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.

Kriswal





Per the BRB, Formations always deal with units and army list entries.

The Canoptek Harvest formation even points directly to the page number for the army list entry. There is no confusion that we are dealing with a unit.

 Kriswall wrote:
You CAN add models to an existing unit in a Formation. UNFORTUNATELY, the Canoptek Harvest doesn't include a Unit of Spyders. It includes ONE Spyder. Huge difference. A Unit of Spyders starts at 1 and can add 2 more. A single Spyder has permission to take various pieces of Wargear, but has no permission to take extra Spyders.

This is one of the core issues. The Formation DOES NOT include a UNIT of Spyders and so cannot take any UNIT UPGRADES, such as the extra 2 Spyders. If the Formation included one UNIT of Spyders, then sure... go crazy and add more. It doesn't.

Therein lies my entire problem:

The Wolves Formation DOES NOT include a UNIT of a Rhino and so cannot take any UNIT UPGRADES, such as the extra Rhino.
But apparently it can?

col_impact wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Because all 3 Formation lists are modified? I mean, what is quantifying the "quality of modification".

The slotless rule I quoted earlier.

The Formation rules *used* to be very clear to me:

the Army List Entries that comprise a Formation are listed on it

You can only ever have the Army List Entries listed on the Formation...

Then I learn/am told that you can add Army List Entries of additional Transports, as they are in a Unit's Options.
But it is now said here that you cannot add models to an existing Unit, even though they are in a Unit's Options.

Just seems like a contradiction....

I've explained, repeatedly why the two situations are not similar. One has a rule allowing it. The other doesn't.
I know you didn't ignore the rule I quoted because you responded to it - twice. Why are you attempting to apply that rule to the Spyders?

The formation has 'no restrictions'. Why are you restricting an option on its army list entry?

The fault lies within this:

But it is now said here that you cannot add models to an existing Unit, even though they are in a Unit's Options.

You presume that the spyder is a unit of spyders - which is not true. It is a single model and does thus not follow the rules for units of spyders.
You dont need to put any restrictions since the single model of a spyder (singular) does not have the option to add more spyders. A unit of spyderS (plural) has.

col_impact wrote:
Kriswal

Spoiler:

You CAN add models to an existing unit in a Formation. UNFORTUNATELY, the Canoptek Harvest doesn't include a Unit of Spyders. It includes ONE Spyder. Huge difference. A Unit of Spyders starts at 1 and can add 2 more. A single Spyder has permission to take various pieces of Wargear, but has no permission to take extra Spyders.

This is one of the core issues. The Formation DOES NOT include a UNIT of Spyders and so cannot take any UNIT UPGRADES, such as the extra 2 Spyders. If the Formation included one UNIT of Spyders, then sure... go crazy and add more. It doesn't.

Per the BRB, Formations always deal with units and army list entries.

The Canoptek Harvest formation even points directly to the page number for the army list entry. There is no confusion that we are dealing with a unit.

Well, there obviously is confusion as everywhere else in the Codex the requirement is phrased using "a unit of" wheres here it specific a single model.

Besides, I'll just claim advanced versus basic, codex trumps BRB etc, and say that the designation of one spyder is a more advanced restriction that overrides the BRB comments about full units being included.

ROUND AND ROUND WE GO.

This thread needs to be killed. Play it how you want to. Don't expect strangers or tournaments to allow more than one Spyder without a long, drawn out debate.

col_impact wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
yes, if you look at the formation it says
"1 Canoptek Spyder"
then 1 unit of scarabs and 1 unit of Wraiths.

It says, 1 spyder not 1 unit, so adding to the unit, would be breaking the formation.

Do you have some rule that indicates that the formation would be broken thusly?

in my scenario 1 canoptek spyder would be part of the formation and the 2 additional spyders would not be.

