Hey, so I just played a game agaist some orks and my opponnent did not want to tell me what was in his trukks... turns out it was nobz with a pain boyz and a big .... So, can he do that? refuse to tell me what is what and where is what? I know that in tournaments he has to show me his list, but this?? (I showed his The Most Importent rule citing his douchiness, but no luck)

If you asked him what was in the Trukk, he has to tell you. But if you don't ask, he doesn't have to tell you.

I can't speak for the rules (because i can't remember and don't care to actually look)
BUT i've always told people whats in them and they've told me so its either just common courtousy or it is a rule. suffice to say the simplest solution would be to just not play with jerks

That's what I thought...

Yeah, the guy was just being a jerk by not telling you what was in the trukk, and also breaking one of the rules of the game. Unless you both specify you're doing blind transports for the game, that's no good.

Well if he plays that way then yeah he is a douche but honestly you could get away with that with me playing with a Ard' Case battle wagon for this type of play. Considering a Trukk is an 'Open Topped Vehicle' and has all sides exiting access its pretty easy to see everything in a trukk. So He's a fluff douche too. Though if he plays like that then just play the same way. I'd even step it up a notch and go with not showing your list too drive around some Rhino's with surprises and make him unwary about it maybe he will realize whats up but like Joetaco said just don't play jerks. If you have too though then just use there rules against them at best if you can.

Though if you really want the page number its pg. 92 in the rulebook under the header 'Note of Secrecy'

-Sincerely Viri

if you ask he has to tell. before game no, but once deployment has happend yes!

Yeah, on top of that, he did not want to tell me even after I told him what was what. He asked, I aswered and then ask and he did not want to say...

How old was this guy? My suggestion, never play against him again, his variation of fun borders on WAAC.

He was 25

Wow 25 and playing like some little twerp. I woudn't even bother playing this guy ever again if it can be helped.

Outside of tournaments you are not forced to play against douches.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/280663.page


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Moved.

I mean other than a Viable army list which in friendly games is not even "manditory" as long as you follow the FoC

IIRC nothing states you must say ( my Nobz are here)

That said though, asking and him not telling makes him a poor poor player

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:IIRC nothing states you must say ( my Nobz are here)

Page 92: A Note on Secrecy

insaniak wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:IIRC nothing states you must say ( my Nobz are here)

Page 92: A Note on Secrecy

Thanks INSANIAK, you have no idea how long I've actually looked for that...
I keep the BGB under my laptop ^^

Proper response to that is packing up or calling a TO. Unless agreed otherwise, you must tell your opponent who is in which transport. Asking you for your transports and not telling your own... well, screw that guy.

I hope that he at least had a written note of what was in which transport so that there were no switches going on.

(I'm guessing that you took out a bunch of trukks but, somehow, all of the really good units were in the surviving trukks....)

Putting a marker in each trukk that matches the squad but having it face down is an appropriate way to be secret. Once you POP it or he gets out, he shows you and the game moves on. I like having secrecy in my transports but I don't play the hell game.

-cgmckenzie

I always play with clear visible markers of whats in what transport. We had a chob who played like this for awhile before we found that glorious pg92 ruling ( such an obscure place for it). His empty transports were always the last to be destroyed, and many times during games he would get "mixed" up what unit was in which, constant arguments, even going as far as to replace dead units because we couldn't keep track of which disembarked ect.

All i've ever seen embarked unit secrecy used for is a screen to cheat behind.

cgmckenzie wrote:Putting a marker in each trukk that matches the squad but having it face down is an appropriate way to be secret. Once you POP it or he gets out, he shows you and the game moves on. I like having secrecy in my transports but I don't play the hell game.

-cgmckenzie

If these were open top trukks, I can't see any club viewing any sort of secrecy as kosher.

You can use markers, you can use slips of paper, whatever. Doesn't matter in the end, since the rules say that you have to tell your opponent what is in the transport.

Well he does not have to tell you the passengers of his transports.

What he has to do is:

1. Making sure he can not (neither accidentally, nor on purpose) mix up or shift which squad is in which transport.
2. Agreeing with you about how to play the game to make it clear for both of you, so both play the same game.

If he doesnt do one of those thing, he is a slight douche. If he doesnt do both, he is an idiot.

In this case he should be punished with a stinging defeat and a speech about honour afterwards.

Being open topped trukk only means that you could see that there are, in fact, Orks in it. It is going really fast, they are all clamoring about, and the dust/exhaust would make any more detail really hard to get.

Mass of green Orks all look like other masses of green Orks.

-cgmckenzie

Until you use an auspex/Telepaths to decipher what is where and where the guys holding the power claws are.

But I find full disclosure the better way to play.

It makes the game more about tactics and less about trump cards.

-Nazdreg- wrote:Well he does not have to tell you the passengers of his transports.

Uh, no, unless you both agree otherwise he does have to tell you what is in each of his transports. The relevant rules reference has aleady been posted.

Uh, no, unless you both agree otherwise he does have to tell you what is in each of his transports. The relevant rules reference has aleady been posted.

Which is what I covered later in my post. If he wants to keep his passengers in secret, the necessary procedure is:

1. Telling the opponent about his intention
2. Waiting for a positive answer
3. Clarifying which is where in a transparent way

If any of this parts are not properly done, he does not play according to the rules.

Just start rolling 6's against his truks, say you don't have to show him the dice .

This may be a stupid question, but Template weapons vs Open-topped still hit the passengers, right?

helgrenze wrote:This may be a stupid question, but Template weapons vs Open-topped still hit the passengers, right?

No they do not hit the embarked passengers

Ok.. vehicle is open topped, passengers are embarked, Template hits, vehicle is under template, so are passengers by default..... how do they avoid being hit as well?

Because they are embarked on a transport, and thus not actually on the table.

Fluff wise they should be hit.

But by the rules they are not hit, because they are not on the table.

Because Open topped or not you may not shoot inside of a transport. Therefore passengers are not hit by default because you shot a Trukk,Raider,Battlewagon, ETC.

ok... still Templates would be useful in the issue of the OP.... +1 result and no cover saves.....

Sort of a flamer can glance/wreck a trukk if you roll 6/6 not truly useful. Also not really too helpful when an opponent is just not saying whats where so the golden squads didnt get wrecked

It is already accounted for in the open topped modifier for the damage table.

-cgmckenzie

helgrenze wrote:Ok.. vehicle is open topped, passengers are embarked, Template hits, vehicle is under template, so are passengers by default..... how do they avoid being hit as well?

The reasons have been covered, but I thought it was worth mentioning that this same logic would allow you to hit the passengers in a closed-top vehicle as well...

well to me, if it's open topped or has fire points it almost makes sense. I mean it works for buildings

It's a lot easier to go up to a building and put your flamer up to the mail slot than it is to find a random opening of a moving vehicle.

helgrenze wrote:This may be a stupid question, but Template weapons vs Open-topped still hit the passengers, right?

Is it just me or this guy just highjacked the thread?? - Personal attack removed by insaniak -

somerandomdude wrote:It's a lot easier to go up to a building and put your flamer up to the mail slot than it is to find a random opening of a moving vehicle.

not if it's immobilized

maxthecat122 wrote:

helgrenze wrote:This may be a stupid question, but Template weapons vs Open-topped still hit the passengers, right?

Is it just me or this guy just highjacked the thread??

His question was semi-related, and your original question had been answered.

me and my opponent always go over our armies before the game begins so that everyone knows what is what and if there is anything being proxied or whatever is in the transports. I just see it as a way to avoid any problems that may result later in the game like people switching out squads in transports when one of them happens to get popped. The fact that the guy was unwilling to tell you what is where is someone who is more interested in crushingyou than actually having a good time which is the whole point its a game.

Deathsadvocate wrote:The fact that the guy was unwilling to tell you what is where is someone who is more interested in crushingyou than actually having a good time which is the whole point its a game.

That's not actually necessarily true. I've come across a few players over the years who preferred to keep the contents of their transports secret purely for the element of surprise, because they felt it was more realistic. They weren't being WAAC players... just felt that it added a little more tactical depth to the game.

While it certainly can be abused, against opponents you trust it can be a fun twist to the game.

done that before, It's the reason each of my chimeras and vendettas are slightly diferent, so i can write down what is in where ... otherwise I'll forget

Even if it isnt actually "realistic" to hide the contents - ask any sigint guy

I like the element of surprise in a closed list game. That said however, it's made obvious its a closed list game.

WYSIWYG is pretty much a must though, and you have to trust the other guy quite a bit.

Maxthecat-- Your OP mentions that your opponant chose to not tell you what was in his trukks. Some feel it is fine, others do not. The main reason for informing your opponant what is in what vehicle is to prevent them from playing the shell game on you.
My question about template weaopns was meant to clarify a point and suggest that dropping some blast templates on his trukks would make the passengers have to walk the rest of the way.
Most armies have some kind of template weapon. And A10 trukks are fairly easy to pop at range.

When in doubt, make them walk.

helgrenze wrote:
My question about template weaopns was meant to clarify a point and suggest that dropping some blast templates on his trukks would make the passengers have to walk the rest of the way.
Most armies have some kind of template weapon. And A10 trukks are fairly easy to pop at range.

What do you think template/blast marker weapons do differently to open-topped vehicles?

DarknessEternal wrote:

helgrenze wrote:
My question about template weaopns was meant to clarify a point and suggest that dropping some blast templates on his trukks would make the passengers have to walk the rest of the way.
Most armies have some kind of template weapon. And A10 trukks are fairly easy to pop at range.

What do you think template/blast marker weapons do differently to open-topped vehicles?

don't have it to hand but I'm fairly that last edition open topped = vulnerable to blasts (so 1 hit becomes 2)

I have the perfect response to that, When players i play do that i end up being even a bugger douche, and just to make them pay for being a Stuck up WAAC, i have gone as far as not stating what is in mine, and even though a certain unit was in it, I claimed another was upon deployment and then shot them up,

E.g. I was playing a Tau and he refused to tell me what he had in his DFs, So i poped a raider beside him, was suppose to have wyches, but ended up just deploying a squad of 4TB with blasters to blow it up and kill everything inside.

Now i don't usually play like this and i don't condone cheating like that, as it is poor sportsmanship, but in some cases when your playing a complete douche bag it just feels good to make them pay and have my fun at the same time. my advice would be to just not play him until he goes and reads the rules and learns some good conduct.

