Mondo, did you read my post?

I originally thought that SM combat squads counting as a "single deployment" would indeed mean for DoW, as I could not think of ANY other purpose that could serve but for getting around the DoW restriction.

I then changed my mind when I remembered that Infiltrate causes alternating deployment when both sides have it.

Mannahnin wrote:Mondo, did you read my post?

I originally thought that SM combat squads counting as a "single deployment" would indeed mean for DoW, as I could not think of ANY other purpose that could serve but for getting around the DoW restriction.

I then changed my mind when I remembered that Infiltrate causes alternating deployment when both sides have it.

Gotcha, misunderstood what you were saying, This whole thread has given me a headache.

Me too. I'm not going to go back quoting the rulebook and codex, that's been done enough in this thread. Muddy wording is what caused this confusion in the first place, and more muddy wording has cleared up some confusion while generating more.

I'd say the boats are part of the platoon, because you buy them with the platoon. They aren't under 'Platoon Composition' because you can only ever buy them as a dedicated transport to a unit - if they were at the top then you could buy them without assigning them to a unit. It's is a dedicated transport as per the BRB, but the codex trumps the rulebook, and the codex now says slap the whole platoon down.

As for the new FAQ entry about deploying the whole platoon, I wrote this in the FAQ thread in N&R:

To me the problem is the muddy wording in the codex. I was playing this way until I bowed to Dakka's YMDC. The codex says: 'Each Infantry Platoon counts as a single Troops choice on the force organization chart when deploying...'. If you go over to the rulebook, it says a unit of Troops gets deployed, so I could see the argument. It was still frustrating though: why would they even mention anything to do with platoons deploying if there was nothing special about them? Why would they say a 'platoon counts as a single Troops... when deploying' if that had no actual effect on the game? But I went with it, and was at a severe disadvantage in DoW, walking many squads on the board, not getting to fire anything (maybe some GL's) and woefully out of position turn 2. (I play for fun and fluff first and have an army of platoons with heavies and HWS's, with vehicle support - I think of it as a Heavy Infantry Company). Now I can put all the infantry down and roll the tanks on to light up the other side for the heavies! Big.

I feel like the playing field has been levelled a little, and that the army I want to play isn't at a total handicap for 1/3 of the missions. Someone mentioned stringing troops across the middle of the board - easily done with two ork mobs. Then there was the fact that my army is composed of many cheap units. I got to deploy a 100 point CCS and, unless you play tricked-out 30-man power blobs, maybe 150 points worth of troops. Meanwhile my opponent has Mephiston and beefed up assault marines! Yay!

murdog wrote:
I'd say the boats are part of the platoon, because you buy them with the platoon. They aren't under 'Platoon Composition' because you can only ever buy them as a dedicated transport to a unit - if they were at the top then you could buy them without assigning them to a unit. It's is a dedicated transport as per the BRB, but the codex trumps the rulebook, and the codex now says slap the whole platoon down.

The platoon composition describes precisely what is included in the platoon. pg 89 of the IG codex under "unit composition" and under "options" describe why you should use just that entry for that. When rules include certain units in a platoon, that means also that any other units are excluded. Those units included can use the platoon rules, dedicated transports follow their own rules. You may deploy them or have them arrive along with the platoon, but in DoW the unit limitation restricts this, as does with any other army.

copper.talos wrote:The platoon composition describes precisely what is included in the platoon. pg 89 of the IG codex under "unit composition". . .

You do realize platoons are not units, right?

They are a collection of units or an MUC if you like, made of a specifically set of models as described in the "unit composition" and "options" in pg 89 in codex IG. Happy now?

So we get to this ... I have a pcs, 2x infantry squads and a chimera.
Can I deploy any of my platoon units in the chimera?

Any? no. Only the unit that it was bought for.

Happyjew wrote:Any? no. Only the unit that it was bought for.

Give that man something he wants.

The conclusion being, the transport was never bought for the platoon, it was bought for the unit.
I have 3 infantry units and 1 transport.
2 out of the 3 units are expressly forbidden to be deployed aboard the chimera or to be aboard in reserve.

The chimera is NOT property of the platoon, but bought by the command section, that means potentially ...
5 units, that is 50 men (+5 commisars) cannot use it, in the only way a dedicated transport is limited in deployment terms.

Why is this?
Because the dedicated transport rules in the rulebook says so.
The "special" or "unique" organisation of the platoon means what for this situation???
= nothing.

The heavy weapons squads, the special weapons, where are they?
Again, being a platoon unit does absolutely nothing to their being able to deploy in a transport.

This mythical "platoon" bought transport ... where is it???

fuusa wrote:The conclusion being, the transport was never bought for the platoon, it was bought for the unit.

This is utterly mind-boggling.

Are you saying then that any guardsmen with a flamer, for example, is not part of the platoon?

