The other day, I was playing against a rules lawyer and he said that you don't have to tell your opponent what unit is inside a specific transport(which kind of screwed me over because his eldar tank turbo boosted and melta ed me to death)'

Also do you have to show your opponent your army list as well?

Everything is open book in 40K. You have to show your opponent your army list and declare which units are inside which transports. Obviously the rules around dedicated transports still apply.

So yes and yes.

The first of the previous discussions on this topic:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/304351.page

Summary version: If you and your opponent cannot agree on how to handle unit secrecy, you are directed to page two to settle the disgreement. If you can't settle the disagreement, shake hands and agree that you should not play the game after all.

Actually Solkan is incorect. The rules on page 92 under the heading "A Note On Secrecy" are quite clear on the matter. The so-called "most important rule" is not actually a rule and has nothing to do with the question at hand.

Depends. If not then there has to be a 100% way for them to prove to you that, that specific unit was in that transport from the start. Otherwise there is going to be cheating as people swap units inside depending on the tactical situation.

I common convention among my group is to put the squad leader on top of the transport to denote which squad is in which transport.

After much experimenting, I finally can physically put 20 boyz in a battlewagons. Or, to better describe it, pile them onto it. The only thing that won't fit so far are burnaz with Ghazghkull...

Don't do this at tournaments though, there are unpatient opponents who will give you the stare of death while you are untangling your boyz

I agree with putting the squad leader on top, but i play against the people who write my lists, so they generally know.

At tournaments, the way i work it is to guide the opponent through my list (as the tournament rules dictate) and point to the unit. i.e this is a unit of stormtroopers, with 2 meltas.

That way, when i put the Sgt on the top (as all my squads are painted slightly differently) if they remember who is who, then they know who is where- but more importantly, the ONLY unit who can be in the transport are those who match the sgt

The rulebook explicitly says you have to note what is in your transports clearly.

i usually make sure the opponent makes a note of which unit is in which transport(his are painted with different symbols to help this) so that he can't just decide. he then gives it to me to keep so i know he hasn't changed it when i'm not looking.

it makes it more realistic IMHO as on the battlefield you wouldn't know exactly what was in each one. Not sure on rules for this but we see it as a fair way.

I always understood it as you don't have to declare anything to your opponent. You can ask questions but they don't have to answer, part of the secrecy of battle. However, if you go by this path, you have to allow your opponent to see your army list after the game.

I personally talk my way through every single thing in the game with my opponent, place my sergeants on the transports, and am very open. However, if the game was competitive and I wanted to use decoys, I would make a note about who is in what and not let my opponent see anything until they pile out and melt their face.

Easy version- if you go secretive, write it down to prevent cheating and show your army list at the end. For friendly games, total openness is my favorite policy.

-cgmckenzie

For non-friendly game any secrecy without agreement would be against the rules on page 92.

Based on "A Note on Secrecyt" you are to exchange army lists after the game unless you agree to share lists before and/or during the game. You do need to make clear which squads are embarked on which transports. So,

Opponent: "What is in that Rhino?"
You: "A Grey Hunter pack."

That is it.

There is no secrecy in 40k. This isn't Fantasy where you can give units magic items and go "OH LOOK THIS UNIT HAS THE BANNER OF YOU LOSE!" or "OH LOOK MY SLANN HAS CUPPED HANDS, I GUESS YOU DIE NOW."

I always leave a model on top of my transport so that I know which unit is where. It's especially handy when I have normal CSM in my Khorne painted rhino.

Noisy_Marine wrote:There is no secrecy in 40k. This isn't Fantasy where you can give units magic items and go "OH LOOK THIS UNIT HAS THE BANNER OF YOU LOSE!" or "OH LOOK MY SLANN HAS CUPPED HANDS, I GUESS YOU DIE NOW."

I always leave a model on top of my transport so that I know which unit is where. It's especially handy when I have normal CSM in my Khorne painted rhino.

That isn't the issue. Leaving a CSM on top of the Khorne painted Rhino is just fine since you are letting your opponent know that the squad inside is a CSM squad which is identical to him asking and you answering,

Opponent: "What is in that Rhino?"
You: "A CSM squad."

I usually paint unit markings on all my squads with matching markings on their transports. Placing IC's on top of the transport to show where they are is something I do to help my opponent.

Armandloft wrote:I usually paint unit markings on all my squads with matching markings on their transports. Placing IC's on top of the transport to show where they are is something I do to help my opponent.

As has been mentioned in the past, during the course of a game, one unit may need to embark on another units dedicated transport so matching markings are not always a surefire way to keep within the rules. However, announcing that said unit is embarking in a different units transport keeps you within the rules.

Brother Ramses wrote:

Armandloft wrote:I usually paint unit markings on all my squads with matching markings on their transports. Placing IC's on top of the transport to show where they are is something I do to help my opponent.

As has been mentioned in the past, during the course of a game, one unit may need to embark on another units dedicated transport so matching markings are not always a surefire way to keep within the rules. However, announcing that said unit is embarking in a different units transport keeps you within the rules.

At that point, I think that it would be obvious what is where. At turn one, you can pull the transport shell game. "That was the empty Razorback you destroyed, my squad was actually in that other one."

If I embark a squad onto another squad's transport, then my opponent should know by reasoning of paying attention while playing which unit just embarked in the transport.

That shell game in turn 1 would only actually happen if your opponent forgot that said Razorback was empty since you are compelled to let your opponent know which squad is embarked in which transport.

I'm a Newb, but it seems to me you could paint a Unit Logo on a Base then put some bases upside-down on your transports. Some would be Unit markers, some would be blank markers, and there's no cheating because they're clearly marked, and you won' be able to tell if the two bases on that Rhino are the IC and the Squad, or just two blank bases.

Bounty wrote:I'm a Newb, but it seems to me you could paint a Unit Logo on a Base then put some bases upside-down on your transports. Some would be Unit markers, some would be blank markers, and there's no cheating because they're clearly marked, and you won' be able to tell if the two bases on that Rhino are the IC and the Squad, or just two blank bases.

Wow, that's actually a really good idea.

Except that per A Note on Secrecy, the default standard is to inform your opponent which unit is in which transport.

Playing with hidden markers or writing down which is in which is a perfectly okay and fun way to play with friends if they agree to it.

I've never understood the whole disclosure thing! If you want to look after the game fine with me. There is no way that your army is psychic and knows what weapons every one of my guys has and what transports they are in. Things need to to be marked and notes made to eliminate cheating. If I place a bunch of rhinos and landraiders on the field, you should have no idea what is in the realistically!

Maybe there is nothing in them and my guys are gonna come in from reserve later, you shouldn't know.

Andrew1975 wrote:I've never understood the whole disclosure thing! If you want to look after the game fine with me. There is no way that your army is psychic and knows what weapons every one of my guys has and what transports they are in. Things need to to be marked and notes made to eliminate cheating. If I place a bunch of rhinos and landraiders on the field, you should have no idea what is in the realistically!

Maybe there is nothing in them and my guys are gonna come in from reserve later, you shouldn't know.

"The rules, while creating a very rough approximation of the real world, are an abstraction of a fantasy universe. Real world examples have no bearing on how the rules work."

AkA Its better to know what is where to eliminate cheating.

short answer, yes you do. otherwise what's to stop you from saying 'oh, that squad you just blew up at my front line didn't have the meltas, it had the lascannons'

DeathReaper wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:I've never understood the whole disclosure thing! If you want to look after the game fine with me. There is no way that your army is psychic and knows what weapons every one of my guys has and what transports they are in. Things need to to be marked and notes made to eliminate cheating. If I place a bunch of rhinos and landraiders on the field, you should have no idea what is in the realistically!

Maybe there is nothing in them and my guys are gonna come in from reserve later, you shouldn't know.

"The rules, while creating a very rough approximation of the real world, are an abstraction of a fantasy universe. Real world examples have no bearing on how the rules work."

AkA Its better to know what is where to eliminate cheating.

short answer, yes you do. otherwise what's to stop you from saying 'oh, that squad you just blew up at my front line didn't have the meltas, it had the lascannons'

Ah ok we get rid of reality because we are too lazy to think of a better way! Just mark your squads and vehicles on a sheet of paper. It's not that hard.

Andrew1975 wrote:There is no way that your army is psychic [and knows what weapons every one of my guys has and what transports they are in.

Actually. This is 40k. Near enough everyone has psykers. Explains a lot as to why there is no secrecy. And if there wasnt psykers? Its still the 41st millenium. Im sure they have very sophistimicated technologies to scan the opposing army and relay information to the troops on the ground.

unbeliever87 wrote:Everything is open book in 40K. You have to show your opponent your army list and declare which units are inside which transports. Obviously the rules around dedicated transports still apply.

So yes and yes.

agreed.

If you dont declare there is alot of room for cheating.

Aandayyan wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:There is no way that your army is psychic [and knows what weapons every one of my guys has and what transports they are in.

Actually. This is 40k. Near enough everyone has psykers. Explains a lot as to why there is no secrecy. And if there wasnt psykers? Its still the 41st millenium. Im sure they have very sophistimicated technologies to scan the opposing army and relay information to the troops on the ground.

It's SO sophisticated I still need line of site to shoot most artillery!

During deployment you kinda have to tell your opponent which units are in which transports.
This includes specifying which units are kept in Reserve with intent to Deep Strike and which are kept in Reserve with intent to Outflank.

While you are not explicitly required to tell your opponent during the game, refusing to is a dick move and will only lead to you opponents starting to write down which units are in which transports, and employing their own system of marking.
This will invariably lead to delays in the game. All of which could have been avoided by simply telling your opponent.

Andrew1975 wrote:

Aandayyan wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:There is no way that your army is psychic [and knows what weapons every one of my guys has and what transports they are in.

Actually. This is 40k. Near enough everyone has psykers. Explains a lot as to why there is no secrecy. And if there wasnt psykers? Its still the 41st millenium. Im sure they have very sophistimicated technologies to scan the opposing army and relay information to the troops on the ground.

It's SO sophisticated I still need line of site to shoot most artillery!

I can't see your stealth suits, but my equipment knows what gear they have!

My "Equipment" know one of my guys is really your assassin, but it can't tell me who or what unit he is in!

It's just laziness!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Steelmage99 wrote:During deployment you kinda have to tell your opponent which units are in which transports.
This includes specifying which units are kept in Reserve with intent to Deep Strike and which are kept in Reserve with intent to Outflank.

