only one with the rule, but none of us have rules to support A or B...
I think everyone needs to take a step back, take 10 minutes to breathe, and present your arguments again.
If this keeps up as it is, the thread will be locked.
Nilok wrote: I think everyone needs to take a step back, take 10 minutes to breathe, and present your arguments again.
If this keeps up as it is, the thread will be locked.
Should we put up more pretty boxes to appease the Mod-Gods?
I think the arguments have pretty much reached the un-resolvable conclusion question:
Are the 2 Spyder taken as options part of the Formation or not?
And do they have the 'Adaptive Subroutines' rule, which is RaW singular to 1 Spyder ("THE spyder") ?
Nilok wrote: I think everyone needs to take a step back, take 10 minutes to breathe, and present your arguments again.
If this keeps up as it is, the thread will be locked.
Should we put up more pretty boxes to appease the Mod-Gods?
I think the arguments have pretty much reached the un-resolvable conclusion question:
Are the 2 Spyder taken as options part of the Formation or not?
And do they have the 'Adaptive Subroutines' rule, which is RaW singular to 1 Spyder ("THE spyder") ?
Right, the counter argument wants to block the clear permission granted to access the options in the spyder army entry list, but is struggling to find a clear rule to do so.
col_impact wrote: Right, the counter argument wants to block the clear permission granted to access the options in the spyder army entry list, but is struggling to find a clear rule to do so.
While you and CrownAxe were creating pretty boxes, it might be that you completely missed the compelling evidence i provided to show that taking 3 Spyders is indeed allowed, but creates an issue with the 'Adaptive Subroutines' rule, as i have just said above.
However you are told how to determine who has taken wounds. There are no rules that tell you how to determine which Spyder is 'the Spyder'.
Also you have yet to prove that one Spyder can be a part of the formation while the others in his aren't, and what those Spyders are then a part of.
Unless you answer the above I'll assume you are ignoring me because you have no rules to prove that a unit can have one model be a part of a formation while the rest are not and that you agree that, unlike for Wounds, there are no rules that tell you how to determine who 'the Spyder' is.
I'm quite sure the whole Unit ends up being part of the formation. You'd have to ask the players who purchase DT for their formations what they end up belonging to....
That's what I thought, the whole unit has to be a part of the formation.
Yet again it seems col keeps dodging how he can keep track of which Spyder is 'the Spyder' when we aren't told which one is 'the Spyder' or if/how we can niminate one to be 'the Spyder'.
I'll concede that col is not only correct that RAW you can have 2-3 Spyders (as I said in my first post in this thread) but that you can benefit from 'Adaptive Subroutines' as there is a rule/multiple rules that specifically allow you to nominate a Spyder to be 'the Spyder'.
Until then until he gives me something of worth I'll stick with my attitude of 'He can't select a Spyder as 'the Spyder' to keep track of and can't benefit from 'Adaptive Subroutines'.
It would depend on whether the 'Adaptive Subroutines' becomes plural because you now have 3 Spyders, or if it must stay singular (you usually are not allowed to modify - even making plural- Rules as they are written). If singular, there will be either a HYWPI method or RaW conclusion of which one out of the 3 is concerned.
For example i'd say that by RaW there is 1 Spyder 'selected', while the 2 chosen as options (just like the DTs) will not benefit from the rule. It must be "marked" throughout the game.( "I keep track")
I disagree that RAW 1 Spyder (the 'first' Spyder in this unit) is 'the Spyder' because there are no written rules that say that, you'd be assuming that 'the Spyder' is the first Spyder in the unit.
As reference 'Adaptive Subroutines' states
[irrelevant info (when the rules is activated and the special rules you can choose from] ... The Canoptek Spyder from this Formation, and all units from this Formation within 12" of the Canoptek Spyder from this Formation, benefits from the effects of the chosen special rule, ... [States when the effect ends]
It comes down to the order of things (If there even is one?) You purchase the Formation, and the Spyder has 'Adaptive Subroutines'. The spider then takes an additional Option of +2 Spyders. I don't think they'd get 'Adaptive Subroutines'. Just as you don't buy the DT, then take the formation that lets you select them. You buy the formation, which has rules, then purchase Options for it (such as Transports)
However, every model in the Formation has the 'Adaptive Subroutines' special rule, not just the initial Spyder (and therefore any Spyder taken along with him will have the rule, too). I still don't see any rules that clearly, as written, tell you which Spyder is 'the Spyder'.
I see what you mean. Thing is, i am really unsure whether we can say that these added options are "fully part" of the Formation. Transports or extra Spyders would logically be part of the formation, but no rules tell you so or mention what you do in these cases.
I am more than inclined to think of an "original Spyder", the only one with the rule, but none of us have rules to support A or B...
In that case, then, additional Scarabs and Wraiths purchased for their units wouldn't benefit from 'Adaptive Tactics' (won't benefit from the effects of RP/Shred/Fleet) as they aren't 'fully part' of the Formation (if we assume that the additional Spyders aren't).
In any case, if you take multiple Spyders you break 'Adaptive Subroutines'.
However you are told how to determine who has taken wounds.
There are no rules that tell you how to determine which Spyder is 'the Spyder'.
Also you have yet to prove that one Spyder can be a part of the formation while the others in his aren't, and what those Spyders are then a part of.
Unless you answer the above I'll assume you are ignoring me because you have no rules to prove that a unit can have one model be a part of a formation while the rest are not and that you agree that, unlike for Wounds, there are no rules that tell you how to determine who 'the Spyder' is.
I'm quite sure the whole Unit ends up being part of the formation. You'd have to ask the players who purchase DT for their formations what they end up belonging to....
That's what I thought, the whole unit has to be a part of the formation.
Yet again it seems col keeps dodging how he can keep track of which Spyder is 'the Spyder' when we aren't told which one is 'the Spyder' or if/how we can niminate one to be 'the Spyder'.
I'll concede that col is not only correct that RAW you can have 2-3 Spyders (as I said in my first post in this thread) but that you can benefit from 'Adaptive Subroutines' as there is a rule/multiple rules that specifically allow you to nominate a Spyder to be 'the Spyder'.
Until then until he gives me something of worth I'll stick with my attitude of 'He can't select a Spyder as 'the Spyder' to keep track of and can't benefit from 'Adaptive Subroutines'.
It would depend on whether the 'Adaptive Subroutines' becomes plural because you now have 3 Spyders, or if it must stay singular (you usually are not allowed to modify - even making plural- Rules as they are written).
If singular, there will be either a HYWPI method or RaW conclusion of which one out of the 3 is concerned.
For example i'd say that by RaW there is 1 Spyder 'selected', while the 2 chosen as options (just like the DTs) will not benefit from the rule. It must be "marked" throughout the game.( "I keep track")
I disagree that RAW 1 Spyder (the 'first' Spyder in this unit) is 'the Spyder' because there are no written rules that say that, you'd be assuming that 'the Spyder' is the first Spyder in the unit.
As reference 'Adaptive Subroutines' states
[irrelevant info (when the rules is activated and the special rules you can choose from] ... The Canoptek Spyder from this Formation, and all units from this Formation within 12" of the Canoptek Spyder from this Formation, benefits from the effects of the chosen special rule, ... [States when the effect ends]
It comes down to the order of things (If there even is one?)
You purchase the Formation, and the Spyder has 'Adaptive Subroutines'. The spider then takes an additional Option of +2 Spyders. I don't think they'd get 'Adaptive Subroutines'.
Just as you don't buy the DT, then take the formation that lets you select them. You buy the formation, which has rules, then purchase Options for it (such as Transports)
However, every model in the Formation has the 'Adaptive Subroutines' special rule, not just the initial Spyder (and therefore any Spyder taken along with him will have the rule, too). I still don't see any rules that clearly, as written, tell you which Spyder is 'the Spyder'.
I see what you mean. Thing is, i am really unsure whether we can say that these added options are "fully part" of the Formation. Transports or extra Spyders would logically be part of the formation, but no rules tell you so or mention what you do in these cases.
I am more than inclined to think of an "original Spyder", the only one with the rule, but none of us have rules to support A or B...
In that case, then, additional Scarabs and Wraiths purchased for their units wouldn't benefit from 'Adaptive Tactics' (won't benefit from the effects of RP/Shred/Fleet) as they aren't 'fully part' of the Formation (if we assume that the additional Spyders aren't).
In any case, if you take multiple Spyders you break 'Adaptive Subroutines'.
I think the formation benefits can be applied to 1 canoptek spyder, 1 unit of scarabs and 1 unit of wraiths. because that is what is listed.
In that case, then, additional Scarabs and Wraiths purchased for their units wouldn't benefit from 'Adaptive Tactics' (won't benefit from the effects of RP/Shred/Fleet) as they aren't 'fully part' of the Formation (if we assume that the additional Spyders aren't).
Indeed, so everything would actually support "Extras" to join(be part of) Formations. "within 12" of the Canoptek Spyder from this Formation" would then have to apply to all 3, as a general "the"
Possibly confusing example: You are in a station, and you are next to "the" train. But no one told you that there were 5 trains. Are you still correctly within 12" of "the" train?
col_impact wrote: Right, the counter argument wants to block the clear permission granted to access the options in the spyder army entry list, but is struggling to find a clear rule to do so.
While you and CrownAxe were creating pretty boxes, it might be that you completely missed the compelling evidence i provided to show that taking 3 Spyders is indeed allowed, but creates an issue with the 'Adaptive Subroutines' rule, as i have just said above.
I did notice and appreciate.
The issue with subroutines is merely a bookkeeping issue.
In that case, then, additional Scarabs and Wraiths purchased for their units wouldn't benefit from 'Adaptive Tactics' (won't benefit from the effects of RP/Shred/Fleet) as they aren't 'fully part' of the Formation (if we assume that the additional Spyders aren't).
Indeed, so everything would actually support "Extras" to join(be part of) Formations. "within 12" of the Canoptek Spyder from this Formation" would then have to apply to all 3, as a general "the"
Not exactly. The benefits apply to 1 unit of wraiths which includes up to 6 wraiths in a unit.
In that case, then, additional Scarabs and Wraiths purchased for their units wouldn't benefit from 'Adaptive Tactics' (won't benefit from the effects of RP/Shred/Fleet) as they aren't 'fully part' of the Formation (if we assume that the additional Spyders aren't).
Indeed, so everything would actually support "Extras" to join(be part of) Formations. "within 12" of the Canoptek Spyder from this Formation" would then have to apply to all 3, as a general "the"
Possibly confusing example: You are in a station, and you are next to "the" train. But no one told you that there were 5 trains. Are you still correctly within 12" of "the" train?
Though it specifies a singular Spyder, which taken literally RAW, would break the rule as nothing dictates which is 'the Spyder' or if you get to choose which is.
As for your example, you wouldn't know which train 'the train' refers to, so you wouldn't know if you were in 12" of it or not.
Which, in the case of the Spyders, you wouldn't know either. You could assume, but you may be incorrect. I suppose a case could be made that, using your example, if the unit was within 12" of every Spyder in the Formation you'd get the bonus (because if you're within 12" of all of them you must be within 12" of 'the' one), though that is stretching the fact that the rule clearly to a single Spyder to a point that, even if a person was willing to agree, RAW, you could have 3 Spyders, most likely wouldn't agree.
However you are told how to determine who has taken wounds.
There are no rules that tell you how to determine which Spyder is 'the Spyder'.
Also you have yet to prove that one Spyder can be a part of the formation while the others in his aren't, and what those Spyders are then a part of.
Unless you answer the above I'll assume you are ignoring me because you have no rules to prove that a unit can have one model be a part of a formation while the rest are not and that you agree that, unlike for Wounds, there are no rules that tell you how to determine who 'the Spyder' is.
I'm quite sure the whole Unit ends up being part of the formation. You'd have to ask the players who purchase DT for their formations what they end up belonging to....
That's what I thought, the whole unit has to be a part of the formation.
Yet again it seems col keeps dodging how he can keep track of which Spyder is 'the Spyder' when we aren't told which one is 'the Spyder' or if/how we can niminate one to be 'the Spyder'.
I'll concede that col is not only correct that RAW you can have 2-3 Spyders (as I said in my first post in this thread) but that you can benefit from 'Adaptive Subroutines' as there is a rule/multiple rules that specifically allow you to nominate a Spyder to be 'the Spyder'.
Until then until he gives me something of worth I'll stick with my attitude of 'He can't select a Spyder as 'the Spyder' to keep track of and can't benefit from 'Adaptive Subroutines'.
It would depend on whether the 'Adaptive Subroutines' becomes plural because you now have 3 Spyders, or if it must stay singular (you usually are not allowed to modify - even making plural- Rules as they are written).
If singular, there will be either a HYWPI method or RaW conclusion of which one out of the 3 is concerned.
For example i'd say that by RaW there is 1 Spyder 'selected', while the 2 chosen as options (just like the DTs) will not benefit from the rule. It must be "marked" throughout the game.( "I keep track")
I disagree that RAW 1 Spyder (the 'first' Spyder in this unit) is 'the Spyder' because there are no written rules that say that, you'd be assuming that 'the Spyder' is the first Spyder in the unit.
As reference 'Adaptive Subroutines' states
[irrelevant info (when the rules is activated and the special rules you can choose from] ... The Canoptek Spyder from this Formation, and all units from this Formation within 12" of the Canoptek Spyder from this Formation, benefits from the effects of the chosen special rule, ... [States when the effect ends]
It comes down to the order of things (If there even is one?)
You purchase the Formation, and the Spyder has 'Adaptive Subroutines'. The spider then takes an additional Option of +2 Spyders. I don't think they'd get 'Adaptive Subroutines'.
Just as you don't buy the DT, then take the formation that lets you select them. You buy the formation, which has rules, then purchase Options for it (such as Transports)
However, every model in the Formation has the 'Adaptive Subroutines' special rule, not just the initial Spyder (and therefore any Spyder taken along with him will have the rule, too). I still don't see any rules that clearly, as written, tell you which Spyder is 'the Spyder'.
I see what you mean. Thing is, i am really unsure whether we can say that these added options are "fully part" of the Formation. Transports or extra Spyders would logically be part of the formation, but no rules tell you so or mention what you do in these cases.
I am more than inclined to think of an "original Spyder", the only one with the rule, but none of us have rules to support A or B...
In that case, then, additional Scarabs and Wraiths purchased for their units wouldn't benefit from 'Adaptive Tactics' (won't benefit from the effects of RP/Shred/Fleet) as they aren't 'fully part' of the Formation (if we assume that the additional Spyders aren't).
In any case, if you take multiple Spyders you break 'Adaptive Subroutines'.
Why exactly does taking multiple Spyders break subroutines? You seem to be adhering to a rationale not found in the rules themselves.
Possibly confusing example:
You are in a station, and you are next to "the" train. But no one told you that there were 5 trains. Are you still correctly within 12" of "the" train?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
col_impact wrote: Why exactly does taking multiple Spyders break subroutines? You seem to be adhering to a rationale not found in the rules themselves.
Because it refers to "THE spyder", which is hard to do as all 3 are part of the Formation and in a Unit.
In that case, then, additional Scarabs and Wraiths purchased for their units wouldn't benefit from 'Adaptive Tactics' (won't benefit from the effects of RP/Shred/Fleet) as they aren't 'fully part' of the Formation (if we assume that the additional Spyders aren't).
Indeed, so everything would actually support "Extras" to join(be part of) Formations. "within 12" of the Canoptek Spyder from this Formation" would then have to apply to all 3, as a general "the"
Though it specifies a singular Spyder, which taken literally RAW, would break the rule as nothing dictates which is 'the Spyder' or if you get to choose which is.
Except we can keep track of one. You are making an issue where there is none.
In that case, then, additional Scarabs and Wraiths purchased for their units wouldn't benefit from 'Adaptive Tactics' (won't benefit from the effects of RP/Shred/Fleet) as they aren't 'fully part' of the Formation (if we assume that the additional Spyders aren't).
Indeed, so everything would actually support "Extras" to join(be part of) Formations. "within 12" of the Canoptek Spyder from this Formation" would then have to apply to all 3, as a general "the"
Though it specifies a singular Spyder, which taken literally RAW, would break the rule as nothing dictates which is 'the Spyder' or if you get to choose which is.
Would it not be the original Spyder that was purchased with the formation?
