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.

Kangodo wrote:
Yes.
The Wraiths can have additional options, because that is allowed, just like the Spyders.

Additional members of the unit are specifically not allowed when the unit size is listed as 1 Spyder. Taking more than 1 Spyder breaks the formation.

Kangodo wrote:
Yes.
The Wraiths can have additional options, because that is allowed, just like the Spyders.

But can 1 Spyder take more Spyders, or does the unit purchase additional Spyders?

 BlackTalos wrote:
There is also this a bit further back in the codex. Any RaI from it, or are we throwing it into the "Fluff" pile?

Spoiler:

That looks pretty good. Dont have the book version with me now, so havent seen that. Too bad it says "organization" and not formation though. It's painfully obvious that GW is up to their usual shenanigans, one hand has no idea wth everyone else is doing
I guess they either planned it to be a whole unit at first and then changed it but couldnt change all the graphics in time for release, it's really sad they dont have a forum moderated by their game designers like modern companies.
And about the DT, they are exempt from the FOC limits, so no they are very different.

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
If you could both explain how a Night Scythe can be added to a Formation of "Reclamation Legion"? (Because there are many arguing with precedence that this is indeed possible)
Once you've explained how that works, use the same explanation on the Unit of Spyders.

Spoiler:

Army List Entries That Do Not Use Force Organisation Slots
Occasionally a unit’s Army List Entry will state that the unit it describes does not take up a slot on a Force Organisation Chart. These units can be included in any Detachment, even if all the slots of the appropriate Battlefield Role are filled with other units or if the Detachment had no slot for their Battlefield Role, but they must still adhere to any restrictions detailed on the Detachment and its own Army List Entry. If the Army List Entry states that it can be included in an army that includes another specified unit, and that it does not take up a Force Organisation slot, it must join the same Detachment as that specified unit. In either case, these units are part of the Detachment for all rules purposes and will gain any appropriate Command Benefits.

Dedicated Transports do not use Force Organization Slots.

This explanation cannot be used for extra Spyders.

Not using FOC slots is not in contention. Belonging to a certain formation is (Highlighted in the rules you've posted).

So you just missed "These units can be included in any Detachment, even if all the slots of the appropriate Battlefield Role are filled with other units or if the Detachment had no slot for their Battlefield Role"
Is a formation a Detachment? Yes, indisputably.
Can a DT join any Detachment, even if the Detachment had no slot for their Battlefield Role? Yes, indisputably.

So yes, the fact that they don't use FOC slots is exactly the point, because that's what allows them to use that rule.

A Unit that is not listed in a Formation is not a Unit with no slot for their Battlefield Role.

Kabalite Raiding Party. Perfect Example.
Formation:
1 Archon
1 Court of the Archon
1 Unit of Incubi
etc...

The Court of the Archon is listed here, but it takes up no FOC slot. (Or it can do - discussed)

Can I take another Slot-less Court? I mean, same as the DT, right?

Again rules > artwork. The authors write the rules and the artists do the art.

 BlackTalos wrote:
A Unit that is not listed in a Formation is not a Unit with no slot for their Battlefield Role.

Are you sure? The formation has no slot for the DTs battlefield role - agreed?

Kabalite Raiding Party. Perfect Example.
Formation:
1 Archon
1 Court of the Archon
1 Unit of Incubi
etc...

The Court of the Archon is listed here, but it takes up no FOC slot. (Or it can do - discussed)

Can I take another Slot-less Court? I mean, same as the DT, right?

Depending on the rules for a Court (since I don't have the Codex) I'd have to say "possibly".

 Ghaz wrote:
Again rules > artwork. The authors write the rules and the artists do the art.

I did think so, as stated. I am still unclear on the Dedicated Transport can, but Spyder cannot part though (back to RaW).

 BlackTalos wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
Again rules > artwork. The authors write the rules and the artists do the art.

I did think so, as stated. I am still unclear on the Dedicated Transport can, but Spyder cannot part though (back to RaW).

A restriction on transports would be listed in the formation.

A restriction on the number of models allowed in the unit will also be listed in the formation.