While you are not explicitly required to tell your opponent during the game, refusing to is a dick move and will only lead to you opponents starting to write down which units are in which transports, and employing their own system of marking.
This will invariably lead to delays in the game. All of which could have been avoided by simply telling your opponent.

I don't think it's a dick move if you make a record of everything before hand. Surprise is to be expected on the battle field. The way some people play it's like you get a full intel report before hand.

Steelmage99 wrote:During deployment you kinda have to tell your opponent which units are in which transports.
This includes specifying which units are kept in Reserve with intent to Deep Strike and which are kept in Reserve with intent to Outflank.

While you are not explicitly required to tell your opponent during the game, refusing to is a dick move and will only lead to you opponents starting to write down which units are in which transports, and employing their own system of marking.
This will invariably lead to delays in the game. All of which could have been avoided by simply telling your opponent.

The player is compelled to tell you what is embarked in what.

You: What is in that Rhino?
Me: A GH pack.

That is all you get. To insist on more when the rules do not require it seems a little more of the kind of move you mention above.

And if you already agreed to full disclosure, why the need to write anything down? You already have seen the army list and/or have a copy of it in your hand. At that point "A Note on Secrecy" requirements have been fulfilled.

Brother Ramses wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:During deployment you kinda have to tell your opponent which units are in which transports.
This includes specifying which units are kept in Reserve with intent to Deep Strike and which are kept in Reserve with intent to Outflank.

While you are not explicitly required to tell your opponent during the game, refusing to is a dick move and will only lead to you opponents starting to write down which units are in which transports, and employing their own system of marking.
This will invariably lead to delays in the game. All of which could have been avoided by simply telling your opponent.

The player is compelled to tell you what is embarked in what.

You: What is in that Rhino?
Me: A GH pack.

That is all you get. To insist on more when the rules do not require it seems a little more of the kind of move you mention above.

And if you already agreed to full disclosure, why the need to write anything down? You already have seen the army list and/or have a copy of it in your hand. At that point "A Note on Secrecy" requirements have been fulfilled.

As a unit is only allowed to be deployed inside the transport bought for it, you have to be more specific than that. Unless, of course, you have several identical units with identical transports. Then you only have to declare; "that the Grey Hunters are deployed inside their transports" as it won't make a difference game-wise.
If the units (or their) transports are not completely identical, then you have to declare; "that the Grey Hunter unit with the Melta gun is in this transport and the Grey Hunter unit with the attached Wolf Guard is in this one".

As a unit is only allowed to be deployed inside the transport bought for it, you have to be more specific than that. Unless, of course, you have several identical units with identical transports. Then you only have to declare; "that the Grey Hunters are deployed inside their transports" as it won't make a difference game-wise.
If the units (or their) transports are not completely identical, then you have to declare; "that the Grey Hunter unit with the Melta gun is in this transport and the Grey Hunter unit with the attached Wolf Guard is in this one".

I don't think you should even have to tell them it's a gh pack. How would an army possibly know that!

Please, stop trying to apply Real Life physics and logic to the rules.

Steelmage99 wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:During deployment you kinda have to tell your opponent which units are in which transports.
This includes specifying which units are kept in Reserve with intent to Deep Strike and which are kept in Reserve with intent to Outflank.

While you are not explicitly required to tell your opponent during the game, refusing to is a dick move and will only lead to you opponents starting to write down which units are in which transports, and employing their own system of marking.
This will invariably lead to delays in the game. All of which could have been avoided by simply telling your opponent.

The player is compelled to tell you what is embarked in what.

You: What is in that Rhino?
Me: A GH pack.

That is all you get. To insist on more when the rules do not require it seems a little more of the kind of move you mention above.

And if you already agreed to full disclosure, why the need to write anything down? You already have seen the army list and/or have a copy of it in your hand. At that point "A Note on Secrecy" requirements have been fulfilled.

As a unit is only allowed to be deployed inside the transport bought for it, you have to be more specific than that. Unless, of course, you have several identical units with identical transports. Then you only have to declare; "that the Grey Hunters are deployed inside their transports" as it won't make a difference game-wise.
If the units (or their) transports are not completely identical, then you have to declare; "that the Grey Hunter unit with the Melta gun is in this transport and the Grey Hunter unit with the attached Wolf Guard is in this one".

You have already agreed to share your army list after, before, and/or during the game. Your opponent will already know what the squads are equipped and when you are compelled to make clear to your opponents which squads are embarked in which transport vehicles.

Squads is defined on page xii,

"Models are organized into squads, commonly of 5 or more models."

If I check in my SW codex, the composition of a GH pack is defined as,

"5-10 Grey Hunters"

So at no time am I compelled to give out how they are equipped beyond the established exchange of army lists. So as I said, identifying what squads are embarked in which transport,

"Grey Hunter pack in this Rhino"

Along with the exchange of army lists either after, before, and/or during the game is all that is required by the rule on page 92.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
GW wants to make it so you and your opponent know what is in eachother transports, just not how they are equipped. They make it pretty easy to deduce by exchanging of army lists and by simply paying attention.

How am I to check that you are actually following the rules? That you are actually deploying the correct units in the correct transports?

Only by you specifying which units are in which transport can I do that.

If, say, two Grey Hunter units are differently equipped and, Heaven forbid, have differently equipped transports, then you have to specify to allow me to check.

This, combined with WYSIWYG, makes secrecy utterly redundant and a waste of time.


I think that we, in essence, agree on the rules. Where we differ slightly is our mindset about said rules.

I agree that by having the opponents army-list and following WYSIWYG makes it easy to figure out.


My point is, that I believe it to be a waste of time to force my opponent to do that mental arithmetic when I can just as easily tell him the answer and allow us to get on with the game.
In some cases, it can be downright necessary. Should my opponent be unfamiliar with my army in general, and MY army specifically, then a requirement for him to be able to tell units/weapons/upgrades apart would, in my mind, seem unreasonable.
Insisting on keeping secrets in this case would only, I believe, lead to an uncomfortable feeling around the table as I continually refuse to answer his questions.

In short, I don't believe the secrecy-issue to be an important part of the game.
Should you feel otherwise, I totally respect that.

I don't really see the secrecy thing as an issue.

First of all, its pretty hard to cheat in 40k as most people tend to know when something dodgy has gone on. I've never met a person who cheated during a game apart from one guy who rolled a dodgy way to try to manipulate the dice.

i believe that as long as you both have legal army lists and in the event of multiple transports that they make a note of whats where then there is no problem. who's to say that future technology can scan an alien tank properly? with all the different technologies going around then it is plausible that it isn't as straightforward.

as for the deep-strike and outflank stuff, it makes for a challenging battle if there are surprises. plus it also means that for so many turns, you have all your units on the battlefield whereas your opponent has taken the gamble of starting weaker to gamble on an advantage later. I think, in most circumstances, that you can tell if someone is using less points than you and so its probably best to be cautious about the possibilty of a deep-striking unit.

this is just my opinion and i'm not singling anyone out. i've been playing for 11 years now and its always been like this for me. Coming out of a hard-fought game with a victory in the bag or even watching an opponent pull you apart with swift and well-thought tactics is the whole point of the game. focus more on your own planning and have faith in the other player to do the same and adhere to the rules.

If one feels that the rules as they stand now are illogical, then they are of course free to houserule things for their own personal games.
But for the purpose of tournaments and official rules discussions, there is no question: The game has no secrecy. Don't be a douchebag just because you want to play some cute little shellgame. Just tell your opponent what is in your transports, and what they are equipped with if he asks.
If you try to do anything but this in a tournament, I would expect a TO to be over shortly to tell you to stop being a gakker and start following the clearly and explicitly outlined rules.

That said, if you'd rather employ houserules in friendly games, then by all means go ahead! Just make clear and agree with your opponent on these houserules. If no such agreement has been made, you must assume that the actual rules are being used.
In short: If you have not explicitly agreed with your opponent to not divulge what are in the transports and what they are armed with, you are required by the rules to do so. No exceptions. No flaking. No shell games. No secrecy.
If it makes sense or not isn't relevant. It's the rules. If you have a better suggestion, I hope to see it up on the Proposed Rules subforum, where it belongs.

If you are trying to keep secrets from you enemy without agreeing beforehand, you're cheating.

If you're staring down your enemy in turn 7 because he didn't remember what squad X entered the dedicated rhino of squad Y during turn 2 three hours ago, your being TFG and and a bad sport.

In either case, try spending your time to become a better general, rather than finding nitpicks to give you an unfair advantage.

WH40k is full disclosure, if you want to hold a secret hand, go play a card game.

Brother Ramses wrote:GW wants to make it so you and your opponent know what is in eachother transports, just not how they are equipped. They make it pretty easy to deduce by exchanging of army lists and by simply paying attention.

You are wrong. You were wrong last thread when you argued you didn't have to share and secrecy was part of the game and you are wrong now.

Your models should be as transparent as if they were standing on the board fully WYSIWYG. If I ask what wargear is in that unit in that rhino 100 times you have to tell me 100 times. You don't get to say 'a generic unit, figure it out' You have to tell me explicitly what unit with what wargear and what upgrades and what character.

If I can see your models, I can probably figure it out for myself, but if you hide them off the table like you are some child playing Yu-Gi-oh who is going to activate a trap card on me, then expect that I will ask you anytime I feel like it and you will answer with full transparency.

Anything else is cheating.

Brother Ramses wrote:
You have already agreed to share your army list after, before, and/or during the game. Your opponent will already know what the squads are equipped and when you are compelled to make clear to your opponents which squads are embarked in which transport vehicles.

Squads is defined on page xii,

"Models are organized into squads, commonly of 5 or more models."

If I check in my SW codex, the composition of a GH pack is defined as,

"5-10 Grey Hunters"

So at no time am I compelled to give out how they are equipped beyond the established exchange of army lists. So as I said, identifying what squads are embarked in which transport,

"Grey Hunter pack in this Rhino"


Automatically Appended Next Post:
GW wants to make it so you and your opponent know what is in eachother transports, just not how they are equipped. They make it pretty easy to deduce by exchanging of army lists and by simply paying attention.

If it's so easy, why make such a big deal about it?

Also, page 92 says to always make clear to your opponent which squads are embarked in which transport vehicle.