Possibly confusing example:
You are in a station, and you are next to "the" train. But no one told you that there were 5 trains. Are you still correctly within 12" of "the" train?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
col_impact wrote: Why exactly does taking multiple Spyders break subroutines? You seem to be adhering to a rationale not found in the rules themselves.
Because it refers to "THE spyder", which is hard to do as all 3 are part of the Formation and in a Unit.
What rule makes you think all 3 are part of the formation and not just the one?
col_impact wrote: Except we can keep track of one. You are making an issue where there is none.
Nilok wrote: Would it not be the original Spyder that was purchased with the formation?
Problem is this:
All (most?) Units in the formation have this rule:
"The Canoptek Spyder from this Formation, and all units from this Formation within 12" of the Canoptek Spyder from this Formation, benefits from the effects of the chosen special rule, ... [States when the effect ends]"
How do you follow the above rule on Turn 2, when all 3 Spyder are part of a Unit and part of the Formation? "only" the Canoptek Spyder from this Formation (but all 3 are) would benefit from the rule.
Because several posts have gone by while I've been editing my previous post, I'll re-post this here:
[@ BlackTalos]
As for your example, you wouldn't know which train 'the train' refers to, so you wouldn't know if you were in 12" of it or not.
Which, in the case of the Spyders, you wouldn't know either. You could assume, but you may be incorrect.
I suppose a case could be made that, using your example, if the unit was within 12" of every Spyder in the Formation you'd get the bonus (because if you're within 12" of all of them you must be within 12" of 'the' one), though that is stretching the fact that the rule clearly to a single Spyder to a point that, even if a person was willing to agree, RAW, you could have 3 Spyders, most likely wouldn't agree.
@ Nilok:
RAW, nothing states that the 'first' Spyder is 'the Spyder', esspecially since all the Spyders (indeed, all the models in the Formation) have the 'Adaptive Subroutines' special rule.
col_impact wrote: Except we can keep track of one. You are making an issue where there is none.
Nilok wrote: Would it not be the original Spyder that was purchased with the formation?
Problem is this:
All (most?) Units in the formation have this rule:
"The Canoptek Spyder from this Formation, and all units from this Formation within 12" of the Canoptek Spyder from this Formation, benefits from the effects of the chosen special rule, ... [States when the effect ends]"
How do you follow the above rule on Turn 2, when all 3 Spyder are part of a Unit and part of the Formation? "only" the Canoptek Spyder from this Formation (but all 3 are) would benefit from the rule.
Why do you think all 3 spyders are part of the formation? We don't have rules telling us how to parse formation membership and unit membership.
col_impact wrote: What rule makes you think all 3 are part of the formation and not just the one?
This:
Matt.Kingsley wrote: In that case, then, additional Scarabs and Wraiths purchased for their units wouldn't benefit from 'Adaptive Tactics' (won't benefit from the effects of RP/Shred/Fleet) as they aren't 'fully part' of the Formation (if we assume that the additional Spyders aren't).
If the +2 Spyder are not "in the Formation", additional Scarabs and Wraiths purchased for their units are not either, and would not actually have the 'Adaptive Tactics' rule (they are not part of the Formation)
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Because several posts have gone by while I've been editing my previous post, I'll re-post this here:
[@ BlackTalos]
As for your example, you wouldn't know which train 'the train' refers to, so you wouldn't know if you were in 12" of it or not.
Which, in the case of the Spyders, you wouldn't know either. You could assume, but you may be incorrect.
I suppose a case could be made that, using your example, if the unit was within 12" of every Spyder in the Formation you'd get the bonus (because if you're within 12" of all of them you must be within 12" of 'the' one), though that is stretching the fact that the rule clearly to a single Spyder to a point that, even if a person was willing to agree, RAW, you could have 3 Spyders, most likely wouldn't agree.
@ Nilok:
RAW, nothing states that the 'first' Spyder is 'the Spyder', esspecially since all the Spyders (indeed, all the models in the Formation) have the 'Adaptive Subroutines' special rule.
The subroutines is a formation rule. Why do you think it acts on the whole unit of spyders and not just the spyder the formation refers to?
Possibly confusing example:
You are in a station, and you are next to "the" train. But no one told you that there were 5 trains. Are you still correctly within 12" of "the" train?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
col_impact wrote: Why exactly does taking multiple Spyders break subroutines? You seem to be adhering to a rationale not found in the rules themselves.
Because it refers to "THE spyder", which is hard to do as all 3 are part of the Formation and in a Unit.
What rule makes you think all 3 are part of the formation and not just the one?
Because all 3 have to be, there's no way they can't be, unless you also say that Wraiths and Scarabs beyond the initial 3 aren't part of the Formation (and therefore don't benefit from RP/Shred/Fleet)
col_impact wrote: What rule makes you think all 3 are part of the formation and not just the one?
This:
Matt.Kingsley wrote: In that case, then, additional Scarabs and Wraiths purchased for their units wouldn't benefit from 'Adaptive Tactics' (won't benefit from the effects of RP/Shred/Fleet) as they aren't 'fully part' of the Formation (if we assume that the additional Spyders aren't).
If the +2 Spyder are not "in the Formation", additional Scarabs and Wraiths purchased for their units are not either, and would not actually have the 'Adaptive Tactics' rule (they are not part of the Formation)
The formation specifies one unit of wraiths and one unit of scarabs. If additional scarabs and wraiths fall under 1 unit why wouldn't they get the subroutine?
Possibly confusing example:
You are in a station, and you are next to "the" train. But no one told you that there were 5 trains. Are you still correctly within 12" of "the" train?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
col_impact wrote: Why exactly does taking multiple Spyders break subroutines? You seem to be adhering to a rationale not found in the rules themselves.
Because it refers to "THE spyder", which is hard to do as all 3 are part of the Formation and in a Unit.
What rule makes you think all 3 are part of the formation and not just the one?
Because all 3 have to be, there's no way they can't be, unless you also say that Wraiths and Scarabs beyond the initial 3 aren't part of the Formation (and therefore don't benefit from RP/Shred/Fleet)
The formation specifies 1 unit of wraiths. I can put up to 6 wraiths under 1 unit. This is exceedingly clear.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: As for your example, you wouldn't know which train 'the train' refers to, so you wouldn't know if you were in 12" of it or not.
Which, in the case of the Spyders, you wouldn't know either. You could assume, but you may be incorrect.
I suppose a case could be made that, using your example, if the unit was within 12" of every Spyder in the Formation you'd get the bonus (because if you're within 12" of all of them you must be within 12" of 'the' one), though that is stretching the fact that the rule clearly to a single Spyder to a point that, even if a person was willing to agree, RAW, you could have 3 Spyders, most likely wouldn't agree.
The thing is, i don't think you need to know if it is the right train (for the 12" part). If i ask whether you are within 12" of "THE Spyder", any one of the 3 (being part of the Formation) will be "the Spyder".
The rules work mainly with Yes/No answers. If the question is:
"are you within 12" of "THE Spyder"?" The answer would be "Yes", not: "which one?" (although that would be the 'logical' answer)
Matt.Kingsley wrote: As for your example, you wouldn't know which train 'the train' refers to, so you wouldn't know if you were in 12" of it or not.
Which, in the case of the Spyders, you wouldn't know either. You could assume, but you may be incorrect.
I suppose a case could be made that, using your example, if the unit was within 12" of every Spyder in the Formation you'd get the bonus (because if you're within 12" of all of them you must be within 12" of 'the' one), though that is stretching the fact that the rule clearly to a single Spyder to a point that, even if a person was willing to agree, RAW, you could have 3 Spyders, most likely wouldn't agree.
The thing is, i don't think you need to know if it is the right train (for the 12" part). If i ask whether you are within 12" of "THE Spyder", any one of the 3 (being part of the Formation) will be "the Spyder".
The rules work mainly with Yes/No answers. If the question is:
"are you within 12" of "THE Spyder"?" The answer would be "Yes", not: "which one?" (although that would be the 'logical' answer)
If there is a difference between spyders the player must keep track. One of those spyders is in the formation and 2 are not.
col_impact wrote: The formation specifies 1 unit of wraiths. I can put up to 6 wraiths under 1 unit. This is exceedingly clear.
Because the formation specifies a unit of wraiths, not just a wraith.
For the spyder portion of the formation it specifies "a spyder" not "a unit of spyders". So if you have 2-3 spyders you don't have "a spyder" you have "a unit of spyders" which is not what the formation specified.
So to recap, we get one Spyder for the formation, have permission to buy more Spyders from the Spyder entry permissions, have no restrictions, but only one Spyder model is in the formation and may benefit from its rules?
col_impact wrote: The formation specifies 1 unit of wraiths. I can put up to 6 wraiths under 1 unit. This is exceedingly clear.
Because the formation specifies a unit of wraiths, not just a wraith.
For the spyder portion of the formation it specifies "a spyder" not "a unit of spyders". So if you have 2-3 spyders you don't have "a spyder" you have "a unit of spyders" which is not what the formation specified.
You are lacking a rule which backs up your approach. Start quoting rules!
The formation has 'no restriction' and refers to using page 93.
Page 93 has the option to add 2 Spyders.
I add 2 spyders.
The formation benefits the original spyder. I keep track.
All the rules support me.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nilok wrote: So to recap, we get one Spyder for the formation, have permission to buy more Spyders from the Spyder entry permissions, have no restrictions, but only one Spyder model is in the formation and may benefit from its rules?
Sounds about right. It's good that you are keeping track of what the rules are actually saying.
Wonderful read this, someone obviously has had an argument at their flgs and now needs to find support at dakka to win the next fight
It clearly says "a spyder","the spyder" and so on, this thread should have stopped at that. It is what is written and what is intended, any tries to add more spyders break that formation entry. There is no need for any rules saying that "A Canoptek Spyder" is "A Canoptek Spyder" because it is what it is. I would be more inclined to find other formations with this wording that should also be treated like this. It is an unlucky use of words for a necron player, giving hope where there is none, but it is un-ambigious right from the start.
Unless there's a faq stating otherwise, the formation entry is what it is and in this game we follow organization charts and detachment rules because they are rules and not just guidelines. Continuing to state that "Show me the rules" is redundant since the formation is a rule.
Next time they might write "A canoptek spyder unit" and then we can use that.
col_impact wrote: The formation specifies 1 unit of wraiths. I can put up to 6 wraiths under 1 unit. This is exceedingly clear.
Because the formation specifies a unit of wraiths, not just a wraith.
For the spyder portion of the formation it specifies "a spyder" not "a unit of spyders". So if you have 2-3 spyders you don't have "a spyder" you have "a unit of spyders" which is not what the formation specified.
You are lacking a rule which backs up your approach. Start quoting rules!
The formation has 'no restriction' and refers to using page 93.
Page 93 has the option to add 2 Spyders.
I add 2 spyders.
The formation benefits the original spyder. I keep track.
All the rules support me.
I don't need a rule. This is basic reading comprehension. Do I need to quote a rule defining what "a" and "of" are as well?
Matt.Kingsley wrote: As for your example, you wouldn't know which train 'the train' refers to, so you wouldn't know if you were in 12" of it or not.
Which, in the case of the Spyders, you wouldn't know either. You could assume, but you may be incorrect. I suppose a case could be made that, using your example, if the unit was within 12" of every Spyder in the Formation you'd get the bonus (because if you're within 12" of all of them you must be within 12" of 'the' one), though that is stretching the fact that the rule clearly to a single Spyder to a point that, even if a person was willing to agree, RAW, you could have 3 Spyders, most likely wouldn't agree.
The thing is, i don't think you need to know if it is the right train (for the 12" part). If i ask whether you are within 12" of "THE Spyder", any one of the 3 (being part of the Formation) will be "the Spyder".
The rules work mainly with Yes/No answers. If the question is: "are you within 12" of "THE Spyder"?" The answer would be "Yes", not: "which one?" (although that would be the 'logical' answer)
You'd be within 12" of 'A train', you wouldn't know for sure if it was 'THE Train'. You could assume it is 'the Train' however you have a 4/5 chance of being wrong, the only way to know and be correct in saying "I'm within 12" of 'the Train'" is if you were within 12" of all the trains.
Any one of the Spyders will be 'a Spyder', but only one is 'the Spyder'.
If, say, only 1 train was stopping at a station you needed to go to, you'd need to know which is 'the Train'. Same with the Spyders, to gain the benefit you have to know which is 'the Spyder' (or if you were really willing to twist, bend and stretch and have no freinds, within 12" of all of them)
Yonasu wrote: Wonderful read this, someone obviously has had an argument at their flgs and now needs to find support at dakka to win the next fight
It clearly says "a spyder","the spyder" and so on, this thread should have stopped at that. It is what is written and what is intended, any tries to add more spyders break that formation entry. There is no need for any rules saying that "A Canoptek Spyder" is "A Canoptek Spyder" because it is what it is. I would be more inclined to find other formations with this wording that should also be treated like this. It is an unlucky use of words for a necron player, giving hope where there is none, but it is un-ambigious right from the start.
Unless there's a faq stating otherwise, the formation entry is what it is and in this game we follow organization charts and detachment rules because they are rules and not just guidelines. Continuing to state that "Show me the rules" is redundant since the formation is a rule.
Next time they might write "A canoptek spyder unit" and then we can use that.
The formation specifies page 93. Page 93 has options on it. I add 2 spyders.
The formation has 'no restrictions'
You wholly lack any rules to keep me from adding 2 spyders.
If you want to participate in this debate I suggest you actually find rules!
col_impact wrote: The formation specifies 1 unit of wraiths. I can put up to 6 wraiths under 1 unit. This is exceedingly clear.
Because the formation specifies a unit of wraiths, not just a wraith.
For the spyder portion of the formation it specifies "a spyder" not "a unit of spyders". So if you have 2-3 spyders you don't have "a spyder" you have "a unit of spyders" which is not what the formation specified.
You are lacking a rule which backs up your approach. Start quoting rules!
The formation has 'no restriction' and refers to using page 93.
Page 93 has the option to add 2 Spyders.
I add 2 spyders.
The formation benefits the original spyder. I keep track.
All the rules support me.
I don't need a rule. This is basic reading comprehension. Do I need to quote a rule defining what "a" and "of" are as well?
Ad hominem attacks are not admissible. ARGUE THE RULES!
col_impact wrote: The formation specifies 1 unit of wraiths. I can put up to 6 wraiths under 1 unit. This is exceedingly clear.
Because the formation specifies a unit of wraiths, not just a wraith.
For the spyder portion of the formation it specifies "a spyder" not "a unit of spyders". So if you have 2-3 spyders you don't have "a spyder" you have "a unit of spyders" which is not what the formation specified.
You are lacking a rule which backs up your approach. Start quoting rules!
The formation has 'no restriction' and refers to using page 93.
Page 93 has the option to add 2 Spyders.
I add 2 spyders.
The formation benefits the original spyder. I keep track.
All the rules support me.
I don't need a rule. This is basic reading comprehension. Do I need to quote a rule defining what "a" and "of" are as well?
Ad hominem attacks are not admissible. ARGUE THE RULES!
I can't quote rules on something that isn't a rules issue. The problem here is literally you misinterpreting the rule i gave you and you demanding a 40k rule for what is a error in reading comprehension. The BRB isn't also an english text book.
MonumentOfRibs wrote: I don't really see what the debate is here.
RAW you are allowed one Spyder in the formation
RAI clearly intends for there to be one Spyder in the formation.
The formation refers to page 93 which has the canoptek spyder army entry list
The formaton has "no restrictions"
The army entry list has options which you are permitted to take
On the options is the option to add 1-2 additional spyders.
No rule is blocking that permission!
I suggest you modify your sense of RAW versus RAI here because so far no one has come up with any rule to block this clear chain in the rules!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Which Spyder, though?
You have yet to show a rule that says which spyder is 'the Spyder' or a rule that allows you to nominate one to be 'the Spyder'.
Your argument is wholly inconsequential. It's just book-keeping like any buff given to a subset of a unit.
No need for the hostility really. Let's read the description for the formation.
"Their mechanical minds slaved to the artificial intelligence of A Canoptek Spyder"
"If the harvest is challenged, then the Canoptek Spyder reacts"
The writers intended it to be a single Spyder. The rules say it's a single Spyder.
col_impact wrote: The formation specifies 1 unit of wraiths. I can put up to 6 wraiths under 1 unit. This is exceedingly clear.
