I realize that many people, both as individuals and TO's, have ruled that you may only take 1 spyder in the formation, as it clearly says "1 canoptek spyder" and not "1 unit" or "1 squad" or "1-3" etc. etc. on page 108 of the codex where it details all the rules and bonuses of the formation.
I also realize that many necron players 1)would like to bring up to a full unit of 3 in the formation, and 2) believe you can due to how it is implied throughout the codex.

I'm personally fine with the limit being 1 as this is already an incredibly powerful formation, and I've always believed that the claims of the "1 unit" supporters rather weak.

However, i was reading through the first half of the codex (for reasons), and pages 30-35 detail some of the necron formations and the fluff behind them.
Specifically, on page 34, is a box that states the force organization of canoptek swarms as " 1 UNIT of canoptek spyders", "1 unit of canoptek scarabs", and "1 unit of canoptek wraiths"

It specifically states unit. Which is 1-3. In the massive amount of debates about this issue I have never seen anyone bring this point up in any way.

Is there something really obvious that I'm missing or has everyone else simply missed this page of the codex?

That's great for the Canoptek Swarm, but what does it have to do with a Canoptek Harvest?

No, it has been brought up as "the intention" of the developers.

But it is just artwork and not the data sheet of the Formation.

More than likely, when the Harvest Formation was first created, it was intended to be a unit of Spyders, but was changed to 1 Spyder between artwork and final printing of the book.

Just as likely, the lack of calling for a unit is a typo and just needs to be errata'd to reflect the intention. But GW would have to start releasing Erratas again, and Campaign: Baal needs to have the Conclave of the Burning One addressed as a higher priority.

Both sides of the argument can be found HERE. As there is no new information, there's not really a reason to go through this again.

Charistoph wrote:
Just as likely, the lack of calling for a unit is a typo and just needs to be errata'd to reflect the intention.

There's more than a few Formations which don't use the word 'unit', and each one is calls for exactly one model (one Canoptek Spyder, one Chronos, etc)instead of a unit which would allow multiple models. Its too regular and too consistent to be a typo.

It's the same thing MasterSlowPoke, the description on page 108 uses both terms equally

As far as the rules go . . .

1 canoptek spyder means [a unit of] 1 canoptek spyder


First, the formation rules make it clear that with formations we are dealing with 'groupings of units'

And, if you somehow want to claim that it is not a unit, then the rules actually break, since we lack rules for deploying or shooting at things that aren't units among scores of other things that would break.



So . . . .If '1 canoptek spyder' is not 'a unit of canoptek spyders with 1 canoptek spyder' then what is it? If you claim its a model then find rules for shooting at models.

well I've changed my personal opinion, the codex does say "1 unit", regardless of if this is a typo or not to say 1 unit on a page in the codex that should be artwork (or not)

It's simply too bad that this will not be addressed by GW anytime soon

Just one model. And no, it's not fun to bring this up again. The search tool has a lot of threads on it.

Is the canoptek spider unit allowed to take multiple conoptek spydee models? Or is the unit 1 spider?

If the model and unit share a name, but there can be multiple models in the unit; then it is 1 unit(it does not have to say unit in the formation, the formation is already talking about the units and upgrades to the unit are allowed unless restricted).

If the unit is only ever 1 spider model, then so is the formation.

I only bring this up because i have never found anything addressing this page in the codex, i never intended or really wanted the same discussions that are already everywhere else where everyone argues the same points endlessly. perhaps i should have mentioned that in the first place

The datasheet says the following:

FORMATION

1 Canoptek Spyder
1 unit of Canoptek Wraiths
1 unit of Canoptek Scarabs

There's a reason they stated '1 Canoptek Spyder' instead of '1 unit of Canoptek Spyders'. That's because the formation only allows a single spyder and not 1-3 spyders.

 Vector Strike wrote:
Just one model. And no, it's not fun to bring this up again. The search tool has a lot of threads on it.

"one model" breaks the rules.

Leaving aside for the moment that the formation rules explicitly make it to be a unit . . .

We don't have rules for deploying models, shooting at models, etc. The rules require units.

If you say it's a '1 canoptek spyder [model]' and not '[a unit of canoptek spyders with] 1 canoptek spyder', you need to address that the rules don't allow for free hanging models.

Everything has to be in a unit. So what unit does the 1 canoptek spyder belong to?

Is there anything saying that a specific page of the codex trumps another page in case of conflict? I'm looking for a specific rule here, or anything that has been officially stated or released by GW.

Because while i agree that page 108 would probably have more support for it than 34, i dont believe we can ignore that there is a place in the codex that states you may take a unit. especially when everyone disagrees about it in the first place.
The only rule I know of that even remotely applies to this is the one that states that the codex trumps the BRB, and it doesnt really apply

 Ghaz wrote:
The datasheet says the following:

FORMATION

1 Canoptek Spyder
1 unit of Canoptek Wraiths
1 unit of Canoptek Scarabs

There's a reason they stated '1 Canoptek Spyder' instead of '1 unit of Canoptek Spyders'. That's because the formation only allows a single spyder and not 1-3 spyders.

This is a codex, not an episode of Blues Clues. If there is a restriction, the restriction would have been stated in the appropriate place where restrictions are stated.

You are guessing at intent here and not working from an explicit rule.

farshot9 wrote:
Is there anything saying that a specific page of the codex trumps another page in case of conflict? I'm looking for a specific rule here, or anything that has been officially stated or released by GW.

Because while i agree that page 108 would probably have more support for it than 34, i dont believe we can ignore that there is a place in the codex that states you may take a unit. especially when everyone disagrees about it in the first place.
The only rule I know of that even remotely applies to this is the one that states that the codex trumps the BRB, and it doesnt really apply

Pictures and artwork =/= rules. Do you have an actual, written rule that says "1 unit of Canoptek Spyders" or just artwork?

 Ghaz wrote:

farshot9 wrote:
Is there anything saying that a specific page of the codex trumps another page in case of conflict? I'm looking for a specific rule here, or anything that has been officially stated or released by GW.

Because while i agree that page 108 would probably have more support for it than 34, i dont believe we can ignore that there is a place in the codex that states you may take a unit. especially when everyone disagrees about it in the first place.
The only rule I know of that even remotely applies to this is the one that states that the codex trumps the BRB, and it doesnt really apply

Pictures and artwork =/= rules. Do you have an actual, written rule that says "1 unit of Canoptek Spyders" or just artwork?

Ghaz, if it is not a unit then what is it?

I would not personally qualify it as artwork, it seems to be more of a table to me which suggests(again, to me) that this is a rule.
however if there is something saying(not personal opinion) that this does count as artwork or that the dataslate takes precedent over anything else than i would definitely agree with you.
As is though I would consider this to be just as relevant to the rules

farshot9 wrote:
I would not personally qualify it as artwork, it seems to be more of a table to me which suggests(again, to me) that this is a rule.
however if there is something saying(not personal opinion) that this does count as artwork or that the dataslate takes precedent over anything else than i would definitely agree with you.
As is though I would consider this to be just as relevant to the rules

'Unit' does not have to be stated. The formation rules make the '1 canoptek spyder' into '[a unit of canoptek spyders with] 1 canoptek spyder'



Also, if someone feels 1 canoptek spyder is not a unit, then please tell us what it is and then explain how it works with all the rules that require units?

Can you provide an actual rule for that col_impact?
simply because i need to be able to defend myself if i ever choose to field this unit, and i'm to lazy to look it up myself

farshot9 wrote:
Can you provide an actual rule for that col_impact?
simply because i need to be able to defend myself if i ever choose to field this unit, and i'm to lazy to look it up myself

Added to my post above.

If it's not a unit, it cannot shoot or be shot at for instance. Literally, all the rules in the BRB work with units.

Well that works for me. Thanks!

How the hell is this even still an arguement? That is pretty conclusive



wait i figured it out, codex trumps BRB, as long as it says 1 spyder it trumps the BRB that says they are considered a unit

 Ghaz wrote:
Both sides of the argument can be found HERE. As there is no new information, there's not really a reason to go through this again.

Charistoph wrote:
Just as likely, the lack of calling for a unit is a typo and just needs to be errata'd to reflect the intention.

There's more than a few Formations which don't use the word 'unit', and each one is calls for exactly one model (one Canoptek Spyder, one Chronos, etc)instead of a unit which would allow multiple models. Its too regular and too consistent to be a typo.

But those can't have multiple models. That's different. It says "none" in the restriction section and whenever there is a restriction it is stated there


Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:

farshot9 wrote:
I would not personally qualify it as artwork, it seems to be more of a table to me which suggests(again, to me) that this is a rule.
however if there is something saying(not personal opinion) that this does count as artwork or that the dataslate takes precedent over anything else than i would definitely agree with you.
As is though I would consider this to be just as relevant to the rules

'Unit' does not have to be stated. The formation rules make the '1 canoptek spyder' into '[a unit of canoptek spyders with] 1 canoptek spyder'

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.

Also, if someone feels 1 canoptek spyder is not a unit, then please tell us what it is and then explain how it works with all the rules that require units?

Now when you think about this along with what I said about the RESTRICTIONS section which is obviously there for a fething reason you all the sudden see the truth


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vector Strike wrote:
Just one model. And no, it's not fun to bring this up again. The search tool has a lot of threads on it.

I'm sorry sir but until it says 1 model in my restrictions section then I do believe you're projecting what you want not what is


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:

farshot9 wrote:
Is there anything saying that a specific page of the codex trumps another page in case of conflict? I'm looking for a specific rule here, or anything that has been officially stated or released by GW.

Because while i agree that page 108 would probably have more support for it than 34, i dont believe we can ignore that there is a place in the codex that states you may take a unit. especially when everyone disagrees about it in the first place.
The only rule I know of that even remotely applies to this is the one that states that the codex trumps the BRB, and it doesnt really apply

Pictures and artwork =/= rules. Do you have an actual, written rule that says "1 unit of Canoptek Spyders" or just artwork?

NO BUT WE HAVE A RESTICTIONS SECTION THAT SAYS NONE. END OF STORY. ZERO RESTRICTIONS ON WHAT CAN BE DONE WITH THE DATASHEETS PRESENTED TO US.

Then why does the Destroyer formation say "1 unit of Heavy Destroyers" when That unit also starts at 1 and can be upgraded to 3 just like the Spyder?

Which brings me back to my original point

If this
"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."
is in the BRB it can technically be trumped by the codex that specifies "1 Spyder"

unless the codex specifies "1 unit"
which it does.
on page 34

I don't see what that has to do with the formation stating "1 Canoptyk Spyder"

Because on a different page the formation states "1 Unit"
Hence the entire reason for the post
Unless you are talking about the formation rule, which says that formations consist of units

Where is that? I don't have a physical copy of the book so telling me the page number isn't useful

 CrownAxe wrote:
Then why does the Destroyer formation say "1 unit of Heavy Destroyers" when That unit also starts at 1 and can be upgraded to 3 just like the Spyder?

becaus taking one is not an option. The default option for the formation is 3. The default option for the spyder is 1 spyder for the formation. I could be wrong but my brain will not allow me to see it at the moment

jakejackjake wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
Then why does the Destroyer formation say "1 unit of Heavy Destroyers" when That unit also starts at 1 and can be upgraded to 3 just like the Spyder?

becaus taking one is not an option. The default option for the formation is 3. The default option for the spyder is 1 spyder for the formation

The restriction only applies to Destroyers, not Heavy Destroyers

The front half of the book has several pages that go over fluff of the various models and formations. several of the formations pages include charts detailing what is included in each formation. the page for the canoptek swarm includes a chart that specifies "1 unit of canoptek spyders"

yes it says canoptek swarm and not harvest but the description of the harvest uses both terms equally

farshot9 wrote:
The front half of the book has several pages that go over fluff of the various models and formations. several of the formations pages include charts detailing what is included in each formation. the page for the canoptek swarm includes a chart that specifies "1 unit of canoptek spyders"

yes it says canoptek swarm and not harvest but the description of the harvest uses both terms equally

Not only is it the wrong name, but fluff isn't a rules source.

Because they wrote 0-1 because the unit is non essential

To be honest I believe they intended it to be 1 spyyder. Not unit but they suck at English and left it up to interpretation which is great for an author but about the dumbest thing possible for a game designer. The people who write for GW are so bad at what I call "word precision" that it has to be intentional

jakejackjake wrote:
Because they wrote 0-1 because the unit is non essential

Why doesn't being non-essential mandate that it is written as "0-1 units of Heavy Destroyers"?

It could has just as easily be written as "0-1 Heavy Destroyer" and be a non-essential unit of a single Heavy Destroyer.

The "units" part is added since it has the option of being a unit of 1-3 Heavy Destroyers (since it isn't under the formation's restriciton since they aren't Destroyers)

Where else can you find reference to the canoptek swarm Crownaxe? Other than the description of the Canoptek Harvest that refers to the harvest as the swarm and vice versa.
I'm also not convinced that the chart I'm referring to is solely fluff. but i have nothing saying it is or isn't

farshot9 wrote:
Where else can you find reference to the canoptek swarm Crownaxe? Other than the description of the Canoptek Harvest that refers to the harvest as the swarm and vice versa.
I'm also not convinced that the chart I'm referring to is solely fluff. but i have nothing saying it is or isn't

It's not a data slate, and it not in the appendix (which is where all non data slate rules are for 7ed codexs) ergo its not a rules source.

If it's not a 'unit of 1 spyder' then the game breaks.

You can't shoot at something unless it's a unit.

Again, I ask if 1 canoptek spyder does not refer to a unit then what does it refer to?

It cannot refer to just a model. The game does not allow plain models to shoot or be shot at . . . the game require the spyder to be in a unit. AND the formation rules make it into a unit. The formation specifies that it deals with 'a grouping of units.'

So the fact that the Living Tomb formation and Annihilation Nexus formation says "1 Obelisk" or "1 Doomsday Ark" mean that the game breaks when using those formations too, right?

