Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Wonderful read this, someone obviously has had an argument at their flgs and now needs to find support at dakka to win the next fight
It clearly says "a spyder","the spyder" and so on, this thread should have stopped at that. It is what is written and what is intended, any tries to add more spyders break that formation entry. There is no need for any rules saying that "A Canoptek Spyder" is "A Canoptek Spyder" because it is what it is. I would be more inclined to find other formations with this wording that should also be treated like this. It is an unlucky use of words for a necron player, giving hope where there is none, but it is un-ambigious right from the start.
Unless there's a faq stating otherwise, the formation entry is what it is and in this game we follow organization charts and detachment rules because they are rules and not just guidelines. Continuing to state that "Show me the rules" is redundant since the formation is a rule.
Next time they might write "A canoptek spyder unit" and then we can use that.
col_impact wrote: The formation specifies 1 unit of wraiths. I can put up to 6 wraiths under 1 unit. This is exceedingly clear.
Because the formation specifies a unit of wraiths, not just a wraith.
For the spyder portion of the formation it specifies "a spyder" not "a unit of spyders". So if you have 2-3 spyders you don't have "a spyder" you have "a unit of spyders" which is not what the formation specified.
You are lacking a rule which backs up your approach. Start quoting rules!
The formation has 'no restriction' and refers to using page 93.
Page 93 has the option to add 2 Spyders.
I add 2 spyders.
The formation benefits the original spyder. I keep track.
All the rules support me.
I don't need a rule. This is basic reading comprehension. Do I need to quote a rule defining what "a" and "of" are as well?
Matt.Kingsley wrote: As for your example, you wouldn't know which train 'the train' refers to, so you wouldn't know if you were in 12" of it or not.
Which, in the case of the Spyders, you wouldn't know either. You could assume, but you may be incorrect. I suppose a case could be made that, using your example, if the unit was within 12" of every Spyder in the Formation you'd get the bonus (because if you're within 12" of all of them you must be within 12" of 'the' one), though that is stretching the fact that the rule clearly to a single Spyder to a point that, even if a person was willing to agree, RAW, you could have 3 Spyders, most likely wouldn't agree.
The thing is, i don't think you need to know if it is the right train (for the 12" part). If i ask whether you are within 12" of "THE Spyder", any one of the 3 (being part of the Formation) will be "the Spyder".
The rules work mainly with Yes/No answers. If the question is: "are you within 12" of "THE Spyder"?" The answer would be "Yes", not: "which one?" (although that would be the 'logical' answer)
You'd be within 12" of 'A train', you wouldn't know for sure if it was 'THE Train'. You could assume it is 'the Train' however you have a 4/5 chance of being wrong, the only way to know and be correct in saying "I'm within 12" of 'the Train'" is if you were within 12" of all the trains.
Any one of the Spyders will be 'a Spyder', but only one is 'the Spyder'.
If, say, only 1 train was stopping at a station you needed to go to, you'd need to know which is 'the Train'. Same with the Spyders, to gain the benefit you have to know which is 'the Spyder' (or if you were really willing to twist, bend and stretch and have no freinds, within 12" of all of them)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/04 09:34:41
Yonasu wrote: Wonderful read this, someone obviously has had an argument at their flgs and now needs to find support at dakka to win the next fight
It clearly says "a spyder","the spyder" and so on, this thread should have stopped at that. It is what is written and what is intended, any tries to add more spyders break that formation entry. There is no need for any rules saying that "A Canoptek Spyder" is "A Canoptek Spyder" because it is what it is. I would be more inclined to find other formations with this wording that should also be treated like this. It is an unlucky use of words for a necron player, giving hope where there is none, but it is un-ambigious right from the start.
Unless there's a faq stating otherwise, the formation entry is what it is and in this game we follow organization charts and detachment rules because they are rules and not just guidelines. Continuing to state that "Show me the rules" is redundant since the formation is a rule.
Next time they might write "A canoptek spyder unit" and then we can use that.
The formation specifies page 93. Page 93 has options on it. I add 2 spyders.
The formation has 'no restrictions'
You wholly lack any rules to keep me from adding 2 spyders.
If you want to participate in this debate I suggest you actually find rules!
col_impact wrote: The formation specifies 1 unit of wraiths. I can put up to 6 wraiths under 1 unit. This is exceedingly clear.
Because the formation specifies a unit of wraiths, not just a wraith.
For the spyder portion of the formation it specifies "a spyder" not "a unit of spyders". So if you have 2-3 spyders you don't have "a spyder" you have "a unit of spyders" which is not what the formation specified.
You are lacking a rule which backs up your approach. Start quoting rules!
The formation has 'no restriction' and refers to using page 93.
Page 93 has the option to add 2 Spyders.
I add 2 spyders.
The formation benefits the original spyder. I keep track.
All the rules support me.
I don't need a rule. This is basic reading comprehension. Do I need to quote a rule defining what "a" and "of" are as well?
