New Necrons 7th Edition Tactica

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.

**adamsouza**

The Canoptek Harvest could easily have been worded identically to be '1 unit of Canoptek Spyders', but instead they opted for '1 Canoptek Spyder', as they did with '1 Overlord' in the Reclamation Legion formation.

I find that example flawed. The Overlord Datasheet does not allow for additional overlords to be added in the same slot, as the Canoptek Spyders allows. There is no such thing as unit of overlords, but a single Spyder can be ugraded to a unit of Spyders.

In any case, the biggest problem with the solo Spyder argument is that lack of any restrictions in the Canoptek Swarm Datasheet. Limiting a unit of 1-3 models to a single model is defeintely a restriction.

**Therion**

Did you even read my post? I specifically mentioned the Triarch Stalker. It's a perfect example. You literally repeated everything I already said.

Limiting a unit of 1-3 models to a single model is defeintely a restriction.

That's why the rule is badly written. They could've been more clear that they are in fact placing a restriction. Otherwise I wouldn't say the rule is ambiguous, I'd say it's clear that you can only have one Canoptek Spyder. What I did say on the other hand is that the intent is crystal clear when we take a look at their wording on all the formations and see that they all follow the same logic. The custom in games that are played for fun, not money or otherwise as a career, players don't use clearly ambiguous rules to their benefit at the expense of their opponent and quite possibly a fair contest, and instead wait for clarification.

**omerakk**

We should probably move this discussion to YMDC instead of clogging up the tactics thread?

As a side note; even if you're allowed to take up to 3 spyders in that formation, I will probably still stick with just 1 and continue with the MSU spam approach when it comes to the harvests.

**Therion**

omerakk wrote:
We should probably move this discussion to YMDC instead of clogging up the tactics thread?

As a side note; even if you're allowed to take up to 3 spyders in that formation, I will probably still stick with just 1 and continue with the MSU spam approach when it comes to the harvests.

At the moment I prefer the Leviathan allies to the Tau allies. 2 or 3 Flyrants just seem to remove any weakness that the Necrons still had. As jy2 said in his threads, the Necrons have such a strong ground presence that all they need is a couple units to dominate the skies with and they're set. If you can make a list with a mix of Flyrants, Wraiths and Tomb Blades, with a couple units for objectives sprinkled on top, not only are you very hard to kill but very fast and deadly too. You have a psychic phase, you shoot hard, and you can assault things.

Even a Mawloc wouldn't be out of the question if you're expecting invisibility.

**adamsouza**

Therion, I got hung up on you using the overlord as an example and quoted that. By time I was writing the rest of the post I forgot that you had mentioned the Triarch. I apologize for rehashing that.

While I completely agree with you that the dataslate is badly written, the fact they listed no restrictions, the fluff mentions unit not singular, and the white dwarf pictures showed multiple Spyders, makes the intent completely obfuscated at best, and provides an argumet for intent for multiple spyders.

Full disclosure, I've been running the Canoptek Swarm with a single Spyder, to minimize any potential arguments, but the more this gets brought up the more I think people who are doing so handicapping themselves unnecessarily.

I'll gladly accept a GW FAQ ruling either way, but I think the RAW argument of no restrictions currently trumps any RAI assertions to the contrary.

I'll add Flyrants to my list when I can figure out a way to make Mechanical Necrony looking ones

**Frozocrone**

Necrons would be a good ally for Leviarant.

The only thing 3 Flyrants misses is solid ground forces - which Necrons handily provide.

I think I would probably go with a CAD of Necrons and Leviathan were I to do that if only for ObSec (Warriors in Ghost Arks me thinks).

**omerakk**

I don't really think players are handicapping themselves by only taking 1 spyder; I think the formation works fine with as few points in it as possible.

Unless of course, you're wanting to use the formation as a platform for the full blown scarab farm.
Adding 3 bases a turn to a unit that gets RP.... could be extremely annoying for people to deal with.

**Therion**

adamsouza wrote:
I'll add Flyrants to my list when I can figure out a way to make Mechanical Necrony looking ones

You read my mind

I actually spent the better part of this day reading up on background material for an excuse for Necrons to use crazy 'Necromorph' creations in their forces and I think it fits that Illuminator Szeras and Tomb World Zantragora stuff pretty well. The canon fluff says they are hoarding thousands upon thousands of captured biological creatures for their laboratories for twisted and dark experimentations (haemonculus style).

