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.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Christoph: the invalidation of 1 option(additional unit members) is what the FAQ is implying, yes. They were trying to say that the way the unit is listed in the formation is listed creates some sort of unstated restriction regarding the number of models in the unit(even though there are also formations out there that actually have that exact listed restriction).

Correction, that is what the FAQ is stating, not implying. It literally states that it is one model. I should also point out, that is what I have been saying it states.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
But that isn't even the issue; the way the FAQ "clarifies" this (and also remember that the new SM FAQ does state that the Captain in a Demi-company can be upgraded to a Chapter Master even though the listing would set it as the model type, and IIRC there is a mention in the FAQ of techmarines with servitors in a formation), which is that you can only take the named model in the number of instances indicated. We have rules for how you take units in your army, and formations state that they reference unit entries. There is nothing to explain how you take single models.

That still does not invalidate all the options from the datasheet by ignoring one option. After all, how can you take a model without using the datasheet?

Again, the FAQ set is a mess, agreed. These situations where there are "1 model Intended" without putting it in Restrictions is also a mess, agreed.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Worse that that would be an issue where they list more than 1 of an entry/model shared name with multiple models allowed in the entry, and while lacking the "units of/units" verbiage. At that point you would have no way of knowing if they meant for the multiple models to form separate units or be fielded from 1 unit entry with the specified number of models.

Actually the FAQ does address that specifically. However, like many different Army List building rules and many of the FAQ answers, there isn't anything hard and fast to reference to make this an honest reality.

1) demonstrably fallacious: it states 1 model; it states nothing about removing or restricting any options. That is an implication of what is stated. The other implication would be that you are not taking any unit entry; just the model, which we have no rules for how to do so.

2) my point in that was the demicompany captain and techmarine are both listed in formations in the same manner as the Spyder; but both do not have the options to either change the model(captain) nor add additional models(servitors) to the unit. And yes, first draft along with a deliberately manipulative question(asking if a formation that says "1 model", none of them say 1 model outside of restrictions). Along with that, if you are simply taking 1 model(as they state) instead of the unit entry(it is not 1 unit of, with restrictions), then we have no associated points cost nor options(those are both tied to the unit entry)

3) that response is oxymoronic; if you cannot reference anything hard and fast from the FAQ, then the FAQ did not address that specifically (and they didn't address the possibility at all)

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
1) demonstrably fallacious: it states 1 model; it states nothing about removing or restricting any options. That is an implication of what is stated. The other implication would be that you are not taking any unit entry; just the model, which we have no rules for how to do so.

Not fallacious. Interpretive.

So, then if it does not state anything about removing or restricting any options, then how can one dismiss the options that come on the datasheet?

So answer the question earlier on how to take a model without referencing the datasheet?

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
2) my point in that was the demicompany captain and techmarine are both listed in formations in the same manner as the Spyder; but both do not have the options to either change the model(captain) nor add additional models(servitors) to the unit. And yes, first draft along with a deliberately manipulative question(asking if a formation that says "1 model", none of them say 1 model outside of restrictions). Along with that, if you are simply taking 1 model(as they state) instead of the unit entry(it is not 1 unit of, with restrictions), then we have no associated points cost nor options(those are both tied to the unit entry)

I am trying to understand your point on this one. The question regarding the Canoptek Spyder is partly one about adding additional models, is it not? The Techmarine unit does add models (Servitors) just like the Canoptek Spyders unit. The Captain unit can change the Captain model for a Chapter Master model. The two models are not the same to be referenced.

Keep in mind that this is not MY answer, but GWs. The question may have been a little manipulative, but it's not like they couldn't have referenced the situation (admittedly, the probably didn't), nor that they couldn't find such a Formation.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
3) that response is oxymoronic; if you cannot reference anything hard and fast from the FAQ, then the FAQ did not address that specifically (and they didn't address the possibility at all)

Why do you think I was limiting it to just FAQ answers? This Canoptek Spyder answer (along with quite a few of these FAQ answers) does not have anything in the rules to make it a solid (hard) or easily referenced (fast) answer. It is to that which I was referring to. Hardly oxymoronic.

1) yes fallacious, you said that they stated that you invalidate the option to take additional models as opposed to merely implying that to be the case. The FAQ is in the spoiler tags on the first page of the thread: no such statement is made. You can infer that they were implying that this is what they meant; but that is not a statement to that effect.