Ad hominem attacks are not admissible. ARGUE THE RULES!
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/02/04 09:36:43
col_impact wrote: The formation specifies 1 unit of wraiths. I can put up to 6 wraiths under 1 unit. This is exceedingly clear.
Because the formation specifies a unit of wraiths, not just a wraith.
For the spyder portion of the formation it specifies "a spyder" not "a unit of spyders". So if you have 2-3 spyders you don't have "a spyder" you have "a unit of spyders" which is not what the formation specified.
You are lacking a rule which backs up your approach. Start quoting rules!
The formation has 'no restriction' and refers to using page 93.
Page 93 has the option to add 2 Spyders.
I add 2 spyders.
The formation benefits the original spyder. I keep track.
All the rules support me.
I don't need a rule. This is basic reading comprehension. Do I need to quote a rule defining what "a" and "of" are as well?
Ad hominem attacks are not admissible. ARGUE THE RULES!
I can't quote rules on something that isn't a rules issue. The problem here is literally you misinterpreting the rule i gave you and you demanding a 40k rule for what is a error in reading comprehension. The BRB isn't also an english text book.
MonumentOfRibs wrote: I don't really see what the debate is here.
RAW you are allowed one Spyder in the formation
RAI clearly intends for there to be one Spyder in the formation.
The formation refers to page 93 which has the canoptek spyder army entry list
The formaton has "no restrictions"
The army entry list has options which you are permitted to take
On the options is the option to add 1-2 additional spyders.
No rule is blocking that permission!
I suggest you modify your sense of RAW versus RAI here because so far no one has come up with any rule to block this clear chain in the rules!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Which Spyder, though?
You have yet to show a rule that says which spyder is 'the Spyder' or a rule that allows you to nominate one to be 'the Spyder'.
Your argument is wholly inconsequential. It's just book-keeping like any buff given to a subset of a unit.
No need for the hostility really. Let's read the description for the formation.
"Their mechanical minds slaved to the artificial intelligence of A Canoptek Spyder"
"If the harvest is challenged, then the Canoptek Spyder reacts"
The writers intended it to be a single Spyder. The rules say it's a single Spyder.
col_impact wrote: The formation specifies 1 unit of wraiths. I can put up to 6 wraiths under 1 unit. This is exceedingly clear.
Because the formation specifies a unit of wraiths, not just a wraith.
For the spyder portion of the formation it specifies "a spyder" not "a unit of spyders". So if you have 2-3 spyders you don't have "a spyder" you have "a unit of spyders" which is not what the formation specified.
You are lacking a rule which backs up your approach. Start quoting rules!
The formation has 'no restriction' and refers to using page 93.
Page 93 has the option to add 2 Spyders.
I add 2 spyders.
The formation benefits the original spyder. I keep track.
All the rules support me.
I don't need a rule. This is basic reading comprehension. Do I need to quote a rule defining what "a" and "of" are as well?
Ad hominem attacks are not admissible. ARGUE THE RULES!
I can't quote rules on something that isn't a rules issue. The problem here is literally you misinterpreting the rule i gave you and you demanding a 40k rule for what is a error in reading comprehension. The BRB isn't also an english text book.
As I said, no ad hominem attacks. You are attacking the wrong person if you are attacking me on reading comprehension. My comprehension far exceeds yours (a safe bet based on probability)
MonumentOfRibs wrote: I don't really see what the debate is here.
RAW you are allowed one Spyder in the formation
RAI clearly intends for there to be one Spyder in the formation.
The formation refers to page 93 which has the canoptek spyder army entry list
The formaton has "no restrictions"
The army entry list has options which you are permitted to take
On the options is the option to add 1-2 additional spyders.
No rule is blocking that permission!
I suggest you modify your sense of RAW versus RAI here because so far no one has come up with any rule to block this clear chain in the rules!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Which Spyder, though?
You have yet to show a rule that says which spyder is 'the Spyder' or a rule that allows you to nominate one to be 'the Spyder'.
Your argument is wholly inconsequential. It's just book-keeping like any buff given to a subset of a unit.
No need for the hostility really. Let's read the description for the formation.
"Their mechanical minds slaved to the artificial intelligence of A Canoptek Spyder"
"If the harvest is challenged, then the Canoptek Spyder reacts"
The writers intended it to be a single Spyder. The rules say it's a single Spyder.
No one is saying the formation applies to more than 1 spyder. We are debating whether 1-2 spyders outside of the formation can be added since clear permission to do so is laid out in the rules themselves.
You need to focus on breaking the chain of permission which is firmly established in the rules themselves.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/04 09:45:46
Matt.Kingsley wrote: As for your example, you wouldn't know which train 'the train' refers to, so you wouldn't know if you were in 12" of it or not.
Which, in the case of the Spyders, you wouldn't know either. You could assume, but you may be incorrect.
