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.

so "the Spyder" is now "the Spyders"?

That's not RAW.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Obvious by what rule? What rule says the initial Spyder is "the Spyder"?

I worked it out for you step by step. If you cannot follow simple logic then you cannot follow simple logic.

What you lack is a rule that restricts me from selecting the option to add additional spyders to the 1 canoptek spyder (which is a unit) in the Army List Entry.

The rules grant me clear and unequivocal permission to add spyders to a unit of spyders (up to a total count of 3 spyders).

What you lack is a rule that says which Spyder is "the Spyder". You've failed to state a rule that tells us.

It's logical that it's the first Spyder, yes, but without rules telling us as such, that isn't the case. GW rules are anything but logical.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
What you lack is a rule that says which Spyder is "the Spyder". You've failed to state a rule that tells us.

It's logical that it's the first Spyder, yes, but without rules telling us as such, that isn't the case. GW rules are anything but logical.

So what keeps me from selecting the option to add additional spyders exactly? Be specific and cite rules.

That option is on there just like an option to add a dedicated transport is on the Army Entry List for warriors (and we are free to add Ghost Arks in the Reclamation Legion even though its not delineated explicitly on the formation itself).

GW is granting me permission to add spyders in the Army Entry List.

Nothing stops you. I never said anything did. I've held the same stance in this thread as I did in the first.

What I said was adding more break Adaptive Subroutines. Breaking it doesn't stop you, but it makes the formation unplayable.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Nothing stops you. I never said anything did. I've held the same stance in this thread as I did in the first.

What I said was adding more break Adaptive Subroutines. Breaking it doesn't stop you, but it makes the formation unplayable.

Doesn't beak. One spyder is the one you selected the option to add additional spyders. Those additional spyders don't have adaptive subroutines.

Every model in the Formation has Adaptive Subroutines. That's how Formation rules work. So yes, it DOES break.

So again, what rule defines which Spyder is "the Spyder".

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
so "the Spyder" is now "the Spyders"?

That's not RAW.

No, but that'd be sweet. I only ever take one, but two would be better

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Every model in the Formation has Adaptive Subroutines. That's how Formation rules work. So yes, it DOES break.

So again, what rule defines which Spyder is "the Spyder".

As stated, the spyder you select the options to add additional spyders with. Simple.

The additional spyders benefit from the effects of the rule.

Again, what rules say it's the initial Spyder?

If there are none it isn't RAW, it's how you would play it. That's fine and all, just don't claim it's RAW or how it's meant it's be played.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Again, what rules say it's the initial Spyder?

If there are none it isn't RAW, it's how you would play it. That's fine and all, just don't claim it's RAW or how it's meant it's be played.

You are making up a problem where none exists.

No I'm not. RAW the Formation breaks which is a problem.

You are making up a solution to a problem. That's fine, as I'll come up with my own solution, which is "can't take more than 1 Spyder".

Both solutions work, neither are RAW.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
No I'm not. RAW the Formation breaks which is a problem.

You are making up a solution to a problem. That's fine, as I'll come up with my own solution, which is "can't take more than 1 Spyder".

Both solutions work, neither are RAW.

I am not making up a solution. A solution presents itself when you work through things step by step.

And with no rules supporting your solution, you are making it up.

No rules say which is "the Spyder" when there are multiple Spyders in the Formation. Therefore your solution isn't supported by the rules meaning it's made up, a house rule if you prefer.

Similarly, my solution (can't take more than 1 Spyder) also isn't supported by rules and is also a house rule.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
And with no rules supporting your solution, you are making it up.

No rules say which is "the Spyder" when there are multiple Spyders in the Formation. Therefore your solution isn't supported by the rules meaning it's made up, a house rule if you prefer.

Similarly, my solution (can't take more than 1 Spyder) also isn't supported by rules and is also a house rule.

I am not making it up. Working step-by-step, with the rules that are provided, a solution presents itself.

Done before with no new arguments.

Mod lock please.

col_impact wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
And with no rules supporting your solution, you are making it up.

No rules say which is "the Spyder" when there are multiple Spyders in the Formation. Therefore your solution isn't supported by the rules meaning it's made up, a house rule if you prefer.