You remove all options from the datasheet when you are no longer purchasing the model from the armylist entry; but merely using the model as part of the composition for the formation. The FAQ states that you only get the model specified in the numbers specified when the "formation calls for 1 model instead of 1 unit of": if you simply have the model because the formation calls for it, then you simply have the stats, wargear, and special rules for that model(yes those are found in the unit entry, but it is not like you cannot reference the entry after purchase, you wouldn't be able to play the game at all if that were the case).

2) The Captain is both a unit name and a model name, the FAQ states only the model specified in these instances; the SM codex FAQ then states that the Captain model can be upgraded to a Chapter Master model via the Captain unit entry, this does not match the detachment FAQ answer on formation composition formatting. If "1 Captain" still means the basic Formation rules of "1 Captain armylist entry" then the phrase "unit of" or "units" must not be necessary to denote the difference between a specified army list entry and a model of the same name. In this event it would have to say "1 x model"(x being Captain for the purposes of this example)

3) You lead with "Actually the FAQ does address that specifically."; then stated that there wasn't anything hard and fast to reference. If the FAQ addressed the issue Specifically then you would have something hard(the specific answer given by the FAQ that addresses the issue) and Fast(again said FAQ answer) to reference; no other sources would even matter if it was specifically addressed in the FAQ as you claimed. That is the very definition on an oxymoronic statement: 2 opposing ideas that cannot coexist.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
1) yes fallacious, you said that they stated that you invalidate the option to take additional models as opposed to merely implying that to be the case. The FAQ is in the spoiler tags on the first page of the thread: no such statement is made. You can infer that they were implying that this is what they meant; but that is not a statement to that effect.

You remove all options from the datasheet when you are no longer purchasing the model from the armylist entry; but merely using the model as part of the composition for the formation. The FAQ states that you only get the model specified in the numbers specified when the "formation calls for 1 model instead of 1 unit of": if you simply have the model because the formation calls for it, then you simply have the stats, wargear, and special rules for that model(yes those are found in the unit entry, but it is not like you cannot reference the entry after purchase, you wouldn't be able to play the game at all if that were the case).

Quote, please, otherwise, you are being fallacious. Where does it state that when you include the model, you ignore all of the datasheet/unit entry?

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
2) The Captain is both a unit name and a model name, the FAQ states only the model specified in these instances; the SM codex FAQ then states that the Captain model can be upgraded to a Chapter Master model via the Captain unit entry, this does not match the detachment FAQ answer on formation composition formatting. If "1 Captain" still means the basic Formation rules of "1 Captain armylist entry" then the phrase "unit of" or "units" must not be necessary to denote the difference between a specified army list entry and a model of the same name. In this event it would have to say "1 x model"(x being Captain for the purposes of this example)

Correct. As I have mentioned before, their FAQ Drafts have been contradictory.

However, I should point out that in the case of the Tank Commander, it is not using the Captain to Chapter Master model precedent, because it is upgrading the model and still one model, but using the Canoptek Harvest because it is adding models, even though the options state the availability to do so (indeed, the Tank Commander REQUIRES it in its options).

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
3) You lead with "Actually the FAQ does address that specifically."; then stated that there wasn't anything hard and fast to reference. If the FAQ addressed the issue Specifically then you would have something hard(the specific answer given by the FAQ that addresses the issue) and Fast(again said FAQ answer) to reference; no other sources would even matter if it was specifically addressed in the FAQ as you claimed. That is the very definition on an oxymoronic statement: 2 opposing ideas that cannot coexist.

The FAQ Draft specifically addresses this concept of taking multiple models in a unit when the Formation list presents the possibility to be referencing just one model. However, nothing in the rules or currently live FAQ and errata to address this in the rules. Why should I refer to something in testing when we concerned with something live?

If something outside of this FAQ Draft does support this answer both solidly and quickly, please present it.

Do you understand the word fallacious?

I gave another interpretation on what the FAQ implied; no I cannot quote where it says any of that any more than you can provide a quote that taking a model in a formation allows any or all other options excepting those that allow you to change that model or add additional models to the unit.

I literally cannot be fallacious as I am not operating under any belief other than the very true one that GW sucks at keeping their own rules straight and clearly written.

You asserted that they stated you remove 1 option: that was demonstrably untrue: no such statement exists.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Do you understand the word fallacious?

