Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
'1 canoptek spyder' refers to a unit of 1 spyder with an ALE that allows me to add additional spyders

'1 unit of canoptek spyders' refers to a unit of 1 spyder with an ALE that allows me to add additional spyders

The Formation rules, as they are, do not distinguish between those two ways of talking about a unit of 1 spyder.

That's the RAW.

The Datasheet of Canoptek Spyders does say you can add more Spyders.

However, the Formation List specifically states 1, as in singular, Spyder. And no matter how you try to change it, 2 Spyders do not equal the 1 Spyder as it is written.

Therefore, no matter how you try to wiggle around it the RAW is 1 Canoptek Spyder, period. And 2 is not equal to one, no matter if they are in the same unit or not.

Is it stupid, oh yes. Is it consistent with how GW operates. You betcha. But that is how it is written.

col_impact wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
'1 canoptek spyder' refers to a unit of 1 spyder with an ALE that allows me to add additional spyders

'1 unit of canoptek spyders' refers to a unit of 1 spyder with an ALE that allows me to add additional spyders

The Formation rules, as they are, do not distinguish between those two ways of talking about a unit of 1 spyder.

That's the RAW.

The Datasheet of Canoptek Spyders does say you can add more Spyders.

However, the Formation List specifically states 1, as in singular, Spyder. And no matter how you try to change it, 2 Spyders do not equal the 1 Spyder as it is written.

Therefore, no matter how you try to wiggle around it the RAW is 1 Canoptek Spyder, period. And 2 is not equal to one, no matter if they are in the same unit or not.

Is it stupid, oh yes. Is it consistent with how GW operates. You betcha. But that is how it is written.

The formation rules give me access to the ALE and I add 2 spyders to the unit of 1 spyder because the rules allow me to do that.

Furthermore, the formation rules specify that '1 canoptek spyder' refers to a unit of 1 spyder with an ALE that allows me to add additional spyders.

Otherwise, if you want to claim a RAW argument, find me the rule that says I cannot access the ALE, because here are the rule that say I most certainly can!

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.

Spoiler:

OPTIONS:
• May include up to two additional Canoptek Spyders…50 pts/model

Lance845 wrote:


Accessing the ALE is not the issue. BRB pg 13 basic vs advanced.

advanced rules always take precedence over basic rules. In the same way that a ALE will trump the basic rules of the game the formation may trump the ALE. Since the formation specifies 1 spyder. ALE trumped. The more specific rule about any given model take precedence.

Lungpickle wrote:
1 one spider not one unit
just one spider

Lungpickle wrote:
1 one spider not one unit
just one spider

Lance845 wrote:

Lungpickle wrote:
1 one spider not one unit
just one spider

This.

In fact, what I am saying, is that specifying 1 Canoptek Spyder model means 1 unit restricted to 1 model in size.

And, that the formation is the more advanced rule. Which trumps your ALE. 1 unit of 1 Spyder. When the book says "1 unit of canoptek spyders" you will have an argument. It doesn't. You don't.

col_impact wrote:

Lance845 wrote:

Lungpickle wrote:
1 one spider not one unit
just one spider

This.

In fact, what I am saying, is that specifying 1 Canoptek Spyder model means 1 unit restricted to 1 model in size.

And, that the formation is the more advanced rule. Which trumps your ALE. 1 unit of 1 Spyder. When the book says "1 unit of canoptek spyders" you will have an argument. It doesn't. You don't.

The formation rules spell it out that 1 canoptek spyder = [a unit of] 1 canoptek spyder.

Lance845 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Lance845 wrote:

Lungpickle wrote:
1 one spider not one unit
just one spider

This.

In fact, what I am saying, is that specifying 1 Canoptek Spyder model means 1 unit restricted to 1 model in size.

And, that the formation is the more advanced rule. Which trumps your ALE. 1 unit of 1 Spyder. When the book says "1 unit of canoptek spyders" you will have an argument. It doesn't. You don't.

The formation rules make it clear that 1 canoptek spyder = [a unit of] 1 canoptek spyder.

There it is! You found it. And the more specific more advanced rule trumps the other ones.

col_impact wrote:

Lance845 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Lance845 wrote:

Lungpickle wrote:
1 one spider not one unit
just one spider

This.