"What's in that Rhino?"
"A 10 man Grey Hunters Squad."
"Okay. So that's its 'composition', but WHICH squad is it?" At this point I'm holding out the roster you handed me, asking you.

As much as people want to name call and pigeonhole, all of you are asking for information outside of the rules so are actually perpetuating that which you keep trying to label.

WYSIWYG does NOT compel you to tell you opponent what your units are equipped with. Read the rule before you try bringing it into this discussion! It is not even related and most of you just spout it out because you have heard it before from someone else just as uninformed:

What You See Is What You Get, page 47

"Character models in particular tend to have a lot of options as to what weapons and wargear they can use - given in the army list of their Codex. The rule is that such equipment must be visually represented on the model so you opponent can clearly see what they are facing. This concept is often referred to as WYSIWYG, which stands for 'what you see is what you get'.

Of course, many gamers enjoy trying out different combinations of wargear in different battles. So, if for example, a player might decide that for his next game a model's power sword will simply count as a close combat weapon, but he will also equip the model with melta bombs. While some tournaments may be more strict about this kind of thing, most opponents are happy to accommodate a small degree of one thing counting as another, so long as you explain exactly who has what at the start of the game."

If you bought the model the wargear/equipment it must be represented on the model. If it isn't, you explain it at the start of the game, and only if your opponent is willing to accommodate. Absolutely nothing to do with A Note on Secrecy.

Squads are not defined by their equipment as I have already pointed out. Read the description on page xii, Squads. Check what ever codex you play, the composition of your squads/packs/broods are defined not by how they are equipped but by what they are.

3 hours prior? How about the rest of the army and the process of elimination to determine what is left in the Rhino from the previous turn? Has the enemy been reading the latest BL novel and not paying attention the previous 3 hours of gaming?

The funny part about this is that even GW's first point is that to be fair, army lists should be shared AFTER THE GAME. GW's first suggestion is that you and your opponent do not even know what is in each army until after the game with the caveat being to make clear which squad is embarked in which transport. Not what they are equipped with, just identifying which squads are embarked in which transport.

Yet everyone takes the voluntary option between gamers to share army lists before and/or during as holy writ, which still clearly and concisely points out the rosters being shared as full disclosure, not the equipment of embarked squads. Full disclosure is not,

"Tell me what is where with what is equipped!!"

It is exchanging army lists before and/or during the game instead of after. In fact nowhere in the BRB are you directed to tell your opponent anything he wants whenever he asks as so many of you want to try and point out. It does not exist.

I believe you are going too micro. Try a bit of macro-approach.

By combining the rules for WYSIWYG, the rules/conventions for sharing armylists, the rules for deployment and the rules for the things you are forced to disclose, you are left with such small and easily-figured-out secrets that insisting on keeping them amounts to TFG-behaviour.

This is of course only my opinion and should be taken as nothing more than that.

Who's name-calling?

Your army list has:
captain
10 tac marines with plasma gun and plasma cannon, rhino
10 tac marines with melta gun and multimelta, rhino

All I want you to do is to tell me WHICH SQUAD, per the rules on page 92, is in that Rhino right there.

The "which" portion of that implies that you must provide some unique identifier. "10 tac marines" would be sufficient if there was only one squad of "10 tac marines", but otherwise it's inadequate identification, no matter how loudly you declare otherwise.

Squads are not defined by their equipment as I have already pointed out. Read the description on page xii, Squads. Check what ever codex you play, the composition of your squads/packs/broods are defined not by how they are equipped but by what they are.

Wrong, page XII is not rules. Really, even if you ignore the 178 page long chapter named "Rules", the roman numbers should be a dead giveaway. The actual rules(pg. 3) tells us that "squads" are "units". Units differ in game terms if any models differ in game terms. Models differ in game terms if they have a different statline and/or wargear. A unit entry is not the same thing as a unit.

3 hours prior? How about the rest of the army and the process of elimination to determine what is left in the Rhino from the previous turn? Has the enemy been reading the latest BL novel and not paying attention the previous 3 hours of gaming?

I quite often have two or more battlewagons and/or trukks left on turn 7, while many of them have transported up to three units over the course of the game. Now guess in which of the two battlewagons(or even the trukk?) the bigmek has gone after his BW got destroyed on turn 2 and never did anything meaningful after that. He left one unit of boyz to join some burnaz in another battlewagon, who then charged something and the surviving two entered a trukk to not give up a killpoint easily. Did the bigmek charge with them? Maybe. Now my army might be a bad example, as my vehicles are all different colors and look different, so that might even be easy. But lets say I run all looted, identical, grey rhinos, the ones with a little red dot count as trukks, the other ones without are battlewagons. Try to find out by looking at my list! I guess, as you don't remember anyway, he will be in whatever Rhino-BW you decide to shoot.

The funny part about this is that even GW's first point is that to be fair, army lists should be shared AFTER THE GAME. GW's first suggestion is that you and your opponent do not even know what is in each army until after the game with the caveat being to make clear which squad is embarked in which transport. Not what they are equipped with, just identifying which squads are embarked in which transport.

As stated above, a squad is defined by it's equipment and statlines, not by the name of it's unit entry.

Yet everyone takes the voluntary option between gamers to share army lists before and/or during as holy writ, which still clearly and concisely points out the rosters being shared as full disclosure, not the equipment of embarked squads. Full disclosure is not,

Actually in my gaming group, we don't exchange lists at all most of the time, unless someone wants to see afterward. Perfectly fine, unless you actually refuse to show the list to someone, which would imply you were cheating.

"Tell me what is where with what is equipped!!"

It is exchanging army lists before and/or during the game instead of after. In fact nowhere in the BRB are you directed to tell your opponent anything he wants whenever he asks as so many of you want to try and point out. It does not exist.

"In the same spirit always make clear to your opponent which squads are embarked in which transport vehicle."( BRB pg. 92)

Whats so hard to understand about that?

If you really want to ruin you opponents day that hard, wait till he has deployed his army, then swipe everything off the table onto the ground and tell him to hurry up deploying und accuse him of using bad glue on the vehicle that broke. No rules against that in the BRB. You'll be done ruining the others players day way faster than actually playing him, and he still suffers as long as he would when playing you. Win-Win.

Jidmah wrote:

If you really want to ruin you opponents day that hard, wait till he has deployed his army, then swipe everything off the table onto the ground and tell him to hurry up deploying und accuse him of using bad glue on the vehicle that broke. No rules against that in the BRB. You'll be done ruining the others players day way faster than actually playing him, and he still suffers as long as he would when playing you. Win-Win.

Then he wouldn't have a full army and thus would have to concede. Genius! I feel my W/L ratio increasing already.

Brother Ramses wrote:As much as people want to name call and pigeonhole, all of you are asking for information outside of the rules so are actually perpetuating that which you keep trying to label.

WYSIWYG does NOT compel you to tell you opponent what your units are equipped with. Read the rule before you try bringing it into this discussion! It is not even related and most of you just spout it out because you have heard it before from someone else just as uninformed:

No, WYSIWYG prevents me from having to ask 100 times because I can look at the models and figure out the gear.

The note on secrecy and the fact this is a full disclosure game compels you to tell your opponent what units are equipped with. I can ask you at any time to tell me what any model or unit or unit inside a transport is and you have to tell me everything about that model. You don't have the right to hide that info. If you refuse, you are cheating and the game is over, that simple.

Jidmah wrote:

Squads are not defined by their equipment as I have already pointed out. Read the description on page xii, Squads. Check what ever codex you play, the composition of your squads/packs/broods are defined not by how they are equipped but by what they are.

Wrong, page XII is not rules. Really, even if you ignore the 178 page long chapter named "Rules", the roman numbers should be a dead giveaway. The actual rules(pg. 3) tells us that "squads" are "units". Units differ in game terms if any models differ in game terms. Models differ in game terms if they have a different statline and/or wargear. A unit entry is not the same thing as a unit.

3 hours prior? How about the rest of the army and the process of elimination to determine what is left in the Rhino from the previous turn? Has the enemy been reading the latest BL novel and not paying attention the previous 3 hours of gaming?

I quite often have two or more battlewagons and/or trukks left on turn 7, while many of them have transported up to three units over the course of the game. Now guess in which of the two battlewagons(or even the trukk?) the bigmek has gone after his BW got destroyed on turn 2 and never did anything meaningful after that. He left one unit of boyz to join some burnaz in another battlewagon, who then charged something and the surviving two entered a trukk to not give up a killpoint easily. Did the bigmek charge with them? Maybe. Now my army might be a bad example, as my vehicles are all different colors and look different, so that might even be easy. But lets say I run all looted, identical, grey rhinos, the ones with a little red dot count as trukks, the other ones without are battlewagons. Try to find out by looking at my list! I guess, as you don't remember anyway, he will be in whatever Rhino-BW you decide to shoot.

The funny part about this is that even GW's first point is that to be fair, army lists should be shared AFTER THE GAME. GW's first suggestion is that you and your opponent do not even know what is in each army until after the game with the caveat being to make clear which squad is embarked in which transport. Not what they are equipped with, just identifying which squads are embarked in which transport.

As stated above, a squad is defined by it's equipment and statlines, not by the name of it's unit entry.

Yet everyone takes the voluntary option between gamers to share army lists before and/or during as holy writ, which still clearly and concisely points out the rosters being shared as full disclosure, not the equipment of embarked squads. Full disclosure is not,

Actually in my gaming group, we don't exchange lists at all most of the time, unless someone wants to see afterward. Perfectly fine, unless you actually refuse to show the list to someone, which would imply you were cheating.

"Tell me what is where with what is equipped!!"

It is exchanging army lists before and/or during the game instead of after. In fact nowhere in the BRB are you directed to tell your opponent anything he wants whenever he asks as so many of you want to try and point out. It does not exist.

"In the same spirit always make clear to your opponent which squads are embarked in which transport vehicle."( BRB pg. 92)

Whats so hard to understand about that?

If you really want to ruin you opponents day that hard, wait till he has deployed his army, then swipe everything off the table onto the ground and tell him to hurry up deploying und accuse him of using bad glue on the vehicle that broke. No rules against that in the BRB. You'll be done ruining the others players day way faster than actually playing him, and he still suffers as long as he would when playing you. Win-Win.