I'm pretty sure Hive Tyrants won't be hard to convert into Necrons. You can swap the tail into a Wraith or a Dark Eldar Cronos pain engine tail if you want, the head gets some Canoptek Spyder alternative with mandibles, then put some Necron guns on it instead of Devourers, and Wraith type claws instead of the Scything Talon look of the nids. Finish up with extra gadgets and power cables and tubes and voila! A horror! The come the apocalypse allies rules even fit the visual appearance. The Necrons don't want to get close to the abominations they've released from their labs

The mindshackle scarabs will work only for so long

**Slayer-Fan123**

So I recently decided that I was inspired by the one force that used Necrons and Tyranids in the same army, and figured that I'd give it a go. I can easily borrow my friend's Flyrants, so here's how the list is shaping up so far.

Necron Detachment: 670
x1 Destroyer Lord
. Warscythe, Phase Shifter, Phylactery, Resurrection Orb, Veil Of Darkness

x5 Immortals
. Gauss Blasters, Night Scythe
x10 Warriors
. Ghost Ark

Formation: Canoptek Harvest, 410
x1 Spyder
x3 Scarabs
x6 Wraiths
. 6 Beamers

Leviathan Hive Fleet Detachment: 720
x3 Hive Tyrants
. Wings, x2 Devourers, Electroshock Grubs

x3 Mucolids

I very much like how this list shapes up. The Destroyer Lord makes the Wraiths more killtastic and soaks up a couple more wounds, and has the Veil in case I want to get somewhere else. Flyrants do their own thing, the Warriors do drive-by shootings, and the Immortals make for a quick OS unit with another flying unit on board. I figured that my Destroyer Lord would be my warlord. Questions, though...
1. Is it really worth having another troop choice in order to make the Necrons a CAD, or should they just be allies for less points spent. Otherwise, would another MSU of Immortals for another Night Scythe be better than the Ark?
2. I want to take advantage of the fact that Wraiths are Relentless in the formation to start with, and Beamers take care of the main weakness this army might have: Monstrous Creatures. Not only would it instantly kill those damn Wraithknights, but the Destroyer Lord statistically will make at least one 6 show up on average. Is this worth not striking at I5 though? Whipcoils are still cheaper, after all.

**Punisher**

How do we deal with invisible cents? Can't really shoot them with H.Destroyers as they usually miss, our strong blasts/templates can't hit them and they murder entire units that get in their 30" bubble.

So far I've had limited success tying them up with wraiths and scarabs but if they fail the charge then the cents just kinda eradicate them.

**Therion**

Punisher wrote:
How do we deal with invisible cents? Can't really shoot them with H.Destroyers as they usually miss, our strong blasts/templates can't hit them and they murder entire units that get in their 30" bubble.

So far I've had limited success tying them up with wraiths and scarabs but if they fail the charge then the cents just kinda eradicate them.

You ally a Mawloc or two

**changemod**

Therion wrote:
it's in fact arguable if having 150 points of Spyders is actually beneficial to a power gamer tournament army.

Exactly.

I roll my eyes at absurd power gamer interpretation rules all the time.

Heck, last edition I eventually got to the point where I pretty much never used my annihilation barges or night scythe out of what can only be described as spite for the attitude of spamming them instead of building an interesting or fun list. Right now I'm swearing off Decurions as blatantly unfair to the opponent after horrendously crushing someone with it.

I'm not of the opinion that the Canoptek Harvest blatantly allows three Spyders out of a desire to wring an advantage out of things: I use it that way because A: Formation Restrictions are clearly stated to be where limitations are listed, B: All official imagery of the formation has different numbers of Spyders and C: It's a handy list building tool for someone who likes Canoptek themed lists and has a lot of those models.

**Sigvatr**

Punisher wrote:
How do we deal with invisible cents? Can't really shoot them with H.Destroyers as they usually miss, our strong blasts/templates can't hit them and they murder entire units that get in their 30" bubble.

Sylons. No Decurion, though...if I got that right.

**changemod**

A twenty man Flayed One unit is potentially good enough at sucking up enough of a Centurion unit's bullets to make the charge with enough survivors to still kill them.

