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.
schadenfreude wrote: People compare spiders to units that are way more expensive and see them as weak.
A spider or 2 can rapidly chew through units that are near their point costs. A single spider can also tarpit much larger units like a 10 man tactical squad, a guard blob with power axes, exc. They are a substantial threat to vehicles with av10 rear armor.
^^ This. 5 Spyders about equal the cost of a WK, and I'm pretty sure 5 Spyders would make a WK their prison bitch.
I will take it even further. People rave about the wraith in the Canoptek Harvest. I think the best unit in the Canoptek Harvest IS the Spyder itself. 3W 3+ 4++ T6 2 str6 ap 2 attacks or 1 str 10 ap2 attacks is awesome. Each Spyder pays for itself in points every 2.5 turns (if In proximity to scarabs) and you have upgrades that really globally help the Necrons and are unique to the Spyder (gloom prism, fabricator claws). The only downside to the Spyder compared to the Wraiths is the speed, which is a huge downside, but paring Spyders with fast scarabs and fast wraithflight Wraiths reduces the need for speed from the Spyders and he becomes the ultimate support unit and medic.
Spyders > Wraiths > Scarabs
If only the formation allowed extra spiders to be purchased.
Chaos isn’t a pit. Chaos is a ladder. Many who try to climb it fail, and never get to try again. The fall breaks them. And some are given a chance to climb, but refuse. They cling to the realm, or love, or the gods…illusions. Only the ladder is real. The climb is all there is, but they’ll never know this. Not until it’s too late.
Therion/Hollisman's discussion early got me thinking about what a real metal tide would look like.
Illuminor
4 x 20 Warriors with Ghost Arcs
2 x 5 Flayed Ones
3 x 1 HD
1850 on the nose.
Although I think Therion was making some good points (if you're a tournament player, the popular lists are going to inevitably be in the back of your mind when you make lists), I do think that there is something to be said, at least in a list like this, yeah, but how are they going to deal with you?
Does this list have a solid answer for 5 HTs in terms of shooting them down? No. But 5 HTs would barely scratch the paint of 80 4+ RP Warriors backed by 4 GAs, and at the end of the day, you're Ob Sec and they aren't.
Now, I'm not sure how much fun a list like that would be to play, but I do think it could be strategically effective. You just out board control people.
As shocking as it sounds, I thinking limiting them to one actually shows GW might knew what they were doing, this time. With just one you at least have the option to try to take out the Spyder first and whittle the formation's resiliency down a considerable notch. If you had to chew thew 9 T6 3+ RP 4+ wounds to do it, it would be a pretty daunting task for any list. Particular if your brought several squads of that.
You could easily bring 3 squads of 3 x 3 x 6 in a Decurion. 9 Tomb Spyders 9 Scarab swarms and 18 Wraiths with RP 4+( or shred or whatever) would be absolutely brutal.
Hollismason wrote: I'm still working on article but something I noticed was that you can basically have a Betastrike with the army by just placing a pretty much unkillable unit on the board with a Bastion and Comm Link.
That pretty much unkillable with shooting unit and CC as well?
A Mephrit Dynasty Destroyer Lord or place the Destroyer Lord w/ Orikan in a squad and let the Lord Tank.
Here's the set up and the actual number
Destroyer Lord w/ Solar Thermite , Phase Shifter , Orb of Eternity, Res Orb, Warscythe.
3+ , 4+ , 4+ Once per game allows a reroll twice.
Even with out the Solar Thermite, it's pushing 87 % of all damage is ignored.
Anyway just a option.
The Solar thing can't be taken by the Destroyer Lord.
Good catch I completely missed that , yeah then it isn't a option to take that but the Destroyer Lord w/ the 3 4+ Saves is still a good option with Bastion and Comm Relay is it's still incredibly easy to get the jump on your opponenet using this if your going for a first strike.
Specifically the Destroyer Cult, because the entire cult deep strikes.
Also for the Canoptek Harvest I actually think it's best to take 3 squads of 3 Wraiths w/ 3 Scarabs and 3 Spyders. it allows you a minifarm and the ability to get off a first turn charge. By turn 2 you have possibly 9 + 3 + 3 , 16 Scarab bases on the board, just something to consider.
