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.
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?
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...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/04 08:01:42
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.
I'm quite sure the whole Unit ends up being part of the formation. You'd have to ask the players who purchase DT for their formations what they end up belonging to....
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.
I'm quite sure the whole Unit ends up being part of the formation. You'd have to ask the players who purchase DT for their formations what they end up belonging to....
That's what I thought, the whole unit has to be a part of the formation.
Yet again it seems col keeps dodging how he can keep track of which Spyder is 'the Spyder' when we aren't told which one is 'the Spyder' or if/how we can niminate one to be 'the Spyder'.
I'll concede that col is not only correct that RAW you can have 2-3 Spyders (as I said in my first post in this thread) but that you can benefit from 'Adaptive Subroutines' as there is a rule/multiple rules that specifically allow you to nominate a Spyder to be 'the Spyder'.
Until then until he gives me something of worth I'll stick with my attitude of 'He can't select a Spyder as 'the Spyder' to keep track of and can't benefit from 'Adaptive Subroutines'.
It would depend on whether the 'Adaptive Subroutines' becomes plural because you now have 3 Spyders, or if it must stay singular (you usually are not allowed to modify - even making plural- Rules as they are written).
If singular, there will be either a HYWPI method or RaW conclusion of which one out of the 3 is concerned.
For example i'd say that by RaW there is 1 Spyder 'selected', while the 2 chosen as options (just like the DTs) will not benefit from the rule. It must be "marked" throughout the game.( "I keep track")
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.
I'm quite sure the whole Unit ends up being part of the formation. You'd have to ask the players who purchase DT for their formations what they end up belonging to....
That's what I thought, the whole unit has to be a part of the formation.
Yet again it seems col keeps dodging how he can keep track of which Spyder is 'the Spyder' when we aren't told which one is 'the Spyder' or if/how we can niminate one to be 'the Spyder'.
I'll concede that col is not only correct that RAW you can have 2-3 Spyders (as I said in my first post in this thread) but that you can benefit from 'Adaptive Subroutines' as there is a rule/multiple rules that specifically allow you to nominate a Spyder to be 'the Spyder'.
Until then until he gives me something of worth I'll stick with my attitude of 'He can't select a Spyder as 'the Spyder' to keep track of and can't benefit from 'Adaptive Subroutines'.
It would depend on whether the 'Adaptive Subroutines' becomes plural because you now have 3 Spyders, or if it must stay singular (you usually are not allowed to modify - even making plural- Rules as they are written).
If singular, there will be either a HYWPI method or RaW conclusion of which one out of the 3 is concerned.
For example i'd say that by RaW there is 1 Spyder 'selected', while the 2 chosen as options (just like the DTs) will not benefit from the rule. It must be "marked" throughout the game.( "I keep track")
I disagree that RAW 1 Spyder (the 'first' Spyder in this unit) is 'the Spyder' because there are no written rules that say that, you'd be assuming that 'the Spyder' is the first Spyder in the unit.
As reference 'Adaptive Subroutines' states
[irrelevant info (when the rules is activated and the special rules you can choose from] ... The Canoptek Spyder from this Formation, and all units from this Formation within 12" of the Canoptek Spyder from this Formation, benefits from the effects of the chosen special rule, ... [States when the effect ends]
It comes down to the order of things (If there even is one?)
You purchase the Formation, and the Spyder has 'Adaptive Subroutines'. The spider then takes an additional Option of +2 Spyders. I don't think they'd get 'Adaptive Subroutines'.
Just as you don't buy the DT, then take the formation that lets you select them. You buy the formation, which has rules, then purchase Options for it (such as Transports)
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.
I'm quite sure the whole Unit ends up being part of the formation. You'd have to ask the players who purchase DT for their formations what they end up belonging to....
That's what I thought, the whole unit has to be a part of the formation.
Yet again it seems col keeps dodging how he can keep track of which Spyder is 'the Spyder' when we aren't told which one is 'the Spyder' or if/how we can niminate one to be 'the Spyder'.
I'll concede that col is not only correct that RAW you can have 2-3 Spyders (as I said in my first post in this thread) but that you can benefit from 'Adaptive Subroutines' as there is a rule/multiple rules that specifically allow you to nominate a Spyder to be 'the Spyder'.