Mind you that's in a vacuum. If the rest of the army also focus fires the Flayed Ones they'll probably go down.

**Okapi**

Therion wrote:
The Canoptek Harvest could easily have been worded identically to be '1 unit of Canoptek Spyders', but instead they opted for the singular term '1 Canoptek Spyder', as they did with '1 Overlord' in the Reclamation Legion formation. It is beyond a shadow of a doubt that the intent is that the Canoptek Harvest has 1 Canoptek Spyder and no more or less.

There's plenty of doubt. The fluff piece on Canoptek Harvests earlier in the book says "1 unit of Canoptek Spyders", White Dwarf shows the formation with several Spyders, and again, "Restrictions: None". You may not agree with the other interpretation, but really, it's nowhere near as clear cut as you want to it be. If it were there wouldn't be dozens of pages of discussions on the matter (and WD staff wouldn't get it wrong).

I'm also baffled by people who seemingly think units consisting of a single model aren't considered units. Every single model on the table is part of a unit, and that unit may just consist of a single model (and in many cases that's the only option). Simply, in rules terms, if you put a Spyder on the table, both "1 Canoptek Spyder" and "1 Unit of Canoptek Spyders" are valid descriptions of it.

**Ghaz**

Rules > Fluff and pictures. It doesn't matter what the fluff and pictures say, you play the game by the rules.

**col_impact**

Therion wrote:
Re: The Canoptek Harvest, determining intent in this particular case isn't actually hard, and regardless of what some of you keep insisting, the legislative intent is what we should go by whenever a rule can be interpreted in a variety of ways and is therefore poorly written.

All the formations follow the same logic. For example, in the Judicatior Batallion, it is written that you must have '1 unit of Triarch Stalkers'. Triarch Stalker units are identical to Spyders in the sense that they have just one model by default. Clearly since they mention you must have a unit, and immediately follows below that there's no restrictions, and use the plural of Triarch Stalker, you can use the option to add up to two additional Triarch Stalkers if you wish. The Canoptek Harvest could easily have been worded identically to be '1 unit of Canoptek Spyders', but instead they opted for the singular term '1 Canoptek Spyder', as they did with '1 Overlord' in the Reclamation Legion formation. It is beyond a shadow of a doubt that the intent is that the Canoptek Harvest has 1 Canoptek Spyder and no more or less. Naturally, GW's rules writers take a very casual approach to the game so you can argue a lot of rules with any agenda for your benefit, but personally I don't use any ambiguous rules to my benefit. Especially when this one isn't really crucial to anyone playing Necrons, so my suggestion is that you err in the side of caution and use one Canoptek Spyder in the formation untill otherwise stated in a FAQ or an Errata.

And to the guy above, no, it isn't important for anyone playing the Harvest to use ambiguous rules to their benefit, especially when it's quite likely they are in the wrong. The formation is strong as is, and it's in fact arguable if having 150 points of Spyders is actually beneficial to a power gamer tournament army.

The Overlord is a bad example. The Overlord does not have an option on its army entry list to add another Overlord. However the Spyder army entry list does and we can use it because there is no restriction. Would you care to ammend your argument since it is otherwise well stated but I have managed to topple one of your main points.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ghaz wrote:
Rules > Fluff and pictures. It doesn't matter what the fluff and pictures say, you play the game by the rules.

Yup. And the rules unequivocally and unambuously allow us to add additional spyders. See my argument at length in this thread. The counter argument has literally zero rules support. Feel free to bring up any.

I traced out a rock solid rules argument. Hack away at it if you can.

**Therion**

CAD
-Destroyer Lord, Warscythe

-5 Immortals
-5 Immortals

-5 Wraiths, Whip Coils
-5 Wraiths, Whip Coils
-5 Wraiths, Whip Coils

Leviathan
-Hive Tyrant, Wings, 2x TL Devourer, Electroshock Grubs
-Hive Tyrant, Wings, 2x TL Devourer, Electroshock Grubs
-Hive Tyrant, Wings, 2x TL Devourer, Electroshock Grubs

-Mucolid
-Mucolid
-Mucolid

-Mawloc

1850 points on the spot

Can't think of many things it wouldn't have something to deal with.

col_impact wrote:I traced out a rock solid rules argument. Hack away at it if you can.

