I've been directed here from warseer forums to get the definitive answer to a rules question I have!?

Quite simply I'm designing an IG army for this years UK GT and want to know if it is legal to drop the command squad of an infantry platoon (or heavy weapon/HQ platoon etc etc) via the drop troops doctrine and yet deploy the infantry squads of the same platoon normally!?

I know a definitive answer is difficult with rules threads but any help would be great!

Cheers

Malchek

Yes, you roll for each Choice on the FOC sepeately, but nothing requires the entire choice to be either on the table or in reserves.  Especially when rules refer to 'units'.

It's the same as if the command section had a chimera in an escalation game.  The command section would start off the board, but the platoons would deploy.

Nope. If we're talking about the USGTs I haven't seen any sort of rules FAQ.

Edit: Well, I sent an email to: events@games-workshop.co.uk so we'll see if they respond.

Yep, been there, done that. The US GTs have always ruled correctly and allowed splitting the platoon elements.

And yes, I'm back.............................. first post in a looooong time

Well, I finally got a response back from Brian Anderson regarding this issue (only took more than a month!), and it appears that he is sticking by his ruling despite the fact that it is logically incorrect (IMO). Here is a copy of my original email, followed by his response.

-----Original Message-----
From: yakface
Sent: 26 April 2007 10:24
To: Warhammer World Events
Subject: An IG follow-up question for the UKGT


Hello,

I am interested in taking an Imperial Guard army to the grand tournament this year and a friend of mine recently sent an email about an Imperial Guard rules query to the Events Manager (Brian Anderson) and got a reply that, frankly, I find baffling. I am wondering if Brian can perhaps give me a little information on why he ruled the way he did (as it potentially affects how many IG players will construct and play their armies).

The orginial question that was asked was:

"Quite simply, with the IG and the drop troops doctrine, is it legal at the UK GT to hold the command squad of a platoon in reserve and deepstrike it but deploy the infantry squads of the same platoon as normal in the deployment phase????"


To which Brain replied:

"Quite simply no, as they are purchased as a single entry on the force organisation chart they must be deployed in the same way.

Hope that helps

Brian Aderson"



The issue is, the doctrine istelf quite clearly allows single Guard Infantry units to use the Deep Strike ability. The exact rule states:

"Any Guard Infantry unit (without a Chimera transport) or Sentinel squadron may Deep Strike if the mission permits. Other units must deploy conventionally."


"Guard Inantry unit" is clearly defined in the codex as being individual platoon and command squad units (among other things).


Also, the current official GW online FAQ states that you can give some units in a platoon the Light Infantry doctrine and infiltrate them while the rest
of the platoon deploys normally.

In another situation, if the platoon command squad was equipped with a Chimera and the mission featured the Escalation special rule wouldn't the Command squad in the Chimera have to start off the table while the platoon infantry squads would be deployed normally?


In other words, I find no definitive evidence that some Guard Infantry units in a platoon *shouldn't* be allowed to deep strike while others in the  platoon deploy normally.

I was under the impression that you were trying to follow the rules as written when possible and it seems to me that this ruling is ignoring both
the rules as they are written in the codex and the precedent set by your own FAQs.



Thanks for your time and please let me know what the ultimate ruling for the tournament will be!


yakface

Hi yakface,

I've spent a while looking into your comments and I have to say it seems that you have tried to use other rules as a precedent for interpreting another.

The Light Infantry Doctrine allows you to apply the doctrine to some Infantry units and not others by specifying a points cost and specifically saying that you purchase this skill on a unit by unit basis.

The Drop Troops doctrine is defined for the whole Regiment and so all Infantry Units would have this skill.

It states in the Codex the definition of Guard Infantry Unit...

"..., the definition includes any command squad along with its Officers and any attached advisors, Anti-tank squads, Fire Support squads, Special Weapons squads (if the regiment may use them), Mortar squads, Hardened Veteran squads, normal Infantry Platoon squads and Armoured Fist squads."

And, under the entry for Infantry Platoon it states
"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."

And, under the entry for Command Platoon it states
"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."

These entries in the Codex book lead me to conclude that my original ruling is correct. All elements of a Platoon as defined in the original
question must be deployed under the same circumstances, either during the deployment phase or, if the scenario permits, using the Drop Pod
Doctrine rules.

Brian Aderson

Warhammer World Events Team Manager
0115 9004469
07919 321434

Oh well. . .

I've been doing this in the US GTs since the current IG codex came out. As stated by others, the IG codex allows you to split deploy your platoons. My favorite example is a HQ platoon in an Excaltion mission. Command squad in a Chimera must start in reserve, the sentinel squadron is always allowed to deploy, the Light Infantry Fire Support squad can infiltrate and the Drop Troop Special Weapon squad can Deep Strike. You would bring in both the SW and Cmd squads on a single die roll.