I suppose a case could be made that, using your example, if the unit was within 12" of every Spyder in the Formation you'd get the bonus (because if you're within 12" of all of them you must be within 12" of 'the' one), though that is stretching the fact that the rule clearly to a single Spyder to a point that, even if a person was willing to agree, RAW, you could have 3 Spyders, most likely wouldn't agree.
The thing is, i don't think you need to know if it is the right train (for the 12" part). If i ask whether you are within 12" of "THE Spyder", any one of the 3 (being part of the Formation) will be "the Spyder".
The rules work mainly with Yes/No answers. If the question is:
"are you within 12" of "THE Spyder"?" The answer would be "Yes", not: "which one?" (although that would be the 'logical' answer)
You'd be within 12" of 'A train', you wouldn't know for sure if it was 'THE Train'.
You could assume it is 'the Train' however you have a 4/5 chance of being wrong, the only way to know and be correct in saying "I'm within 12" of 'the Train'" is if you were within 12" of all the trains.
Any one of the Spyders will be 'a Spyder', but only one is 'the Spyder'.
If, say, only 1 train was stopping at a station you needed to go to, you'd need to know which is 'the Train'.
Same with the Spyders, to gain the benefit you have to know which is 'the Spyder' (or if you were really willing to twist, bend and stretch and have no freinds, within 12" of all of them)
Adding on to this, even the "Keeping with 12" of every Spyder" does work as, when a Spyder is removed as a casualty, you don't know if it was 'the Spyder' or just 'a Spyder' so you'd once again reaching a point that is unsolvable RAW.
col_impact wrote: The formation specifies 1 unit of wraiths. I can put up to 6 wraiths under 1 unit. This is exceedingly clear.
Because the formation specifies a unit of wraiths, not just a wraith.
For the spyder portion of the formation it specifies "a spyder" not "a unit of spyders". So if you have 2-3 spyders you don't have "a spyder" you have "a unit of spyders" which is not what the formation specified.
You are lacking a rule which backs up your approach. Start quoting rules!
The formation has 'no restriction' and refers to using page 93.
Page 93 has the option to add 2 Spyders.
I add 2 spyders.
The formation benefits the original spyder. I keep track.
All the rules support me.
I don't need a rule. This is basic reading comprehension. Do I need to quote a rule defining what "a" and "of" are as well?
Ad hominem attacks are not admissible. ARGUE THE RULES!
I can't quote rules on something that isn't a rules issue. The problem here is literally you misinterpreting the rule i gave you and you demanding a 40k rule for what is a error in reading comprehension. The BRB isn't also an english text book.
As I said, no ad hominem attacks. You are attacking the wrong person if you are attacking me on reading comprehension. My comprehension far exceeds yours (a safe bet based on probability)
My point is that we both have the relevant rules there aren't more to add but we are at opposite conclusions meaning someone here is reading it wrong. And considering that only one person is reading the way that you think it's suppose to be I'm inclined to believe you are the one misinterpreting the rule.
Also saying your reading comprehension far exceeds mine is extremely presumptuous and arrogant. You don't know me so you have no basis to say such a thing.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/02/04 09:55:15
Wouldn't the interpretation "A spyder"="A unit of spyders" lead to strange recursion possibilities. Following the same line of thought:
Spyder A is a Spyder, so it buys Spyder B and C, Spyder B then claims it can buy upgrades the same way Spyder A did, and buys Spyder D and E, same goes for Spyder C. Now we have an arbitrarily large unit?
Along the same lines as this discussion is the Dar Eldar formation with 1 Talos and 1 Chronos engine, according to the line of thought in this thread i can have 3 Talos and 3 Cronos in the same unit.
Where is the support for that "A spyder" is the same as "A unit of spiders", why is it possible to take any upgrades except for those which are defined to be taken by a single spyder?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/04 10:16:45
This silence offends Slaanesh! Things will get loud now!
My point is that we both have the relevant rules there aren't more to add but we are at opposite conclusions meaning someone here is reading it wrong. And considering that only one person is reading the way that you think it's suppose to be I'm inclined to believe you are the one misinterpreting the rule.
False, as BlackTalos has repeatedly backed his reading, including a link to a similar thread, which you have failed to address and continue to ignore for 3 pages now.
In restoring good faith and proving you aren't ignoring him just because he may prove your point wrong, disprove his comparison:
If read the way you read the entry, any unit in a Decurion detachment, or any formation for that matter, cannot take a dedicated transport because it clearly says a "unit of xxx" not a "unit of xxx plus transport" as it allows in the unit entry. You are asserting that you can apply restrictions to the unit entry arbitrarily, based solely on your interpretation.
The two are nearly identical in application. You cannot enforce one without enforcing the other. So are you implying that no unit in a formation cannot take a dedicated transport, by sticking to your interpretation of singular vs plural spyders?
