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.

The argument is that a Spyder can add up to 2 other Spyders.
'Canoptek Spyder' does not exist, we have no points for that.
The only legal entry is a 'unit of Canoptek Spyders'

changemod wrote:

Or you wanted it relatively cheap. Say you have a five Destroyer unit from last edition that's been gathering dust a long time, and now that they're pretty good you'd like to run 3-1-1 along with three heavies and a Destroyer Lord, which is your entire Destroyer collection.

But nope! GW says you need to shell out for four more.

You could just play standard CAD, nothing is forcing you to take the formations. Bear in mind that pretty much ALL of the published formations are set up this way, requiring you to buy more models than you would normally run in a game to gain a benefit of some sort. In a sense, that's how they try to balance out these formations (not that they are always successful).

Kangodo wrote:
The argument is that a Spyder can add up to 2 other Spyders.
'Canoptek Spyder' does not exist, we have no points for that.
The only legal entry is a 'unit of Canoptek Spyders'

Basically, yeah.

"Formation Restrictions: None" is the same thing that gives you permission to take Dedicated Transport units in other formations.

Also supplementary evidence: The picture of a Canoptek Harvest in the White Dwarf preview, showing the studio army, has a two Spyder unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClassicCarraway wrote:

changemod wrote:

Or you wanted it relatively cheap. Say you have a five Destroyer unit from last edition that's been gathering dust a long time, and now that they're pretty good you'd like to run 3-1-1 along with three heavies and a Destroyer Lord, which is your entire Destroyer collection.

But nope! GW says you need to shell out for four more.

You could just play standard CAD, nothing is forcing you to take the formations. Bear in mind that pretty much ALL of the published formations are set up this way, requiring you to buy more models than you would normally run in a game to gain a benefit of some sort. In a sense, that's how they try to balance out these formations (not that they are always successful).

Yeah, I normally have no problem at all with it, and only have a minor problem with it now:

The Decurion has a marketing tool built in. Want to take Destroyers in your Decurion? You'll need at least ten and parts to convert one to a Lord.

Seems a little more manipulative than normal to do that with the toolkit FOC in the main codex. Little things like "You must buy at least one box of Tomb Blades to play a Decurion at all."

Is a Decurion mandatory? Nah. It's just a bit of a hard sell is all.

Does it actually break a formation if you include more than required?

Bullyboyz is 3 X 5 meganobs.

Does it break to add Trukks? No.

Canoptek formation is
1 unit of wraiths
1 unit of scarabs
1 spyder

Does it break to add a spyder to the unit? Probably not. Seems like you could do it.

The question is whether or not the formation benefits would extend to that extra spyder. Probably not.

Isn't the unit of Spyder issue the same as that one Formation for Haemonculus Covens? The one that says 1 Haemonculus, 1 Talos, and 1 Cronos? Should each one be units themselves then and put all together?

 Lou_Cypher wrote:
Isn't the unit of Spyder issue the same as that one Formation for Haemonculus Covens? The one that says 1 Haemonculus, 1 Talos, and 1 Cronos? Should each one be units themselves then and put all together?

Well minimally the formation says apply these benefits to these units. Even if you had a larger unit of spyder it seems clear that only 1 spyder can be part of the formation and get those benefits.

Kangodo wrote:
The argument is that a Spyder can add up to 2 other Spyders.
'Canoptek Spyder' does not exist, we have no points for that.
The only legal entry is a 'unit of Canoptek Spyders'

Instead of saying '1 unit of 1 Canoptek Spyder' they just used the shorthand of '1 Canoptek Spyder'.

The unit entry in the book is "Canoptek Spyders"
The model statline has the name "Canoptek Spyder" (no -s)
The Formation entry says "Canoptek Spyder" (no -s)

The Formation also says "Unit of Canoptek Wraiths"
The unit entry is "Canoptek Wraiths"
Granted the min size for that is 3 Wraiths now.