 CrownAxe wrote:
So the fact that the Living Tomb formation and Annihilation Nexus formation says "1 Obelisk" or "1 Doomsday Ark" mean that the game breaks when using those formations too, right?

Nothing breaks. The formation rules themselves specify each separately delineated entity is a unit. In fact there is no other way of treating it except as a unit. If someone feels otherwise please offer a fully delineated alternate scenario.

You simply cannot shoot at plain models. So any line of argumentation that doesn't treat 1 canoptek spyder as a 'unit' will not work.

And since the 1 canoptek spyder is a unit in itself we can add spyders to it since the ability to do just that is on the army list entry. No rule stops the adding of 1-2 spyders to the unit of 1 spyder.

Crown axe can you point me towards something that says rules must be drawn from dataslates and appendices? As opposed to simply the codex and the BRB

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
So the fact that the Living Tomb formation and Annihilation Nexus formation says "1 Obelisk" or "1 Doomsday Ark" mean that the game breaks when using those formations too, right?

Nothing breaks. The formation rules themselves specify each separately delineated entity is a unit.

So why does "1 Canoptyk Spyder" break the game then?

And since the 1 canoptek spyder is a unit in itself we can add spyders to it. No rule stops that.

Other then the formation saying you can only bring 1 Canoptyk Spyder that is

farshot9 wrote:Crown axe can you point me towards something that says rules must be drawn from dataslates and appendices? As opposed to simply the codex and the BRB

The codex entries explaining "Dataslates" and "Appendix" tell you that that is where the rules for the codex are found.

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
So the fact that the Living Tomb formation and Annihilation Nexus formation says "1 Obelisk" or "1 Doomsday Ark" mean that the game breaks when using those formations too, right?

Nothing breaks. The formation rules themselves specify each separately delineated entity is a unit.

So why does "1 Canoptyk Spyder" break the game then?

And since the 1 canoptek spyder is a unit in itself we can add spyders to it. No rule stops that.

Other then the formation saying you can only bring 1 Canoptyk Spyder that is

farshot9 wrote:Crown axe can you point me towards something that says rules must be drawn from dataslates and appendices? As opposed to simply the codex and the BRB

The codex entries explaining "Dataslates" and "Appendix" tell you that that is where the rules for the codex are found.

Explain how you shoot at the spyder if it is not a unit.

col_impact wrote:


Explain how you shoot at the spyder if it is not a unit.

It doesn't cease to be a unit. For the same reason "1 Doomsday Ark" in the Annihilation Nexus formation doesn't cease to be a unit.

 CrownAxe wrote:
Other then the formation saying you can only bring 1 Canoptyk Spyder that is
.

Point to the rule that says that. It doesn't exist. In the section where it would say that it says 'no restrictions.'


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:


Explain how you shoot at the spyder if it is not a unit.

It doesn't cease to be a unit. For the same reason "1 Doomsday Ark" in the Annihilation Nexus formation doesn't cease to be a unit.

Ok, so you agree that it is a unit. Good. I use the Army List Entry and add additional spyders to the unit. Done.

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
Other then the formation saying you can only bring 1 Canoptyk Spyder that is
.

Point to the rule that says that. It doesn't exist.

Are you serious? The formation says "1 Canoptyk Spyder". That is literally the one line everyone is arguing over.

This is why I ignored you in the first place. You make up fake claims to try and desperately prove your arguments. You are making up that the rule that "1 Canoptyk Spyder" doesn't exist.

Just like you are making up that saying "1 Canoptyk Spyder" means it is no longer a unit and breaks the game (which I have proved you wrong on)

As noted in the first thread on this topic (why this again?) more than one Spyder breaks the special rules of the Formation as Adaptive Subroutines refers to "the Spyder". If you have more than 1 Spyder, which is "the Spyder"? We have no rules to tell us how to determine which is "the Spyder".
Answer: You can't. Formation breaks.

And before you say "then be in range of all Spyders to be sure", what happens when a Spyder dies? was it "the Spyder"? We can't know, as we couldn't determine which was "the Spyder". And because one Spyder is dead, you can't be within range of all the Spyders to be sure.

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
Other then the formation saying you can only bring 1 Canoptyk Spyder that is
.

Point to the rule that says that. It doesn't exist.

Are you serious? The formation says "1 Canoptyk Spyder". That is literally the one line everyone is arguing over.

This is why I ignored you in the first place. You make up fake claims to try and desperately prove your arguments. You are making up that the rule that "1 Canoptyk Spyder" doesn't exist.

Just like you are making up that saying "1 Canoptyk Spyder" means it is no longer a unit and breaks the game (which I have proved you wrong on)

Huh? I have argued that 1 canoptek spyder is a unit, because the formation rules clarify that it is a unit. And I have pointed out that any line of thinking that thinks it is not a unit is flawed, since the game does not deal in models, it deals in units.

Since it is a unit of 1 canoptek spyder I simply add additional spyders to the unit. There is no rule that says 'it can only be 1 spyder'.

And then break Adaptive Subroutines.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
And then break Adaptive Subroutines.

Your argument is a silly one that I will only address once. You can simply mark the spyder that is counting as the one having Adaptive Subroutines like you would anything else in the game. Duh.

Ok... why do you get to choose which Spyder is "the Spyder"? Cite rules and page number.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Ok... why do you get to choose which Spyder is "the Spyder"? Cite rules and page number.

Yawn.

So no rules allow you to choose "the Spyder"?

In that case you can't choose and my point still stands, Adaptive Subroutines is broken.

So if the rule said "you can take 3 Canoptek Spiders" would that mean you could take 3 units of spiders or just 1 unit of 3?

Can you take Canoptek Spiders in groups of 1-3? Can you take a single spider in a unit?

If yes, then it's clear that the formation is limiting you to a single unit of 1 spider.

If no, then obviously this is a typo and requires houseruling until an amendment can be made.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
So no rules allow you to choose "the Spyder"?

In that case you can't choose and my point still stands, Adaptive Subroutines is broken.

Only for you. I doubt anyone else is bothering following you argument. All anyone needs to do is track one of the spyders with a token or something. Duh.

col_impact wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
So no rules allow you to choose "the Spyder"?

In that case you can't choose and my point still stands, Adaptive Subroutines is broken.

Only for you. I doubt anyone else is bothering following you argument. All anyone needs to do is track one of the spyders with a token or something. Duh.

Which you don't have permission to do unless you can cite a rules source.

Ok, track which Spyder?

Seriously if you need to make up rules to make 2/3 Spyders NOT break Adaptive Subroutines then it isn't RAW.

When you show me a rule that allows you to choose a Spyder, or that otherwise tells us which Spyder is "the Spyder" I'll concede you are right.

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
So no rules allow you to choose "the Spyder"?

In that case you can't choose and my point still stands, Adaptive Subroutines is broken.

Only for you. I doubt anyone else is bothering following you argument. All anyone needs to do is track one of the spyders with a token or something. Duh.

Which you don't have permission to do unless you can cite a rules source.

Cite the rules that allow you to track wounds with a die.

Of course you could always keep track of "the spyder" in your head just like one could keep track of all wounds in your head. No rule explicitly lays out how to bookkeep things like wounds.

The difference is that we know which model has lost wounds, and how many wounds they've taken.

How do we know which is "the Spyder" to track?

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
The difference is that we know which model has lost wounds, and how many wounds they've taken.

How do we know which is "the Spyder" to track?

On the Army Entry List you have the option to add additional spyders (up to 2). So it would obviously be the spyder you selected this option with, just as if you had selected any other option.

Obvious by what rule? What rule says the initial Spyder is "the Spyder"?

Nope they all become "one of the spyders" and all confer the rule. I already said they suck at english

so "the Spyder" is now "the Spyders"?

That's not RAW.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Obvious by what rule? What rule says the initial Spyder is "the Spyder"?

I worked it out for you step by step. If you cannot follow simple logic then you cannot follow simple logic.

What you lack is a rule that restricts me from selecting the option to add additional spyders to the 1 canoptek spyder (which is a unit) in the Army List Entry.

The rules grant me clear and unequivocal permission to add spyders to a unit of spyders (up to a total count of 3 spyders).

What you lack is a rule that says which Spyder is "the Spyder". You've failed to state a rule that tells us.

It's logical that it's the first Spyder, yes, but without rules telling us as such, that isn't the case. GW rules are anything but logical.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
What you lack is a rule that says which Spyder is "the Spyder". You've failed to state a rule that tells us.

It's logical that it's the first Spyder, yes, but without rules telling us as such, that isn't the case. GW rules are anything but logical.

So what keeps me from selecting the option to add additional spyders exactly? Be specific and cite rules.

That option is on there just like an option to add a dedicated transport is on the Army Entry List for warriors (and we are free to add Ghost Arks in the Reclamation Legion even though its not delineated explicitly on the formation itself).

GW is granting me permission to add spyders in the Army Entry List.

Nothing stops you. I never said anything did. I've held the same stance in this thread as I did in the first.

What I said was adding more break Adaptive Subroutines. Breaking it doesn't stop you, but it makes the formation unplayable.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Nothing stops you. I never said anything did. I've held the same stance in this thread as I did in the first.

What I said was adding more break Adaptive Subroutines. Breaking it doesn't stop you, but it makes the formation unplayable.

Doesn't beak. One spyder is the one you selected the option to add additional spyders. Those additional spyders don't have adaptive subroutines.

Every model in the Formation has Adaptive Subroutines. That's how Formation rules work. So yes, it DOES break.

So again, what rule defines which Spyder is "the Spyder".

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
so "the Spyder" is now "the Spyders"?

That's not RAW.

No, but that'd be sweet. I only ever take one, but two would be better

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Every model in the Formation has Adaptive Subroutines. That's how Formation rules work. So yes, it DOES break.

So again, what rule defines which Spyder is "the Spyder".

As stated, the spyder you select the options to add additional spyders with. Simple.

The additional spyders benefit from the effects of the rule.

Again, what rules say it's the initial Spyder?

If there are none it isn't RAW, it's how you would play it. That's fine and all, just don't claim it's RAW or how it's meant it's be played.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Again, what rules say it's the initial Spyder?

If there are none it isn't RAW, it's how you would play it. That's fine and all, just don't claim it's RAW or how it's meant it's be played.

You are making up a problem where none exists.

No I'm not. RAW the Formation breaks which is a problem.

You are making up a solution to a problem. That's fine, as I'll come up with my own solution, which is "can't take more than 1 Spyder".

Both solutions work, neither are RAW.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
No I'm not. RAW the Formation breaks which is a problem.

You are making up a solution to a problem. That's fine, as I'll come up with my own solution, which is "can't take more than 1 Spyder".

Both solutions work, neither are RAW.

I am not making up a solution. A solution presents itself when you work through things step by step.

And with no rules supporting your solution, you are making it up.

No rules say which is "the Spyder" when there are multiple Spyders in the Formation. Therefore your solution isn't supported by the rules meaning it's made up, a house rule if you prefer.

Similarly, my solution (can't take more than 1 Spyder) also isn't supported by rules and is also a house rule.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
And with no rules supporting your solution, you are making it up.

No rules say which is "the Spyder" when there are multiple Spyders in the Formation. Therefore your solution isn't supported by the rules meaning it's made up, a house rule if you prefer.

Similarly, my solution (can't take more than 1 Spyder) also isn't supported by rules and is also a house rule.

I am not making it up. Working step-by-step, with the rules that are provided, a solution presents itself.

Done before with no new arguments.

Mod lock please.

col_impact wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
And with no rules supporting your solution, you are making it up.

No rules say which is "the Spyder" when there are multiple Spyders in the Formation. Therefore your solution isn't supported by the rules meaning it's made up, a house rule if you prefer.

Similarly, my solution (can't take more than 1 Spyder) also isn't supported by rules and is also a house rule.

I am not making it up. Working step-by-step, with the rules that are provided, a solution presents itself.

And again, what rule tells us which Spyder is "the Spyder"? You've constantly failed to show a rule that does this.
So please, stop saying your house rule is RAW. It's not.

I have a "new" question though. For my own thoughts on this.

Do we have precedence for a Formation selecting a number of models from a Unit?

Formation:
1 Unit of Tactical marines
1 Land Speeder

or:
1 Unit of Crisis Suits
1 Broadside

Do such formations exist?
(Where single models are selected from Units of"multiples") ?

Two examples from the top of my head:
- Dark Artisan (Specifies 1 Talos and 1 Cronos, no restrictions)
- Scarlet Epicureans (Specifies 1 Cronos, again no restriction)

Both are from the Haemonculus Covens supplement, and both Talos and Cronos are in units of 1-3.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Two examples from the top of my head:
- Dark Artisan (Specifies 1 Talos and 1 Cronos, no restrictions)
- Scarlet Epicureans (Specifies 1 Cronos, again no restriction)

Both are from the Haemonculus Covens supplement, and both Talos and Cronos are in units of 1-3.

I'd like to know if that is the only other book, or if it is a recurring theme across Codices?

Then the decision has to be made while looking at all of those formations. For consistency.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Two examples from the top of my head:
- Dark Artisan (Specifies 1 Talos and 1 Cronos, no restrictions)
- Scarlet Epicureans (Specifies 1 Cronos, again no restriction)

Both are from the Haemonculus Covens supplement, and both Talos and Cronos are in units of 1-3.

Had a look at both, and the only restriction there is intent:
-Other Formations say "1 Unit of Talos" against this "1 Talos"
-Pictures shows 1 Talos, 1 Chronos.

Slightly using col_impact's idea here, but Dark Artisan even says: "All Units in this Formation must be fielded..." therefore defining the Talos and Chronos as "units". Units of 1 Chronos? Where are the rules for those? Is it the Unit that has an option of + 2 Chronos? And is there a restriction in that Formation about Units' options?

As such, I would find it weird, but would probably accept Dark Artisan = 1 Haemonculus + 3 Chronos + 3 Talos into 1 Unit as RaW.