I gave another interpretation on what the FAQ implied; no I cannot quote where it says any of that any more than you can provide a quote that taking a model in a formation allows any or all other options excepting those that allow you to change that model or add additional models to the unit.

I literally cannot be fallacious as I am not operating under any belief other than the very true one that GW sucks at keeping their own rules straight and clearly written.

You asserted that they stated you remove 1 option: that was demonstrably untrue: no such statement exists.

Read the question then, and read the answer.

With that answer, can you add extra Canoptek Spyder models to the Canoptek Harvest Formation?

Where is the capability to add extra Canoptek Spyder's normally found?

You are presenting your case under the concept that either if one option is made unavailable, all are, OR you are operating under the concept that if a model is selected for a Formation, none of the options on the Datashseet that provides the model are available. Provide the quote to support your belief or be found mistaken. That is what fallacious means.

Does any of this matter?

Option A, I do not get the squad tanks....I still have a tank commander and squads of tanks. But no buffer hp tanks for the commander. Formation is cheaper to run.

Option B, I do get them. The formation costs more to take but now provides some protection.

Literally both options are both balanced in their own way, debating it is a waste.....just make a ruling in your neck of the woods and live with it.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
1)
You remove all options from the datasheet when you are no longer purchasing the model from the armylist entry; but merely using the model as part of the composition for the formation. The FAQ states that you only get the model specified in the numbers specified when the "formation calls for 1 model instead of 1 unit of": if you simply have the model because the formation calls for it, then you simply have the stats, wargear, and special rules for that model(yes those are found in the unit entry, but it is not like you cannot reference the entry after purchase, you wouldn't be able to play the game at all if that were the case).

I think, in the case of the Tank Commander, and I have pointed this out earlier, this issue is solved by the Tank Commander's codex entry itself. The Tank Commander is clearly listed as a Character. This Character is then attached to a "Leman Russ Squadron" which does indeed have a separate codex entry under Leman Russ Squadron. The Tank Commander's squadron is only listed under Options for the the Tank Commander Character. His squadron is essentially a non-optional option (by virtue of the fact that he MUST join this squadron however his ability to join the squadron is an Option" upgrade to a Character. Here is where I am going with this:

1. The formation calls for a Tank Commander.
2. We reference the Codex, see the Tank Commander is a Character and select him.
3. After selecting this Character, we reference his Options.
4. Seeing he MUST take an accompanying Squadron, we attempt to do so.
5. In light of the FAQ our attempt to take an accompanying squadron is illegal due to the fact that the Formation does not say "A Tank Commander and his unit".
6. Since only "1 Tank Commander" is allowed we are left with the Tank Commander Character.

I think the fact that the squadron is mention as an "Option", albeit a non-optional option, for the Commander is significant. It means the unit the entry is referencing is not the squadron + commander but the commander alone. This then makes the Formation requirement somewhat more sensible.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

You asserted that they stated you remove 1 option: that was demonstrably untrue: no such statement exists.

No such statement exists, true, but the inference is as bullet proof as inferring that, for example, because GW said 1+1=2 they also meant 1+1 =/= 3, 4,5 etc. That is to say, if someone says you are forced to take option one of two mutually exclusive options, we can know for certain that, in taking option one, they also meant we must exclude the second option. We know this because we know they cannot both be taken at the same time, and we are forced to take option one.

Such is the case with the FAQ ruling in question.

So the tank commander cannot purchase his mandatory squadron but veterans can purchase an optional transport?

To me it seems more like youre saying that since GW said 2+2=4 , 1+3 cannot be 4, too.

There is nothing restricting the adding of additional Spyders in the Canoptek Harvest.

If anyone thinks there is, point it out.

nekooni wrote:
So the tank commander cannot purchase his mandatory squadron but veterans can purchase an optional transport?

To me it seems more like youre saying that since GW said 2+2=4 , 1+3 cannot be 4, too.

As has been said, it is a bit stupid that they didn't put the Restrictions in the proper place.

Keep in mind that this assumes that "1 Canoptek Spyder" or "1 Tank Commander" in a Formation list are specifically for 1 model in a Formation. Units are a different story and follow a different standard with things.

 Charistoph wrote:

nekooni wrote:
So the tank commander cannot purchase his mandatory squadron but veterans can purchase an optional transport?

To me it seems more like youre saying that since GW said 2+2=4 , 1+3 cannot be 4, too.