This specific formation lists the number of models allowed as 1.

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
A Unit that is not listed in a Formation is not a Unit with no slot for their Battlefield Role.

Are you sure? The formation has no slot for the DTs battlefield role - agreed?

I have no idea. I am trying to understand this while staying consistent.
Either you can have 3 Spyders and you can have DT.
Or it's a "no" for both 'Options'. (My preferred choice)

rigeld2 wrote:

Kabalite Raiding Party. Perfect Example.
Formation:
1 Archon
1 Court of the Archon
1 Unit of Incubi
etc...

The Court of the Archon is listed here, but it takes up no FOC slot. (Or it can do - discussed)

Can I take another Slot-less Court? I mean, same as the DT, right?

Depending on the rules for a Court (since I don't have the Codex) I'd have to say "possibly".

""For each Archon included in a Detachment, the Detachment can include a Court of the Archon that does not take up a slot in the Force Organisation Chart""

This help?
Including a DT takes up no FOC slot.
Including a Court takes up no FOC slot.

Formation lists Court.
Formation does not list "Rhino".

You say we can "add" Slot-less Rhino (DT).
I suggest we can therefore "add" Slot-less Court.

I will continue if the above is agreed.

 Ghaz wrote:
Again rules > artwork. The authors write the rules and the artists do the art.

An obsessive literalist rules lawyer might tell you that you can't flame into a ruin because you must have the template in base contact with the model's base.

A diagram shows someone measuring not in literal base contact, but by holding the template above the battlefield with the narrow end of the template held over where it would touch his model.

Examples that contradict insane literalism like reading "1 Spyder" as "Cannot purchase more unit members despite no formation restrictions existing" can be pretty handy for clearing things up, I would say.

 NightHowler wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
Again rules > artwork. The authors write the rules and the artists do the art.

I did think so, as stated. I am still unclear on the Dedicated Transport can, but Spyder cannot part though (back to RaW).

A restriction on transports would be listed in the formation.

A restriction on Spyders would be listed in the formation.

 NightHowler wrote:
A restriction on the number of models allowed in the unit will also be listed in the formation.

A restriction on the number of models allowed in the unit will also be listed in the formation.

 NightHowler wrote:
This specific formation lists the number of models allowed as 1.

The exampled formation lists the number of (DT) models allowed as 0. (not listed)

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
A Unit that is not listed in a Formation is not a Unit with no slot for their Battlefield Role.

Are you sure? The formation has no slot for the DTs battlefield role - agreed?

I have no idea. I am trying to understand this while staying consistent.
Either you can have 3 Spyders and you can have DT.
Or it's a "no" for both 'Options'. (My preferred choice)

Demonstrably false, and you didn't answer my question.

Is there a slot in the formation for a Dedicated Transport's battlefield role?

rigeld2 wrote:

Kabalite Raiding Party. Perfect Example.
Formation:
1 Archon
1 Court of the Archon
1 Unit of Incubi
etc...

The Court of the Archon is listed here, but it takes up no FOC slot. (Or it can do - discussed)

Can I take another Slot-less Court? I mean, same as the DT, right?

Depending on the rules for a Court (since I don't have the Codex) I'd have to say "possibly".

""For each Archon included in a Detachment, the Detachment can include a Court of the Archon that does not take up a slot in the Force Organisation Chart""

This help?
Including a DT takes up no FOC slot.
Including a Court takes up no FOC slot.

Formation lists Court.
Formation does not list "Rhino".

You say we can "add" Slot-less Rhino (DT).
I suggest we can therefore "add" Slot-less Court.

I will continue if the above is agreed.

Sure - you can add a second court - providing the rules support taking a Court in a slot if you already have an Archon.
Do you have an example that doesn't include a massive, guaranteed to be locked, tangential debate?

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
A Unit that is not listed in a Formation is not a Unit with no slot for their Battlefield Role.

Are you sure? The formation has no slot for the DTs battlefield role - agreed?

I have no idea. I am trying to understand this while staying consistent.
Either you can have 3 Spyders and you can have DT.
Or it's a "no" for both 'Options'. (My preferred choice)

Demonstrably false, and you didn't answer my question.