Just given that, I would assume that it's only a single Spyder. Here's what I think kills it, though. The Formation's special rule states:

"... The Canoptek Spyder from this formation, and all units from this formation within 12" of the Canoptek Spyder from this Formation..."

It's very clear in this wording that there's only supposed to be a single Spyder. A second or third wouldn't break it, but the intent is very unbending in this case.

 Lou_Cypher wrote:
Isn't the unit of Spyder issue the same as that one Formation for Haemonculus Covens? The one that says 1 Haemonculus, 1 Talos, and 1 Cronos? Should each one be units themselves then and put all together?

Well, that's a somewhat different case in that it forms a brand new unit of three completely different models stapled into a single unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:

 Lou_Cypher wrote:
Isn't the unit of Spyder issue the same as that one Formation for Haemonculus Covens? The one that says 1 Haemonculus, 1 Talos, and 1 Cronos? Should each one be units themselves then and put all together?

Well minimally the formation says apply these benefits to these units. Even if you had a larger unit of spyder it seems clear that only 1 spyder can be part of the formation and get those benefits.

Which is cool, I'll use an artillery dice from one of my cubes to mark the formation leader Spyder.

I really only care about this as a list building tool: To clear up Fast Attack slots mostly.

changemod wrote:

 Lou_Cypher wrote:
Isn't the unit of Spyder issue the same as that one Formation for Haemonculus Covens? The one that says 1 Haemonculus, 1 Talos, and 1 Cronos? Should each one be units themselves then and put all together?

Well, that's a somewhat different case in that it forms a brand new unit of three completely different models stapled into a single unit.

But the restrictions would be the same though wouldn't it? Basically:

5. Formation Composition: This section shows the number and type of units that make
up the Formation.

6. Formation Restrictions: This section details specific unit sizes, equipment, transport
options and any further restrictions that you may be required to adhere to in order to
include the Formation in your army.

So whenever it says 1 of x, it's 1 unit of x unless there's something else that's preventing it from being so. Like the Spyder vs. Spyders plural thing.

Anyone know what benefits each formations in the decurion give?

So far I've seen that canoptics give RP(or other special rules you won't use) to the units, the decurion give +1 to RP, the annihilation allows you to transfer the quantum shielding to a broken doomsday arc, and the flyer one gives negative leadership.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/3870/626667.page#7549324

Only three pages back.

Kangodo wrote:
The argument is that a Spyder can add up to 2 other Spyders.
'Canoptek Spyder' does not exist, we have no points for that.
The only legal entry is a 'unit of Canoptek Spyders'

Have fun explaining that technicality to your opponent. It's clear in that the difference in word choice has intent, and that is to allow for only one spider amongst a unit of wraiths and unit of scarabs. You're stretching. I play Necrons and would never dream of bending the rules like that.

Kangodo wrote:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/3870/626667.page#7549324

Only three pages back.

Thank-you exactly what I was looking for must have missed it while I skimmed through the thread(133 pages this is getting beefy)

Haha. no need
It's always convenient to have stuff like that ready for people who want to claim that Edge of Eternity "technically" doesn't do anything special.

As I said, outside of the formation box, the Special Rules section makes it VERY clear that there should only be one Spyder.

The intent is extremely clear, and the formation says one Spyder. How on earth you could possibly twist one into one unit, then into several Spyders is beyond me. Whether or not it has a FoC organisation is irrelevant - it says one Spyder and there is a unit profile for one Spyder. If there was a formation giving you one immortal, you would get a single immortal, not 5 because that's the minimum unit size you could normally take. RAW it's clear and RAI it's clear - this will fly nowhere. You get one singular Spyder - that's why it's not a unit, it's just one Spyder. I really don't know how it could be clearer.

I'm also very happy that the Decurion is rewarding fluff too. It's how the game should always have been structured IMO - either let people take whatever, or let them play fluffy armies with huge buffs. I suspect the most competitive build will not use the Decurion, but the fact I can make a very good fluffy army is more than enough for me.

Is there a leak on the spyder entry yet?