And yet all I have to do is point out to you that all the GH with a black X on their knee pad are in that Rhino with the black Y on the hatch. I have identified which squad is embarked in which transport. Done. As I have continued to point out, you do not need to disclose how the squads are equipped to identify them. The result is exactly the same as,

"What is in that rhino?'

"A GH pack."

Because you have not gleaned any information about what the GH pack in said Rhino is equipped with and yet identified what squad is embarked on which Rhino.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nkelsch wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:As much as people want to name call and pigeonhole, all of you are asking for information outside of the rules so are actually perpetuating that which you keep trying to label.

WYSIWYG does NOT compel you to tell you opponent what your units are equipped with. Read the rule before you try bringing it into this discussion! It is not even related and most of you just spout it out because you have heard it before from someone else just as uninformed:

No, WYSIWYG prevents me from having to ask 100 times because I can look at the models and figure out the gear.

The note on secrecy and the fact this is a full disclosure game compels you to tell your opponent what units are equipped with. I can ask you at any time to tell me what any model or unit or unit inside a transport is and you have to tell me everything about that model. You don't have the right to hide that info. If you refuse, you are cheating and the game is over, that simple.

Wrong.

Read the rule and come back. At no time are you required to tell your opponent whatever he wants whenever he asks. Full disclosure is telling your opponent which squad is embarked in which transport and sharing your army lists either after, before, and/or during. Read the rule before trying to just arbitrarily create a rule. As I pointed out to Jid, I can just as easily tell you which squad is embarked on which transport by paint jobs or other distinguishing markings without disclosing what they are equipped with.

Read the rule before you try calling out people on cheating.

Okay, so what you're saying is that you tell people that your Grey Hunter squad with the X on the kneepad are in Rhino Y. They then look over at your squad sitting off-table and see what weapons they're equipped with. Unless you're secreting them away to gloat over while exclaiming, 'my pressssssssscious,' like some kind of donkey-cave, then your opponent has all the information he needs to know what's in the transport.

Which brings me to my next point: Why play all coy and try to be elusive, when you could just save everyone else the hassle and respond to the situation like everyone else does, which is just offer the information up?

daedalus wrote:Okay, so what you're saying is that you tell people that your Grey Hunter squad with the X on the kneepad are in Rhino Y. They then look over at your squad sitting off-table and see what weapons they're equipped with. Unless you're secreting them away to gloat over while exclaiming, 'my pressssssssscious,' like some kind of donkey-cave, then your opponent has all the information he needs to know what's in the transport.

Which brings me to my next point: Why play all coy and try to be elusive, when you could just save everyone else the hassle and respond to the situation like everyone else does, which is just offer the information up?

Nice going with the name-calling to only prove my earlier point.

Every tournament I have played the tables have a lower level on them where a gaming tray holds your models, so they are off table anyway. Embarked models are considered off the table anyway in game terms so I don't see your point.

Two siimple questions;

Has the GH with the X on his kneepad that is embarked in the Rhino with the Y on the hatch been identified as to which squad has embarked on which transport?

When I disembark that pack of GH with X's on their kneepads from the Rhino with the Y on the hatch and the melta gunners have melta guns, the powerfist GH has a powerfist, the wolf standard bearer has a wolf standard, and the Mark of the Wulfen model with two chainswords and facial tattoo (as explained BEFORE the game as being the Mark of the Wulfen model per WYSIWYG) has two chainswords and a facial tattoo, has WYSIWYG been fullfilled?

So then what is your problem?

The squad has been identified, what transport they are embarked in has been identified, and they are WYSIWYG.

I see, you want me to identify them by YOUR standard that is not supported at all by the rules. Good luck with that.

its the only way to make sure you opponent is not cheating so yes. I usually put sarge or nob or whoever is in it on top of it. Only douche bags have to use secrecy to win.

Ah, this thread again.

BR- by saying "a" gh pack you have not complied, unless you only have one gh pack. Aka you've cheated. You failed in your own thread, and you're missing the mark again.

tgf wrote:its the only way to make sure you opponent is not cheating so yes. I usually put sarge or nob or whoever is in it on top of it. Only douche bags have to use secrecy to win.

And yet, this does nothing to tell you what the unit embarked is equipped with. By your own actions are you a douche bag? I don't think so as you have identified what unit is embarked by placing a representative of said embarked unit on the transport.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Ah, this thread again.

BR- by saying "a" gh pack you have not complied, unless you only have one gh pack. Aka you've cheated. You failed in your own thread, and you're missing the mark again.

Nos, popping in any thread with a one liner or two continually using the term "fail" or some variation of it only shows that it is really you that are failing.

How about answering the two questions I asked above and then by all means tell me how that the rules have not been fulfilled?

Brother Ramses wrote:
Two siimple questions;

Has the GH with the X on his kneepad that is embarked in the Rhino with the Y on the hatch been identified as to which squad has embarked on which transport?

When I disembark that pack of GH with X's on their kneepads from the Rhino with the Y on the hatch and the melta gunners have melta guns, the powerfist GH has a powerfist, the wolf standard bearer has a wolf standard, and the Mark of the Wulfen model with two chainswords and facial tattoo (as explained BEFORE the game as being the Mark of the Wulfen model per WYSIWYG) has two chainswords and a facial tattoo, has WYSIWYG been fullfilled?

Does your army list identify which GH squad has the X on their kneepad?

Do you have the models on view so that the squad with the X can clearly be seen?

If neither, then you have not adequately identified the unit as you could proceed to pull any models with X on them out of your army case.

Brother Ramses wrote:
And yet, this does nothing to tell you what the unit embarked is equipped with. By your own actions are you a douche bag? I don't think so as you have identified what unit is embarked by placing a representative of said embarked unit on the transport.

Sure it does...

1. "I an putting this Nob on my Trukk... he is from 'this' unit" Point to my sideboard. My opponent can inspect those models and see the WYSIWYG for them and know the equipment.
2. "I an putting this Nob on my Trukk... he is from 'Gorbags krusha boyz' on my armylist" My opponent can inspect my army list and see what the guys inside have.
3. "I an putting this Nob on my Trukk... The guys in this trukk are a basic trukk boy unit with a PK nob and a rokkit launcha and the rest are sluggas. If you need to know, just ask me again. " My opponent can ask again and again 'those are sluggas?' all game if he wants. Preferably doing 1 or 2 means he can remember easier.

No matter how it is done, the basic fact is he has the right to full disclosure at any time during the game and in any way he wants it. And you should try to accommodate him the best way you can either via a clear armylist, visual WYSIWYG or constantly re-explaining.

Anything else makes you a cheater... unless your opponent has agreed to special secrecy rules.

Brother Ramses wrote:
Nice going with the name-calling to only prove my earlier point.

Well, I was failing to meet your previous expectations, and that's a big thing where I come from, so I figured I should make sure to oblige.

Every tournament I have played the tables have a lower level on them where a gaming tray holds your models, so they are off table anyway. Embarked models are considered off the table anyway in game terms so I don't see your point.

And every tournament I have played at would be astounded at your unwillingness to share information openly. Furthermore, every one of them also expected you to provide your list to your opponent upfront.

Two siimple questions;

Has the GH with the X on his kneepad that is embarked in the Rhino with the Y on the hatch been identified as to which squad has embarked on which transport?

Well, there's no game definition of what it means to be identified, so we need to fall back to English. M-W says that identify means to 'establish the identity of'. Now the question here is whether their identity is an expression of game terms, or what paint is on the models. Since DA ROOLZ do not offer any provision for two units with different paint schemes being different, I can only assume that the only way to differentiate the units would be through dictating what wargear they have, or pointing them out either on a roster or on the side of the board.

When I disembark that pack of GH with X's on their kneepads from the Rhino with the Y on the hatch and the melta gunners have melta guns, the powerfist GH has a powerfist, the wolf standard bearer has a wolf standard, and the Mark of the Wulfen model with two chainswords and facial tattoo (as explained BEFORE the game as being the Mark of the Wulfen model per WYSIWYG) has two chainswords and a facial tattoo, has WYSIWYG been fullfilled?

Yes, but that's immaterial, because it never had anything to do with it to begin with.

I see, you want me to identify them by YOUR standard that is not supported at all by the rules. Good luck with that.

Ditto.

I do have a couple other questions though that could settle this from my point of view. What tournaments do you play in? What state is your FLGS in? Do you actually discuss this with your opponents during deployment?

Andrew1975 wrote:

As a unit is only allowed to be deployed inside the transport bought for it, you have to be more specific than that. Unless, of course, you have several identical units with identical transports. Then you only have to declare; "that the Grey Hunters are deployed inside their transports" as it won't make a difference game-wise.
If the units (or their) transports are not completely identical, then you have to declare; "that the Grey Hunter unit with the Melta gun is in this transport and the Grey Hunter unit with the attached Wolf Guard is in this one".

I don't think you should even have to tell them it's a gh pack. How would an army possibly know that!

Actually quite easy. Imagery, signals, scouts observations, live video feeds from drones, etc etc etc. Years back, during an exercise, we told the commander where all of his vehicles were, who they belonged to, and for some of them the drivers name.

Bottom line, the rules say that if I ask, you tell. Nothing more really needs to be said.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tgf wrote:its the only way to make sure you opponent is not cheating so yes. I usually put sarge or nob or whoever is in it on top of it. Only douche bags have to use secrecy to win.

Call it what it is, cheating. I've had someone try to pull the shell game on me (at a GW GT, no less), so I tend to insist on FULL disclosure. Yes, that means equipment, since for all I know you have two squads with the same symbols in your case.

The point of identifying which squad is in which transport is nothing to do with psychics, intelligence or other such concern, it is to prevent cheats from teleporting squads between different transports as is most convenient to gain them their best advantage.

Obviously no member of DakkaDakka would ever stoop so low as to indulge that behaviour, but there are people who would.

I don't see how saying that this rhino contains GH squad 1 and this one contains GH squad 2 isn't telling you what squad is in what vehicle. You don't need to tell your opponent which one has which gear and could in fact, if so inclined, do all your unit names in cyrilic or some other such language you don't expect your opponent to know so even looking at your list won't tell them which is squad 1 and which is squad 2. Each squad is still clearly labeled with all the correct info on the sheet, just because you chose non-english/non-native language names for your squads doesn't mean that the info doesn't exist or isn't clear to a player that knows your coding system of choice.