Because the formation specifies a unit of wraiths, not just a wraith.
For the spyder portion of the formation it specifies "a spyder" not "a unit of spyders". So if you have 2-3 spyders you don't have "a spyder" you have "a unit of spyders" which is not what the formation specified.
You are lacking a rule which backs up your approach. Start quoting rules!
The formation has 'no restriction' and refers to using page 93.
Page 93 has the option to add 2 Spyders.
I add 2 spyders.
The formation benefits the original spyder. I keep track.
All the rules support me.
I don't need a rule. This is basic reading comprehension. Do I need to quote a rule defining what "a" and "of" are as well?
Ad hominem attacks are not admissible. ARGUE THE RULES!
I can't quote rules on something that isn't a rules issue. The problem here is literally you misinterpreting the rule i gave you and you demanding a 40k rule for what is a error in reading comprehension. The BRB isn't also an english text book.
As I said, no ad hominem attacks. You are attacking the wrong person if you are attacking me on reading comprehension. My comprehension far exceeds yours (a safe bet based on probability)
MonumentOfRibs wrote: I don't really see what the debate is here.
RAW you are allowed one Spyder in the formation
RAI clearly intends for there to be one Spyder in the formation.
The formation refers to page 93 which has the canoptek spyder army entry list
The formaton has "no restrictions"
The army entry list has options which you are permitted to take
On the options is the option to add 1-2 additional spyders.
No rule is blocking that permission!
I suggest you modify your sense of RAW versus RAI here because so far no one has come up with any rule to block this clear chain in the rules!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Which Spyder, though?
You have yet to show a rule that says which spyder is 'the Spyder' or a rule that allows you to nominate one to be 'the Spyder'.
Your argument is wholly inconsequential. It's just book-keeping like any buff given to a subset of a unit.
No need for the hostility really. Let's read the description for the formation.
"Their mechanical minds slaved to the artificial intelligence of A Canoptek Spyder"
"If the harvest is challenged, then the Canoptek Spyder reacts"
The writers intended it to be a single Spyder. The rules say it's a single Spyder.
No one is saying the formation applies to more than 1 spyder. We are debating whether 1-2 spyders outside of the formation can be added since clear permission to do so is laid out in the rules themselves.
You need to focus on breaking the chain of permission which is firmly established in the rules themselves.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: As for your example, you wouldn't know which train 'the train' refers to, so you wouldn't know if you were in 12" of it or not.
Which, in the case of the Spyders, you wouldn't know either. You could assume, but you may be incorrect.
I suppose a case could be made that, using your example, if the unit was within 12" of every Spyder in the Formation you'd get the bonus (because if you're within 12" of all of them you must be within 12" of 'the' one), though that is stretching the fact that the rule clearly to a single Spyder to a point that, even if a person was willing to agree, RAW, you could have 3 Spyders, most likely wouldn't agree.
The thing is, i don't think you need to know if it is the right train (for the 12" part). If i ask whether you are within 12" of "THE Spyder", any one of the 3 (being part of the Formation) will be "the Spyder".
The rules work mainly with Yes/No answers. If the question is:
"are you within 12" of "THE Spyder"?" The answer would be "Yes", not: "which one?" (although that would be the 'logical' answer)
You'd be within 12" of 'A train', you wouldn't know for sure if it was 'THE Train'.
You could assume it is 'the Train' however you have a 4/5 chance of being wrong, the only way to know and be correct in saying "I'm within 12" of 'the Train'" is if you were within 12" of all the trains.
Any one of the Spyders will be 'a Spyder', but only one is 'the Spyder'.
If, say, only 1 train was stopping at a station you needed to go to, you'd need to know which is 'the Train'.
Same with the Spyders, to gain the benefit you have to know which is 'the Spyder' (or if you were really willing to twist, bend and stretch and have no freinds, within 12" of all of them)
Adding on to this, even the "Keeping with 12" of every Spyder" does work as, when a Spyder is removed as a casualty, you don't know if it was 'the Spyder' or just 'a Spyder' so you'd once again reaching a point that is unsolvable RAW.
col_impact wrote: The formation specifies 1 unit of wraiths. I can put up to 6 wraiths under 1 unit. This is exceedingly clear.
Because the formation specifies a unit of wraiths, not just a wraith.
For the spyder portion of the formation it specifies "a spyder" not "a unit of spyders". So if you have 2-3 spyders you don't have "a spyder" you have "a unit of spyders" which is not what the formation specified.
You are lacking a rule which backs up your approach. Start quoting rules!
The formation has 'no restriction' and refers to using page 93.
Page 93 has the option to add 2 Spyders.
I add 2 spyders.
The formation benefits the original spyder. I keep track.
All the rules support me.
I don't need a rule. This is basic reading comprehension. Do I need to quote a rule defining what "a" and "of" are as well?
Ad hominem attacks are not admissible. ARGUE THE RULES!
I can't quote rules on something that isn't a rules issue. The problem here is literally you misinterpreting the rule i gave you and you demanding a 40k rule for what is a error in reading comprehension. The BRB isn't also an english text book.
As I said, no ad hominem attacks. You are attacking the wrong person if you are attacking me on reading comprehension. My comprehension far exceeds yours (a safe bet based on probability)
My point is that we both have the relevant rules there aren't more to add but we are at opposite conclusions meaning someone here is reading it wrong. And considering that only one person is reading the way that you think it's suppose to be I'm inclined to believe you are the one misinterpreting the rule.
Also saying your reading comprehension far exceeds mine is extremely presumptuous and arrogant. You don't know me so you have no basis to say such a thing.
Wouldn't the interpretation "A spyder"="A unit of spyders" lead to strange recursion possibilities. Following the same line of thought:
Spyder A is a Spyder, so it buys Spyder B and C, Spyder B then claims it can buy upgrades the same way Spyder A did, and buys Spyder D and E, same goes for Spyder C. Now we have an arbitrarily large unit?
Along the same lines as this discussion is the Dar Eldar formation with 1 Talos and 1 Chronos engine, according to the line of thought in this thread i can have 3 Talos and 3 Cronos in the same unit.
Where is the support for that "A spyder" is the same as "A unit of spiders", why is it possible to take any upgrades except for those which are defined to be taken by a single spyder?
My point is that we both have the relevant rules there aren't more to add but we are at opposite conclusions meaning someone here is reading it wrong. And considering that only one person is reading the way that you think it's suppose to be I'm inclined to believe you are the one misinterpreting the rule.
False, as BlackTalos has repeatedly backed his reading, including a link to a similar thread, which you have failed to address and continue to ignore for 3 pages now.
In restoring good faith and proving you aren't ignoring him just because he may prove your point wrong, disprove his comparison:
If read the way you read the entry, any unit in a Decurion detachment, or any formation for that matter, cannot take a dedicated transport because it clearly says a "unit of xxx" not a "unit of xxx plus transport" as it allows in the unit entry. You are asserting that you can apply restrictions to the unit entry arbitrarily, based solely on your interpretation.
The two are nearly identical in application. You cannot enforce one without enforcing the other. So are you implying that no unit in a formation cannot take a dedicated transport, by sticking to your interpretation of singular vs plural spyders?
RAW, it clearly specifies one Spyder for the formation. The ruleset is a permissive one and it doesn't specify that the formation can consist of a "unit" of Spyders. However, as there is no restriction, it doesn't prevent you from buy any upgrade or any addition models, and as such, will allow you to purchase more Spyders, as it allows you to purchase more Wraiths or more Scarabs.
dethric wrote: Along the same lines as this discussion is the Dar Eldar formation with 1 Talos and 1 Chronos engine, according to the line of thought in this thread i can have 3 Talos and 3 Cronos in the same unit.
I think this is a good line of thought. AFAIK, noone tried to rule that you could bring more than 1 talos/cronos to the formation, even if they are normally bought as 1-3 models. The spyder goes the same way.
Really? A six page argument sprung up over this overnight?
I don't even have the energy to read through all this mess over a few people's inability to read a completely unambiguous ruleset, with multiple published examples of multi-Spyder units no less, forcing you to blindly assume that the company's left hand has no idea what the right is doing, just because it happens to use singular to refer to a unit that starts at one member.
I'm going to keep using scarab farms, not for rules advantage but because I have a huge collection of Canoptek models and they're fun to play, I suggest the rest of you take a close look at formation restrictions and the impact they have on minimum and maximum unit sizes.
My point is that we both have the relevant rules there aren't more to add but we are at opposite conclusions meaning someone here is reading it wrong. And considering that only one person is reading the way that you think it's suppose to be I'm inclined to believe you are the one misinterpreting the rule.
False, as BlackTalos has repeatedly backed his reading, including a link to a similar thread, which you have failed to address and continue to ignore for 3 pages now.
In restoring good faith and proving you aren't ignoring him just because he may prove your point wrong, disprove his comparison:
If read the way you read the entry, any unit in a Decurion detachment, or any formation for that matter, cannot take a dedicated transport because it clearly says a "unit of xxx" not a "unit of xxx plus transport" as it allows in the unit entry. You are asserting that you can apply restrictions to the unit entry arbitrarily, based solely on your interpretation.
The two are nearly identical in application. You cannot enforce one without enforcing the other. So are you implying that no unit in a formation cannot take a dedicated transport, by sticking to your interpretation of singular vs plural spyders?
Those two are separate instances. A unit of warriors does not cease being a unit of warriors just because it bought a transport especially since a transport is a separate unit.
A spyder does stop being a singular spyder when you add spyders to the unit though.
changemod wrote: Really? A six page argument sprung up over this overnight?
I don't even have the energy to read through all this mess over a few people's inability to read a completely unambiguous ruleset, with multiple published examples of multi-Spyder units no less, forcing you to blindly assume that the company's left hand has no idea what the right is doing, just because it happens to use singular to refer to a unit that starts at one member.
I'm going to keep using scarab farms, not for rules advantage but because I have a huge collection of Canoptek models and they're fun to play, I suggest the rest of you take a close look at formation restrictions and the impact they have on minimum and maximum unit sizes.
It's a valid question, because it specifies "The Spyder" then even if you took a unit of three, which spyder becomes "The Spyder" lol
At least half of this thread has been discussing whether taking more than one Spyder breaks 'Adaptive Subroutines' in one way or another (not breaks them by making them awesomely power, but breaks them in a way that makes them impossible to use RAW without making assumptions, at least afaik so far.)
While I agree RAW you can take multiple (even if it does break 'Adaptive Subroutines'), RAI is almost 100% definitively 1 Spyder.
Yonasu wrote: Wonderful read this, someone obviously has had an argument at their flgs and now needs to find support at dakka to win the next fight
It clearly says "a spyder","the spyder" and so on, this thread should have stopped at that. It is what is written and what is intended, any tries to add more spyders break that formation entry. There is no need for any rules saying that "A Canoptek Spyder" is "A Canoptek Spyder" because it is what it is. I would be more inclined to find other formations with this wording that should also be treated like this. It is an unlucky use of words for a necron player, giving hope where there is none, but it is un-ambigious right from the start.
Unless there's a faq stating otherwise, the formation entry is what it is and in this game we follow organization charts and detachment rules because they are rules and not just guidelines. Continuing to state that "Show me the rules" is redundant since the formation is a rule.
Next time they might write "A canoptek spyder unit" and then we can use that.
The formation specifies page 93. Page 93 has options on it. I add 2 spyders.
The formation has 'no restrictions'
You wholly lack any rules to keep me from adding 2 spyders.
If you want to participate in this debate I suggest you actually find rules!
col_impact wrote: The formation specifies 1 unit of wraiths. I can put up to 6 wraiths under 1 unit. This is exceedingly clear.
Because the formation specifies a unit of wraiths, not just a wraith.
For the spyder portion of the formation it specifies "a spyder" not "a unit of spyders". So if you have 2-3 spyders you don't have "a spyder" you have "a unit of spyders" which is not what the formation specified.
You are lacking a rule which backs up your approach. Start quoting rules!
The formation has 'no restriction' and refers to using page 93.
Page 93 has the option to add 2 Spyders.
I add 2 spyders.
The formation benefits the original spyder. I keep track.
All the rules support me.
I don't need a rule. This is basic reading comprehension. Do I need to quote a rule defining what "a" and "of" are as well?
Ad hominem attacks are not admissible. ARGUE THE RULES!
You keep saying find rules, the rule is "A Canoptek Spyder", that is a rule. Which part of "this is a rule" dont you seem to grasp? This discussion is useless unless you start to acknowledge other peoples rule quotes. Stating that there is an option to add spyders to a "Canoptek Spyder Unit" doesnt change the fact that (the more specifik rule) says that you get "A Canoptek Spyder". The second you break the "A Canoptek Spyder" formation specification by adding more to your imaginary "Canoptek Spyder Unit" you break a rule. It's a very clear rule that's broken by putting more models in the formation.
My point is that we both have the relevant rules there aren't more to add but we are at opposite conclusions meaning someone here is reading it wrong. And considering that only one person is reading the way that you think it's suppose to be I'm inclined to believe you are the one misinterpreting the rule.
False, as BlackTalos has repeatedly backed his reading, including a link to a similar thread, which you have failed to address and continue to ignore for 3 pages now.
In restoring good faith and proving you aren't ignoring him just because he may prove your point wrong, disprove his comparison:
If read the way you read the entry, any unit in a Decurion detachment, or any formation for that matter, cannot take a dedicated transport because it clearly says a "unit of xxx" not a "unit of xxx plus transport" as it allows in the unit entry. You are asserting that you can apply restrictions to the unit entry arbitrarily, based solely on your interpretation.
The two are nearly identical in application. You cannot enforce one without enforcing the other. So are you implying that no unit in a formation cannot take a dedicated transport, by sticking to your interpretation of singular vs plural spyders?
Unbelievably easy to dispose of that point. If the entry says take a unit of X with no restrictions, you can take that unit and any options provided to that unit. This is in no way the same situation.
You have one Spyder. You take anotheras the same unit. You now have two Spyders. This is against the rules of the formation - it says 1 Spyder and you have 2 Spyders. The other Spyder cannot then be in the formation: it is in the same unit as a model in a different formation, which is not allowed. Now, I know people are being pretty slow over this, so let's do this simply:
If you take 2 Spyders, is that the same as 1 Spyder? Does 1=2? I know this is a really tough concept, but as col_impact repeatedly points out, he's "probably" more qualified than all of us. Surely if we put our heads together we can solve the incredibly hard question of "if something says one, and I have two, should I use one or two?"
This entire thread is absurd. The page reference is clearly to reference the rules for Spyders. It doesn't magically make your single Spyder into a unit. Every other instance where units begin as single models, like heavy destroyers or stalkers explicitly says unit so you can take a unit. This does not - it says 1 Spyder. If I have 2 Spyders then by definition I no longer have 1 Spyder as required - I have a unit of 2 Spyders.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: As for your example, you wouldn't know which train 'the train' refers to, so you wouldn't know if you were in 12" of it or not.
Which, in the case of the Spyders, you wouldn't know either. You could assume, but you may be incorrect.
I suppose a case could be made that, using your example, if the unit was within 12" of every Spyder in the Formation you'd get the bonus (because if you're within 12" of all of them you must be within 12" of 'the' one), though that is stretching the fact that the rule clearly to a single Spyder to a point that, even if a person was willing to agree, RAW, you could have 3 Spyders, most likely wouldn't agree.
The thing is, i don't think you need to know if it is the right train (for the 12" part). If i ask whether you are within 12" of "THE Spyder", any one of the 3 (being part of the Formation) will be "the Spyder".
The rules work mainly with Yes/No answers. If the question is:
"are you within 12" of "THE Spyder"?" The answer would be "Yes", not: "which one?" (although that would be the 'logical' answer)
You'd be within 12" of 'A train', you wouldn't know for sure if it was 'THE Train'.
You could assume it is 'the Train' however you have a 4/5 chance of being wrong, the only way to know and be correct in saying "I'm within 12" of 'the Train'" is if you were within 12" of all the trains.
Any one of the Spyders will be 'a Spyder', but only one is 'the Spyder'.
If, say, only 1 train was stopping at a station you needed to go to, you'd need to know which is 'the Train'.
