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.

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.