Example if I want to label things like this on my sheet: *Subject to the internet translators used for this example giving the right translation.*
Šedá lovec komando dva
Серые/Пепельные Хантер Squad двух
グレーのハンター隊（の・もの・人）
گري شكارچي جوخه دو

There is no less information and I can still say that I have GH squads 1, 2, 3, & 4. Pointless, perhaps, but not at all against the rules which never say that your list need all be in one language or that your opponent needs to know your coding system. Nothing to say that you need to show the TO the same way of typing your list as you do your opponent either so long as both are the same and clearly legible to somebody able to read them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:The point of identifying which squad is in which transport is nothing to do with psychics, intelligence or other such concern, it is to prevent cheats from teleporting squads between different transports as is most convenient to gain them their best advantage.

Obviously no member of DakkaDakka would ever stoop so low as to indulge that behaviour, but there are people who would.

If I put a slip of paper or daub of paint at the bottom of each transport and keep a list of what's in what updated as the game goes on cheating would be impossible anyway. If my opponent asks where a squad is I give them no less info by saying the GH squad is in the rhino with white paint beneath it than I do pointing to a rhino, the difference is that while I know which rhino is where he/she might not.

I always tell my opponent and put one model from the squad in the transport (open back of trukks ftw)
It's just plain nice..

Norade wrote:
If I put a slip of paper or daub of paint at the bottom of each transport and keep a list of what's in what updated as the game goes on cheating would be impossible anyway.

I'm not even going to touch the erroneousness in that statement. That's like saying government can not be corrupt because the government is stopping itself from being corrupt.

If my opponent asks where a squad is I give them no less info by saying the GH squad is in the rhino with white paint beneath it than I do pointing to a rhino, the difference is that while I know which rhino is where he/she might not.

But which squad is in that Rhino? I get to know because of page 92, and you've still not told me. You've talked about your paintjobs, which I'm sure are quite nice, but you've not told me which squad is in that Rhino.

BR- I asked how you saying :

"a gh pack"

Could positively identify THE actual gh unit, when you have more than one? It doesn't, of course.

You are required to identify the actual unit at all times when asked. 40k is, by default, full disclosure.

daedalus wrote:

Norade wrote:
If I put a slip of paper or daub of paint at the bottom of each transport and keep a list of what's in what updated as the game goes on cheating would be impossible anyway.

I'm not even going to touch the erroneousness in that statement. That's like saying government can not be corrupt because the government is stopping itself from being corrupt.

What if I instead build a paper holder beneath each transport and slide a new slip in each time a new unit enters.

If my opponent asks where a squad is I give them no less info by saying the GH squad is in the rhino with white paint beneath it than I do pointing to a rhino, the difference is that while I know which rhino is where he/she might not.

But which squad is in that Rhino? I get to know because of page 92, and you've still not told me. You've talked about your paintjobs, which I'm sure are quite nice, but you've not told me which squad is in that Rhino.

No, I told you that the GH squad is in the rhino, if I only had one that would be it. With more than one I would say GH squad 2 is in the rhino with the white paint beneath it and the slip of paper representing GH squad 2 in the holder beneath. You now have all the info you need and still might not know which transport is which as I wouldn't allow you to touch my model at the table to check.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:BR- I asked how you saying :

"a gh pack"

Could positively identify THE actual gh unit, when you have more than one? It doesn't, of course.

You are required to identify the actual unit at all times when asked. 40k is, by default, full disclosure.

You can ID it by number and simply write that number on your sheet in another language so the opponent can't read it. The info is still just as there as it ever was.

At which point you have an illegal army list, as its contents cannot be verified by both players.

You have failed to identify the actual unit. entirely so.

I think it would increase the strategy of the game if there were some system of secrecy without the ability to cheat. Because as soon as you know what vehicle is holding that really powerful nasty squad of course its going to be priority #1 in shooting.

Since there isn't and you do have to divulge all information...

What I have done to get around this is that all my raiders carry the same stuff 9 wyches and a hekatrix. One raider has the Duke in it which if you really want to kill it doesn't make that big of a difference since I already got his ability for combat drugs. And when there is 6 raiders full of nasty CC monsters it makes target prioritizing pointless.

Norade wrote:

What if I instead build a paper holder beneath each transport and slide a new slip in each time a new unit enters.

Then I would be confused as to why that would be different. Without the ability to know what is on each slip of paper, how do I know you're not just playing a cup game on me? The burden is on you to prove you're not cheating, just as it's on me to prove I'm not cheating, and your method doesn't hold up your end.

No, I told you that the GH squad is in the rhino, if I only had one that would be it. With more than one I would say GH squad 2 is in the rhino with the white paint beneath it and the slip of paper representing GH squad 2 in the holder beneath. You now have all the info you need and still might not know which transport is which as I wouldn't allow you to touch my model at the table to check.

What's 'GH squad 2'? You've given me a name that doesn't correlate with anything; it's not a valid identifier because it doesn't identify what squad you're talking about. It's a label, yes, true, but until you correlate it to a squad, it's meaningless.

If you hand me a roster (with point values and upgrades, of course) that has GH squad 2 on it, however, then you've identified what squad is in the transport.

You can ID it by number and simply write that number on your sheet in another language so the opponent can't read it. The info is still just as there as it ever was.

That's not identifying a squad. That's wasting my time. And it's CERTAINLY NOT 'full disclosure'. You can't disclose something if you make it so that the other person can't understand it. Might as well have said you write your entire lists in invisible ink and then act surprised when people get bent out of shape about it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:At which point you have an illegal army list, as its contents cannot be verified by both players.

You have failed to identify the actual unit. entirely so.

Hardly, each player can see the symbols on the page equally well and so long as things such as points costs and gear are listed in legible form you can name your squads whatever you like.

Norade wrote:Pointless, perhaps, but not at all against the rules which never say that your list need all be in one language or that your opponent needs to know your coding system.

Let me get this straight.

You're claiming that showing your opponent an army list written in a code that only you know is full disclosure? Seriously?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Norade wrote: but not at all against the rules which never say that your list need all be in one language

Do the rules give you permission to use other languages?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Norade wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:At which point you have an illegal army list, as its contents cannot be verified by both players.

You have failed to identify the actual unit. entirely so.

Hardly, each player can see the symbols on the page equally well and so long as things such as points costs and gear are listed in legible form you can name your squads whatever you like.

But you have still failed to identify which squad in your army is inside the transport.

That wasn't the premise, though. Nothing about upgrade being legible.

daedalus wrote:

Norade wrote:

What if I instead build a paper holder beneath each transport and slide a new slip in each time a new unit enters.

Then I would be confused as to why that would be different. Without the ability to know what is on each slip of paper, how do I know you're not just playing a cup game on me? The burden is on you to prove you're not cheating, just as it's on me to prove I'm not cheating, and your method doesn't hold up your end.

No, seeing as you can't prove a negative you'd actually have to prove that I did cheat. Innocent until proven guilty and all that. If you think otherwise then prove that there isn't an invisible floating being floating behind my left ear that nobody but can see or interact with.

No, I told you that the GH squad is in the rhino, if I only had one that would be it. With more than one I would say GH squad 2 is in the rhino with the white paint beneath it and the slip of paper representing GH squad 2 in the holder beneath. You now have all the info you need and still might not know which transport is which as I wouldn't allow you to touch my model at the table to check.

What's 'GH squad 2'? You've given me a name that doesn't correlate with anything; it's not a valid identifier because it doesn't identify what squad you're talking about. It's a label, yes, true, but until you correlate it to a squad, it's meaningless.

If you hand me a roster (with point values and upgrades, of course) that has GH squad 2 on it, however, then you've identified what squad is in the transport.

Great, I'll show you my paper with squad names written in four languages and let you sort it all out. All the info would be there you just wouldn't be ale to read it and that's frankly your issue and not mine.

You can ID it by number and simply write that number on your sheet in another language so the opponent can't read it. The info is still just as there as it ever was.

That's not identifying a squad. That's wasting my time. And it's CERTAINLY NOT 'full disclosure'. You can't disclose something if you make it so that the other person can't understand it. Might as well have said you write your entire lists in invisible ink and then act surprised when people get bent out of shape about it.

How is that not full disclosure? The words all mean the same thing regardless of how I write them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:That wasn't the premise, though. Nothing about upgrade being legible.

I never stated that anything but squad names would be in other languages you made that assumption all on your own.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Scott-S6 wrote:

Norade wrote:Pointless, perhaps, but not at all against the rules which never say that your list need all be in one language or that your opponent needs to know your coding system.

Let me get this straight.

You're claiming that showing your opponent an army list written in a code that only you know is full disclosure? Seriously?

Using other languages that exist and are spoken is hardly a code only I know.

Norade wrote: but not at all against the rules which never say that your list need all be in one language

Do the rules give you permission to use other languages?

Do they need to and do you mean to say you wouldn't play with say a french player who speaks passable English but prefers to write in his native language? Does this change if he's Russian?

Norade wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:At which point you have an illegal army list, as its contents cannot be verified by both players.

You have failed to identify the actual unit. entirely so.

Hardly, each player can see the symbols on the page equally well and so long as things such as points costs and gear are listed in legible form you can name your squads whatever you like.

But you have still failed to identify which squad in your army is inside the transport.

No, I've told you that squad two is in the yellow daubed rhino. That you can't see the yellow paint at anytime that isn't deployment or the end of the game and that you can't read the language I wrote squad two in doesn't mean a thing.

Norade wrote:No, seeing as you can't prove a negative you'd actually have to prove that I did cheat.

This is not really true.

Norade wrote:Innocent until proven guilty and all that.

In U.S. courts, sure. It really should not get that far.

Norade wrote:If you think otherwise then prove that there isn't an invisible floating being floating behind my left ear that nobody but can see or interact with.

Really?

Try this and then try again.

Yes. You have to tell them.

kirsanth wrote:

Norade wrote:No, seeing as you can't prove a negative you'd actually have to prove that I did cheat.

This is not really true.

Norade wrote:Innocent until proven guilty and all that.

In U.S. courts, sure. It really should not get that far.

Norade wrote:If you think otherwise then prove that there isn't an invisible floating being floating behind my left ear that nobody but can see or interact with.

Really?

Try this and then try again.

Yes. You have to tell them.

Great, then I suppose you'll prove one way or the other with definitive proof that there is or isn't an almighty God. You'll also prove that I've never dreamed of a purple sphere with a yellow dot on it. Wait, you won't? How odd.