Same with the Spyders, to gain the benefit you have to know which is 'the Spyder' (or if you were really willing to twist, bend and stretch and have no freinds, within 12" of all of them)
The entire thread is confusion now lol.
The above was our discussion when all 3 Spyders were "part of the formation", as we'd agreed. This means that it is not
"Any one of the Spyders will be 'a Spyder', but only one is 'the Spyder'. "
but actually:
All 3 are 'the Spyder', because they all have the rule, but using "the" in a general sense, thus our Train example.
Same for "The Canoptek Spyder from this Formation...". "The" being all 3 of them in a general sense, like for our Train.
Station has 5 Trains.
"The" Train is leaving is correct by RaW, because they're all in the Station (Formation) so it doesn't matter exactly which "the" it was.
[End of discussion on 3 Spyders being part of the Formation]
My point is that we both have the relevant rules there aren't more to add but we are at opposite conclusions meaning someone here is reading it wrong. And considering that only one person is reading the way that you think it's suppose to be I'm inclined to believe you are the one misinterpreting the rule.
False, as BlackTalos has repeatedly backed his reading, including a link to a similar thread, which you have failed to address and continue to ignore for 3 pages now.
In restoring good faith and proving you aren't ignoring him just because he may prove your point wrong, disprove his comparison:
If read the way you read the entry, any unit in a Decurion detachment, or any formation for that matter, cannot take a dedicated transport because it clearly says a "unit of xxx" not a "unit of xxx plus transport" as it allows in the unit entry. You are asserting that you can apply restrictions to the unit entry arbitrarily, based solely on your interpretation.
The two are nearly identical in application. You cannot enforce one without enforcing the other. So are you implying that no unit in a formation cannot take a dedicated transport, by sticking to your interpretation of singular vs plural spyders?
Unbelievably easy to dispose of that point. If the entry says take a unit of X with no restrictions, you can take that unit and any options provided to that unit. This is in no way the same situation.
You have one Spyder. You take anotheras the same unit. You now have two Spyders. This is against the rules of the formation - it says 1 Spyder and you have 2 Spyders. The other Spyder cannot then be in the formation: it is in the same unit as a model in a different formation, which is not allowed. Now, I know people are being pretty slow over this, so let's do this simply:
If you take 2 Spyders, is that the same as 1 Spyder? Does 1=2? I know this is a really tough concept, but as col_impact repeatedly points out, he's "probably" more qualified than all of us. Surely if we put our heads together we can solve the incredibly hard question of "if something says one, and I have two, should I use one or two?"
This entire thread is absurd. The page reference is clearly to reference the rules for Spyders. It doesn't magically make your single Spyder into a unit. Every other instance where units begin as single models, like heavy destroyers or stalkers explicitly says unit so you can take a unit. This does not - it says 1 Spyder. If I have 2 Spyders then by definition I no longer have 1 Spyder as required - I have a unit of 2 Spyders.
No the other thread is entirely relevant. Let's use your words, to keep it clear and simple:
You have one Tac Squad. You take a Dedicated Transport. You now have a Tac Squad+DT. This is against the rules of the formation - it says 1 Tac Squad and you have a Rhino. The Rhino cannot then be in the formation: it is a DT for a Unit in a different formation, which is not allowed. Now, I know people are being pretty slow over this, so let's do this simply:
If you take a Tac Squad+Rhino, is that the same as 1 Tac Squad? Does 1=2?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Whacked wrote: RAW, it clearly specifies one Spyder for the formation. The ruleset is a permissive one and it doesn't specify that the formation can consist of a "unit" of Spyders. However, as there is no restriction, it doesn't prevent you from buy any upgrade or any addition models, and as such, will allow you to purchase more Spyders, as it allows you to purchase more Wraiths or more Scarabs.
My point is that we both have the relevant rules there aren't more to add but we are at opposite conclusions meaning someone here is reading it wrong. And considering that only one person is reading the way that you think it's suppose to be I'm inclined to believe you are the one misinterpreting the rule.
False, as BlackTalos has repeatedly backed his reading, including a link to a similar thread, which you have failed to address and continue to ignore for 3 pages now.
In restoring good faith and proving you aren't ignoring him just because he may prove your point wrong, disprove his comparison:
If read the way you read the entry, any unit in a Decurion detachment, or any formation for that matter, cannot take a dedicated transport because it clearly says a "unit of xxx" not a "unit of xxx plus transport" as it allows in the unit entry. You are asserting that you can apply restrictions to the unit entry arbitrarily, based solely on your interpretation.
The two are nearly identical in application. You cannot enforce one without enforcing the other. So are you implying that no unit in a formation cannot take a dedicated transport, by sticking to your interpretation of singular vs plural spyders?
Those two are separate instances. A unit of warriors does not cease being a unit of warriors just because it bought a transport especially since a transport is a separate unit.
A spyder does stop being a singular spyder when you add spyders to the unit though.
And was that 'separate Unit' of a transport listed in the Formation?
No.
Why are you allowed to select the option then? (I'm all up for the answer being "you can't", but let's stay consistent for the OP)
And was that 'separate Unit' of a transport listed in the Formation?
No.
Why are you allowed to select the option then? (I'm all up for the answer being "you can't", but let's stay consistent for the OP)
Because its an option for the unit to buy and doesn't change the unit so it still is what the formation requires. It's similar to how a dedicated transport doesn't take of a FOC slot.
In the specific case with the Spyder, the formation requires that you bring "a spyder". While it still is an option for spyders to buy more for the unit, if you do then you no longer have "a spyder" and are failing to meet the requirements of the formation.
Also there are formations that remove the option to buy transports in their restrictions (like Tyrannic War). If you couldn't take transports normally then they wouldn't need to make that restriction.
And was that 'separate Unit' of a transport listed in the Formation?
No.
Why are you allowed to select the option then? (I'm all up for the answer being "you can't", but let's stay consistent for the OP)
Because its an option for the unit to buy and doesn't change the unit so it still is what the formation requires. It's similar to how a dedicated transport doesn't take of a FOC slot.
In the specific case with the Spyder, the formation requires that you bring "a spyder". While it still is an option for spyders to buy more for the unit, if you do then you no longer have "a spyder" and are failing to meet the requirements of the formation.
Also there are formations that remove the option to buy transports in their restrictions (like Tyrannic War). If you couldn't take transports normally then they wouldn't need to make that restriction.
I understand that DT have been "accepted" as an Option (Tyrannic War, Green Tide, etc), but just because they are slot-less does not make such a difference.
A Unit, chosen as required in the Formation, can select the Option of a DT.
A Unit, chosen as required in the Formation, can select the Option of 2 extra models.
I see no difference.
1 Formation has an extra FOC slot, extra Unit and extra model.
1 Formation has two extra models.
The first option seems less likely than the first...
And was that 'separate Unit' of a transport listed in the Formation?
No.
Why are you allowed to select the option then? (I'm all up for the answer being "you can't", but let's stay consistent for the OP)
Because its an option for the unit to buy and doesn't change the unit so it still is what the formation requires. It's similar to how a dedicated transport doesn't take of a FOC slot.
In the specific case with the Spyder, the formation requires that you bring "a spyder". While it still is an option for spyders to buy more for the unit, if you do then you no longer have "a spyder" and are failing to meet the requirements of the formation.
Also there are formations that remove the option to buy transports in their restrictions (like Tyrannic War). If you couldn't take transports normally then they wouldn't need to make that restriction.
I understand that DT have been "accepted" as an Option (Tyrannic War, Green Tide, etc), but just because they are slot-less does not make such a difference.
A Unit, chosen as required in the Formation, can select the Option of a DT.
A Unit, chosen as required in the Formation, can select the Option of 2 extra models.
I see no difference.
1 Formation has an extra FOC slot, extra Unit and extra model.
1 Formation has two extra models.
The first option seems less likely than the first...
Slight difference in your second example (bolded to highlight), although a unit of Canoptek Spyders can purchase more models, the formation specifically states '1 Canoptek Spyder'. Since at no point does it refer to the Canoptek Spyder as 'a unit of Canoptek Spyders' (unlike the Triarch formation, which refers to the singular Triarch Stalker as 'a unit of Triarch stalkers') I'm inclined to believe that you may only have 1 Canoptek Spyder in the formation.
And was that 'separate Unit' of a transport listed in the Formation?
No.
Why are you allowed to select the option then? (I'm all up for the answer being "you can't", but let's stay consistent for the OP)
Because its an option for the unit to buy and doesn't change the unit so it still is what the formation requires. It's similar to how a dedicated transport doesn't take of a FOC slot.
In the specific case with the Spyder, the formation requires that you bring "a spyder". While it still is an option for spyders to buy more for the unit, if you do then you no longer have "a spyder" and are failing to meet the requirements of the formation.
Also there are formations that remove the option to buy transports in their restrictions (like Tyrannic War). If you couldn't take transports normally then they wouldn't need to make that restriction.
I understand that DT have been "accepted" as an Option (Tyrannic War, Green Tide, etc), but just because they are slot-less does not make such a difference.
A Unit, chosen as required in the Formation, can select the Option of a DT.
A Unit, chosen as required in the Formation, can select the Option of 2 extra models.
I see no difference.
1 Formation has an extra FOC slot, extra Unit and extra model.
1 Formation has two extra models.
The first option seems less likely than the first...
You keep ignoring the important fact which is buy those extra models prevents you from meeting the formations requirements. That is the difference
- A formation requires you take a unit of tactical marines. You give that unit a rhino as a transport. The formation still has a unit of tactical marines
- A formation requires you take a spyder. You take a unit of 3 spyders. The formation doesn't have a spyder like it requierd.
Long time lurker, first time poster (and what a thread to get started on!!)
Just wanted to throw the following into the mix. The codex does have a precedence of a way to deal with units that start with just one model in a formation - the Destroyer Cult.
The Destroyer Cult has entries for :
1 Destroyer Lord
3 units of Destroyers
0-1 units of Heavy Destroyers
The important difference here is the word "unit". The unit entry for both normal and heavy Destroyers shows that you can add more models to the unit.
The difference here with Canoptek Harvest is that it does not say 1 unit of Canoptek Spyders, it says 1 Spyder. The army list/unit entry then has options to add more Spyders, but the formation does not say you take a unit of Spyders. To me, if you add more Spyders to this unit, then you are taking a "unit of Spyders" and that is not part of the Canoptek Harvest formation.
Just my view, and certainly how I would play it (I have Necrons) and how I would expect it to be played against me.
Personally i dont see the resemblance between bringing a DT with units in a formation and this, its comparing bringing a bushel of apples in a lorry and eating an apple. RAI is easy to see and RAW is not ambigious. HIWPI is that i wouldnt go anywhere near a table where this discussion would go to these zealous lengths haha
Yonasu wrote: Personally i dont see the resemblance between bringing a DT with units in a formation and this, its comparing bringing a bushel of apples in a lorry and eating an apple. RAI is easy to see and RAW is not ambigious. HIWPI is that i wouldnt go anywhere near a table where this discussion would go to these zealous lengths haha
Well so long as you agree with your opponent beforehand it should be fine
Welcome to Dakka Bellyfluff! Thanks for the Destroyer Cult formation rules, helps to illustrate the point I made
And was that 'separate Unit' of a transport listed in the Formation?
No.
Why are you allowed to select the option then? (I'm all up for the answer being "you can't", but let's stay consistent for the OP)
Because its an option for the unit to buy and doesn't change the unit so it still is what the formation requires. It's similar to how a dedicated transport doesn't take of a FOC slot.
In the specific case with the Spyder, the formation requires that you bring "a spyder". While it still is an option for spyders to buy more for the unit, if you do then you no longer have "a spyder" and are failing to meet the requirements of the formation.
Also there are formations that remove the option to buy transports in their restrictions (like Tyrannic War). If you couldn't take transports normally then they wouldn't need to make that restriction.
I understand that DT have been "accepted" as an Option (Tyrannic War, Green Tide, etc), but just because they are slot-less does not make such a difference.
A Unit, chosen as required in the Formation, can select the Option of a DT.
A Unit, chosen as required in the Formation, can select the Option of 2 extra models.
I see no difference.
1 Formation has an extra FOC slot, extra Unit and extra model.
1 Formation has two extra models.
The first option seems less likely than the first...
And if it said one unit of Spyders, this would be equivalent. The more comparable situation would be if it's said something like 5 Tactical Marines rather than 1 unit of tac marines. In that case, I would argue the same case I'm making here and say dedicated transports wouldn't be allowed for those 5 guys. At the end of the day, it says one Spyder. You can say whatever you want, but 2 Spyders is clearly not 1 Spyder.
I have 1 canoptek spyder in the Canoptek Harver formation.
There are 'no restrictions' in the formation.
The formation explicitly points out to use page 93.
I add two additional spyders to the unit because its clearly allowable on the options on page93.
Once I do that . . .
I am still satisfying the 1 canoptek spyder for the formation. The two additional spyders are not part of the formation.
Feel free to point to an exact rule that I am breaking. The counter-argument has jumped to the conclusion (one not founded in rules) that once I add a spyder to the unit I am unable to fulfill the 1 canoptek spyder requirement.
Point out in THE RULES where I am unable to fulfill that requirement.
The counter-argument has a serious problem grounding what it says in any rule.
Moreover, the counter-argument struggles with the fact that the Formation says 'no restriction' when they want to say that the Formation is actually saying 'you may not buy additional spyders'
Why is the counter argument adding restrictions where the Formation itself clearly indicates 'no restriction'?
Wow. This thread is amazing. To the OP, why did you even seek advice on this? You were dead set on running the formation with three Spyders before you even wrote your initial post. You seem absolutely convinced your interpretation is correct, so I would recommend trying to run it this way in a tournament and seeing if you can find a tournament organizer to agree with you. If so, more power to you.
You keep ignoring the important fact which is buy those extra models prevents you from meeting the formations requirements. That is the difference
- A formation requires you take a unit of tactical marines. You give that unit a rhino as a transport. The formation still has a unit of tactical marines
- A formation requires you take a spyder. You take a unit of 3 spyders. The formation doesn't have a spyder like it requierd.
That is the issue here.
And this issue is where we disagree. So you buy an apple, then I give you two more, and a clerk (formation) asks "Do you have an apple?" You are saying the answer is no?
To use your vocabulary; if I take a harvest, it lists three requirements, not limitations. A spyder, a unit of wraiths, and a unit of scarabs. I take these three, and I have met those requirements. In addition to those requirements, I purchase two more Spyders. I still have my requirement. If you disagree refer to the apple question again.
I can have multiple of a thing, and still answer yes to "do you have a thing?" truthfully. Because as you said it is a requirement not a limitation. Just like "a unit of necron warriors" is a requirement, allowing you to purchase DTs. If formations were a limitation then you could not take DTs unless allowed.
You keep ignoring the important fact which is buy those extra models prevents you from meeting the formations requirements. That is the difference
- A formation requires you take a unit of tactical marines. You give that unit a rhino as a transport. The formation still has a unit of tactical marines
- A formation requires you take a spyder. You take a unit of 3 spyders. The formation doesn't have a spyder like it requierd.
That is the issue here.
And this issue is where we disagree. So you buy an apple, then I give you two more, and a clerk (formation) asks "Do you have an apple?" You are saying the answer is no?
To use your vocabulary; if I take a harvest, it lists three requirements, not limitations. A spyder, a unit of wraiths, and a unit of scarabs. I take these three, and I have met those requirements. In addition to those requirements, I purchase two more Spyders. I still have my requirement. If you disagree refer to the apple question again.
I can have multiple of a thing, and still answer yes to "do you have a thing?" truthfully. Because as you said it is a requirement not a limitation. Just like "a unit of necron warriors" is a requirement, allowing you to purchase DTs. If formations were a limitation then you could not take DTs unless allowed.
To your apple query the answer is no because you don't have an apple, you have 3 apples. Simply saying "an apple" when you have multiple is inaccurate which is why it's wrong.
You keep ignoring the important fact which is buy those extra models prevents you from meeting the formations requirements. That is the difference
- A formation requires you take a unit of tactical marines. You give that unit a rhino as a transport. The formation still has a unit of tactical marines
- A formation requires you take a spyder. You take a unit of 3 spyders. The formation doesn't have a spyder like it requierd.
That is the issue here.
