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.

I realize that many people, both as individuals and TO's, have ruled that you may only take 1 spyder in the formation, as it clearly says "1 canoptek spyder" and not "1 unit" or "1 squad" or "1-3" etc. etc. on page 108 of the codex where it details all the rules and bonuses of the formation.
I also realize that many necron players 1)would like to bring up to a full unit of 3 in the formation, and 2) believe you can due to how it is implied throughout the codex.

I'm personally fine with the limit being 1 as this is already an incredibly powerful formation, and I've always believed that the claims of the "1 unit" supporters rather weak.

However, i was reading through the first half of the codex (for reasons), and pages 30-35 detail some of the necron formations and the fluff behind them.
Specifically, on page 34, is a box that states the force organization of canoptek swarms as " 1 UNIT of canoptek spyders", "1 unit of canoptek scarabs", and "1 unit of canoptek wraiths"

It specifically states unit. Which is 1-3. In the massive amount of debates about this issue I have never seen anyone bring this point up in any way.

Is there something really obvious that I'm missing or has everyone else simply missed this page of the codex?

That's great for the Canoptek Swarm, but what does it have to do with a Canoptek Harvest?

No, it has been brought up as "the intention" of the developers.

But it is just artwork and not the data sheet of the Formation.

More than likely, when the Harvest Formation was first created, it was intended to be a unit of Spyders, but was changed to 1 Spyder between artwork and final printing of the book.

Just as likely, the lack of calling for a unit is a typo and just needs to be errata'd to reflect the intention. But GW would have to start releasing Erratas again, and Campaign: Baal needs to have the Conclave of the Burning One addressed as a higher priority.

Both sides of the argument can be found HERE. As there is no new information, there's not really a reason to go through this again.

Charistoph wrote:
Just as likely, the lack of calling for a unit is a typo and just needs to be errata'd to reflect the intention.

There's more than a few Formations which don't use the word 'unit', and each one is calls for exactly one model (one Canoptek Spyder, one Chronos, etc)instead of a unit which would allow multiple models. Its too regular and too consistent to be a typo.

It's the same thing MasterSlowPoke, the description on page 108 uses both terms equally

As far as the rules go . . .

1 canoptek spyder means [a unit of] 1 canoptek spyder


First, the formation rules make it clear that with formations we are dealing with 'groupings of units'

And, if you somehow want to claim that it is not a unit, then the rules actually break, since we lack rules for deploying or shooting at things that aren't units among scores of other things that would break.



So . . . .If '1 canoptek spyder' is not 'a unit of canoptek spyders with 1 canoptek spyder' then what is it? If you claim its a model then find rules for shooting at models.

well I've changed my personal opinion, the codex does say "1 unit", regardless of if this is a typo or not to say 1 unit on a page in the codex that should be artwork (or not)

It's simply too bad that this will not be addressed by GW anytime soon

Just one model. And no, it's not fun to bring this up again. The search tool has a lot of threads on it.

Is the canoptek spider unit allowed to take multiple conoptek spydee models? Or is the unit 1 spider?

If the model and unit share a name, but there can be multiple models in the unit; then it is 1 unit(it does not have to say unit in the formation, the formation is already talking about the units and upgrades to the unit are allowed unless restricted).

If the unit is only ever 1 spider model, then so is the formation.

I only bring this up because i have never found anything addressing this page in the codex, i never intended or really wanted the same discussions that are already everywhere else where everyone argues the same points endlessly. perhaps i should have mentioned that in the first place

The datasheet says the following:

FORMATION

1 Canoptek Spyder
1 unit of Canoptek Wraiths
1 unit of Canoptek Scarabs

There's a reason they stated '1 Canoptek Spyder' instead of '1 unit of Canoptek Spyders'. That's because the formation only allows a single spyder and not 1-3 spyders.

 Vector Strike wrote:
Just one model. And no, it's not fun to bring this up again. The search tool has a lot of threads on it.

"one model" breaks the rules.

Leaving aside for the moment that the formation rules explicitly make it to be a unit . . .

We don't have rules for deploying models, shooting at models, etc. The rules require units.

If you say it's a '1 canoptek spyder [model]' and not '[a unit of canoptek spyders with] 1 canoptek spyder', you need to address that the rules don't allow for free hanging models.