Until then until he gives me something of worth I'll stick with my attitude of 'He can't select a Spyder as 'the Spyder' to keep track of and can't benefit from 'Adaptive Subroutines'.
It would depend on whether the 'Adaptive Subroutines' becomes plural because you now have 3 Spyders, or if it must stay singular (you usually are not allowed to modify - even making plural- Rules as they are written).
If singular, there will be either a HYWPI method or RaW conclusion of which one out of the 3 is concerned.
For example i'd say that by RaW there is 1 Spyder 'selected', while the 2 chosen as options (just like the DTs) will not benefit from the rule. It must be "marked" throughout the game.( "I keep track")
I disagree that RAW 1 Spyder (the 'first' Spyder in this unit) is 'the Spyder' because there are no written rules that say that, you'd be assuming that 'the Spyder' is the first Spyder in the unit.
As reference 'Adaptive Subroutines' states
[irrelevant info (when the rules is activated and the special rules you can choose from] ... The Canoptek Spyder from this Formation, and all units from this Formation within 12" of the Canoptek Spyder from this Formation, benefits from the effects of the chosen special rule, ... [States when the effect ends]
It comes down to the order of things (If there even is one?)
You purchase the Formation, and the Spyder has 'Adaptive Subroutines'. The spider then takes an additional Option of +2 Spyders. I don't think they'd get 'Adaptive Subroutines'.
Just as you don't buy the DT, then take the formation that lets you select them. You buy the formation, which has rules, then purchase Options for it (such as Transports)
However, every model in the Formation has the 'Adaptive Subroutines' special rule, not just the initial Spyder (and therefore any Spyder taken along with him will have the rule, too). I still don't see any rules that clearly, as written, tell you which Spyder is 'the Spyder'.
I see what you mean. Thing is, i am really unsure whether we can say that these added options are "fully part" of the Formation. Transports or extra Spyders would logically be part of the formation, but no rules tell you so or mention what you do in these cases.
I am more than inclined to think of an "original Spyder", the only one with the rule, but none of us have rules to support A or B...
Nilok wrote: I think everyone needs to take a step back, take 10 minutes to breathe, and present your arguments again.
If this keeps up as it is, the thread will be locked.
Should we put up more pretty boxes to appease the Mod-Gods?
I think the arguments have pretty much reached the un-resolvable conclusion question:
Are the 2 Spyder taken as options part of the Formation or not?
And do they have the 'Adaptive Subroutines' rule, which is RaW singular to 1 Spyder ("THE spyder") ?
col_impact wrote: Right, the counter argument wants to block the clear permission granted to access the options in the spyder army entry list, but is struggling to find a clear rule to do so.
While you and CrownAxe were creating pretty boxes, it might be that you completely missed the compelling evidence i provided to show that taking 3 Spyders is indeed allowed, but creates an issue with the 'Adaptive Subroutines' rule, as i have just said above.
In that case, then, additional Scarabs and Wraiths purchased for their units wouldn't benefit from 'Adaptive Tactics' (won't benefit from the effects of RP/Shred/Fleet) as they aren't 'fully part' of the Formation (if we assume that the additional Spyders aren't).
Indeed, so everything would actually support "Extras" to join(be part of) Formations. "within 12" of the Canoptek Spyder from this Formation" would then have to apply to all 3, as a general "the"
Possibly confusing example: You are in a station, and you are next to "the" train. But no one told you that there were 5 trains. Are you still correctly within 12" of "the" train?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/04 09:05:25
Possibly confusing example:
You are in a station, and you are next to "the" train. But no one told you that there were 5 trains. Are you still correctly within 12" of "the" train?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
col_impact wrote: Why exactly does taking multiple Spyders break subroutines? You seem to be adhering to a rationale not found in the rules themselves.
Because it refers to "THE spyder", which is hard to do as all 3 are part of the Formation and in a Unit.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/04 09:08:42
col_impact wrote: Except we can keep track of one. You are making an issue where there is none.
Nilok wrote: Would it not be the original Spyder that was purchased with the formation?