And this issue is where we disagree. So you buy an apple, then I give you two more, and a clerk (formation) asks "Do you have an apple?" You are saying the answer is no?
To use your vocabulary; if I take a harvest, it lists three requirements, not limitations. A spyder, a unit of wraiths, and a unit of scarabs. I take these three, and I have met those requirements. In addition to those requirements, I purchase two more Spyders. I still have my requirement. If you disagree refer to the apple question again.
I can have multiple of a thing, and still answer yes to "do you have a thing?" truthfully. Because as you said it is a requirement not a limitation. Just like "a unit of necron warriors" is a requirement, allowing you to purchase DTs. If formations were a limitation then you could not take DTs unless allowed.
If my budget is £1000 and I spend £3000, have I spent £1000? Yes, but I've also disregarded the budget.
If my allowance is one Spyder and I take 3, have I taken 1 Spyder? Yes, but I've disregarded the allowance of 1 Spyder.
col_impact, either you're arguing that the Spyders aren't in the formation (hence don't benefit from the formation, whilst also breaking the restriction on all formations that one unit must belong to a single formation, not split into several) or youre arguing that 1 Spyder implicitly implies a unit just because it points to the profile on page 83. In that situation, the latter part is an unfounded assumption and goes contrary to every other possible single model unit in the book. Neither is RAW and neither function with the formation rules, requiring more assumptions to decide which Spyder eminates the effect. In no situation have you demonstrated anything resembling factual or coherent reading of the formation. It says 1. Chances are it means 1.
col_impact wrote: I have 1 canoptek spyder in the Canoptek Harver formation.
There are 'no restrictions' in the formation.
The formation explicitly points out to use page 93.
I add two additional spyders to the unit because its clearly allowable on the options on page93.
Once I do that . . .
I am still satisfying the 1 canoptek spyder for the formation. The two additional spyders are not part of the formation.
Feel free to point to an exact rule that I am breaking. The counter-argument has jumped to the conclusion (one not founded in rules) that once I add a spyder to the unit I am unable to fulfill the 1 canoptek spyder requirement.
Point out in THE RULES where I am unable to fulfill that requirement.
The counter-argument has a serious problem grounding what it says in any rule.
Moreover, the counter-argument struggles with the fact that the Formation says 'no restriction' when they want to say that the Formation is actually saying 'you may not buy additional spyders'
Why is the counter argument adding restrictions where the Formation itself clearly indicates 'no restriction'?
Your contention is that you are purchasing a unit of 3 Spyders and then taking one of those Spyders to fulfill the Formation requirement? What are you doing with the other two Spyders?
From the BRB, Detachments section - "However, all the units in your army must belong to a Detachment and no unit can belong to more than one Detachment."
So, if you purchase a unit of 3 Spyders, it must belong to a Detachment. The Canoptek Harvest is a Detachment (in that it is a Formation). Unfortunately, I can't choose a unit of 3 Spyders for a Canoptek Harvest as the Canoptek Harvest clearly lists One Spyder and not One Unit of Spyders.
I also can't select a unit of 3 Spyders and say one is going into the Canoptek Harvest while I put the other two somewhere else. Each Unit must be part of a Detachment and no Unit can be part of more than one Detachment (Decurion exemption being ignored as it isn't relevent in this case). If I say the one Spyder is in a Canoptek Harvest, and the other two are somewhere else, I've violated this rule.
Face it, dude. You can't split Units like this. One means one. RaI, Raw and general consensus HYWPI are seeming to align in this case.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Besides, this is a permissive ruleset. You have permission to take ONE Spyder in the Formation. You DON'T have permission to take a UNIT of Spyders. The option to add two Spyders is a UNIT option and not a MODEL option. Ergo, your ONE Spyder has ZERO permission to take two more Spyders as options. Your Spyder could take a Gloom Prism, etc... but not extra Spyders.
You keep ignoring the important fact which is buy those extra models prevents you from meeting the formations requirements. That is the difference
- A formation requires you take a unit of tactical marines. You give that unit a rhino as a transport. The formation still has a unit of tactical marines
- A formation requires you take a spyder. You take a unit of 3 spyders. The formation doesn't have a spyder like it requierd.
That is the issue here.
And this issue is where we disagree. So you buy an apple, then I give you two more, and a clerk (formation) asks "Do you have an apple?" You are saying the answer is no?
To use your vocabulary; if I take a harvest, it lists three requirements, not limitations. A spyder, a unit of wraiths, and a unit of scarabs. I take these three, and I have met those requirements. In addition to those requirements, I purchase two more Spyders. I still have my requirement. If you disagree refer to the apple question again.
I can have multiple of a thing, and still answer yes to "do you have a thing?" truthfully. Because as you said it is a requirement not a limitation. Just like "a unit of necron warriors" is a requirement, allowing you to purchase DTs. If formations were a limitation then you could not take DTs unless allowed.
If my budget is £1000 and I spend £3000, have I spent £1000? Yes, but I've also disregarded the budget.
If my allowance is one Spyder and I take 3, have I taken 1 Spyder? Yes, but I've disregarded the allowance of 1 Spyder.
But there isn't an allowance. Both it and a budget are a limitation, which we have already established a formation not to be.
To correct your example; you are required to spend £10000. You spend £30000. Did you spend £10000?
There is no budget because there is no limitation, within the term of the unit entries listed in the formation.
Some of you guys are treating the Unit List in a Formation a a minimum and not an exact requirement.
So, if I take a Canoptek Harvest with a unit of Wraiths, a unit of Scarabs, a Spyder and 17 Annihilation Barges, have I fulfilled the requirements? Per your logic, I can say yes to each required component, so surely I have? Awesome.
But, I have no more permission to take an Annihilation Barge in a Canoptek Harvest than I do to take multiple Spyders.
I'd love to have 3 in the Formation, but the rules just don't support it. One means one. One doesn't mean One + More just like One doesn't mean One + an Annihilation Barge.
Fragile wrote: Is a unit of 3 spiders the same as 1 spider? If not then you don't have that formation
I am missing the part where you are quoting a rule.
the unit is composed of 1 canoptek spyder that is part of the formation and 2 additional spyders in the unit that were bought by a formation that has no restrictions and that gives clear access to that option on the army entry list it directly references.
I have a clear chain of permission to do what I am proposing.
You have a unit that is part of 2 detachments - the Formation, and another detachment for the other two spyders.
Cite permission to do this.
In addition, you purchase units first, then organize them into Detachments.
Spoiler:
Simply select a type of Detachment and organise some or all of your units so that they fit within the restrictions and limitations detailed on that particular Detachment.
Purchasing a 3 spyder unit and then attempting to put part of the unit into a Formation has no rules support.
Models are not members of a detachment - units are. You have no clear chain of permission - you're (again) making things up.
Fragile wrote: Is a unit of 3 spiders the same as 1 spider? If not then you don't have that formation
I am missing the part where you are quoting a rule.
the unit is composed of 1 canoptek spyder that is part of the formation and 2 additional spyders in the unit that were bought by a formation that has no restrictions and that gives clear access to that option on the army entry list it directly references.
I have a clear chain of permission to do what I am proposing.
You have a unit that is part of 2 detachments - the Formation, and another detachment for the other two spyders.
Cite permission to do this.
In addition, you purchase units first, then organize them into Detachments.
Spoiler:
Simply select a type of Detachment and organise some or all of your units so that they fit within the restrictions and limitations detailed on that particular Detachment.
Purchasing a 3 spyder unit and then attempting to put part of the unit into a Formation has no rules support.
Models are not members of a detachment - units are. You have no clear chain of permission - you're (again) making things up.
As the neutral train wreck watcher, I'd say this man just scored a point. If you buy a 3 spyder unit, and then organize into canoptek harvest, you quite obviously violate the terms of the formation.
Kriswall wrote: Some of you guys are treating the Unit List in a Formation a a minimum and not an exact requirement.
So, if I take a Canoptek Harvest with a unit of Wraiths, a unit of Scarabs, a Spyder and 17 Annihilation Barges, have I fulfilled the requirements? Per your logic, I can say yes to each required component, so surely I have? Awesome.
But, I have no more permission to take an Annihilation Barge in a Canoptek Harvest than I do to take multiple Spyders.
I'd love to have 3 in the Formation, but the rules just don't support it. One means one. One doesn't mean One + More just like One doesn't mean One + an Annihilation Barge.
I was waiting on this absurd strawman to show up. That's why my last line was what it was. I'm specifically discussing, and referring to, the lack of a formation's restrictions on unit entries and their upgrades, not wildly adding new units to a formation.
Look, I'm on your guys side. I think it should only be one too. But it cannot be for the reason you are touting. If you arbitrarily decide that formations limit unit entries, then they must limit all unit entries equally, I.e.;
If it includes one Spyder, you cannot take more Spyders by purchasing them in it's unit entry, because it specifies "1 spyder."
If it includes a unit of space marines, you cannot take a rhino for them by purchasing it in their unit entry, because it specifies "1 unit of space marines."
You need another reason to limit spyders other than the above, because that has huge repercussions affecting unrelated formations. Unfortunately at this point GWfaq fiat may be the only way
Fragile wrote: Is a unit of 3 spiders the same as 1 spider? If not then you don't have that formation
I am missing the part where you are quoting a rule.
the unit is composed of 1 canoptek spyder that is part of the formation and 2 additional spyders in the unit that were bought by a formation that has no restrictions and that gives clear access to that option on the army entry list it directly references.
I have a clear chain of permission to do what I am proposing.
You have a unit that is part of 2 detachments - the Formation, and another detachment for the other two spyders.
Cite permission to do this.
In addition, you purchase units first, then organize them into Detachments.
Spoiler:
Simply select a type of Detachment and organise some or all of your units so that they fit within the restrictions and limitations detailed on that particular Detachment.
Purchasing a 3 spyder unit and then attempting to put part of the unit into a Formation has no rules support.
Models are not members of a detachment - units are. You have no clear chain of permission - you're (again) making things up.
As the neutral train wreck watcher, I'd say this man just scored a point. If you buy a 3 spyder unit, and then organize into canoptek harvest, you quite obviously violate the terms of the formation.
This is a much stronger case. You buy the units first then fit them into the formation.
The core argument of "The Formation has no permission to take a Unit of Spyders" appears to be falling on deaf ears.
RaW is crystal clear (one means one) and there has yet to be ANY rules citation showing that the Canoptek Harvest has permission to take a UNIT of Spyders OR that a player has permission to split a Unit of Spyders with one going to the Formation and two others to some other Detachment.
I would recommend a Mod lock this thread. Work out with your gaming group how to play this. Don't expect more than one Spyder with strangers or tournaments.
Other people have already mentioned this elsewhere, but compare this to two other formations with units that begin at 1 and can add additional models.
In The Triarch Formation iirc it specifies 1 Unit of Triarch Stalkers, rather than "1 Triarch Stalker." If we do not interpret the difference between these specifications as a typo, it implies that 1 Spyder means only one, not 1-3.
In the same manner, the Dark Artisan Formation from the Haemonculus Supplement specifies 1 Talos, when additional Talos can be added to a regular purchased unit. If "1 Spyder" in fact refers to a unit of 1-3 Spyders, rather than 1 Spyder, then the Dark Artisan Formation gets significantly more powerful as well, because I could take 3 Talos, 1 Cronos, and 1 Haemonculus. I don't know of anyone who plays the formation this way, and the picture provided shows a single Talos, but this is the inevitable consequence of finding that "1 Spyder" = "1 Unit of Spyders"
Yonasu wrote: Wonderful read this, someone obviously has had an argument at their flgs and now needs to find support at dakka to win the next fight
It clearly says "a spyder","the spyder" and so on, this thread should have stopped at that. It is what is written and what is intended, any tries to add more spyders break that formation entry. There is no need for any rules saying that "A Canoptek Spyder" is "A Canoptek Spyder" because it is what it is. I would be more inclined to find other formations with this wording that should also be treated like this. It is an unlucky use of words for a necron player, giving hope where there is none, but it is un-ambigious right from the start.
Unless there's a faq stating otherwise, the formation entry is what it is and in this game we follow organization charts and detachment rules because they are rules and not just guidelines. Continuing to state that "Show me the rules" is redundant since the formation is a rule.
Next time they might write "A canoptek spyder unit" and then we can use that.
I already put forth the excample in the tactics thread using Dark Artisan.
By his twisted logic I can field 1 heamonculuc, 1-3 Taloi and 1-3 Cronos....
Frozocrone wrote: Slight difference in your second example (bolded to highlight), although a unit of Canoptek Spyders can purchase more models, the formation specifically states '1 Canoptek Spyder'. Since at no point does it refer to the Canoptek Spyder as 'a unit of Canoptek Spyders' (unlike the Triarch formation, which refers to the singular Triarch Stalker as 'a unit of Triarch stalkers') I'm inclined to believe that you may only have 1 Canoptek Spyder in the formation.
CrownAxe wrote: You keep ignoring the important fact which is buy those extra models prevents you from meeting the formations requirements. That is the difference
- A formation requires you take a unit of tactical marines. You give that unit a rhino as a transport. The formation still has a unit of tactical marines
- A formation requires you take a spyder. You take a unit of 3 spyders. The formation doesn't have a spyder like it requierd.
That is the issue here.
Eyjio wrote: And if it said one unit of Spyders, this would be equivalent. The more comparable situation would be if it's said something like 5 Tactical Marines rather than 1 unit of tac marines. In that case, I would argue the same case I'm making here and say dedicated transports wouldn't be allowed for those 5 guys. At the end of the day, it says one Spyder. You can say whatever you want, but 2 Spyders is clearly not 1 Spyder.
So a Formation that says "1 Tac Squad" could purchase a Rhino but a Formation that says "5 Tactical Marines" could not? Are they 5 different Units? or still a Unit of 'Tactical Marines'?
Why would one Unit be allowed a DT and not the other?
In respons to all of the above, i'm going to hijack Kriswall's posts to answer:
Kriswall wrote: From the BRB, Detachments section - "However, all the units in your army must belong to a Detachment and no unit can belong to more than one Detachment."
Kriswall wrote: Some of you guys are treating the Unit List in a Formation a a minimum and not an exact requirement.
So, if I take a Canoptek Harvest with a unit of Wraiths, a unit of Scarabs, a Spyder and 17 Annihilation Barges, have I fulfilled the requirements? Per your logic, I can say yes to each required component, so surely I have? Awesome.
But, I have no more permission to take an Annihilation Barge in a Canoptek Harvest than I do to take multiple Spyders.
I'd love to have 3 in the Formation, but the rules just don't support it. One means one. One doesn't mean One + More just like One doesn't mean One + an Annihilation Barge.
Now:
A) I completely agree with everything stated by Krisswall:
I have no more permission to take 17 Annihilation Barge in a Canoptek Harvest than I do to take multiple Spyders.
I have no more permission to take a Night Scythe in a Canoptek Harvest than I do to take multiple Spyders.
But suddenly, everyone tells me that Dedicated transports CAN be taken for Units with the option to do so.....?
So a formation, that is listed as:
1 Spyder
0-1 Units of Scarabs
0-1 Units of Wraiths
Can become:
1 Spyder
0-1 Units of Scarabs
0-1 Units of Wraiths
1 Night Scythe
Because the Unit of Wraiths just happens to have an option to take a DT? (http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/631346.page)
But the Unit of Spyder, that just happen to have an option to take +2 spyders, cannot make a formation:
1 Spyder
0-1 Units of Scarabs
0-1 Units of Wraiths
Can become:
1 Unit of 3 Spyders
0-1 Units of Scarabs
0-1 Units of Wraiths
I really struggle to see how the first is allowed but not the second, considering all of the rules that Krisswall has listed.
B) Dedicated Transports taken for certain Formations must follow the "all the units in your army must belong to a Detachment and no unit can belong to more than one Detachment.".
So what Detachment are these Night Scythes part of?
Surely the Formation of the Unit purchasing it. So you can modify the list of a Formation with the DT Option, but not with the option of taking more models?
Taking a DT for a Unit is not taking more models? Or is there another reason?
culsandar wrote: If it includes one Spyder, you cannot take more Spyders by purchasing them in it's unit entry, because it specifies "1 spyder." If it includes a unit of space marines, you cannot take a rhino for them by purchasing it in their unit entry, because it specifies "1 unit of space marines."
