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.

Find a single bit of proof where it states that they can be taken without being in an Infantry Platoon.

I can wait, because it doesn't exist beyond your RAI v. RAW argument. There is no method allowing for it.

Have fun, I'm out.

Kanluwen wrote:Find a single bit of proof where it states that they can be taken without being in an Infantry Platoon.

I can wait, because it doesn't exist beyond your RAI v. RAW argument. There is no method allowing for it.

Have fun, I'm out.

As stated, each one carries its own unit entry list, and those unit entry lists are not barred from being taken as regular choices as in the codex prior.

Maj.Lee Scrude wrote:In the unit description section of the hardcopy book the unit name is Infantry Platoon. It then lists the elements that make up an Infantry Platoon. The Astra Militarum/Imperial Guard is unique that a unit is comprised of a number of squads

This page is quite clear that the unit is called Infantry Platoon.

Already addressed. That is not the unit entry page in which you select units. And the ones for Space Marines have many similar setups. Do we include those as entire units, too?

edit: never mind

It's only obvious from a RAI perspective. Unless there is a companion rule that cements that separation, it's really nothing but a black line.

If you notice in the epub version every Armylist entry has the battlefield role.

You also seem to be confusing datasheets with Army List Entries. Yes, there is an individual datasheet for a heavy weapon squad. No, there is no Army List Entry for a Heavy Weapon Squad. Outside of an Infantry Platoon, a Heavy Weapon Squad has no battlefield role.

And as for the op asking about the Emperor's shield referencing Infantry squads: that is in the restrictions and only stating that the Platoon Army List Entry must have 5 Infantry Squads. The Formation Composition still calls for a full Platoon.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
If you notice in the epub version every Armylist entry has the battlefield role.

You also seem to be confusing datasheets with Army List Entries. Yes, there is an individual datasheet for a heavy weapon squad. No, there is no Army List Entry for a Heavy Weapon Squad. Outside of an Infantry Platoon, a Heavy Weapon Squad has no battlefield role.

Well, let's look at that legend and see what starts an Army list entry in The Hammer of the Emperor section of the codex, shall we?

The start seems to be that field that is topped with the Unit Name and carries the Unit Profile. Nothing about a Role is mentioned in this section being what starts the Army list entry. That would actually be occurring in the datasheet format that starts off with the Role.

Reread the firt paragraph of "Using the Army list".

What battlefield role is a Conscript squad?

The numbered points do not show the roles, but the rules explain it. Stop thinking pretty pictures are the whole rules and actually read.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Reread the firt paragraph of "Using the Army list".

What battlefield role is a Conscript squad?

The numbered points do not show the roles, but the rules explain it. Stop thinking pretty pictures are the whole rules and actually read.

Yes, let us read it:

The Astra Militarum army list is split into six sections: HQ, troops, dedicated transports, elites, fast attack and heavy support. All of the squads, vehicles and characters in the army are placed into one of these categories depending upon their role on the battlefield. Each model is also given a points value, which varies depending on how effective that model is in battle.

Where does it state that each army list entry starts with defining its Role? It just states that they are divided in to six sections and elaborates on them. Do we change sections just because a Role is not listed above a unit? That is not how every sectioned book operates nor does this book tell us to.

The part that actually talks about Army List entries then states:

Each entry in the army list represents a different unit.

More information about the background and rules for the Imperial Guard and their options can be found in the Heroes Beyond Number section, while examples of the Citadel miniatures you will need to represent them can be found in the Regimental Colours section.

Then the first thing it actually shows or references as being part of the actual army list entry is the field which states the unit name with its points alongside it (per the Unit Name legend).

The Imperial Platoon is not listed as a unit. It is listed as a collection of units which take up one Slot option. Its composition is not even listed as "Unit Composition", just "Composition". The Imperial Platoon is no more a unit option than the Star God Decurion Choice or the Strike Force Command Gladius Strike Force Choice are Formations.

From the Rulebook on "FORCE ORGANISATION CHARTS AND SLOTS" in Choosing Your Army:

The boxes on a Force Organisation Chart are referred to as slots. Each slot will typically specify a Battlefield Role. Each slot allows you to take one unit.

Explicit permission to take each of these squads individually has been expressed via numerous points. There is nothing restricting it from that point short of the restrictions of the detachment involved that I have found or anyone has presented.

Therefore, you can take a Conscript Squad as a Troops Choice in a CAD or AD, but that doesn't make it a smart thing to do.