RAW, it clearly specifies one Spyder for the formation. The ruleset is a permissive one and it doesn't specify that the formation can consist of a "unit" of Spyders. However, as there is no restriction, it doesn't prevent you from buy any upgrade or any addition models, and as such, will allow you to purchase more Spyders, as it allows you to purchase more Wraiths or more Scarabs.
dethric wrote: Along the same lines as this discussion is the Dar Eldar formation with 1 Talos and 1 Chronos engine, according to the line of thought in this thread i can have 3 Talos and 3 Cronos in the same unit.
I think this is a good line of thought. AFAIK, noone tried to rule that you could bring more than 1 talos/cronos to the formation, even if they are normally bought as 1-3 models. The spyder goes the same way.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/04 11:16:02
Really? A six page argument sprung up over this overnight?
I don't even have the energy to read through all this mess over a few people's inability to read a completely unambiguous ruleset, with multiple published examples of multi-Spyder units no less, forcing you to blindly assume that the company's left hand has no idea what the right is doing, just because it happens to use singular to refer to a unit that starts at one member.
I'm going to keep using scarab farms, not for rules advantage but because I have a huge collection of Canoptek models and they're fun to play, I suggest the rest of you take a close look at formation restrictions and the impact they have on minimum and maximum unit sizes.
My point is that we both have the relevant rules there aren't more to add but we are at opposite conclusions meaning someone here is reading it wrong. And considering that only one person is reading the way that you think it's suppose to be I'm inclined to believe you are the one misinterpreting the rule.
False, as BlackTalos has repeatedly backed his reading, including a link to a similar thread, which you have failed to address and continue to ignore for 3 pages now.
In restoring good faith and proving you aren't ignoring him just because he may prove your point wrong, disprove his comparison:
If read the way you read the entry, any unit in a Decurion detachment, or any formation for that matter, cannot take a dedicated transport because it clearly says a "unit of xxx" not a "unit of xxx plus transport" as it allows in the unit entry. You are asserting that you can apply restrictions to the unit entry arbitrarily, based solely on your interpretation.
The two are nearly identical in application. You cannot enforce one without enforcing the other. So are you implying that no unit in a formation cannot take a dedicated transport, by sticking to your interpretation of singular vs plural spyders?
Those two are separate instances. A unit of warriors does not cease being a unit of warriors just because it bought a transport especially since a transport is a separate unit.
A spyder does stop being a singular spyder when you add spyders to the unit though.
changemod wrote: Really? A six page argument sprung up over this overnight?
I don't even have the energy to read through all this mess over a few people's inability to read a completely unambiguous ruleset, with multiple published examples of multi-Spyder units no less, forcing you to blindly assume that the company's left hand has no idea what the right is doing, just because it happens to use singular to refer to a unit that starts at one member.
I'm going to keep using scarab farms, not for rules advantage but because I have a huge collection of Canoptek models and they're fun to play, I suggest the rest of you take a close look at formation restrictions and the impact they have on minimum and maximum unit sizes.
It's a valid question, because it specifies "The Spyder" then even if you took a unit of three, which spyder becomes "The Spyder" lol
At least half of this thread has been discussing whether taking more than one Spyder breaks 'Adaptive Subroutines' in one way or another (not breaks them by making them awesomely power, but breaks them in a way that makes them impossible to use RAW without making assumptions, at least afaik so far.)
While I agree RAW you can take multiple (even if it does break 'Adaptive Subroutines'), RAI is almost 100% definitively 1 Spyder.
Yonasu wrote: Wonderful read this, someone obviously has had an argument at their flgs and now needs to find support at dakka to win the next fight
It clearly says "a spyder","the spyder" and so on, this thread should have stopped at that. It is what is written and what is intended, any tries to add more spyders break that formation entry. There is no need for any rules saying that "A Canoptek Spyder" is "A Canoptek Spyder" because it is what it is. I would be more inclined to find other formations with this wording that should also be treated like this. It is an unlucky use of words for a necron player, giving hope where there is none, but it is un-ambigious right from the start.
Unless there's a faq stating otherwise, the formation entry is what it is and in this game we follow organization charts and detachment rules because they are rules and not just guidelines. Continuing to state that "Show me the rules" is redundant since the formation is a rule.
Next time they might write "A canoptek spyder unit" and then we can use that.
The formation specifies page 93. Page 93 has options on it. I add 2 spyders.
The formation has 'no restrictions'
You wholly lack any rules to keep me from adding 2 spyders.
If you want to participate in this debate I suggest you actually find rules!
col_impact wrote: The formation specifies 1 unit of wraiths. I can put up to 6 wraiths under 1 unit. This is exceedingly clear.
Because the formation specifies a unit of wraiths, not just a wraith.
For the spyder portion of the formation it specifies "a spyder" not "a unit of spyders". So if you have 2-3 spyders you don't have "a spyder" you have "a unit of spyders" which is not what the formation specified.
You are lacking a rule which backs up your approach. Start quoting rules!
The formation has 'no restriction' and refers to using page 93.