There is nothing to stop the unit of SM taking options, including a Dedicated Transport if they so wish. If they couldn't, then in the restrictions section state that 'Dedicated Transports may not be taken (case in point being the Greentide formation). You will still satisfy the requirements of the formation, since you have 'a unit of SM' within the formation.
Likewise, there is nothing to stop a Spyder from purchasing options. However, the Canoptek Harvest formation specifies one Spyder. Not a unit of Spyders, one Spyder. With this, there is no text needed in the restrictions box, since you have permission to take a single Spyder, but not a unit of Spyders. If you add a Spyder, you will have two Spyders, which the formation (on account of saying '1 Spyder') does not allow.
Black Talos I believe this addresses your post as well, I've only just read it.
Thariinye wrote: Other people have already mentioned this elsewhere, but compare this to two other formations with units that begin at 1 and can add additional models.
In The Triarch Formation iirc it specifies 1 Unit of Triarch Stalkers, rather than "1 Triarch Stalker." If we do not interpret the difference between these specifications as a typo, it implies that 1 Spyder means only one, not 1-3.
In the same manner, the Dark Artisan Formation from the Haemonculus Supplement specifies 1 Talos, when additional Talos can be added to a regular purchased unit. If "1 Spyder" in fact refers to a unit of 1-3 Spyders, rather than 1 Spyder, then the Dark Artisan Formation gets significantly more powerful as well, because I could take 3 Talos, 1 Cronos, and 1 Haemonculus. I don't know of anyone who plays the formation this way, and the picture provided shows a single Talos, but this is the inevitable consequence of finding that "1 Spyder" = "1 Unit of Spyders"
Yonasu wrote: Wonderful read this, someone obviously has had an argument at their flgs and now needs to find support at dakka to win the next fight
It clearly says "a spyder","the spyder" and so on, this thread should have stopped at that. It is what is written and what is intended, any tries to add more spyders break that formation entry. There is no need for any rules saying that "A Canoptek Spyder" is "A Canoptek Spyder" because it is what it is. I would be more inclined to find other formations with this wording that should also be treated like this. It is an unlucky use of words for a necron player, giving hope where there is none, but it is un-ambigious right from the start.
Unless there's a faq stating otherwise, the formation entry is what it is and in this game we follow organization charts and detachment rules because they are rules and not just guidelines. Continuing to state that "Show me the rules" is redundant since the formation is a rule.
Next time they might write "A canoptek spyder unit" and then we can use that.
I already put forth the excample in the tactics thread using Dark Artisan.
By his twisted logic I can field 1 heamonculuc, 1-3 Taloi and 1-3 Cronos....
If you could both explain how a Night Scythe can be added to a Formation of "Reclamation Legion"? (Because there are many arguing with precedence that this is indeed possible) Once you've explained how that works, use the same explanation on the Unit of Spyders.
sweetbacon wrote: Wow. This thread is amazing. To the OP, why did you even seek advice on this? You were dead set on running the formation with three Spyders before you even wrote your initial post. You seem absolutely convinced your interpretation is correct, so I would recommend trying to run it this way in a tournament and seeing if you can find a tournament organizer to agree with you. If so, more power to you.
If your bored do a search on threads he's started in YMDC. Heck he even pulled this crap on Warseer for a week.
My advice is put him on ignore. He doesn't make linear arguments he just goes in circles until he is the last person debating. Filibusterers don't make an argument correct though.
culsandar wrote: I was waiting on this absurd strawman to show up. That's why my last line was what it was. I'm specifically discussing, and referring to, the lack of a formation's restrictions on unit entries and their upgrades, not wildly adding new units to a formation.
Look, I'm on your guys side. I think it should only be one too. But it cannot be for the reason you are touting. If you arbitrarily decide that formations limit unit entries, then they must limit all unit entries equally, I.e.;
If it includes one Spyder, you cannot take more Spyders by purchasing them in it's unit entry, because it specifies "1 spyder."
If it includes a unit of space marines, you cannot take a rhino for them by purchasing it in their unit entry, because it specifies "1 unit of space marines."
You need another reason to limit spyders other than the above, because that has huge repercussions affecting unrelated formations. Unfortunately at this point GWfaq fiat may be the only way
If you are truly on our side, then please try to understand: the formation restrictions are listed in the formation.
If the formation says "1 unit of space marines" and does not provide any restrictions on upgrades (such as no transports) then you can take upgrades. But if the formation says "1 space marine", then you can not take any additional space marines (although other upgrades on that 1 marine may still be an option - such as dedicated transports).
There are other examples of formations that say 1 of X. In those formations you are not allowed to take more than 1 either.
There are also formations that say take 5-10 of X. Likewise in those formations you cannot take more than 10 or less than 5 even if the unit description said 3-12.
BlackTalos wrote: If you could both explain how a Night Scythe can be added to a Formation of "Reclamation Legion"? (Because there are many arguing with precedence that this is indeed possible)
Once you've explained how that works, use the same explanation on the Unit of Spyders.
Spoiler:
Army List Entries That Do Not Use Force Organisation Slots
Occasionally a unit’s Army List Entry will state that the unit it describes does not take up a slot on a Force Organisation Chart. These units can be included in any Detachment, even if all the slots of the appropriate Battlefield Role are filled with other units or if the Detachment had no slot for their Battlefield Role, but they must still adhere to any restrictions detailed on the Detachment and its own Army List Entry. If the Army List Entry states that it can be included in an army that includes another specified unit, and that it does not take up a Force Organisation slot, it must join the same Detachment as that specified unit. In either case, these units are part of the Detachment for all rules purposes and will gain any appropriate Command Benefits.
Dedicated Transports do not use Force Organization Slots.
This explanation cannot be used for extra Spyders.
sweetbacon wrote: Wow. This thread is amazing. To the OP, why did you even seek advice on this? You were dead set on running the formation with three Spyders before you even wrote your initial post. You seem absolutely convinced your interpretation is correct, so I would recommend trying to run it this way in a tournament and seeing if you can find a tournament organizer to agree with you. If so, more power to you.
If your bored do a search on threads he's started in YMDC. Heck he even pulled this crap on Warseer for a week.
My advice is put him on ignore. He doesn't make linear arguments he just goes in circles until he is the last person debating. Filibusterers don't make an argument correct though.
THIS. I did this a long time ago and my life on YMDC has been much less stressful ever since. Laughed so hard when I read the part about filibusters not making an argument correct.
Kangodo wrote: Wow, that's a lot of pages while the answer is so simple:
I quote: "Restrictions: None."
And the Spyder-entry has a line saying it may buy two additional models.
So surely you can take 1-3 Spyders.
And this answer is incorrect - which you'd know if you'd made the effort to read "a lot of pages" instead of assuming that everyone else is dumb enough to miss something that simple.
Kangodo wrote: Wow, that's a lot of pages while the answer is so simple:
I quote: "Restrictions: None."
And the Spyder-entry has a line saying it may buy two additional models.
So surely you can take 1-3 Spyders.
Pretty much this, yes.
Going by general GW trends, I assumed this would be the case from the moment I first saw the formation description in the preview. Then a few people who got the book started "confirming" the formation page said only one Spyder. I ask what the formation restrictions box says... And it says none.
All the clarification that was needed. But hey, if that wasn't enough, the poster of a full Decurion that comes with the special edition has a full unit. Not only do we have entirely clear wording, we have a demonstration of it in action. Two if you count the studio army in the preview.
This really shouldn't have needed to be a discussion in the first place.
BlackTalos wrote: If you could both explain how a Night Scythe can be added to a Formation of "Reclamation Legion"? (Because there are many arguing with precedence that this is indeed possible)
Once you've explained how that works, use the same explanation on the Unit of Spyders.
Spoiler:
Army List Entries That Do Not Use Force Organisation Slots
Occasionally a unit’s Army List Entry will state that the unit it describes does not take up a slot on a Force Organisation Chart. These units can be included in any Detachment, even if all the slots of the appropriate Battlefield Role are filled with other units or if the Detachment had no slot for their Battlefield Role, but they must still adhere to any restrictions detailed on the Detachment and its own Army List Entry. If the Army List Entry states that it can be included in an army that includes another specified unit, and that it does not take up a Force Organisation slot, it must join the same Detachment as that specified unit. In either case, these units are part of the Detachment for all rules purposes and will gain any appropriate Command Benefits.
Dedicated Transports do not use Force Organization Slots.
This explanation cannot be used for extra Spyders.
Not using FOC slots is not in contention. Belonging to a certain formation is (Highlighted in the rules you've posted).
BlackTalos wrote: If you could both explain how a Night Scythe can be added to a Formation of "Reclamation Legion"? (Because there are many arguing with precedence that this is indeed possible)
Once you've explained how that works, use the same explanation on the Unit of Spyders.
Spoiler:
Army List Entries That Do Not Use Force Organisation Slots
Occasionally a unit’s Army List Entry will state that the unit it describes does not take up a slot on a Force Organisation Chart. These units can be included in any Detachment, even if all the slots of the appropriate Battlefield Role are filled with other units or if the Detachment had no slot for their Battlefield Role, but they must still adhere to any restrictions detailed on the Detachment and its own Army List Entry. If the Army List Entry states that it can be included in an army that includes another specified unit, and that it does not take up a Force Organisation slot, it must join the same Detachment as that specified unit. In either case, these units are part of the Detachment for all rules purposes and will gain any appropriate Command Benefits.
Dedicated Transports do not use Force Organization Slots.
This explanation cannot be used for extra Spyders.
Not using FOC slots is not in contention. Belonging to a certain formation is (Highlighted in the rules you've posted).
So you just missed "These units can be included in any Detachment, even if all the slots of the appropriate Battlefield Role are filled with other units or if the Detachment had no slot for their Battlefield Role"
Is a formation a Detachment? Yes, indisputably.
Can a DT join any Detachment, even if the Detachment had no slot for their Battlefield Role? Yes, indisputably.
So yes, the fact that they don't use FO slots is exactly the point, because that's what allows them to use that rule.
Kangodo wrote: Wow, that's a lot of pages while the answer is so simple:
I quote: "Restrictions: None."
And the Spyder-entry has a line saying it may buy two additional models.
So surely you can take 1-3 Spyders.
Pretty much this, yes.
Going by general GW trends, I assumed this would be the case from the moment I first saw the formation description in the preview. Then a few people who got the book started "confirming" the formation page said only one Spyder. I ask what the formation restrictions box says... And it says none.
All the clarification that was needed. But hey, if that wasn't enough, the poster of a full Decurion that comes with the special edition has a full unit. Not only do we have entirely clear wording, we have a demonstration of it in action. Two if you count the studio army in the preview.
This really shouldn't have needed to be a discussion in the first place.
The problem with that is the the Destroyer Cult shows that you can take three units of Destroyers and a Destroyer Lord, but you can't take Heavy Destroyers, whereas in the formation rules it says you can take 0-1 units. In the Reclamation formation, it says you can take 0-3 Monoliths and in the poster, 3 monoliths are clearly shown.
In addition to that, the Canoptek Harvest formation as shown in the poster has 44 Scarabs. Even if you put four Scarabs on each base (as pictures show), you can only have 36 Scarabs max, since you can have up to 9 Scarab bases in a unit.
BlackTalos wrote: There is also this a bit further back in the codex. Any RaI from it, or are we throwing it into the "Fluff" pile?
Spoiler:
That looks pretty good. Dont have the book version with me now, so havent seen that. Too bad it says "organization" and not formation though. It's painfully obvious that GW is up to their usual shenanigans, one hand has no idea wth everyone else is doing I guess they either planned it to be a whole unit at first and then changed it but couldnt change all the graphics in time for release, it's really sad they dont have a forum moderated by their game designers like modern companies.
And about the DT, they are exempt from the FOC limits, so no they are very different.
BlackTalos wrote: If you could both explain how a Night Scythe can be added to a Formation of "Reclamation Legion"? (Because there are many arguing with precedence that this is indeed possible)
Once you've explained how that works, use the same explanation on the Unit of Spyders.
Spoiler:
Army List Entries That Do Not Use Force Organisation Slots
Occasionally a unit’s Army List Entry will state that the unit it describes does not take up a slot on a Force Organisation Chart. These units can be included in any Detachment, even if all the slots of the appropriate Battlefield Role are filled with other units or if the Detachment had no slot for their Battlefield Role, but they must still adhere to any restrictions detailed on the Detachment and its own Army List Entry. If the Army List Entry states that it can be included in an army that includes another specified unit, and that it does not take up a Force Organisation slot, it must join the same Detachment as that specified unit. In either case, these units are part of the Detachment for all rules purposes and will gain any appropriate Command Benefits.
Dedicated Transports do not use Force Organization Slots.
This explanation cannot be used for extra Spyders.
Not using FOC slots is not in contention. Belonging to a certain formation is (Highlighted in the rules you've posted).
So you just missed "These units can be included in any Detachment, even if all the slots of the appropriate Battlefield Role are filled with other units or if the Detachment had no slot for their Battlefield Role"
Is a formation a Detachment? Yes, indisputably.
Can a DT join any Detachment, even if the Detachment had no slot for their Battlefield Role? Yes, indisputably.
So yes, the fact that they don't use FOC slots is exactly the point, because that's what allows them to use that rule.
A Unit that is not listed in a Formation is not a Unit with no slot for their Battlefield Role.
Kabalite Raiding Party. Perfect Example.
Formation:
1 Archon
1 Court of the Archon
1 Unit of Incubi
etc...
The Court of the Archon is listed here, but it takes up no FOC slot. (Or it can do - discussed)
Can I take another Slot-less Court? I mean, same as the DT, right?
BlackTalos wrote: A Unit that is not listed in a Formation is not a Unit with no slot for their Battlefield Role.
Are you sure? The formation has no slot for the DTs battlefield role - agreed?
I have no idea. I am trying to understand this while staying consistent.
Either you can have 3 Spyders and you can have DT.
Or it's a "no" for both 'Options'. (My preferred choice)
Kabalite Raiding Party. Perfect Example.
Formation:
1 Archon
1 Court of the Archon
1 Unit of Incubi
etc...
The Court of the Archon is listed here, but it takes up no FOC slot. (Or it can do - discussed)
Can I take another Slot-less Court? I mean, same as the DT, right?
Depending on the rules for a Court (since I don't have the Codex) I'd have to say "possibly".
""For each Archon included in a Detachment, the Detachment can include a Court of the Archon that does not take up a slot in the Force Organisation Chart""
This help?
Including a DT takes up no FOC slot.
Including a Court takes up no FOC slot.
Formation lists Court.
Formation does not list "Rhino".
You say we can "add" Slot-less Rhino (DT).
I suggest we can therefore "add" Slot-less Court.
Ghaz wrote: Again rules > artwork. The authors write the rules and the artists do the art.
An obsessive literalist rules lawyer might tell you that you can't flame into a ruin because you must have the template in base contact with the model's base.
A diagram shows someone measuring not in literal base contact, but by holding the template above the battlefield with the narrow end of the template held over where it would touch his model.
Examples that contradict insane literalism like reading "1 Spyder" as "Cannot purchase more unit members despite no formation restrictions existing" can be pretty handy for clearing things up, I would say.
BlackTalos wrote: A Unit that is not listed in a Formation is not a Unit with no slot for their Battlefield Role.
Are you sure? The formation has no slot for the DTs battlefield role - agreed?
I have no idea. I am trying to understand this while staying consistent.
Either you can have 3 Spyders and you can have DT.
Or it's a "no" for both 'Options'. (My preferred choice)
Demonstrably false, and you didn't answer my question.
Is there a slot in the formation for a Dedicated Transport's battlefield role?
Kabalite Raiding Party. Perfect Example.
Formation:
1 Archon
1 Court of the Archon
1 Unit of Incubi
etc...
The Court of the Archon is listed here, but it takes up no FOC slot. (Or it can do - discussed)
Can I take another Slot-less Court? I mean, same as the DT, right?
Depending on the rules for a Court (since I don't have the Codex) I'd have to say "possibly".
""For each Archon included in a Detachment, the Detachment can include a Court of the Archon that does not take up a slot in the Force Organisation Chart""
This help?
Including a DT takes up no FOC slot.
Including a Court takes up no FOC slot.
Formation lists Court.
Formation does not list "Rhino".