Is there a slot in the formation for a Dedicated Transport's battlefield role?

Which one is false? i gave both options, plus as i said, i have no idea...

I'd guess yes, Formation has no slot.

rigeld2 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Kabalite Raiding Party. Perfect Example.
Formation:
1 Archon
1 Court of the Archon
1 Unit of Incubi
etc...

The Court of the Archon is listed here, but it takes up no FOC slot. (Or it can do - discussed)

Can I take another Slot-less Court? I mean, same as the DT, right?

Depending on the rules for a Court (since I don't have the Codex) I'd have to say "possibly".

""For each Archon included in a Detachment, the Detachment can include a Court of the Archon that does not take up a slot in the Force Organisation Chart""

This help?
Including a DT takes up no FOC slot.
Including a Court takes up no FOC slot.

Formation lists Court.
Formation does not list "Rhino".

You say we can "add" Slot-less Rhino (DT).
I suggest we can therefore "add" Slot-less Court.

I will continue if the above is agreed.

Sure - you can add a second court - providing the rules support taking a Court in a slot if you already have an Archon.
Do you have an example that doesn't include a massive, guaranteed to be locked, tangential debate?

Not really a tangent if it's "the same situation" and one explains the other?

So, a Formation can take an extra Unit (slot-less) such as a Court or a DT, but not take 2 extra models (also slot-less)?
We might need to re-word the whole thing at this point, because the confusion, at least, is tangential...

I'm a necron player, I think its pretty fething obvious that the entry says 1 spyder.

If you could take a unit of spyders, it would say unit just like the wraiths and scarabs do.

One would think that the number 1 is pretty cut and dry, but perhaps these same people trying to cheese their way into an illegal list would also try taking multiple units of wraiths and scarabs in that formation since "1" seems to be so ambiguous to them.

 BlackTalos wrote:

 NightHowler wrote:
This specific formation lists the number of models allowed as 1.

The exampled formation lists the number of (DT) models allowed as 0. (not listed)

When the formation lists the number of models you can take in the unit, it is thus giving the limit on number of models in the unit. Because transports (like other wargear options) are not part of the number of models in the unit, any restrictions on transports would need to be written out.

In other words, by saying "1 spyder" the formation limits the number of spyders allowed in the formation to 1 but places no other restrictions on the wargear or transports allowed to the unit.

If a formation was to place a restriction on dedicated transports it could not do so by listing how many models you could take and so it would require an additional restriction to be spelled out somewhere else in the formation details.

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
A Unit that is not listed in a Formation is not a Unit with no slot for their Battlefield Role.

Are you sure? The formation has no slot for the DTs battlefield role - agreed?

I have no idea. I am trying to understand this while staying consistent.
Either you can have 3 Spyders and you can have DT.
Or it's a "no" for both 'Options'. (My preferred choice)

Demonstrably false, and you didn't answer my question.

Is there a slot in the formation for a Dedicated Transport's battlefield role?

Which one is false? i gave both options, plus as i said, i have no idea...

You've equated 3 Spyders and the DT. That's the "false" because they aren't equal.

I'd guess yes, Formation has no slot.

Then the DT has explicit permission to be added, per the rules I quoted.

Not really a tangent if it's "the same situation" and one explains the other?

So, a Formation can take an extra Unit (slot-less) such as a Court or a DT, but not take 2 extra models (also slot-less)?

The 2 extra models are not "slotless". That's making up rules.
They're part of the same Spyder unit, and since we know (I quoted the rules earlier - please read the thread) that you buy units and then fill formations, you're trying to fill a formation requirement with part of a unit... please cite allowance to have part of a unit to be part of a formation.

We might need to re-word the whole thing at this point, because the confusion, at least, is tangential...

I'm not confused at all. You (and others) are attempting to bring slippery slope arguments into a trivially solved discussion.

The formation has a requirement of 1 Spyder (not 1 Spyder Unit).
We know that you purchase units and then add them to Formations.
Purchasing 3 Spyders (as one unit) cannot fit the requirement of 1 Spyder (since 3 != 1) and therefore cannot be part of the Formation.

