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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

col_impact wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

col_impact wrote:


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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:


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

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

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

col_impact wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And then break Adaptive Subroutines.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
And then break Adaptive Subroutines.

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

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

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

Yawn.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

col_impact wrote:

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

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

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

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

Ok, track which Spyder?

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

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

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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