Problem is this:
All (most?) Units in the formation have this rule:
"The Canoptek Spyder from this Formation, and all units from this Formation within 12" of the Canoptek Spyder from this Formation, benefits from the effects of the chosen special rule, ... [States when the effect ends]"
How do you follow the above rule on Turn 2, when all 3 Spyder are part of a Unit and part of the Formation? "only" the Canoptek Spyder from this Formation (but all 3 are) would benefit from the rule.
col_impact wrote: What rule makes you think all 3 are part of the formation and not just the one?
This:
Matt.Kingsley wrote: In that case, then, additional Scarabs and Wraiths purchased for their units wouldn't benefit from 'Adaptive Tactics' (won't benefit from the effects of RP/Shred/Fleet) as they aren't 'fully part' of the Formation (if we assume that the additional Spyders aren't).
If the +2 Spyder are not "in the Formation", additional Scarabs and Wraiths purchased for their units are not either, and would not actually have the 'Adaptive Tactics' rule (they are not part of the Formation)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/04 09:16:40
Matt.Kingsley wrote: As for your example, you wouldn't know which train 'the train' refers to, so you wouldn't know if you were in 12" of it or not.
Which, in the case of the Spyders, you wouldn't know either. You could assume, but you may be incorrect.
I suppose a case could be made that, using your example, if the unit was within 12" of every Spyder in the Formation you'd get the bonus (because if you're within 12" of all of them you must be within 12" of 'the' one), though that is stretching the fact that the rule clearly to a single Spyder to a point that, even if a person was willing to agree, RAW, you could have 3 Spyders, most likely wouldn't agree.
The thing is, i don't think you need to know if it is the right train (for the 12" part). If i ask whether you are within 12" of "THE Spyder", any one of the 3 (being part of the Formation) will be "the Spyder".
The rules work mainly with Yes/No answers. If the question is:
"are you within 12" of "THE Spyder"?" The answer would be "Yes", not: "which one?" (although that would be the 'logical' answer)
Matt.Kingsley wrote: As for your example, you wouldn't know which train 'the train' refers to, so you wouldn't know if you were in 12" of it or not.
Which, in the case of the Spyders, you wouldn't know either. You could assume, but you may be incorrect.
I suppose a case could be made that, using your example, if the unit was within 12" of every Spyder in the Formation you'd get the bonus (because if you're within 12" of all of them you must be within 12" of 'the' one), though that is stretching the fact that the rule clearly to a single Spyder to a point that, even if a person was willing to agree, RAW, you could have 3 Spyders, most likely wouldn't agree.
The thing is, i don't think you need to know if it is the right train (for the 12" part). If i ask whether you are within 12" of "THE Spyder", any one of the 3 (being part of the Formation) will be "the Spyder".
The rules work mainly with Yes/No answers. If the question is:
"are you within 12" of "THE Spyder"?" The answer would be "Yes", not: "which one?" (although that would be the 'logical' answer)
You'd be within 12" of 'A train', you wouldn't know for sure if it was 'THE Train'.
You could assume it is 'the Train' however you have a 4/5 chance of being wrong, the only way to know and be correct in saying "I'm within 12" of 'the Train'" is if you were within 12" of all the trains.
Any one of the Spyders will be 'a Spyder', but only one is 'the Spyder'.
If, say, only 1 train was stopping at a station you needed to go to, you'd need to know which is 'the Train'.
Same with the Spyders, to gain the benefit you have to know which is 'the Spyder' (or if you were really willing to twist, bend and stretch and have no freinds, within 12" of all of them)
The entire thread is confusion now lol.
The above was our discussion when all 3 Spyders were "part of the formation", as we'd agreed. This means that it is not
"Any one of the Spyders will be 'a Spyder', but only one is 'the Spyder'. "
but actually:
All 3 are 'the Spyder', because they all have the rule, but using "the" in a general sense, thus our Train example.
Same for "The Canoptek Spyder from this Formation...". "The" being all 3 of them in a general sense, like for our Train.
Station has 5 Trains.
"The" Train is leaving is correct by RaW, because they're all in the Station (Formation) so it doesn't matter exactly which "the" it was.
[End of discussion on 3 Spyders being part of the Formation]
My point is that we both have the relevant rules there aren't more to add but we are at opposite conclusions meaning someone here is reading it wrong. And considering that only one person is reading the way that you think it's suppose to be I'm inclined to believe you are the one misinterpreting the rule.