I was thinking about this and how it'd be easy for a dick player to cheat.

You blow up a transport and the unit takes damage inside, he switches the unit.

So before the battle, if he or she wants it to be a secret, tell them to write down the contents of each transport on a seperate sheet of paper. When that transport in question disembarks or is destroyed, etc etc then ask to see the sheet as proof.

I think it's pretty bull to not tell your opponent, especially if it's an open topped vehicle but I guess it isn't cheating.

Kijamon wrote:I was thinking about this and how it'd be easy for a dick player to cheat.

You blow up a transport and the unit takes damage inside, he switches the unit.

So before the battle, if he or she wants it to be a secret, tell them to write down the contents of each transport on a seperate sheet of paper. When that transport in question disembarks or is destroyed, etc etc then ask to see the sheet as proof.

I think it's pretty bull to not tell your opponent, especially if it's an open topped vehicle but I guess it isn't cheating.

which is why each transport need to be properly marked ... One model from the unit in or on top.

Lobukia wrote:If these were open top trukks, I can't see any club viewing any sort of secrecy as kosher.

Open-topped is nothing to do with it. The rule book suggests that you can play with contents of transports being secret if both players agree to it.

cgmckenzie wrote:Putting a marker in each trukk that matches the squad but having it face down is an appropriate way to be secret. Once you POP it or he gets out, he shows you and the game moves on. I like having secrecy in my transports but I don't play the hell game.

-cgmckenzie

This seems far more fair than the "I demand you give me information about exactly which of your vehicles I should focus on and which I should ignore, despite there being no rational reason my guys would have that information" approach.

Actually it IS the default approach, so unless you decide otherwise you must state what is where,

Its also very, very realistic.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Even if it isnt actually "realistic" to hide the contents - ask any sigint guy

Sounds like my cue. Former sigint and imint guy here. During an exercise at Fort Hood, our intell unit told the unit commander where all his vehicles were, what units they belonged to, and in some cases, all the way down to the driver's name. And this was in the late 80s, so imagine what we could do now......................

And having had an Ork player try to pull the shell game on me at a GW GT, I'm definitely all for full disclosure.

So it is your opinion, don mondo, that orks and tyranids have the intelligence capability of the US military? And some magic x-ray vision that tells them exactly who is in what vehicle?

The default practice that I have seen is that you must declare which vehicle an independant character is in, but other than that, you need to pop it to find out.

Forcing your opponent to reveal which units are in the tank seems kind of weak.

Yet, if youd read the thread, you would know that the rules are against you on this.

The default is FULL disclosure.

Tri wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:

helgrenze wrote:
My question about template weaopns was meant to clarify a point and suggest that dropping some blast templates on his trukks would make the passengers have to walk the rest of the way.
Most armies have some kind of template weapon. And A10 trukks are fairly easy to pop at range.

What do you think template/blast marker weapons do differently to open-topped vehicles?

don't have it to hand but I'm fairly that last edition open topped = vulnerable to blasts (so 1 hit becomes 2)

Sure, but it does exactly nothing in this edition.

From a purely fluff perspective, (even seeing don mondo's post) it is highly unlikely units like Daemons, orks and 'nids would know who is in what vehicle or even care the least little bit.

It's also unlikely, given the decline of technology, that chaos marines or IoM units would know either. And most unit's of marines, still per fluff, wouldn't care anyway.

This leaves the Eldar variants and Necrons. I could absolutely see where Necrons would have the technology to peer into various vehicles to determine combat capabilities based on energy signatures. I could also see Eldar having similar tech.

So, fluff wise, it's a mixed bag. I guess you could argue that a chaos marine legion could have an agent at an IoM installation they are about to attack, but this would be very situational.

Now having a successful and enjoyable game is something else. Personally, if everyone wants to be open about it, just put a little man on the top of each vehicle to denote the unit inside.

If they don't, make sure it's written down and able to be revealed once they disembark (forcefully or otherwise).

Seems like such a simple thing.

Even in modern armies, the practice is to have certain vehicles marked on the exterior to show which unit they are assigned to. Most especially mark command vehicles so that their own people will salute the passing commander.

But one could make the arguement that the one vehicle that everyone is saluting to is the one that gets targeted first by rockets and snipers.

Jimsolo wrote:So it is your opinion, don mondo, that orks and tyranids have the intelligence capability of the US military? And some magic x-ray vision that tells them exactly who is in what vehicle?

The default practice that I have seen is that you must declare which vehicle an independant character is in, but other than that, you need to pop it to find out.

Forcing your opponent to reveal which units are in the tank seems kind of weak.

Orks? Sure, why not? Kommandos on the ground, fighta bombas in the air, even without sigint capability, ground and air recon will tell you a lot about what you're facing.

Thing is tho, while I can cite real world situations, they really don't matter. We're playing a game that has rules, not fighting a real war. And those rules are what matters. And they require full disclosure unless both players agree otherwise. Default around here is full disclosure. As for being weak, well, talk to the individuals who wrote the rules and ask them why they put that particular rule in there. When I asked, I was told it was to prevent cheating gits from playing shell games by making them tell you exactly what was in each transport whenever you asked them. So you tell me, which is worse. "Forcing" your opponent to disclose what's in the transport? Or someone playing a shell game because he doesn't have to disclose what's in the transport? And before you bring up writing it down or marking it or all that crap, I can think of several ways to game such a system, and if I can, then so can those who would try to take advantage of it. Do I feel strongly about this? Yes, I do, but as i posted earlier, I've run into those 'cheating gits' in games, so yeah, i'm in complete support of full disclosure. Fortunately for me, so are the rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yet, if youd read the thread, you would know that the rules are against you on this.

The default is FULL disclosure.

Thank you, Nos. I was indeed aware of that. My point is that the rule itself is stupid, and that I do not enjoy 'Full Disclosure,' any more than I do the 'Wobby Model Syndrome' rule, which can likewise be exploited.

There's lots of situations where the rules support behavior which is very unsportsmanlike. Read the 'Wobbly Model Syndrome rule,' and think about taking that to it's farthest logical extreme.

It makes perfect sense to have some kind of safeguard, such as tokens or whatnot, to ensure that there is no cheating. But, to me, concealment seems to be part of the reason to have a vehicle.



Mondo: I apologize, my response to you came off more inflammatory than I wanted. The point I was trying to make is that your comparison to real world intelligence capacities does not carry over to the game world when it comes to universal rules. And if you are smart enough to see how "these cheating gits" can game the system (as you said before your edit) then certainly you are also smart enough to have a system which both allows for some secrecy yet is "game proof?" I think that the whole point of the 'A Word On Secrecy' section is reaching some form of fair and equitable compromise.

Jimsolo wrote: But, to me, concealment seems to be part of the reason to have a vehicle.

And that's an assumption that you have made in direct conflict with the actual rules.

The point of having a vehicle is for faster movement and some degree of protection. Concealing your units has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

And yes, you can certainly come up with all sorts of systems to allow secrecy while still tracking who is where... but it's a lot easier simply to disclose what is where and get on with the game.

Tri wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:

helgrenze wrote:
My question about template weaopns was meant to clarify a point and suggest that dropping some blast templates on his trukks would make the passengers have to walk the rest of the way.
Most armies have some kind of template weapon. And A10 trukks are fairly easy to pop at range.

What do you think template/blast marker weapons do differently to open-topped vehicles?

don't have it to hand but I'm fairly that last edition open topped = vulnerable to blasts (so 1 hit becomes 2)

Not quite. Opened topped vehicles just get a +1 to the vehicle damage table (exactly as if it were hit with an AP1 weapon, for example). This applies to any damage done to the vehicle. See the Vehicle Damage Table in the BRB.

WanderingFox wrote:

Tri wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:

helgrenze wrote:
My question about template weaopns was meant to clarify a point and suggest that dropping some blast templates on his trukks would make the passengers have to walk the rest of the way.
Most armies have some kind of template weapon. And A10 trukks are fairly easy to pop at range.

What do you think template/blast marker weapons do differently to open-topped vehicles?

don't have it to hand but I'm fairly that last edition open topped = vulnerable to blasts (so 1 hit becomes 2)

Not quite. Opened topped vehicles just get a +1 to the vehicle damage table (exactly as if it were hit with an AP1 weapon, for example). This applies to any damage done to the vehicle. See the Vehicle Damage Table in the BRB.

He did say last edition. The rule then was open topped took double the number of hits from templates and blast... 1 hit becoming 2.

insaniak wrote:

Jimsolo wrote: But, to me, concealment seems to be part of the reason to have a vehicle.

And that's an assumption that you have made in direct conflict with the actual rules.

The point of having a vehicle is for faster movement and some degree of protection. Concealing your units has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

And yes, you can certainly come up with all sorts of systems to allow secrecy while still tracking who is where... but it's a lot easier simply to disclose what is where and get on with the game.

Perhaps I should rephrase, Insaniak, since you seem to have misunderstood me.

Concealment seems to be part of the reason to be inside a vehicle, if you were a person in real life, and not a player of a wargame. I should think that the game would in some fashion reflect that.

I recognized already, a few posts up, that my opinion is not supported by the rules. I haven't said anywhere in this thread that my preference is the way that the rule reads.

Maybe I need to back up. See, I thought we had already established that the rule works as it is written in the book, and the thread had moved on to opinions in general about the rule. I tossed in my opinion (albeit with more venom than I meant to, but I already apologized to that person) and have been immediately attacked by three different people.

If you are reading this thread and have any doubt, Insaniak and Nosferatu are correct: You have to tell your opponent exactly what is in your vehicle.

I don't like the rule, and I think that it allows too much advantage to certain armies, but that's the way it is.

Jimsolo wrote:Concealment seems to be part of the reason to be inside a vehicle, if you were a person in real life, and not a player of a wargame.

In real life, you would be more likely to not be aboard the transport once the engagement has started in the first place.

The thing is, though, we're not talking about real life. We're talking about a wargame that includes super-advanced alien technology, hyper-acute alien senses, psychic powers, and armies that feel the need to paint giant unit designations in white paint on the roof of their transport vehicles. Those that actually have a roof on their transport vehicles...

helgrenze wrote:

He did say last edition. The rule then was open topped took double the number of hits from templates and blast... 1 hit becoming 2.

So he did, I misread it when I wrote the response. My bad

coolyo294 wrote:If you asked him what was in the Trukk, he has to tell you. But if you don't ask, he doesn't have to tell you.