 Happyjew wrote:
But can 1 Spyder take more Spyders, or does the unit purchase additional Spyders?

The unit can purchase additional Spyders, the unit can also take upgrades and actually costs points.

Arguing that he loses that option, would also lose him the option of his other upgrades and make him free.

Kangodo wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
But can 1 Spyder take more Spyders, or does the unit purchase additional Spyders?

The unit can purchase additional Spyders, the unit can also take upgrades and actually costs points.

Arguing that he loses that option, would also lose him the option of his other upgrades and make him free.

Incorrect - please stop making up rules.

You don't take the formation and then buy options, you purchase units (including options) and then fill Formations. You'd know that if you read the rules I quoted.

as written the formation may not include an unit of spyders with more than 1 model.

because it does not state "1 unit of spyders" like it does "1 unit of wraiths" "1 unit of scarabs"

it explicitly states:

1 canoptek spyder.

taking more than 1 spyder is not a canoptek formation by the RAW, there is no RAW argument otherwise.

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

the text of 'adaptive subroutines' evern further RAI supports the RAW by listing "the spyder" not the unit of spyders or the spyder(s). It is singular.

rigeld2 wrote:
I'm not confused at all. You (and others) are attempting to bring slippery slope arguments into a trivially solved discussion.

The formation has a requirement of 1 Spyder (not 1 Spyder Unit).
We know that you purchase units and then add them to Formations.
Purchasing 3 Spyders (as one unit) cannot fit the requirement of 1 Spyder (since 3 != 1) and therefore cannot be part of the Formation.

Okay, so in light of the above, as it seems you are not confused but only i am:
You must purchase all the Units, then include them in formations:

Formations
(...) the Army List Entries that comprise a Formation are listed on it, along with any special rules that those units gain. Unless stated otherwise, each individual unit maintains its normal Battlefield Role when taken as part of a Formation..

How does a Dedicated Transport, which is not "listed on it"(Underlined above) become part of the Formation (it must be part of it per detachment rules)?
It is not listed but it is taken in the formation. It takes up no slot but it "modifies" the list, right?

Let me sum some things up:

1. Artwork: as stated: Artwork < Rules. Period.

2. Unit: its exactly stated that the formation contains 1 spyder. Not one unit of spyders but plain simple a spyder. The question (that no1 asked before) is: is the book entry about spyderS oder about a spyder (singular)? The page for Stalkers is titel with the plural, i gues the one for spyders is too. So that means you cant apply the "you may take up to 2 additional modells" part - beacuse the single spider you want to put into your formation is NOT a unit but a single model. Asumming this is wrong: then you propably are allowed to take additional spyders at first. But what happens if you do so? You get a unit of spyders. And you are not allowed to take a unit - it has to be a single model. To that stupid depate if i answer "yes" to "do you have an apple" if i hold 3 in my hands: this is common ambiguousness of the language refering to "do you have at least one apple". In a technical sense you have to use the direkt wording which is "do you have ONE apple?" Which clearly is a question for the number of apples you have - so if you have 3 you dont have 1 (you have mode than one but that wasnt asked). In the spyder case you cant use the "at least one" rules - its wrong meaning that is commonly acepted in dayly language but not in technical writing.
In a nutshell: either the spyder page in the codex is about a unit of spyders - then you cant even take the option of adding more spyders (but still war gear cause that is per modell and not per unit) or it is about spyder (singular) then you could theoretically try to take more models - in which case you would end up with a unit of spyders which is clearly not "one spyder". So you cant take more than 1 spyders.

3.DT: comparing the spyders with DTs is wrong on several levels: at first DTs are a option for units and you are not allowed to take a unit - but a single model. So that two cases dont have any influence on each other. In case you are wondering why one is allowed to take DTs in formations, that is not cause they dont take FOC slots its because the rule for dedicated transports (see BRB Vehicles -> Transports -> Dedicate Transports) allows them to pe purchased together with a unit. So you have allowance to take a DT for your unit (if not restricted).

4. Options: some have argued that taking away the option for a spyder to take other spyders would take away their ability to take other war gear: thats wrong because the allowance for war gear is on a per model base - the additional models are on a per unit base.