I am quite undecided in this debate.

I also disagree with Formations being able to select their transport options....... but would accept both on the same playing field.

It's in the new Space Marine Codex as well.

Formations like the Centurion Siege Breaker Cohort that says "1 unit of Ironclad Dreadnaughts" and the Demi Company says "0-1 units of Dreadnoughts, Ironclad Dreadnoughts, or Venerable Dreadnoughts".

In the Strike Force Ultra formation it says "1 Venerable Dreadnaught".

Lots of the Dataslate formations for nids do very similar things.

The living artillery node specifies 3 biovore. Not 1 biovore brood with 3 biovore in it.

Not 3 units of Biovore. I cannot bring 3-9 biovore. I have to, every time, bring 3.

Because it does not specify that they are in a unit, I can bring them as 3 separate units of 1 biovore and move/shoot them independently. Or a unit of 2 and 1. Or a unit of 3. The unit make up doesn't matter. The formation says 3 biovore.

If the formation says 1 spyder, then a single unit of 1 spyder is what you get.

BlackSwanDelta wrote:
In the Strike Force Ultra formation it says "1 Venerable Dreadnaught".

Yeah, but I can still reach the same conclusion on that one:

It clearly says 1 Venerable , which you'd think and easily assume is only "1".

But it then references "1 Venerable Dreadnought (pg145)". Does pg 145 cover a unit of "Venerable Dreadnaught = 1"?
And throughout the Formation calls "All Units".

I know the intent is very clear, but in a RaW discussion they need more than what is given.

Yep RAW you can take more than one.
Clearly not RAI, and in some cases can break the Formation's special rules, but nothing stops you.

That said, with the intent being so clear I doubt anyone would let someone increase the unit's size if the Formation says "1 X" instead of "1 unit of X"

Lance845 wrote:
Lots of the Dataslate formations for nids do very similar things.

The living artillery node specifies 3 biovore. Not 1 biovore brood with 3 biovore in it.

Not 3 units of Biovore. I cannot bring 3-9 biovore. I have to, every time, bring 3.

Because it does not specify that they are in a unit, I can bring them as 3 separate units of 1 biovore and move/shoot them independently. Or a unit of 2 and 1. Or a unit of 3. The unit make up doesn't matter. The formation says 3 biovore.

If the formation says 1 spyder, then a single unit of 1 spyder is what you get.

I did remember a lengthy and quite conclusive debate on the 3 Biovores... Which is why i'm inclined to agree with the "1 Spyder limit", but also point me in the "no transport options" direction.

You get the Units as written on the Formation.
If I had a Formation of:
"1 Venerable Dreadnought"
I don't see why you could add 2 more Dreadnoughts or a Drop Pod, even if Restrictions say "None".....

You asked for examples, I'm just giving them.

All of the dreads say "1 (type) dreadnaught" under "Unit Composition" in the stat line.

Under options, they all say may include up to two additional (type) Dreadnaughts ........... X pts/model

If it works as a specific number, that also means Guardian and Storm hosts from the Craftworlds can only take one Vaul's Wrath Support Battery, since they say "1 Vaul's Wrath Support Battery" and not "1 unit of Vaul's Wrath Support Battery" I guess.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Yep RAW you can take more than one.
Clearly not RAI, and in some cases can break the Formation's special rules, but nothing stops you.

That said, with the intent being so clear I doubt anyone would let someone increase the unit's size if the Formation says "1 X" instead of "1 unit of X"

Just as i doubt anyone would let someone add 5 Dedicated transports to a Formation that clearly says "5 of X Units".

But somehow that is legal in RaW too.... So which side are we going to pitch for?
Modification of a Formation list, or no modification?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BlackSwanDelta wrote:
If it works as a specific number, that also means Guardian and Storm hosts from the Craftworlds can only take one Vaul's Wrath Support Battery, since they say "1 Vaul's Wrath Support Battery" and not "1 unit of Vaul's Wrath Support Battery" I guess.

Exactly. There's a reason why i'm still "utterly undecided" on this entire Debate..... Until a Rule somewhere make it clear.

Have we been seeing Guardian and Storm hosts with more than "2 Guardians + 1 Support Weapon" in that slot?

For consistency if it's "obviously 1 Spyder" it is then "obviously 1 Support Weapon".

Both the Guardian Stormhost and Guardian Battlehost formations call for:

1 unit of War Walkers
1 Vaul's Wrath Support battery

The ALE for WW says, like the dreadnoughts, Unit Composition 1 WW and under Options May include up to two additional War Walkers ..... x pts/model
The ALE for VWSB says, like the dreadnoughts, Unit Composition 1 VWSB and under Options May include up to two additional VWSB .... x pts/model

*shrug* Dunno.

I mean, from the new Space Marine codex it's clear that GW intend for you to be able to buy dedicated transports as part of Formations, even if they are listed as units that are part of the Formation (Gladius Strike Force -> Company Support: If a Gladius Strike Force includes 2 Battle Demi-companies, one including a Captain and the other including a Chaplain, then they form a Battle Company. Any unit from the Battle Company that has the option to take a Rhino, Razorback or Drop Pod as a Dedicated Transport may take one at no points cost (though they must pay for any additional upgrades and options as normal))

So it seems GW intends for you to be able to purchase DTs, while also intending you to not be able to purchase additional models in a unit if they don't say "unit of X".

But then there are other cases like how the new SM codex has many similar cases for units that don't start as 1 strong, like Tactical Squads (Demi-company specifies 3 Tactical Squads). This could simply be because "3 units of Tactical Squads" doesn't make sense as you can't have a units consisting of multiple Tactical Squads, only of a Space Marine Sergeant/Veteran Sergeant and a few Space Marines, or be because they don't intend for you to take more than the base number of Marines. It's unclear.

Oh yeah, and my favorite part (if it's true)

Seer Council and Windrider Host is "1 Warlock Conclave", not "1 unit of Warlock Conclave", the Guardian Stormhost and Battle Hosts are both "0-1 Warlock Conclave" and not "0-1 units of Warlock Conclave".

So back to my original point, again, what is stopping me from simply saying that the codex does say 1 unit of spyders on another page and this allows me to bring a full unit of 3 spyders, even if I have to nominate one to be the spyder with adaptive sub-routines
Someone mentioned that you must use the dataslates and appendices meaning you would be unable to refer to this chart but I have been unable to find any rules that say this.

What other page?

Admittedly only using the Digital Codex but it specifically states

1 CANOPTEK SPYDER

In the formation, it isnt in any way ambiguous, its a single spyder, not a unit.

Page 34 of the codex has a chart/table that outlines the formation. At the top of this table is the line "1 unti of canoptek spyders"
I'm wondering if anything says that this isnt applicable because the dataslate says quite clearly "1 spyder" or if i can just open to this page of the codex and say "right here it says 1 unit, and a unit is 1-3"

Ah, see now thats on page 170ish of my digital codex, which again states 1 spyder. I think the issue here is whether you genuinely believe it to be a unit and thus this becomes a RaW debate or if you intend to game your opponent on what could potentially be construed as a typo.

The rules within the formatiion specifically refer to THE spyder in this formation, again singular

odd that the digital copy would say something different to the physical book itself.
I dont play the formation that much anymore so I'll wait until something settles it definitively

farshot9 wrote:
So back to my original point, again, what is stopping me from simply saying that the codex does say 1 unit of spyders on another page and this allows me to bring a full unit of 3 spyders, even if I have to nominate one to be the spyder with adaptive sub-routines
Someone mentioned that you must use the dataslates and appendices meaning you would be unable to refer to this chart but I have been unable to find any rules that say this.

Read the entry for datasheets at the beginning of the section. It specifies that all the rules are in the datasheet. It does not state to reference other sections.

Now, where does it state to use that one fluff page as a rule reference?

farshot9 wrote:
odd that the digital copy would say something different to the physical book itself.
I dont play the formation that much anymore so I'll wait until something settles it definitively

It doesn't. You are looking at different pages is all. One is fluff about the canoptek groups (hence swarms). One is the datasheet that lists the rules.

I'm still not really convinced. but if I ever feel like running more than 1 Spyder I'll just run multiple Harvest formations. I can't see any real downsides to that

 CrownAxe wrote:

jakejackjake wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
Then why does the Destroyer formation say "1 unit of Heavy Destroyers" when That unit also starts at 1 and can be upgraded to 3 just like the Spyder?

becaus taking one is not an option. The default option for the formation is 3. The default option for the spyder is 1 spyder for the formation

The restriction only applies to Destroyers, not Heavy Destroyers

You realize reading it that way means that you can not have three units of destroyers where one is upgraded to a heavy., because then there would only be 2 destroyers. Is that how people have been playing it? I really am not sure. Definitely seen some lists with 1 upgraded per squad

BlackSwanDelta wrote:
Oh yeah, and my favorite part (if it's true)

Seer Council and Windrider Host is "1 Warlock Conclave", not "1 unit of Warlock Conclave", the Guardian Stormhost and Battle Hosts are both "0-1 Warlock Conclave" and not "0-1 units of Warlock Conclave".

Exactly. I don't think we can have a go at Necron Spyders if everyone is fielding a Unit of Warlock Conclave in their Eldar detachment.

I'm not saying anyone is wrong.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
*shrug* Dunno.

(much confusion)

It's unclear.

Most agreed

The above is the main reason why i'm quite sure this debate will never get solved... I argued last debate that one could take 3 Spyders only because it seemed the entire consensus was that you could not.
If everyone now decided 3 Spyders was possible, i'd disagree and keep arguing for the reasons why. All this out of the fact that both "RaW Answers" just seem wrong to me and i'd leave it at the classic "Talk about it with your opponent". I don't think either side can be called with certainty (yet) .

Regarding Eldar.
Warlock Conclave is composed of 1 Warlock, with the option to add more. Warlock is the model, Warlock Conclave is the unit.

Might be a similar issue with the Support Battery, can't recall if the individual components are named the same as the unit.

A single spyder is a unit.

A unit in terms of the rules, is any number of models that has to stay in unit cohesion, moves, shoots, and charges together. If you take a single spyder it is a unit of 1 spyder. Just like my exocrine is a single unit with a single model.

THAT being said, in terms of other parts of the wargear including transports and supporting models like say... tyrant guard with a hive tyrant.

I think you CAN take them, but unless they are part of the same UNIT they do not gain the bonuses.

Thus, if I bring a formation that includes a walkrant and I add in 3 Tyrant guard they are part of the HT unit and gain all the bonuses of the formation given to the -units-

If I were to bring a Tyrannocyte drop pod and put the HT in it, the drop pod is not part of the unit and thus not part of the formation and gains none of the benefits.

 Melcavuk wrote:
Ah, see now thats on page 170ish of my digital codex, which again states 1 spyder. I think the issue here is whether you genuinely believe it to be a unit and thus this becomes a RaW debate or if you intend to game your opponent on what could potentially be construed as a typo.

The rules within the formatiion specifically refer to THE spyder in this formation, again singular

Just to clear things up, i think it is the same in both printed and digital copy, and it looks like this:

Yes that one exactly

Ah, my bad the fluff section, i was looking in the datasheets.

 Melcavuk wrote:
Ah, my bad the fluff section, i was looking in the datasheets.

It is in the fluff section, and everyone waves it away, but why were they so specific in a "fluff picture"?

They used the Rules name for each Unit. They could have had fluff: "swarms of scarabs", "many Wraiths", etc. But they decided to be specific. It's always hand-waved away though

Because the formation is the sum of its datasheets, which are on pages marked datasheets in the digital codex, which in turn specify the exact contents and restrictions of those formations. In this case a single spyder

To be fair, its in the fluff section. That's all hand waved away anyway because none of it has any bearing on the actual game. Otherwise my units are "endless" according to basically every page in the fluff and thus should have no limit to how many I can bring

“Each Necron unit in this book has a datasheet. These detail either Army List Entries or Formations, providing all the rules information that you will need to use your models in your games of Warhammer 40,000.”

Excerpt From: Games Workshop Ltd. “Codex - Necrons.” Games Workshop Ltd, 2015-01-15. iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

Specific directions to use the datasheet, by the necron codex. 1 Spyder

 BlackTalos wrote:

 Melcavuk wrote:
Ah, my bad the fluff section, i was looking in the datasheets.

It is in the fluff section, and everyone waves it away, but why were they so specific in a "fluff picture"?

They used the Rules name for each Unit. They could have had fluff: "swarms of scarabs", "many Wraiths", etc. But they decided to be specific. It's always hand-waved away though

Because its easier to make a last minute change to the rule than it is to make a last minute change to the art, or to even realize that a change in a rule requires a change in the art. Just like the actual rule takes precedence over the summary when they differ so to does the actual rule take precedence over the artwork.

 Melcavuk wrote:

“Each Necron unit in this book has a datasheet. These detail either Army List Entries or Formations, providing all the rules information that you will need to use your models in your games of Warhammer 40,000.”

Excerpt From: Games Workshop Ltd. “Codex - Necrons.” Games Workshop Ltd, 2015-01-15. iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

Specific directions to use the datasheet, by the necron codex. 1 Spyder

no specific directions are in the "restriction" section

A single spyder is 'a unit of spyders comprised of 1 spyder'.

A single spyder cannot be fielded as anything but a unit of spyders.

If you think a single spyder is something different than a unit then explain how you shoot at whatever that something is.

Okay so now that we are in agreement that we have 'a unit of spyders comprised of 1 spyder' . . .

On the Army Entry List GW gives me permission to add additional spyders.

I add 2 spyders to the Canoptek Harvest formation because the rules allow me to.

What rule did I break?

Ghaz wrote:
Because its easier to make a last minute change to the rule than it is to make a last minute change to the art, or to even realize that a change in a rule requires a change in the art. Just like the actual rule takes precedence over the summary when they differ so to does the actual rule take precedence over the artwork.