Cheaters in favor of these complicated non-disclosure are breaking the game way past the most important rule. The basic social contract of human interaction has broken down way before you give someone a coded army list.

Also, the game is not balanced for secrecy as transports would need their points values drastically increased in order to make up for the severe disadvantage footslogging units would have as they would be exposed visually.

Don't cheat, just do full disclosure. You are not playing Yu-Gi-oh and the game doesn't need secrecy to be tactical.

Norade wrote:

No, seeing as you can't prove a negative you'd actually have to prove that I did cheat. Innocent until proven guilty and all that. If you think otherwise then prove that there isn't an invisible floating being floating behind my left ear that nobody but can see or interact with.

Which is completely fine if you let me roll all my dice in secret. Since you can't see my dice, you can't prove I didn't cheat. Innocent until proven guilty right? As far as there being an invisible being floating behind your left ear, I think we should both forget about him. He doesn't have anything to do with the rules, and besides, you should be more concerned with the one floating behind your right ear. He told me he doesn't like you and he knows where you live.

No, I told you that the GH squad is in the rhino, if I only had one that would be it. With more than one I would say GH squad 2 is in the rhino with the white paint beneath it and the slip of paper representing GH squad 2 in the holder beneath. You now have all the info you need and still might not know which transport is which as I wouldn't allow you to touch my model at the table to check.
Great, I'll show you my paper with squad names written in four languages and let you sort it all out. All the info would be there you just wouldn't be ale to read it and that's frankly your issue and not mine.

And as there's no "GH Squad 2" written on that paper, you've still not identified which squad is in the Rhino. You might have "Hombres de Cazador Gris" (apologies for bad Spanish. Not a native) written on your sheet, but that's not what you said earlier.

How is that not full disclosure? The words all mean the same thing regardless of how I write them.

It's not full disclosure because it's not a language I understand. You're playing immature kid games, rather than playing 40k.

I never stated that anything but squad names would be in other languages you made that assumption all on your own.

Which I suppose is fine, if you indicate to us which one is which. If you're doing it in a way we can't understand, then it's not an indication to us. In order to communicate you must be understood as well as be speaking. It's a pretty fundamental concept.

Using other languages that exist and are spoken is hardly a code only I know.

It doesn't matter if the other person playing doesn't get it.

Do they need to and do you mean to say you wouldn't play with say a french player who speaks passable English but prefers to write in his native language? Does this change if he's Russian?

If he prefers writing in French, that's fine. I would ask him for the English translation and write it next to each unit myself. Language is not, nor does it need to be, a barrier to play.

No, I've told you that squad two is in the yellow daubed rhino. That you can't see the yellow paint at anytime that isn't deployment or the end of the game and that you can't read the language I wrote squad two in doesn't mean a thing.

There is no yellow Rhino, you can't speak the language to vocalize whatever translation of 'squad two' you're trying to gyp us with, and I can't read it. This game never happened because you can't consent to the social contract necessary to play it, because you can't even select a consistent language with which we can play, and are wasting our time at best, and outright trolling at worst.

Which squad is in this Rhino?

N - and at that moment in time you still have not identified the squad.

A failure on your Parr to communicate understanding is a failure on your part to identify. You cannot weasel out of your responsibility to the game.

I suppose if you did try these attempts to cheat, it would be early enough to walk away without wasting too much time. Or for a tourney ref to laugh and remove you from the tourney. and, if its part of the uk scene potentially further tournaments as well.

I find this hilarious.

People need to read what GW considers full disclosure on page 92 and then compare it to the crap they keep spouting as full disclosure. It is clear as day what GW considers full disclosure and it sure as hell never says tell your opponent whatever he wants whenever he asks.

And then to top it off, most of you are not even about distinguishing which squad is in which transport but only about what each squad is equipped with. Several examples have been given to determine which squad is with what transport, which is what the rule specifically calls for, and yet the call continues to for disclosure of equipment as a means of identifying under the falsehood of "full disclosire".

Before anyone spouts off, "full disclosure dictates anything asked has to be answered" read the fricking rule for what GW has dictated as "full disclosure". It is clearly laid out.

Identifying squads is not dictated by equipment at all. Those of you that are insisting on it as well as insisting that it is required are not within the rules on page 92 at all. It is you wanting equipment disclosure for equipment disclosure sake only.

Brother Ramses wrote:

And then to top it off, most of you are not even about distinguishing which squad is in which transport but only about what each squad is equipped with.

There is no difference. You can't distinguish the squad without distinguishing everything about it.

Either you tell them what it has, show them via wysiwyg models or pointing out the unit on a full army list, all 3 give every last piece of wargear and information about the squad. It is full disclosure.

So refuse is to be cheating.

Stop cheating, no one plays the game the way you are suggesting and the game is not balanced for it.

nkelsch wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:

And then to top it off, most of you are not even about distinguishing which squad is in which transport but only about what each squad is equipped with.

There is no difference. You can't distinguish the squad without distinguishing everything about it.

Either you tell them what it has, show them via wysiwyg models or pointing out the unit on a full army list, all 3 give every last piece of wargear and information about the squad. It is full disclosure.

So refuse is to be cheating.

Stop cheating, no one plays the game the way you are suggesting and the game is not balanced for it.

Yea, I can totally see how you need the DNA of two different peole to tell them apart. Read what GW asks for in full disclosure, per the rules, not what you just make up, and then try posting again.

You share lists after the game, unless you agree to full disclosure at which you can share the lists before and?or after. You have to make clear which squad is embarked in which transport to your opponent which can easily be done with distinguishing paint and or markings.

See how I did that? Full disclosure is not answering everything your opponent asks despite how wrong everyone keep defining full disclosure.

Brother Ramses wrote:

Yea, I can totally see how you need the DNA of two different peole to tell them apart. Read what GW asks for in full disclosure, per the rules, not what you just make up, and then try posting again.

You share lists after the game, unless you agree to full disclosure at which you can share the lists before and?or after. You have to make clear which squad is embarked in which transport to your opponent which can easily be done with distinguishing paint and or markings.

See how I did that? Full disclosure is not answering everything your opponent asks despite how wrong everyone keep defining full disclosure.

You are wrong. Nothing distinguishes units except for wargear. To distinguish, you have to disclose full wargear. Otherwise I could have two trukk boy units, one with a PK and one without, and the Pk ends up in the trukk that survives shooting.

You are purposefully parsing words to cheat and are playing the game wrong. Also, if you are not playing WYSIWYG then you HAVE to disclose your proxies and have opponents permission to proxy. If you do not fully disclose every piece of wargear on every unit at any time, you are cheating.

I just love how you always ignore any part of my posts that actually counter your arguments, Ramses. I actually had a remark about that in there, but deleted it. Should have known better.

There rules says you always have to make clear what unit is riding the Rhino I'm pointing at.
If you answer "Grey Hunters", I'm not clear about it.
If you refuse to answer "Which one?", your violating the rule, because you didn't make it clear to me.
If I'm confused about your hieroglyphic squad markings, you didn't make it clear to me.
If your list is written in a foreign language and you refer to something I can't understand, you didn't make it clear to me.
If you say "the green ones in my suitcase", you didn't make it clear to me.
If there is no "Grey Hunters 2" on your list but only "!§$%&/" and ")(/&%", you didn't make it clear to me.
If you show me your models sitting on the side, thats clear.
If you numbered(or equivalent) on your Grey Hunters and I can find "Grey Hunters 2" on your list, that's clear.
If you simply tell me, that's clear too, surprise.

If you don't make clear what unit is in what transport, you are violating the rules.

As for norade: How about encoding my list in a high level encryption algorithm? The information is right there, you only need a high-power computer and about ten years to decode it without my decryption key. While you do that I'll just pull the special weapons out of my case as I need them when disembarking. Not my fault you don't have my decryption key to find "Grey Hunters 2" in that list. How's that not full disclosure?
As soon as you hide or encode(languages are code) anything, you have the option to cheat.

The only way to ever not tell your opponent what exactly is in your transports, is agreeing to do that before the game.

Ramses,

You have in your list:

Captain
10 Tac marines, melta, multi-melta, Rhino
10 Tac marines, plasma, plasma cannon, Rhino

You put on the table:

Two rhinos.

I point at a Rhino and ask:

"Per page 92, which squad is in this Rhino?"

Please tell me how you answer that question.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, please tell me what state you play in, what tournaments you play in, and whether you discuss this prior to games with your opponents. If you do that, chances are I'll not contest anything you say on this topic ever again.

In tourny play, I bring 1list for the Mod, 1 List for me and 1 List for my Enemy. On the list of mine and the Mods i annotate which squads are in which transports, and only the basic list to my enemy. That way the mod can be there to keep honesty (not that he needs to but for the sake of the other player.) In friendly games though, openness is the best policy.

I don't think I've ever played a single person who wouldn't tell me exactly what squad is in what vehicle (and what they're armed with). It's like...I don't know...inconceivable to me why you'd want to play any other way. Unless you agreed before hand to do it that way as part of some special mission.

Is it so painful just to say, "yeah, that squad has a meltagun, a powerfist, and meltabombs"...? What's the issue here, other than trying to make what's supposed to be a fun game decidedly un-fun for your opponent?

Also, because these things seem to be important for some reason, it was the Rhino on the (my) left, and it was predominantly a dark green with some rust toward the bottom with a white number "8675309" on it. Long as we're referencing paint schemes and other things that have no bearing on anything in DA ROOLZ, it also has a pink flamingo painted on it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
We'll say you've been referring to the Rhino as "Maggie" as well. It might be a reference to Ms. Thatcher. I'm not entirely sure.

The Thunder Child wrote:In tourny play, I bring 1list for the Mod, 1 List for me and 1 List for my Enemy. On the list of mine and the Mods i annotate which squads are in which transports, and only the basic list to my enemy. That way the mod can be there to keep honesty (not that he needs to but for the sake of the other player.) In friendly games though, openness is the best policy.

I have never played in a single tournament where this behavior would be allowed or one that used this type of secrecy. You would be cheating and disqualified from most tourneys I know of.