I don't know why you repeat that again and again. Your argument is far from rock solid, and it's been hacked to death. We've moved on. The rule is ambiguous. Start a thread in YMDC. The 'Overlord' wasn't an argument of any kind. It was a piece of a whole, showing how GW has worded the formations. They use plurals and singulars, and when they use plural of the model they also add the word unit, and when they use singular of the model they don't mention units.

**col_impact**

omerakk wrote:
I don't really think players are handicapping themselves by only taking 1 spyder; I think the formation works fine with as few points in it as possible.

Unless of course, you're wanting to use the formation as a platform for the full blown scarab farm.
Adding 3 bases a turn to a unit that gets RP.... could be extremely annoying for people to deal with.

The benefit you get is to allocate shooting and CC to the Spyders that aren't the Spyder granting buffs.

**gwarsh41**

So glad I don't have to deal with invisible cents in my area. There is almost an unspoken rule not to bring invisibility to friendly games.

**col_impact**

Therion wrote:
Did you even read my post? I specifically mentioned the Triarch Stalker. It's a perfect example. You literally repeated everything I already said.

Limiting a unit of 1-3 models to a single model is defeintely a restriction.

That's why the rule is badly written. They could've been more clear that they are in fact placing a restriction. Otherwise I wouldn't say the rule is ambiguous, I'd say it's clear that you can only have one Canoptek Spyder. What I did say on the other hand is that the intent is crystal clear when we take a look at their wording on all the formations and see that they all follow the same logic. The custom in games that are played for fun, not money or otherwise as a career, players don't use clearly ambiguous rules to their benefit at the expense of their opponent and quite possibly a fair contest, and instead wait for clarification.

How is it that we are using ambiguous rules to our benefit and yet the other side isn't using ambiguous rules to their benefit?

I am basing my RAW read on the most logically sound read of the rules. The counter argument is literally adding words to the rules. My argument wins by principles of logic, consistency, and reason. The counter argument is supported by the majority mob thinking of (mostly non-necron) players that want a nerf in RAW where a nerf is not due.

**Ghaz**

col_impact wrote:
Ghaz wrote:
Rules > Fluff and pictures. It doesn't matter what the fluff and pictures say, you play the game by the rules.

Yup. And the rules unequivocally and unambuously allow us to add additional spyders. See my argument at length in this thread. The counter argument has literally zero rules support. Feel free to bring up any.

I traced out a rock solid rules argument. Hack away at it if you can.

No they don't. Every rule for the Canoptek Harvest is clear in that it only allows a single Canoptek Spyder.

**col_impact**

Therion wrote:
CAD

col_impact wrote:I traced out a rock solid rules argument. Hack away at it if you can.

I don't know why you repeat that again and again. Your argument is far from rock solid, and it's been hacked to death. We've moved on. The rule is ambiguous. Start a thread in YMDC. The 'Overlord' wasn't an argument of any kind. It was a piece of a whole, showing how GW has worded the formations. They use plurals and singulars, and when they use plural of the model they also add the word unit, and when they use singular of the model they don't mention units.

The counter argument has failed to produce any rules backing whatsoever. My argument literally stands uncontested. The only thing you can do is bluster about how I am repeating myself ad nauseum.

**Therion**

col_impact wrote:
Therion wrote:
Did you even read my post? I specifically mentioned the Triarch Stalker. It's a perfect example. You literally repeated everything I already said.

Limiting a unit of 1-3 models to a single model is defeintely a restriction.

That's why the rule is badly written. They could've been more clear that they are in fact placing a restriction. Otherwise I wouldn't say the rule is ambiguous, I'd say it's clear that you can only have one Canoptek Spyder. What I did say on the other hand is that the intent is crystal clear when we take a look at their wording on all the formations and see that they all follow the same logic. The custom in games that are played for fun, not money or otherwise as a career, players don't use clearly ambiguous rules to their benefit at the expense of their opponent and quite possibly a fair contest, and instead wait for clarification.

How is it that we are using ambiguous rules to our benefit and yet the other side isn't using ambiguous rules to their benefit?