At the top of the page, or section in the case of the electronic version, it states the role. Why would they put the header Troops before Infantry Platoon, then, do it again for Veterans if they were all meant to be individual Troops entries? That makes no sense at all.

Again, in the hardcopy version there is a box that joins units/models that are linked. Creed and Kell, because you can't take Kell will out Creed, Techpriest and servitors because you can't take servitors without a Techpriest, Militarum Tempestus because you can't take the command squad without the scion squad. These were not meant to be mere decorations they were meant to show linkage.

Maj.Lee Scrude wrote:
At the top of the page, or section in the case of the electronic version, it states the role. Why would they put the header Troops before Infantry Platoon, then, do it again for Veterans if they were all meant to be individual Troops entries? That makes no sense at all.

Either way you look at it, it is sloppy editing on GW's part. Either, they didn't think anyone would want to take individual Squads on their own so didn't bother putting the Role title above it, they forgot to add the caveat that these Squads may only be purchased as such, or to indicate the best relationship and leave it at that.

But again, unless we have an actual statement or properly defined indication of such, the Role at the top is a formatting choice, and does not literally define a new unit entry that represents an exclusive Choice situation.

Maj.Lee Scrude wrote:
Again, in the hardcopy version there is a box that joins units/models that are linked. Creed and Kell, because you can't take Kell will out Creed, Techpriest and servitors because you can't take servitors without a Techpriest, Militarum Tempestus because you can't take the command squad without the scion squad. These were not meant to be mere decorations they were meant to show linkage.

Art without context is just art. Where does it define that art indicates an exclusive relationship and limits things from that box to the original slot title? Do I have to set up my Tactical Marines exactly as they show it on the codex datasheet? No, that is laughable and would also defy the properly defined options listed in the book.

 Charistoph wrote:

Maj.Lee Scrude wrote:
Again, in the hardcopy version there is a box that joins units/models that are linked. Creed and Kell, because you can't take Kell will out Creed, Techpriest and servitors because you can't take servitors without a Techpriest, Militarum Tempestus because you can't take the command squad without the scion squad. These were not meant to be mere decorations they were meant to show linkage.

Art without context is just art. Where does it define that art indicates an exclusive relationship and limits things from that box to the original slot title? Do I have to set up my Tactical Marines exactly as they show it on the codex datasheet? No, that is laughable and would also defy the properly defined options listed in the book.

Actually it's a formatting choice, not an art choice, with the formatting indicating what goes together and what is separate. Could they have explained that better? Sure. Should it be obvious from the formatting that they are all part of the infantry platoon and not treated as separate independent units? Most definitely; the formatting here isn't like the formatting for formations that refer back to unit entries.

The argument about setting up Tactical marines exactly as they show on the codex datasheet is a strawman argument here.

 doctortom wrote:
Actually it's a formatting choice, not an art choice, with the formatting indicating what goes together and what is separate. Could they have explained that better? Sure. Should it be obvious from the formatting that they are all part of the infantry platoon and not treated as separate independent units? Most definitely; the formatting here isn't like the formatting for formations that refer back to unit entries.

It's art used in a formatting choice, but still art. Yes, there is no doubt that the squads in that field are all components of the Infantry Platoon, that is not in argument. The argument is that it represents the ONLY way these units can be taken. The field is not defined as providing such an exclusive relationship.

I never referenced Formation formatting, by the way, just how Formations are organized. I did this to demonstrate that just because something is required (or an option) for one thing does not make it only available to that option without something actually stating as such.

 doctortom wrote:
The argument about setting up Tactical marines exactly as they show on the codex datasheet is a strawman argument here.

Of course it is a strawman. But then, the implications that the platoon is the only method to take these Squads is about as strong a couple strands of straw. It relies on implications and assumptions without anything else to support it.

Interesting discussion.

After reading through the posts and considering all the points, I think it's pretty clear the intention is for Conscripts/HWS/etc. to be only taken as part of Platoons, and not as stand-alone entities.

I don't think it would be unreasonable for an opponent to houserule that they can do so, however, even though I think it would be rather rude to expect them to go against the status quo of several editions and 99% of Imperial Guard players.

DoW

 DogOfWar wrote:
Interesting discussion.

After reading through the posts and considering all the points, I think it's pretty clear the intention is for Conscripts/HWS/etc. to be only taken as part of Platoons, and not as stand-alone entities.