The Don't Ask, Don't Tell law has been repealed ya' know...

I... do Orks even? ... Umm perhaps this thread is getting a tad bit off topic...

Jimsolo wrote:So it is your opinion, don mondo, that orks and tyranids have the intelligence capability of the US military? And some magic x-ray vision that tells them exactly who is in what vehicle?

The default practice that I have seen is that you must declare which vehicle an independant character is in, but other than that, you need to pop it to find out.

Forcing your opponent to reveal which units are in the tank seems kind of weak.

How is obeying the rules weak? If your opponent fields 3000 points in a 1500 point game, is calling him out on that weak? Is telling your opponent to remove models that lost all their wounds weak?

The "default practice" you are reffering to is a house rule which is not even close to the rules.

And for the or ork/tyranid thing: Weirdboyz are a pretty decent source of accurate intel, not to mention scouts and kommandoz. Lictors and Genestealers should deliver better intel than any inquisitional spys can.

helgrenze wrote:

WanderingFox wrote:

Tri wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:

helgrenze wrote:
My question about template weaopns was meant to clarify a point and suggest that dropping some blast templates on his trukks would make the passengers have to walk the rest of the way.
Most armies have some kind of template weapon. And A10 trukks are fairly easy to pop at range.

What do you think template/blast marker weapons do differently to open-topped vehicles?

don't have it to hand but I'm fairly that last edition open topped = vulnerable to blasts (so 1 hit becomes 2)

Not quite. Opened topped vehicles just get a +1 to the vehicle damage table (exactly as if it were hit with an AP1 weapon, for example). This applies to any damage done to the vehicle. See the Vehicle Damage Table in the BRB.

He did say last edition. The rule then was open topped took double the number of hits from templates and blast... 1 hit becoming 2.

I was mearly explaining why people thought open topped was quite bad. It took me a while to get round the idea when i moved over to 5th. Even now I still expect open-top vehicles to do much worse then they do.

it really shouldn't be a problem to tell what's inside. I had to play one of those guys before, I just told him "don't tell me, I'll find out with my lascannons what's inside", he thought I was kidding, but 3 turns later, and concentrated attacks, I found out what exactly was inside his trukks. Point is, let him do it, if he's doing it, he probably knows he's beat, then never play him again

Me and those I play against have always gone through what is in each transport (Tho mostly only after we have both set up) and I always place a choppa boy or shoota boy if I'm using a mix and any IC likes to sit in the back of the Battlewagons.

I can see why it would be fun for what's in transports to be secret (If both parties agree to it) but I've seen too many games devolve into shouting matches over dodgy lists when called to prove that you really did put X item that is perfect at killing my Y unit.

The rules are clear but if you have really have a problem with them then surely you can convince some of your friends to try "Blind" games and just get a 2nd friend to hold both lists with everything clearly listed after deployment "Gazzer is in my red and blue battle wagon, and the KKF Mek is in the Pink one"

I reread the rules for this area last night and they are very clear. (pg92: A note on secrecy)

First off you must have an army list which clearly defines who is in what.

Next the default position is one of secrecy. "You should always allow your opponent to read your force roster *after* a game.

Now it leaves it open to the players involved to determine whether to go ahead and share that list prior to the game or after it is done: "...it is a good idea for players to agree whether or not they can read the opponent's force roster before and during the game" and "The choice is yours!"

Technically speaking you have two situations for discussion: showing the list before and allowing them to read it during. Both are up for discussion between the players prior to the game starting.

Regardless of what they decide, the list must be shown at the end of the game and it must be clear.

So, from a rules perspective the potential cheating situation is covered. Albeit you may not know until the end of the game, but it will come into the full Emporer's Light so to speak.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yet, if youd read the thread, you would know that the rules are against you on this.

The default is FULL disclosure.

Sorry but the default position per RAW is not one of openness, but rather one of secrecy... At least until the game ends.

As per RAW you should disclose which squads are in which vehicle. This has been said at least a dozen times so far.

Here's the specific note:
To keep things fair, you should always allow your
opponent to read your force roster after a game. In the
same spirit, always make clear to your opponent which
squads are embarked in which transport vehicle.
However, before starting to deploy their armies, it is a
good idea for players to agree whether or not they can
read the opponent's force roster before and during the
game. Some players prefer full disclosure (which is the
norm in tournaments, for example), as they want to
concentrate on outmanoeuvring the enemy rather than
springing a secret trump card on them. Others prefer to
leave a feel of secrecy around their lists, as bluffing can
make a game really entertaining. The choice is yours!

You honestly just need to agree upon one or the other, but regardless of the situation you need to mark which vehicle has which squad in it. Whether your opponent can see said markers is up to the two of you, but they must be marked in order to prevent cheating.

Pg:92 A note on secrecy:-
...In the same spirit, always make clear to your opponent which squads are embarked in which transport vehicle.

RAW is full disclosure

@WanderingFox: I think we just said essentially the same thing.

The roster should clearly identify the vehicle a particular squad is embarked in.

Whether the opponent gets to see this list before (or during) the game is up for grabs.

Although the default per RAW is only to show it after. Which answers the question that started this thread.

I think we also agree that if the vehicles are modeled in such a way that a simple note on the roster is insufficient to clearly define the particular transport, then some other marker should be used that may not have meaning until the roster is read.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Foxfyre wrote:

Pg:92 A note on secrecy:-
...In the same spirit, always make clear to your opponent which squads are embarked in which transport vehicle.

RAW is full disclosure

AFTER the game has ended: it should absolutely be clear what was where. I didn't say anything else.

clively wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Pg:92 A note on secrecy:-
...In the same spirit, always make clear to your opponent which squads are embarked in which transport vehicle.

RAW is full disclosure

AFTER the game has ended: it should absolutely be clear what was where. I didn't say anything else.

The use of the present tense 'embarked' implies that the sentence quoted is for whenever an opponent asks. No-one will ask AFTER a game which unit is embarked as it is too late to tell if someone's been playing shell games; or if you want to be petty you could disembark all units during the last turn thus negating the need to ask AFTER a game anyway.

The sentence begins with "In the same spirit..." in reference to the prior sentence which begins "To keep things fair..." as referring to any other part of the prior sentence is a nonsense.

Clively - youre misreading that sentence; DURING the game you MUST make people fully aware of what is happening.

The default is full disclosure of what units are in what transport.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Clively - youre misreading that sentence; DURING the game you MUST make people fully aware of what is happening.

The default is full disclosure of what units are in what transport.

I don't believe I'm misreading anything.

Look at it this way. If you are forced to provide a detailed rundown of the squad embarked in a transport, the rest of the paragraph is meaningless. Particularly the part about bluffing becomes impossible.

However, if you only say "squad A is in Transport 1", with the only definition of Squad A being on your roster then secrecy in a fair way is possible and the rest of the paragraph can apply. This meets the concept of full disclosure and allows for bluffing by not providing the verifiable information until the end. Which, again, is the default position based on the first sentence of the note.


----
Taking an example:

What it appears you have said is that we have to tell our opponent at the beginning of the game that Vulkan and 4 terminators are in the Landraider with a number 1 on it.

Whereas what I'm saying is the Roster should state "Vulkan is embarked in the Landraider with a 1 on it" and it's up to the players to determine whether the roster can be seen before the end of the game.

Now you might have a token of some type (coin or whatever) that indicates Squad A placed on top of the transport so that you can clearly show it is carrying something of interest. Further you can use another token in the case of when a squad embarks onto a transport in the middle of the game. The token should be clearly tied to that squad on the roster. This would fully meet the requirement of showing which squad is in which transport without identifying the details of the squad to the opponent until the end of the game.

Any other reading makes the entire "note on secrecy" paragraph moot and a waste of ink.

What it means is that, at any point, I should be able to verify that the squad you say is in a given transport really is the one that was their at deployment. This can be done 2 ways. You tell me which units are in each transport at the start of the game, or you place an identifiable marker on each transport, and a similar marker with each unit. For example, my friends and I use spare bases with the undersides colored differently. If we're playing a game where we want concealed units, we place one base on the tank colored side down, and one with the unit off-bored colored side up. When a unit disembarks we flip the base on the tank, and place the appropriate unit.

WanderingFox wrote:What it means is that, at any point, I should be able to verify that the squad you say is in a given transport really is the one that was their at deployment. This can be done 2 ways. You tell me which units are in each transport at the start of the game, or you place an identifiable marker on each transport, and a similar marker with each unit. For example, my friends and I use spare bases with the undersides colored differently. If we're playing a game where we want concealed units, we place one base on the tank colored side down, and one with the unit off-bored colored side up. When a unit disembarks we flip the base on the tank, and place the appropriate unit.

Exactly what I've been saying.

The details of the actual unit are not made public knowledge until they disembark or the game ends. It doesn't happen simply because a player asks unless it was agreed upon prior to the start of the game to show the full roster list to each other before or during the game. With the default position being one of secrecy due to the first sentence of the rule and full disclosure occuring at the end of the game.

Which gets us back to the original question:

maxthecat122 wrote:Hey, so I just played a game agaist some orks and my opponnent did not want to tell me what was in his trukks... turns out it was nobz with a pain boyz and a big .... So, can he do that?

And the answer is: absolutely he can do that. Provided his roster indicated that the nobz etc were in that particular trukk and maxthecat122 knew something was in it during the game.

Nice points Clive as well as being supported by the rules.

clively wrote:

WanderingFox wrote:What it means is that, at any point, I should be able to verify that the squad you say is in a given transport really is the one that was their at deployment. This can be done 2 ways. You tell me which units are in each transport at the start of the game, or you place an identifiable marker on each transport, and a similar marker with each unit. For example, my friends and I use spare bases with the undersides colored differently. If we're playing a game where we want concealed units, we place one base on the tank colored side down, and one with the unit off-bored colored side up. When a unit disembarks we flip the base on the tank, and place the appropriate unit.

Exactly what I've been saying.

The details of the actual unit are not made public knowledge until they disembark or the game ends. It doesn't happen simply because a player asks unless it was agreed upon prior to the start of the game to show the full roster list to each other before or during the game. With the default position being one of secrecy due to the first sentence of the rule and full disclosure occuring at the end of the game.

Which gets us back to the original question:

maxthecat122 wrote:Hey, so I just played a game agaist some orks and my opponnent did not want to tell me what was in his trukks... turns out it was nobz with a pain boyz and a big .... So, can he do that?