3 Wraiths w/ Trans Beamers
3 Scarabs
1 Spyder
Total : 260
780 points , and now your in MSU territory , you've got 3 Squads of 3 , 3 x 3 , plus 3 Squads of 1 which all have to be dealt with. To me it just seems a better choice.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/03 12:39:19
If I lose it is because I had bad luck, if you win it is because you cheated.
Tekron wrote: Spyders are great in combat, especially with RP. Their lack of use previously was mostly down to their taking up an AB slot, not that they weren't good. 150 pts for 9 T6 wounds and smash. Unless you are up against force weapons it's hard to see the downside of them.
From the context of your comment I'm not sure you realize that only one spider may be taken per harvest formation. And if you are tournament legal, in most cases you'll only have one harvest.
So it is not 3 spiders with RP. Ithe is only one.
I have a love /hate relationship with anything green.
I'm a big fan of all the canoptek units, and would agree people are truly underestimating the spyders. For 150 points you get 9 S6ap2 attacks on the charge, and if you smash that's 3 S10ap2. You also get 9 T6 wounds with a 3+ AS. I'd say they compare pretty well to most MCs. If they end up FAQing the Harvest into allowing several spyders then they'd be bloody awesome. (I Will not play it like that until then, though)
In fact, I've written up a scarab farm list @1000pts that I think Will be fun to play:
Tekron wrote: Spyders are great in combat, especially with RP. Their lack of use previously was mostly down to their taking up an AB slot, not that they weren't good. 150 pts for 9 T6 wounds and smash. Unless you are up against force weapons it's hard to see the downside of them.
From the context of your comment I'm not sure you realize that only one spider may be taken per harvest formation. And if you are tournament legal, in most cases you'll only have one harvest.
So it is not 3 spiders with RP. Ithe is only one.
Actually it's pretty clear to me that it's two different statements in the same post and that he's not claiming you cab add several to a Harvest.
On top of that, please do away with the assumption that tactics in this thread should be discussed from a two source format POV primarily. Competitively yes, but the two sources maximum is a house rule used by certain tournaments and not how 7th edition 40k is played RAW. I hope tournaments come to terms with that eventually as well, no matter the cheese that stems from it.
schadenfreude wrote: If only the formation allowed extra spiders to be purchased.
What if we just allow either side of that debate to discuss their tactics without the other side jumping in to restart the argument.
I thought I made it abundantly clear that the recourse the 'only one Spyder ever' argument player base is to collectively get together and house rule it to be 'one Spyder.' My whole argument is that RAW actually supports more than one Spyder and its very important that we stay consistent with how we apply rules. That said, I FULLY endorse players exercising their democratic authority and vote for the game they want to come together and play. I just want to insist that the dialogue stays honest, on the level side and rational side, and that people hold themselves to rules and logic. I want the player base to always stick to an honest and rational dialogue on the subject. I actually look at this argument as a test case for people about how approach rules arguments. Its easy to slip into a Machiavellian approach or sophist approach and simply use argumentative tactics to try to get what you want. There are a few issues in the past where I took this approach. In my posts you could probably find how I took any avenue to try to get people to allow Doom Scythes to have the ability to allow players to re-embark when there is literally no rules basis for allowing that. I kicked and pushed at the rules and bent the rules just to try and get what I want. I did that in part because a lot of the YMDC debates are being fought out by people who are really effective debaters who freely use argumentative techniques to push and get what they want by confusion, misdirection, trolling, etc.