False, as BlackTalos has repeatedly backed his reading, including a link to a similar thread, which you have failed to address and continue to ignore for 3 pages now.
In restoring good faith and proving you aren't ignoring him just because he may prove your point wrong, disprove his comparison:
If read the way you read the entry, any unit in a Decurion detachment, or any formation for that matter, cannot take a dedicated transport because it clearly says a "unit of xxx" not a "unit of xxx plus transport" as it allows in the unit entry. You are asserting that you can apply restrictions to the unit entry arbitrarily, based solely on your interpretation.
The two are nearly identical in application. You cannot enforce one without enforcing the other. So are you implying that no unit in a formation cannot take a dedicated transport, by sticking to your interpretation of singular vs plural spyders?
Unbelievably easy to dispose of that point. If the entry says take a unit of X with no restrictions, you can take that unit and any options provided to that unit. This is in no way the same situation.
You have one Spyder. You take anotheras the same unit. You now have two Spyders. This is against the rules of the formation - it says 1 Spyder and you have 2 Spyders. The other Spyder cannot then be in the formation: it is in the same unit as a model in a different formation, which is not allowed. Now, I know people are being pretty slow over this, so let's do this simply:
If you take 2 Spyders, is that the same as 1 Spyder? Does 1=2? I know this is a really tough concept, but as col_impact repeatedly points out, he's "probably" more qualified than all of us. Surely if we put our heads together we can solve the incredibly hard question of "if something says one, and I have two, should I use one or two?"
This entire thread is absurd. The page reference is clearly to reference the rules for Spyders. It doesn't magically make your single Spyder into a unit. Every other instance where units begin as single models, like heavy destroyers or stalkers explicitly says unit so you can take a unit. This does not - it says 1 Spyder. If I have 2 Spyders then by definition I no longer have 1 Spyder as required - I have a unit of 2 Spyders.
No the other thread is entirely relevant. Let's use your words, to keep it clear and simple:
You have one Tac Squad. You take a Dedicated Transport. You now have a Tac Squad+DT. This is against the rules of the formation - it says 1 Tac Squad and you have a Rhino. The Rhino cannot then be in the formation: it is a DT for a Unit in a different formation, which is not allowed. Now, I know people are being pretty slow over this, so let's do this simply:
If you take a Tac Squad+Rhino, is that the same as 1 Tac Squad? Does 1=2?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Whacked wrote: RAW, it clearly specifies one Spyder for the formation. The ruleset is a permissive one and it doesn't specify that the formation can consist of a "unit" of Spyders. However, as there is no restriction, it doesn't prevent you from buy any upgrade or any addition models, and as such, will allow you to purchase more Spyders, as it allows you to purchase more Wraiths or more Scarabs.
My point is that we both have the relevant rules there aren't more to add but we are at opposite conclusions meaning someone here is reading it wrong. And considering that only one person is reading the way that you think it's suppose to be I'm inclined to believe you are the one misinterpreting the rule.
False, as BlackTalos has repeatedly backed his reading, including a link to a similar thread, which you have failed to address and continue to ignore for 3 pages now.
In restoring good faith and proving you aren't ignoring him just because he may prove your point wrong, disprove his comparison:
If read the way you read the entry, any unit in a Decurion detachment, or any formation for that matter, cannot take a dedicated transport because it clearly says a "unit of xxx" not a "unit of xxx plus transport" as it allows in the unit entry. You are asserting that you can apply restrictions to the unit entry arbitrarily, based solely on your interpretation.
The two are nearly identical in application. You cannot enforce one without enforcing the other. So are you implying that no unit in a formation cannot take a dedicated transport, by sticking to your interpretation of singular vs plural spyders?
Those two are separate instances. A unit of warriors does not cease being a unit of warriors just because it bought a transport especially since a transport is a separate unit.
A spyder does stop being a singular spyder when you add spyders to the unit though.
And was that 'separate Unit' of a transport listed in the Formation?
No.
Why are you allowed to select the option then? (I'm all up for the answer being "you can't", but let's stay consistent for the OP)
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/02/04 12:18:09
And was that 'separate Unit' of a transport listed in the Formation?
No.