I don't think it would be unreasonable for an opponent to houserule that they can do so, however, even though I think it would be rather rude to expect them to go against the status quo of several editions and 99% of Imperial Guard players.

DoW

Status quo from previous editions is a poor example. Should we allow Marine Command Squads to be slotless while taking a Captain/Chapter Master just because they have been in the past? Should we force Tau Crisis Suits to only use one version of a Weapon and Twin-link it if they want two? Should we consider Rhinos and Drop Pods as having only the Dedicated Transport Role? Destroyers should be Jet Bikes instead of Jet Pack? Monoliths used to ignore the benefits of Armourbane, Melta, and Lance, should they go back to that? Should only Fleet units be allowed to Run?

Some things were changed, for good, bad, or just because, but they were changed. Not recognizing the change doesn't make it not changed. The Individual Squads have not had the restriction they had for the previous codices for years now and at least one official Errata release with a new edition. It is past time to consider it a formatting error or being overlooked and look at the possibility it was a deliberate change.

Remember, this codex was right before 7th Edition launched and Transports that were previously only in the Dedicated Transport Role were moved to Fast Attack. The availability of options and flexibility in the army was being redesigned. This was just the first glimpse of what was to come. So don't get stuck in the mud of "what has been", and focus on the possibilities.

 Charistoph wrote:
Stuff.

I'm sorry, I wasn't debating. I was stating my opinion based on a reading of this thread. It appears I disagree with you and that's perfectly okay with me.

DoW

 DogOfWar wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
Stuff.

I'm sorry, I wasn't debating. I was stating my opinion based on a reading of this thread. It appears I disagree with you and that's perfectly okay with me.

DoW

If you didn't come here to debate or expect to be debated, why post here?

I expressed an opinion on your opinion wondering why anyone would wish to stick to an out-dated system that is no longer supported by the current setup. You presented nothing on the why other than it was the equivalent of a tradition (it would be rather rude to expect them to go against... 99% of Imperial Guard players). You also asserted that someone who did not abide by this tradition was "houserul(ing)" it instead of abiding by the letter of the rules, providing nothing to support why it wasn't the letter of the rules. You placed "intention" above the "written" and then accused someone for changing the rules by placing "written" above "intention". Rather a double standard there.

Written, the various squads are boxed together graphically. Nuff said

Maj.Lee Scrude wrote:
Written, the various squads are boxed together graphically. Nuff said

Graphics are not written. Nothing is written about that graphic. 'Nuff said.

Well it comes down to this: RAW isn't really clear, there are basically two versions of the Platoon out there.

The printed one is rather clear if you accept that the box is there for a reason (even if that (and the reason itself) is not explicitly stated anywhere).
The digital version is either a "misprint" or did away with that box on purpose, no idea. Based on GWs track record it's probably not an intended change though.
But if you read that one you can easily get Charistophs interpretation - just leave your previous "understand of how it works" at the door and take the pages at face value.
But we have more information than just what's in the digital codex. And if we add just the information from the printed version, we're "sufficiently sure" that they can't be taken independently.

It's how I play it with my own guardsmen and how I expect someone facing me to play it.

nekooni wrote:
The printed one is rather clear if you accept that the box is there for a reason (even if that (and the reason itself) is not explicitly stated anywhere).

The problem is that this is not actually RAW. There is only assumptions to give this box any actual defined meaning. This box could only be there to define what is used for the Infantry Platoon, and that's it. It doesn't have to define an exclusive relationship, and without anything providing some actual limitations it cannot provide any actual definition of such.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The problem I have been seeing from this thread is that some are confusing some things. I have been only addressing the written word, as that is the only thing that is consistent between all of us. If you choose to change it or not use it all for your local group, I do not care so long as you don't try to push it here as the written word. This is Tenet #4. If you think that I am a jerk for continuing to push this instead of what people would consider favorable for the group, I would point you out to Tenet #7. Please keep this in mind going forward.

Ok written word.
Written word
Electronic version:
There is a heading called "Troops" it is used twice, once before the Infantry Platoon entry and then once again before the Veterans Squad. This can really only mean two things, first that Infantry Platoon is the Troops entry and are inclusive of all squads listed. Second, the second occurrence of "Troop" is followed by Veteran Squad which represents the second entry that is concidered to be a 'Troops' entry.
Boxes are used to group related items in the hardcopy codex for every other group of related/dependant units so the box that groups the various squads of an Infantry Platoon together IS meant to include them as one Troop entry.