Similarly, my solution (can't take more than 1 Spyder) also isn't supported by rules and is also a house rule.

I am not making it up. Working step-by-step, with the rules that are provided, a solution presents itself.

And again, what rule tells us which Spyder is "the Spyder"? You've constantly failed to show a rule that does this.
So please, stop saying your house rule is RAW. It's not.

I have a "new" question though. For my own thoughts on this.

Do we have precedence for a Formation selecting a number of models from a Unit?

Formation:
1 Unit of Tactical marines
1 Land Speeder

or:
1 Unit of Crisis Suits
1 Broadside

Do such formations exist?
(Where single models are selected from Units of"multiples") ?

Two examples from the top of my head:
- Dark Artisan (Specifies 1 Talos and 1 Cronos, no restrictions)
- Scarlet Epicureans (Specifies 1 Cronos, again no restriction)

Both are from the Haemonculus Covens supplement, and both Talos and Cronos are in units of 1-3.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Two examples from the top of my head:
- Dark Artisan (Specifies 1 Talos and 1 Cronos, no restrictions)
- Scarlet Epicureans (Specifies 1 Cronos, again no restriction)

Both are from the Haemonculus Covens supplement, and both Talos and Cronos are in units of 1-3.

I'd like to know if that is the only other book, or if it is a recurring theme across Codices?

Then the decision has to be made while looking at all of those formations. For consistency.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Two examples from the top of my head:
- Dark Artisan (Specifies 1 Talos and 1 Cronos, no restrictions)
- Scarlet Epicureans (Specifies 1 Cronos, again no restriction)

Both are from the Haemonculus Covens supplement, and both Talos and Cronos are in units of 1-3.

Had a look at both, and the only restriction there is intent:
-Other Formations say "1 Unit of Talos" against this "1 Talos"
-Pictures shows 1 Talos, 1 Chronos.

Slightly using col_impact's idea here, but Dark Artisan even says: "All Units in this Formation must be fielded..." therefore defining the Talos and Chronos as "units". Units of 1 Chronos? Where are the rules for those? Is it the Unit that has an option of + 2 Chronos? And is there a restriction in that Formation about Units' options?

As such, I would find it weird, but would probably accept Dark Artisan = 1 Haemonculus + 3 Chronos + 3 Talos into 1 Unit as RaW.

I am quite undecided in this debate.

I also disagree with Formations being able to select their transport options....... but would accept both on the same playing field.

It's in the new Space Marine Codex as well.

Formations like the Centurion Siege Breaker Cohort that says "1 unit of Ironclad Dreadnaughts" and the Demi Company says "0-1 units of Dreadnoughts, Ironclad Dreadnoughts, or Venerable Dreadnoughts".

In the Strike Force Ultra formation it says "1 Venerable Dreadnaught".

Lots of the Dataslate formations for nids do very similar things.

The living artillery node specifies 3 biovore. Not 1 biovore brood with 3 biovore in it.

Not 3 units of Biovore. I cannot bring 3-9 biovore. I have to, every time, bring 3.

Because it does not specify that they are in a unit, I can bring them as 3 separate units of 1 biovore and move/shoot them independently. Or a unit of 2 and 1. Or a unit of 3. The unit make up doesn't matter. The formation says 3 biovore.

If the formation says 1 spyder, then a single unit of 1 spyder is what you get.

BlackSwanDelta wrote:
In the Strike Force Ultra formation it says "1 Venerable Dreadnaught".

Yeah, but I can still reach the same conclusion on that one:

It clearly says 1 Venerable , which you'd think and easily assume is only "1".

But it then references "1 Venerable Dreadnought (pg145)". Does pg 145 cover a unit of "Venerable Dreadnaught = 1"?
And throughout the Formation calls "All Units".

I know the intent is very clear, but in a RaW discussion they need more than what is given.

Yep RAW you can take more than one.
Clearly not RAI, and in some cases can break the Formation's special rules, but nothing stops you.

That said, with the intent being so clear I doubt anyone would let someone increase the unit's size if the Formation says "1 X" instead of "1 unit of X"

Lance845 wrote:
Lots of the Dataslate formations for nids do very similar things.

The living artillery node specifies 3 biovore. Not 1 biovore brood with 3 biovore in it.