In fact, what I am saying, is that specifying 1 Canoptek Spyder model means 1 unit restricted to 1 model in size.

And, that the formation is the more advanced rule. Which trumps your ALE. 1 unit of 1 Spyder. When the book says "1 unit of canoptek spyders" you will have an argument. It doesn't. You don't.

The formation rules spell it out that 1 canoptek spyder = [a unit of] 1 canoptek spyder.

There it is! You found it. And the more specific more advanced rule trumps the other ones.

And so I apply this rule since there is no restriction on the unit size in the restriction box

Spoiler:

OPTIONS:
• May include up to two additional Canoptek Spyders…50 pts/model

Now I have 3 spyders and I have broken no rule.

Lance845 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Lance845 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Lance845 wrote:

Lungpickle wrote:
1 one spider not one unit
just one spider

This.

In fact, what I am saying, is that specifying 1 Canoptek Spyder model means 1 unit restricted to 1 model in size.

And, that the formation is the more advanced rule. Which trumps your ALE. 1 unit of 1 Spyder. When the book says "1 unit of canoptek spyders" you will have an argument. It doesn't. You don't.

The formation rules spell it out that 1 canoptek spyder = [a unit of] 1 canoptek spyder.

There it is! You found it. And the more specific more advanced rule trumps the other ones.

And so I apply this rule since there is no restriction on the unit size in the restriction box

Spoiler:

OPTIONS:
• May include up to two additional Canoptek Spyders…50 pts/model

Now I have 3 spyders and I have broken no rule.

NOPE!

The more specific rule trumps the ALE. Since it SPECIFIES 1 unit of 1 spyder. Not a normal unit. But a unit with a specific number of models. You cannot do that.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
... and in the process make Adaptive Subroutines break.

Lance845 wrote:
My Necron Dex arrives Monday apparently. But it's ok. Because I have seen pictures of the formation and the unit from the dex. I can read it just fine. You are just refusing to read it.

It states, exactly, 1 Spyder. Not 1 unit. Thus, as you said, 1 unit of 1 spyder. if you pay the extra points to bring a second Spyder is it a unit of 1 spyder?

No.

What does the formation require? 1 unit of 1 spyder.

Any unit of spyders with more then 1 spyder in it does not meet the requirements of the formation. Which is the more advanced rule. Darn. Guess you cannot take more than 1 spyder in the formation.

col_impact wrote:

Lance845 wrote:
My Necron Dex arrives Monday apparently. But it's ok. Because I have seen pictures of the formation and the unit from the dex. I can read it just fine. You are just refusing to read it.

It states, exactly, 1 Spyder. Not 1 unit. Thus, as you said, 1 unit of 1 spyder. if you pay the extra points to bring a second Spyder is it a unit of 1 spyder?

No.

What does the formation require? 1 unit of 1 spyder.

Any unit of spyders with more then 1 spyder in it does not meet the requirements of the formation. Which is the more advanced rule. Darn. Guess you cannot take more than 1 spyder in the formation.

You are lacking a rule that restricts the unit to 1 spyder. It says "none" in the Restrictions box. If a unit has restrictions on its size in a formation it will be listed in the restrictions box. You are not allowed to make up a restriction where none exist.

Otherwise I have clear permission to use these rules.

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.

Spoiler:

OPTIONS:
• May include up to two additional Canoptek Spyders…50 pts/model

And I add 2 spyders to the unit of 1 spyder.

Lance845 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Lance845 wrote:
My Necron Dex arrives Monday apparently. But it's ok. Because I have seen pictures of the formation and the unit from the dex. I can read it just fine. You are just refusing to read it.

It states, exactly, 1 Spyder. Not 1 unit. Thus, as you said, 1 unit of 1 spyder. if you pay the extra points to bring a second Spyder is it a unit of 1 spyder?

No.

What does the formation require? 1 unit of 1 spyder.

Any unit of spyders with more then 1 spyder in it does not meet the requirements of the formation. Which is the more advanced rule. Darn. Guess you cannot take more than 1 spyder in the formation.