Those additional spyders are added by the options panel on the army entry list that the formation specifies (page 93)

The formation has "no restrictions"

Again, what rule besides your gut feeling is being broken here?

yes... in the same way that the assassin formation specifies how many assassins are in each one, so does this one.

it says ONE spider, you take ONE spider

assassin codex is the same, it says you take ONE assassin of each type, you take ONE of each type, not two, not three, ONE.

assasins formations are also listed with no restrictions.

theProgramm wrote:

col_impact wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Because all 3 Formation lists are modified? I mean, what is quantifying the "quality of modification".

The slotless rule I quoted earlier.

The Formation rules *used* to be very clear to me:

the Army List Entries that comprise a Formation are listed on it

You can only ever have the Army List Entries listed on the Formation...

Then I learn/am told that you can add Army List Entries of additional Transports, as they are in a Unit's Options.
But it is now said here that you cannot add models to an existing Unit, even though they are in a Unit's Options.

Just seems like a contradiction....

I've explained, repeatedly why the two situations are not similar. One has a rule allowing it. The other doesn't.
I know you didn't ignore the rule I quoted because you responded to it - twice. Why are you attempting to apply that rule to the Spyders?

The formation has 'no restrictions'. Why are you restricting an option on its army list entry?

The fault lies within this:

But it is now said here that you cannot add models to an existing Unit, even though they are in a Unit's Options.

You presume that the spyder is a unit of spyders - which is not true. It is a single model and does thus not follow the rules for units of spyders.
You dont need to put any restrictions since the single model of a spyder (singular) does not have the option to add more spyders. A unit of spyderS (plural) has.

col_impact wrote:
Kriswal

Spoiler:

You CAN add models to an existing unit in a Formation. UNFORTUNATELY, the Canoptek Harvest doesn't include a Unit of Spyders. It includes ONE Spyder. Huge difference. A Unit of Spyders starts at 1 and can add 2 more. A single Spyder has permission to take various pieces of Wargear, but has no permission to take extra Spyders.

This is one of the core issues. The Formation DOES NOT include a UNIT of Spyders and so cannot take any UNIT UPGRADES, such as the extra 2 Spyders. If the Formation included one UNIT of Spyders, then sure... go crazy and add more. It doesn't.

Per the BRB, Formations always deal with units and army list entries.

The Canoptek Harvest formation even points directly to the page number for the army list entry. There is no confusion that we are dealing with a unit.

That is true in the way you look at the one model of the spyder - it is a unit containing that one model but it is NOT a unit of spyderS (plural) it is a single spider that gets promoted to beeing a unit when you refer to it in other rules. So the spyder is not a unit of spyders because you take a "unit of spyders" which is a codex entry but you take a single spyder and it gets promoted to beeing a unit from the rules of the formations/detachments - which is not the same unit as the one in the codex. (The one referes to something existing the other looks at it as something to bring rules in line with their wording.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

[...]when you include several specific
units together. Instead of including a Force Organisation chart, the Army List
Entries that comprise a Formation are listed on it,[...

See the "specific" and the "are listed on it". With this we look at the requirements of the canoptek formation:
1 spyder
So we need a single specific spyder per the rule you just quoted. There is a 1 and no plural. A single spyder cant be multiple spyders. You cant add spyders to that unit of spyders because it is not a "unit of spyders" in sens of the codex entry "spyders".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:
Kriswal

Spoiler:

You CAN add models to an existing unit in a Formation. UNFORTUNATELY, the Canoptek Harvest doesn't include a Unit of Spyders. It includes ONE Spyder. Huge difference. A Unit of Spyders starts at 1 and can add 2 more. A single Spyder has permission to take various pieces of Wargear, but has no permission to take extra Spyders.

This is one of the core issues. The Formation DOES NOT include a UNIT of Spyders and so cannot take any UNIT UPGRADES, such as the extra 2 Spyders. If the Formation included one UNIT of Spyders, then sure... go crazy and add more. It doesn't.

Per the BRB, Formations always deal with units and army list entries.

The Canoptek Harvest formation even points directly to the page number for the army list entry. There is no confusion that we are dealing with a unit.