And let's not forget that the title of that picture is Canoptek SWARM and not the Formation's title of Canoptek HARVEST. The Swarm is the title of the overall group, while the Harvest is the Formation we can use.

So, different name and fluff section and not a datasheet means that this means nothing.

jakejackjake wrote:no specific directions are in the "restriction" section

Correct, but the list itself specifies the limit, "1 Canoptek Spyder". That is a limit all on its own as much as 1 unit of Canoptek Wraiths.

An interesting example of an opposite of this is the Deathleaper's Assassin Brood Formation in the Leviathan series. In it, there are 3 Lictor Broods, listed much like the Warlock Conclave. But since the Brood can be expanded, the Restrictions list that each Brood must be limited to 1 in order to keep it. It would have been easier to just list each as 1 Lictor, but apparently there are different people writing these things and inconsistent as heck.

col_impact wrote:
What rule did I break?

Where you imply 1 = 2 or 1= 1+1.

Charistoph wrote:

Correct, but the list itself specifies the limit, "1 Canoptek Spyder". That is a limit all on its own as much as 1 unit of Canoptek Wraiths.

The list itself is not a limit. The Army List Entry allows me to add additional spyders to the unit of 1 spyder. Point to a rule or a restriction that I break when I add 2 additional spyders. The rules allow me to do just that. And you are imagining a limit or a restriction where there is none. The formation lists "no restrictions"

col_impact wrote:
The list itself is not a limit. The Army List Entry allows me to add additional spyders to the unit of 1 spyder. Point to a rule or a restriction that I break when I add 2 additional spyders. The rules allow me to do just that. And you are imagining a limit or a restriction where there is none. The formation lists "no restrictions"

So, the list isn't a limit? I can field 2 Canoptek Wraith units in the Formation?

That is what you are implying when you say that 1 Canoptek Spyder means you can add more Spyders to its unit.

The fact that the unit's datasheet would allow for more Spyders is largely irrelevant, because the List itself only allows for one actual Spyder at this time.

 Happyjew wrote:
Regarding Eldar.
Warlock Conclave is composed of 1 Warlock, with the option to add more. Warlock is the model, Warlock Conclave is the unit.

Might be a similar issue with the Support Battery, can't recall if the individual components are named the same as the unit.

Actually, I think this is a key point not just for the Eldar.

Army List Entries say they refer to units, not models (very first paragraph of "Preparing for Battle in the BRB, and in several places after that). I can't find a place where ALEs say reference models and not units.

Formations say the refer to Army List Entries or units, not models (under "Formations" in the BRB). Again, no place I can find where Formations references a model and not an ALE or unit.

The Data Sheet Description pages in the Codexes point 3 refer to the item at the top of the page as the Unit Name for the Army List Entry. Since The Army List Entry refers to units, then this is the name of the Army List Entry as well.

Unit composition is a separate entry at point 7 that lists the models that are in the unit.

Point 3 and point 7 are very commonly the same, but not always such as in the case of the "Warlock Conclave" and the "Vaul's Wrath Support Battery", which add "warlocks" and "support weapon" to the units as options.

So, the unit name and the model name are not the same thing, even if they commonly share a name.

So unless there is a further restriction, units that have options to take more models should be able to do so because the number next to the Army List Entry in a formation description is referring to Army List Entries which are a references to the number of units, and not the number of models that a unit can take unless there is a further restriction.

So, the "Strike Force Ultra" formation that lists "1 Venerable Dreadnought" is a reference to the ALE, which is the unit and not the model so it can add more dreadnoughts up the the maximum allowed for that ALE. Which is how the Eldar formations can take more "Warlock" models in a "Warlock Conclave" unit. And why the Canoptek Spysders unit can take more Canoptek Spyder models.

At least, that's what I'm reading.

If you want to get that literal, the datasheet in question is for Canoptek SpyderS, and not Canoptek Spyder. The initial composition of this datasheet is: "1 Canoptek Spyder", exactly the same as the Harvest Formation.

col_impact wrote:
A single spyder is 'a unit of spyders comprised of 1 spyder'.

A single spyder cannot be fielded as anything but a unit of spyders.

If you think a single spyder is something different than a unit then explain how you shoot at whatever that something is.

Okay so now that we are in agreement that we have 'a unit of spyders comprised of 1 spyder' . . .

On the Army Entry List GW gives me permission to add additional spyders.

I add 2 spyders to the Canoptek Harvest formation because the rules allow me to.

What rule did I break?

Because the datasheet for the formation does not tell you to bring 1 Spyder unit. Which would then allow you to boost said unit to the maximum the unit is allowed to bring. It tells you to bring 1 spyder.

Again, living artillery node.

1 exocrine

3 biovore

1 warrior brood.

The 3 biovore is the minimum/maximum number of biovore I can bring. The warrior brood starts with 3 warriors and I can increase the number of warriors if I wanted to. Why? Because the datasheet tells me to bring the unit, not a set number of the model.

Repeat in summary.

The datasheet for the formation tells you to bring a single spyder. That single spyder is a unit composed of a single model. No additional models can be added to that unit because the formation specifies a single model.

Charistoph wrote:
If you want to get that literal, the datasheet in question is for Canoptek SpyderS, and not Canoptek Spyder. The initial composition of this datasheet is: "1 Canoptek Spyder", exactly the same as the Harvest Formation.

If you can find how a formation can reference a model and not an ALE/unit, then it works. But under formations it says a formation is "a group of units", not a "group of units and models". It goes on to say that formations list is a list of Army List Entries; which again are named by the unit they contain and not the models.

If you can't, the formation is broken and unable to be fielded because you cannot fulfill the formations requirements to bring the named Army List Entry because of the extra "s" on the data sheet.

"Oops".

Lance845 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
A single spyder is 'a unit of spyders comprised of 1 spyder'.

A single spyder cannot be fielded as anything but a unit of spyders.

If you think a single spyder is something different than a unit then explain how you shoot at whatever that something is.

Okay so now that we are in agreement that we have 'a unit of spyders comprised of 1 spyder' . . .

On the Army Entry List GW gives me permission to add additional spyders.

I add 2 spyders to the Canoptek Harvest formation because the rules allow me to.

What rule did I break?

Because the datasheet for the formation does not tell you to bring 1 Spyder unit. Which would then allow you to boost said unit to the maximum the unit is allowed to bring. It tells you to bring 1 spyder.

Again, living artillery node.

1 exocrine

3 biovore

1 warrior brood.

The 3 biovore is the minimum/maximum number of biovore I can bring. The warrior brood starts with 3 warriors and I can increase the number of warriors if I wanted to. Why? Because the datasheet tells me to bring the unit, not a set number of the model.

Repeat in summary.

The datasheet for the formation tells you to bring a single spyder. That single spyder is a unit composed of a single model. No additional models can be added to that unit because the formation specifies a single model.

The Army Entry List gives me permission to add additional spyders and no where am I restricted from accessing that option. The formation has "no restrictions." What rule prevents me from accessing the option to add additional spyders. Cite page and paragraph please.

MODELS, UNITS, OR VEHICLES.

That right. Your formation lists the MODEL you can bring with the specification that it is 1. Not the Unit. The model.

Lance845 wrote:


The datasheet for the formation tells you to bring a single spyder. That single spyder is a unit composed of a single model. No additional models can be added to that unit because the formation specifies a single model.

You are literally making the rule in red up. Cite page and paragraph for this rule.

The Army Entry List for the Canoptek Spyder on the other hand has the option to add additional spyders so there is a rule in place for all to see for adding additional spyders.

col_impact wrote:

Spoiler:

A single spyder is 'a unit of spyders comprised of 1 spyder'.

A single spyder cannot be fielded as anything but a unit of spyders.

If you think a single spyder is something different than a unit then explain how you shoot at whatever that something is.

Okay so now that we are in agreement that we have 'a unit of spyders comprised of 1 spyder' . . .

On the Army Entry List GW gives me permission to add additional spyders.

I add 2 spyders to the Canoptek Harvest formation because the rules allow me to.

What rule did I break?

Adaptive Subroutines.

col_impact wrote:

Lance845 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
A single spyder is 'a unit of spyders comprised of 1 spyder'.

A single spyder cannot be fielded as anything but a unit of spyders.

If you think a single spyder is something different than a unit then explain how you shoot at whatever that something is.

Okay so now that we are in agreement that we have 'a unit of spyders comprised of 1 spyder' . . .

On the Army Entry List GW gives me permission to add additional spyders.

I add 2 spyders to the Canoptek Harvest formation because the rules allow me to.

What rule did I break?

Because the datasheet for the formation does not tell you to bring 1 Spyder unit. Which would then allow you to boost said unit to the maximum the unit is allowed to bring. It tells you to bring 1 spyder.

Again, living artillery node.

1 exocrine

3 biovore

1 warrior brood.

The 3 biovore is the minimum/maximum number of biovore I can bring. The warrior brood starts with 3 warriors and I can increase the number of warriors if I wanted to. Why? Because the datasheet tells me to bring the unit, not a set number of the model.

Repeat in summary.

The datasheet for the formation tells you to bring a single spyder. That single spyder is a unit composed of a single model. No additional models can be added to that unit because the formation specifies a single model.

The Army Entry List gives me permission to add additional spyders and no where am I restricted from accessing that option. The formation has "no restrictions." What rule prevents me from accessing the option to add additional spyders. Cite page and paragraph please.

pg 2. rising leviathan 2. When talking about how they write out formations.

Anything in the list entry that allows you to modify the model the formation is allowing you to bring. Sure. Go nuts. But you cannot bring more models. Because the formation does not tell you to bring the unit. It tells you to bring 1 spyder.

Same with my biovores. If it told me to bring 1 biovore brood with a minimum of 1 biovore then I could add 2 more. But it doesn't. It specifies the Model/s in my formation.

Lance845 wrote:


MODELS, UNITS, OR VEHICLES.

That right. Your formation lists the MODEL you can bring with the specification that it is 1. Not the Unit. The model.

The formation rules make it a unit. If it's not a unit, then you cannot shoot at it.

Also, the Army List Entry has rules for adding additional models. What rule restricts me from adding additional models?

col_impact wrote:

Lance845 wrote:


MODELS, UNITS, OR VEHICLES.

That right. Your formation lists the MODEL you can bring with the specification that it is 1. Not the Unit. The model.

The formation rules make it a unit. If it's not a unit, then you cannot shoot at it.

Also, the Army List Entry has rules for adding additional models. What rule restricts me from adding additional models?

Because it doesn't tell you to bring the unit.

Again. It tells you to bring 1 spyder. That the formation consists of 1 spyder. Yes. That spyder is a unit. But the formation does not include multiple spyders. It includes 1.

You can modify THAT spyder as per the rules. But you cannot add more.

Lance845 wrote:


MODELS, UNITS, OR VEHICLES.

That right. Your formation lists the MODEL you can bring with the specification that it is 1. Not the Unit. The model.

That's better, where is that?

BlackSwanDelta wrote:

Lance845 wrote:


MODELS, UNITS, OR VEHICLES.

That right. Your formation lists the MODEL you can bring with the specification that it is 1. Not the Unit. The model.

That's better, where is that?

pg 2 rising leviathan 2 dataslate.

Lance845 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Lance845 wrote:


MODELS, UNITS, OR VEHICLES.

That right. Your formation lists the MODEL you can bring with the specification that it is 1. Not the Unit. The model.

The formation rules make it a unit. If it's not a unit, then you cannot shoot at it.

Also, the Army List Entry has rules for adding additional models. What rule restricts me from adding additional models?

Because it doesn't tell you to bring the unit.

Again. It tells you to bring 1 spyder. That the formation consists of 1 spyder. Yes. That spyder is a unit. But the formation does not include multiple spyders. It includes 1.

You can modify THAT spyder as per the rules. But you cannot add more.

You are literally making the rule in red up. There is an option on the Army List Entry to add additional spyders. So I have clear and unequivocal permission to add additional spyders.

col_impact wrote:

Lance845 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Lance845 wrote:


MODELS, UNITS, OR VEHICLES.

That right. Your formation lists the MODEL you can bring with the specification that it is 1. Not the Unit. The model.

The formation rules make it a unit. If it's not a unit, then you cannot shoot at it.

Also, the Army List Entry has rules for adding additional models. What rule restricts me from adding additional models?

Because it doesn't tell you to bring the unit.

Again. It tells you to bring 1 spyder. That the formation consists of 1 spyder. Yes. That spyder is a unit. But the formation does not include multiple spyders. It includes 1.

You can modify THAT spyder as per the rules. But you cannot add more.

You are literally making the rule in red up. There is an option on the Army List Entry to add additional spyders. So I have clear and unequivocal permission to add additional spyders.

No, you dont.

You have permission to take 1 spyder

Add more and you now have a unit of spyders, not 1 spyder. By the formation restrictions you no longer have the 1 spyder entry and therefore you're not running the formation.

You do not have permission to field mutiple spyders, you have the requirement to field a single spyder.

col_impact wrote:

Lance845 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Lance845 wrote:


MODELS, UNITS, OR VEHICLES.

That right. Your formation lists the MODEL you can bring with the specification that it is 1. Not the Unit. The model.

The formation rules make it a unit. If it's not a unit, then you cannot shoot at it.

Also, the Army List Entry has rules for adding additional models. What rule restricts me from adding additional models?

Because it doesn't tell you to bring the unit.

Again. It tells you to bring 1 spyder. That the formation consists of 1 spyder. Yes. That spyder is a unit. But the formation does not include multiple spyders. It includes 1.

You can modify THAT spyder as per the rules. But you cannot add more.

You are literally making the rule in red up. There is an option on the Army List Entry to add additional spyders. So I have clear and unequivocal permission to add additional spyders.

Show me where, on the formation, it says for you to bring a unit of spyders and I will agree with you. But until then, there is a precedence set by any number of formations before hand with the same kind of wording.