As has been said, it is a bit stupid that they didn't put the Restrictions in the proper place.

Keep in mind that this assumes that "1 Canoptek Spyder" or "1 Tank Commander" in a Formation list are specifically for 1 model in a Formation. Units are a different story and follow a different standard with things.

That's an assumption that doesn't hold up. The 1 Canoptek Spyder model would not be able to participate at all in the game and would be just scenery. The rules for movement, shooting, assault, etc. require units to work at all.


Models outside of units are not able to do anything in the game at all.

col_impact wrote:
That's an assumption that doesn't hold up. The 1 Canoptek Spyder would not be able to participate at all in the game and would be just scenery. The rules for movement, shooting, assault, etc. require units to work at all.

We are talking about army building at this point, and not the gameplay afterward. But think about these questions.

All models are organized in to units, yes, or no? And the game still does address individual models at times, correct? And these specific units start with a Unit Composition of 1 model, correct?

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
That's an assumption that doesn't hold up. The 1 Canoptek Spyder would not be able to participate at all in the game and would be just scenery. The rules for movement, shooting, assault, etc. require units to work at all.

We are talking about army building at this point, and not the gameplay afterward. But think about these questions.

All models are organized in to units, yes, or no?

yes

Charistoph wrote:

And the game still does address individual models at times, correct?

Those models are always organized in units even when the unit is not mentioned. Game play fundamentally requires the unit level of organization to be there.

So, no, the game does not address individual models outside of units.

Charistoph wrote:

And these specific units start with a Unit Composition of 1 model, correct?

Yup. And there is nothing restricting them from accessing the options on their datasheet.

In order to restrict the player to only purchasing 1 canoptek spyder the Formation simply puts that restriction into the restrictions panel.

Directley from the BRB under "Models and Units":

"To reflect all their differences, each model has its own characteristics profile. Warhammer 40,000 uses nine different characteristics to describe the various attributes
of the different models."

"Every model in Warhammer 40,000 has a profile that lists the values of its characteristics. You can find these profiles in a variety of Games Workshop publications, including codexes.'

So models do have rules for their use, period. The "Tank Commander" profile lists the ruls to use the MODEL, which is the Tank Commander in his tank.

Then we read how models must be organized into units, and also read:

"A unit usually consists of several models that have
banded together, but a single, powerful model, such as a lone character, a tank, a war engine or a rampaging monster, is also considered to be a unit in its own right."

A Tank Commander is a unit of one model which is then forced to join another unit, a Leman Russ Squadron. The Tank Commander entry in the codex does not list any information about the Squadron's Russes, which we would expect it to if the Tank Commander entry was describing a Model+his unit. if you did not reference the separate unit entry for Leman Russ Squadrons you would have no idea what his squadron's rules were. The formation calls for the 1 Tank Commander (a 1 model unit) alone, without joining him to his usually mandatory squadron, and in light of the FAQ we know this is what is meant.

col_impact wrote:Those models are always organized in units even when the unit is not mentioned. Game play fundamentally requires the unit level of organization to be there.

So, no, the game does not address individual models outside of units.

You may want to restructure this last sentence. The game does not address models that are not in units. The game does address individual models without addressing the units, though.

col_impact wrote:

Charistoph wrote:And these specific units start with a Unit Composition of 1 model, correct?

Yup. And there is nothing restricting them from accessing the options on their datasheet.

In order to restrict the player to only purchasing 1 canoptek spyder the Formation simply puts that restriction into the restrictions panel.

Apparently that is not the case according to this FAQ Draft. And that is the point I've been trying to make, if one would bother to pay attention.

ExFideFortis wrote:A Tank Commander is a unit of one model which is then forced to join another unit, a Leman Russ Squadron. The Tank Commander entry in the codex does not list any information about the Squadron's Russes, which we would expect it to if the Tank Commander entry was describing a Model+his unit. if you did not reference the separate unit entry for Leman Russ Squadrons you would have no idea what his squadron's rules were. The formation calls for the 1 Tank Commander (a 1 model unit) alone, without joining him to his usually mandatory squadron, and in light of the FAQ we know this is what is meant.

This is not entirely accurate. The Tank Commander does not join another unit. It pulls models from a different unit entry in to its unit. The difference is important when a unit name is called out.

Looking at the codex entry it states that the tank commander must take one Leman Russ from those listed in the heavy support section.