Lately I have become a hardliner or uber rationalist/uber integrity for approaching RAW debates with honesty and integrity and the insistence of reliance on rational discourse. That may sound like a noble approach and all but it does indeed present itself with its separate problems, much like in the case where a defense attorney sets an obviously guilty man free because the cops didn't read him his rights. I think many arguments I effectively win but the community gets pissed (and rallies against me out of a feelling of being deeply offended) because I violate their gut feeling for what the rules should do (namely not let good people off for their crimes or allow players to use rules loopholes for advantage when rules loopholes really are better left approached as if full not there - an 'emperor's clothes' lines of thinking). My argument about allowing Praetorians on their dedicated transport runs in this category. My argument is that the rules adhered to strictly don't keep him off the dedicated transport. The counter argument is that 'all hell breaks loose' if you let that happen. And then I counter with that's fine, the community can get together and patch up this problem (e.g. vote on the issue so that it's clear one way or the other what the players can do). Basically, my role is as a 'lawyer' in these debates. GW is the legislative authority. They write sloppy rules. The debate over rules sometimes get mired by people who use argumentative techniques to just push for what they want (a Machiavellian approach or sophist approach) My approach is to push for and always insist that we keep the dialogue honest, consistent, and rational and to offload the burden of people getting what they want out of rules debates (where its easy to stoop to less than honest tactics) and instead direct people to collective efforts of house ruling and HYWPI (which is the player's recourse for writing new rules and indeed making a game they want to play)
So with the argument about the Spyder. If you want players to be restricted to 1 Spyder that is fine and all and I fully endorse your desire to see players play that way (and heck it even sounds fair to me at a gut level). However the rules flat out don't support you on that and I am going to topple any Machiavellian, sophist, or trolling line of argumentation that tries to succeed at doing that simply out of principle, because among other things its a greater value collectively that we stick to honest and rational dialogue than to slip into 'emperor's clothes' or 'mob thinking' on this subject. 'Mob thinking' is toxic to rules debates and we need to diligently root it out whenever it pops up and simply collectively not allow it ever. The legitimate way for the counter argument to get what they want is getting together and house ruling on that (like a community rallies together and votes and enacts legislative change). Lawyers, if they are honest, just stick to rational argument and try to do that job exceeding well and not blur what the law says with what the law should say. That's what YMDC should always do imho. They frequently get blamed for being the underminers of the whole process but really its just bad law (e.g the rules that GW writes).
Another way of looking at all this is that for YMDC I stick with Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle as guides and just simply DEMAND other players meet me on that field of debate (rational, logical, and honest discourse). You might think I am a lawyer by background after this speel. My background actually is in Philosophy and Anthropology and Linguistics (semantics, etc.). At one time I was a professional academic instructing university students in the history of Western ideology (think anthropology of power - Bourdieu, Michel Foucault, Henri Lefebvre for those who want to peak at my dusty bookshelf) and other useless topics and teaching them how to write and how to form rational, well-formed, and logically airtight arguments. I bailed on the Ivory Tower and nowadays, I just do visual effects, and work on movies and have boatloads of fun playing 40k as a 46 year old artist with my 12 year old son who is a budding artist and who I can see one day following in my footsteps and putting monsters and furry creatures on the big screen (ie I sold out and just have fun). Enough self disclosure. Let's just stick to rational and honest lines of argument and treat things as they actually are (like Plato would) and kick each others asses if we stoop to abusive lines of argument (which I fully admit I have done in the past and thank you to anyone who kicked me ass on that) and honestly realize sometimes that a particular issue is better left to collective legislative vote (e.g HYWPI) rather than stooping to dishonest and deceitful lines of argumentation which is toxic to the entire endeavor. I am not trying to point the moral high finger. I have done Machiavellian lines of argumentation in the past. We have all done that. Its the Internet and the breeding ground for trollers and Machiavellian, sophist pushes for 'might makes right' and I am guilty as any of you for dipping into that practice. But if we like playing 40K and we want a community base to actually be able to come together and play this game, I think Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle provide the best guide if only because so many of us have a higher education and can pull on that as a collective common ground. Anyway, that's my opinion. Lots of players on here are actually quite smart and Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates are probably our collective best bet as the heroes or guides for YMDC. We all want to come together and play the game with our 12 year old sons and feel good about it and not get stuck in toxic rules debates. I think Plato, et al, can help us out there.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/03 13:33:11
Hollismason wrote: I'd rather stick with a max of 7 Spyders including the Canoptek one. Just less points.
Making 16 Scarab bases that could possibly get a first turn ( actually completely likely) charge is enough.
Well, you need to save those points for your Tomb Blades
I like to run 10 Spyders (9 CAD + 1 Canoptek Swarm). The Sheer volume of them discourages people from attacking them. It requires a significant amount of fire power to down that many T6 3+ 3W models and there are often greater threats on the board for them to contend with first.
Also, if they decide to deepstrike in some Terminators to handle the Spyder situation, you can tie them up with 3 spyders at a time.
gwarsh41 wrote: That many spyders sounds like a really fun time!
For me at least. I don't know about my opponents, since my Scarab farm is undefeated.
There is something demoralizing about adding 10 bases a turn to a squad.
One of my regular opponents is threatening to run a Demon Factory, and to be honest, I'm quite excited to see the epic clash of a Scarab Farm verses a Demon Factory.
ShadarLogoth wrote: Therion/Hollisman's discussion early got me thinking about what a real metal tide would look like.