When the number of models is restricted, it specifies the model, not the unit. When the unit can come with number increases if you want to/can pay for them, then the formation lists the unit.

I bring 3 biovore. That doesn't mean those 3 biovore can be 3 separate units with 1-3 biovore each. It means I have 3 and I can put those 3 into any unit configuration I want.

The same you you literally made up a rule to determine which Spyder is "the Spyder" for Adaptive Subroutines?

You may or may not have permission (not going to ague that), but more Spyders break Adaptive Subroutines.

 Melcavuk wrote:

No, you dont.

You have permission to take 1 spyder

Add more and you now have a unit of spyders, not 1 spyder. By the formation restrictions you no longer have the 1 spyder entry and therefore you're not running the formation.

You do not have permission to field mutiple spyders, you have the requirement to field a single spyder.

You are literally making up rules. The Army List Entry clearly indicates that I can add additional spyders to the unit of 1 spyder in the formation. I have clear chain of permission to add spyders just as easily as I can add a Ghost Ark to the unit of warriors in the Reclamation Legion.

Show me a rule that restricts me from accessing the options on the Army List Entry.

If you want more spyders take them. As a separate unit occupying a different slot for another detachment (including another formation) so long as you meet the legal requirements to do so.

Lance845 wrote:

Show me where, on the formation, it says for you to bring a unit of spyders and I will agree with you. But until then, there is a precedence set by any number of formations before hand with the same kind of wording.

When the number of models is restricted, it specifies the model, not the unit. When the unit can come with number increases if you want to/can pay for them, then the formation lists the unit.

I bring 3 biovore. That doesn't mean those 3 biovore can be 3 separate units with 1-3 biovore each. It means I have 3 and I can put those 3 into any unit configuration I want.

If you are going to bring up examples from other contexts then you will need to post all the rules for them.

col_impact wrote:

 Melcavuk wrote:

No, you dont.

You have permission to take 1 spyder

Add more and you now have a unit of spyders, not 1 spyder. By the formation restrictions you no longer have the 1 spyder entry and therefore you're not running the formation.

You do not have permission to field mutiple spyders, you have the requirement to field a single spyder.

You are literally making up rules. The Army List Entry clearly indicates that I can add additional spyders to the unit of 1 spyder in the formation. I have clear chain of permission to add spyders just as easily as I can add a Ghost Ark to the unit of warriors in the Reclamation Legion.

Show me a rule that restricts me from accessing the options on the Army List Entry.

The formation does not allow you to bring the whole unit. It allows you to bring a specific number of models. THATS the rule that restricts you.

Lance845 wrote:
If you want more spyders take them. As a separate unit occupying a different slot for another detachment (including another formation) so long as you meet the legal requirements to do so.

The "options" give me clear and unequivocal permission to add more spyders.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lance845 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Melcavuk wrote:

No, you dont.

You have permission to take 1 spyder

Add more and you now have a unit of spyders, not 1 spyder. By the formation restrictions you no longer have the 1 spyder entry and therefore you're not running the formation.

You do not have permission to field mutiple spyders, you have the requirement to field a single spyder.

You are literally making up rules. The Army List Entry clearly indicates that I can add additional spyders to the unit of 1 spyder in the formation. I have clear chain of permission to add spyders just as easily as I can add a Ghost Ark to the unit of warriors in the Reclamation Legion.

Show me a rule that restricts me from accessing the options on the Army List Entry.

The formation does not allow you to bring the whole unit. It allows you to bring a specific number of models. THATS the rule that restricts you.

The 1 canoptek spyder is a unit, or are you saying otherwise?

Tyranid Warrior Brood is the name of a unit. Biovore Brood is the name of a unit. Biovore is the name of a model.

I can bring 3 biovore. No specification on how they are arranged unit wise. So thats my choice. But the restriction is right there. 3 biovore. Not 6, not 9, not 2. 3.

The warriors start as a unit as a group of 3. I can increase their number as per normal.

Pretty clear there. It lists 3 units. You have a unit of 1 exocrine. A unit of 3 Biovores. And a unit of 1 Tyrannid Warrior Brood.

Since the max size of the unit of Biovores is 3, you cannot add any models to that unit.

col_impact wrote:

Lance845 wrote:
If you want more spyders take them. As a separate unit occupying a different slot for another detachment (including another formation) so long as you meet the legal requirements to do so.

The "options" give me clear and unequivocal permission to add more spyders.

But the formation allows you to take 1.

Lance845 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Lance845 wrote:
If you want more spyders take them. As a separate unit occupying a different slot for another detachment (including another formation) so long as you meet the legal requirements to do so.

The "options" give me clear and unequivocal permission to add more spyders.

But the formation allows you to take 1.

The rules in the Army Entry List allow me to add more if I want. Permission is clearly granted. You are failing to find a restriction on a clear chain of permission to add additional spyders.

This is the wording you get when taking a unit tells you it has to be in a certain configuration with a a certain number of models. It's part of the restriction. 1 tyrant guard brood. The tyrant guard HAVE to be 3.

Again, you are not told to bring the unit. You are told to bring 1 spyder.

I am not told to bring 1 biovore brood with 3 biovores in it. I am told to bring 3 biovore. Their unit configuration is my choice.

YOU are told to bring 1 spyder. Your unit configuration for that 1 spyder is your choice. The only choice you have. It by itself.

The formation specifies model. Just like my biovores do. I have to bring 3 biovores. That is the only restriction I have. I could not take them as 3 separate units and then, because their army list entry allows it, up each unit to 3 bringing 9 biovores. No. None. The formation says I bring 3. Their unit make up and such is whatever, but it has to be 3. You have to bring 1 spyder. Thats what the formation allows. 1 Model called a spyder.

Lance845 wrote:


YOU are told to bring 1 spyder. Your unit configuration for that 1 spyder is your choice. The only choice you have. It by itself.

You continue to make up rules. Mark your comments HYWPI. They are not RAW.

You continue to fail to find a rule restricting me from simply adding additional spyders via the options. I am in no way restricted from accessing those options.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lance845 wrote:

I have to bring 3 biovores. That is the only restriction I have. I could not take them as 3 separate units and then, because their army list entry allows it, up each unit to 3 bringing 9 biovores. No. None. The formation says I bring 3. Their unit make up and such is whatever, but it has to be 3. You have to bring 1 spyder. Thats what the formation allows. 1 Model called a spyder.

The formation lists specifically a grouping of 3 units. One is the exocrine. One is the biovores. One is the brood. You are not allowed to break up the Biovores.

col_impact wrote:

Lance845 wrote:


YOU are told to bring 1 spyder. Your unit configuration for that 1 spyder is your choice. The only choice you have. It by itself.

You continue to make up rules. Mark your comment HYWPI. They are not RAW.

You continue to fail to find a rule restricting me from simply adding additional spyders via the options. I am in no way restricted from accessing those options.

I am not making up a rule. They are written differently. I could not bring 3 biovore broods with 1-3 biovore each. I do not have to bring 1 biovore brood with 3 biovore in it. I get 3 biovore. Your entry is written the same way. You get 1 spyder. The precedent is and has been for a long time now, set by the other publications with similar entries. Your refusal to read is your problem. You can try to cheat all you want. I feel bad for any sucker that lets you get away with it.

Lance is correct.

By your own surmation you are told to bring a unit of 1 spyder

If you add a spyder you now have a unit of 2 spyders

Now reference your formation, you no longer have a unit of 1 spyder, therefore you no longer have a valid formation.

Now if it listed 1 UNIT of Spyders the number of models in the unit would be irrelevant, as it is you no longer have a formation if you add more spyders.


You are no more justified in adding another spyder than you are in adding a doomsday ark.

col_impact wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lance845 wrote:

I have to bring 3 biovores. That is the only restriction I have. I could not take them as 3 separate units and then, because their army list entry allows it, up each unit to 3 bringing 9 biovores. No. None. The formation says I bring 3. Their unit make up and such is whatever, but it has to be 3. You have to bring 1 spyder. Thats what the formation allows. 1 Model called a spyder.

The formation lists specifically a grouping of 3 units. One is the exocrine. One is the biovores. One is the brood. You are not allowed to break up the Biovores.

False. If I had to bring a biovore brood with 3 biovores it would be written the same way as the tyrant guard. 1 tyrant guard brood. Restrictions: The tyrant guard brood must have 3 models.

It's not written that way, so I don't have to. I get 3 biovore models. Nothing specifies how I have to configure their unit/s

 Melcavuk wrote:


You are no more justified in adding another spyder than you are in adding a doomsday ark.

I am just as justified as adding a particle beamer to the spyder or adding a Ghost Ark to unit of warriors in the Reclamation Legion.

The permission to do these things is clearly and unequivocally on the Army List Entry and you have failed to find a rule that restricts me from accessing the option to add additional spyders.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lance845 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lance845 wrote:

I have to bring 3 biovores. That is the only restriction I have. I could not take them as 3 separate units and then, because their army list entry allows it, up each unit to 3 bringing 9 biovores. No. None. The formation says I bring 3. Their unit make up and such is whatever, but it has to be 3. You have to bring 1 spyder. Thats what the formation allows. 1 Model called a spyder.

The formation lists specifically a grouping of 3 units. One is the exocrine. One is the biovores. One is the brood. You are not allowed to break up the Biovores.

False. If I had to bring a biovore brood with 3 biovores it would be written the same way as the tyrant guard. 1 tyrant guard brood. Restrictions: The tyrant guard brood must have 3 models.

It's not written that way, so I don't have to. I get 3 biovore models. Nothing specifies how I have to configure their unit/s

The dataslate itself specifically lists off the three units. Just read the dataslate. The 3 bullet points are obviously the 3 separate units, per English.

No, I have shown the rule. You need a unit of 1 spyder. A unit of 2 spyders is not a unit of 1 spyder. You do not have permission to take a unit of variable size, you have permission to take a unit of 1. A unit of 2 isnt a unit of 1, anymore than a doomsday ark is a spyder.

A unit of 1 spyders with a particle beamer is still a unit of 1 spyders.

A unit of 2 spyders has ceased to be a unit of 1 spyders.

 Melcavuk wrote:
No, I have shown the rule. You need a unit of 1 spyder. A unit of 2 spyders is not a unit of 1 spyder. You do not have permission to take a unit of variable size, you have permission to take a unit of 1. A unit of 2 isnt a unit of 1, anymore than a doomsday ark is a spyder.

A unit of 1 spyders with a particle beamer is still a unit of 1 spyders.

A unit of 2 spyders has ceased to be a unit of 1 spyders.

You have not shown any rule. The rule, if there were one, would likely appear in the Restrictions box and likely say "Restriction: The unit of 1 canoptek spyder is restricted to 1 model."

However, the restrictions box actually reads "none" so I can freely access all of the spyder's options, which includes adding additional spyders.

col_impact wrote:

 Melcavuk wrote:


You are no more justified in adding another spyder than you are in adding a doomsday ark.

I am just as justified as adding a particle beamer to the spyder or adding a Ghost Ark to unit of warriors in the Reclamation Legion.

The permission to do these things is clearly and unequivocally on the Army List Entry and you have failed to find a rule that restricts me from accessing the option to add additional spyders.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lance845 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lance845 wrote:

I have to bring 3 biovores. That is the only restriction I have. I could not take them as 3 separate units and then, because their army list entry allows it, up each unit to 3 bringing 9 biovores. No. None. The formation says I bring 3. Their unit make up and such is whatever, but it has to be 3. You have to bring 1 spyder. Thats what the formation allows. 1 Model called a spyder.

The formation lists specifically a grouping of 3 units. One is the exocrine. One is the biovores. One is the brood. You are not allowed to break up the Biovores.

False. If I had to bring a biovore brood with 3 biovores it would be written the same way as the tyrant guard. 1 tyrant guard brood. Restrictions: The tyrant guard brood must have 3 models.

It's not written that way, so I don't have to. I get 3 biovore models. Nothing specifies how I have to configure their unit/s

The dataslate itself specifically lists off the three units. Just read the dataslate. The 3 bullet points are obviously the 3 separate units, per English.

Please go read the tyrant node to see how you are wrong.

A biovore brood in the army list is called a biovore brood. A biovore brood is 1 biovore and I can add up to 2 more biovore for points.

The formation does not tell me to bring a biovore brood with 3 models. It tells me to bring 3 biovore.

Similarly.



Each endless swarm does not have a separate bullet point. You bring 3 endless swarms.

This is the format they write these in.

if it lists model, you bring the specified number of models.

If it lists unit, you bring the specified number of units.

If the units or models have restrictions beyond their specified numbers you can find those in the restrictions section.

They do not have to tell you you cannot add spyders to the spyder unit because they never told you you could bring a spyder unit. They told you the number of models you can bring.

col_impact wrote:

Lance845 wrote:


YOU are told to bring 1 spyder. Your unit configuration for that 1 spyder is your choice. The only choice you have. It by itself.

You continue to make up rules. Mark your comments HYWPI. They are not RAW.

You continue to fail to find a rule restricting me from simply adding additional spyders via the options. I am in no way restricted from accessing those options.

So when you make up rules about how to define "the Spyder" when multiples are taken, it doesn't need to be marked as HYWPI and should be recognised as RAW?
The hypocrisy!

No, because the formation requirements specifies a 1 Tomb Spyder, which in itself is specific. Not one unit of variable size, 1 Tomb Spyder

Again, 2 is not 1, 6 is not 1, an orange is not an apple.

Specific overrides generic.

.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Lance845 wrote:


YOU are told to bring 1 spyder. Your unit configuration for that 1 spyder is your choice. The only choice you have. It by itself.

You continue to make up rules. Mark your comments HYWPI. They are not RAW.

You continue to fail to find a rule restricting me from simply adding additional spyders via the options. I am in no way restricted from accessing those options.

So when you make up rules about how to define "the Spyder" when multiples are taken, it doesn't need to be marked as HYWPI and should be recognised as RAW?
The hypocrisy!