And the answer is: absolutely he can do that. Provided his roster indicated that the nobz etc were in that particular trukk and maxthecat122 knew something was in it during the game.

Kinda guess they didn't agree on secrecy before the game ... either way the guy's a douche

I think that if it's someone you don't know very well, you should play tournament rules, but if it's with a friend, then you should both agree on whether to use deviations from these rules. In other words, he has to tell you because you did not agree on changing this rule from the official rule. Hope this helped.

Thinking about the alternative marking method for identifying embarked units, that seems to fulfill the requirement completely for A Note on Secrecy. The stance that, "you must tell your opponent exactly what each squad is armed with whenever he asks", is not supported by the rules at all.

Someone pointed out placing a model on top of the transport as a valid means. I think that would only be valid if the all the models in the unit had some identifying squad marking that matched the one present on top of the transport.

Kinda encourages getting an army painted.

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:The stance that, "you must tell your opponent exactly what each squad is armed with whenever he asks", is not supported by the rules at all.

That's an extension from WYSIWYG. Assuming models are equipped properly, you should be able to tell everything about it by just looking at the model.

But, as we all know, many models aren't WYSIWYG. That's why you're allowed to ask what it is equipped with. It's information you're meant to have.

Clive - you are required to positively identify the unit inside the vehicle.

When i look at the unit, out on the tabe, i must be able to see what it is armed with.

It amounts to exactly the same thing. No, you may not hide your models inthe case, as you may have more than one army in there and more than one list.

@nosferatu1001:
Yes, when the unit is physically on the table, you should be able to see what it's armed with...that's what wysiwig is for.

However, this is completely different than the secrecy rules regarding explicitly telling someone what your units are and/or showing them your roster. Especially for those units that are hidden whether by being embarked in a transport or reserved. In this case a known marker tied to a particular unit works pretty out well to identify the unit. Of course, identification is a very different concept from a complete description of the unit and capabilities. "Unit A" is an identifier. "5 Stormguard vets with plasma pistols" is a description.

I'm not entirely sure how much clearer I can be in the rules dissection so it's probably best that we just agree to disagree with a note that this is yet something else players should talk about before the game starts... per RAW. I wonder if anyone has compiled a list of those...


On a lighter note I'm pretty sure all of us can agree that someone abusing this to support cheating is quite frankly a douche.



BTW, just a small detail, but it's clively... Stands for chris lively. Thanks.

clively wrote:I reread the rules for this area last night and they are very clear. (pg92: A note on secrecy)

First off you must have an army list which clearly defines who is in what.

Next the default position is one of secrecy. "You should always allow your opponent to read your force roster *after* a game.

Now it leaves it open to the players involved to determine whether to go ahead and share that list prior to the game or after it is done: "...it is a good idea for players to agree whether or not they can read the opponent's force roster before and during the game" and "The choice is yours!"

Technically speaking you have two situations for discussion: showing the list before and allowing them to read it during. Both are up for discussion between the players prior to the game starting.

Regardless of what they decide, the list must be shown at the end of the game and it must be clear.

So, from a rules perspective the potential cheating situation is covered. Albeit you may not know until the end of the game, but it will come into the full Emporer's Light so to speak.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yet, if youd read the thread, you would know that the rules are against you on this.

The default is FULL disclosure.

Sorry but the default position per RAW is not one of openness, but rather one of secrecy... At least until the game ends.

Except we're not talking about sharing lists. We're talking about the next line in those same rules, the one that says you must always tell your opponents what is in a transport. They are two separate things covered in the same paragraph. One, the list, can be held off until post game if both players agree. The other, what's in the transports, must be shared, revealed, disclosed at any time during the game that your opponent asks.

don_mondo wrote:
Except we're not talking about sharing lists. We're talking about the next line in those same rules, the one that says you must always tell your opponents what is in a transport. Geex, read the thread next time.

Okay, last attempt:

The rule is: "In the same spirit, always make clear to your opponent which squads are embarked in which transport vehicle. "

The ONLY thing that says is that I have to identify the squad. It does not say I have to give you the roster. It does not say I have to tell you that it is full of terminators with thunder hammers. Further, it does not say "the makeup of the squads", nor does it say "the type of unit", nor anything like that.

It does say I have to "make clear .. which squads are embarked in which vehicle".

Ergo: Squad A is embarked in that landraider. If my roster shows that Squad A is made up of said terminators, then it can't be any more clear and I have met all of the conditions of the rule, whose apparent purpose is to keep me from swapping in a different squad at the last minute...

Going to the first part of that sentence: The first rule says don't show anything. In order to be "In the same spirit", you wouldn't give any more details than what is absolutely necessary to ensure that you aren't cheating. Again saying or identifying "Squad A" versus describing in detail the contents of the transport.

Now, do I share my roster with you during the game? By default: No, per RAW I do so at the end of the game.

-Nazdreg- wrote:

Uh, no, unless you both agree otherwise he does have to tell you what is in each of his transports. The relevant rules reference has aleady been posted.

Which is what I covered later in my post. If he wants to keep his passengers in secret, the necessary procedure is:

1. Telling the opponent about his intention
2. Waiting for a positive answer
3. Clarifying which is where in a transparent way

If any of this parts are not properly done, he does not play according to the rules.

you forgot a point

4. Being a douche

This game is meant to be fun and hiding things about your army removes the fun for the other player. It's like not saying what guy can do what. The game can get confusing, specially in firendly games where proxys can be used. Saying who is what in where is just sportsmanship imo

I never asked for the roster, I asked you to identify the squad. OK, you say it's a Tac squad. Do you have more than one of them? Are they armed differently. Did you combat squad them? All of those questions have to be answered to 'make clear' to me which squad is embarked in that particular transport.

"which squads are emabrked in WHICH VEHCICLE". See those last two words? Those are the words that say you have to tell me which squad is in which vehicle.

And by default, you're going to share your roster with ME before the game, cause that's the only way I'm going to play someone with a secrecy fetish. I can only see one reason for such a mania for secrecy, and it ain't a good one. Not trying to offend, but the rules are clear. "Ine the same spirit (ie the spirit of fair play, referring to the previous sentence), ALWAYS (that means at any time during the game) make clear (that means answer any questions I have about the unit so that I'm clear on which unit it is) which squads are embarked in which vehicle (which vehicle means I can point at Rhino A and you tell me waht's in it, then point at Rhino B, etc etc).

Don't know how we can make it much clearer to you. but if it will make you feel any better, focus on that bit about 'if both players agree'............... Cause I won't.

"Squad A" makes nothing clear to me.
nosferatu1001 has the right of it.

don_mondo wrote: but if it will make you feel any better, focus on that bit about 'if both players agree'............... Cause I won't.

There's a rule for that ... page 2: under "The Most Important Rule!" let the dice decide or make a house rule.

The two sentences are definitely seperate clauses. RAW is "if I ask you have to tell me" regardless of roster secrecy.

I honestly think it's a bit ridiculous not playing with lists visible.

sirrah wrote:The two sentences are definitely seperate clauses. RAW is "if I ask you have to tell me" regardless of roster secrecy.

I honestly think it's a bit ridiculous not playing with lists visible.

same,

clively wrote:

don_mondo wrote: but if it will make you feel any better, focus on that bit about 'if both players agree'............... Cause I won't.

There's a rule for that ... page 2: under "The Most Important Rule!" let the dice decide or make a house rule.

there's also this

7. Do not bring The Most Important Rule (TMIR) into these rules discussions. While it is something you should most certainly abide by while playing (if you're not having fun, why ARE you playing?), it does not apply to rules debates.

under tenents of you make da call

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

clively wrote:

don_mondo wrote: but if it will make you feel any better, focus on that bit about 'if both players agree'............... Cause I won't.

There's a rule for that ... page 2: under "The Most Important Rule!" let the dice decide or make a house rule.

there's also this

7. Do not bring The Most Important Rule (TMIR) into these rules discussions. While it is something you should most certainly abide by while playing (if you're not having fun, why ARE you playing?), it does not apply to rules debates.

under tenents of you make da call

Yep, slipped up there. Won't happen again.

Incidentally, this exact topic appears to have been discussed in depth a little over a year ago. http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/288105.page with pretty much the exact same conclusion: Don Mondo and others stating that they only way they will play is if you declare your units in detail at the beginning of the game; and Insaniak, Akaiyou and others simply stating that the rules indicate that by default unit declaration is not mandatory. Plus, of course, the random other people saying how they play it. Seems like the only real difference is that I'm playing the role of Akaiyou this time around.

Which says to me that this thread should probably be closed up as being pointless.

Oh, and for the record, I am always happy to tell my opponent what I have and where.. in detail at any point in the process. Even though the rules say I don't have to.

Clively, you need to make it clear WHICH squad is in WHICH transport.

Having them named in the roster list, and stating that 'Squad A' is in transport 1, and 'Squad B' is in transport 2 does not do so. This is because I do not know which one of those is a reference to which unit. That is to say you have 2 rhinos, a red one and a blue one, and you have a tac squad labeled alpha and an assault squad labeled beta. You say that alpha is in red, and beta is in blue.

Great, I now know what is in the transports, however you fail to remove the ambiguity when units disembark from the transport. That is to say I do not know what alpha and beta reference unless you tell me what units are labeled as, which defeats the point you're making. The other option is to show me proof that the units were labeled as such at the start of the game, which means showing me your roster anyway.

This brings me back to my previous comment. The best way to do this is to mark the units and mark the transports. If you want to be super, ultra, secret about it leave both markers face down until you disembark the unit. As long as both markers are in view of me for the entire battle, and the marker with the unit remains with that unit, I have no problems. The second there becomes a possibility that any given transport could contain more than one unit, you've broken the spirit of the secrecy rule.

In short, while you do not have to disclose the contents of the transport, you must make it completely clear as to which unit is located in which transport.

clively wrote:Incidentally, this exact topic appears to have been discussed in depth a little over a year ago. http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/288105.page with pretty much the exact same conclusion: Don Mondo and others stating that they only way they will play is if you declare your units in detail at the beginning of the game; and Insaniak, Akaiyou and others simply stating that the rules indicate that by default unit declaration is not mandatory. Plus, of course, the random other people saying how they play it. Seems like the only real difference is that I'm playing the role of Akaiyou this time around.

Note though that the thread you linked was actually specifically discussing sharing your army list, rather than talking about vehicles.