5. Did i forget any critical point of this discussion?

Sorry if Blasts+Re-roll is taking all your thinking time, just going to drop that (again) seeing as we've looped...

So, to try and keep me Spyder question as easy as i can:
Formations use, instead of FOC "the Army List Entries that comprise a Formation are listed on it". So we have 3 almost-hypothetical formations:


Formation A . . . . . . Formation B . . . . . . Formation C
1 Spyder . . . . . . . .1 Archon . . . . . . . . Unit of WolfGuard
0-1 Units of Scarabs . 1 Court of the Archon . Unit of WolfGuard termies
0-1 Units of Wraiths . 1 Unit of Incubi . . . . .Drop Pod

In B, I can 'modify' the list to include another "Court of the Archon"
In C, I can 'modify' the list to include a Rhino
And i cannot see why, in A, i cannot add 2 Spyders to the unit?
So that things look like so:

Formation A . . Formation B . . Formation C
3 Spyders . . 1 Archon . . Unit of WolfGuard
0-1 Units of Scarabs 2 Court of the Archon Unit of WolfGuard termies
0-1 Units of Wraiths 1 Unit of Incubi . . Drop Pod
. . . . . . . . . . Rhino

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
I'm not confused at all. You (and others) are attempting to bring slippery slope arguments into a trivially solved discussion.

The formation has a requirement of 1 Spyder (not 1 Spyder Unit).
We know that you purchase units and then add them to Formations.
Purchasing 3 Spyders (as one unit) cannot fit the requirement of 1 Spyder (since 3 != 1) and therefore cannot be part of the Formation.

Okay, so in light of the above, as it seems you are not confused but only i am:
You must purchase all the Units, then include them in formations:

Formations
(...) the Army List Entries that comprise a Formation are listed on it, along with any special rules that those units gain. Unless stated otherwise, each individual unit maintains its normal Battlefield Role when taken as part of a Formation..

How does a Dedicated Transport, which is not "listed on it"(Underlined above) become part of the Formation (it must be part of it per detachment rules)?
It is not listed but it is taken in the formation. It takes up no slot but it "modifies" the list, right?

If you have to think about it that way, then yes.
As the rule I quoted supports. I'm not sure why you're having a hard time with that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Sorry if Blasts+Re-roll is taking all your thinking time, just going to drop that (again) seeing as we've looped...

It isn't - I do have to work during the day so I can't always respond in seconds.

Formation A Formation B Formation C
1 Spyder 1 Archon Unit of WolfGuard
0-1 Units of Scarabs 1 Court of the Archon Unit of WolfGuard termies
0-1 Units of Wraiths 1 Unit of Incubi Drop Pod

In B, I can 'modify' the list to include another "Court of the Archon"

Pending the answer to "Can I take a slotted Court if I have an Archon?"

In C, I can 'modify' the list to include a Rhino

And i cannot see why, in A, i cannot add 2 Spyders to the unit?

Because in B and C you're adding a unit that doesn't take a slot.
In A you're modifying a unit in the formation to be something that the Formation doesn't require.

You keep equating the situations when they're nothing at all alike.

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
I'm not confused at all. You (and others) are attempting to bring slippery slope arguments into a trivially solved discussion.

The formation has a requirement of 1 Spyder (not 1 Spyder Unit).
We know that you purchase units and then add them to Formations.
Purchasing 3 Spyders (as one unit) cannot fit the requirement of 1 Spyder (since 3 != 1) and therefore cannot be part of the Formation.

Okay, so in light of the above, as it seems you are not confused but only i am:
You must purchase all the Units, then include them in formations:

Formations
(...) the Army List Entries that comprise a Formation are listed on it, along with any special rules that those units gain. Unless stated otherwise, each individual unit maintains its normal Battlefield Role when taken as part of a Formation..

How does a Dedicated Transport, which is not "listed on it"(Underlined above) become part of the Formation (it must be part of it per detachment rules)?
It is not listed but it is taken in the formation. It takes up no slot but it "modifies" the list, right?