I did not make up any rule about how to define "the spyder" when multiples are taken.

I simply follow the rules provided me and add additional spyders because the ability to do so is right there on the Army List Entry and there are no restrictions on accessing that option.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melcavuk wrote:
No, because the formation requirements specifies a 1 Tomb Spyder, which in itself is specific. Not one unit of variable size, 1 Tomb Spyder

Again, 2 is not 1, 6 is not 1, an orange is not an apple.

Specific overrides generic.

.

Nothing overrides or restricts the option to add additional spyders per the Army List Entry.

col_impact wrote:


Nothing overrides or restricts the option to add additional spyders per the Army List Entry.

The formation does by specifying the number of models.

OK

This comes down to:

Is a unit of 2 Tomb Spyders a unit of 1 Tomb Spyder?

Can you reconcile the fact that the unit of 2 isnt a unit of 1?

Otherwise, no matter how much you debate, you have not fullfilled the base requirement for the formation, If at the end of your adding up you do not have a Unit of 1 Tomb Spyder you do not have a formation.

Lance845 wrote:

col_impact wrote:


Nothing overrides or restricts the option to add additional spyders per the Army List Entry.

The formation does by specifying the number of models.

Cite page and paragraph for the rule.


The rule which gives me permission to add additional spyders is right there on the Army List Entry in plain sight.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melcavuk wrote:
OK

This comes down to:

Is a unit of 2 Tomb Spyders a unit of 1 Tomb Spyder?

Can you reconcile the fact that the unit of 2 isnt a unit of 1?

Otherwise, no matter how much you debate, you have not fullfilled the base requirement for the formation, If at the end of your adding up you do not have a Unit of 1 Tomb Spyder you do not have a formation.

You have not reconciled the fact that the rules give me permission to add additional spyders to the one spyder.

No, they dont.

Had your formation needed one UNIT (READ THIS WORD) of Spyders then yes, variabe length as dictated by its army is entry.

You have permission to field ONE (READ THIS WORD) Spyder, singular.

You do not have a permission to field a unit of variable size

You have specific permission to field a unit of 1.

Now prove your unit of two is a unit of a single Spyder. Otherwise again, you're just unbound. If your opponent looks at your army list and you arent matching the formation requirements you're unbound. (or CAD if meeting requirements there)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
What you seem unable to grasp is the different between a formation needing:

One Tactical Squad - wherein you can take all the upgrades, variable size, dedicated transport etc

Or a unit of ONE Tomb Spyder - wherein it must still be a unit of one to quality.

 Melcavuk wrote:
No, they dont.

Had your formation needed one UNIT (READ THIS WORD) of Spyders then yes, variabe length as dictated by its army is entry.

You have permission to field ONE (READ THIS WORD) Spyder, singular.

You do not have a permission to field a unit of variable size

You have specific permission to field a unit of 1.

Now prove your unit of two is a unit of a single Spyder. Otherwise again, you're just unbound. If your opponent looks at your army list and you arent matching the formation requirements you're unbound. (or CAD if meeting requirements there)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
What you seem unable to grasp is the different between a formation needing:

One Tactical Squad - wherein you can take all the upgrades, variable size, dedicated transport etc

Or a unit of ONE Tomb Spyder - wherein it must still be a unit of one to quality.

This is all your HYWPI reasoning.

But RAW there is an option on the Army List Entry to add additional spyders to the unit of 1 Canoptek Spyder on the Canoptek Harvest formation and no rule is restricting access to that option.

No, RAW you need a unit of 1 Tomb Spyder.

Now if you want to nicely ask your opponent if he'll let you field multiple, because clearly necrons need the help because GW just wont cut them a break, then that is ultimately down to you.

However AS WRITTEN you must include a unit of ONE SPYDER.

And at this stage I'm calling it there. This debate is going no place useful.

ok. I will spell it all out in one post.

pg 2 rising leviathan II dataslate.



Specifically the part where it mentions that formations will list models, vehicles, or units.

Now in your book you have something in your army list entry called.. Tomb Spyder Swarm? Correct me if I am wrong but that is what it is called. Below that it will say something like ..

"A Tomb Spyder Swarm consists of a single Tomb Spyder."

Which means the model itself is called a "Tomb Spyder" Tomb Spyder Swarm = unit. Tomb Spyder = model. Similarly Biovore Brood = unit. Tyrant Guard Brood = unit. Biovore = model. Tyrant Guard = Model.

Ok.



This tells me to bring 3 biovore models with no restrictions as to how I can set up their unit/units. Because the formation does not tell me to bring a brood it, by the nature of what it is telling me to bring, restricts the number of models in the formation. 3 biovore. Not 3 biovore broods. Not 1 biovore brood with 3 biovore in it.

If it wanted me to have 1 biovore brood with 3 in it it would be written like the tyrant guard here.



That 3 Biovore does not mean 1 unit of biovore with 3 in it because they list collections of the same thing together under the same bullet point like they do with endless swarms here.



Each of those endless swarms can be configured separately with everything that endless swarms allow/restrict on each individual endless swarm. So long as the number of endless swarms is not more or less then 3 I have met the requirements of the formation.

Each biovore (if they had options) would be allowed all the options they get individually or in their unit IF I chose to configure them together as unit/s. Again, nothing specifies how I bring 3 biovore, just that the number of biovore I bring is 3.

Now your formation.

Does it tell you to bring 1 tomb spyder swarm?

No?

O, okay. Does it says bring 1 tomb spyder? Yes?

Great. You get 1 tomb spyder model in the formation. Because that is what the formation tells you to bring. The number of spyders is 1. You will not continue beyond 1 to 2 or from 2 to 3 because the number of spyders is 1. 4 is out of the question. 1 is the number of spyders you get and the number of spyders you get is 1.

Your spyder can be configured any way that A Tomb Spyder can be configured. A Tomb Spyder. Not a Tomb Spyder Swarm. If you were told to bring a Tomb Spyder Swarm then yes, you could bring 2 extra Tomb Spyders. But Tomb Spyders cannot purchase Tomb Spyders. A Tomb Spyder Swarm can.

See the difference?

col_impact wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Lance845 wrote:


YOU are told to bring 1 spyder. Your unit configuration for that 1 spyder is your choice. The only choice you have. It by itself.

You continue to make up rules. Mark your comments HYWPI. They are not RAW.

You continue to fail to find a rule restricting me from simply adding additional spyders via the options. I am in no way restricted from accessing those options.

So when you make up rules about how to define "the Spyder" when multiples are taken, it doesn't need to be marked as HYWPI and should be recognised as RAW?
The hypocrisy!

I did not make up any rule about how to define "the spyder" when multiples are taken.

I simply follow the rules provided me and add additional spyders because the ability to do so is right there on the Army List Entry and there are no restrictions on accessing that option.

Ok... and again which of those Spyders is "the Spyder". There are no rules that define which Spyder is "the Spyder" when multiples are taken.
By defining which Spyder is "the Spyder", you make up a rule.
Something you did previously and yet refused to accept it wasn't RAW and just HYWPI.

RAW, the options for the 1 canoptek spyder allow me to add additional spyders. If unit of 1 spyder were restricted to 1, it would list this restriction in the restrictions box.

And I'm not talking about if you can/can't add Spyders, I'm talking about Adaptive Subroutines!

Which Spyder is "the Spyder"? Until you can find a rule (an actual rule, not one you've made up) that tells us which Spyder is, Adaptive Subroutines breaks and the Formation is useless.

Your previous solution to this had no rules support, and yet you claimed it was RAW, not HYWPI.

Lance845 wrote:

BlackSwanDelta wrote:

Lance845 wrote:


MODELS, UNITS, OR VEHICLES.

That right. Your formation lists the MODEL you can bring with the specification that it is 1. Not the Unit. The model.

That's better, where is that?

pg 2 rising leviathan 2 dataslate.

So all I have to do to get this definition of formations for my 7th edition rule book and Space Marine, Eldar, and Necron Codexes is buy a bunch of 6th edition Tyranid data slates?

EDIT: Dude, this supplement isn't even available to buy from GW anymore. Get real.

So OP, after 6 pages... is it still fun?

BlackSwanDelta wrote:

Lance845 wrote:

BlackSwanDelta wrote:

Lance845 wrote:


MODELS, UNITS, OR VEHICLES.

That right. Your formation lists the MODEL you can bring with the specification that it is 1. Not the Unit. The model.

That's better, where is that?

pg 2 rising leviathan 2 dataslate.

So all I have to do to get this definition of formations for my 7th edition rule book and Space Marine, Eldar, and Necron Codexes is buy a bunch of 6th edition Tyranid data slates?

EDIT: Dude, this supplement isn't even available to buy from GW anymore. Get real.

Shield of Baal Leviathan and the dataslates that acompany it are 7th edition books. And yes, they are still available from the gdubs in a digitial format.

Which should be obvious. I don't think any formations existed in 6th.

Also, that definition should be at the front of any book that includes formations. That is simply the pg and book I was getting it from. Feel free to check your own books with formations for the same little snip-it on how formations work.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:
RAW, the options for the 1 canoptek spyder allow me to add additional spyders. If unit of 1 spyder were restricted to 1, it would list this restriction in the restrictions box.

Show me the entry that says it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
See, here is an example from mine.



Carnifex Brood may add additional models.

The individual models cannot.

However, a model may replace a pair of scything talons.

I am betting your Swarm entry is worded the same way. Since the formation has you bring 1 model. Not 1 swarm, you don't get that option. RAW and RAI

Lance845 wrote:

I am betting your Swarm entry is worded the same way. Since the formation has you bring 1 model. Not 1 swarm, you don't get that option. RAW

It's on the Army List Entry. Are you saying I don't have access to the Army List Entry and cannot add a particle beamer to the spyder in the formation?

Oh, you're right, it's still there, my bad.

So again, I have to buy Shield of Baal and the Supplements to get these rules for my rulebook and Space Marine army?

Also, does this mean that models don't get to use a formation's special rules? It's pretty specific, only units get to. Not models or vehicles.

BlackSwanDelta wrote:
Oh, you're right, it's still there, my bad.

So again, I have to buy Shield of Baal and the Supplements to get these rules for my rulebook and Space Marine army?

Also, does this mean that models don't get to use a formation's special rules? It's pretty specific, only units get to. Not models or vehicles.

All models on the table are part of units. A unit however is not an individual model. They are 2 different things.

The formation specifically gives you 1 model. So you can customize that one model according to that entry. On the table that model is it's own unit.

The spyders entry does not say a spyder can bring extra models. It says the swarm can. You are not customizing a unit, Your customizing the one. The one you get.


This all boils down to one thing. The formation specifies you get 1 model.

You need to prove that 1 model is synonymous with 1 unit of model.

But you cannot. Because a model is different from a unit. The formation gives you 1 model. Deal with it.

I can't deal with it, I don't own the Shield of Baal or Leviathan supplements.

col_impact wrote:

Lance845 wrote:

I am betting your Swarm entry is worded the same way. Since the formation has you bring 1 model. Not 1 swarm, you don't get that option. RAW

It's on the Army List Entry. Are you saying I don't have access to the Army List Entry and cannot add a particle beamer to the spyder in the formation?

I am saying you have access to anything in your army list entry that relates to the model you are bringing. The model you are bringing. Your army list entry does not allow your model to add extra models. It allows the unit to do so. Do you understand the difference between a model and a unit?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BlackSwanDelta wrote:

I can't deal with it, I don't own the Shield of Baal or Leviathan supplements.

Also, that definition should be at the front of any book that includes formations. That is simply the pg and book I was getting it from. Feel free to check your own books with formations for the same little snip-it on how formations work.

Do you understand that according to my rule book and Codex, formations don't reference models? They reference Army List Entries or units entirely. There is no reference to formations taking models. Army List Entries are units, even unique independent characters are considered a unit by the ALE. No where does it say that Formations reference models, it's specific to units. The only reference that has been presented is the Introduction section of the description of data sheets and data slates, which doesn't mean anything to my rule book and Codex. Which, even further down, has another section actually titled "Formations" and surprise, doesn't mention models.



And the Army List Entry does allow me to add extra models. It's right there.



There is no restrictions in the formation on what options I can take, the formation references ALEs, and ALEs are units and not models.

So, yeah.

EDIT: That data sheets and supplement description that includes "models and vehicles" isn't in the Codexes or rule book.

Lance845 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Lance845 wrote:

I am betting your Swarm entry is worded the same way. Since the formation has you bring 1 model. Not 1 swarm, you don't get that option. RAW

It's on the Army List Entry. Are you saying I don't have access to the Army List Entry and cannot add a particle beamer to the spyder in the formation?

I am saying you have access to anything in your army list entry that relates to the model you are bringing. The model you are bringing. Your army list entry does not allow your model to add extra models. It allows the unit to do so. Do you understand the difference between a model and a unit?

Are you saying the 1 canoptek spyder is not a unit? If so, please explain how the opponent shoots at the spyder model when the shooting rules require units.

Well count on GW to be inconsistent in their publications. Which books do and do not mention how formations work is all up in the air I guess. THAT BEING SAID, A Spyder is not a unit and neither is a Warlock. Those are the names of models.

Do YOU understand the difference between models and units?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:

Lance845 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Lance845 wrote:

I am betting your Swarm entry is worded the same way. Since the formation has you bring 1 model. Not 1 swarm, you don't get that option. RAW

It's on the Army List Entry. Are you saying I don't have access to the Army List Entry and cannot add a particle beamer to the spyder in the formation?

I am saying you have access to anything in your army list entry that relates to the model you are bringing. The model you are bringing. Your army list entry does not allow your model to add extra models. It allows the unit to do so. Do you understand the difference between a model and a unit?

Are you saying the 1 canoptek spyder is not a unit? If so, please explain how the opponent shoots at the spyder model when the shooting rules require units.

It's a yes or no question. Do you understand what the difference is? Is "Canoptek Spyder" the name of a model or a unit?