Why are you allowed to select the option then? (I'm all up for the answer being "you can't", but let's stay consistent for the OP)
Because its an option for the unit to buy and doesn't change the unit so it still is what the formation requires. It's similar to how a dedicated transport doesn't take of a FOC slot.
In the specific case with the Spyder, the formation requires that you bring "a spyder". While it still is an option for spyders to buy more for the unit, if you do then you no longer have "a spyder" and are failing to meet the requirements of the formation.
Also there are formations that remove the option to buy transports in their restrictions (like Tyrannic War). If you couldn't take transports normally then they wouldn't need to make that restriction.
I understand that DT have been "accepted" as an Option (Tyrannic War, Green Tide, etc), but just because they are slot-less does not make such a difference.
A Unit, chosen as required in the Formation, can select the Option of a DT.
A Unit, chosen as required in the Formation, can select the Option of 2 extra models.
I see no difference.
1 Formation has an extra FOC slot, extra Unit and extra model.
1 Formation has two extra models.
The first option seems less likely than the first...
Frozocrone wrote: Slight difference in your second example (bolded to highlight), although a unit of Canoptek Spyders can purchase more models, the formation specifically states '1 Canoptek Spyder'. Since at no point does it refer to the Canoptek Spyder as 'a unit of Canoptek Spyders' (unlike the Triarch formation, which refers to the singular Triarch Stalker as 'a unit of Triarch stalkers') I'm inclined to believe that you may only have 1 Canoptek Spyder in the formation.
CrownAxe wrote: You keep ignoring the important fact which is buy those extra models prevents you from meeting the formations requirements. That is the difference
- A formation requires you take a unit of tactical marines. You give that unit a rhino as a transport. The formation still has a unit of tactical marines
- A formation requires you take a spyder. You take a unit of 3 spyders. The formation doesn't have a spyder like it requierd.
That is the issue here.
Eyjio wrote: And if it said one unit of Spyders, this would be equivalent. The more comparable situation would be if it's said something like 5 Tactical Marines rather than 1 unit of tac marines. In that case, I would argue the same case I'm making here and say dedicated transports wouldn't be allowed for those 5 guys. At the end of the day, it says one Spyder. You can say whatever you want, but 2 Spyders is clearly not 1 Spyder.
So a Formation that says "1 Tac Squad" could purchase a Rhino but a Formation that says "5 Tactical Marines" could not? Are they 5 different Units? or still a Unit of 'Tactical Marines'?
Why would one Unit be allowed a DT and not the other?
In respons to all of the above, i'm going to hijack Kriswall's posts to answer:
Kriswall wrote: From the BRB, Detachments section - "However, all the units in your army must belong to a Detachment and no unit can belong to more than one Detachment."
Kriswall wrote: Some of you guys are treating the Unit List in a Formation a a minimum and not an exact requirement.
So, if I take a Canoptek Harvest with a unit of Wraiths, a unit of Scarabs, a Spyder and 17 Annihilation Barges, have I fulfilled the requirements? Per your logic, I can say yes to each required component, so surely I have? Awesome.
But, I have no more permission to take an Annihilation Barge in a Canoptek Harvest than I do to take multiple Spyders.
I'd love to have 3 in the Formation, but the rules just don't support it. One means one. One doesn't mean One + More just like One doesn't mean One + an Annihilation Barge.
Now:
A) I completely agree with everything stated by Krisswall:
I have no more permission to take 17 Annihilation Barge in a Canoptek Harvest than I do to take multiple Spyders.
I have no more permission to take a Night Scythe in a Canoptek Harvest than I do to take multiple Spyders.
But suddenly, everyone tells me that Dedicated transports CAN be taken for Units with the option to do so.....?
So a formation, that is listed as:
1 Spyder
0-1 Units of Scarabs
0-1 Units of Wraiths
Can become:
1 Spyder
0-1 Units of Scarabs
0-1 Units of Wraiths
1 Night Scythe
Because the Unit of Wraiths just happens to have an option to take a DT? (http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/631346.page)
But the Unit of Spyder, that just happen to have an option to take +2 spyders, cannot make a formation:
1 Spyder
0-1 Units of Scarabs
0-1 Units of Wraiths
Can become:
1 Unit of 3 Spyders
0-1 Units of Scarabs
0-1 Units of Wraiths
I really struggle to see how the first is allowed but not the second, considering all of the rules that Krisswall has listed.