Not 3 units of Biovore. I cannot bring 3-9 biovore. I have to, every time, bring 3.

Because it does not specify that they are in a unit, I can bring them as 3 separate units of 1 biovore and move/shoot them independently. Or a unit of 2 and 1. Or a unit of 3. The unit make up doesn't matter. The formation says 3 biovore.

If the formation says 1 spyder, then a single unit of 1 spyder is what you get.

I did remember a lengthy and quite conclusive debate on the 3 Biovores... Which is why i'm inclined to agree with the "1 Spyder limit", but also point me in the "no transport options" direction.

You get the Units as written on the Formation.
If I had a Formation of:
"1 Venerable Dreadnought"
I don't see why you could add 2 more Dreadnoughts or a Drop Pod, even if Restrictions say "None".....

You asked for examples, I'm just giving them.

All of the dreads say "1 (type) dreadnaught" under "Unit Composition" in the stat line.

Under options, they all say may include up to two additional (type) Dreadnaughts ........... X pts/model

If it works as a specific number, that also means Guardian and Storm hosts from the Craftworlds can only take one Vaul's Wrath Support Battery, since they say "1 Vaul's Wrath Support Battery" and not "1 unit of Vaul's Wrath Support Battery" I guess.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Yep RAW you can take more than one.
Clearly not RAI, and in some cases can break the Formation's special rules, but nothing stops you.

That said, with the intent being so clear I doubt anyone would let someone increase the unit's size if the Formation says "1 X" instead of "1 unit of X"

Just as i doubt anyone would let someone add 5 Dedicated transports to a Formation that clearly says "5 of X Units".

But somehow that is legal in RaW too.... So which side are we going to pitch for?
Modification of a Formation list, or no modification?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BlackSwanDelta wrote:
If it works as a specific number, that also means Guardian and Storm hosts from the Craftworlds can only take one Vaul's Wrath Support Battery, since they say "1 Vaul's Wrath Support Battery" and not "1 unit of Vaul's Wrath Support Battery" I guess.

Exactly. There's a reason why i'm still "utterly undecided" on this entire Debate..... Until a Rule somewhere make it clear.

Have we been seeing Guardian and Storm hosts with more than "2 Guardians + 1 Support Weapon" in that slot?

For consistency if it's "obviously 1 Spyder" it is then "obviously 1 Support Weapon".

Both the Guardian Stormhost and Guardian Battlehost formations call for:

1 unit of War Walkers
1 Vaul's Wrath Support battery

The ALE for WW says, like the dreadnoughts, Unit Composition 1 WW and under Options May include up to two additional War Walkers ..... x pts/model
The ALE for VWSB says, like the dreadnoughts, Unit Composition 1 VWSB and under Options May include up to two additional VWSB .... x pts/model

*shrug* Dunno.

I mean, from the new Space Marine codex it's clear that GW intend for you to be able to buy dedicated transports as part of Formations, even if they are listed as units that are part of the Formation (Gladius Strike Force -> Company Support: If a Gladius Strike Force includes 2 Battle Demi-companies, one including a Captain and the other including a Chaplain, then they form a Battle Company. Any unit from the Battle Company that has the option to take a Rhino, Razorback or Drop Pod as a Dedicated Transport may take one at no points cost (though they must pay for any additional upgrades and options as normal))

So it seems GW intends for you to be able to purchase DTs, while also intending you to not be able to purchase additional models in a unit if they don't say "unit of X".

But then there are other cases like how the new SM codex has many similar cases for units that don't start as 1 strong, like Tactical Squads (Demi-company specifies 3 Tactical Squads). This could simply be because "3 units of Tactical Squads" doesn't make sense as you can't have a units consisting of multiple Tactical Squads, only of a Space Marine Sergeant/Veteran Sergeant and a few Space Marines, or be because they don't intend for you to take more than the base number of Marines. It's unclear.

Oh yeah, and my favorite part (if it's true)

Seer Council and Windrider Host is "1 Warlock Conclave", not "1 unit of Warlock Conclave", the Guardian Stormhost and Battle Hosts are both "0-1 Warlock Conclave" and not "0-1 units of Warlock Conclave".