Why would I say that???

Because you are drawing an arbitrary distinction between an upgrade bought for a unit (a flamer) and another upgrade bought for the unit (a chimera), including one within the platoon and the other without

nosferatu1001 wrote:Because you are drawing an arbitrary distinction

That is just hilarious.

I'm drawing an ARBITRARY distinction between a model, that is part of a unit that it can not voluntarily leave being upgraded with an option (which is the definition on p89) and a dedicated transport vehicle that is purchased for its entire unit that is never part of that unit, let alone the platoon, that is a seperate entity entirely that can roam hither and yonder as it sees fit.

What, those arbitrary distinctions??? x10,000!

I'm not entirely certain a dedicated transport is an "upgrade" RAW. Specifically for this IG codex at the very least. The only time "upgrades" are mentioned is on page 86. Dedicated Transports are listed separately.

That said, I still don't buy the Composition of the Infantry Platoon argument. The Infantry Platoon's composition lists the Infantry Squad, which itself is a MUC.

RAW seems inconclusive.

I don't want to distract from the argument, but if the rules are purely permissive then if you fire at a tank with a Meltagun, the entire squad has to be firing its weapons at the tank even if they can't hurt it. This gets important for units like Guardsmen as it would prevent them from also charging the embarked unit if that's the case (Lasguns are rapid fire). I've never seen anyone play that way, but that's RAW it seems...

Boy I really wish GW would just higher a lawyer or something to codify their rules... Would be nicer for everyone!

cowmonaut wrote:I'm not entirely certain a dedicated transport is an "upgrade" RAW. Specifically for this IG codex at the very least.

I think the pure RAW its not an upgrade, though how an optional transport should not be literally under the options avaiiable, I think can only be considered a deliberate descision.

This is my logic path to chimeras are not part of the platoon.

The 2 pages of platoon units are just that, 2 pages, 96+97.

At the bottom of 97, we have a note that the units on these 2 pages may not be chosen individually - only as part of an infantry platoon.

The permission to buy chimeras is in 2 of the entries.

On p99, we have the chimera.
There we are told that UNITS (not platoons, they are not units) have the option of selecting a chimera as a d-transport vehicle. These vehicles do not use up any foc selections but otherwise function as seperate units.
The dex points you to the vehicles section in the rulebook. Here we are told about dedicated transports.

No mention anywhere about any special rules.

When it comes to deployment, again we need to go to the rulebook, the dex nor the faq is complete in and of itself.
Here we are told what can/can't deploy and the limitations on d-transports are clearly laid out.
This tallies perfectly with p87 and 92 and impacts on p93, dow.

Nowhere in the ig dex, are transports purchased any differently for units in platoons, or out of them. The dex says units buy transports.
The transport in question is the chim, the entry of which sends you right to the rulebook.

There are no unique rules for the way platoon UNITS buy chimeras, or how they function as dedicated transports.

The rulebook is the only place where this is dealt with.

So we are back to where we are started basically. One party says the text is saying A while the other party is saying that same text is saying B.

GW will have to update their update...

cowmonaut wrote:So we are back to where we are started basically. One party says the text is saying A while the other party is saying that same text is saying B.

GW will have to update their update...

Yep!! Now can this be locked? Please?!

cowmonaut wrote:I don't want to distract from the argument, but if the rules are purely permissive then if you fire at a tank with a Meltagun, the entire squad has to be firing its weapons at the tank even if they can't hurt it. This gets important for units like Guardsmen as it would prevent them from also charging the embarked unit if that's the case (Lasguns are rapid fire). I've never seen anyone play that way, but that's RAW it seems...

I don't think this is correct. While it is true that they are only allowed to target 1 unit, 'WHICH MODELS CAN FIRE?' on page 16 says that "A player may choose not to fire with certain models if he prefers." So, you could choose to fire with the Melta-gun only, and assault with the whole unit afterwards.

I e-mailed the following to GW CS.

I am having some trouble understanding an entry in the new Imperial
Guard Codex Update (FAQ)

"Page 96 – Infantry Platoon, second sentence
Change to “Each Infantry Platoon is deployed in place
of a single unit in missions that limit the number units
that can be deployed. In addition when making a
reserve or outflanking roll, roll once for the whole
Infantry Platoon. Any units in reserve that are
embarked upon a non-dedicated transport are instead
rolled for separately.”

Does the 3rd sentence imply that DT Chimeras are part of the Infantry
Platoon for limited unit deployments like Dawn of War? Specifically,
in Dawn of War, can I drop 2 Infantry Platoons and 12 Chimeras as my 2
troops choices before turn 1?

I received the following answer...

Hello xxxxxxx,

Currently with this new change I believe that you are correct. Now if you're playing in tournament or some special event that you will need to speak with the organizer to see how they plan to rule that specific question. Should you have any other questions give us a call at 1-800-394-4263 and we will work to get them answered.