You are lacking a rule that restricts the unit to 1 spyder. It says "none" in the Restrictions box. If a unit has restrictions on its size in a formation it will be listed in the restrictions box. You are not allowed to make up a restriction where none exist.

Otherwise I have clear permission to use these rules.

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.

Spoiler:

OPTIONS:
• May include up to two additional Canoptek Spyders…50 pts/model

And I add 2 spyders to the unit of 1 spyder.

It is like talking to a wall.

You already stated the rule. Go reread your own post.

A specification of the number of models IS the restriction. Done-zo, The more specific rule wins out.

Refute that the formation says 1 canoptek spyder. Explain how adding 1 or 2 more spyders still = 1 canoptek spyder.

Until you can do so, the burden of proof is on you.

col_impact wrote:


The burden of proof is actually on you. There is a whole rule you are willfully ignoring and you are wholly unable to point to a rule that applies a restriction to this rule, and that is why you CANNOT claim RAW.

Spoiler:

OPTIONS:
• May include up to two additional Canoptek Spyders…50 pts/model

Lance845 wrote:

col_impact wrote:


The burden of proof is actually on you. There is a whole rule you are willfully ignoring and you are wholly unable to point to a rule that applies a restriction to this rule, and that is why you CANNOT claim RAW.

Spoiler:

OPTIONS:
• May include up to two additional Canoptek Spyders…50 pts/model

I have pointed to the rule repeatedly. So have you. You just keep ignoring it.

Show me how 2 spyders = 1 spyder.

Prove it mathematically.

That is the rule you are breaking by adding more spyders.

BlackSwanDelta wrote:
Actually, I think this is a key point not just for the Eldar.

Army List Entries say they refer to units, not models (very first paragraph of "Preparing for Battle in the BRB, and in several places after that). I can't find a place where ALEs say reference models and not units.

Formations say the refer to Army List Entries or units, not models (under "Formations" in the BRB). Again, no place I can find where Formations references a model and not an ALE or unit.

The Data Sheet Description pages in the Codexes point 3 refer to the item at the top of the page as the Unit Name for the Army List Entry. Since The Army List Entry refers to units, then this is the name of the Army List Entry as well.

Unit composition is a separate entry at point 7 that lists the models that are in the unit.

Point 3 and point 7 are very commonly the same, but not always such as in the case of the "Warlock Conclave" and the "Vaul's Wrath Support Battery", which add "warlocks" and "support weapon" to the units as options.

So, the unit name and the model name are not the same thing, even if they commonly share a name.

So unless there is a further restriction, units that have options to take more models should be able to do so because the number next to the Army List Entry in a formation description is referring to Army List Entries which are a references to the number of units, and not the number of models that a unit can take unless there is a further restriction.

So, the "Strike Force Ultra" formation that lists "1 Venerable Dreadnought" is a reference to the ALE, which is the unit and not the model so it can add more dreadnoughts up the the maximum allowed for that ALE. Which is how the Eldar formations can take more "Warlock" models in a "Warlock Conclave" unit. And why the Canoptek Spysders unit can take more Canoptek Spyder models.

At least, that's what I'm reading.

BlackSwanDelta wrote:
Because the thread started about Necrons, then I started asking about Eldar, and Space Marines followed suit since Necron and after, which is Necron, Eldar, and now Space Marines, there's been an obvious design shift in the Codexes. The "Decurion" style detachment and formations are the en vogue method of Codex construction and it's going to be that way for the forseeable future. Some of the old supplements don't work or are supposed to be "worked out with your opponent" like Iyanden for Eldar, while some of the others were apparently confirmed to be GTG with the new Space Marine Codex. It's a big mess between the "old" and the "new".

I'm not trying to find a way to "break" people's formations and say they can't field a Canoptek Harvest because one of the ALEs is missing an "s" (well, I am, but hold on), but I think it's important to understand what the RAW specifically says no matter how stupid it is. Infact, the stupider the RAW is, the more important it is to understand it. There's no way to play this game without at least making up some of your own rules, but I think it's important to understand exactly how and why stuff might be broken in order to fix it properly. If I heard someone tell someone else they couldn't field a Canoptek Harvest because of a missing "s", I'd roll my eyes and run far, far away. But again, it isn't about breaking the game to make it stupid for everyone, you need to break it to understand what needs to be fixed, or at least that's how I see it.

col_impact wrote:


The formation rules make it clear that 1 canoptek spyder = [a unit of] 1 canoptek spyder.