Page 93 has the option to add 2 Spyders.
I add 2 spyders.
The formation benefits the original spyder. I keep track.
All the rules support me.
I don't need a rule. This is basic reading comprehension. Do I need to quote a rule defining what "a" and "of" are as well?
Ad hominem attacks are not admissible. ARGUE THE RULES!
You keep saying find rules, the rule is "A Canoptek Spyder", that is a rule. Which part of "this is a rule" dont you seem to grasp? This discussion is useless unless you start to acknowledge other peoples rule quotes. Stating that there is an option to add spyders to a "Canoptek Spyder Unit" doesnt change the fact that (the more specifik rule) says that you get "A Canoptek Spyder". The second you break the "A Canoptek Spyder" formation specification by adding more to your imaginary "Canoptek Spyder Unit" you break a rule. It's a very clear rule that's broken by putting more models in the formation.
My point is that we both have the relevant rules there aren't more to add but we are at opposite conclusions meaning someone here is reading it wrong. And considering that only one person is reading the way that you think it's suppose to be I'm inclined to believe you are the one misinterpreting the rule.
False, as BlackTalos has repeatedly backed his reading, including a link to a similar thread, which you have failed to address and continue to ignore for 3 pages now.
In restoring good faith and proving you aren't ignoring him just because he may prove your point wrong, disprove his comparison:
If read the way you read the entry, any unit in a Decurion detachment, or any formation for that matter, cannot take a dedicated transport because it clearly says a "unit of xxx" not a "unit of xxx plus transport" as it allows in the unit entry. You are asserting that you can apply restrictions to the unit entry arbitrarily, based solely on your interpretation.
The two are nearly identical in application. You cannot enforce one without enforcing the other. So are you implying that no unit in a formation cannot take a dedicated transport, by sticking to your interpretation of singular vs plural spyders?
Unbelievably easy to dispose of that point. If the entry says take a unit of X with no restrictions, you can take that unit and any options provided to that unit. This is in no way the same situation.
You have one Spyder. You take anotheras the same unit. You now have two Spyders. This is against the rules of the formation - it says 1 Spyder and you have 2 Spyders. The other Spyder cannot then be in the formation: it is in the same unit as a model in a different formation, which is not allowed. Now, I know people are being pretty slow over this, so let's do this simply:
If you take 2 Spyders, is that the same as 1 Spyder? Does 1=2? I know this is a really tough concept, but as col_impact repeatedly points out, he's "probably" more qualified than all of us. Surely if we put our heads together we can solve the incredibly hard question of "if something says one, and I have two, should I use one or two?"
This entire thread is absurd. The page reference is clearly to reference the rules for Spyders. It doesn't magically make your single Spyder into a unit. Every other instance where units begin as single models, like heavy destroyers or stalkers explicitly says unit so you can take a unit. This does not - it says 1 Spyder. If I have 2 Spyders then by definition I no longer have 1 Spyder as required - I have a unit of 2 Spyders.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: As for your example, you wouldn't know which train 'the train' refers to, so you wouldn't know if you were in 12" of it or not.
Which, in the case of the Spyders, you wouldn't know either. You could assume, but you may be incorrect.
I suppose a case could be made that, using your example, if the unit was within 12" of every Spyder in the Formation you'd get the bonus (because if you're within 12" of all of them you must be within 12" of 'the' one), though that is stretching the fact that the rule clearly to a single Spyder to a point that, even if a person was willing to agree, RAW, you could have 3 Spyders, most likely wouldn't agree.
The thing is, i don't think you need to know if it is the right train (for the 12" part). If i ask whether you are within 12" of "THE Spyder", any one of the 3 (being part of the Formation) will be "the Spyder".
The rules work mainly with Yes/No answers. If the question is:
"are you within 12" of "THE Spyder"?" The answer would be "Yes", not: "which one?" (although that would be the 'logical' answer)
You'd be within 12" of 'A train', you wouldn't know for sure if it was 'THE Train'.
You could assume it is 'the Train' however you have a 4/5 chance of being wrong, the only way to know and be correct in saying "I'm within 12" of 'the Train'" is if you were within 12" of all the trains.
Any one of the Spyders will be 'a Spyder', but only one is 'the Spyder'.
If, say, only 1 train was stopping at a station you needed to go to, you'd need to know which is 'the Train'.
Same with the Spyders, to gain the benefit you have to know which is 'the Spyder' (or if you were really willing to twist, bend and stretch and have no freinds, within 12" of all of them)
The entire thread is confusion now lol.
The above was our discussion when all 3 Spyders were "part of the formation", as we'd agreed. This means that it is not
"Any one of the Spyders will be 'a Spyder', but only one is 'the Spyder'. "
but actually:
All 3 are 'the Spyder', because they all have the rule, but using "the" in a general sense, thus our Train example.
Same for "The Canoptek Spyder from this Formation...". "The" being all 3 of them in a general sense, like for our Train.
