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.
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....
DA:80-S+G+M+B++I-Pw40k01++D+++A+++WD100R++T(T)DM+
Roronoa Zoro wrote:When the world shoves you around, you just gotta stand up and shove back. It's not like somebody's gonna save you if you start babbling excuses. - Bring on the hardship. It's preferred in a path of carnage.
Manchu wrote:
It's like you take a Space Marine and say "what could make him cooler?" Instead of adding more super-genetic-psycho-organic modification, you take it all away. You have a regular human left in power armor and all the armies of hell at the gates. And she doesn't even flinch. Pure. Badass.
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.
But I'm meet the formation requirement because I have a Wraith unit
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.
But I'm meet the formation requirement because I have a Wraith unit
Re-read the formation rules in the BRB. What makes you think you do not have to adhere to them? The formation adds on a unit by unit basis. So you have a unit of wraiths. Go from there.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/04 08:12:12
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.
But I'm meet the formation requirement because I have a Wraith unit
Re-read the formation rules in the BRB. What makes you think you do not have to adhere to them?
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.
But I'm meet the formation requirement because I have a Wraith unit
Re-read the formation rules in the BRB. What makes you think you do not have to adhere to them?
I'm just following your logic
If you followed my logic you would be quoting rules and adhering to them.
There is nothing that restricts selecting available options after the Formation has been selected.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/04 08:14:45
DA:80-S+G+M+B++I-Pw40k01++D+++A+++WD100R++T(T)DM+
Roronoa Zoro wrote:When the world shoves you around, you just gotta stand up and shove back. It's not like somebody's gonna save you if you start babbling excuses. - Bring on the hardship. It's preferred in a path of carnage.
Manchu wrote:
It's like you take a Space Marine and say "what could make him cooler?" Instead of adding more super-genetic-psycho-organic modification, you take it all away. You have a regular human left in power armor and all the armies of hell at the gates. And she doesn't even flinch. Pure. Badass.
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'.
Are all the selections for formations that only say one of x have a minimum squad size of one?
If that is the case, the reason they say one of x instead of a unit of x may be because there is only one model in the unit instead of 2 or higher before you buy extra members.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/02/04 08:17:27
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.
But I'm meet the formation requirement because I have a Wraith unit
Re-read the formation rules in the BRB. What makes you think you do not have to adhere to them?
I'm just following your logic
If you followed my logic you would be quoting rules and adhering to them.
No because your logic is based on ignoreing how the english language functions and interpreting rules how you see fit.
Are all the selections for formations that only say one of x have a minimum squad size of one?
If that is the case, the reason they say one of x instead of a unit of x is because there is only one model in the unit instead of 2 or height before you buy extra members.
Stalkers (min-size 1) say '1 Unit of Stalkers'.
Again, though I agree that the wording for the Canoptek Harvest is ambiguous enough that, RAW, you can have a unit of 2-3 Spyders in it.
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")
DA:80-S+G+M+B++I-Pw40k01++D+++A+++WD100R++T(T)DM+
Roronoa Zoro wrote:When the world shoves you around, you just gotta stand up and shove back. It's not like somebody's gonna save you if you start babbling excuses. - Bring on the hardship. It's preferred in a path of carnage.
Manchu wrote:
It's like you take a Space Marine and say "what could make him cooler?" Instead of adding more super-genetic-psycho-organic modification, you take it all away. You have a regular human left in power armor and all the armies of hell at the gates. And she doesn't even flinch. Pure. Badass.
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.
But I'm meet the formation requirement because I have a Wraith unit
Re-read the formation rules in the BRB. What makes you think you do not have to adhere to them?
I'm just following your logic
If you followed my logic you would be quoting rules and adhering to them.
No because your logic is based on ignoreing how the english language functions and interpreting rules how you see fit.
I'll stand by my own self-assessment of my capability of using the English language, thank you. Probability-wise, no one in this thread exceeds my qualifications on that count.
col_impact wrote: Probability-wise, no one in this thread exceeds my qualifications on that count.
Really really not needed.
No because your logic is based on ignoreing how the english language functions and interpreting rules how you see fit.