A model is a part of a unit.

A unit is made up of models.

A unit is represented by it's ALE.

Formations reference ALEs exclusively in my rule book and Codex.

Which means, again, the Necron formation is Broken by RAW because of an missing/additional (depending on how you look at it) "s" at the end of Spyder.

I have no doubt GW means models, but GW almost never writes what it means properly at all.

Lance845 wrote:
Well count on GW to be inconsistent in their publications. Which books do and do not mention how formations work is all up in the air I guess. THAT BEING SAID, A Spyder is not a unit and neither is a Warlock. Those are the names of models.

Do YOU understand the difference between models and units?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:

Lance845 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Lance845 wrote:

I am betting your Swarm entry is worded the same way. Since the formation has you bring 1 model. Not 1 swarm, you don't get that option. RAW

It's on the Army List Entry. Are you saying I don't have access to the Army List Entry and cannot add a particle beamer to the spyder in the formation?

I am saying you have access to anything in your army list entry that relates to the model you are bringing. The model you are bringing. Your army list entry does not allow your model to add extra models. It allows the unit to do so. Do you understand the difference between a model and a unit?

Are you saying the 1 canoptek spyder is not a unit? If so, please explain how the opponent shoots at the spyder model when the shooting rules require units.

It's a yes or no question. Do you understand what the difference is? Is "Canoptek Spyder" the name of a model or a unit?

Canoptek Spyder is the name of the unit. 1 Canoptek Spyder is the unit composition.

BlackSwanDelta wrote:

A model is a part of a unit.

A unit is made up of models.

A unit is represented by it's ALE.

Formations reference ALEs exclusively in my rule book and Codex.

Which means, again, the Necron formation is Broken by RAW because of an missing/additional (depending on how you look at it) "s" at the end of Spyder.

I have no doubt GW means models, but GW almost never writes what it means properly at all.

Excellent what is the actual name of the Spyders unit? Please, if you don't mind, throw in a picture like I have been.

The unit name is "Canoptek Spyders", the models are "Canoptek Spyder"

Formations can only take ALEs, not models, there is no allowance for it.

So there is no ALE called "Canoptek Spyder".

The formation cannot be fielded because you cannot include all of the specified ALEs/units.

BlackSwanDelta wrote:
The unit name is "Canoptek Spyders", the models are "Canoptek Spyder"

Formations can only take ALEs, not models, there is no allowance for it.

So there is no ALE called "Canoptek Spyder".

The formation cannot be fielded because you cannot include all of the specified ALEs/units.

Clearly, formations can list models in their entries. I have plenty of examples up there. Including one formation that lists formations. (living tide).



There are no such units in any book. Is Living Tide impossible to field?

Mind showing me a picture of the formation showing what "units" it takes?

No, it clearly says that formations list units and ALEs other then an introductory part to your supplement. Which doesn't govern me making an army with the Necron, Eldar, or Space Marine Codexes as far as I am aware.

It says:

FORMATION:
1 Canoptek Spyder
1 unit of Canoptek Wraiths
1 unit of Canoptek Scarabs
RESTRICTIONS:
None.

So, technically, it's broken. They clearly mean for you to take one Spyder, but that isn't how they described formations working anywhere.

That is the way it is written. That is the way it was intended. They have a gakky way of writing down what can be listed in the "unit composition" portion of formations. Even in my listing it says model, units and vehicles. Not formations. Then they made a formation with a unit composition of formations. Thanks GW.

GW sucks. Agreed? Agreed.

The rules for your formation do not tell you to bring a unit of spyders. Just one spyder. That means the unit composition itself is a restriction on the number of models you can bring in that unit.

BlackSwanDelta wrote:
They clearly mean for you to take one Spyder,

-Fin-

However you wanna play it, and if you want to go by what you think is RAI instead of RAW, go ahead. I certainly do. But that doesn't change the fact of what the words in the rules say. RAW is broken, you can't field a formation if you can't field all of the ALEs. There's no allowance to use models instead of ALEs and there's no further provision if the ALE doesn't actually exist.

If other dude thinks that RAI means he can take more Spyders, whatever. You can say your RAI is better. You can't prove either conclusively either way, and you're just both arguing over HIWPI over a rule that simply doesn't work.

BlackSwanDelta wrote:


However you wanna play it, and if you want to go by what you think is RAI instead of RAW, go ahead. I certainly do. But that doesn't change the fact of what the words in the rules say. RAW is broken, you can't field a formation if you can't field all of the ALEs. There's no allowance to use models instead of ALEs and there's no further provision if the ALE doesn't actually exist.

There is no allowance to use formations either. Clearly GW does not care to inform you what can and cannot be listed in the unit composition section of formations. Clearly, what can be listed is whatever they feel like, be it model, unit, vehicle, formation, formations composed of formations. Whatever they want.

Unless canoptek spyder gets edited to say "a unit of" before it and "s" after it they listed a single model. That list restricts the number of models by it's very nature. RAW.

I can prove mine with examples. With history. With precedent. GW has done it before with formations and there fore there is reason to say they are doing it here again. If there had never been a formation that listed models you would be correct. But the vasy majority of evidence points towards me being correct. In fact, all the evidence does.

Lance845 wrote:


There is no allowance to use formations either

So the entire "Preparing for Battle" section that goes over that you can make an army either Unbound or Battle Forged and under formations that they are a detachment that counts towards being battle forged isn't a permission to use formations?

Yeah, ok.

As for the rest, yeah, nah. Put up a picture in the Necron Codex or rule book where a formation says it can list models and not ALEs/units. Until then, your "precedent" doesn't mean anything, because all I need to make a Necron/Eldar/Space Marine army is the rulebook and their respective Codex, not your Tyranid or another army's Codex or supplements.

BlackSwanDelta wrote:

Lance845 wrote:


There is no allowance to use formations either

So the entire "Preparing for Battle" section that goes over that you can make an army either Unbound or Battle Forged and under formations that they are a detachment that counts towards being battle forged isn't a permission to use formations?

Yeah, ok.

As for the rest, yeah, nah. Put up a picture in the Necron Codex or rule book where a formation uses models. Until then, your "precedent" doesn't mean anything.

You misread me. There is no allowance for formations being a thing that they put under the "unit composition" section of a formation. In any book. And yet they do it with Living Tide. In the SAME BOOK where they get more specific then yours they do things they do not specifically say they can do. Again, precedent. I have established a history of these things being the way they do things.

Your argument is only that they forgot an "s" and "a unit of" in a editing error.

My argument is that they have done this before and it meant a single model. Oh look, there are all the examples of them doing it like I said they do.

"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."

That's a clear permission to use ALEs for the entries in the Formation Data Sheets. It doesn't reference models anywhere else in the Formation or Detachment rules, they all say ALEs or units included in the detachment FOC or formation. There isn't even a section called "Unit Composition" in the Formation Data Sheets so forgive me because, yeah, I really don't understand.

I really don't care about what they've done before, the information that comes from the rule book and the Codex i use to build my army don't rely on your other examples, precedent, supplements, RAI, HIWIPI, or whatever. Formations are made solely of ALEs in the books I have, so, ALEs it is for formations. If you can build your army and formations different because of the advanced rules in your Codex and Supplements, good for you.

BlackSwanDelta wrote:
"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."

That's a clear permission to use ALEs for the entries in the Formation Data Sheets. It doesn't reference models anywhere else in the Formation or Detachment rules, they all say ALEs or units included in the FOC or formation. There isn't even a section called "Unit Composition" in the Formation Data Sheets so forgive me because, yeah, I really don't understand.

I really don't care about what they've done before, the information that comes from the rule book and the Codex i use to build my army don't rely on your other examples, precedent, supplements, RAI, HIWIPI, or whatever. Formations are made solely of ALEs in the books I have, so, ALEs it is for formations. If you can build your army and formations different because of the advanced rules in your Codex and Supplements, good for you.

Ok. So find me a book that has a ALE called Skyblight Swarm. How about Synaptic Swarm? No? Right. Doesn't exist. My book says model, unit, or vehicle. Is there a model unit or vehicle called Synaptic Swarm? The correct answer is no.

Ok. What is a Decurion made of?

Isn't that a formation made of formations/detachments? But... I thought it was only ALEs they could be made out of?

Guess Decurions cannot be fielded RAW.

Again, I really don't care about how your Codex works. It doesn't affect the other Codexes and how they work or how I build my army. If your Codex is a huge mess of RAI and HIWPI, sorry man, I didn't make GW switch design philosophies between your stuff and everything Necron and after.

"the Necron Decurion Detachment is a special type of Detachment that can be included in any Battle-forged army. Unlike the Detachments shown in Warhammer 40,000: The Rules, it has a Force Organisation Chart whose slots are a combination of specific Formations and Army List Entries

And it works because that's a specific Codex rule overriding a general BRB rule. It says it right there, Necron Decurion can be included in any battle forged army. And the Necron Decurion follows it's own method of building itself with it's own permission, again, specific Codex overriding general BRB.

Gotcha, So there ARE exceptions.

Sure, tell me where there is an exception in the Eldar, Necron, or Space Marine Codexes that formations can reference models and you have a point.

Why does it have to be those 3 specifically? Shield of Baal is a 7th ed publication.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also don't own those books... Yet. Necron soon though.

Because the thread started about Necrons, then I started asking about Eldar, and Space Marines followed suit since Necron and after, which is Necron, Eldar, and now Space Marines, there's been an obvious design shift in the Codexes. The "Decurion" style detachment and formations are the en vogue method of Codex construction and it's going to be that way for the forseeable future. Some of the old supplements don't work or are supposed to be "worked out with your opponent" like Iyanden for Eldar, while some of the others were apparently confirmed to be GTG with the new Space Marine Codex. It's a big mess between the "old" and the "new".

I'm not trying to find a way to "break" people's formations and say they can't field a Canoptek Harvest because one of the ALEs is missing an "s" (well, I am, but hold on), but I think it's important to understand what the RAW specifically says no matter how stupid it is. Infact, the stupider the RAW is, the more important it is to understand it. There's no way to play this game without at least making up some of your own rules, but I think it's important to understand exactly how and why stuff might be broken in order to fix it properly. If I heard someone tell someone else they couldn't field a Canoptek Harvest because of a missing "s", I'd roll my eyes and run far, far away. But again, it isn't about breaking the game to make it stupid for everyone, you need to break it to understand what needs to be fixed, or at least that's how I see it.

BlackSwanDelta wrote:
Because the thread started about Necrons, then I started asking about Eldar, and Space Marines followed suit since Necron and after, which is Necron, Eldar, and now Space Marines, there's been an obvious design shift in the Codexes. The "Decurion" style detachment and formations are the en vogue method of Codex construction and it's going to be that way for the forseeable future. Some of the old supplements don't work or are supposed to be "worked out with your opponent" like Iyanden for Eldar, while some of the others were apparently confirmed to be GTG with the new Space Marine Codex. It's a big mess between the "old" and the "new".

I'm not trying to find a way to "break" people's formations and say they can't field a Canoptek Harvest because one of the ALEs is missing an "s" (well, I am, but hold on), but I think it's important to understand what the RAW specifically says no matter how stupid it is. Infact, the stupider the RAW is, the more important it is to understand it. There's no way to play this game without at least making up some of your own rules, but I think it's important to understand exactly how and why stuff might be broken in order to fix it properly. If I heard someone tell someone else they couldn't field a Canoptek Harvest because of a missing "s", I'd roll my eyes and run far, far away. But again, it isn't about breaking the game to make it stupid for everyone, you need to break it to understand what needs to be fixed, or at least that's how I see it.

I agee. Decurions are in. Know what looks like the template from which the decurion was wrought? Living Tide.

What's more reasonable. 1) gw forgot to write "a unit of" "s" 2) gw decided they could put whatever they wanted into a formation since they have been doing it all along and didn't bother to mention all the specifics.

It is very important to understand rai. You already admitted that it looks like they intended 1 model. There is precedent of them creating formations that way. So what's the argument?

So to recap the RAW, the 1 canoptek spyder is a unit of 1 canoptek spyder and the ALE gives me the option to add additional spyders which I go ahead and do since there are no restrictions in the restriction box.

col_impact wrote:
So to recap the RAW, the 1 canoptek spyder is a unit of 1 canoptek spyder and the ALE gives me the option to add additional spyders which I go ahead and do since there are no restrictions in the restriction box.

no.

Lance845 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
So to recap the RAW, the 1 canoptek spyder is a unit of 1 canoptek spyder and the ALE gives me the option to add additional spyders which I go ahead and do since there are no restrictions in the restriction box.

no.

Contentless posts like that are generally frowned upon in YMDC. Feel free to elaborate on your differing opinion, or simply keep it to yourself.


And for reference here is the BRB rule for formations which governs the necron codex.

col_impact wrote:

Lance845 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
So to recap the RAW, the 1 canoptek spyder is a unit of 1 canoptek spyder and the ALE gives me the option to add additional spyders which I go ahead and do since there are no restrictions in the restriction box.

no.

Contentless posts like that are generally frowned upon in YMDC. Feel free to elaborate on your differing opinion, or simply keep it to yourself.


And for reference here is the BRB rule for formations which governs the necron codex.

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.

Repeating things over and over again without regard to pages of arguments is also frowned upon in the forums.

To elaborate on the comment "no". Read the entire last page in which it was pointed out repeatedly that in all other cases in which they specify a number of models and not a number of units the number of models is the restriction.

Lance845 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Lance845 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
So to recap the RAW, the 1 canoptek spyder is a unit of 1 canoptek spyder and the ALE gives me the option to add additional spyders which I go ahead and do since there are no restrictions in the restriction box.

no.

Contentless posts like that are generally frowned upon in YMDC. Feel free to elaborate on your differing opinion, or simply keep it to yourself.


And for reference here is the BRB rule for formations which governs the necron codex.

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.

Repeating things over and over again without regard to pages of arguments is also frowned upon in the forums.

