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.

 Charistoph wrote:

 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.

Now that indicates a legitimate split between codex versions, and given the inclusion of the Infantry Squad independently in the start box, could hint at an actual change in intent .... if GW were that versatile. only having to spend £30 to get started with IG would make a lot more sense after all, since I don't doubt a lot of people were put off from IG by having to buy a minimum 21 models, most of which were junk. So it goes back to points D and/or E being the crux of the matter, with D becoming only tangentially applicable to the infantry platoon itself, further leading legitimacy to the individual units position.

 malamis wrote:
Now that indicates a legitimate split between codex versions, and given the inclusion of the Infantry Squad independently in the start box, could hint at an actual change in intent .... if GW were that versatile. only having to spend £30 to get started with IG would make a lot more sense after all, since I don't doubt a lot of people were put off from IG by having to buy a minimum 21 models, most of which were junk. So it goes back to points D and/or E being the crux of the matter, with D becoming only tangentially applicable to the infantry platoon itself, further leading legitimacy to the individual units position.

Pretty much. We have seen them use such a change before in order to operate a change in paradigm, and I've mentioned a few of them before.

Personally, I think that this is an expansion of the freedom in purchasing options that started in 6th Edition. Things were pretty strict before then. That field is to indicate what is included in the Infantry Platoon, of that, there is no doubt, but to extend it to an exclusive relationship without anything stating such is rather presumptive.

Charistoph 706194 9007818 wrote:
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.

Because it was presented in the way it is in the physical book?
And since i never played against any IG back then - since I only played like 2 matches back then - im sure i came at it without prior knowledge.

The thing is that the frame you insist in ignoring was a clear message to me, especially with the "one troop slot" thing going on.
Its the dataslate of the army list entry and you cant just pick anything you like - unless specifically told otherwise.

Infantry Platoon is what i choose and then i have to use its rules for a kind of "mini army list construction". It always made sense to me AS a list within a bigger list.

I have to say Charistoph, your case here is unassailable. It seems to me that those arguing with you are basing their "arguments" on one of three things: past experiences, feelings, or art (lol) none of which have any bearing on the issue at hand.

I admit that I always assumed those troop choices in question were restricted to the platoon mainly because I had played guard in earlier editions where this was true (I think? It was quite some time ago...) and I just assumed it was also the case in the 6th edition book, so I never bothered to even read that section. The keyword here is assumed. I think many of the people still arguing with you did the same as I and made a big assumption.

To apply this to my list building would be extremely liberating to say the least.

nekooni wrote:
Because it was presented in the way it is in the physical book?
And since i never played against any IG back then - since I only played like 2 matches back then - im sure i came at it without prior knowledge.

The thing is that the frame you insist in ignoring was a clear message to me, especially with the "one troop slot" thing going on.
Its the dataslate of the army list entry and you cant just pick anything you like - unless specifically told otherwise.

Infantry Platoon is what i choose and then i have to use its rules for a kind of "mini army list construction". It always made sense to me AS a list within a bigger list.

So going from that, would you think that, without ever having looked up the rules, that Dedicated Transports are part of the unit that purchased it? Or that the unit was required to start the game embarked on it?

You have made an assumption based on no actual words, but a "feeling" (not a quote) about how it is to be interpreted. I could show you any number of maps or organizational charts, but without a legend to define them, how would you know what they were for or what they meant?

This "box" or "field" has nothing to define it. Any definition is purely in your own head and mind and not official from the perception of the rules. It is not that I am ignoring it, but that it has nothing defining it to be anything more than an inclusion of those units that are part of the Infantry Platoon selection, not a requirement of being exclusive to that method of purchasing.

ExFideFortis wrote:
To apply this to my list building would be extremely liberating to say the least.

Yes, and no.

It would technically allow you to put out a more "Emperor's Fist" type army easier (if I remember the name right) or an Armoured Company with minimal cost Infantry Support.

That having been said, for anything but the smallest games, Veteran Squads are far superior to any individual Squad available to the Infantry Platoon, short of the Conscripts. Their equipment options alone make them superior. These Squads (again, except for the Conscripts) are quite useless outside of the Platoon in the average-sized game. Three to 10 IG models are really not a whole lot of direct, long-term danger.

Also, keep in mind that as this thread shows, there are some people who are very hide-bound when it comes to these things and may see you as a rules-lawyer or a cheat for building your army under these considerations. But considering how mean some other armies are with their Strike Forces and Formations, I really don't think they have too much to complain about an AD or CAD using very cheap and killable Squads to fill out their Troops and unlocking Leman Russ Squadrons.

Leman russes are nice and all but being able to field a null deployment guard army with cad and Vendettas/Vultures instead of having to blow points on valkyries is actually quite a big deal, esp if you can start the game with just a knight on the table.

120 pts for a cad is Spacewolf territory, there is a *lot* you can do with 60 pts down from Vet/Vet/CCS, since you can just write off 60 pts of your army as 'cad tax' instead of having to pump points into making veterans useful - since the 100~ pts of upgrades it takes to *make* veterans useful is also quite a big deal.