I am basing my RAW read on the most logically sound read of the rules. The counter argument is literally adding words to the rules. My argument wins by principles of logic, consistency, and reason. The counter argument is supported by the majority mob thinking of (mostly non-necron) players that want a nerf in RAW where a nerf is not due.

That's a pretty easy question to answer. I assume you're being rhetorical or trying to be cute here. The opponent isn't using any rules to his advantage since he doesn't play Necrons. The Necron player is the one who is deciding that his interpretation is correct when he's bringing quite potentially an illegal army list. This whole debate is academical. In friendly games the players can agree to the interpretation in a friendly manner or GW style by rolling for it. In competitive games the tournament has a rules FAQ or a referee system in place who will decide the issue well before it ever becomes an issue.

**col_impact**

Ghaz wrote:
col_impact wrote:
Ghaz wrote:
Rules > Fluff and pictures. It doesn't matter what the fluff and pictures say, you play the game by the rules.

Yup. And the rules unequivocally and unambuously allow us to add additional spyders. See my argument at length in this thread. The counter argument has literally zero rules support. Feel free to bring up any.

I traced out a rock solid rules argument. Hack away at it if you can.

No they don't. Every rule for the Canoptek Harvest is clear in that it only allows a single Canoptek Spyder.

Yup, and the Formation rules specifically and unambiguously refer to "units" and "army entry lists" so it is very clear that we are dealing with a unit.

**Therion**

col_impact wrote:
Therion wrote:
CAD

col_impact wrote:I traced out a rock solid rules argument. Hack away at it if you can.

I don't know why you repeat that again and again. Your argument is far from rock solid, and it's been hacked to death. We've moved on. The rule is ambiguous. Start a thread in YMDC. The 'Overlord' wasn't an argument of any kind. It was a piece of a whole, showing how GW has worded the formations. They use plurals and singulars, and when they use plural of the model they also add the word unit, and when they use singular of the model they don't mention units.

The counter argument has failed to produce any rules backing whatsoever. My argument literally stands uncontested. The only thing you can do is bluster about how I am repeating myself ad nauseum.

The only thing that's nauseating here is your moral high ground. There's Necron players in this thread who can actually form an objective stance on this, while also entertaining all alternatives and possible outcomes of the issue. Your only accomplishment is a collection of abrasive replies and constant attempts to take the thread off-topic.

**col_impact**

Therion wrote:
col_impact wrote:
Therion wrote:
Did you even read my post? I specifically mentioned the Triarch Stalker. It's a perfect example. You literally repeated everything I already said.

Limiting a unit of 1-3 models to a single model is defeintely a restriction.

That's why the rule is badly written. They could've been more clear that they are in fact placing a restriction. Otherwise I wouldn't say the rule is ambiguous, I'd say it's clear that you can only have one Canoptek Spyder. What I did say on the other hand is that the intent is crystal clear when we take a look at their wording on all the formations and see that they all follow the same logic. The custom in games that are played for fun, not money or otherwise as a career, players don't use clearly ambiguous rules to their benefit at the expense of their opponent and quite possibly a fair contest, and instead wait for clarification.

How is it that we are using ambiguous rules to our benefit and yet the other side isn't using ambiguous rules to their benefit?

I am basing my RAW read on the most logically sound read of the rules. The counter argument is literally adding words to the rules. My argument wins by principles of logic, consistency, and reason. The counter argument is supported by the majority mob thinking of (mostly non-necron) players that want a nerf in RAW where a nerf is not due.

That's a pretty easy question to answer. I assume you're being rhetorical or trying to be cute here. The opponent isn't using any rules to his advantage since he doesn't play Necrons. The Necron player is the one who is deciding that his interpretation is correct when he's bringing quite potentially an illegal army list. This whole debate is academical. In friendly games the players can agree to the interpretation in a friendly manner or GW style by rolling for it. In competitive games the tournament has a rules FAQ or a referee system in place who will decide the issue well before it ever becomes an issue.

Yup, and non-Necron players should not be allowed to abuse the rules to their benefit. There is literally no rules justification for disallowing additional spyders. If you feel otherwise point to a rule. If you cannot, I am allowed. Both players are bound to the rules.

**MasterSlowPoke**

Therion wrote:
col_impact wrote:I traced out a rock solid rules argument. Hack away at it if you can.