Station has 5 Trains.
"The" Train is leaving is correct by RaW, because they're all in the Station (Formation) so it doesn't matter exactly which "the" it was.
[End of discussion on 3 Spyders being part of the Formation]
My point is that we both have the relevant rules there aren't more to add but we are at opposite conclusions meaning someone here is reading it wrong. And considering that only one person is reading the way that you think it's suppose to be I'm inclined to believe you are the one misinterpreting the rule.
False, as BlackTalos has repeatedly backed his reading, including a link to a similar thread, which you have failed to address and continue to ignore for 3 pages now.
In restoring good faith and proving you aren't ignoring him just because he may prove your point wrong, disprove his comparison:
If read the way you read the entry, any unit in a Decurion detachment, or any formation for that matter, cannot take a dedicated transport because it clearly says a "unit of xxx" not a "unit of xxx plus transport" as it allows in the unit entry. You are asserting that you can apply restrictions to the unit entry arbitrarily, based solely on your interpretation.
The two are nearly identical in application. You cannot enforce one without enforcing the other. So are you implying that no unit in a formation cannot take a dedicated transport, by sticking to your interpretation of singular vs plural spyders?
Unbelievably easy to dispose of that point. If the entry says take a unit of X with no restrictions, you can take that unit and any options provided to that unit. This is in no way the same situation.
You have one Spyder. You take anotheras the same unit. You now have two Spyders. This is against the rules of the formation - it says 1 Spyder and you have 2 Spyders. The other Spyder cannot then be in the formation: it is in the same unit as a model in a different formation, which is not allowed. Now, I know people are being pretty slow over this, so let's do this simply:
If you take 2 Spyders, is that the same as 1 Spyder? Does 1=2? I know this is a really tough concept, but as col_impact repeatedly points out, he's "probably" more qualified than all of us. Surely if we put our heads together we can solve the incredibly hard question of "if something says one, and I have two, should I use one or two?"
This entire thread is absurd. The page reference is clearly to reference the rules for Spyders. It doesn't magically make your single Spyder into a unit. Every other instance where units begin as single models, like heavy destroyers or stalkers explicitly says unit so you can take a unit. This does not - it says 1 Spyder. If I have 2 Spyders then by definition I no longer have 1 Spyder as required - I have a unit of 2 Spyders.
No the other thread is entirely relevant. Let's use your words, to keep it clear and simple:
You have one Tac Squad. You take a Dedicated Transport. You now have a Tac Squad+DT. This is against the rules of the formation - it says 1 Tac Squad and you have a Rhino. The Rhino cannot then be in the formation: it is a DT for a Unit in a different formation, which is not allowed. Now, I know people are being pretty slow over this, so let's do this simply:
If you take a Tac Squad+Rhino, is that the same as 1 Tac Squad? Does 1=2?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Whacked wrote: RAW, it clearly specifies one Spyder for the formation. The ruleset is a permissive one and it doesn't specify that the formation can consist of a "unit" of Spyders. However, as there is no restriction, it doesn't prevent you from buy any upgrade or any addition models, and as such, will allow you to purchase more Spyders, as it allows you to purchase more Wraiths or more Scarabs.
My point is that we both have the relevant rules there aren't more to add but we are at opposite conclusions meaning someone here is reading it wrong. And considering that only one person is reading the way that you think it's suppose to be I'm inclined to believe you are the one misinterpreting the rule.
False, as BlackTalos has repeatedly backed his reading, including a link to a similar thread, which you have failed to address and continue to ignore for 3 pages now.
In restoring good faith and proving you aren't ignoring him just because he may prove your point wrong, disprove his comparison:
If read the way you read the entry, any unit in a Decurion detachment, or any formation for that matter, cannot take a dedicated transport because it clearly says a "unit of xxx" not a "unit of xxx plus transport" as it allows in the unit entry. You are asserting that you can apply restrictions to the unit entry arbitrarily, based solely on your interpretation.
The two are nearly identical in application. You cannot enforce one without enforcing the other. So are you implying that no unit in a formation cannot take a dedicated transport, by sticking to your interpretation of singular vs plural spyders?
Those two are separate instances. A unit of warriors does not cease being a unit of warriors just because it bought a transport especially since a transport is a separate unit.
A spyder does stop being a singular spyder when you add spyders to the unit though.
And was that 'separate Unit' of a transport listed in the Formation?
No.
Why are you allowed to select the option then? (I'm all up for the answer being "you can't", but let's stay consistent for the OP)
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/02/04 12:18:09
DA:80-S+G+M+B++I-Pw40k01++D+++A+++WD100R++T(T)DM+
Roronoa Zoro wrote:When the world shoves you around, you just gotta stand up and shove back. It's not like somebody's gonna save you if you start babbling excuses. - Bring on the hardship. It's preferred in a path of carnage.