It also says his squadron must iclude 1-2 other leman russes.

If you say you can't take extra leman russes as part of a squadron, the argument sounds similar to not letting him have a tank to drive around in. Theres no part of the formation saying you can take him in a tank, just the same as there's nothing saying you can take him in a squadron.

They both drastically alter the unit's composition and both are musts in the units options.

 HANZERtank wrote:
Looking at the codex entry it states that the tank commander must take one Leman Russ from those listed in the heavy support section.

It also says his squadron must iclude 1-2 other leman russes.

If you say you can't take extra leman russes as part of a squadron, the argument sounds similar to not letting him have a tank to drive around in. Theres no part of the formation saying you can take him in a tank, just the same as there's nothing saying you can take him in a squadron.

They both drastically alter the unit's composition and both are musts in the units options.

Not entirely. One changes it from one model equipped with nothing to equipped with something, akin to Space Marine Captains on a Bike (he still remains a Tank Commander, though), while the other changes the unit from 1 model, to 2-3.

Keep in mind that this only is considered by the FAQ that says the Canoptek Harvest may not have more than one Canoptek Spyder model in its Formation.

It is all a moot point though; the Tank Commander is only an Armylist entry that modifies another Armylist entry.

He is not a model himself until you designate him into a russ. He is not the same as a Lord Commissar(who is both Army list entry name and model name) the profile given for the tank commander is a modifier for a Leman Russ tank.

 Charistoph wrote:


Keep in mind that this only is considered by the FAQ that says the Canoptek Harvest may not have more than one Canoptek Spyder model in its Formation.

The FAQ does not say this. You are reading into the FAQ.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:Those models are always organized in units even when the unit is not mentioned. Game play fundamentally requires the unit level of organization to be there.

So, no, the game does not address individual models outside of units.

You may want to restructure this last sentence. The game does not address models that are not in units. The game does address individual models without addressing the units, though.

You are making a pointless statement then.

So I have a unit of 1 Canoptek spyder model and I access the options panel to add additional spyders and break no restrictions by doing so.

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:


Keep in mind that this only is considered by the FAQ that says the Canoptek Harvest may not have more than one Canoptek Spyder model in its Formation.

The FAQ does not say this. You are reading into the FAQ.

Q: When listing Formations, sometimes it states ‘1 model’ (like 1 Tomb Spyder), while other times it lists ‘1 Unit of models’ (like 1 unit of Tomb Blades). Are these interchangeable?
A: No. The former means a single model of the type listed, while the later means a single unit of the type listed.

Well, the Canoptek Harvest sure doesn't call for "1 Unit of Canoptek Spyders". Sure looks like it lists a model's name. Per the above FAQ, that means 1 single model. If you take extras, you're violating the intent (and the rules per the FAQ).

Realistically, they should list something like "1 Canoptek Spyder Unit composed of 1 Canoptek Spyder". This looks awkward, but isn't ambiguous.

 Kriswall wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:


Keep in mind that this only is considered by the FAQ that says the Canoptek Harvest may not have more than one Canoptek Spyder model in its Formation.

The FAQ does not say this. You are reading into the FAQ.

Q: When listing Formations, sometimes it states ‘1 model’ (like 1 Tomb Spyder), while other times it lists ‘1 Unit of models’ (like 1 unit of Tomb Blades). Are these interchangeable?
A: No. The former means a single model of the type listed, while the later means a single unit of the type listed.

Well, the Canoptek Harvest sure doesn't call for "1 Unit of Canoptek Spyders". Sure looks like it lists a model's name. Per the above FAQ, that means 1 single model. If you take extras, you're violating the intent (and the rules per the FAQ).

Realistically, they should list something like "1 Canoptek Spyder Unit composed of 1 Canoptek Spyder". This looks awkward, but isn't ambiguous.

Do you have access to the options on the ALE, yes or no?

Kommissar Kel wrote:It is all a moot point though; the Tank Commander is only an Armylist entry that modifies another Armylist entry.

He is not a model himself until you designate him into a russ. He is not the same as a Lord Commissar(who is both Army list entry name and model name) the profile given for the tank commander is a modifier for a Leman Russ tank.

Wrong direction. The Tank Commander pulls a profile and Wargear from another Armylist Entry in to its own.