B) Dedicated Transports taken for certain Formations must follow the "all the units in your army must belong to a Detachment and no unit can belong to more than one Detachment.".
So what Detachment are these Night Scythes part of?
Surely the Formation of the Unit purchasing it. So you can modify the list of a Formation with the DT Option, but not with the option of taking more models?
Taking a DT for a Unit is not taking more models? Or is there another reason?
Thariinye wrote: Other people have already mentioned this elsewhere, but compare this to two other formations with units that begin at 1 and can add additional models.
In The Triarch Formation iirc it specifies 1 Unit of Triarch Stalkers, rather than "1 Triarch Stalker." If we do not interpret the difference between these specifications as a typo, it implies that 1 Spyder means only one, not 1-3.
In the same manner, the Dark Artisan Formation from the Haemonculus Supplement specifies 1 Talos, when additional Talos can be added to a regular purchased unit. If "1 Spyder" in fact refers to a unit of 1-3 Spyders, rather than 1 Spyder, then the Dark Artisan Formation gets significantly more powerful as well, because I could take 3 Talos, 1 Cronos, and 1 Haemonculus. I don't know of anyone who plays the formation this way, and the picture provided shows a single Talos, but this is the inevitable consequence of finding that "1 Spyder" = "1 Unit of Spyders"
Yonasu wrote: Wonderful read this, someone obviously has had an argument at their flgs and now needs to find support at dakka to win the next fight
It clearly says "a spyder","the spyder" and so on, this thread should have stopped at that. It is what is written and what is intended, any tries to add more spyders break that formation entry. There is no need for any rules saying that "A Canoptek Spyder" is "A Canoptek Spyder" because it is what it is. I would be more inclined to find other formations with this wording that should also be treated like this. It is an unlucky use of words for a necron player, giving hope where there is none, but it is un-ambigious right from the start.
Unless there's a faq stating otherwise, the formation entry is what it is and in this game we follow organization charts and detachment rules because they are rules and not just guidelines. Continuing to state that "Show me the rules" is redundant since the formation is a rule.
Next time they might write "A canoptek spyder unit" and then we can use that.
I already put forth the excample in the tactics thread using Dark Artisan.
By his twisted logic I can field 1 heamonculuc, 1-3 Taloi and 1-3 Cronos....
If you could both explain how a Night Scythe can be added to a Formation of "Reclamation Legion"? (Because there are many arguing with precedence that this is indeed possible) Once you've explained how that works, use the same explanation on the Unit of Spyders.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/02/04 15:44:59
BlackTalos wrote: If you could both explain how a Night Scythe can be added to a Formation of "Reclamation Legion"? (Because there are many arguing with precedence that this is indeed possible)
Once you've explained how that works, use the same explanation on the Unit of Spyders.
Spoiler:
Army List Entries That Do Not Use Force Organisation Slots
Occasionally a unit’s Army List Entry will state that the unit it describes does not take up a slot on a Force Organisation Chart. These units can be included in any Detachment, even if all the slots of the appropriate Battlefield Role are filled with other units or if the Detachment had no slot for their Battlefield Role, but they must still adhere to any restrictions detailed on the Detachment and its own Army List Entry. If the Army List Entry states that it can be included in an army that includes another specified unit, and that it does not take up a Force Organisation slot, it must join the same Detachment as that specified unit. In either case, these units are part of the Detachment for all rules purposes and will gain any appropriate Command Benefits.
Dedicated Transports do not use Force Organization Slots.
This explanation cannot be used for extra Spyders.
Not using FOC slots is not in contention. Belonging to a certain formation is (Highlighted in the rules you've posted).
BlackTalos wrote: If you could both explain how a Night Scythe can be added to a Formation of "Reclamation Legion"? (Because there are many arguing with precedence that this is indeed possible)
Once you've explained how that works, use the same explanation on the Unit of Spyders.