Why is this even continuing?
I've given clear precedence and reasoning as to why his method is correct.
DA:80-S+G+M+B++I-Pw40k01++D+++A+++WD100R++T(T)DM+
Roronoa Zoro wrote:When the world shoves you around, you just gotta stand up and shove back. It's not like somebody's gonna save you if you start babbling excuses. - Bring on the hardship. It's preferred in a path of carnage.
Manchu wrote:
It's like you take a Space Marine and say "what could make him cooler?" Instead of adding more super-genetic-psycho-organic modification, you take it all away. You have a regular human left in power armor and all the armies of hell at the gates. And she doesn't even flinch. Pure. Badass.
No because your logic is based on ignoreing how the english language functions and interpreting rules how you see fit.
I'll stand by my own self-assessment of my capability of using the English language, thank you. Probability-wise, no one in this thread exceeds my qualifications on that count.
The history of you debating on YMDC is proof of you lack of english comprehension. Why else is almost every thread you have a long standing argument in that you are the only one arguing your case? Because you are the only one misinterpreting the rules.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/04 08:26:20
No because your logic is based on ignoreing how the english language functions and interpreting rules how you see fit.
I'll stand by my own self-assessment of my capability of using the English language, thank you. Probability-wise, no one in this thread exceeds my qualifications on that count.
The history of you debating on YMDC is proof of you lack of english comprehension. Why else is almost every thread you have a long standing argument in that you are the only one arguing your case? Because you are the only one misinterpreting the rules.
I suggest you use rules to argue your case instead of an ad-hominem attack.
Roronoa Zoro wrote:When the world shoves you around, you just gotta stand up and shove back. It's not like somebody's gonna save you if you start babbling excuses. - Bring on the hardship. It's preferred in a path of carnage.
Manchu wrote:
It's like you take a Space Marine and say "what could make him cooler?" Instead of adding more super-genetic-psycho-organic modification, you take it all away. You have a regular human left in power armor and all the armies of hell at the gates. And she doesn't even flinch. Pure. Badass.
The number of units don't add up correctly. Too many scarabs for it to be a single formation as detailed in the data slate or even 2 formations and then if we're three then there are not enough wraiths to fill three so the pic really doesn't help at all.
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]
The number of units don't add up correctly. Too many scarabs for it to be a single formation as detailed in the data slate or even 2 formations and then if we're three then there are not enough wraiths to fill three so the pic really doesn't help at all.
It is evidence that there is enough of a confusion on the writing/editing part that 3 spyders is seen by at least a few to be a legitimate Canoptek Harvest formation.
This counts as circumstantial evidence and should raise quite the eyebrow.
But the main thing is the actual preponderance of RULES that support my argument and the lack of any clear rule to refute my argument.
No because your logic is based on ignoreing how the english language functions and interpreting rules how you see fit.
I'll stand by my own self-assessment of my capability of using the English language, thank you. Probability-wise, no one in this thread exceeds my qualifications on that count.
The history of you debating on YMDC is proof of you lack of english comprehension. Why else is almost every thread you have a long standing argument in that you are the only one arguing your case? Because you are the only one misinterpreting the rules.
I suggest you use rules to argue your case instead of an ad-hominem attack.
I tried and you keep refusing to believe me because of you false notion that a plural is also singular. So now I'm trying to point out that your grasp on the English language has errors in it.
No because your logic is based on ignoreing how the english language functions and interpreting rules how you see fit.
I'll stand by my own self-assessment of my capability of using the English language, thank you. Probability-wise, no one in this thread exceeds my qualifications on that count.
The history of you debating on YMDC is proof of you lack of english comprehension. Why else is almost every thread you have a long standing argument in that you are the only one arguing your case? Because you are the only one misinterpreting the rules.
I suggest you use rules to argue your case instead of an ad-hominem attack.
I tried and you keep refusing to believe me because of you false notion that a plural is also singular. So now I'm trying to point out that your grasp on the English language has errors in it.
I think you need to re-acquaint yourself with the rules.