Illuminor
4 x 20 Warriors with Ghost Arcs
2 x 5 Flayed Ones
3 x 1 HD
1850 on the nose.
Although I think Therion was making some good points (if you're a tournament player, the popular lists are going to inevitably be in the back of your mind when you make lists), I do think that there is something to be said, at least in a list like this, yeah, but how are they going to deal with you?
Does this list have a solid answer for 5 HTs in terms of shooting them down? No. But 5 HTs would barely scratch the paint of 80 4+ RP Warriors backed by 4 GAs, and at the end of the day, you're Ob Sec and they aren't.
Now, I'm not sure how much fun a list like that would be to play, but I do think it could be strategically effective. You just out board control people.
The biggest weakness I see to a list like this is your blob of warriors can be swept in melee. One solid melee unit should be able to survive 20 attacks from Str4 AP- warriors while dealing enough kills to lower your leadership check to the point where you'll fail and be swept. All the balanced Necron lists either have fast units that can avoid melee or tarpit units to tie up melee. That's one reason why people like Flayed Ones. They're as annoying as warriors to kill but they can actually win combat and not be swept. So perhaps consider lowering your warrior count and getting more Flayed Ones.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/03 14:09:40
His list: Ultramarines CAD - Captain w/ kit, 5x tactical marines, Assault Cannon Razorback, 5x scouts w/ telion, 3x grav centurions, venerable dreadnought in a drop pod, storm talon w/ skyhammers, and a lascannon/storm bolter predator.
The mission was Cloak and Dagger maelstrom, with additonal VPs for Kill Points. Night Fight turn 1.
He won Initiative, and began with some pretty good shooting from his dread, razorback, and snipers and killed about 6 of my warriors after cover and RP rolls. I moved up and managed to charge 1st turn (since he had gotten closer) with my scarabs vs his tacticals and super-captain. They would remain locked in that combat for the entirety of the game - scarabs are an amazing tarpit vs anything s5 or lower, especially with RP from the spyder.
His stormtalon came in and consistently did damage, and i had to ignore it because i was using a list with no skyfire. The grav centurions lined up shots on my tomb blades and made them disappear (which was expected). The wraiths multicharged a drop pod, dreadnought, and a razorback, and wrecked the dread and the razor. then they only lost 2 models to the return fire from the rest of his army. After that they took out the centurions, then the scouts. The overlord made it to his predator and ganked it with a warscythe. Thanks to the phylactery, i healed 2 wounds over the course of the game keeping my warlord alive.
by the end of the game, thanks to the maelstrom points and KP's I won 14-13. It was an incredibly close match, despite the fact that he only had his captain and the storm talon left alive at the end of the game.
What i took away was that the canoptek harvest is a great formation (duh), and lack of air support really makes me want to consider buying some night scythes (at least one) for future lists. Not having ObSec on my troops never really came much into play - if i wanted an objective i typically just would kill what was holding it.
Overall i'm having a lot of fun with this book so far. Only 2 games in, but i just got 10 metal flayed ones last night that i'll be putting together and painting this week. I might even take NightBringer for a spin and see how it goes.
Been out of the game for awhile, trying to find time to get back into it.
Um, no. I can't understand what is difficult to understand about
'1 canoptek spyder'
1
spyder
not unit, not >1, not spyders.
It's been done to death, once in YMDC which got locked and then someone new opened a thread with artwork claiming it to support pro multiple spyders (artwork =/= rules) which also got locked.
For the record I am Pro ONE Spyder (I agree with the Triarch Stalker formation argument put forward) but let it die.
Verveidi I would go CAD at that's point level, Decurion is very restrictive and IMO should be taken at 1500 or above if you wanted to go that route.
Um, no. I can't understand what is difficult to understand about
'1 canoptek spyder'
1
spyder
not unit, not >1, not spyders.
The special rule for the formation states 'the spyder'. Arguing otherwise is just living in some mythical dream world in your head.
The reasoning behind more than one spyder is twofold - 1 canoptek spyer is a unit selection in the book, which gives the option to add up to 2 more spyders. Secondly, and the more important bit i think, is there is no Formation Restriction limiting the spyder from adding additional models to it's unit.
the HIWPI is for me, definitely 1 spyder. However RAW more can be added. A FAQ here would be incredibly helpful for everyone - we should all email the FAQ section of GW so they might actually answer this one in a future update.