He is a "model" (game definition, not physical reality) before being put in the Russ. He then "puts on" the rest of the Leman Russ on to itself. It is closer to a Captain riding on Bike, or Santa Grimnar getting his sleigh.

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Keep in mind that this only is considered by the FAQ that says the Canoptek Harvest may not have more than one Canoptek Spyder model in its Formation.

The FAQ does not say this. You are reading into the FAQ.

Then elucidate on what you think it actually states instead of making broad declarations.

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:Those models are always organized in units even when the unit is not mentioned. Game play fundamentally requires the unit level of organization to be there.

So, no, the game does not address individual models outside of units.

You may want to restructure this last sentence. The game does not address models that are not in units. The game does address individual models without addressing the units, though.

You are making a pointless statement then.

So I have a unit of 1 Canoptek spyder model and I access the options panel to add additional spyders and break no restrictions by doing so.

Correction, GW is making a pointless statement here, not me. GW is the one that is saying that the "1 Canoptek Spyder" listed in the Canoptek Harvest Formation is limited to the 1 Canoptek Spyder model, and that adding more would be the same as trying to another Wraith unit to the Formation.

And you may have not noticed the several times it has been mentioned by myself and a few others, this is not the way it should be done if this is the intention.

col_impact wrote:Do you have access to the options on the ALE, yes or no?

Do you have instructions to not use the ALE, yes or no?

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
You are making a pointless statement then.

So I have a unit of 1 Canoptek spyder model and I access the options panel to add additional spyders and break no restrictions by doing so.

Correction, GW is making a pointless statement here, not me. GW is the one that is saying that the "1 Canoptek Spyder" listed in the Canoptek Harvest Formation is limited to the 1 Canoptek Spyder model, and that adding more would be the same as trying to another Wraith unit to the Formation.

And you may have not noticed the several times it has been mentioned by myself and a few others, this is not the way it should be done if this is the intention.

Nowhere does GW state that you are limited to 1 Canoptek Spyder. There is a rule that allows you to add additional spyders. You use that option and break no rules in place.

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:Do you have access to the options on the ALE, yes or no?

Do you have instructions to not use the ALE, yes or no?

There are no instructions to not use the ALE, so I go ahead and use the option to add additional spyders and I break no rules in the process.

col_impact wrote:

Nowhere does GW state that you are limited to 1 Canoptek Spyder. There is a rule that allows you to add additional spyders. You use that option and break no rules in place.

Aren't you ignoring the below quoted post when you ask that question?:

 Kriswall wrote:

Q: When listing Formations, sometimes it states ‘1 model’ (like 1 Tomb Spyder), while other times it lists ‘1 Unit of models’ (like 1 unit of Tomb Blades). Are these interchangeable?
A: No. The former means a single model of the type listed, while the later means a single unit of the type listed.

Well, the Canoptek Harvest sure doesn't call for "1 Unit of Canoptek Spyders". Sure looks like it lists a model's name. Per the above FAQ, that means 1 single model. If you take extras, you're violating the intent (and the rules per the FAQ).

Realistically, they should list something like "1 Canoptek Spyder Unit composed of 1 Canoptek Spyder". This looks awkward, but isn't ambiguous.

Like Kriswall says, the intent of the ruling is pretty obvious here even if we can poke semantic holes in it. If you use the option you are talking about (the option to take additional spyders) you are breaking the formation's restrictions. These restrictions are what prevent you from taking a unit of multiple models when a single model unit is specifically required by a formation, even if the unit in question has the ability to increase the model count outside that formation.
Though the Tank Commander operates a little differentely, in that as others have pointed out he attaches a seperate unit to himself rather than being attached to another unit, I can't see any logical reason why this would prevent the FAQ from applying to him.

I would also point out (though I don't believe it's very important at all) that there technically are models for tank commanders, such as the model for Knight Commander Pask and the newer Leman Russ Tech-Command kit which contains a "Squadron Command Frame" for modeling a Tank Commander's Leman Russ.

col_impact wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:


Keep in mind that this only is considered by the FAQ that says the Canoptek Harvest may not have more than one Canoptek Spyder model in its Formation.

The FAQ does not say this. You are reading into the FAQ.

Q: When listing Formations, sometimes it states ‘1 model’ (like 1 Tomb Spyder), while other times it lists ‘1 Unit of models’ (like 1 unit of Tomb Blades). Are these interchangeable?
A: No. The former means a single model of the type listed, while the later means a single unit of the type listed.