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Is there a leak on the spyder entry yet?

I have the codex, what do you want to know?

The exact wording on Relics and the permission to take them

Kangodo wrote:
The argument is that a Spyder can add up to 2 other Spyders.
'Canoptek Spyder' does not exist, we have no points for that.
The only legal entry is a 'unit of Canoptek Spyders'

Then I guess RAW you can have no Spyders since it specifies "Canoptek Spyder" and said unit does not exist.

Kangodo wrote:
The exact wording on Relics and the permission to take them

OH RIGHT I WANTED TO KNOW THAT TOO

book book book

"Artefacts of the Aeons are items of terrifying power, and each is older than many of the lesser races themselves. Only one of each of the following relics may be chosen per army."

Nothing here preventing Mephrit from taking them. Rejoice!

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Is there a leak on the spyder entry yet?

Spider is the same stats and cost as before, but all of their upgrades are cheaper.
Claws are 5 points
Gloom Prism is 10 point ( I think) and gives Iron Will in a bubble that is twice as big. So that means denying on a 5+ now rather than a 4+, but still... pretty good.
Twin-linked Particle Beamer is now only 10 points, rather than 25. This is a huge buff, and I'll always be giving them a gun now.
All selections are still single options... no double particle Beamers... though that would be fun.

I don't think the Adamantium Will is necessarily worth it. Yeah, it's one of the few anti-Psyker things we have, but honestly Witchfires and Maledictions aren't as scary as Blessings or Summonings. I mean, if you have 10 points sitting around for it, but I don't see it as a must-buy.

Requizen wrote:

Kangodo wrote:
The exact wording on Relics and the permission to take them

OH RIGHT I WANTED TO KNOW THAT TOO

book book book

"Artefacts of the Aeons are items of terrifying power, and each is older than many of the lesser races themselves. Only one of each of the following relics may be chosen per army."

Nothing here preventing Mephrit from taking them. Rejoice!

That is nice, but it's sad that we can have only a single Relic.
So it's either the 2+ OR the Voidreaver, while you would want to give both to the same.
Same goes for the Flamer and Teleport.

Requizen wrote:
I don't think the Adamantium Will is necessarily worth it. Yeah, it's one of the few anti-Psyker things we have, but honestly Witchfires and Maledictions aren't as scary as Blessings or Summonings. I mean, if you have 10 points sitting around for it, but I don't see it as a must-buy.

Weight against probability of psychic shriek, I guess.

Kangodo wrote:

Requizen wrote:

Kangodo wrote:
The exact wording on Relics and the permission to take them

OH RIGHT I WANTED TO KNOW THAT TOO

book book book

"Artefacts of the Aeons are items of terrifying power, and each is older than many of the lesser races themselves. Only one of each of the following relics may be chosen per army."

Nothing here preventing Mephrit from taking them. Rejoice!

That is nice, but it's sad that we can have only a single Relic.
So it's either the 2+ OR the Voidreaver, while you would want to give both to the same.
Same goes for the Flamer and Teleport.

Not how I read it. Says once per army, not one relic per character.

Eyjio wrote:

Kangodo wrote:

Requizen wrote:

Kangodo wrote:
The exact wording on Relics and the permission to take them

OH RIGHT I WANTED TO KNOW THAT TOO

book book book

"Artefacts of the Aeons are items of terrifying power, and each is older than many of the lesser races themselves. Only one of each of the following relics may be chosen per army."

Nothing here preventing Mephrit from taking them. Rejoice!

That is nice, but it's sad that we can have only a single Relic.
So it's either the 2+ OR the Voidreaver, while you would want to give both to the same.
Same goes for the Flamer and Teleport.

Not how I read it. Says once per army, not one relic per character.

From the Wargear Selection List:

Artifacts of the Aeons
A Model may take one of the following:

Would you be willing to just verbatim type the entry because that would be awesome.

Hollismason wrote:
Would you be willing to just verbatim type the entry because that would be awesome.

Which entry?