 Charistoph wrote:

nekooni wrote:
The printed one is rather clear if you accept that the box is there for a reason (even if that (and the reason itself) is not explicitly stated anywhere).

The problem is that this is not actually RAW. There is only assumptions to give this box any actual defined meaning. This box could only be there to define what is used for the Infantry Platoon, and that's it. It doesn't have to define an exclusive relationship, and without anything providing some actual limitations it cannot provide any actual definition of such.

The problem I have been seeing from this thread is that some are confusing some things. I have been only addressing the written word, as that is the only thing that is consistent between all of us. If you choose to change it or not use it all for your local group, I do not care so long as you don't try to push it here as the written word. This is Tenet #4. If you think that I am a jerk for continuing to push this instead of what people would consider favorable for the group, I would point you out to Tenet #7. Please keep this in mind going forward.

Did you miss my use of "if" instead of "when" ? Or the part where I said that I can absolutely understand your point of view?
I never claimed the Interpretation i use to be RAW. Just that its the more intuitive one which is probably(!) RAI.

I've not called you any names nor even hinted at anything like that.

Maybe step back from this and cool down a bit?

Maj.Lee Scrude wrote:
Ok written word.
Written word
Electronic version:
There is a heading called "Troops" it is used twice, once before the Infantry Platoon entry and then once again before the Veterans Squad. This can really only mean two things, first that Infantry Platoon is the Troops entry and are inclusive of all squads listed. Second, the second occurrence of "Troop" is followed by Veteran Squad which represents the second entry that is concidered to be a 'Troops' entry.
Boxes are used to group related items in the hardcopy codex for every other group of related/dependant units so the box that groups the various squads of an Infantry Platoon together IS meant to include them as one Troop entry.

Several things wrong here, and you didn't bother to address the points I made earlier on this.

1) The "inclusivity" of the Infantry Platoon is not in question. These Squads are included in the Infantry Platoon selection which takes up one Slot. What is in question is the exclusivity of this set up. What about this makes the Infantry Platoon the ONLY way one can take these Squad units in normal cases?

2) The Role is never stated as starting an army list entry or a unit entry in this codex, hardback or digital. What is stated as starting it is the box which contains the unit name, cost, and profile.

3) All the other groups you are speaking of (short of the Tempestus Platoon) have language which could at least be considered as having such a required dependent relationship. Where is this language which makes Platoon Squads only available by purchase in Platoons in normal cases?

Maj.Lee Scrude wrote:
Ok written word.
Written word
Electronic version:
There is a heading called "Troops" it is used twice, once before the Infantry Platoon entry and then once again before the Veterans Squad. This can really only mean two things, first that Infantry Platoon is the Troops entry and are inclusive of all squads listed. Second, the second occurrence of "Troop" is followed by Veteran Squad which represents the second entry that is concidered to be a 'Troops' entry.
Boxes are used to group related items in the hardcopy codex for every other group of related/dependant units so the box that groups the various squads of an Infantry Platoon together IS meant to include them as one Troop entry.

I had proposed this earlier. The problem I discovered is that the same does not hold true for HQ. All the Company Command Squad "upgrades" have the HQ header and so do the various slotless choices.

nekooni wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

nekooni wrote:
The printed one is rather clear if you accept that the box is there for a reason (even if that (and the reason itself) is not explicitly stated anywhere).

The problem is that this is not actually RAW. There is only assumptions to give this box any actual defined meaning. This box could only be there to define what is used for the Infantry Platoon, and that's it. It doesn't have to define an exclusive relationship, and without anything providing some actual limitations it cannot provide any actual definition of such.

The problem I have been seeing from this thread is that some are confusing some things. I have been only addressing the written word, as that is the only thing that is consistent between all of us. If you choose to change it or not use it all for your local group, I do not care so long as you don't try to push it here as the written word. This is Tenet #4. If you think that I am a jerk for continuing to push this instead of what people would consider favorable for the group, I would point you out to Tenet #7. Please keep this in mind going forward.

Did you miss my use of "if" instead of "when" ? Or the part where I said that I can absolutely understand your point of view?
I never claimed the Interpretation i use to be RAW. Just that its the more intuitive one which is probably(!) RAI.

I take the statement "The printed one is rather clear if you accept that the box is there for a reason" to being declaring a RAW interpretation of being a "clear" "reason" to consider it exclusive. I am not saying this is your interpretation, I'm addressing the interpretation itself.

nekooni wrote:
I've not called you any names nor even hinted at anything like that.