Hence my slightly different position in this thread... its a different topic.


Sharing your army list before the game is by default not required.
Declaring what is in each vehicle is required.

You tell your enemy what is in your transports, it's in the rules
You should show him your list, it's good manners and allows for a more relaxed playing experience

It is just a matter of what you decide on before the game. Some people prefer the mystery others I'm sure don't mind telling you. Generally though this is something you should decide on before the game even starts, and before you share your own list.

Clively: one more attempt at this

You MUSt identify WHICH unit is in WHICH transport. You must say "see unit A, by the side of the table? This is in this rhino here"

Once you do that you have identified the unit. And, because youre playing wysiwyg, i know what they are and what theyre armed with.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Once you do that you have identified the unit. And, because youre playing wysiwyg, i know what they are and what theyre armed with.

That's the key here, really. The whole game is inherently transparent because of the models. Swapping army lists at the end of the game isn't like in a game of battleships, where your opponent doesn't reveal his fleet until the end. You don't see your opponent's list and go 'Oh, that was a multimelta!'... You already know what your opponent had on the table, because you could see the models. Swapping lists is purely a double-check that points add up and everything fielded was accounted for.

insaniak wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Once you do that you have identified the unit. And, because youre playing wysiwyg, i know what they are and what theyre armed with.

That's the key here, really. The whole game is inherently transparent because of the models. Swapping army lists at the end of the game isn't like in a game of battleships, where your opponent doesn't reveal his fleet until the end. You don't see your opponent's list and go 'Oh, that was a multimelta!'... You already know what your opponent had on the table, because you could see the models. Swapping lists is purely a double-check that points add up and everything fielded was accounted for.

Insaniak, let's, for the sake of discussion, assume what you've just said is right. Riddle me this: Exactly what is the point of the body of text on page 92: " A note on Secrecy" then?

Given:
1. Through wysiwyg you can identify everything in plain view on the table.
2. Through your reading of that sentence, everything contained within a transport is known in detail by your opponent. Exact units, numbers of models, locations, weapon loadout, etc.

With those two items, there is no room left for "springing a secret trump card" or "bluffing" as identified later in the paragraph. It's all out there and, as a result, no reason at all for that note.

So, given your reading, what "trump card" or "bluff" is left to be played?

Read my post Clively. It's a provision so you can run the transports with markers corresponding to units. That is to say, either physical tokens, or writing down what unit is where. Yes, with WYSIWYG you will know what the unit contains the second it disembarks, that does not mean you need to physically tell the opponent that is what is in the unit.

The rule requires that you simply discern "which unit is in which vehicle" beyond any doubt. That is to say, you must be able to prove that the unit that disembarks from any given vehicle was the unit that embarked onto said vehicle last.

This can be done either by using visible markers, hidden markers, pieces of paper, fully telling your opponent exactly what's inside, whatever. As long as at any point you can prove that you did not tamper with the unit positioning, you're okay.

Let me give you an example, I have an assault marine squad with 2 meltas in a rhino, and an assault marine squad with 2 flamers in a second rhino. I must be able to, when one of those units disembarks form their vehicle, prove to you beyond a reasonable doubt that that was the unit initially embarked on the vehicle.

I could:
1. Have told you which unit was in which vehicle at the start of the game. ie. "The squad with the meltas is in this rhino, and the squad with the flamers is in this other rhino."

2. I can write down which is in which, and then show you when the unit disembarks if you contest that I have shuffled the units "No, see I wrote it down at deployement, the melta unit is in the red rhino, and the flamer unit is in the blue one"

3. I can use a visible marker. Placing one of the melta marines on the red rhino, and one of the flamer marines on the blue rhino for example.

4. I can use a hidden marker. Placing a base on each rhino and on the bottom of one base it has a M and on the other is a F. I can then disclose this information at the start, and show you the bottom of the base when that unit disembarks. Ie. "The melta assault squad is represented by an M base, and the flamer squad is represetnted with an F base." *disembrks melta unit and flips base, showing the M*

I cannot, however, simply designate names without assigning them to the unit. "Unit alpha is in the red rhino, and unit beta is in the blue rhino" does not cut it because it does not prove to me that the unit alpha that is in the rhino is actually composed of the models you say it is.

Secrecy is fine, especially in friendly games, but you must be able to prove that you're not 'playing the shell game' as someone earlier in the thread stated.

@WanderingFox:

I've already agreed with you several times that markers clearly identifying a unit and the placement of those markers with the transports in question is the only way to play this. You and I have said the same thing many times here. Yes those markers must be matched to a particular unit in your list in a verifiable manner.


None of that is what Don Mondo, Insaniak et al. are arguing.

The whole thing under discussion is that they believe the second sentence means you are forced by the rules to explicitly outline the exact contents of the transports and let the opponent know those contents immediately. Not through markers that you can later reveal the association of to your units but rather just prior to turn 1 starting and at pretty much any other point in the game when they decide to ask.

I think otherwise.

It boils down to agreeing to something at the start of the game, honestly. Barring any dispute, I'd rule in the favor of full disclosure as it removes the potential of cheating. Outside of that, use the normal resolution methods for stuff like this I personally enjoy starting a second warhammer game to solve the dispute in the first game. By the time you get back to the original game, no one knows what the hell you were disputing in the first place.

edit:
The way you're phrasing your argument makes you come off as if you're implying that you don't need to prove what unit is where, but rather simply state a unit is in the vehicle (Just sayin)

clively wrote:

The whole thing under discussion is that they believe the second sentence means you are forced by the rules to explicitly outline the exact contents of the transports and let the opponent know those contents immediately. Not through markers that you can later reveal the association of to your units but rather just prior to turn 1 starting and at pretty much any other point in the game when they decide to ask.

I think otherwise.

The only way you can play with secrecy is if both players agree. If you try any form of secrecy, the game ends unless both players agree. The game is not balanced around secrecy. You are trying to warp a few words meanings to promote a skewed interpretation that goes in the face of 25 years of GW games and is not followed anywhere.

clively wrote:So, given your reading, what "trump card" or "bluff" is left to be played?

There really isn't one. But keeping in mind that the paragraph in question is talking overall about army lists in general, not just about transports, there is never any such trump card available, other than those few upgrades and abilities that don't get modelled, like psychic powers or the like.

So yes, if you tell your opponent exactly what is in each of your transports, you have no 'secret trump card' to use later.
But if you don't have any transport vehicles, the same thing happens.

This isn't some crazy restriction that people are trying to place on transport vehicles. We're just expecting the same transparency as there is for the rest of the army, because nothing says that you should be allowed to keep the contents of your vehicles secret unless both players specifically agree to do so.

nkelsch wrote:

clively wrote:

The whole thing under discussion is that they believe the second sentence means you are forced by the rules to explicitly outline the exact contents of the transports and let the opponent know those contents immediately. Not through markers that you can later reveal the association of to your units but rather just prior to turn 1 starting and at pretty much any other point in the game when they decide to ask.

I think otherwise.

The only way you can play with secrecy is if both players agree. If you try any form of secrecy, the game ends unless both players agree. The game is not balanced around secrecy. You are trying to warp a few words meanings to promote a skewed interpretation that goes in the face of 25 years of GW games and is not followed anywhere.

Regarding the "..in the face of 25 years of GW games.." part. Interesting given 4th ed said "Your opponent cannot normally inspect your army roster, including asking you what is in each transport vehicle." on page 81... But that was 4th and is as relevant to this discussion as is "25 years of GW games"...

maxthecat122 wrote:Hey, so I just played a game agaist some orks and my opponnent did not want to tell me what was in his trukks... turns out it was nobz with a pain boyz and a big .... So, can he do that? refuse to tell me what is what and where is what? I know that in tournaments he has to show me his list, but this?? (I showed his The Most Importent rule citing his douchiness, but no luck)

All I can say is...



Besides the fact he HAS to give you a copy of his list at a tourney, and he HAS to tell you when you ask him in a tourney... if your playing a "friendly" game and he refuses... just pack up and walk... unless of course your tabling him and thats his last unit... then humor him.

clively wrote:

Regarding the "..in the face of 25 years of GW games.." part. Interesting given 4th ed said "Your opponent cannot normally inspect your army roster, including asking you what is in each transport vehicle." on page 81... But that was 4th and is as relevant to this discussion as is "25 years of GW games"...

Incomplete quote is incomplete...

"...Players are, however, free to share this information if they so wish."

And 3rd edition also had no secrecy the same way 5th edition does.

And the rulebook doesn't say what you are saying it says. Yours is just an interpretation... and if you try that interpretation the game doesn't actually get played as both players have to agree. No one will agree to that anymore than agree my trukks have armor 14 and cost 2 points. But if both players agree... then so be it!

My God i've created a monster ...

insaniak wrote:

clively wrote:So, given your reading, what "trump card" or "bluff" is left to be played?

There really isn't one. But keeping in mind that the paragraph in question is talking overall about army lists in general, not just about transports, there is never any such trump card available, other than those few upgrades and abilities that don't get modelled, like psychic powers or the like.

So yes, if you tell your opponent exactly what is in each of your transports, you have no 'secret trump card' to use later.
But if you don't have any transport vehicles, the same thing happens.

This isn't some crazy restriction that people are trying to place on transport vehicles. We're just expecting the same transparency as there is for the rest of the army, because nothing says that you should be allowed to keep the contents of your vehicles secret unless both players specifically agree to do so.

I understand your reasoning and even agree with the desire for full transparency for obvious reasons; but given the surrounding text I can't draw the same conclusion you have.

If there is no secret, then you can't bluff. Therefore the discussion on bluffs in the text is immaterial. Which means there is absolutely zero reason to say anything other than "Provide a copy of your army list before the game, unless you and your opponent to agree not to exchange lists until the end."

If there is a possibility of a secret, then there can be a "bluff". Which means it's an option that has a default position and should be discussed. If this is the case, then the first sentence outlined that default position.

I think we've hashed this out as far as it goes. BTW, thank you for a thoughtful response.

clively wrote:If there is no secret, then you can't bluff. Therefore the discussion on bluffs in the text is immaterial. Which means there is absolutely zero reason to say anything other than "Provide a copy of your army list before the game, unless you and your opponent to agree not to exchange lists until the end."

This is exactly right. There is indeed no point to the text in question.