Been out of the game for awhile, trying to find time to get back into it.
schadenfreude wrote: If only the formation allowed extra spiders to be purchased.
What if we just allow either side of that debate to discuss their tactics without the other side jumping in to restart the argument.
Spoiler:
I thought I made it abundantly clear that the recourse the 'only one Spyder ever' argument player base is to collectively get together and house rule it to be 'one Spyder.' My whole argument is that RAW actually supports more than one Spyder and its very important that we stay consistent with how we apply rules. That said, I FULLY endorse players exercising their democratic authority and vote for the game they want to come together and play. I just want to insist that the dialogue stays honest, on the level side and rational side, and that people hold themselves to rules and logic. I want the player base to always stick to an honest and rational dialogue on the subject. I actually look at this argument as a test case for people about how approach rules arguments. Its easy to slip into a Machiavellian approach or sophist approach and simply use argumentative tactics to try to get what you want. There are a few issues in the past where I took this approach. In my posts you could probably find how I took any avenue to try to get people to allow Doom Scythes to have the ability to allow players to re-embark when there is literally no rules basis for allowing that. I kicked and pushed at the rules and bent the rules just to try and get what I want. I did that in part because a lot of the YMDC debates are being fought out by people who are really effective debaters who freely use argumentative techniques to push and get what they want by confusion, misdirection, trolling, etc.
Lately I have become a hardliner or uber rationalist/uber integrity for approaching RAW debates with honesty and integrity and the insistence of reliance on rational discourse. That may sound like a noble approach and all but it does indeed present itself with its separate problems, much like in the case where a defense attorney sets an obviously guilty man free because the cops didn't read him his rights. I think many arguments I effectively win but the community gets pissed (and rallies against me out of a feelling of being deeply offended) because I violate their gut feeling for what the rules should do (namely not let good people off for their crimes or allow players to use rules loopholes for advantage when rules loopholes really are better left approached as if full not there - an 'emperor's clothes' lines of thinking). My argument about allowing Praetorians on their dedicated transport runs in this category. My argument is that the rules adhered to strictly don't keep him off the dedicated transport. The counter argument is that 'all hell breaks loose' if you let that happen. And then I counter with that's fine, the community can get together and patch up this problem (e.g. vote on the issue so that it's clear one way or the other what the players can do). Basically, my role is as a 'lawyer' in these debates. GW is the legislative authority. They write sloppy rules. The debate over rules sometimes get mired by people who use argumentative techniques to just push for what they want (a Machiavellian approach or sophist approach) My approach is to push for and always insist that we keep the dialogue honest, consistent, and rational and to offload the burden of people getting what they want out of rules debates (where its easy to stoop to less than honest tactics) and instead direct people to collective efforts of house ruling and HYWPI (which is the player's recourse for writing new rules and indeed making a game they want to play)
So with the argument about the Spyder. If you want players to be restricted to 1 Spyder that is fine and all and I fully endorse your desire to see players play that way (and heck it even sounds fair to me at a gut level). However the rules flat out don't support you on that and I am going to topple any Machiavellian, sophist, or trolling line of argumentation that tries to succeed at doing that simply out of principle, because among other things its a greater value collectively that we stick to honest and rational dialogue than to slip into 'emperor's clothes' or 'mob thinking' on this subject. 'Mob thinking' is toxic to rules debates and we need to diligently root it out whenever it pops up and simply collectively not allow it ever. The legitimate way for the counter argument to get what they want is getting together and house ruling on that (like a community rallies together and votes and enacts legislative change). Lawyers, if they are honest, just stick to rational argument and try to do that job exceeding well and not blur what the law says with what the law should say. That's what YMDC should always do imho. They frequently get blamed for being the underminers of the whole process but really its just bad law (e.g the rules that GW writes).