I don't know why you repeat that again and again. Your argument is far from rock solid, and it's been hacked to death. We've moved on. The rule is ambiguous. Start a thread in YMDC. The 'Overlord' wasn't an argument of any kind. It was a piece of a whole, showing how GW has worded the formations. They use plurals and singulars, and when they use plural of the model they also add the word unit, and when they use singular of the model they don't mention units.

Any argument is rock solid if the arguer refuses to listen to any counter arguments.

No one thinks that you can get 3 Talos and 3 Cronos in a Dark Artisan formation.
No one thinks that you can get 9 Biovores in a Living Artillery Node formation.
One Spyder, in fact, means One Spyder.

**col_impact**

Therion wrote:
col_impact wrote:
Therion wrote:
Did you even read my post? I specifically mentioned the Triarch Stalker. It's a perfect example. You literally repeated everything I already said.

Limiting a unit of 1-3 models to a single model is defeintely a restriction.

That's why the rule is badly written. They could've been more clear that they are in fact placing a restriction. Otherwise I wouldn't say the rule is ambiguous, I'd say it's clear that you can only have one Canoptek Spyder. What I did say on the other hand is that the intent is crystal clear when we take a look at their wording on all the formations and see that they all follow the same logic. The custom in games that are played for fun, not money or otherwise as a career, players don't use clearly ambiguous rules to their benefit at the expense of their opponent and quite possibly a fair contest, and instead wait for clarification.

How is it that we are using ambiguous rules to our benefit and yet the other side isn't using ambiguous rules to their benefit?

I am basing my RAW read on the most logically sound read of the rules. The counter argument is literally adding words to the rules. My argument wins by principles of logic, consistency, and reason. The counter argument is supported by the majority mob thinking of (mostly non-necron) players that want a nerf in RAW where a nerf is not due.

That's a pretty easy question to answer. I assume you're being rhetorical or trying to be cute here. The opponent isn't using any rules to his advantage since he doesn't play Necrons. The Necron player is the one who is deciding that his interpretation is correct when he's bringing quite potentially an illegal army list. This whole debate is academical. In friendly games the players can agree to the interpretation in a friendly manner or GW style by rolling for it. In competitive games the tournament has a rules FAQ or a referee system in place who will decide the issue well before it ever becomes an issue.

I take the moral high ground because the counter argument is inconsistent, illogical, and hypocritical, and wholly without rules support and those things should be noted and I don't mince words in debates.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

MasterSlowPoke wrote:
Therion wrote:
col_impact wrote:I traced out a rock solid rules argument. Hack away at it if you can.

I don't know why you repeat that again and again. Your argument is far from rock solid, and it's been hacked to death. We've moved on. The rule is ambiguous. Start a thread in YMDC. The 'Overlord' wasn't an argument of any kind. It was a piece of a whole, showing how GW has worded the formations. They use plurals and singulars, and when they use plural of the model they also add the word unit, and when they use singular of the model they don't mention units.

Any argument is rock solid if the arguer refuses to listen to any counter arguments.

No one thinks that you can get 3 Talos and 3 Cronos in a Dark Artisan formation.
No one thinks that you can get 9 Biovores in a Living Artillery Node formation.
One Spyder, in fact, means One Spyder.

Please sir form a rules argument which takes away my permission in the army entry list to add additional spyders. I can add additonal spyders because the options in the army entry list give me clear permission to do so.

**tetrisphreak**

Looking at it from a RAW perspective, I see Col_impact's point. Clearly.

Manufactorum Genestealer Brood - 5x units of genestealers. Restrictions: Genestealer broods in this formation may not add any additional genestealers. Pretty clear - I can take 5x5 broods, and add any other upgrades (including a broodlord), but no genestealers.

The canoptek harvest is missing this restriction. It would have been simple to add it in - and it was not. I think the INTENDED rule, for balance of the game if nothing else, was that the "1 canoptek spyder" was supposed to be it - no extras. However on the RAW side it most certainly can be upgraded to include 2 more spyders.

HIWPI - I'm not going to run more than 1 spyder per canoptek harvest. It's how i feel the formation is intended to be ran. However, should I face a necron player who puts 2 or 3 spyders in the formation, it's within the cut-and-dry rules for them to do so. It might leave a case of feel-badsies on the table, but dem's da rulez.