Here the same applies: you organize your models within "units" but making a single model a unit that could otherwise not be taken alone does not mean that you can tread that unit as it was some other specific entry within a codex. If any formation says "take a Ctan and 2 Cryptecs" you cant promote that 2 Cryptecs to a full royal court just becaus its their only way to be as 2 man group on the table (refering the old codex for this example). If you had to take a single Heavy Destroyer what unit would it be? The normal destroyer unit with one upgraded to a heavy? Or the unit of heavy destroyers? Or just a so called unit that has no specific entry in a codex because it contains a single modell that is not a unit in its codex but just a model?

col_impact wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The formation has 'no restrictions'. Why are you restricting an option on its army list entry?

The formation has an inherent restriction of 1 Spyder.

Or are you saying that I can add, say, a C'Tan as part of the formation? After all, there re no Restrictions.

There is no option on the Spyder to add a C'Tan.


The formation has a requirement of 1 spyder. Not a restriction. We know this because the formation says 'no restrictions'.

So you buy a unit of 2 Spyders.
Does that meet the requirement of 1 Spyder?

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The formation has 'no restrictions'. Why are you restricting an option on its army list entry?

The formation has an inherent restriction of 1 Spyder.

Or are you saying that I can add, say, a C'Tan as part of the formation? After all, there re no Restrictions.

There is no option on the Spyder to add a C'Tan.


The formation has a requirement of 1 spyder. Not a restriction. We know this because the formation says 'no restrictions'.

So you buy a unit of 2 Spyders.
Does that meet the requirement of 1 Spyder?

Yes of course. If I have 3 bananas I meet the requirement of 1 banana.

Talos - I'm on my phone so can't give your post the attention it deserves. Jut letting you know I'll get to you later today.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The formation has 'no restrictions'. Why are you restricting an option on its army list entry?

The formation has an inherent restriction of 1 Spyder.

Or are you saying that I can add, say, a C'Tan as part of the formation? After all, there re no Restrictions.

There is no option on the Spyder to add a C'Tan.


The formation has a requirement of 1 spyder. Not a restriction. We know this because the formation says 'no restrictions'.

So you buy a unit of 2 Spyders.
Does that meet the requirement of 1 Spyder?

Yes of course. If I have 3 bananas I meet the requirement of 1 banana.

False. 3 != 1. It's a requirement, not a minimum.

rigeld2 wrote:
Talos - I'm on my phone so can't give your post the attention it deserves. Jut letting you know I'll get to you later today.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The formation has 'no restrictions'. Why are you restricting an option on its army list entry?

The formation has an inherent restriction of 1 Spyder.

Or are you saying that I can add, say, a C'Tan as part of the formation? After all, there re no Restrictions.

There is no option on the Spyder to add a C'Tan.


The formation has a requirement of 1 spyder. Not a restriction. We know this because the formation says 'no restrictions'.

So you buy a unit of 2 Spyders.
Does that meet the requirement of 1 Spyder?

Yes of course. If I have 3 bananas I meet the requirement of 1 banana.

False. 3 != 1. It's a requirement, not a minimum.

Do you have a rule to back up your zeal?

I have a clear chain of permission to add spyders.

Yes. It was quoted earlier in the thread.

Essentially, you purchase units and then slot them into Formations. If you purchase 3 Spyders in a Unit, that does not meet the requirement of 1 Spyder as you only have permission to have 1 Spyder in the Formation, not 3. And you can't have one model of a unit part of one Fprmation and the rest part of nothing.

You cannot quote rules supporting your "chain of permission" as they don't exist. I've quoted rules showing that, in fact, you can't add Spyders.

rigeld2 wrote:
Yes. It was quoted earlier in the thread.

Essentially, you purchase units and then slot them into Formations. If you purchase 3 Spyders in a Unit, that does not meet the requirement of 1 Spyder as you only have permission to have 1 Spyder in the Formation, not 3. And you can't have one model of a unit part of one Fprmation and the rest part of nothing.

You cannot quote rules supporting your "chain of permission" as they don't exist. I've quoted rules showing that, in fact, you can't add Spyders.