What tourney are you allowed to provide your opponent a censored list and then not disclose what squads are in which transports? I have my broom ready because I am ready to declare shenanigans on this.

nkelsch wrote:

The Thunder Child wrote:In tourny play, I bring 1list for the Mod, 1 List for me and 1 List for my Enemy. On the list of mine and the Mods i annotate which squads are in which transports, and only the basic list to my enemy. That way the mod can be there to keep honesty (not that he needs to but for the sake of the other player.) In friendly games though, openness is the best policy.

I have never played in a single tournament where this behavior would be allowed or one that used this type of secrecy. You would be cheating and disqualified from most tourneys I know of.

What tourney are you allowed to provide your opponent a censored list and then not disclose what squads are in which transports? I have my broom ready because I am ready to declare shenanigans on this.

Furthermore, what tournament has a judge for every game to insure no one is cup gaming? I'd be surprised if any I've been to have a judge for every 5 games.

The Thunder Child wrote:In tourny play, I bring 1list for the Mod, 1 List for me and 1 List for my Enemy. On the list of mine and the Mods i annotate which squads are in which transports, and only the basic list to my enemy. That way the mod can be there to keep honesty (not that he needs to but for the sake of the other player.) In friendly games though, openness is the best policy.

GW GT standard was full, utter and complete disclosure, right down to the color of their shoelaces. Former GW GT/GD RTT judge speaking, so yeah, I do indeed know what I'm talking about. And why did we do it that way? Because that's what the rules say and that's what the studio staff said the entire purpose of page 92 was when we asked them. Don't ever try to pull that gak at any tourney I'm running, you will be put out for cheating.

daedalus wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

The Thunder Child wrote:In tourny play, I bring 1list for the Mod, 1 List for me and 1 List for my Enemy. On the list of mine and the Mods i annotate which squads are in which transports, and only the basic list to my enemy. That way the mod can be there to keep honesty (not that he needs to but for the sake of the other player.) In friendly games though, openness is the best policy.

I have never played in a single tournament where this behavior would be allowed or one that used this type of secrecy. You would be cheating and disqualified from most tourneys I know of.

What tourney are you allowed to provide your opponent a censored list and then not disclose what squads are in which transports? I have my broom ready because I am ready to declare shenanigans on this.

Furthermore, what tournament has a judge for every game to insure no one is cup gaming? I'd be surprised if any I've been to have a judge for every 5 games.

1st off, this list is not censored its a complete normal list. The only differnce is that mine and the mods have the transport and squad match noted. They still know which squad has what just not in which transport. 2nd no, there is not a judge for every game, he just keeps the list so that if my oppenant wants to he can verify my notes. (nuetral party). and 3rd, before deployment i suggest that the other player quickly make notes to make the playing field even. Its not behavior, i'm not being a jerk about it, for players who like a little more tactical and realistic play its pretty fun not knowing whats in the transports. Its not cheating, its bringing a sliver of realism into the game.

Okay, but what tournaments actually do this? I'm not challenging the legitimacy of your statement; just genuinely curious about the format.

The Thunder Child wrote:Its not behavior, i'm not being a jerk about it, for players who like a little more tactical and realistic play its pretty fun not knowing whats in the transports. Its not cheating, its bringing a sliver of realism into the game.

It is not realistic, 40k is an abstraction, it is only fun due to the massive unfair advantage you are getting, the game is not designed around secrecy and is not balanced for it. If your opponent takes bad notes or you are unclear he can and should re-ask as many times as he needs and you have to tell him what he wants to know. You don't have a choice.

It is cheating and your sliver of realism has no place in tourneys at all and minimal place in friendly games.

The Thunder Child wrote:In tourny play, I bring 1list for the Mod, 1 List for me and 1 List for my Enemy. On the list of mine and the Mods i annotate which squads are in which transports, and only the basic list to my enemy. That way the mod can be there to keep honesty (not that he needs to but for the sake of the other player.) In friendly games though, openness is the best policy.

Name the tourny or BS.

[

No, seeing as you can't prove a negative you'd actually have to prove that I did cheat. Innocent until proven guilty and all that. If you think otherwise then prove that there isn't an invisible floating being floating behind my left ear that nobody but can see or interact with.

this leads me to believe that you DO cheat if your arguement is prove that im cheating. or you remove the opportunity to be called a cheater and give me the info i want to know.

Great, I'll show you my paper with squad names written in four languages and let you sort it all out. All the info would be there you just wouldn't be ale to read it and that's frankly your issue and not mine.

Alright ill find someone to translate your list and waste an hour or you could get it over with and just tell me so i don't have to be a douche and waste time to figure out your douche move.

Using other languages that exist and are spoken is hardly a code only I know.

this would be considered code to those who can't understand it. i write notes to people in german during class because my teachers can't read it. thus german would be code for them to have to translate into common, known-to-them terms. not a perfect analogy but it proves a point.

I like to take a bunch of identical units so that which unit is in which transport never matters. =D

Dashofpepper wrote:I like to take a bunch of identical units so that which unit is in which transport never matters. =D

Ha! Agree with Dash here. I'm gittin too old to remember where the tournament is half the time...

solkan wrote:The first of the previous discussions on this topic:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/304351.page

Summary version: If you and your opponent cannot agree on how to handle unit secrecy, you are directed to page two to settle the disgreement. If you can't settle the disagreement, shake hands and agree that you should not play the game after all.

100% correct.

By RAW, the game starts with both lists and transport occupants in secrecy, and it takes both players to agree to show lists and occupants of transports. And even then, after you agree, by the letter of the rule, lists are only shown AFTER the game anyway.

BUT... Just go with what Solkan says, and both players just agree on whatever it is you guys want.

So, what does exchanging lists have to do with whats inside your transports? You still have to tell me that.

The. default is full disclosure.

This means you either:

a) take the quickest route, which saves time and means you get to play a proper game, and answer the question fully. 'This squad has 2 meltas and a fist'
b) have a printed list and clear markings, that matches wargear which is what identifies the squad

Swapping lists after only allows you to confirm the veracity of a), as well as points totals. Anything less IS cheating.

nosferatu1001 wrote:The. default is full disclosure.

This means you either:

a) take the quickest route, which saves time and means you get to play a proper game, and answer the question fully. 'This squad has 2 meltas and a fist'
b) have a printed list and clear markings, that matches wargear which is what identifies the squad

Swapping lists after only allows you to confirm the veracity of a), as well as points totals. Anything less IS cheating.

Great Scott86 man, read the fricking rule!

The default is exchanging your list after the game and making clear which unit is embarked in which transport. That is it!

Now note, before deploying players can agree whether or not to share army list before and/or during the game. Which is an option, NOT default.

Some players prefer full disclosure, which again is just an option.

But really what does it matter? Your creative reading of the rules creates a requirement to disclose equipment at request when it does not exist.

Share army list after game = pretty clear there.
Make clear which squad is embarked in which transport = can be done without disclosing equipment
Full disclosure = Sharing of army lists before and/or during the game if both players agree before deploying.

Not a single requirement to tell your opponent what embarked units are equipped with. Total player created fallacy and when insisted upon, cheating as it is not required by the rules.

Done with this one since you will just keep creating a rule that does not exist as your counter.

Dashofpepper wrote:I like to take a bunch of identical units so that which unit is in which transport never matters. =D

Especially when those identical units arrive in identical CRASSUS ARMORED ASSUALT TRANSPORTs.

Brother Ramses wrote:

The default is exchanging your list after the game and making clear which unit is embarked in which transport. That is it!

Now note, before deploying players can agree whether or not to share army list before and/or during the game. Which is an option, NOT default.

Some players prefer full disclosure, which again is just an option.

But really what does it matter? Your creative reading of the rules creates a requirement to disclose equipment at request when it does not exist.

Share army list after game = pretty clear there.
Make clear which squad is embarked in which transport = can be done without disclosing equipment
Full disclosure = Sharing of army lists before and/or during the game if both players agree before deploying.

Not a single requirement to tell your opponent what embarked units are equipped with. Total player created fallacy and when insisted upon, cheating as it is not required by the rules.

Done with this one since you will just keep creating a rule that does not exist as your counter.

But if either player says that they want to exchange lists before the game, then that becomes the default, since BOTH have to agree to the secret lists. And I'll never agree.

As for the unit in the transport, if it's not identical to every other unit of the same type, yes, you should ID the equipment. Only reason not to is if you're trying to pull a shell game. And if you're not doing that, then why do you care?

BR - and how do you identify, UNIQUELY, the unit inside the transport?

By the equipment they are carrying

NOTHING ELSE IDs the unit inside.

You keep ignoring that one, vital piece of the rule that you like to pretend doesnt exist. Oddly enough, nooone else does.

Brother Ramses wrote:Not a single requirement to tell your opponent what embarked units are equipped with. Total player created fallacy and when insisted upon, cheating as it is not required by the rules.

If you don't tell me what's the unit is equipped with, you didn't make clear what unit is inside the transport, in which case you would be breaking the rules and cheating.

In my group of friends we dont announce what is in what but we always keep a list to hand to avoid shennanigans and if you ask, the opponent will tell you.

Simples. Might to work as well among strnagers though.

Praxiss wrote:In my group of friends we dont announce what is in what but we always keep a list to hand to avoid shennanigans and if you ask, the opponent will tell you.

Simples. Might to work as well among strnagers though.

Do you also rebalance the codexes point values for the drastic unpaid advantage pillbox marines would have and the disadvantage footslogger units would have?

Even if you don't shellgame, the simple act of having such an overwhelming and unfair advantage not justified by the rules makes the game unplayable at that point.

Brother Ramses wrote:
Great Scott86 man, read the fricking rule!

The default is exchanging your list after the game and making clear which unit is embarked in which transport. That is it!

Now note, before deploying players can agree whether or not to share army list before and/or during the game. Which is an option, NOT default.

Some players prefer full disclosure, which again is just an option.

But really what does it matter? Your creative reading of the rules creates a requirement to disclose equipment at request when it does not exist.

Share army list after game = pretty clear there.
Make clear which squad is embarked in which transport = can be done without disclosing equipment
Full disclosure = Sharing of army lists before and/or during the game if both players agree before deploying.

Not a single requirement to tell your opponent what embarked units are equipped with. Total player created fallacy and when insisted upon, cheating as it is not required by the rules.

Done with this one since you will just keep creating a rule that does not exist as your counter.

You keep hiding behind this, but that doesn't change the fact that you can't answer the question.