If you have to think about it that way, then yes.
As the rule I quoted supports. I'm not sure why you're having a hard time with that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Sorry if Blasts+Re-roll is taking all your thinking time, just going to drop that (again) seeing as we've looped...

It isn't - I do have to work during the day so I can't always respond in seconds.

Formation A Formation B Formation C
1 Spyder 1 Archon Unit of WolfGuard
0-1 Units of Scarabs 1 Court of the Archon Unit of WolfGuard termies
0-1 Units of Wraiths 1 Unit of Incubi Drop Pod

In B, I can 'modify' the list to include another "Court of the Archon"

Pending the answer to "Can I take a slotted Court if I have an Archon?"

I though you were a big advocate of the "yes" party... but agreed.

That table did NOT work...

rigeld2 wrote:

In C, I can 'modify' the list to include a Rhino

And i cannot see why, in A, i cannot add 2 Spyders to the unit?

Because in B and C you're adding a unit that doesn't take a slot.
In A you're modifying a unit in the formation to be something that the Formation doesn't require.

You keep equating the situations when they're nothing at all alike.

Because all 3 Formation lists are modified? I mean, what is quantifying the "quality of modification".
The Formation rules *used* to be very clear to me:

the Army List Entries that comprise a Formation are listed on it

You can only ever have the Army List Entries listed on the Formation...

Then I learn/am told that you can add Army List Entries of additional Transports, as they are in a Unit's Options.
But it is now said here that you cannot add models to an existing Unit, even though they are in a Unit's Options.

Just seems like a contradiction....

 BlackTalos wrote:
Because all 3 Formation lists are modified? I mean, what is quantifying the "quality of modification".

The slotless rule I quoted earlier.

The Formation rules *used* to be very clear to me:

the Army List Entries that comprise a Formation are listed on it

You can only ever have the Army List Entries listed on the Formation...

Then I learn/am told that you can add Army List Entries of additional Transports, as they are in a Unit's Options.
But it is now said here that you cannot add models to an existing Unit, even though they are in a Unit's Options.

Just seems like a contradiction....

I've explained, repeatedly why the two situations are not similar. One has a rule allowing it. The other doesn't.
I know you didn't ignore the rule I quoted because you responded to it - twice. Why are you attempting to apply that rule to the Spyders?

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Because all 3 Formation lists are modified? I mean, what is quantifying the "quality of modification".

The slotless rule I quoted earlier.

The Formation rules *used* to be very clear to me:

the Army List Entries that comprise a Formation are listed on it

You can only ever have the Army List Entries listed on the Formation...

Then I learn/am told that you can add Army List Entries of additional Transports, as they are in a Unit's Options.
But it is now said here that you cannot add models to an existing Unit, even though they are in a Unit's Options.

Just seems like a contradiction....

I've explained, repeatedly why the two situations are not similar. One has a rule allowing it. The other doesn't.
I know you didn't ignore the rule I quoted because you responded to it - twice. Why are you attempting to apply that rule to the Spyders?

The formation has 'no restrictions'. Why are you restricting an option on its army list entry?

col_impact wrote:
The formation has 'no restrictions'. Why are you restricting an option on its army list entry?

The formation has an inherent restriction of 1 Spyder.

Or are you saying that I can add, say, a C'Tan as part of the formation? After all, there re no Restrictions.

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The formation has 'no restrictions'. Why are you restricting an option on its army list entry?

The formation has an inherent restriction of 1 Spyder.

Or are you saying that I can add, say, a C'Tan as part of the formation? After all, there re no Restrictions.

There is no option on the Spyder to add a C'Tan.


The formation has a requirement of 1 spyder. Not a restriction. We know this because the formation says 'no restrictions'.

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
I'm not confused at all. You (and others) are attempting to bring slippery slope arguments into a trivially solved discussion.

The formation has a requirement of 1 Spyder (not 1 Spyder Unit).
We know that you purchase units and then add them to Formations.
Purchasing 3 Spyders (as one unit) cannot fit the requirement of 1 Spyder (since 3 != 1) and therefore cannot be part of the Formation.