In fact, there are two occasions I can think of where they (GW) have FAQed that you do not have to deploy all of a Force Org slot at same time, IG Light Infantry and Tau Pathfinders. Precedents......

Thanks to yak for following up on this, as I too play IG w/ drop troops.  Glad I don't play anywhere near that GW buffoon.  I guess it highlights an apparently common occurrence within GW- ignore your own rules when it suits you. 

What would you do?

I would check ahead of time with the tournament organizer of the event you are attending.

If playing in pick-up games I would deep strike individual units in the platoon as the rules are clear. There simply is no evidence that the general rule about platoons deploying together isn't overriden by the more specific ability of individual units with Deep Strike being able to be kept in reserve.

Indeed there are other situations (infiltration and Escalation) that allow/force platoons to split up their deployment.



I can tell you for sure that at Adepticon (at least) dropping individual squads from a platoon will be fully legal.

If worse comes to worse I can always make the other squads in the platoon (that I don't want to use as drop troops) light infantry .  Then I'll yell at the tournament organiser "Yo, what now fool!?" move at him aggresively...er... come to think of it I'll just do the first part of my plan.

Thanks.

Hmm... I don't see a problem. Your way you break the FOC deployment rules. My way, I do not and obey the deepstriking Reserves rules. I can (indeed, must) put the whole FOC selection (whatever it may be) into Reserves because there is said special rule. 

Posted By Skrivus on 06/15/2007 9:13 AM
Since drop troops gives each individual unit the option to deep strike, only those that the player has directed that will be deep striking can be put into reserves. Since the rest of the platoon can opt to not deep strike, they can't go into reserves. 
 

 I disagree. Every FOC choice must be deployed at the same time, unless a rule specifically overrules this rule, as in the case of the LI FAQ. 

Posted By Skrivus on 06/15/2007 9:13 AM
If the whole platoon had to be put into reserves, the drop troops doctrine would just be given at the platoon level, not giving each individual squad the option.

Unfortunately not true. Does an HQ unit that has Sentinels suddenly gain the Scout ruling in Reserve games? No. So why should the rest of a platoon gain deepstriking when only one unit has it?
 

Posted By Skrivus on 06/15/2007 9:13 AM
Also, the Imperial Guard FAQ directly states that units can in fact deploy seperately, due to the light infantry doctrine. You still deploy the elements of the same platoon normally, and then the common elements from the same platoon would come in together one on roll for each FOC.

No, that's not true. It states that units within one FOC can deploy separately if some of them have the LI doctrine. That's a big distinction from what you claim.

Posted By Skrivus on 06/15/2007 9:13 AM
You only hold in reserve what you can legally put into reserve, and you can't put the regular squads into reserve, unless you directly stated that they will deep strike.

 Yes, you can. The rules clearly state that one FOC must be deployed at one time, unless a specific rule states otherwise. LI does. Scout does. Drop Troops does not. 

Posted By Skrivus on 06/15/2007 9:13 AM
As stated earlier by Yakface and others, "the more specific rule (drop troops doctrine, in this case) overrides the general rule.
 

 Two problems with that argument. One, there's no such rule anywhere in the book. Two, there is no specific ruling here.

Posted By Skrivus on 06/15/2007 9:13 AM
The non-deep strikers must deploy normally, and there's nothing saying otherwise.

Yes, they must. When you roll for the FOC choice to come on. There is nothing in the Drop Troops rule that says that you can split deployment of an FOC. There is nothing in the LI rule either, but that's been corrected in the FAQ.

For the record, I'm not trolling here. This is honestly what I believe and how I play the game.

 

The President butchering grammar doesn't establish a precedent for everyone else to do the same.  (Sorry if this part seems like another attack, it's not at all.  It's just a random sentence that popped up in my head when I put together the words "President" and "precedent".)

Sorry, getting off topic.

I wasn't sure if the issues you brought up in your earlier post were flaws you were pointing out in other people's arguments or points you yourself were trying to make.

This was due to starting your post off with "I see the major problems to be this" instead of referencing an earlier post or stating directly on what you wanted to convey. It makes it easier to follow along if you reference either an earlier post to reply to, or state immediately what it is you want the reader to get out of it, and then go into detail about the topic.

You could have started your post off with something like "I see the major problems with the arguments for requiring the entire platoon to be placed into reserve if a single unit deep strikes to be." Something like that, may be a bit long, but it states exactly what you're trying to convey to the reader.

I simply misunderstood the point of your post, because this thread had been dead for a while, and I thought at first someone was trying to bring it back up with no supporting evidence.

I do think however the rules are quite clear and specific. This rule really isn't stupid, it's just gets misinterpreted by people assuming the general rule takes priority over the more specific Drop Troops doctrine rule.

Sorry if I offended you
-Skrivus