Everything has to be in a unit. So what unit does the 1 canoptek spyder belong to?

Is there anything saying that a specific page of the codex trumps another page in case of conflict? I'm looking for a specific rule here, or anything that has been officially stated or released by GW.

Because while i agree that page 108 would probably have more support for it than 34, i dont believe we can ignore that there is a place in the codex that states you may take a unit. especially when everyone disagrees about it in the first place.
The only rule I know of that even remotely applies to this is the one that states that the codex trumps the BRB, and it doesnt really apply

 Ghaz wrote:
The datasheet says the following:

FORMATION

1 Canoptek Spyder
1 unit of Canoptek Wraiths
1 unit of Canoptek Scarabs

There's a reason they stated '1 Canoptek Spyder' instead of '1 unit of Canoptek Spyders'. That's because the formation only allows a single spyder and not 1-3 spyders.

This is a codex, not an episode of Blues Clues. If there is a restriction, the restriction would have been stated in the appropriate place where restrictions are stated.

You are guessing at intent here and not working from an explicit rule.

farshot9 wrote:
Is there anything saying that a specific page of the codex trumps another page in case of conflict? I'm looking for a specific rule here, or anything that has been officially stated or released by GW.

Because while i agree that page 108 would probably have more support for it than 34, i dont believe we can ignore that there is a place in the codex that states you may take a unit. especially when everyone disagrees about it in the first place.
The only rule I know of that even remotely applies to this is the one that states that the codex trumps the BRB, and it doesnt really apply

Pictures and artwork =/= rules. Do you have an actual, written rule that says "1 unit of Canoptek Spyders" or just artwork?

 Ghaz wrote:

farshot9 wrote:
Is there anything saying that a specific page of the codex trumps another page in case of conflict? I'm looking for a specific rule here, or anything that has been officially stated or released by GW.

Because while i agree that page 108 would probably have more support for it than 34, i dont believe we can ignore that there is a place in the codex that states you may take a unit. especially when everyone disagrees about it in the first place.
The only rule I know of that even remotely applies to this is the one that states that the codex trumps the BRB, and it doesnt really apply

Pictures and artwork =/= rules. Do you have an actual, written rule that says "1 unit of Canoptek Spyders" or just artwork?

Ghaz, if it is not a unit then what is it?

I would not personally qualify it as artwork, it seems to be more of a table to me which suggests(again, to me) that this is a rule.
however if there is something saying(not personal opinion) that this does count as artwork or that the dataslate takes precedent over anything else than i would definitely agree with you.
As is though I would consider this to be just as relevant to the rules

farshot9 wrote:
I would not personally qualify it as artwork, it seems to be more of a table to me which suggests(again, to me) that this is a rule.
however if there is something saying(not personal opinion) that this does count as artwork or that the dataslate takes precedent over anything else than i would definitely agree with you.
As is though I would consider this to be just as relevant to the rules

'Unit' does not have to be stated. The formation rules make the '1 canoptek spyder' into '[a unit of canoptek spyders with] 1 canoptek spyder'



Also, if someone feels 1 canoptek spyder is not a unit, then please tell us what it is and then explain how it works with all the rules that require units?

Can you provide an actual rule for that col_impact?
simply because i need to be able to defend myself if i ever choose to field this unit, and i'm to lazy to look it up myself

farshot9 wrote:
Can you provide an actual rule for that col_impact?
simply because i need to be able to defend myself if i ever choose to field this unit, and i'm to lazy to look it up myself

Added to my post above.

If it's not a unit, it cannot shoot or be shot at for instance. Literally, all the rules in the BRB work with units.

Well that works for me. Thanks!

How the hell is this even still an arguement? That is pretty conclusive



wait i figured it out, codex trumps BRB, as long as it says 1 spyder it trumps the BRB that says they are considered a unit

 Ghaz wrote:
Both sides of the argument can be found HERE. As there is no new information, there's not really a reason to go through this again.

Charistoph wrote:
Just as likely, the lack of calling for a unit is a typo and just needs to be errata'd to reflect the intention.

There's more than a few Formations which don't use the word 'unit', and each one is calls for exactly one model (one Canoptek Spyder, one Chronos, etc)instead of a unit which would allow multiple models. Its too regular and too consistent to be a typo.