Spoiler:
Army List Entries That Do Not Use Force Organisation Slots
Occasionally a unit’s Army List Entry will state that the unit it describes does not take up a slot on a Force Organisation Chart. These units can be included in any Detachment, even if all the slots of the appropriate Battlefield Role are filled with other units or if the Detachment had no slot for their Battlefield Role, but they must still adhere to any restrictions detailed on the Detachment and its own Army List Entry. If the Army List Entry states that it can be included in an army that includes another specified unit, and that it does not take up a Force Organisation slot, it must join the same Detachment as that specified unit. In either case, these units are part of the Detachment for all rules purposes and will gain any appropriate Command Benefits.
Dedicated Transports do not use Force Organization Slots.
This explanation cannot be used for extra Spyders.
Not using FOC slots is not in contention. Belonging to a certain formation is (Highlighted in the rules you've posted).
So you just missed "These units can be included in any Detachment, even if all the slots of the appropriate Battlefield Role are filled with other units or if the Detachment had no slot for their Battlefield Role"
Is a formation a Detachment? Yes, indisputably.
Can a DT join any Detachment, even if the Detachment had no slot for their Battlefield Role? Yes, indisputably.
So yes, the fact that they don't use FOC slots is exactly the point, because that's what allows them to use that rule.
A Unit that is not listed in a Formation is not a Unit with no slot for their Battlefield Role.
Kabalite Raiding Party. Perfect Example.
Formation:
1 Archon
1 Court of the Archon
1 Unit of Incubi
etc...
The Court of the Archon is listed here, but it takes up no FOC slot. (Or it can do - discussed)
Can I take another Slot-less Court? I mean, same as the DT, right?
BlackTalos wrote: A Unit that is not listed in a Formation is not a Unit with no slot for their Battlefield Role.
Are you sure? The formation has no slot for the DTs battlefield role - agreed?
I have no idea. I am trying to understand this while staying consistent.
Either you can have 3 Spyders and you can have DT.
Or it's a "no" for both 'Options'. (My preferred choice)
Kabalite Raiding Party. Perfect Example.
Formation:
1 Archon
1 Court of the Archon
1 Unit of Incubi
etc...
The Court of the Archon is listed here, but it takes up no FOC slot. (Or it can do - discussed)
Can I take another Slot-less Court? I mean, same as the DT, right?
Depending on the rules for a Court (since I don't have the Codex) I'd have to say "possibly".
""For each Archon included in a Detachment, the Detachment can include a Court of the Archon that does not take up a slot in the Force Organisation Chart""
This help?
Including a DT takes up no FOC slot.
Including a Court takes up no FOC slot.
Formation lists Court.
Formation does not list "Rhino".
You say we can "add" Slot-less Rhino (DT).
I suggest we can therefore "add" Slot-less Court.
BlackTalos wrote: A Unit that is not listed in a Formation is not a Unit with no slot for their Battlefield Role.
Are you sure? The formation has no slot for the DTs battlefield role - agreed?
I have no idea. I am trying to understand this while staying consistent.
Either you can have 3 Spyders and you can have DT.
Or it's a "no" for both 'Options'. (My preferred choice)
Demonstrably false, and you didn't answer my question.
Is there a slot in the formation for a Dedicated Transport's battlefield role?
Which one is false? i gave both options, plus as i said, i have no idea...
Kabalite Raiding Party. Perfect Example.
Formation:
1 Archon
1 Court of the Archon
1 Unit of Incubi
etc...
The Court of the Archon is listed here, but it takes up no FOC slot. (Or it can do - discussed)
Can I take another Slot-less Court? I mean, same as the DT, right?
Depending on the rules for a Court (since I don't have the Codex) I'd have to say "possibly".
""For each Archon included in a Detachment, the Detachment can include a Court of the Archon that does not take up a slot in the Force Organisation Chart""
This help?
Including a DT takes up no FOC slot.
Including a Court takes up no FOC slot.
Formation lists Court.
Formation does not list "Rhino".
You say we can "add" Slot-less Rhino (DT).
I suggest we can therefore "add" Slot-less Court.
I will continue if the above is agreed.
Sure - you can add a second court - providing the rules support taking a Court in a slot if you already have an Archon.
Do you have an example that doesn't include a massive, guaranteed to be locked, tangential debate?
Not really a tangent if it's "the same situation" and one explains the other?
So, a Formation can take an extra Unit (slot-less) such as a Court or a DT, but not take 2 extra models (also slot-less)?
We might need to re-word the whole thing at this point, because the confusion, at least, is tangential...