Maybe step back from this and cool down a bit?

Did I say anyone called me names? I was addressing it as if one was thinking me of one, and I know there have been others who have. That second paragraph could have been separated better, but was meant as a general statement to any one who is reading this thread.

I find it more interesting that there are others who are almost violently opposed to the idea that different units of an organization that is not, in and of itself, an actual unit cannot be chosen individually and are treating me as if I was a jerk for even bringing up the possibility.

 Charistoph wrote:
I take the statement "The printed one is rather clear if you accept that the box is there for a reason" to being declaring a RAW interpretation of being a "clear" "reason" to consider it exclusive. I am not saying this is your interpretation, I'm addressing the interpretation itself.

I was trying to say that it's clear IF you accept that the box has a purpose. OTHERWISE it's just a design element of the page with no actual value.
Since there's no actual rule saying that it is more than just decoration I can see why you would ignore it when looking through the rules - especially considering it's missing in the digital version.

But the intent is pretty obvious I'd say. Therefore I can still say "strictly RAW it's allowed to pick a HWT solo but the likely RAI - and therefore HIWPI - is that you cannot". In other words: I agree with you on the rules as written, but I'd never play it like that unless GW clarifies this sufficiently.

but was meant as a general statement to any one who is reading this thread.

Ah - gotcha, I thought you were still refering to me. My mistake.

nekooni wrote:
I was trying to say that it's clear IF you accept that the box has a purpose. OTHERWISE it's just a design element of the page with no actual value.
Since there's no actual rule saying that it is more than just decoration I can see why you would ignore it when looking through the rules - especially considering it's missing in the digital version.

But the intent is pretty obvious I'd say. Therefore I can still say "strictly RAW it's allowed to pick a HWT solo but the likely RAI - and therefore HIWPI - is that you cannot". In other words: I agree with you on the rules as written, but I'd never play it like that unless GW clarifies this sufficiently.

I rather disagree. It would only have any such "clear" meaning if one was already operating under the standards from a previous version. If someone came at it brand new fresh, and not being influenced by previous editions (either reading the earlier book or people still operating as such), would they really read it as an exclusive relationship as being asserted?

I have to admit Christoph's position is convincing, solely because of what's explicitly missing in the hardbook. What is there is 'each infantry platoon counts as a single troops slot in the force organisation chart [and consists of ...]' , there is nothing which says they may only be fielded as such. Page 88 details how the army list entries in this specific book are laid out, two significant portions being Column 1 para 1 2nd sentence "All of the squads ... are placed into one of these categories [HQ, Troops etc]" and column 2 para 1: "Each entry in the army list represents a different unit".

Building on that, pg88 col 1 bullet 1 writes "At the start of each army list entry you will find the name of the unit ..." which is keyed to the title immediately under the decorative wing on the top left, which each component of the infantry platoon has.

I would suggest, then, in this specific book for the details presented to be classed as a Unit Choice, the following conditions must be satisfied:

A. It is in the section of the army list referring to the unit category, specifically HQ,Troops,Elites,Fast Attack & Heavy Support, which defines what slot in the force org it can be taken as.
B. Has a unit name inside the green rectangle with a wing decoration on the top left.
C. less relevant, has the rest of the options (2-7) available as detailed in pg 88

The Infantry Platoon significantly does not qualify as a Unit under point B, nor does it have several of the factors of point C. Instead it follows an undocumented format of a heading with its own sub-rules.

What complicates matters is that only the Platoon Command Squad and the Infantry Squad qualify under points A,B and C. Page 95 with the HWS,SWS and Conscripts do not qualify under B, and so from the reading may only be taken as part of an infantry platoon. You could possibly argue that they don't even qualify as units in the first place due to a lack of B, but that messes with the bounding box definition as detailed later.

The same applies to the Tempestus Platoon, for which both the Command Squad and Scions Squad qualify independently under A,B and C.

To grant the bounding box authority of "it's what the unit is" instead of "it's an option to field certain units as one slot" the only details we have to work with require citing the other usages of it in the codex, such as on pages 92 and 93. Keeping in mind the bounding box has no explicit authority as written in the "Using the Army List" section of the book.

Using the Commisar an example, The heading of 'Commisar' appears outside of the bounding box that disqualifies it as a unit under point B. Instead it lists the explicit limitations, and what you can do with the Infantry (Character) model. Every other instance in the codex of the bounding box, with the exception of the Infantry Platoon PCS and IS, and Tempestus Platoon does not include details presented in a way which qualify the 'pseudo B' listing as an army list entry under B.