Another way of looking at all this is that for YMDC I stick with Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle as guides and just simply DEMAND other players meet me on that field of debate (rational, logical, and honest discourse). You might think I am a lawyer by background after this speel. My background actually is in Philosophy and Anthropology and Linguistics (semantics, etc.). At one time I was a professional academic instructing university students in the history of Western ideology (think anthropology of power - Bourdieu, Michel Foucault, Henri Lefebvre for those who want to peak at my dusty bookshelf) and other useless topics and teaching them how to write and how to form rational, well-formed, and logically airtight arguments. I bailed on the Ivory Tower and nowadays, I just do visual effects, and work on movies and have boatloads of fun playing 40k as a 46 year old artist with my 12 year old son who is a budding artist and who I can see one day following in my footsteps and putting monsters and furry creatures on the big screen (ie I sold out and just have fun). Enough self disclosure. Let's just stick to rational and honest lines of argument and treat things as they actually are (like Plato would) and kick each others asses if we stoop to abusive lines of argument (which I fully admit I have done in the past and thank you to anyone who kicked me ass on that) and honestly realize sometimes that a particular issue is better left to collective legislative vote (e.g HYWPI) rather than stooping to dishonest and deceitful lines of argumentation which is toxic to the entire endeavor. I am not trying to point the moral high finger. I have done Machiavellian lines of argumentation in the past. We have all done that. Its the Internet and the breeding ground for trollers and Machiavellian, sophist pushes for 'might makes right' and I am guilty as any of you for dipping into that practice. But if we like playing 40K and we want a community base to actually be able to come together and play this game, I think Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle provide the best guide if only because so many of us have a higher education and can pull on that as a collective common ground. Anyway, that's my opinion. Lots of players on here are actually quite smart and Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates are probably our collective best bet as the heroes or guides for YMDC. We all want to come together and play the game with our 12 year old sons and feel good about it and not get stuck in toxic rules debates. I think Plato, et al, can help us out there.
Just thought you should know you aren't alone in your opinions in YMDC, I'm sure there are plenty like me who lurk and agree with many of your RAW interpretations. Unfortunately since the new codex was released a large segment of people there have essentially decided to side against anything advantageous for Necrons due to their perceived power level, and I for one certainly don't have the patience to argue it. So thank you!
col_impact wrote: My whole argument is that RAW actually supports more than one Spyder and its very important that we stay consistent with how we apply rules.
I am afraid that is actually not an argument but only your (as of yet unsupported) interpretation of the rules.
col_impact wrote: I think many arguments I effectively win but the community gets pissed (and rallies against me out of a feelling of being deeply offended) because I violate their gut feeling for what the rules should do
From what I can tell your own (as of yet unsupported) gut feeling of having won the argument prevents you from actually questioning aforementioned gut feeling, leaving you with a non-verifyable a priori belief in your own rhetorical superiority.
col_impact wrote: My approach is to push for and always insist that we keep the dialogue honest, consistent, and rational and to offload the burden of people getting what they want out of rules debates
Reserving moral authority for your own position is neither "your" approach, nor anything other than a pretty obvious argument ad hominem, itself an ancient rhetorical ("Sophist", "Machiavellian", etc.) trope to get what you want out of this debate.
col_impact wrote: My background actually is in Philosophy and Anthropology and Linguistics (semantics, etc.).
That you know (at least) graduate student-level argumentation theory indicates that you know about the tropes you are actively using and assume we do not notice. So your manipulation is intentional and thus even unethical, yet luckily not very skillful.
RAW in the formation part of the codex conflicts with RAW in the main rulebook (wrt unit compositions in formations).
So then we get to RAI.
If they hadn't specified 'the spyder' in the formation rule, I would agree that '1 canoptek spyder' is quite possibly a typo and therefore RAI was indeed '1 unit of canoptek spyders'.
However, they actually specify in the rule for the formation 'the spyder'. Not 'a spyder', not 'a unit of spyders', THE SPYDER.
There is NO other way to interpret this semantically. As we all know, codex rules supersede main rulebook.
I agree though, it needs a FAQ as it's causing a lot of confusion... typical geedubs poor templating of rules.
(as a side note - that formation is INSANE if you take more than 1 spyder - I doubt very much that they would choose to unbalance the codex so heavily, given the current move towards more balanced armies).
schadenfreude wrote: People compare spiders to units that are way more expensive and see them as weak.
A spider or 2 can rapidly chew through units that are near their point costs. A single spider can also tarpit much larger units like a 10 man tactical squad, a guard blob with power axes, exc. They are a substantial threat to vehicles with av10 rear armor.
Well that's just wrong, 10 man tac squad with bolters inflicts 0.555 wounds(before saves) on overwatch and then 3.333 wounds in combat because they just use their krak grenades on your "monsterous" creatures body. So that's 1.3 wounds already(0.65 if decurion in harvest) and it's not taking into account the fact that they might have a fist or a melta bomb(which is really really good vs monsterous creatures). So it's not unlikely that if you charge a tac squad that by the time it's your turn again it'll be dead.