To elaborate on the comment "no". Read the entire last page in which it was pointed out repeatedly that in all other cases in which they specify a number of models and not a number of units the number of models is the restriction.

This is a RAW discussion. Point to a rule in the BRB or the Necron codex.

per the BRB rule on formations, the Canoptek Harvest gives me access to the ALE for the Canoptek Spyder and I add additional spyders.

col_impact wrote:

Lance845 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Lance845 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
So to recap the RAW, the 1 canoptek spyder is a unit of 1 canoptek spyder and the ALE gives me the option to add additional spyders which I go ahead and do since there are no restrictions in the restriction box.

no.

Contentless posts like that are generally frowned upon in YMDC. Feel free to elaborate on your differing opinion, or simply keep it to yourself.


And for reference here is the BRB rule for formations which governs the necron codex.

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.

Repeating things over and over again without regard to pages of arguments is also frowned upon in the forums.

To elaborate on the comment "no". Read the entire last page in which it was pointed out repeatedly that in all other cases in which they specify a number of models and not a number of units the number of models is the restriction.

This is a RAW discussion. Point to a rule in the BRB or the Necron codex.

per the BRB rule on formations, the Canoptek Harvest gives me access to the ALE for the Canoptek Spyder and I add additional spyders.

As before, if you want to cheat go try to do so. I feel bad for the suckers you convince to let you do so.

But the rule does not say "1 unit of canoptek spyders."

It says "1 canoptek spyder".

Per the exact wording. You get one spyder.

I play according to RAW.

You are apparently defining playing according to RAW as cheating.

That is an interesting take on playing according to RAW.

As before, if you want to cheat go try to do so. I feel bad for the suckers you convince to let you do so.

But the rule does not say "1 unit of canoptek spyders."

It says "1 canoptek spyder".

Per the exact wording. You get one spyder.

Per the ALE, I add additional spyders. The BRB rule on formations gives me access to ALE and I simply add additional spyders. That's the RAW.

col_impact wrote:
I play according to RAW.

You are apparently defining playing according to RAW as cheating.

That is an interesting take on playing according to RAW.

As before, if you want to cheat go try to do so. I feel bad for the suckers you convince to let you do so.

But the rule does not say "1 unit of canoptek spyders."

It says "1 canoptek spyder".

Per the exact wording. You get one spyder.

Per the ALE, I add additional spyders. The BRB rule on formations gives me access to ALE and I simply add additional spyders. That's the RAW.

You are welcome to ignore any part of the plain English that you want to. Enjoy it.

Lance845 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
I play according to RAW.

You are apparently defining playing according to RAW as cheating.

That is an interesting take on playing according to RAW.

As before, if you want to cheat go try to do so. I feel bad for the suckers you convince to let you do so.

But the rule does not say "1 unit of canoptek spyders."

It says "1 canoptek spyder".

Per the exact wording. You get one spyder.

Per the ALE, I add additional spyders. The BRB rule on formations gives me access to ALE and I simply add additional spyders. That's the RAW.

You are welcome to ignore any part of the plain English that you want to. Enjoy it.

I am not ignoring anything. You are the one doing the ignoring of whole rules.

col_impact wrote:

Lance845 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
I play according to RAW.

You are apparently defining playing according to RAW as cheating.

That is an interesting take on playing according to RAW.

As before, if you want to cheat go try to do so. I feel bad for the suckers you convince to let you do so.

But the rule does not say "1 unit of canoptek spyders."

It says "1 canoptek spyder".

Per the exact wording. You get one spyder.

Per the ALE, I add additional spyders. The BRB rule on formations gives me access to ALE and I simply add additional spyders. That's the RAW.

You are welcome to ignore any part of the plain English that you want to. Enjoy it.

I am not ignoring anything. You are the one doing the ignoring of whole rules.

Spoiler:

OPTIONS:
• May include up to two additional Canoptek Spyders…50 pts/model

Can you explain to me the difference between 1 Canoptek Spyder and 1 unit of Canoptek Spyders? Or are you ignoring that plain English?

You don't play according to RAW if you are able to define which Spyder is "the Spyder" when multiples are taken as no such rule exists.
You are most definitely ignoring that.

Lance845 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Lance845 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
I play according to RAW.

You are apparently defining playing according to RAW as cheating.

That is an interesting take on playing according to RAW.

As before, if you want to cheat go try to do so. I feel bad for the suckers you convince to let you do so.

But the rule does not say "1 unit of canoptek spyders."

It says "1 canoptek spyder".

Per the exact wording. You get one spyder.

Per the ALE, I add additional spyders. The BRB rule on formations gives me access to ALE and I simply add additional spyders. That's the RAW.

You are welcome to ignore any part of the plain English that you want to. Enjoy it.

I am not ignoring anything. You are the one doing the ignoring of whole rules.

Spoiler:

OPTIONS:
• May include up to two additional Canoptek Spyders…50 pts/model

Can you explain to me the difference between 1 Canoptek Spyder and 1 unit of Canoptek Spyders? Or are you ignoring that plain English?

There is no difference between those statements as far as formations go, since the formation rules in the BRB specify that they deal with units and ALE.

col_impact wrote:

Lance845 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Lance845 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
I play according to RAW.

You are apparently defining playing according to RAW as cheating.

That is an interesting take on playing according to RAW.

As before, if you want to cheat go try to do so. I feel bad for the suckers you convince to let you do so.

But the rule does not say "1 unit of canoptek spyders."

It says "1 canoptek spyder".

Per the exact wording. You get one spyder.

Per the ALE, I add additional spyders. The BRB rule on formations gives me access to ALE and I simply add additional spyders. That's the RAW.

You are welcome to ignore any part of the plain English that you want to. Enjoy it.

I am not ignoring anything. You are the one doing the ignoring of whole rules.

Spoiler:

OPTIONS:
• May include up to two additional Canoptek Spyders…50 pts/model

Can you explain to me the difference between 1 Canoptek Spyder and 1 unit of Canoptek Spyders? Or are you ignoring that plain English?

There is no difference between those statements as far as formations go, since the formation rules in the BRB specify that they deal with units and ALE.

1) Then why, specifically, write it differently?

2) There is a clear distinction. One is a number of models. The other is a unit that has a varied number of models in it. Guess what that simple statement is telling you? A number of models? Or a unit of varied number?

Lance845 wrote:


1) Then why, specifically, write it differently?

2) There is a clear distinction. One is a number of models. The other is a unit that has a varied number of models in it. Guess what it that simple statement is telling you? A number of models? Or a unit of varied number?

Both of those questions are asking for guesses at intent. Let's stick to RAW as that is the tenet of YMDC.

If you look at the rules as they are for formations . . .

'1 canoptek spyder' refers to a unit of 1 spyder with an ALE that allows me to add additional spyders

'1 unit of canoptek spyders' refers to a unit of 1 spyder with an ALE that allows me to add additional spyders

The Formation rules, as they are, do not distinguish between those two ways of talking about a unit of 1 spyder.

That's the RAW.

col_impact wrote:

Lance845 wrote:


1) Then why, specifically, write it differently?

2) There is a clear distinction. One is a number of models. The other is a unit that has a varied number of models in it. Guess what it that simple statement is telling you? A number of models? Or a unit of varied number?

Both of those questions are asking for guesses at intent. Let's stick to RAW as that is the tenet of YMDC.

False. You are just ignoring the English. Enjoy your attempts at cheating.

Lance845 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Lance845 wrote:


1) Then why, specifically, write it differently?

2) There is a clear distinction. One is a number of models. The other is a unit that has a varied number of models in it. Guess what it that simple statement is telling you? A number of models? Or a unit of varied number?

Both of those questions are asking for guesses at intent. Let's stick to RAW as that is the tenet of YMDC.

False. You are just ignoring the English. Enjoy your attempts at cheating.

You are breaking quite a few tenets of this forum.

I have backed up my argument entirely with rules.

I have not insulted you.


For reference here are the rules your argument willfully ignores

col_impact wrote:
'1 canoptek spyder' refers to a unit of 1 spyder with an ALE that allows me to add additional spyders

'1 unit of canoptek spyders' refers to a unit of 1 spyder with an ALE that allows me to add additional spyders

The Formation rules, as they are, do not distinguish between those two ways of talking about a unit of 1 spyder.

That's the RAW.

The Datasheet of Canoptek Spyders does say you can add more Spyders.

However, the Formation List specifically states 1, as in singular, Spyder. And no matter how you try to change it, 2 Spyders do not equal the 1 Spyder as it is written.

Therefore, no matter how you try to wiggle around it the RAW is 1 Canoptek Spyder, period. And 2 is not equal to one, no matter if they are in the same unit or not.

Is it stupid, oh yes. Is it consistent with how GW operates. You betcha. But that is how it is written.

col_impact wrote:

Lance845 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Lance845 wrote:


1) Then why, specifically, write it differently?

2) There is a clear distinction. One is a number of models. The other is a unit that has a varied number of models in it. Guess what it that simple statement is telling you? A number of models? Or a unit of varied number?

Both of those questions are asking for guesses at intent. Let's stick to RAW as that is the tenet of YMDC.

False. You are just ignoring the English. Enjoy your attempts at cheating.

You are breaking quite a few tenets of this forum.

I have backed up my argument entirely with rules.

I have not insulted you.

I have broken no tenets of this forum. I have not insulted you. I have laid out not only the rules from books and other publications establishing a very long history of precedent of the way formations work and have worked and what those words mean.

You choose to ignore it and then make leaps of logic based on implications to benefit you with 0 precedence and no publications supporting your interpretation. I will not make a post repeating the same things over and over again. So long as you choose to ignore the evidence that goes against your interpretation you are willfully ignoring the rules of the game. That would be called cheating. That is what that is called. I wish you luck on it.

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
'1 canoptek spyder' refers to a unit of 1 spyder with an ALE that allows me to add additional spyders

'1 unit of canoptek spyders' refers to a unit of 1 spyder with an ALE that allows me to add additional spyders

The Formation rules, as they are, do not distinguish between those two ways of talking about a unit of 1 spyder.

That's the RAW.

The Datasheet of Canoptek Spyders does say you can add more Spyders.

However, the Formation List specifically states 1, as in singular, Spyder. And no matter how you try to change it, 2 Spyders do not equal the 1 Spyder as it is written.

Therefore, no matter how you try to wiggle around it the RAW is 1 Canoptek Spyder, period. And 2 is not equal to one, no matter if they are in the same unit or not.

Is it stupid, oh yes. Is it consistent with how GW operates. You betcha. But that is how it is written.

The formation rules give me access to the ALE and I add 2 spyders to the unit of 1 spyder because the rules allow me to do that.

Furthermore, the formation rules specify that '1 canoptek spyder' refers to a unit of 1 spyder with an ALE that allows me to add additional spyders.

Otherwise, if you want to claim a RAW argument, find me the rule that says I cannot access the ALE, because here are the rule that say I most certainly can!

col_impact wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
'1 canoptek spyder' refers to a unit of 1 spyder with an ALE that allows me to add additional spyders

'1 unit of canoptek spyders' refers to a unit of 1 spyder with an ALE that allows me to add additional spyders

The Formation rules, as they are, do not distinguish between those two ways of talking about a unit of 1 spyder.

That's the RAW.

The Datasheet of Canoptek Spyders does say you can add more Spyders.

However, the Formation List specifically states 1, as in singular, Spyder. And no matter how you try to change it, 2 Spyders do not equal the 1 Spyder as it is written.

Therefore, no matter how you try to wiggle around it the RAW is 1 Canoptek Spyder, period. And 2 is not equal to one, no matter if they are in the same unit or not.

Is it stupid, oh yes. Is it consistent with how GW operates. You betcha. But that is how it is written.

The formation rules give me access to the ALE and I add 2 spyders to the unit of 1 spyder because the rules allow me to do that.

Furthermore, the formation rules specify that '1 canoptek spyder' refers to a unit of 1 spyder with an ALE that allows me to add additional spyders.

Otherwise, if you want to claim a RAW argument, find me the rule that says I cannot access the ALE, because here are the rule that say I most certainly can!

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.

Spoiler:

OPTIONS:
• May include up to two additional Canoptek Spyders…50 pts/model

Accessing the ALE is not the issue. BRB pg 13 basic vs advanced.

advanced rules always take precedence over basic rules. In the same way that a ALE will trump the basic rules of the game the formation may trump the ALE. Since the formation specifies 1 spyder. ALE trumped. The more specific rule about any given model take precedence.

Lance845 wrote:


Accessing the ALE is not the issue. BRB pg 13 basic vs advanced.

advanced rules always take precedence over basic rules. In the same way that a ALE will trump the basic rules of the game the formation may trump the ALE. Since the formation specifies 1 spyder. ALE trumped. The more specific rule about any given model take precedence.

The codex here is actually the less specific since by itself it does not specify what the 1 canoptek spyder is exactly.


Luckily we have the Formation rules which clarify that they deal in units and ALEs.

You are suggesting that . . .

1 canoptek spyder = 1 canoptek spyder [model]

But the formation rules specify that . . .

1 canoptek spyder = [unit of] 1 canoptek spyder


In fact, we know your suggestion is utterly wrong with other lines of reasoning as well, since 1 canoptek spyder cannot refer just to the model. If it did we would lack any rules for shooting at that 1 canoptek spyder model floating out there outside of any unit. You are well astray from the RAW with your suggestions.

1 one spider not one unit
just one spider

Lungpickle wrote:
1 one spider not one unit
just one spider

It's a unit of 1 spyder

Lungpickle wrote:
1 one spider not one unit
just one spider

This.

In fact, what I am saying, is that specifying 1 Canoptek Spyder model means 1 unit restricted to 1 model in size.

And, that the formation is the more advanced rule. Which trumps your ALE. 1 unit of 1 Spyder. When the book says "1 unit of canoptek spyders" you will have an argument. It doesn't. You don't.