Remove vehicles from the equation for a moment, because that passage is (as I said before) not just discussing vehicles, it's talking about the army list as a whole. Let's say you and your opponent have no vehicles, and decide to share your army lists after the game as the rules suggest.

You both deploy your armies. Assuming your armies are WYSIWYG, what is secret? You can see exactly what you each have on the table.

So you are correct in that there is no bluff, and that this means that the rulebook is babbling on in a meaningless fashion in that particular paragraph. I have no idea just what Alessio thought he was talking about by that whole bit about some players liking 'secrecy'... but it simply doesn't apply to the game. There is no secrecy by default, nor should there be unless you know that you can trust the person you're playing against and you both decide to play that way for the fun of it.

Clively - then you put the marker next to your unit that is ON the table, waiting to disembark from the vehicle, and I see what it is.

Thats what youre missing: its a two step process. One, you identify what unit is in the vehicle. Witha marker, by simply stating what is carried, etc. Two I then MUSt be able to know exactly what that unit is carrying, because your unit is on the table OR you have just told me.

You are not going to get away with leaving models ina case and deploying 3 vehicles and nothing else. I WILL see what models you are intending to use this game or they dont get used. This prevents you from having multiple potential lists that you will be using, and wait to see what im using until deciding.

This means there is no bluff, unless you both agree.

Agree to nos, it's just a little more complicated shellgame to play.

I just recently caught a IG player switching his command-squad flamers for all meltas because their chimera happend to become immobilized on their way to flame my gretchin off an objective, within reach of a battlewagon. He declared it as command chimera at the beginning of the game. When he started to deploy meltas from his case, I assumed it to be the common "meltas are flamer"-proxy everybody does vs orks, but then he started measuring distance and wanted to penetrate with 2d6.

When I called him out on it(why on eath would a chimera with multi-laser and meltas go after gretchin?), he produced a list from the back of his codex, including a melta-command squad and a few minor changes in other places, which was definitely not the list he was using to set up his army.

In the end I let him go, my battlewagon exploded and killed them all. Then I tabled him. But I won't ever play him again unless I have to.

Its the above type of shell game which the identiication is designed to prevent against.

As I said: once you identify exactly which squad out of the units you have on the table waiting to disembark is which, I will know exactly what wargear they have. You will not, and this is meant sincerely, WILL NOT be allowed to claim they are "waiting in the case", as I have seen Jidmahs example of cheating used before now.

I had typed a long post describing exactly what Jidmah describes, the multiple list shell game. Deleted it as I didn't like the way it came across. Point is tho, he and nos are exactly right. This kind of BS is exactly why they put that particular rule in the book.

The last few posts in this thread are quite amusing. Using anecdotal evidence does not validate an argument. In otherwords you have witnessed shellgame antics, so therefore the rule is as you describe it. That is not the case at all.

1. I can give you my list before the game at which time you see my 3 Grey Hunter packs composition.

2. I deploy my Rhinos, telling you that my Grey Hunters are embarked in them, designating each with a marker that matches a marker set for the unit embarked.

3. When disembarked, the marker on the vehicle matches the marker on the unit.

The above three steps fulfills all the requirements as stated by A Note on Secrecy. In addition, it eliminates completely the anecdotal cheating scenarios presented in this thread.

At no time whatsoever are you told to identify the embarked units by how they are equipped. Squad markings, unit markers, banners, paintjobs, etc, etc are all valid methods of identifying embarked units.

Again, there is zero RAW that designates how a squad is equipped as the standard for identifying which squad is embarked in which transport.

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:Again, there is zero RAW that designates how a squad is equipped as the standard for identifying which squad is embarked in which transport.

What part of "In the spirit of the game, always make it clear to your opponent which squads are embarked in which transport vehicle." from page 92 are you having difficulty comprehending?

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:...
2. I deploy my Rhinos, telling you that my Grey Hunters are embarked in them, designating each with a marker that matches a marker set for the unit embarked.

The rule is: "In the same spirit, always make clear to your opponent which squads are embarked in which transport vehicle."

You must say which squads of Grey hunters are embarked in which transport vehicle.

By default you must make it clear which unit is embarked on which transport.

Just saying "Unit Alpha on my army roster" does not make it clear.

Saying "The 5 man grey hunter pack with 2 halberds and one staff and 2 swords, and the (Insert Independent character here)", makes it clear. and this is what the rules require.

No but the markers he placed on the vehicle and with the unit do.

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:2. I deploy my Rhinos, telling you that my Grey Hunters are embarked in them, designating each with a marker that matches a marker set for the unit embarked.

The rule simply states that you must clearly demonstrate that the unit you disembark from a vehicle was the one that was inside of it. You do not need to specify the contents of the unit if you can identify it otherwise.

For the third time I will give you this example. I have 2 assault marine squads sitting on the side of the table, they have markers next to each other. One of them is red, and the other is blue. On my two rhinos are a pair of face down markers. I have maintained secrecy in the sense that you do not know which rhino contains which squad, but I can also prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the squad I disembark from any given rhino was the one inside by flipping over the counter.

The above has made it clear that the red unit was embarked in the red rhino at deployment.

The ONLY thing the rule requires you to do is identify the squad, and identify the rhino it is in. It does not state how, merely that this has to be done.

I'm personally in favor of full disclosure in any sort of tournament game, but for a game at my FLGS, the above is perfectly okay in my book. It fits the RAW, it removes any possibility of cheating, and allows me to bluff a little bit.

Yeah, but the rule says "always", not "when you disembark". If there is a rhino with a marker in it driving up the left flank, during your turn, you have to "make clear which unit is embarked in which transport vehicle."(BRB pg. 92) if I ask you at that exact moment, even if you had no intention of disembarking.

If you answer "The unit with the same marker." and you don't show the marker to me, that's not clear.

Wandering - see above.

Tell me WHICH squad is in the vehicle, or you are cheating. Not when you disembark, but art ANY POINT at which i ask

A face down counter does *not* make clear which squad is in the vehicle - it is still one of 2 at that poiint.

From the last few posts, again the disconnect from the rule is displayed.

There is no RAW that sets the standard for identifying squads by how they are equipped. Squad markings matching vehicles as well as squad markers fulfills that requirement set by A Note on Secrecy completely.

If I have told you that GH pack A is in Rhino A, I have clearly identified that Grey Hunter pack A is in Rhino A. If you ask me which Grey Hunter pack out of my 3, I will tell ypu Grey Hunter pack A is in Rhino A, Grey Hunter pack B is in Rhino B, and Grey Hunter pack C is in Rhino C. The individual packs have been clearly identified as to which transports they are embarked. This identification is also reinforced by marking transports either with pack markings or a unit marker that coincides with the specific pack embarked. They have been clearly distinguished not by how they are equipped, but how they have been labeled, marked, and/or painted.

Now, if you then ask what Grey Hunter pack A is equipped with, you are now surpassing the requirements of A Note on Secrecy. I have already clearly told you who is embarked in which transport and have even marked the transports with coinciding markers to the unit embarked.

Does anyone have any RAW that sets the standard for clearly identifying which units are embarked in which transport by the gear they are equipped with? If not, then coinciding pack marking or unit markers is just as valid as a means of identification.

Now point out who GH Pack A is on the table

If you dont you are cheating, as you have not identified the squad.

Once you have shown me what GH Squad A is, I can see from the models on the table what they are armed with. If you do not place models on the table corresponding to GH Squad A, you will be assumed to be playing a shell game and treated accordingly

You fail to understand the difference here, and entirely ignore the requirement to positively identify the actual squad

nosferatu1001 wrote:Now point out who GH Pack A is on the table

If you dont you are cheating, as you have not identified the squad.

Once you have shown me what GH Squad A is, I can see from the models on the table what they are armed with. If you do not place models on the table corresponding to GH Squad A, you will be assumed to be playing a shell game and treated accordingly

You fail to understand the difference here, and entirely ignore the requirement to positively identify the actual squad

If GH pack A is embarked in Rhino A, I can point at the Rhino A and tell you they are in there. If they are disembarked, I can point to the disembarked Grey Hunter A and tell you that they are there. I have fulfilled the requirements of the rule because I did not point to Grey Hunter pack B or Grey Hunter pack C.

I would like to know on what RAW are you claiming that my models must be on display when embarked or when not in play on the table. Can you point out where the rules tell you that my models must be displayed either on a sideboard or even on the table before I deploy them or disembark them?

The standard for identification is not set on gear equipped. You have failed to show that in this entire thread which probably means you have failed to show it in past threads.

DId you fail to read any of the shell game stories, which explain why you must put your models on the table?

If not, read them again.

If you dont put your models out on the table, and identify who is squad A by pointing at squad A, I will assume you are cheating. Bluntly, you are cheating from that point on, as you can have multiple lists and multiple squads hiding in your case.

If youre a friend? Fair enough, youre probably good. Pickup game? Hell no.

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
I would like to know on what RAW are you claiming that my models must be on display when embarked or when not in play on the table. Can you point out where the rules tell you that my models must be displayed either on a sideboard or even on the table before I deploy them or disembark them?

"always make clear to your opponent which squads are embarked in which transport vehicle."

There is the rule that says you MUST make it CLEAR which squads are embarked in which transport.

Saying Pack A does not make it clear.

Saying pack A that is this squad of ten models over here on the side makes it clear.

To just say Pack A is breaking the rules.

Nos- there is no rule anywhere in the rule book that says I must show you the models before they hit the play area. I can have them squirreled away in a tree for all the rules that care. You can ask to see my list and by the rules I have to give it to you. There is nowhere that states you can ask to see my models or that I have to show you before I deploy them.

Point to the rule that says I have to do that.

-cgmckenzie

nosferatu1001 wrote:DId you fail to read any of the shell game stories, which explain why you must put your models on the table?

If not, read them again.

If you dont put your models out on the table, and identify who is squad A by pointing at squad A, I will assume you are cheating. Bluntly, you are cheating from that point on, as you can have multiple lists and multiple squads hiding in your case.

If youre a friend? Fair enough, youre probably good. Pickup game? Hell no.

And as I pointed out, anecdotal evidence does not dictate a rule that you have just made up. I could choke you out at the gaming table, clear your models, and tell the judge that I tabled you on turn one and you fainted in disbelief. Does that mean that GW needs to put no chokeholds in the BRB?

And this still doesn't prevent "shell" games. I can just as easily dispute that I pointed out that squad as being the one identified earlier or use magnetic special ranged weapons to swap out when you are not looking. The supposed cheating that your made up rule is supposed to prevent does not.

