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.

col_impact wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
You keep track? Keep track of what? Who the Spyder is?

How can you keep track of who 'the Spyder' is when the rules don't tell you who 'the Spyder' is?

One spyder benefits from the formation benefits. The other two do not. You keep track. Obvious. Point is obvious.

Which Spyder?

Once again you fail to give a rule that allows you to choose which Spyder is 'the Spyder'.

EDIT: I can't believe this has gone on for 2 pages (now onto 3)

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
If you bring more then one spyder then you formation idoesn't have "a canoptek spyder" and you would be breaking the rules.

Which rule? Page and paragraph please?

I have provided ample documentation of the rules I am following.

Its right in the formation. Under unit composition. "A Canoptek Spyder"

Can't get more simple then that.

And I have a canoptek spyder to satisfy the formations composition. Can't get more simple than that. Do you have an actual rule to suggest an actual violation has taken place? I am waiting.

So what this boils down to is that because the Formation entry calls for 1 Spyder leading many to believe that you can only have 1 Spyder. So then as per its Unit entry on page 93 you are restricted to just the 1 Spyder sans upgrades. Yet the Formation clearly states No Restrictions... This seems to cause a Paradox.

Kind of like; can you take a Ven Dread in the GK formation when the Formation calls for a Dread?.It calls for two Brother Caps and requires one to be upgraded to Grandmaster even though there is no Data sheet titled Grand Master... Can you take DT's as part of a unit? even though they are not part of the formation? Again just like the issues with the Canoptek harvest the Gk formation brings up a Paradox as there are No Restrictions on the formation but it does not spell out how to deal with those issues.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
You keep track? Keep track of what? Who the Spyder is?

How can you keep track of who 'the Spyder' is when the rules don't tell you who 'the Spyder' is?

One spyder benefits from the formation benefits. The other two do not. You keep track. Obvious. Point is obvious.

Which Spyder?

Once again you fail to give a rule that allows you to choose which Spyder is 'the Spyder'.

EDIT: I can't believe this has gone on for 2 pages (now onto 3)

I keep track.

col_impact wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
You keep track? Keep track of what? Who the Spyder is?

How can you keep track of who 'the Spyder' is when the rules don't tell you who 'the Spyder' is?

One spyder benefits from the formation benefits. The other two do not. You keep track. Obvious. Point is obvious.

Which Spyder?

Once again you fail to give a rule that allows you to choose which Spyder is 'the Spyder'.

EDIT: I can't believe this has gone on for 2 pages (now onto 3)

I keep track.

Just like keeping track of Wounds in multi would model unit.

Again how can you keep track of which Spyder is 'the Spyder' when no rules are present to define which is 'the Spyder' when you have multiple or allow you to select one to be 'the Spyder'?

You can't as 'the Spyder' would exist for you to keep track of it!

Found it:

If that picture (not a picture of a rule at that, just an image of a purely background-based work) is directed at me, it doesn't answer the my question.

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
If you bring more then one spyder then you formation idoesn't have "a canoptek spyder" and you would be breaking the rules.

Which rule? Page and paragraph please?

I have provided ample documentation of the rules I am following.

Its right in the formation. Under unit composition. "A Canoptek Spyder"

Can't get more simple then that.

And I have a canoptek spyder to satisfy the formations composition. Can't get more simple than that. Do you have an actual rule to suggest an actual violation has taken place? I am waiting.

No you don't. You don't have "a Canoptek Spyder" you have "Canoptek Spyders". Not the same thing

By your logic I can take multiple units of wraiths in the formation and would be fine because you are meeting the "a unit of canoptek wraiths" composition.

Seriously this is basic english. A plural does not also count as a singular.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Again how can you keep track of which Spyder is 'the Spyder' when no rules are present to define which is 'the Spyder' when you have multiple or allow you to select one to be 'the Spyder'?

You can't as 'the Spyder' would exist for you to keep track of it!

Again, I keep track. One spyder is part of the formation. 2 Spyders in the unit are not. Simple. Simple. Simple. Simple.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
If you bring more then one spyder then you formation idoesn't have "a canoptek spyder" and you would be breaking the rules.

Which rule? Page and paragraph please?

I have provided ample documentation of the rules I am following.

Its right in the formation. Under unit composition. "A Canoptek Spyder"

Can't get more simple then that.

And I have a canoptek spyder to satisfy the formations composition. Can't get more simple than that. Do you have an actual rule to suggest an actual violation has taken place? I am waiting.

No you don't. You don't have "a Canoptek Spyder" you have "Canoptek Spyders". Not the same thing

By your logic I can take multiple units of wraiths in the formation and would be fine because you are meeting the "a unit of canoptek wraiths" composition.

Seriously this is basic english. A plural does not also count as a singular.

I most assuredly have a canoptek spyder in a unit of 3 canoptek spyders.

col_impact wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Again how can you keep track of which Spyder is 'the Spyder' when no rules are present to define which is 'the Spyder' when you have multiple or allow you to select one to be 'the Spyder'?