Well, the Canoptek Harvest sure doesn't call for "1 Unit of Canoptek Spyders". Sure looks like it lists a model's name. Per the above FAQ, that means 1 single model. If you take extras, you're violating the intent (and the rules per the FAQ).

Realistically, they should list something like "1 Canoptek Spyder Unit composed of 1 Canoptek Spyder". This looks awkward, but isn't ambiguous.

Do you have access to the options on the ALE, yes or no?

Sure, but some of those options (taking extra models) will cause you to violate the requirements of the Formation, hence you must either avoid them or choose a different way to build your army.

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
You are making a pointless statement then.

So I have a unit of 1 Canoptek spyder model and I access the options panel to add additional spyders and break no restrictions by doing so.

Correction, GW is making a pointless statement here, not me. GW is the one that is saying that the "1 Canoptek Spyder" listed in the Canoptek Harvest Formation is limited to the 1 Canoptek Spyder model, and that adding more would be the same as trying to another Wraith unit to the Formation.

And you may have not noticed the several times it has been mentioned by myself and a few others, this is not the way it should be done if this is the intention.

Nowhere does GW state that you are limited to 1 Canoptek Spyder. There is a rule that allows you to add additional spyders. You use that option and break no rules in place.

Read the first question and answer on the posted Draft FAQ in the original post and say that again with an honest face.

col_impact wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:Do you have access to the options on the ALE, yes or no?

Do you have instructions to not use the ALE, yes or no?

There are no instructions to not use the ALE, so I go ahead and use the option to add additional spyders and I break no rules in the process.

Read the first question and answer on the posted Draft FAQ in the original post and say that again with an honest face.

 Kriswall wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:


Keep in mind that this only is considered by the FAQ that says the Canoptek Harvest may not have more than one Canoptek Spyder model in its Formation.

The FAQ does not say this. You are reading into the FAQ.

Q: When listing Formations, sometimes it states ‘1 model’ (like 1 Tomb Spyder), while other times it lists ‘1 Unit of models’ (like 1 unit of Tomb Blades). Are these interchangeable?
A: No. The former means a single model of the type listed, while the later means a single unit of the type listed.

Well, the Canoptek Harvest sure doesn't call for "1 Unit of Canoptek Spyders". Sure looks like it lists a model's name. Per the above FAQ, that means 1 single model. If you take extras, you're violating the intent (and the rules per the FAQ).

Realistically, they should list something like "1 Canoptek Spyder Unit composed of 1 Canoptek Spyder". This looks awkward, but isn't ambiguous.

Do you have access to the options on the ALE, yes or no?

Sure, but some of those options (taking extra models) will cause you to violate the requirements of the Formation, hence you must either avoid them or choose a different way to build your army.

The Formation lists no restrictions. And there is a rule on the Canoptek Spyder ALE that allows you to add additional spyders. You can add additional Spyders just as easily as you can add a Ghost Ark to a unit of warriors.

There needs to be rule set forth by the Formation that actively takes away the permission provided by the ALE to add additional Spyders.

The way the FAQ is written the player is still having to guess at intent since a strict RAW read of the formation still permits you to add additional Spyders.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
You are making a pointless statement then.

So I have a unit of 1 Canoptek spyder model and I access the options panel to add additional spyders and break no restrictions by doing so.

Correction, GW is making a pointless statement here, not me. GW is the one that is saying that the "1 Canoptek Spyder" listed in the Canoptek Harvest Formation is limited to the 1 Canoptek Spyder model, and that adding more would be the same as trying to another Wraith unit to the Formation.

And you may have not noticed the several times it has been mentioned by myself and a few others, this is not the way it should be done if this is the intention.

Nowhere does GW state that you are limited to 1 Canoptek Spyder. There is a rule that allows you to add additional spyders. You use that option and break no rules in place.

Read the first question and answer on the posted Draft FAQ in the original post and say that again with an honest face.

col_impact wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:Do you have access to the options on the ALE, yes or no?

Do you have instructions to not use the ALE, yes or no?

There are no instructions to not use the ALE, so I go ahead and use the option to add additional spyders and I break no rules in the process.

Read the first question and answer on the posted Draft FAQ in the original post and say that again with an honest face.

I repeat myself on both counts with an honest face. You need to point to rules that say I cannot use the ALE.

Ah, another canoptek spider circular discussion. We're done.