Manchu wrote:
It's like you take a Space Marine and say "what could make him cooler?" Instead of adding more super-genetic-psycho-organic modification, you take it all away. You have a regular human left in power armor and all the armies of hell at the gates. And she doesn't even flinch. Pure. Badass.
And was that 'separate Unit' of a transport listed in the Formation?
No.
Why are you allowed to select the option then? (I'm all up for the answer being "you can't", but let's stay consistent for the OP)
Because its an option for the unit to buy and doesn't change the unit so it still is what the formation requires. It's similar to how a dedicated transport doesn't take of a FOC slot.
In the specific case with the Spyder, the formation requires that you bring "a spyder". While it still is an option for spyders to buy more for the unit, if you do then you no longer have "a spyder" and are failing to meet the requirements of the formation.
Also there are formations that remove the option to buy transports in their restrictions (like Tyrannic War). If you couldn't take transports normally then they wouldn't need to make that restriction.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/04 12:29:46
And was that 'separate Unit' of a transport listed in the Formation?
No.
Why are you allowed to select the option then? (I'm all up for the answer being "you can't", but let's stay consistent for the OP)
Because its an option for the unit to buy and doesn't change the unit so it still is what the formation requires. It's similar to how a dedicated transport doesn't take of a FOC slot.
In the specific case with the Spyder, the formation requires that you bring "a spyder". While it still is an option for spyders to buy more for the unit, if you do then you no longer have "a spyder" and are failing to meet the requirements of the formation.
Also there are formations that remove the option to buy transports in their restrictions (like Tyrannic War). If you couldn't take transports normally then they wouldn't need to make that restriction.
I understand that DT have been "accepted" as an Option (Tyrannic War, Green Tide, etc), but just because they are slot-less does not make such a difference.
A Unit, chosen as required in the Formation, can select the Option of a DT.
A Unit, chosen as required in the Formation, can select the Option of 2 extra models.
I see no difference.
1 Formation has an extra FOC slot, extra Unit and extra model.
1 Formation has two extra models.
The first option seems less likely than the first...
DA:80-S+G+M+B++I-Pw40k01++D+++A+++WD100R++T(T)DM+
Roronoa Zoro wrote:When the world shoves you around, you just gotta stand up and shove back. It's not like somebody's gonna save you if you start babbling excuses. - Bring on the hardship. It's preferred in a path of carnage.
Manchu wrote:
It's like you take a Space Marine and say "what could make him cooler?" Instead of adding more super-genetic-psycho-organic modification, you take it all away. You have a regular human left in power armor and all the armies of hell at the gates. And she doesn't even flinch. Pure. Badass.
And was that 'separate Unit' of a transport listed in the Formation?
No.
Why are you allowed to select the option then? (I'm all up for the answer being "you can't", but let's stay consistent for the OP)
Because its an option for the unit to buy and doesn't change the unit so it still is what the formation requires. It's similar to how a dedicated transport doesn't take of a FOC slot.
In the specific case with the Spyder, the formation requires that you bring "a spyder". While it still is an option for spyders to buy more for the unit, if you do then you no longer have "a spyder" and are failing to meet the requirements of the formation.
Also there are formations that remove the option to buy transports in their restrictions (like Tyrannic War). If you couldn't take transports normally then they wouldn't need to make that restriction.
I understand that DT have been "accepted" as an Option (Tyrannic War, Green Tide, etc), but just because they are slot-less does not make such a difference.
A Unit, chosen as required in the Formation, can select the Option of a DT.
A Unit, chosen as required in the Formation, can select the Option of 2 extra models.
I see no difference.
1 Formation has an extra FOC slot, extra Unit and extra model.
1 Formation has two extra models.
The first option seems less likely than the first...
Slight difference in your second example (bolded to highlight), although a unit of Canoptek Spyders can purchase more models, the formation specifically states '1 Canoptek Spyder'. Since at no point does it refer to the Canoptek Spyder as 'a unit of Canoptek Spyders' (unlike the Triarch formation, which refers to the singular Triarch Stalker as 'a unit of Triarch stalkers') I'm inclined to believe that you may only have 1 Canoptek Spyder in the formation.
And was that 'separate Unit' of a transport listed in the Formation?
No.
Why are you allowed to select the option then? (I'm all up for the answer being "you can't", but let's stay consistent for the OP)
Because its an option for the unit to buy and doesn't change the unit so it still is what the formation requires. It's similar to how a dedicated transport doesn't take of a FOC slot.
In the specific case with the Spyder, the formation requires that you bring "a spyder". While it still is an option for spyders to buy more for the unit, if you do then you no longer have "a spyder" and are failing to meet the requirements of the formation.
Also there are formations that remove the option to buy transports in their restrictions (like Tyrannic War). If you couldn't take transports normally then they wouldn't need to make that restriction.
I understand that DT have been "accepted" as an Option (Tyrannic War, Green Tide, etc), but just because they are slot-less does not make such a difference.
A Unit, chosen as required in the Formation, can select the Option of a DT.