So again, I ask you where is the RAW that models must be on display when my units are embarked and/or not in play? As I have pointed out through designation and markings, the squads can clearly be identified as to which transports they are embarked, fulfilling A Note on Secrecy, while not telling you how the individual squads are equipped as a means of identification.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Wandering - see above.

Tell me WHICH squad is in the vehicle, or you are cheating. Not when you disembark, but art ANY POINT at which i ask

A face down counter does *not* make clear which squad is in the vehicle - it is still one of 2 at that poiint.

Read the rest of the rule. I believe it ends with the phrase "The choice is yours!"

My point was so long as no cheating can occur, there is no problem with it as long as it is out side of a tournament setting.

If you wish to continue arguing this point, please elaborate what the other option is since the rule clearly states that a choice can be made

DeathReaper wrote:

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
I would like to know on what RAW are you claiming that my models must be on display when embarked or when not in play on the table. Can you point out where the rules tell you that my models must be displayed either on a sideboard or even on the table before I deploy them or disembark them?

"always make clear to your opponent which squads are embarked in which transport vehicle."

There is the rule that says you MUST make it CLEAR which squads are embarked in which transport.

Saying Pack A does not make it clear.

Saying pack A that is this squad of ten models over here on the side makes it clear.

To just say Pack A is breaking the rules.

Then please show me that the standard for identification is pointing out the squad? No one has yet to show me the RAW that equipment and now your point, of showing the squad, is the standard for identification.

Designation of each squad by whatever means, is fulfillment of making them clearly distinguished from each other. It may not be the detailed information you want, but it still clearly distinguishes one from another.

Tyr - the game is a social contract between two players. If you want to continue playing a game then you better have your models out. Otherwise you are already under suspicion for cheating. Slippery slope, crass arguments like yours dont help - stop.


If you refuse to identify the squad, by pointing it out on the table or talking equipment etc, then you have not CLEARLY identified the squad.

If you say "squad A" then you havenot identified the squad - you have identifed a marker for the squad. I have no way to actually identify the squad, thus you have cheated.

Got it yet?

Tyr Grimtooth wrote: As I have pointed out through designation and markings, the squads can clearly be identified as to which transports they are embarked, fulfilling A Note on Secrecy

and as long as those squads are clear to your opponent then you have followed the rule.

This means if you have 3 different units:

Unit A, Unit B, Unit C

Unit A has 10 marines with a meltagun, and a power sword Sgt.

Unit B has 10 marines with a power sword Sgt.

Unit C has 10 marines with 2 flamers and a power fist sgt

If you say Unit A, you must also make it clear which unit unit A is. I.E. If I ask which unit is in that transport, you have to say "Unit A, the one with the 10 marines with the meltagun, and a power sword Sgt, is in that one" anything less and you have not made it clear "which squads are embarked in which transport vehicle" and that is breaking the rules.

I play SM(hypothetical here) and all my squads have different colored shoulder pads. I tell you "the squad with blue shoulders is in the blue rhino, the red squad in the red rhino, and the green squad is in the LR." The squads in the transports have been clearly identified without any confusion or uncertainty. If you want more information about the squads, check my list or wait till they start killing you.

-cgmckenzie

As long as I can see your squads which are red shouldered, blue shouldered and green then youre fine: WYSIWYG means I know can identify the squad.

Anything less and you have identified a marker, and not the squad, and you have cheated.

You don't have to see them before they hit the table top. Show me the rule that says you do.

-cgmckenzie

Out of curiosity, CGM, what would be the point of the rule if it were interpreted in the manner in which you describe?

It wouldn't stop impropriety, and as far as I can gather, that really seems to be the only reason to include such a rule in the game.

cgmckenzie wrote:You don't have to see them before they hit the table top. Show me the rule that says you do.

-cgmckenzie

If you don't have them on the tabletop and don't tell me what exact squad is in there, I'm not clear which squad is embarked in which transport. The answer "Squad A" is just as good as me answering "Orks". There are orks in all my battlewagons and I will simply switch out the respective squad leaders to correspond to the vehicles marking. My color scheme allows me to do that, so if it suits me better the yellow camouflage nob is part of the nob squad today and, the tank busta nob suddenly found himself leading yellow camouflaged boyz and a nob with one shoulderpad in a fitting colors recently joined the tankbustas. Oh, I even have fitting special weapons of each kind and marking to fit with my boyz squads, so I simply switch out rokkits from one unit to the other if they are closer to the opponent.

Even if you know my army, and you know that all boyz squads have an apropriate colored nob, nobz in nobz squads have two different colors for shoulderpads and tank bustas have yellow rockits instead of red ones, I could still cheat you by playing shells with special weapons. You are not clear whether the red, yellow or green boyz are bringing rokkits until I tell you so. I could even have my bigmek jumping around battlewagons if I wanted, using your shady systems.

Point being, no matter your color scheme or marking system, it's not clear to your opponent, mostly because he didn't paint your army or even knows what you own.

Whenever you ask me what's inside the yellow battlewagon, I have to answer "Yellow shootaboyz, no special weapons, joined by the red Bigmek". "Yellow squad" or even "orks" is cheating, because "yellow squad" could suddenly become Nobz.

If you want to play "I activate my trap card!" without having to agree to do so, you really should move to Yu-Gi-Oh.

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:Then please show me that the standard for identification is pointing out the squad? No one has yet to show me the RAW that equipment and now your point, of showing the squad, is the standard for identification.

The standard is what the rules says. You have to make it clear to your opponent.

So when your opponent is satisfied that they are clear on what is in which transport, you have satisfied the requirement.

This isn't a situation where you can supply the bare minimum information and call it good. It's entirely down to how much information your opponent needs in order for them to be clear on just what is going on.

If you have marked the squads or otherwise proved that the squad that entered the transport at deployment is the same as the one jumping out and crumping heads, you are fine. That can be with tokens that are flipped, squad markings, or something else. As long as your opponent isn't misrepresenting the squad in the transport or changing which is in which, he is fine.

Take this example:

Joe has 3 trukks full of orks. He has 3 boxes, each with one squad in it and only the models for that squad. The models in the blue box are in the blue trukk, the red box the red trukk, and the yellow box the yellow trukk.

You don't know what is in each squad, but it has been clearly indicated which squads are in which transport and that is all the rules call for. Not models, not wargear, but which squads.

-cgmckenzie

cgmckenzie wrote:You don't have to see them before they hit the table top. Show me the rule that says you do.

-cgmckenzie

To me, this is the only argument in favor of the "hidden" side that follows the rules.

You basically have 2 options:

1) Full disclosure of all units. This includes exactly which unit is in what transport, what that unit is equipped with, and what units are in reserves and what they are equipped with.

2) Disclosure of only units on the board, everything else is hidden. This means that you can say "Squad 1 is in this Rhino. Squad 2 is in this Rhino." More details as to what is in the squad is not available. This also extends to units in reserves. You only have to declare which units will be deep striking or outflanking, again by squad numbers or another appropriate information. What those squads in transports or in reserves actually are will be a surprise to the opponent.


Note: I HATE playing by method #2. But, it does follow the RAW. (Just don't try it in a tourney).

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

Then please show me that the standard for identification is pointing out the squad? No one has yet to show me the RAW that equipment and now your point, of showing the squad, is the standard for identification.

Designation of each squad by whatever means, is fulfillment of making them clearly distinguished from each other. It may not be the detailed information you want, but it still clearly distinguishes one from another.

Oh god, this thread again. How painful. :(

Okay, what is the standard for identification? I've seen no provision for "naming squads" "Unit A" or "Squad B" or anything of the like anywhere in any of the rules. The only things in the rules that allow you to express identification (that is, a semblance of 'uniqueness') in the game are the following:

- wargear
- unit type (veterans, storm troopers, tac squad)
- model count (10 man tac squad vs. 5 man tac squad)

Nothing in the rules cares about or even makes allowances for unit names, otherwise, I'd be able to hand you a piece of paper with letters and point costs corresponding to my model's shoulderpads and tell you that I've expressed my model list in the form of my army on the board. You can follow the corresponding key to find out how much each individual one costs. I could try to rationalize that, but I'd just be being an ass.

The rule talks about things to do "to keep things fair", then it says, "in the same spirit, ALWAYS make clear". First off, if you're shell gaming the units behind labels and symbols and other such things, then you're not operating in the same spirit, and there's no way you can possibly argue otherwise. Secondly, "Unit A" doesn't '"always make clear", because it's not clear to me what "Unit A" is anymore than farting every time I ask you what's in the first Rhino, belching when I ask you what's in the second Rhino, and wiping your cheeto stained fingers off on your shirt when I ask you what's in the third Rhino does.

That's what sharing lists are for at the end, so that you can see what happened and the exact wargear/breakdown of each unit.

The rule is to keep people from playing the shell game. If Joe has the designated holding pens for each transport and only has the models that are in the transport in the holding pen for that transport, he is fine. If there is no way to distinguish between the models or he is just pulling them out of 1 box, then there is some potential for people to have a problem with it.

Having different boxes for each unit, saying 'this box's squad is in this trukk' is perfectly clear. The rules only say I need to specify which squad is in each transport, not what the squad is made of or what it is carrying. Consult my list after the battle for that info.

I like having a bit of secrecy in the game, simply because I am sick of people focusing on the one transport with a powerhouse unit in it and ignoring the other one. More often than not, I point out everything at deployment, but the uncertainty about what exactly is racing at your lines makes the game a little more fun, IMO.

-cgmckenzie

cgmckenzie wrote:
Having different boxes for each unit, saying 'this box's squad is in this trukk' is perfectly clear. The rules only say I need to specify which squad is in each transport, not what the squad is made of or what it is carrying. Consult my list after the battle for that info.

But unless you show me what's in the box, you haven't told me what squad was in the rhino. You've only indicated from where you will pull the squad from at the time of deployment, which isn't always making clear.

I like having a bit of secrecy in the game, simply because I am sick of people focusing on the one transport with a powerhouse unit in it and ignoring the other one. More often than not, I point out everything at deployment, but the uncertainty about what exactly is racing at your lines makes the game a little more fun, IMO.

I could see it being potentially fun, or I could see it being disastrous. For one, it makes playing a meched up army more rewarding, which isn't exactly what the game needs, for another, it puts nids and demons at a massive disadvantage. I would be potentially okay with playing it that way, but it would definitely need to be discussed before hand, because I can think of at least 3 game altering rule issues that would arise off the top of my head.