Lance845 wrote:

col_impact wrote:


The formation rules make it clear that 1 canoptek spyder = [a unit of] 1 canoptek spyder.

Specifically 1 spyder in the unit. Which is more advanced and overrides the ALE.

The formation has to have the things listed in the formation to work. Since it doesn't just ask for a unit of spyders. But a unit of 1 spyder, any unit with anything but 1 spyder cannot occupy that spot in the formation. Thus, no.

col_impact wrote:

Lance845 wrote:

col_impact wrote:


The formation rules make it clear that 1 canoptek spyder = [a unit of] 1 canoptek spyder.

Specifically 1 spyder in the unit. Which is more advanced and overrides the ALE.

The formation has to have the things listed in the formation to work. Since it doesn't just ask for a unit of spyders. But a unit of 1 spyder, any unit with anything but 1 spyder cannot occupy that spot in the formation. Thus, no.

Those are rules you are literally making up. You are not allowed to do that. Your argument is not RAW but HYWPI.

Lance845 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Lance845 wrote:

col_impact wrote:


The formation rules make it clear that 1 canoptek spyder = [a unit of] 1 canoptek spyder.

Specifically 1 spyder in the unit. Which is more advanced and overrides the ALE.

The formation has to have the things listed in the formation to work. Since it doesn't just ask for a unit of spyders. But a unit of 1 spyder, any unit with anything but 1 spyder cannot occupy that spot in the formation. Thus, no.

Those are rules you are literally making up. You are not allowed to do that. Your argument is not RAW but HYWPI.

Pg 13 brb more advanced and specific rules trump the more basic ones.

That quote is YOU reading the plain English in the formation.

And yeah. I imagine the lock is coming.

col_impact wrote:

Lance845 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Lance845 wrote:

col_impact wrote:


The formation rules make it clear that 1 canoptek spyder = [a unit of] 1 canoptek spyder.

Specifically 1 spyder in the unit. Which is more advanced and overrides the ALE.

The formation has to have the things listed in the formation to work. Since it doesn't just ask for a unit of spyders. But a unit of 1 spyder, any unit with anything but 1 spyder cannot occupy that spot in the formation. Thus, no.

Those are rules you are literally making up. You are not allowed to do that. Your argument is not RAW but HYWPI.

Pg 13 brb more advanced and specific rules trump the more basic ones.

That quote is YOU reading the plain English in the formation.

And yeah. I imagine the lock is coming.

And no rule is restricting that unit in size. If there were such a restriction it would be listed in the restriction box.

So the rules give me free permission to add additional spyders.

Spoiler:

OPTIONS:
• May include up to two additional Canoptek Spyders…50 pts/model

Lance845 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Lance845 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Lance845 wrote:

col_impact wrote:


The formation rules make it clear that 1 canoptek spyder = [a unit of] 1 canoptek spyder.

Specifically 1 spyder in the unit. Which is more advanced and overrides the ALE.

The formation has to have the things listed in the formation to work. Since it doesn't just ask for a unit of spyders. But a unit of 1 spyder, any unit with anything but 1 spyder cannot occupy that spot in the formation. Thus, no.

Those are rules you are literally making up. You are not allowed to do that. Your argument is not RAW but HYWPI.

Pg 13 brb more advanced and specific rules trump the more basic ones.

That quote is YOU reading the plain English in the formation.

And yeah. I imagine the lock is coming.

And no rule is restricting that unit in size. If there were such a restriction it would be listed in the restriction box.

So the rules give me free permission to add additional spyders.

Spoiler:

OPTIONS:
• May include up to two additional Canoptek Spyders…50 pts/model

If you add more spyders is it 1 unit of 1 spyder?

Please fit the square inside of the circle hole.

Lance845 wrote:
It doesn't have to be in the restrictions box. It's in the formation make up.

1 spyder.

1 unit of

1 unit of.

The formation is made of 3 units. 2 of them have no specific numbers of models. 1 does. The one that does requires a unit of 1 spyder. If you add more spyders you no longer meet the requirements.