You say we can "add" Slot-less Rhino (DT).
I suggest we can therefore "add" Slot-less Court.
I will continue if the above is agreed.
Sure - you can add a second court - providing the rules support taking a Court in a slot if you already have an Archon.
Do you have an example that doesn't include a massive, guaranteed to be locked, tangential debate?
BlackTalos wrote: A Unit that is not listed in a Formation is not a Unit with no slot for their Battlefield Role.
Are you sure? The formation has no slot for the DTs battlefield role - agreed?
I have no idea. I am trying to understand this while staying consistent.
Either you can have 3 Spyders and you can have DT.
Or it's a "no" for both 'Options'. (My preferred choice)
Demonstrably false, and you didn't answer my question.
Is there a slot in the formation for a Dedicated Transport's battlefield role?
Which one is false? i gave both options, plus as i said, i have no idea...
Kabalite Raiding Party. Perfect Example.
Formation:
1 Archon
1 Court of the Archon
1 Unit of Incubi
etc...
The Court of the Archon is listed here, but it takes up no FOC slot. (Or it can do - discussed)
Can I take another Slot-less Court? I mean, same as the DT, right?
Depending on the rules for a Court (since I don't have the Codex) I'd have to say "possibly".
""For each Archon included in a Detachment, the Detachment can include a Court of the Archon that does not take up a slot in the Force Organisation Chart""
This help?
Including a DT takes up no FOC slot.
Including a Court takes up no FOC slot.
Formation lists Court.
Formation does not list "Rhino".
You say we can "add" Slot-less Rhino (DT).
I suggest we can therefore "add" Slot-less Court.
I will continue if the above is agreed.
Sure - you can add a second court - providing the rules support taking a Court in a slot if you already have an Archon.
Do you have an example that doesn't include a massive, guaranteed to be locked, tangential debate?
Not really a tangent if it's "the same situation" and one explains the other?
So, a Formation can take an extra Unit (slot-less) such as a Court or a DT, but not take 2 extra models (also slot-less)?
We might need to re-word the whole thing at this point, because the confusion, at least, is tangential...
I'm a necron player, I think its pretty fething obvious that the entry says 1 spyder.
If you could take a unit of spyders, it would say unit just like the wraiths and scarabs do.
One would think that the number 1 is pretty cut and dry, but perhaps these same people trying to cheese their way into an illegal list would also try taking multiple units of wraiths and scarabs in that formation since "1" seems to be so ambiguous to them.
NightHowler wrote: This specific formation lists the number of models allowed as 1.
The exampled formation lists the number of (DT) models allowed as 0. (not listed)
When the formation lists the number of models you can take in the unit, it is thus giving the limit on number of models in the unit. Because transports (like other wargear options) are not part of the number of models in the unit, any restrictions on transports would need to be written out.
In other words, by saying "1 spyder" the formation limits the number of spyders allowed in the formation to 1 but places no other restrictions on the wargear or transports allowed to the unit.
If a formation was to place a restriction on dedicated transports it could not do so by listing how many models you could take and so it would require an additional restriction to be spelled out somewhere else in the formation details.
BlackTalos wrote: A Unit that is not listed in a Formation is not a Unit with no slot for their Battlefield Role.
Are you sure? The formation has no slot for the DTs battlefield role - agreed?
I have no idea. I am trying to understand this while staying consistent.
Either you can have 3 Spyders and you can have DT.
Or it's a "no" for both 'Options'. (My preferred choice)
Demonstrably false, and you didn't answer my question.
Is there a slot in the formation for a Dedicated Transport's battlefield role?
Which one is false? i gave both options, plus as i said, i have no idea...
You've equated 3 Spyders and the DT. That's the "false" because they aren't equal.
I'd guess yes, Formation has no slot.
Then the DT has explicit permission to be added, per the rules I quoted.
Not really a tangent if it's "the same situation" and one explains the other?
So, a Formation can take an extra Unit (slot-less) such as a Court or a DT, but not take 2 extra models (also slot-less)?
The 2 extra models are not "slotless". That's making up rules.
They're part of the same Spyder unit, and since we know (I quoted the rules earlier - please read the thread) that you buy units and then fill formations, you're trying to fill a formation requirement with part of a unit... please cite allowance to have part of a unit to be part of a formation.
We might need to re-word the whole thing at this point, because the confusion, at least, is tangential...
I'm not confused at all. You (and others) are attempting to bring slippery slope arguments into a trivially solved discussion.
The formation has a requirement of 1 Spyder (not 1 Spyder Unit).
We know that you purchase units and then add them to Formations.
Purchasing 3 Spyders (as one unit) cannot fit the requirement of 1 Spyder (since 3 != 1) and therefore cannot be part of the Formation.
Happyjew wrote: But can 1 Spyder take more Spyders, or does the unit purchase additional Spyders?
The unit can purchase additional Spyders, the unit can also take upgrades and actually costs points.
Arguing that he loses that option, would also lose him the option of his other upgrades and make him free.
Incorrect - please stop making up rules.
You don't take the formation and then buy options, you purchase units (including options) and then fill Formations. You'd know that if you read the rules I quoted.
as written the formation may not include an unit of spyders with more than 1 model.
because it does not state "1 unit of spyders" like it does "1 unit of wraiths" "1 unit of scarabs"
it explicitly states:
1 canoptek spyder.
taking more than 1 spyder is not a canoptek formation by the RAW, there is no RAW argument otherwise.
The Canoptek Spyder from this Formation, and all units from this Formation within 12" of the Canoptek Spyder from this Formation,
the text of 'adaptive subroutines' evern further RAI supports the RAW by listing "the spyder" not the unit of spyders or the spyder(s). It is singular.
rigeld2 wrote: I'm not confused at all. You (and others) are attempting to bring slippery slope arguments into a trivially solved discussion.
The formation has a requirement of 1 Spyder (not 1 Spyder Unit).
We know that you purchase units and then add them to Formations.
Purchasing 3 Spyders (as one unit) cannot fit the requirement of 1 Spyder (since 3 != 1) and therefore cannot be part of the Formation.
Okay, so in light of the above, as it seems you are not confused but only i am:
You must purchase all the Units, then include them in formations:
Formations (...) the Army List Entries that comprise a Formation are listed on it, along with any special rules that those units gain. Unless stated otherwise, each individual unit maintains its normal Battlefield Role when taken as part of a Formation..
How does a Dedicated Transport, which is not "listed on it"(Underlined above) become part of the Formation (it must be part of it per detachment rules)?
It is not listed but it is taken in the formation. It takes up no slot but it "modifies" the list, right?
2. Unit: its exactly stated that the formation contains 1 spyder. Not one unit of spyders but plain simple a spyder. The question (that no1 asked before) is: is the book entry about spyderS oder about a spyder (singular)? The page for Stalkers is titel with the plural, i gues the one for spyders is too. So that means you cant apply the "you may take up to 2 additional modells" part - beacuse the single spider you want to put into your formation is NOT a unit but a single model. Asumming this is wrong: then you propably are allowed to take additional spyders at first. But what happens if you do so? You get a unit of spyders. And you are not allowed to take a unit - it has to be a single model. To that stupid depate if i answer "yes" to "do you have an apple" if i hold 3 in my hands: this is common ambiguousness of the language refering to "do you have at least one apple". In a technical sense you have to use the direkt wording which is "do you have ONE apple?" Which clearly is a question for the number of apples you have - so if you have 3 you dont have 1 (you have mode than one but that wasnt asked). In the spyder case you cant use the "at least one" rules - its wrong meaning that is commonly acepted in dayly language but not in technical writing.
In a nutshell: either the spyder page in the codex is about a unit of spyders - then you cant even take the option of adding more spyders (but still war gear cause that is per modell and not per unit) or it is about spyder (singular) then you could theoretically try to take more models - in which case you would end up with a unit of spyders which is clearly not "one spyder". So you cant take more than 1 spyders.
3.DT: comparing the spyders with DTs is wrong on several levels: at first DTs are a option for units and you are not allowed to take a unit - but a single model. So that two cases dont have any influence on each other. In case you are wondering why one is allowed to take DTs in formations, that is not cause they dont take FOC slots its because the rule for dedicated transports (see BRB Vehicles -> Transports -> Dedicate Transports) allows them to pe purchased together with a unit. So you have allowance to take a DT for your unit (if not restricted).
4. Options: some have argued that taking away the option for a spyder to take other spyders would take away their ability to take other war gear: thats wrong because the allowance for war gear is on a per model base - the additional models are on a per unit base.
5. Did i forget any critical point of this discussion?
Sorry if Blasts+Re-roll is taking all your thinking time, just going to drop that (again) seeing as we've looped...
So, to try and keep me Spyder question as easy as i can: Formations use, instead of FOC"the Army List Entries that comprise a Formation are listed on it". So we have 3 almost-hypothetical formations:
Formation A . . . . . . Formation B . . . . . . Formation C 1 Spyder . . . . . . . .1 Archon . . . . . . . . Unit of WolfGuard 0-1 Units of Scarabs . 1 Court of the Archon . Unit of WolfGuard termies 0-1 Units of Wraiths . 1 Unit of Incubi . . . . .Drop Pod
In B, I can 'modify' the list to include another "Court of the Archon" In C, I can 'modify' the list to include a Rhino And i cannot see why, in A, i cannot add 2 Spyders to the unit? So that things look like so:
Formation A . . Formation B . . Formation C 3 Spyders . . 1 Archon . . Unit of WolfGuard 0-1 Units of Scarabs 2 Court of the Archon Unit of WolfGuard termies 0-1 Units of Wraiths 1 Unit of Incubi . . Drop Pod . . . . . . . . . . Rhino
rigeld2 wrote: I'm not confused at all. You (and others) are attempting to bring slippery slope arguments into a trivially solved discussion.
The formation has a requirement of 1 Spyder (not 1 Spyder Unit).
We know that you purchase units and then add them to Formations.
Purchasing 3 Spyders (as one unit) cannot fit the requirement of 1 Spyder (since 3 != 1) and therefore cannot be part of the Formation.
Okay, so in light of the above, as it seems you are not confused but only i am:
You must purchase all the Units, then include them in formations:
Formations (...) the Army List Entries that comprise a Formation are listed on it, along with any special rules that those units gain. Unless stated otherwise, each individual unit maintains its normal Battlefield Role when taken as part of a Formation..
How does a Dedicated Transport, which is not "listed on it"(Underlined above) become part of the Formation (it must be part of it per detachment rules)?
It is not listed but it is taken in the formation. It takes up no slot but it "modifies" the list, right?
If you have to think about it that way, then yes.
As the rule I quoted supports. I'm not sure why you're having a hard time with that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BlackTalos wrote: Sorry if Blasts+Re-roll is taking all your thinking time, just going to drop that (again) seeing as we've looped...
It isn't - I do have to work during the day so I can't always respond in seconds.
Formation A Formation B Formation C
1 Spyder 1 Archon Unit of WolfGuard
0-1 Units of Scarabs 1 Court of the Archon Unit of WolfGuard termies
0-1 Units of Wraiths 1 Unit of Incubi Drop Pod
In B, I can 'modify' the list to include another "Court of the Archon"
Pending the answer to "Can I take a slotted Court if I have an Archon?"
In C, I can 'modify' the list to include a Rhino
And i cannot see why, in A, i cannot add 2 Spyders to the unit?
Because in B and C you're adding a unit that doesn't take a slot.
In A you're modifying a unit in the formation to be something that the Formation doesn't require.
You keep equating the situations when they're nothing at all alike.
rigeld2 wrote: I'm not confused at all. You (and others) are attempting to bring slippery slope arguments into a trivially solved discussion.
The formation has a requirement of 1 Spyder (not 1 Spyder Unit). We know that you purchase units and then add them to Formations. Purchasing 3 Spyders (as one unit) cannot fit the requirement of 1 Spyder (since 3 != 1) and therefore cannot be part of the Formation.
Okay, so in light of the above, as it seems you are not confused but only i am: You must purchase all the Units, then include them in formations:
Formations (...) the Army List Entries that comprise a Formation are listed on it, along with any special rules that those units gain. Unless stated otherwise, each individual unit maintains its normal Battlefield Role when taken as part of a Formation..
How does a Dedicated Transport, which is not "listed on it"(Underlined above) become part of the Formation (it must be part of it per detachment rules)? It is not listed but it is taken in the formation. It takes up no slot but it "modifies" the list, right?
If you have to think about it that way, then yes. As the rule I quoted supports. I'm not sure why you're having a hard time with that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BlackTalos wrote: Sorry if Blasts+Re-roll is taking all your thinking time, just going to drop that (again) seeing as we've looped...
It isn't - I do have to work during the day so I can't always respond in seconds.
Formation A Formation B Formation C 1 Spyder 1 Archon Unit of WolfGuard 0-1 Units of Scarabs 1 Court of the Archon Unit of WolfGuard termies 0-1 Units of Wraiths 1 Unit of Incubi Drop Pod
In B, I can 'modify' the list to include another "Court of the Archon"
Pending the answer to "Can I take a slotted Court if I have an Archon?"
I though you were a big advocate of the "yes" party... but agreed.
And i cannot see why, in A, i cannot add 2 Spyders to the unit?
Because in B and C you're adding a unit that doesn't take a slot. In A you're modifying a unit in the formation to be something that the Formation doesn't require.
You keep equating the situations when they're nothing at all alike.
Because all 3 Formation lists are modified? I mean, what is quantifying the "quality of modification". The Formation rules *used* to be very clear to me:
the Army List Entries that comprise a Formation are listed on it
You can only ever have the Army List Entries listed on the Formation...
Then I learn/am told that you can add Army List Entries of additional Transports, as they are in a Unit's Options. But it is now said here that you cannot add models to an existing Unit, even though they are in a Unit's Options.
BlackTalos wrote: Because all 3 Formation lists are modified? I mean, what is quantifying the "quality of modification".
The slotless rule I quoted earlier.
The Formation rules *used* to be very clear to me:
the Army List Entries that comprise a Formation are listed on it
You can only ever have the Army List Entries listed on the Formation...
Then I learn/am told that you can add Army List Entries of additional Transports, as they are in a Unit's Options.
But it is now said here that you cannot add models to an existing Unit, even though they are in a Unit's Options.
Just seems like a contradiction....
I've explained, repeatedly why the two situations are not similar. One has a rule allowing it. The other doesn't.
I know you didn't ignore the rule I quoted because you responded to it - twice. Why are you attempting to apply that rule to the Spyders?
BlackTalos wrote: Because all 3 Formation lists are modified? I mean, what is quantifying the "quality of modification".
The slotless rule I quoted earlier.
The Formation rules *used* to be very clear to me:
the Army List Entries that comprise a Formation are listed on it
You can only ever have the Army List Entries listed on the Formation...
Then I learn/am told that you can add Army List Entries of additional Transports, as they are in a Unit's Options.
But it is now said here that you cannot add models to an existing Unit, even though they are in a Unit's Options.
Just seems like a contradiction....
I've explained, repeatedly why the two situations are not similar. One has a rule allowing it. The other doesn't.
I know you didn't ignore the rule I quoted because you responded to it - twice. Why are you attempting to apply that rule to the Spyders?
The formation has 'no restrictions'. Why are you restricting an option on its army list entry?
rigeld2 wrote: I'm not confused at all. You (and others) are attempting to bring slippery slope arguments into a trivially solved discussion.
The formation has a requirement of 1 Spyder (not 1 Spyder Unit).
We know that you purchase units and then add them to Formations.
Purchasing 3 Spyders (as one unit) cannot fit the requirement of 1 Spyder (since 3 != 1) and therefore cannot be part of the Formation.
Okay, so in light of the above, as it seems you are not confused but only i am:
You must purchase all the Units, then include them in formations:
Formations (...) the Army List Entries that comprise a Formation are listed on it, along with any special rules that those units gain. Unless stated otherwise, each individual unit maintains its normal Battlefield Role when taken as part of a Formation..
How does a Dedicated Transport, which is not "listed on it"(Underlined above) become part of the Formation (it must be part of it per detachment rules)?
It is not listed but it is taken in the formation. It takes up no slot but it "modifies" the list, right?
If you have to think about it that way, then yes.
