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.

Now I've always played it so that if you use a doctrine that costs a certain amount of points per unit, the cost is applied to each squad. For example, if you have a Command Platoon consisting of a Command Squad, a Fire Support Squad, and a Special Weapons Support Squad, and then purchase the Carapace Armour doctrine, you'll end up paying 60 points (20 points for each squad, in other words). I've never seen this applied any other way.

However...

The wording in the Infantry Platoon section (p44) supports this:

"Each Platoon counts as a single Troops choice on the Force Organisation chart when deploying, and is rolled for collectively when rolling for reserves. Otherwise they function as independent units."

See? Nothing there to contradict the way every IG player buys doctrines for squads. The required Command Squad and 2 to 5 Infantry Squads are all units (the text above states as much) and all operate independently as separate units.

But the text in the Command Platoon section (p38) is considerably different:

"A Command Platoon counts as a single unit for army selection, deployment and reserves purposes. However, each sub-unit may deploy or arrive in a different location and act independently." (Emphasis mine.)

Note that is says the whole Command Platoon is a single unit for army selection, the process of which includes choosing doctrines. So does that mean that if, to continue using the example, you take the Carapace Armour doctrine then you'd only pay 20 points no matter how many Support Squads you took?

Note also the reference to 'sub-units'. This implies that Support Squads are 'sub-units' and not 'units' (in addition to the whole being greater than the sum of its parts here).

The only argument I can see against this is the fact that most doctrines refer to 'Guard Infantry units' and the description of said units (p55) refers to all the Support Squads separately. This is, however, somewhat countered by the use of the words: 'along with'.

So, any thoughts? Or am I missing something really obvious?

The way I've done it is every squad = a unit. 1 platoon of any kind = 1 force organization slot .. so for buying carapace armor for example, I'd pay for it for each squad in each platoon

Posted By Necros on 12/23/2006 8:11 AM
The way I've done it is every squad = a unit. 1 platoon of any kind = 1 force organization slot .. so for buying carapace armor for example, I'd pay for it for each squad in each platoon

Yeah, I understand that, Necros. Thanks. That's why I stated exactly the same thing. I play the game that way, it's just that the rules don't seem to agree.

No further thoughts, anyone? I thought this had some potential for a classic 'RAW-vs-nonRAW' discussion.

I think the reason there isn't much of a discussion on this is because there really isn't anywhere to go.

If you argue that the text in the command platoon definition is NOT a typo then we must assume that they meant for Command Platoons and Infantry Platoons to behave differently. It seems unlikely, but from a RAW perspective it's worth arguing. Unfortunately, the argument doesn't really lead us anywhere. The text on page 38 only says that it counts as a single unit for army selection, deployment and reserves. Now if it said that it counts as a single unit for victory points, doctrine selection and Leadership tests it would actually change the way the units are played. I just don't think the text really affects game play even if it isn't a typo.

Thanks for the response, Glaive Company CO, although I will admit I'm confused by your reply.

 

Posted By Glaive Company CO on 01/03/2007 9:47 AM
I think the reason there isn't much of a discussion on this is because there really isn't anywhere to go.

 I don't understand. On the one hand you have the way everyone plays IG. On the other, you have what the rules actually state. How is there nowhere to go? 

Posted By Glaive Company CO on 01/03/2007 9:47 AM
If you argue that the text in the command platoon definition is NOT a typo then we must assume that they meant for Command Platoons and Infantry Platoons to behave differently. It seems unlikely, but from a RAW perspective it's worth arguing.  

It's too specific for a typo, I believe.  

Posted By Glaive Company CO on 01/03/2007 9:47 AM
Unfortunately, the argument doesn't really lead us anywhere. The text on page 38 only says that it counts as a single unit for army selection, deployment and reserves. Now if it said that it counts as a single unit for victory points, doctrine selection and Leadership tests it would actually change the way the units are played. I just don't think the text really affects game play even if it isn't a typo.

 But that has nothing to do with the text or the premise. Saying that if they all had Terminator Armour it would actually change the way the units are played is also true, and just as irrelevant, isn't it?

The point is, the text clearly states that it counts as a single unit for army selection, deployment and reserves.

Thus, if you take the Carapace Armour doctrine, don't you only have to apply it once to the whole Platoon?

Sorry, but unless I'm missing some subtle nuance in your reply, you've only stated the exact argument I did at the beginning.

Posted By Glaive Company CO on 01/03/2007 9:47 AM
If you argue that the text in the command platoon definition is NOT a typo ...

It's not a typo... it's simply a codex written for a different edition of the game.

In 3rd edition, 'unit' didn't mean the same thing as it does now. It was simply a general term that GW applied wherever they felt like putting it in.

When 4th edition came along, they defined a unit as a specific, distinct element of your army (a single squad, IC, vehicle, whatever)... which conflicts with any number of entries from older Codexes.

I think the answer here is to simply assume that when you come across the word 'unit' in a pre-4th edition codex, read the context rather than applying the 4th edition meaning of 'unit'

Sorry Stu-Rat. I did leave out the actual point of what I was saying and only hinted at it instead.

My point is that assuming the text on page 38 means we are to treat the entire command platoon as a single unit as defined by the V4 rules (insaniak) then it will only affect certain aspects that won't really change the game.

So to break it down:
The text tells us to treat them as a single unit for army selection, deployment, and reserves.
1. Treating them as a single unit for army creation is fine since they will only take up one slot in the FOC either way we play it. If a player is to take the term 'army creation' to mean the purchase of doctrines then we take the argument to another step. The wording on page 55 implies that the command squad, anti-tank squads, fire support squads, etc. are different units. If we do NOT assume that by the wording then the book must mean thet Hardened Veteran squads, normal Infantry Platoon squads and Armoured Fist squads are also part of a Command Platoon. That would be just plain nutty. So, to re-iterate the definition of 'guard infantry' still tells us that they are separate units when purchasing doctrines.

2. Treating them as a single unit for deployment could affect game play since we would have to deploy them in coherency or all within a single transport or something. This is taken care of though in the following sentence that tells us they may deploy or arrive in a different location and act independently.

3. Treating them as a single unit for reserves could affect game play, but again, the next sentence tells us about them operating independently, and the rulebook tells us that we roll for the entire FOC slot at the same time anyways, even if they are different units. So this doesn't really affect game play either.

If anything the only real RAW discussion should be what the definition of a sub-unit is when talking about a unit not associated with the last chancers. Without a definition of 'sub-unit' the entire thing should just be chalked up to typo or out of date rules (insaniak).