No because your logic is based on ignoreing how the english language functions and interpreting rules how you see fit.
I'll stand by my own self-assessment of my capability of using the English language, thank you. Probability-wise, no one in this thread exceeds my qualifications on that count.
The history of you debating on YMDC is proof of you lack of english comprehension. Why else is almost every thread you have a long standing argument in that you are the only one arguing your case? Because you are the only one misinterpreting the rules.
I suggest you use rules to argue your case instead of an ad-hominem attack.
I tried and you keep refusing to believe me because of you false notion that a plural is also singular. So now I'm trying to point out that your grasp on the English language has errors in it.
I think you need to re-acquaint yourself with the rules.
No, you need to. I and many people here have told you the rules that disprove your argument and you insist on ignoring it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/04 08:37:05
No because your logic is based on ignoreing how the english language functions and interpreting rules how you see fit.
I'll stand by my own self-assessment of my capability of using the English language, thank you. Probability-wise, no one in this thread exceeds my qualifications on that count.
The history of you debating on YMDC is proof of you lack of english comprehension. Why else is almost every thread you have a long standing argument in that you are the only one arguing your case? Because you are the only one misinterpreting the rules.
I suggest you use rules to argue your case instead of an ad-hominem attack.
I tried and you keep refusing to believe me because of you false notion that a plural is also singular. So now I'm trying to point out that your grasp on the English language has errors in it.
I think you need to re-acquaint yourself with the rules.
No, you need to. I and many people here have told you the rules that disprove your argument and you insist on ignoring it.
This isn't a popularity contest. You need to actually come up with rules and not just '20 Sallys agree.' Who the fudge cares about Sally's opinion?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/04 08:38:49
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)
DA:80-S+G+M+B++I-Pw40k01++D+++A+++WD100R++T(T)DM+
Roronoa Zoro wrote:When the world shoves you around, you just gotta stand up and shove back. It's not like somebody's gonna save you if you start babbling excuses. - Bring on the hardship. It's preferred in a path of carnage.
Manchu wrote:
It's like you take a Space Marine and say "what could make him cooler?" Instead of adding more super-genetic-psycho-organic modification, you take it all away. You have a regular human left in power armor and all the armies of hell at the gates. And she doesn't even flinch. Pure. Badass.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: What, like the rules you gave me that allow you to choose/tell you which of the multiple Spyders are 'the Spyder'?
Oh, wait...
There is a formation spyder and I add 2 spyders to the unit and I keep track. I am not sure why you keep trying to task me with this argument that has been settled pages ago.
No because your logic is based on ignoreing how the english language functions and interpreting rules how you see fit.
I'll stand by my own self-assessment of my capability of using the English language, thank you. Probability-wise, no one in this thread exceeds my qualifications on that count.
The history of you debating on YMDC is proof of you lack of english comprehension. Why else is almost every thread you have a long standing argument in that you are the only one arguing your case? Because you are the only one misinterpreting the rules.
I suggest you use rules to argue your case instead of an ad-hominem attack.
I tried and you keep refusing to believe me because of you false notion that a plural is also singular. So now I'm trying to point out that your grasp on the English language has errors in it.
I think you need to re-acquaint yourself with the rules.
No, you need to. I and many people here have told you the rules that disprove your argument and you insist on ignoring it.
This isn't a popularity contest. You need to actually come up with rules and not just '20 Sallys agree.' Who the fudge cares about Sally's opinion?
There you go again. You used a strawman to dismiss and ignore my argument.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/02/04 08:43:26
DA:80-S+G+M+B++I-Pw40k01++D+++A+++WD100R++T(T)DM+
Roronoa Zoro wrote:When the world shoves you around, you just gotta stand up and shove back. It's not like somebody's gonna save you if you start babbling excuses. - Bring on the hardship. It's preferred in a path of carnage.
Manchu wrote:
It's like you take a Space Marine and say "what could make him cooler?" Instead of adding more super-genetic-psycho-organic modification, you take it all away. You have a regular human left in power armor and all the armies of hell at the gates. And she doesn't even flinch. Pure. Badass.
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'.