Okay, so in light of the above, as it seems you are not confused but only i am:
You must purchase all the Units, then include them in formations:

Formations
(...) the Army List Entries that comprise a Formation are listed on it, along with any special rules that those units gain. Unless stated otherwise, each individual unit maintains its normal Battlefield Role when taken as part of a Formation..

How does a Dedicated Transport, which is not "listed on it"(Underlined above) become part of the Formation (it must be part of it per detachment rules)?
It is not listed but it is taken in the formation. It takes up no slot but it "modifies" the list, right?

If you have to think about it that way, then yes.
As the rule I quoted supports. I'm not sure why you're having a hard time with that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Sorry if Blasts+Re-roll is taking all your thinking time, just going to drop that (again) seeing as we've looped...

It isn't - I do have to work during the day so I can't always respond in seconds.

Formation A Formation B Formation C
1 Spyder 1 Archon Unit of WolfGuard
0-1 Units of Scarabs 1 Court of the Archon Unit of WolfGuard termies
0-1 Units of Wraiths 1 Unit of Incubi Drop Pod

In B, I can 'modify' the list to include another "Court of the Archon"

Pending the answer to "Can I take a slotted Court if I have an Archon?"

I though you were a big advocate of the "yes" party... but agreed.

That table did NOT work...

rigeld2 wrote:

In C, I can 'modify' the list to include a Rhino

And i cannot see why, in A, i cannot add 2 Spyders to the unit?

Because in B and C you're adding a unit that doesn't take a slot.
In A you're modifying a unit in the formation to be something that the Formation doesn't require.

You keep equating the situations when they're nothing at all alike.

Because all 3 Formation lists are modified? I mean, what is quantifying the "quality of modification".
The Formation rules *used* to be very clear to me:

the Army List Entries that comprise a Formation are listed on it

You can only ever have the Army List Entries listed on the Formation...

Then I learn/am told that you can add Army List Entries of additional Transports, as they are in a Unit's Options.
But it is now said here that you cannot add models to an existing Unit, even though they are in a Unit's Options.

Just seems like a contradiction....

You CAN add models to an existing unit in a Formation. UNFORTUNATELY, the Canoptek Harvest doesn't include a Unit of Spyders. It includes ONE Spyder. Huge difference. A Unit of Spyders starts at 1 and can add 2 more. A single Spyder has permission to take various pieces of Wargear, but has no permission to take extra Spyders.

This is one of the core issues. The Formation DOES NOT include a UNIT of Spyders and so cannot take any UNIT UPGRADES, such as the extra 2 Spyders. If the Formation included one UNIT of Spyders, then sure... go crazy and add more. It doesn't.

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Because all 3 Formation lists are modified? I mean, what is quantifying the "quality of modification".

The slotless rule I quoted earlier.

The Formation rules *used* to be very clear to me:

the Army List Entries that comprise a Formation are listed on it

You can only ever have the Army List Entries listed on the Formation...

Then I learn/am told that you can add Army List Entries of additional Transports, as they are in a Unit's Options.
But it is now said here that you cannot add models to an existing Unit, even though they are in a Unit's Options.

Just seems like a contradiction....

I've explained, repeatedly why the two situations are not similar. One has a rule allowing it. The other doesn't.
I know you didn't ignore the rule I quoted because you responded to it - twice. Why are you attempting to apply that rule to the Spyders?

As you say, the difference is explained by the Slot-less rule. But, by that very same point, formation B (of course, pending)
Can change:
1 Archon
1 Court of the Archon
1 Unit of Incubi
To:
1 Archon
2 Court of the Archon
1 Unit of Incubi

But:
1 Spyder
0-1 Units of Scarabs
0-1 Units of Wraiths
To:
2 Spyder
0-1 Units of Scarabs
0-1 Units of Wraiths

Cannot be modified? I mean sure the rules for the Spyders are never slot-less, but including 2 Spyders in a slot of 1,
is the same (to me) as including 2 Court of the Archon in 2 slots when you only had 1.

Both are modifying the Formation List:
- one is modifying the slot (from 1 to 1)
- the other is modifying how many slots it has (from 1 to 2)