You can't as 'the Spyder' would exist for you to keep track of it!

Again, I keep track. One spyder is part of the formation. 2 Spyders in the unit are not. Simple. Simple. Simple. Simple.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
If you bring more then one spyder then you formation idoesn't have "a canoptek spyder" and you would be breaking the rules.

Which rule? Page and paragraph please?

I have provided ample documentation of the rules I am following.

Its right in the formation. Under unit composition. "A Canoptek Spyder"

Can't get more simple then that.

And I have a canoptek spyder to satisfy the formations composition. Can't get more simple than that. Do you have an actual rule to suggest an actual violation has taken place? I am waiting.

No you don't. You don't have "a Canoptek Spyder" you have "Canoptek Spyders". Not the same thing

By your logic I can take multiple units of wraiths in the formation and would be fine because you are meeting the "a unit of canoptek wraiths" composition.

Seriously this is basic english. A plural does not also count as a singular.

I most assuredly have a canoptek spyder in a unit of 3 canoptek spyders.

And I most assuredly have a unit of wraiths with my 5 units of wraiths.

How can 2 Spyders from the same unit NOT be from the formation? Show me where in the rules where an entire unit (not including attached characters) don't have to be a part of the same detachment/formation?

Hell show me the rules that tell us what the other 2 Spyders are a part of? Do they form their own detachment? If so, what rules tell us that? (Hint: None do)

stormcraft wrote:
Found it:

So this picture is further direct support to augment ALL THE RULES which support my argument.


Seriously, can the counter-argument provide any actual rule?

col_impact wrote:
I most assuredly have a canoptek spyder in a unit of 3 canoptek spyders.

Really?

The others are right for this part, you can't have 6 HQs in a Bound CAD because 2 HQs are in the 6 you picked....

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
How can 2 Spyders from the same unit NOT be from the formation? Show me where in the rules where an entire unit (not including attached characters) don't have to be a part of the same detachment/formation?

Hell show me the rules that tell us what the other 2 Spyders are a part of? Do they form their own detachment? If so, what rules tell us that? (Hint: None do)

You are mistaken who has the burden of proof here. I have shown abundantly a CLEAR CHAIN OF PERMISSION. It's up to you to break that chain.

Can you provide any rules that allow you to select a Spyder to be 'the Spyder' or allow you to have 2 Spyders from the same unit not be a part of the formation (as you claim they can) and rules that tell us what becomes of those 2 Spyders?

Also that picture isn't a rule, sorry.

 BlackTalos wrote:

col_impact wrote:
I most assuredly have a canoptek spyder in a unit of 3 canoptek spyders.

Really?

The others are right for this part, you can't have 6 HQs in a Bound CAD because 2 HQs are in the 6 you picked....

Huh? One spyder is part of the formation. I follow the rules and add two additional spyders. After that there is still one spyder that is part of the formation.

Again, what rule did I break? Page and paragraph please.

col_impact wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
How can 2 Spyders from the same unit NOT be from the formation? Show me where in the rules where an entire unit (not including attached characters) don't have to be a part of the same detachment/formation?

Hell show me the rules that tell us what the other 2 Spyders are a part of? Do they form their own detachment? If so, what rules tell us that? (Hint: None do)

You are mistaken who has the burden of proof here. I have shown abundantly a CLEAR CHAIN OF PERMISSION. It's up to you to break that chain.

What? I have the burden of proof?

YOU have to prove you can choose a Spyder.
YOU have to prove that 1 model in a unit can be a part of a formation while the other models in it aren't (not including joined characters)

If you want to convince ANYONE that you are right, you need to back your claims.

I have one Spyder. I add one more Spyder. How many Spyders do I have?

Now how many does the formation say I can have?

If a formation says "one Necron warrior", you get one - not 5-20 because that's the min unit size and it can purchase options. Just one. This entire argument is ridiculous - you're literally arguing that 1=2

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Can you provide any rules that allow you to select a Spyder to be 'the Spyder' or allow you to have 2 Spyders from the same unit not be a part of the formation (as you claim they can) and rules that tell us what becomes of those 2 Spyders?

Also that picture isn't a rule, sorry.

Book-keeping is an implied task in 40k. I treat this scenario just as I treat the tracking of wounds.

col_impact wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

col_impact wrote:
I most assuredly have a canoptek spyder in a unit of 3 canoptek spyders.

Really?

The others are right for this part, you can't have 6 HQs in a Bound CAD because 2 HQs are in the 6 you picked....

Huh? One spyder is part of the formation. I follow the rules and add two additional spyders. After that there is still one spyder that is part of the formation.

Again, what rule did I break? Page and paragraph please.

It doesn't matter what rules we quote you. If this is what you actually think then you don't know how the English language works.

Actually, i have a pretty good counter here:

And that is the (IMHO not very RaI) idea that you may purchase Dedicated Transports for Units that may do so in Formations.