Consquently I propose the paradox of D and E:

D. The bounding box is an expansion of the army list defining an additional or alternate method of how to deploy the sections of its components.
E. The bounding box is an expansion of the army list defining how to use all the sections of its components and they may not be used any other way.

Neither of which can be explicitely supported by the rules written, because both contradict A,B and C as derived from page 88.

Therefore
1. If A,B and C define a Unit, you can take individual PCS and Infantry Squads.
2. If D holds true, 1 still applies but you can also take Conscripts, HWS and SWS as part of an infantry platoon which must include 1 PCS and 2-5 infantry squads
3. if E is true, 1 & 2 are false. Consequently you can only take PCS, IS etc as part of the infantry platoon.


Revised position D. indicates some worrying implications if applied to the HQ section, but that would largely depend on how the digital version is presented.

 Charistoph wrote:

nekooni wrote:
I was trying to say that it's clear IF you accept that the box has a purpose. OTHERWISE it's just a design element of the page with no actual value.
Since there's no actual rule saying that it is more than just decoration I can see why you would ignore it when looking through the rules - especially considering it's missing in the digital version.

But the intent is pretty obvious I'd say. Therefore I can still say "strictly RAW it's allowed to pick a HWT solo but the likely RAI - and therefore HIWPI - is that you cannot". In other words: I agree with you on the rules as written, but I'd never play it like that unless GW clarifies this sufficiently.

I rather disagree. It would only have any such "clear" meaning if one was already operating under the standards from a previous version. If someone came at it brand new fresh, and not being influenced by previous editions (either reading the earlier book or people still operating as such), would they really read it as an exclusive relationship as being asserted?

I only played 3rd edition necrons very briefly. Outside oft that ive only ever played 7th edition . i play IG myself so i got the Codex at home, and to me its intention seems clear, even without any "previous edition" knowledge. I agree with you in the RAW part, but as i said im not going to play it like that as i feel that would go against the intention.

* at least i think it was third ed. The one with the properly grimdark necrons and pariahs and such

 malamis wrote:

A. It is in the section of the army list referring to the unit category, specifically HQ,Troops,Elites,Fast Attack & Heavy Support, which defines what slot in the force org it can be taken as.
B. Has a unit name inside the green rectangle with a wing decoration on the top left.
C. less relevant, has the rest of the options (2-7) available as detailed in pg 88

The Infantry Platoon significantly does not qualify as a Unit under point B, nor does it have several of the factors of point C. Instead it follows an undocumented format of a heading with its own sub-rules.

What complicates matters is that only the Platoon Command Squad and the Infantry Squad qualify under points A,B and C. Page 95 with the HWS,SWS and Conscripts do not qualify under B, and so from the reading may only be taken as part of an infantry platoon. You could possibly argue that they don't even qualify as units in the first place due to a lack of B, but that messes with the bounding box definition as detailed later.

Sadly, I cannot compare the epub to the print version at the moment, my LGS closed some months back, and I rarely travel to the area 45 minutes away to the next best one to compare it, too.

But in the epub version every single Squad listed under Infantry Platoon fulfills all 3 of those criteria. The unit names and profiles for all Squads are listed in the same box as as the Veteran Squad or Ogryn Squad. And that version is just as official as the paper version.

Edit: Scrude and I have both posted images from both the print and the epub version, respectively, on page 1. Those "wings" are present on all of them. They may not be as easily recognized in the print version because of that field, but they are there. So, excluding Conscript Squads from that list because of B, no longer matters.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

nekooni wrote:
I only played 3rd edition necrons very briefly. Outside oft that ive only ever played 7th edition . i play IG myself so i got the Codex at home, and to me its intention seems clear, even without any "previous edition" knowledge. I agree with you in the RAW part, but as i said im not going to play it like that as i feel that would go against the intention.

* at least i think it was third ed. The one with the properly grimdark necrons and pariahs and such

And no one else mentioned that it should be set as a requirement?

But then I have to ask, what words lead you to think it is a requirement?

Keep in mind, you aren't coming at this cold, either. You are coming from 3rd Edition which had an Infantry Platoon, albeit set up a bit differently than what we have now, so that consideration is already in your psyche and influencing what you perceive, just as much as the colors white and black have different meanings and associated cultural events depending on the culture you come from.