A Unit, chosen as required in the Formation, can select the Option of 2 extra models.
I see no difference.
1 Formation has an extra FOC slot, extra Unit and extra model.
1 Formation has two extra models.
The first option seems less likely than the first...
You keep ignoring the important fact which is buy those extra models prevents you from meeting the formations requirements. That is the difference
- A formation requires you take a unit of tactical marines. You give that unit a rhino as a transport. The formation still has a unit of tactical marines
- A formation requires you take a spyder. You take a unit of 3 spyders. The formation doesn't have a spyder like it requierd.
Long time lurker, first time poster (and what a thread to get started on!!)
Just wanted to throw the following into the mix. The codex does have a precedence of a way to deal with units that start with just one model in a formation - the Destroyer Cult.
The Destroyer Cult has entries for :
1 Destroyer Lord
3 units of Destroyers
0-1 units of Heavy Destroyers
The important difference here is the word "unit". The unit entry for both normal and heavy Destroyers shows that you can add more models to the unit.
The difference here with Canoptek Harvest is that it does not say 1 unit of Canoptek Spyders, it says 1 Spyder. The army list/unit entry then has options to add more Spyders, but the formation does not say you take a unit of Spyders. To me, if you add more Spyders to this unit, then you are taking a "unit of Spyders" and that is not part of the Canoptek Harvest formation.
Just my view, and certainly how I would play it (I have Necrons) and how I would expect it to be played against me.
Personally i dont see the resemblance between bringing a DT with units in a formation and this, its comparing bringing a bushel of apples in a lorry and eating an apple. RAI is easy to see and RAW is not ambigious. HIWPI is that i wouldnt go anywhere near a table where this discussion would go to these zealous lengths haha
Yonasu wrote: Personally i dont see the resemblance between bringing a DT with units in a formation and this, its comparing bringing a bushel of apples in a lorry and eating an apple. RAI is easy to see and RAW is not ambigious. HIWPI is that i wouldnt go anywhere near a table where this discussion would go to these zealous lengths haha
Well so long as you agree with your opponent beforehand it should be fine
Welcome to Dakka Bellyfluff! Thanks for the Destroyer Cult formation rules, helps to illustrate the point I made
And was that 'separate Unit' of a transport listed in the Formation?
No.
Why are you allowed to select the option then? (I'm all up for the answer being "you can't", but let's stay consistent for the OP)
Because its an option for the unit to buy and doesn't change the unit so it still is what the formation requires. It's similar to how a dedicated transport doesn't take of a FOC slot.
In the specific case with the Spyder, the formation requires that you bring "a spyder". While it still is an option for spyders to buy more for the unit, if you do then you no longer have "a spyder" and are failing to meet the requirements of the formation.
Also there are formations that remove the option to buy transports in their restrictions (like Tyrannic War). If you couldn't take transports normally then they wouldn't need to make that restriction.
I understand that DT have been "accepted" as an Option (Tyrannic War, Green Tide, etc), but just because they are slot-less does not make such a difference.
A Unit, chosen as required in the Formation, can select the Option of a DT.
A Unit, chosen as required in the Formation, can select the Option of 2 extra models.
I see no difference.
1 Formation has an extra FOC slot, extra Unit and extra model.
1 Formation has two extra models.
The first option seems less likely than the first...
And if it said one unit of Spyders, this would be equivalent. The more comparable situation would be if it's said something like 5 Tactical Marines rather than 1 unit of tac marines. In that case, I would argue the same case I'm making here and say dedicated transports wouldn't be allowed for those 5 guys. At the end of the day, it says one Spyder. You can say whatever you want, but 2 Spyders is clearly not 1 Spyder.
I have 1 canoptek spyder in the Canoptek Harver formation.
There are 'no restrictions' in the formation.
The formation explicitly points out to use page 93.
I add two additional spyders to the unit because its clearly allowable on the options on page93.
Once I do that . . .
I am still satisfying the 1 canoptek spyder for the formation. The two additional spyders are not part of the formation.
Feel free to point to an exact rule that I am breaking. The counter-argument has jumped to the conclusion (one not founded in rules) that once I add a spyder to the unit I am unable to fulfill the 1 canoptek spyder requirement.
Point out in THE RULES where I am unable to fulfill that requirement.
The counter-argument has a serious problem grounding what it says in any rule.
Moreover, the counter-argument struggles with the fact that the Formation says 'no restriction' when they want to say that the Formation is actually saying 'you may not buy additional spyders'
Why is the counter argument adding restrictions where the Formation itself clearly indicates 'no restriction'?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/02/04 13:46:08
/ BMG: Mr. Freeze, Deathstroke / Battletech: SR, OWA / Fallout Factions: BoS / HGB: Caprice / Malifaux: Arcanists, Guild, Outcasts / MCP: Mutants / SAGA: Ordensstaat / SW Legion: CIS / WWX: Union