These thing are pretty bad combat wise, it a support unit that can act as a counter assault if something hits your line quickly. It will lose vs anything that is likely to approach it in combat( the only units it can beat are really your opponents back field support units and its not getting there). Equip it as a support unit, with fabricators if you have a tank line, gloom prism gives the only psychic defense in the codex, and the twin-linked particle weapon is actually decent for a support unit. It's best used in a canoptek harvest to give RP to your real tarpits and melee units and then sitting back protecting/fire supporting your slower ground army.
Psienesis wrote: While that's possible, it's also stupid to build your game around your customers being fething morons
What would be a good way to run crons in a MSU list? Jw cause everyone seems to blobing out as many as they can, and I was thinking maybe MSU can be better? So if you have a bad roll they can't focus fire you down. Just a thought.
schadenfreude wrote: People compare spiders to units that are way more expensive and see them as weak.
A spider or 2 can rapidly chew through units that are near their point costs. A single spider can also tarpit much larger units like a 10 man tactical squad, a guard blob with power axes, exc. They are a substantial threat to vehicles with av10 rear armor.
Well that's just wrong, 10 man tac squad with bolters inflicts 0.555 wounds(before saves) on overwatch and then 3.333 wounds in combat because they just use their krak grenades on your "monsterous" creatures body. So that's 1.3 wounds already(0.65 if decurion in harvest) and it's not taking into account the fact that they might have a fist or a melta bomb(which is really really good vs monsterous creatures). So it's not unlikely that if you charge a tac squad that by the time it's your turn again it'll be dead.
These thing are pretty bad combat wise, it a support unit that can act as a counter assault if something hits your line quickly. It will lose vs anything that is likely to approach it in combat( the only units it can beat are really your opponents back field support units and its not getting there). Equip it as a support unit, with fabricators if you have a tank line, gloom prism gives the only psychic defense in the codex, and the twin-linked particle weapon is actually decent for a support unit. It's best used in a canoptek harvest to give RP to your real tarpits and melee units and then sitting back protecting/fire supporting your slower ground army.
A spyder has 75% of the survivability of a carnifex at less than 50% of the price. Sure, the marines might bring a spyder down if they'te kitted for it, but they would not beat three which still would be cheaper than their squad.
Col_impact couldn't win his argument in YMDC so he's trying to derail this thread where no one cares enough to argue with him. Just press the yellow triangle if he posts his version of the Galt Monologue again.
D00MsDAY333 wrote: What would be a good way to run crons in a MSU list? Jw cause everyone seems to blobing out as many as they can, and I was thinking maybe MSU can be better? So if you have a bad roll they can't focus fire you down. Just a thought.
I'd say a Decarion with maximum Immortals, Tomb Blades and Flayed Ones if you want to do that. Judicator Battalions might be applicable as well - utilize the force multipliers out as much as you can.
Ghost Arks seem to be the new hotness, you get a savage amount of firepower from them, they're survivable, and you need a way to get your slow robots across the battlefield.
gwarsh41 wrote: That many spyders sounds like a really fun time!
For me at least. I don't know about my opponents, since my Scarab farm is undefeated.
There is something demoralizing about adding 10 bases a turn to a squad.
One of my regular opponents is threatening to run a Demon Factory, and to be honest, I'm quite excited to see the epic clash of a Scarab Farm verses a Demon Factory.
I think that 4 16 man pink horror units with a +1S to powers ML3 herald in each unit could give scarab farm a run for its money. The unit would drop 3-4D6 S6 ap4 shots, each failed +4RP would be a dead scarab base. Herald could easily go for prescience and have 2 powers in summoning. On top of that would be fateweaver, flying around with all his silly shenanigans.
D00MsDAY333 wrote: What would be a good way to run crons in a MSU list? Jw cause everyone seems to blobing out as many as they can, and I was thinking maybe MSU can be better? So if you have a bad roll they can't focus fire you down. Just a thought.
I'd say a Decarion with maximum Immortals, Tomb Blades and Flayed Ones if you want to do that. Judicator Battalions might be applicable as well - utilize the force multipliers out as much as you can.
So what would be an example list for lets say 2k? I want to see what people can come up with I was thinking just a CaD with some min sized harvests!
6000+
2500
2000
2000