We are missing the rules that back up what you are saying right now. Page and paragraph please.

Read the thread - I've quoted them before. I'm on my phone now.

rigeld2 wrote:
Read the thread - I've quoted them before. I'm on my phone now.

I will wait for you to discover copy paste technology.

Ok, 9 pages is a lot to sift through, so sorry if this has been mentioned already.

Has anyone brought up the method used in 40k for denoting numbers of models/units?

0-1 means "up to one"
1+ means "at least one"
1 means "exactly one"

Based on the wording of the entry, we know that it is referring to individual models, not units. I think the fallacy is that the OP is reading the 1 (exactly 1) as a 1+ (at least 1).

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Is a unit of 3 spiders the same as 1 spider? If not then you don't have that formation

I am missing the part where you are quoting a rule.

the unit is composed of 1 canoptek spyder that is part of the formation and 2 additional spyders in the unit that were bought by a formation that has no restrictions and that gives clear access to that option on the army entry list it directly references.

I have a clear chain of permission to do what I am proposing.

You have a unit that is part of 2 detachments - the Formation, and another detachment for the other two spyders.
Cite permission to do this.

In addition, you purchase units first, then organize them into Detachments.

Spoiler:

Simply select a type of Detachment and organise some or all of your units so that they fit within the restrictions and limitations detailed on that particular Detachment.

Purchasing a 3 spyder unit and then attempting to put part of the unit into a Formation has no rules support.

Models are not members of a detachment - units are. You have no clear chain of permission - you're (again) making things up.

Since you're being lazy, I found the time to requote my earlier statement.
It has nothing to do with copy/paste, so please stop being rude.

rigeld2 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Is a unit of 3 spiders the same as 1 spider? If not then you don't have that formation

I am missing the part where you are quoting a rule.

the unit is composed of 1 canoptek spyder that is part of the formation and 2 additional spyders in the unit that were bought by a formation that has no restrictions and that gives clear access to that option on the army entry list it directly references.

I have a clear chain of permission to do what I am proposing.

You have a unit that is part of 2 detachments - the Formation, and another detachment for the other two spyders.
Cite permission to do this.

In addition, you purchase units first, then organize them into Detachments.

Spoiler:

Simply select a type of Detachment and organise some or all of your units so that they fit within the restrictions and limitations detailed on that particular Detachment.

Purchasing a 3 spyder unit and then attempting to put part of the unit into a Formation has no rules support.

Models are not members of a detachment - units are. You have no clear chain of permission - you're (again) making things up.

Since you're being lazy, I found the time to requote my earlier statement.
It has nothing to do with copy/paste, so please stop being rude.

Yup. So I have the Canoptek Harvest formation and I add the 2 spyders to it since its on the options of the spyder unit and the formation has 'no restrictions'

You do see that there's already a precedent in the new necron formations for when the we're allowed to specifically take a unit of a model or models, yes?

Judicator Battalion.
1 unit of Triarch Stalkers

What is a unit of Stalkers? It's 1-3 Stalkers.

Canoptek Harvest
1 Canoptek Spyder

Not '1 unit of Canoptek Spyders'. What is 1 Canoptek Spyder? 1 Canoptek Spyder is 1 Canoptek Spyder. What isn't 1 Canoptek Spyder? A unit of 2 Canoptek Spyders.

Explain, if the formation allows you to take multiple Spyders, why did it not use the wording of the Judicator Battalion? Why would they change the wording between the two formations?

 ashrog wrote:
Ok, 9 pages is a lot to sift through, so sorry if this has been mentioned already.

Has anyone brought up the method used in 40k for denoting numbers of models/units?

0-1 means "up to one"
1+ means "at least one"
1 means "exactly one"

Based on the wording of the entry, we know that it is referring to individual models, not units. I think the fallacy is that the OP is reading the 1 (exactly 1) as a 1+ (at least 1).

Formations deal in units.

SO, this appears to be just going around in circles by this point, so I think it's time to move on.