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.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
It is sloppy when 'Canoptek Spyder' isn't even a unit entry, and Formations refer to unit entries. Even if you argue they just missed an s on the end (a few times if you take Adaptive Subruotines into account)), that's still sloppy.

Not sloppy, grammatically correct. It is why the above list illustrates the silliness: the s in the option is clearly just the model plural, but that is the name of the unit.

The formation rules only ever tell us(several timesl that the composition is units; without any additional notification a statement in the formation composition must be a unit.

Which is why RAW the Formation composition is broken because 'Canoptek Spyder' isn't a unit entry.

So you are saying that by RAW the canoptek Spyders unit entry has an extra "go to 10" line?

RAW without context it can be interpreted that way, yes (which I've already said).

Oh and since you brought it up; one of my favorite counter arguments to the "there is no such unit as spyder(because grammar cannot possibly matter)". In that case the following formations are impossible:

Deathbringer flight: there is neither unit nor model called "doom scythes"

Annihilation matrix: no such model nor unit as "annihilation barges"

Royal court: "lords" and "crypteks"

And then the reclamation legion and living tomb formations are both self limiting as there is neither model nor unit called "monoliths"

Singular vs plural does not matter when the context is there: the context is there.

1 spyder must be 1 spyders because all of the rules say formations are unit entries, that spyders unit can have as many indiviual spyder in it as allowed by itself because there is nothing removing the permission we are already given.

Captain means captain unit, the chapter master model is a captain unit. That upgrade is just as valid as lightning claw, bike, or plasma pistol.

The difference there is that they refer to multiples of those units.

'Canoptek Spyders' is a single unit, 'Canoptek Spyder' is not.

1 Canoptek Spyders isn't grammatically correct, which is why every other unit with a similar name is listed with X units of Y.

Even then, Adaptive Subroutines still breaks with multiple Spyders because 'the Canoptek Spyder' cannot be multiple Spyders grammatically.

If the s is important for 1 formation it must be important for every formation.

So then you agree 1 spyders is not grammatically correct: therefore the s is dropped.

X units of y in the formations are redundant: formations are already a list of units. Lacking the unit(s) of changes nothing in the rules given. It is the same as "ATM machine"; 1 unit of canoptek spyders is saying "1 unit of canoptek spyders unit". So saying 1 canoptek spyder is saying 1 canoptek spyders unit; just like saying 2 annihilation barges is saying 2 annihilation barge units.

To say this one entry is following a different set of rules needs those rules quoted. Where are those rules? What tells us the spyder is the model and not the unit entry(or thecl captain is the same, to stay on topic).

As far as the special rule: it is self-referential the spyder is the spyder in the formation. The spyder in the formation is the unit as that is what the rules tell us.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
The difference there is that they refer to multiples of those units.

'Canoptek Spyders' is a single unit, 'Canoptek Spyder' is not.

1 Canoptek Spyders isn't grammatically correct, which is why every other unit with a similar name is listed with X units of Y.

Even then, Adaptive Subroutines still breaks with multiple Spyders because 'the Canoptek Spyder' cannot be multiple Spyders grammatically.

These are all good examples of what can happen when the rules are interpreted too literally.

Why are we even considering "1 Canoptek Spyder" as "1 Canoptek Spyder model"?

That isn't a game legal option.

Directly fielding models that aren't in units leads to models that are not playable and wholly illegal. The rules for moving, shooting, assaulting all refer to units.

A Canoptek Spyder model on the battlefield would be untargetable and unassaultable, among other things.


So in addition to the fact that trying to treat "1 Canoptek Spyder" as "1 Canoptek Spyder model" goes directly against the Formation rules, trying to field a model directly on the battlefield is an entirely illegal thing to do in the rules themselves.

Except the singular of the Canoptek Spyders unit is still Canoptek Spyders, even with one Spyder.

And while I can see how logically that 1 Canoptek Spyder can be used to take multiples, (because Formations refer to unit entries) I can't see how the Adaptive Subroutines rule can refer to multiple Spyders when it is definitely singular. 'The Canoptek Spyder' != 'The Canoptek Spyders'. Unlike Formations, special rules don't have a clause or similar that states they only mention units.

Also, unlike with the Formation, 'The Canoptek Spyders' does still make grammatical sense. It's plain to see that RAI it's only 1 Spyder, given all the cues. (not using 'units of', Adaptive Subroutines referring to a single Spyder)

@ col_impact: It's more treating it as '1 unit of Canoptek Spyders consisting of 1 Canoptek Spyder'. The rules also say that a single lone model is considered to be a unit. Not having a unit entry does not mean you can't be a unit. The rules for forming a unit in the BRB doesn't even mention unit entries, only models.

Way to completely derail the thread guys.

We've all had the fething spyder argument before. The fact that a rule somewhere is broken makes no difference to this argument!

If you cant even decide how the spyder should work, then it is not legitimate evidence in this case.

Leave it. Please.