But those can't have multiple models. That's different. It says "none" in the restriction section and whenever there is a restriction it is stated there


Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:

farshot9 wrote:
I would not personally qualify it as artwork, it seems to be more of a table to me which suggests(again, to me) that this is a rule.
however if there is something saying(not personal opinion) that this does count as artwork or that the dataslate takes precedent over anything else than i would definitely agree with you.
As is though I would consider this to be just as relevant to the rules

'Unit' does not have to be stated. The formation rules make the '1 canoptek spyder' into '[a unit of canoptek spyders with] 1 canoptek spyder'

Spoiler:

Formations
Formations are a special type of Detachment, each a specific grouping of units
renowned for their effectiveness on the battlefields of the 41st Millennium.
Whilst some Formations provide you with all the gaming information you will
need to use them in your games, it is not uncommon for them simply to
describe a number of special rules that apply when you include several specific
units together. Instead of including a Force Organisation chart, 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.

Also, if someone feels 1 canoptek spyder is not a unit, then please tell us what it is and then explain how it works with all the rules that require units?

Now when you think about this along with what I said about the RESTRICTIONS section which is obviously there for a fething reason you all the sudden see the truth


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vector Strike wrote:
Just one model. And no, it's not fun to bring this up again. The search tool has a lot of threads on it.

I'm sorry sir but until it says 1 model in my restrictions section then I do believe you're projecting what you want not what is


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:

farshot9 wrote:
Is there anything saying that a specific page of the codex trumps another page in case of conflict? I'm looking for a specific rule here, or anything that has been officially stated or released by GW.

Because while i agree that page 108 would probably have more support for it than 34, i dont believe we can ignore that there is a place in the codex that states you may take a unit. especially when everyone disagrees about it in the first place.
The only rule I know of that even remotely applies to this is the one that states that the codex trumps the BRB, and it doesnt really apply

Pictures and artwork =/= rules. Do you have an actual, written rule that says "1 unit of Canoptek Spyders" or just artwork?

NO BUT WE HAVE A RESTICTIONS SECTION THAT SAYS NONE. END OF STORY. ZERO RESTRICTIONS ON WHAT CAN BE DONE WITH THE DATASHEETS PRESENTED TO US.

Then why does the Destroyer formation say "1 unit of Heavy Destroyers" when That unit also starts at 1 and can be upgraded to 3 just like the Spyder?

Which brings me back to my original point

If this
"Formations are a special type of Detachment, each a specific grouping of units
renowned for their effectiveness on the battlefields of the 41st Millennium.
Whilst some Formations provide you with all the gaming information you will
need to use them in your games, it is not uncommon for them simply to
describe a number of special rules that apply when you include several specific
units together. Instead of including a Force Organisation chart, 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."
is in the BRB it can technically be trumped by the codex that specifies "1 Spyder"

unless the codex specifies "1 unit"
which it does.
on page 34

I don't see what that has to do with the formation stating "1 Canoptyk Spyder"

Because on a different page the formation states "1 Unit"
Hence the entire reason for the post
Unless you are talking about the formation rule, which says that formations consist of units

Where is that? I don't have a physical copy of the book so telling me the page number isn't useful

 CrownAxe wrote:
Then why does the Destroyer formation say "1 unit of Heavy Destroyers" when That unit also starts at 1 and can be upgraded to 3 just like the Spyder?

becaus taking one is not an option. The default option for the formation is 3. The default option for the spyder is 1 spyder for the formation. I could be wrong but my brain will not allow me to see it at the moment

jakejackjake wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
Then why does the Destroyer formation say "1 unit of Heavy Destroyers" when That unit also starts at 1 and can be upgraded to 3 just like the Spyder?

becaus taking one is not an option. The default option for the formation is 3. The default option for the spyder is 1 spyder for the formation

The restriction only applies to Destroyers, not Heavy Destroyers

The front half of the book has several pages that go over fluff of the various models and formations. several of the formations pages include charts detailing what is included in each formation. the page for the canoptek swarm includes a chart that specifies "1 unit of canoptek spyders"

yes it says canoptek swarm and not harvest but the description of the harvest uses both terms equally