As the rule I quoted supports. I'm not sure why you're having a hard time with that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BlackTalos wrote: Sorry if Blasts+Re-roll is taking all your thinking time, just going to drop that (again) seeing as we've looped...
It isn't - I do have to work during the day so I can't always respond in seconds.
Formation A Formation B Formation C
1 Spyder 1 Archon Unit of WolfGuard
0-1 Units of Scarabs 1 Court of the Archon Unit of WolfGuard termies
0-1 Units of Wraiths 1 Unit of Incubi Drop Pod
In B, I can 'modify' the list to include another "Court of the Archon"
Pending the answer to "Can I take a slotted Court if I have an Archon?"
I though you were a big advocate of the "yes" party... but agreed.
And i cannot see why, in A, i cannot add 2 Spyders to the unit?
Because in B and C you're adding a unit that doesn't take a slot.
In A you're modifying a unit in the formation to be something that the Formation doesn't require.
You keep equating the situations when they're nothing at all alike.
Because all 3 Formation lists are modified? I mean, what is quantifying the "quality of modification".
The Formation rules *used* to be very clear to me:
the Army List Entries that comprise a Formation are listed on it
You can only ever have the Army List Entries listed on the Formation...
Then I learn/am told that you can add Army List Entries of additional Transports, as they are in a Unit's Options.
But it is now said here that you cannot add models to an existing Unit, even though they are in a Unit's Options.
Just seems like a contradiction....
You CAN add models to an existing unit in a Formation. UNFORTUNATELY, the Canoptek Harvest doesn't include a Unit of Spyders. It includes ONE Spyder. Huge difference. A Unit of Spyders starts at 1 and can add 2 more. A single Spyder has permission to take various pieces of Wargear, but has no permission to take extra Spyders.
This is one of the core issues. The Formation DOES NOT include a UNIT of Spyders and so cannot take any UNIT UPGRADES, such as the extra 2 Spyders. If the Formation included one UNIT of Spyders, then sure... go crazy and add more. It doesn't.
BlackTalos wrote: Because all 3 Formation lists are modified? I mean, what is quantifying the "quality of modification".
The slotless rule I quoted earlier.
The Formation rules *used* to be very clear to me:
the Army List Entries that comprise a Formation are listed on it
You can only ever have the Army List Entries listed on the Formation...
Then I learn/am told that you can add Army List Entries of additional Transports, as they are in a Unit's Options.
But it is now said here that you cannot add models to an existing Unit, even though they are in a Unit's Options.
Just seems like a contradiction....
I've explained, repeatedly why the two situations are not similar. One has a rule allowing it. The other doesn't.
I know you didn't ignore the rule I quoted because you responded to it - twice. Why are you attempting to apply that rule to the Spyders?
As you say, the difference is explained by the Slot-less rule. But, by that very same point, formation B (of course, pending)
Can change:
1 Archon
1 Court of the Archon
1 Unit of Incubi
To:
1 Archon
2 Court of the Archon
1 Unit of Incubi
But:
1 Spyder
0-1 Units of Scarabs
0-1 Units of Wraiths
To:
2 Spyder
0-1 Units of Scarabs
0-1 Units of Wraiths
Cannot be modified? I mean sure the rules for the Spyders are never slot-less, but including 2 Spyders in a slot of 1,
is the same (to me) as including 2 Court of the Archon in 2 slots when you only had 1.
Both are modifying the Formation List:
- one is modifying the slot (from 1 to 1)
- the other is modifying how many slots it has (from 1 to 2)
You CAN add models to an existing unit in a Formation. UNFORTUNATELY, the Canoptek Harvest doesn't include a Unit of Spyders. It includes ONE Spyder. Huge difference. A Unit of Spyders starts at 1 and can add 2 more. A single Spyder has permission to take various pieces of Wargear, but has no permission to take extra Spyders.
This is one of the core issues. The Formation DOES NOT include a UNIT of Spyders and so cannot take any UNIT UPGRADES, such as the extra 2 Spyders. If the Formation included one UNIT of Spyders, then sure... go crazy and add more. It doesn't.
Per the BRB, Formations always deal with units and army list entries.
The Canoptek Harvest formation even points directly to the page number for the army list entry. There is no confusion that we are dealing with a unit.
Kriswall wrote: You CAN add models to an existing unit in a Formation. UNFORTUNATELY, the Canoptek Harvest doesn't include a Unit of Spyders. It includes ONE Spyder. Huge difference. A Unit of Spyders starts at 1 and can add 2 more. A single Spyder has permission to take various pieces of Wargear, but has no permission to take extra Spyders.
This is one of the core issues. The Formation DOES NOT include a UNIT of Spyders and so cannot take any UNIT UPGRADES, such as the extra 2 Spyders. If the Formation included one UNIT of Spyders, then sure... go crazy and add more. It doesn't.
Therein lies my entire problem:
The Wolves Formation DOES NOT include a UNIT of a Rhino and so cannot take any UNIT UPGRADES, such as the extra Rhino.
But apparently it can?
BlackTalos wrote: Because all 3 Formation lists are modified? I mean, what is quantifying the "quality of modification".
The slotless rule I quoted earlier.
The Formation rules *used* to be very clear to me:
the Army List Entries that comprise a Formation are listed on it
You can only ever have the Army List Entries listed on the Formation...
Then I learn/am told that you can add Army List Entries of additional Transports, as they are in a Unit's Options.
But it is now said here that you cannot add models to an existing Unit, even though they are in a Unit's Options.
Just seems like a contradiction....
I've explained, repeatedly why the two situations are not similar. One has a rule allowing it. The other doesn't.
I know you didn't ignore the rule I quoted because you responded to it - twice. Why are you attempting to apply that rule to the Spyders?
The formation has 'no restrictions'. Why are you restricting an option on its army list entry?
The fault lies within this:
But it is now said here that you cannot add models to an existing Unit, even though they are in a Unit's Options.
You presume that the spyder is a unit of spyders - which is not true. It is a single model and does thus not follow the rules for units of spyders.
You dont need to put any restrictions since the single model of a spyder (singular) does not have the option to add more spyders. A unit of spyderS (plural) has.
You CAN add models to an existing unit in a Formation. UNFORTUNATELY, the Canoptek Harvest doesn't include a Unit of Spyders. It includes ONE Spyder. Huge difference. A Unit of Spyders starts at 1 and can add 2 more. A single Spyder has permission to take various pieces of Wargear, but has no permission to take extra Spyders.
This is one of the core issues. The Formation DOES NOT include a UNIT of Spyders and so cannot take any UNIT UPGRADES, such as the extra 2 Spyders. If the Formation included one UNIT of Spyders, then sure... go crazy and add more. It doesn't.
Per the BRB, Formations always deal with units and army list entries.
The Canoptek Harvest formation even points directly to the page number for the army list entry. There is no confusion that we are dealing with a unit.
Well, there obviously is confusion as everywhere else in the Codex the requirement is phrased using "a unit of" wheres here it specific a single model.
Besides, I'll just claim advanced versus basic, codex trumps BRB etc, and say that the designation of one spyder is a more advanced restriction that overrides the BRB comments about full units being included.
ROUND AND ROUND WE GO.
This thread needs to be killed. Play it how you want to. Don't expect strangers or tournaments to allow more than one Spyder without a long, drawn out debate.
BlackTalos wrote: Because all 3 Formation lists are modified? I mean, what is quantifying the "quality of modification".
The slotless rule I quoted earlier.
The Formation rules *used* to be very clear to me:
the Army List Entries that comprise a Formation are listed on it
You can only ever have the Army List Entries listed on the Formation...
Then I learn/am told that you can add Army List Entries of additional Transports, as they are in a Unit's Options.
But it is now said here that you cannot add models to an existing Unit, even though they are in a Unit's Options.
Just seems like a contradiction....
I've explained, repeatedly why the two situations are not similar. One has a rule allowing it. The other doesn't.
I know you didn't ignore the rule I quoted because you responded to it - twice. Why are you attempting to apply that rule to the Spyders?
The formation has 'no restrictions'. Why are you restricting an option on its army list entry?
The fault lies within this:
But it is now said here that you cannot add models to an existing Unit, even though they are in a Unit's Options.
You presume that the spyder is a unit of spyders - which is not true. It is a single model and does thus not follow the rules for units of spyders.
You dont need to put any restrictions since the single model of a spyder (singular) does not have the option to add more spyders. A unit of spyderS (plural) has.
Spoiler:
Formations
Formations are a special type of Detachment, each a specific grouping of units
renowned for their effectiveness on the battlefields of the 41st Millennium.
Whilst some Formations provide you with all the gaming information you will
need to use them in your games, it is not uncommon for them simply to
describe a number of special rules that apply when you include several specific
units together. Instead of including a Force Organisation chart, the Army List
Entries that comprise a Formation are listed on it, along with any special rules
that those units gain. Unless stated otherwise, each individual unit maintains
its normal Battlefield Role when taken as part of a Formation.
Unlike other Detachments, Formations can also be taken as part of Unbound
armies. If they are, their units maintain the special rules gained for being part
of the Formation.
You CAN add models to an existing unit in a Formation. UNFORTUNATELY, the Canoptek Harvest doesn't include a Unit of Spyders. It includes ONE Spyder. Huge difference. A Unit of Spyders starts at 1 and can add 2 more. A single Spyder has permission to take various pieces of Wargear, but has no permission to take extra Spyders.
This is one of the core issues. The Formation DOES NOT include a UNIT of Spyders and so cannot take any UNIT UPGRADES, such as the extra 2 Spyders. If the Formation included one UNIT of Spyders, then sure... go crazy and add more. It doesn't.
Per the BRB, Formations always deal with units and army list entries.
The Canoptek Harvest formation even points directly to the page number for the army list entry. There is no confusion that we are dealing with a unit.
That is true in the way you look at the one model of the spyder - it is a unit containing that one model but it is NOT a unit of spyderS (plural) it is a single spider that gets promoted to beeing a unit when you refer to it in other rules. So the spyder is not a unit of spyders because you take a "unit of spyders" which is a codex entry but you take a single spyder and it gets promoted to beeing a unit from the rules of the formations/detachments - which is not the same unit as the one in the codex. (The one referes to something existing the other looks at it as something to bring rules in line with their wording.)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
[...]when you include several specific
units together. Instead of including a Force Organisation chart, the Army List
Entries that comprise a Formation are listed on it,[...
See the "specific" and the "are listed on it". With this we look at the requirements of the canoptek formation:
1 spyder
So we need a single specific spyder per the rule you just quoted. There is a 1 and no plural. A single spyder cant be multiple spyders. You cant add spyders to that unit of spyders because it is not a "unit of spyders" in sens of the codex entry "spyders".
You CAN add models to an existing unit in a Formation. UNFORTUNATELY, the Canoptek Harvest doesn't include a Unit of Spyders. It includes ONE Spyder. Huge difference. A Unit of Spyders starts at 1 and can add 2 more. A single Spyder has permission to take various pieces of Wargear, but has no permission to take extra Spyders.
This is one of the core issues. The Formation DOES NOT include a UNIT of Spyders and so cannot take any UNIT UPGRADES, such as the extra 2 Spyders. If the Formation included one UNIT of Spyders, then sure... go crazy and add more. It doesn't.
Per the BRB, Formations always deal with units and army list entries.
The Canoptek Harvest formation even points directly to the page number for the army list entry. There is no confusion that we are dealing with a unit.
Here the same applies: you organize your models within "units" but making a single model a unit that could otherwise not be taken alone does not mean that you can tread that unit as it was some other specific entry within a codex. If any formation says "take a Ctan and 2 Cryptecs" you cant promote that 2 Cryptecs to a full royal court just becaus its their only way to be as 2 man group on the table (refering the old codex for this example). If you had to take a single Heavy Destroyer what unit would it be? The normal destroyer unit with one upgraded to a heavy? Or the unit of heavy destroyers? Or just a so called unit that has no specific entry in a codex because it contains a single modell that is not a unit in its codex but just a model?
Essentially, you purchase units and then slot them into Formations. If you purchase 3 Spyders in a Unit, that does not meet the requirement of 1 Spyder as you only have permission to have 1 Spyder in the Formation, not 3. And you can't have one model of a unit part of one Fprmation and the rest part of nothing.
You cannot quote rules supporting your "chain of permission" as they don't exist. I've quoted rules showing that, in fact, you can't add Spyders.
rigeld2 wrote: Yes. It was quoted earlier in the thread.
Essentially, you purchase units and then slot them into Formations. If you purchase 3 Spyders in a Unit, that does not meet the requirement of 1 Spyder as you only have permission to have 1 Spyder in the Formation, not 3. And you can't have one model of a unit part of one Fprmation and the rest part of nothing.
You cannot quote rules supporting your "chain of permission" as they don't exist. I've quoted rules showing that, in fact, you can't add Spyders.
We are missing the rules that back up what you are saying right now. Page and paragraph please.
Ok, 9 pages is a lot to sift through, so sorry if this has been mentioned already.
Has anyone brought up the method used in 40k for denoting numbers of models/units?
0-1 means "up to one"
1+ means "at least one"
1 means "exactly one"
Based on the wording of the entry, we know that it is referring to individual models, not units. I think the fallacy is that the OP is reading the 1 (exactly 1) as a 1+ (at least 1).
Fragile wrote: Is a unit of 3 spiders the same as 1 spider? If not then you don't have that formation
I am missing the part where you are quoting a rule.
the unit is composed of 1 canoptek spyder that is part of the formation and 2 additional spyders in the unit that were bought by a formation that has no restrictions and that gives clear access to that option on the army entry list it directly references.
I have a clear chain of permission to do what I am proposing.
You have a unit that is part of 2 detachments - the Formation, and another detachment for the other two spyders.
Cite permission to do this.
In addition, you purchase units first, then organize them into Detachments.
Spoiler:
Simply select a type of Detachment and organise some or all of your units so that they fit within the restrictions and limitations detailed on that particular Detachment.
Purchasing a 3 spyder unit and then attempting to put part of the unit into a Formation has no rules support.
Models are not members of a detachment - units are. You have no clear chain of permission - you're (again) making things up.
Since you're being lazy, I found the time to requote my earlier statement.
It has nothing to do with copy/paste, so please stop being rude.
Fragile wrote: Is a unit of 3 spiders the same as 1 spider? If not then you don't have that formation
I am missing the part where you are quoting a rule.
the unit is composed of 1 canoptek spyder that is part of the formation and 2 additional spyders in the unit that were bought by a formation that has no restrictions and that gives clear access to that option on the army entry list it directly references.
I have a clear chain of permission to do what I am proposing.
You have a unit that is part of 2 detachments - the Formation, and another detachment for the other two spyders.
Cite permission to do this.
In addition, you purchase units first, then organize them into Detachments.
Spoiler:
Simply select a type of Detachment and organise some or all of your units so that they fit within the restrictions and limitations detailed on that particular Detachment.
Purchasing a 3 spyder unit and then attempting to put part of the unit into a Formation has no rules support.
Models are not members of a detachment - units are. You have no clear chain of permission - you're (again) making things up.
Since you're being lazy, I found the time to requote my earlier statement.
It has nothing to do with copy/paste, so please stop being rude.
Yup. So I have the Canoptek Harvest formation and I add the 2 spyders to it since its on the options of the spyder unit and the formation has 'no restrictions'
You do see that there's already a precedent in the new necron formations for when the we're allowed to specifically take a unit of a model or models, yes?
Judicator Battalion.
1 unit of Triarch Stalkers
What is a unit of Stalkers? It's 1-3 Stalkers.
Canoptek Harvest
1 Canoptek Spyder
Not '1 unit of Canoptek Spyders'. What is 1 Canoptek Spyder? 1 Canoptek Spyder is 1 Canoptek Spyder. What isn't 1 Canoptek Spyder? A unit of 2 Canoptek Spyders.
Explain, if the formation allows you to take multiple Spyders, why did it not use the wording of the Judicator Battalion? Why would they change the wording between the two formations?
ashrog wrote: Ok, 9 pages is a lot to sift through, so sorry if this has been mentioned already.
Has anyone brought up the method used in 40k for denoting numbers of models/units?
0-1 means "up to one"
1+ means "at least one"
1 means "exactly one"
Based on the wording of the entry, we know that it is referring to individual models, not units. I think the fallacy is that the OP is reading the 1 (exactly 1) as a 1+ (at least 1).