So if a formation of 3 Tactical Squads can purchase an additional 3 Units, which are / are not? part of the formation, why is a Unit of 1 Spyder not allowed to purchase an additional option of 2 Spyders?

@col_impact:

However you are told how to determine who has taken wounds.
There are no rules that tell you how to determine which Spyder is 'the Spyder'.

Also you have yet to prove that one Spyder can be a part of the formation while the others in his aren't, and what those Spyders are then a part of.

Eyjio wrote:
I have one Spyder. I add one more Spyder. How many Spyders do I have?

Now how many does the formation say I can have?

If a formation says "one Necron warrior", you get one - not 5-20 because that's the min unit size and it can purchase options. Just one. This entire argument is ridiculous - you're literally arguing that 1=2

No I am following rules.

The formation says no restriction.

The options allow the addition of 1-2 spyders.

It is clear that the formation itself has 1 spyder in it. But you have failed to provide a rule that says a formation can't pull from a subset of a unit. That is your gut feeling. It's not in the rules.

The counter argument fails because the formation itself does not provide a restriction where it would need to to wind up with the result that the counter-argument is looking for.

 BlackTalos wrote:
Actually, i have a pretty good counter here:

And that is the (IMHO not very RaI) idea that you may purchase Dedicated Transports for Units that may do so in Formations.

So if a formation of 3 Tactical Squads can purchase an additional 3 Units, which are / are not? part of the formation, why is a Unit of 1 Spyder not allowed to purchase an additional option of 2 Spyders?

As in, counter to everyone else, and agreeing with the method listed by col_impact...

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

col_impact wrote:
I most assuredly have a canoptek spyder in a unit of 3 canoptek spyders.

Really?

The others are right for this part, you can't have 6 HQs in a Bound CAD because 2 HQs are in the 6 you picked....

Huh? One spyder is part of the formation. I follow the rules and add two additional spyders. After that there is still one spyder that is part of the formation.

Again, what rule did I break? Page and paragraph please.

It doesn't matter what rules we quote you. If this is what you actually think then you don't know how the English language works.

I am pretty sure my educational qualifications far exceed yours. Just a safe bet based on probability more than anything. I suggest you stick to arguing the rules rather than resorting to a thinly veiled ad hominem attack.

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

col_impact wrote:
I most assuredly have a canoptek spyder in a unit of 3 canoptek spyders.

Really?

The others are right for this part, you can't have 6 HQs in a Bound CAD because 2 HQs are in the 6 you picked....

Huh? One spyder is part of the formation. I follow the rules and add two additional spyders. After that there is still one spyder that is part of the formation.

Again, what rule did I break? Page and paragraph please.

It doesn't matter what rules we quote you. If this is what you actually think then you don't know how the English language works.

I am pretty sure my educational qualifications far exceed yours. I suggest you stick to arguing the rules rather than resorting to a thinly veiled ad hominem attacks.

So what prevents me from taking 5 wraith units in the formation then?

 CrownAxe wrote:
So what prevents me from taking 5 wraith units in the formation then?

That the one allowed Unit of wraith does not have that option?

What prevents you from taking Dedicated transports for Units in a Formation? (Option listed)

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
@col_impact:

However you are told how to determine who has taken wounds.
There are no rules that tell you how to determine which Spyder is 'the Spyder'.

Also you have yet to prove that one Spyder can be a part of the formation while the others in his aren't, and what those Spyders are then a part of.

Unless you answer the above I'll assume you are ignoring me because you have no rules to prove that a unit can have one model be a part of a formation while the rest are not and that you agree that, unlike for Wounds, there are no rules that tell you how to determine who 'the Spyder' is.

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

col_impact wrote:
I most assuredly have a canoptek spyder in a unit of 3 canoptek spyders.

Really?

The others are right for this part, you can't have 6 HQs in a Bound CAD because 2 HQs are in the 6 you picked....

Huh? One spyder is part of the formation. I follow the rules and add two additional spyders. After that there is still one spyder that is part of the formation.

Again, what rule did I break? Page and paragraph please.

It doesn't matter what rules we quote you. If this is what you actually think then you don't know how the English language works.

I am pretty sure my educational qualifications far exceed yours. I suggest you stick to arguing the rules rather than resorting to a thinly veiled ad hominem attacks.

So what prevents me from taking 5 wraith units in the formation then?

The formations rule in the BRB.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
@col_impact:

However you are told how to determine who has taken wounds.
There are no rules that tell you how to determine which Spyder is 'the Spyder'.

Also you have yet to prove that one Spyder can be a part of the formation while the others in his aren't, and what those Spyders are then a part of.

Unless you answer the above I'll assume you are ignoring me because you have no rules to prove that a unit can have one model be a part of a formation while the rest are not and that you agree that, unlike for Wounds, there are no rules that tell you how to determine who 'the Spyder' is.

Huh? My answer until you give me something worth directly replying to will be 'I keep track'