BROTHER RAMSES, WHICH OF YOUR UNITS DID YOU INSERT INTO MAGGIE THE RHINO? DON'T MAKE ME DO THIS THE HARD WAY AND PENETRATE HER MYSELF JUST SO THAT I CAN FIND OUT.

Yup. Felt as good to say as I thought it would.

Just to be clear to people: there is a bit of a difference in casual friendly play and tournement/ league play in 40k, and this is one area in particular where the rules tend to be more strict.

In casual play you can do whatever you want, thats the nature of 40k. If your group of friends likes to increase the uncertainty of the game it can do that.

Do not expect that any TO will be even slightly amused by anything other than a clear and easy to understand method showing what unit is inside each and every transport. One of the quickest ways to get on the bad side of a TO is to do something that could appear to be an attempt to cheat. You may have an arcane process that can be decoded to determine which unit is inside each vehicle. If however your method has a loophole that could allow cheating, expect to get penalized.



Sliggoth

Sliggoth wrote:Just. One of the quickest ways to get on the bad side of a TO is to do something that could appear to be an attempt to cheat.

Sliggoth

Amen brother. Guess I've spent too much time on the judging side (altho I do have over 20 GW GTs under my belt as a player as well) and those arcane methods really irk me. Just tell them, for Pete's sake.

daedalus wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:
Great Scott86 man, read the fricking rule!

The default is exchanging your list after the game and making clear which unit is embarked in which transport. That is it!

Now note, before deploying players can agree whether or not to share army list before and/or during the game. Which is an option, NOT default.

Some players prefer full disclosure, which again is just an option.

But really what does it matter? Your creative reading of the rules creates a requirement to disclose equipment at request when it does not exist.

Share army list after game = pretty clear there.
Make clear which squad is embarked in which transport = can be done without disclosing equipment
Full disclosure = Sharing of army lists before and/or during the game if both players agree before deploying.

Not a single requirement to tell your opponent what embarked units are equipped with. Total player created fallacy and when insisted upon, cheating as it is not required by the rules.

Done with this one since you will just keep creating a rule that does not exist as your counter.

You keep hiding behind this, but that doesn't change the fact that you can't answer the question.

BROTHER RAMSES, WHICH OF YOUR UNITS DID YOU INSERT INTO MAGGIE THE RHINO? DON'T MAKE ME DO THIS THE HARD WAY AND PENETRATE HER MYSELF JUST SO THAT I CAN FIND OUT.

Yup. Felt as good to say as I thought it would.

This one was too funny not to reply,

"The Grey Hunter pack with, "Maggie" painted on the edge of their bases."

Oh look, clearly identified which squad is embarked in which transport without ever revealing what the squad is equipped with exactly as the rules tell me to do.

And, of course, you armylist has a Grey Hunter pack marked "Maggie", right?

Now we just need to determine if we share armylists before, during or after the game......and we all know what the de facto norm (regardless of what the rules actually say) is, don't we?

Different groups do it different ways.

It doesn't really matter what the rulebook says, if your local group does it differently, it is done differently and that's the way people play.

BR - now show me those exact models.

Oh look, I now know the equipment they have.


Your attempt at a shell game is noted.

I have not had a game, either among friends or at a games night where people have demanded to know what my rhios are carrying.

If they asked i would of course tell them.

Admittedly i have never been to a tourney so i am sure they are much more strict there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nkelsch wrote:

Praxiss wrote:In my group of friends we dont announce what is in what but we always keep a list to hand to avoid shennanigans and if you ask, the opponent will tell you.

Simples. Might to work as well among strnagers though.

Do you also rebalance the codexes point values for the drastic unpaid advantage pillbox marines would have and the disadvantage footslogger units would have?

Even if you don't shellgame, the simple act of having such an overwhelming and unfair advantage not justified by the rules makes the game unplayable at that point.

How do you mean "rebalance"? You mean give the other person a points advantage if they don't have transports?

Also, what does "Shellgame" mean?

The shell game is a common street con in which three shells or cups are laid on a table.

The hustler puts a ball under one of them and rapidly switches the shells around to confuse the onlooker.

Finally the onlooker bets that he knows which shell contains the ball.

The real con is that the hustler palms the ball at the beginning so it isn't under any of the shells.

Oh, so by "Shellgame" you mean swapping what units are in what Rhino without the the other guy realising.

Gotcha.

Well, yes, that would blatently be cheating. Like i said, in a friendly game, among friends, we dont normally tell each other what out transports are carrying unless asked.my lists are here to be looked at if you want though.

A few really nasty variants on the shell game are possible, and its why tourneys in particular tend to stomp on anyone doing anything that even begins to look shady.


More than one person I have seen keep their squads in their cases until they pop them out of the transport...and since some people use variants on their squads they may well have more than 10 models all painted up for a 10 man squad. For those times that the squad has a melta or is only 10 regular troops. And then oh so accidently deploys the melta guy from squad maggie instead of deploying the melta guy with squad nannie as shown on his army sheet.

Had one guy who had each of his transports with doors that would open, inside he had markings that distinguished which squads vehicle it was. For "realism" purposes...and he had some people go along with it. Those same vehicles also had a second set of markings on the bottom that distinguished which squad was inside. For two of the vehicles it just so happened that the inside and the bottom markings werent the same... So depending on where he needed the melta, he had the melta squad.

Things like this are why a TO will tend to look at anything even possibly shady as a major offense, and act accordingly.



Sliggoth

Brother Ramses wrote:This one was too funny not to reply,

"The Grey Hunter pack with, "Maggie" painted on the edge of their bases."

Oh look, clearly identified which squad is embarked in which transport without ever revealing what the squad is equipped with exactly as the rules tell me to do.

Unless you show them to me, that's not clear. It would be really easy to have one of each special weapon for each of your rhinos "Maggie", "Lisa" and "Marge" hiding in your suitcase. If you don't show the models or tell me what they are equipped with, thats not clear, and you are cheating.

Let's assume 12 trukkboyz are roughly about the same impact as 20 footsloggers.

I deploy my 3 trukks, and one unit has a PK. You deploy your 3 Footslogger units and one Nob has a PK.

I don't tell you anything but 'there are trukkboyz in these units, I am not cheating.' But on the flip side, I can *SEE* due to WYSIWYG where your PK nob is and what unit he is in along with any and all gear and attached ICs. On the other hand, you cannot see that on my end.

The disadvantage of models on foot have gone WAAAAAAAAAAAY up while transports have increased in effect with no change in points. It is a change that is game-breaking in my opinion as it impacts so much of the game and drastically changes the meta balance.

So if hiding what is in transports is 'legal' then why can't I make footsloggers with no descript gear or markings either? Why can't I have a whole ork army on foot wearing ninja capes that hid their weapons from view? And you have no idea what each unit has packing until I choose to disclose it. Did you pump your fire into my burna boyz or some sluggas? Are there tankbustaz with tankhammers next to your land raider or are they shoota boyz? Spin the wheel and win a prize!

It is not more realistic, it is not more 'fun' except for the person 'wininz gamez' by basically being a cheater and decieving his fellow gamer. Even if he is not shellgaming, he is tilting the table of fairness in his favour.

Brother Ramses wrote:
"The Grey Hunter pack with, "Maggie" painted on the edge of their bases."

Oh look, clearly identified which squad is embarked in which transport without ever revealing what the squad is equipped with exactly as the rules tell me to do.

Nope, you still haven't, cause how do I know that you only have one squad with 'maggie' painted on it? When someone is that desparate to hide what's in their vehicles, it always makes me wonder why....................

Edit: As an example. I paint the shoulderpads on my IG, each squad a distinct color or combination of colors. So I have vet squads painted up with three plasmas and three meltas and a lascannon and a demo charge, as well as a sgt and a bunch of regular guys. That way, when I want to change lists around, I just swap certain models in the squad. So, I can tell you that it's the squad with the gold and red shouderpads. And that squad can be any one of the various veteran squads in my list just by swapping models (which ALL have the same identifying marks). but if i say it's the meltavet squad with the demolitions doctrine, you look at my list and know exactly which squad it is.

As above.

BR is attempting to circumvent the utterly clear directive to IDENTIFY the unique, and trying to play a shell game.

That is exactly the sort of behavior that would make me *very* suspicious of my opponent.

Here is the unfair part of it; I told him whats in my Transports

He refused to tell me

He did not show me his list(I didn't either but he knows a lot of about Imperial Guard and I told him special rules about my vehicles while he didn't tell me anything beforehand)

I don't know jack gak about eldar;

He also told me some BS rules like Eldar tanks ignoring 2d6 pen from meltas and stuff like that

Sigh....

Some Eldar tank DO have such a rule. Perhaps you should do some research before saying that another person talks BS.

Steelmage99 wrote:Sigh....

Some Eldar tank DO have such a rule. Perhaps you should do some research before saying that another person talks BS.

Well, if I played an opponent who waited until I identified what squads were in what transports to tell me that he would refuse to tell me what were in his and then wouldn't allow me to see his list, and I didn't know much about his army and was not allowed a glance at his Codex, then I'd probably react with moderate suspicion when he tries to claim Wave Serpent Energy Fields.

Then again, life's too short for that crap, and the game wouldn't have gotten that far, because I'd have moved a table down and played someone else instead. Alternatively, called the TO.

at the end of this debate, i am glad my guard doesn't use transports.

With my eldar- each unit is in a seperate transport, all marked with a coloured line, e.g my DA have a blue line etc etc.

the way i work it with my list is (because most of the time i buy dedicated transports) i put the following.
DA (gear,points)
Transport: Wave Serpent, Blue marking (gear,points)

and i ALWAYS share lists, that way, i explain everything for my opponent and hand them my list then ask if they have any questions- this helps me to write a clear and concise list too, as i know someone else has to read it.

Also- someone mentioned realism- what army doesn't have scouts who scout out the enemy force and report back, or know by some other way (be it psykers or w/e)

Page 92 in the 40k rule book under a (note on secrecy) "always make sure to tell your opponent which units are embarked in which transport vehicle".

I really dont understand how there are 5 pages of conflicting views...the rulebook blatantly answers this question rofl.

It started out as a 'how' not should you, then it got taken over by 'should secrecy happen', op wanted to know how we did it, it started off well like standing guys on top of th vehicles etc

Because one poster truly believed that saying "WG unit 5", and not showing you what WG unit 5 actually IS, was somehow identifying the unit.