Thanks!

xxxxxx xxxxxx
Games Workshop Customer Service

Please do not delete previous email threads as this will help us serve you better!

Games Workshop
Customer Service
6211 East Holmes Road
Memphis, TN 38141
Games Workshop Customer Service is open:
Monday through Friday 9:30 AM to 6:00 PM CST
Contact info:
1-800-394-4263
custserv@games-workshop.com

I then called the 1-800 number and spoke with a different customer service rep. I received the same answer.

I asked about Al'rahem outflanking with empty transports.
I was told they outflank also, empty, because they are part of the platoon which must outflank.

I asked about an IG IP in reserve with empty chimeras.
I was told its all one roll for when they come in because the empty chimeras are part of the IP

The person I spoke with claims to have played 40k at GW for 10 years as well as playing IG personally.
While a phone call or email to customer service is not an official ruling, this is good enough for me.

I will now yield the NO position (some other person might pick it up, don't get burned)

I will now begin contemplating how to best use this new-found tactic. BWAhahaHAhaha

Not that phone calls/emails to GW have any meaning here.

Nope, but occasionally they do get one right..............

cowmonaut wrote:So we are back to where we are started basically. One party says the text is saying A while the other party is saying that same text is saying B.

don_mondo wrote:Yep!! Now can this be locked? Please?!

Not like you don, not to have a response.

Have I helped in taking what was blatantly obvious to some at least, and worth all manner of personal insults down to this level? Where you don't know?
Just with theoryhammer vs assinine assumptions???

Yours truly, Jubilex.

fuusa wrote:Not like you don, not to have a response.
Yours truly, Jubilex.

Having said what I think needs to be said several times already, even I get tired of repeating the obvious.....................

don_mondo wrote:Having said what I think needs to be said several times already, even I get tired of repeating the obvious.....................

Hmmmm, having re-read that post, it did seem like a personal slur on you, didn't it?
That wasn't the intention, so apologies. Maybe one or two others just bring a contagously hostile atmosphere with them ... which is fine in the flesh, but on the web, is just tiresome.

But, having said that, I think "the obvious" is where people here are going wrong, the obvious being the simplistic view.

Of course, things being what they are, we will probably get an update to this fuq that takes no-heed of the rules in any case.

fuusa wrote:

don_mondo wrote:Having said what I think needs to be said several times already, even I get tired of repeating the obvious.....................

Hmmmm, having re-read that post, it did seem like a personal slur on you, didn't it?
That wasn't the intention, so apologies. Maybe one or two others just bring a contagously hostile atmosphere with them ... which is fine in the flesh, but on the web, is just tiresome.

No worries, I didn't take it as one.

11 pages later.

Ask the To and or your gaming community before doing either. And make two lists.

This way till its clarified stop beating a dead horse.

Imoho chimeras can be deployed with the plt but not with the hq

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:11 pages later.

Ask the To and or your gaming community before doing either. And make two lists.

This way till its clarified stop beating a dead horse.

Imoho chimeras can be deployed with the plt but not with the hq

Why not the HQ? Do you mean CCS or PCS?

The PCS is not an HQ unit, so could only be the CCS

nosferatu1001 wrote:The PCS is not an HQ unit, so could only be the CCS

That's why i asked.

Why not attack the logic of my last few posts with something other than "oh, platoons are special, their special rules knoweth no end!!!!"

Do the rules, not the myths.

You say "No, even though it is on the platoon page!"

We say "Yes, even though it is a different unit!"

Adding more repetition to your repetition seems monotonous, but there it is.

fuusa wrote:Why not attack the logic of my last few posts with something other than "oh, platoons are special, their special rules knoweth no end!!!!"

Do the rules, not the myths.

Aren't special rules still rules? Nice screen name BTW. Does it mean what i think it does?

kirsanth wrote:You say "No, even though it is on the platoon page!"

We say "Yes, even though it is a different unit!"

Adding more repetition to your repetition seems monotonous, but there it is.

Yep, we're at no point in continuing territory

Nothing fuusa has said is either novel nor is it advancing any argument.

fuusa wrote:Why not attack the logic of my last few posts with something other than "oh, platoons are special, their special rules knoweth no end!!!!"

Do the rules, not the myths.

Because you haven't said anything new that hasn't already been refuted half a dozen times.

So let's all get off the merry-go-round maybe?

don_mondo wrote:Nope, but occasionally they do get one right..............

Hey now...I got them right all the time.....

I miss that job :(

alarmingrick wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:The PCS is not an HQ unit, so could only be the CCS

That's why i asked.

I mAy not be the smartest or the fastest grot in da waaaaahhhhh but I do know the difference between a hq and a troop. So yes company command squad chimera counts as an hq.