Edit. Stupid phone.

cgmckenzie wrote:You don't have to see them before they hit the table top. Show me the rule that says you do.

-cgmckenzie

You appear to misunderstand "social contract" and "clearly identify"

If you do nto CLEARLY identify, to my satisfaction, you are cheating. "Squad A in rhino A" does NOT, to my satisfaction, "clearly identify" the squad - you can have 5 differently armed guys all painted identically that you magically put into Squad A.
If I believe you are being shady, or playing the shell game you repeatedly ignore your "method" of "identification" allows, I will not play you.

Prove that the 10 identically painted squads in your case, which all have a different load out depending on what youre facing AND have an appropriate list to match, are not being swapped around as you see fit. Oh wait, you cant. Guiess what? That means you havent clearly identifieed the squad, and have cheated.

"Clearly identify" means "beyond all doubt". Your method introduces doubt. You have broken the rule, and are cheating.

Understand yet? There are at least 3 ways youre trying to cheat the rules.

If I recall Trukks can only be used as dedicated transports for Boyz. Now a battle wagon can be purchased as a heavy choice and transport anything, but I don't have my Ork book in front of me. I also see nothing in the rules that states you must declare what is in your transport while it is embarked. I agree a childish move, but I don't ever recall that being a rule or in any FAQ.

Bottom line is, if the opponent you play is a jerk, just don't play them again. Call them on it too, that is what I do. Every gaming group has that one guy who is just slightly too competitive, and we call him on it when he does stuff like that. Usually that just smashes the whole issue and it is resolved before it becomes a problem.

The note on secrecy only requires the following:

1)Allow your opponent to check your list at the end.
2)Clearly indicate which squad is in which transport.

Everything else is a suggestion or good idea.

Separating the squads into boxes is a clear indication of which squad is where. You want more detail about the squad, like numbers, wargear, and composition but the rules do not make that a necessity.

-cgmckenzie

cgmckenzie wrote:The note on secrecy only requires the following:

1)Allow your opponent to check your list at the end.
2)Clearly indicate which squad is in which transport.

Sigh, sure. I then tell you that I wasn't aware that they had models that size and ask you what the box is a proxy for. You then say that, no, the box isn't the model inside the transport. I then compliment your fine box and inquire to its contents, being as how its cardboard exterior makes knowing what squad is inside the rhino an impossibility. You repeat yourself. I then gather every model I have on the table, replace them with dice and invoke 'wobbly model syndrome'. We play the rest of the game slowly degenerating into surreal madness.

Pretty soon your chimeras can't use their flamers because they would hit the tank they're mounted on and my gauss flux thingys start gaining attacks due to weapon destroyed rolls, which I will think is odd as I wasn't playing necrons to begin with.

cgmckenzie wrote:That's what sharing lists are for at the end,

Except the rules require you to share lists before the game starts.

cgmckenzie wrote:The note on secrecy only requires the following:

1)Allow your opponent to check your list at the end.
2)Clearly indicate which squad is in which transport.

Everything else is a suggestion or good idea.

Sure. But because there are two people involved, and 'clearly' is not an emperically definable term, it's ultimately down to what both players agree is clear enough. You can't just divulge as much as you feel you need to and decide that's as clear as you have to be. Your opponent has to agree that you've been clear enough on what is going on.

So this ultimately isn't as simple as 'You need to divulge this much, and only this much, information.'... Its an agreement between both players. You both have to be satisfied that you know what is going on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DarknessEternal wrote:Except the rules require you to share lists before the game starts.

No they don't.

cgmckenzie wrote: but the uncertainty about what exactly is racing at your lines makes the game a little more fun, IMO.

You mean makes the game unbalanced in favor of mechanized transports by giving units a wargear effect for no increase in points and drastically harming the effects of footslogging units and devaluing their effectiveness.

Nothing says clearly identify models on foot. I should be able to model all my models with cloaks on and say they have weapons under the cloaks and then you only know what they have when they shoot at you and a multimelta blows up your transport... how is that? As long as I agree not to cheat and clearly mark in a hidden book the blue markers are Unit A on foot, it works right?

Secrecy is not the 'default'. That is not what the rules say. It is cheating.

If we were playing and you were to accuse me of planning on cheating, I would walk out on you. The 'social contract' that nos keeps referring too goes both ways; Don't be an ass to me and I won't be one to you. Accuse me of cheating or planning on it, your are walking down a slippery line.

Per the rules, I only have to indicate what squad is in the transport. 99% of the time, people explain everything at deployment, but that isn't needed. Models with markings/in a box by themselves/ standing next to a token is clearly indicated.

If you have a problem with that and can't trust your opponent to not cheat after they have clearly indicated squads, go play somebody else, I want nothing to do with you.

-cgmckenzie

cgmckenzie wrote:
Per the rules, I only have to indicate what squad is in the transport. 99% of the time, people explain everything at deployment, but that isn't needed. Models with markings/in a box by themselves/ standing next to a token is clearly indicated.

That's clear to you, but not to me. If you have to explain something to me, and its not still not clear after explaining, then you haven't fulfilled the condition of the rule. Communication depends upon the other person understanding, not just you thinking that the other person did, otherwise one could play an entire game speaking only in esperanto, and it be your fault for not knowing what they're saying.

Interesting that time and time again the request for the RAW that declares the standard for identification is how a unit is how that unit is equipped. And now the new argument of models being on the table or visible when not in play is not supported by RAW either.

I understand your point, but it isn't supported by any rules, especially not WYSIWYG.

Say we have two identical twins. I designate them twin A and twin B and have them wear shirts with a big A and B on them respectively. I have clearly distinguished twin A from twin B.

Now I place twin A behind a door marked A and twin B behind a door marked B. I have already clearly distinguished twin A from twin B and now have clearly distinguished their locations.

I have fulfilled the RAW without ever telling you that twin A has a knife behind his back and twin B has a gun. They have been clearly distinguished without ever informing you that they are armed.

I find using the, "social contract" excuse pretty amusing. I insist on playing by the rules where identification of a unit and transport can be done with dissemination of information of which you have zero rule support to request yet you would call me a cheater for not following your houserule. And don't doubt that it isn't a houserule because there is absolutely zero RAW that dictates unit identification by gear equipped and absolutely zero RAW that dictate units embarked or not in play must be visible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And as mentioned, after I have identified which squad is in which transport and you still insist on gear equipped, then you are CHEATING because as I have pointed out, there is nor rules support for gear as a means of identifying nor having units that are embarked or not in play on the table. You are attempting to force me to conform to your houserule.

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

I have fulfilled the RAW without ever telling you that twin A has a knife behind his back and twin B has a gun. They have been clearly distinguished without ever informing you that they are armed.

No you haven't clearly distinguished them. You have not fulfilled RAW. If you tried this the game ends.

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:Interesting that time and time again the request for the RAW that declares the standard for identification is how a unit is how that unit is equipped. And now the new argument of models being on the table or visible when not in play is not supported by RAW either.

There's no RAW being presented for the 'standard of identification' because it's not a matter of RAW. It's a matter of both players agreeing that the unit is clearly identified.

The rules don't specify exactly how the unit should be identified beyond 'clearly'... so it's up to the players to agree on a standard.

It's that simple.

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:Interesting that time and time again the request for the RAW that declares the standard for identification is how a unit is how that unit is equipped. And now the new argument of models being on the table or visible when not in play is not supported by RAW either.

I understand your point, but it isn't supported by any rules, especially not WYSIWYG.

Say we have two identical twins. I designate them twin A and twin B and have them wear shirts with a big A and B on them respectively. I have clearly distinguished twin A from twin B.

Now I place twin A behind a door marked A and twin B behind a door marked B. I have already clearly distinguished twin A from twin B and now have clearly distinguished their locations.

I have fulfilled the RAW without ever telling you that twin A has a knife behind his back and twin B has a gun. They have been clearly distinguished without ever informing you that they are armed.

So, following your own argument, what RAW backs what any of what you've just stated? Where in the permissive system of rules we hold SO dear does it ever describe units as a set of labels or identifiers. For that reason, where in the rulebook does it state you CAN obfuscate the units inside your transports in ANY container? I have no RAW supporting my side. I have nothing beyond clear English on page 92, a sense of sportsmanship, and the willingness to enjoy my game at a playable level, sure. But neither really do you. And mind you, there's circumstantial evidence that you should be open and upfront with everything that's going on all over the rulebook, and not a bit I can find that says you shouldn't.

It sounds like you would be okay with the cloaked army idea though, which I find is interesting

As an interesting aside I decided to go through history so to speak to see what previous editions had to say on this subject. Namely in order to try and divine exactly what it was 5th is trying to say based on a simple analysis of the rules evolution. Please take the time to read this. Twice if necessary.

As I couldn't source anything older than a 3rd edition book, I'll start there:

The 3rd edition rulebook has a section for Hidden Deployment. Each player placed a token counter to mark where a particular unit will go. Once both sides had completed deployment the counters were replaced with the actual units. Hidden Deployment was a rule used in certain missions. (I can provide page numbers later if someone really cares that much).

Mandrakes built on this rule to persist the hidden nature for as long as the controlling player wanted. Again using tokens.

The 3rd ed rules were pretty simple to follow and, provided your markers were tied in some verifiable way (e.g.: written down) to your units, the possibility of cheating was pretty low. Note that I could not locate a rule governing when or even if a roster should be shared between two players. There wasn't even a prescription that the points level should match, just that the forces "should be roughly equal in size". Also, deployment seemed to occur simultaneously and the rules were divided on whether it should be somehow completely blind deployment (meaning neither sees the others deployment until all units were placed) or if each player should alternate between placing units. I'm not sure how they expected the former to be accomplished.

----

4th edition radically changed the concept. The deployment rule was now a solid one for all games which said: "Your opponent cannot normally inspect your army roster, including asking you what is in each transport vehicle." (pg82?)

It was pretty clear that surprises and bluffs were to be an integral part of the game for everyone. Not only is the roster not available at any point for inspection, but they have clearly defined that transports are complete black boxes.

However, as Don Mondo and nosferatu1001 like to continue pointing out, cheating under those 4th edition rules was pretty easy to accomplish. After all you didn't have to supply any information to your opponent at all for any reason.

As we know, cheating is an unfortunate trait that some people who play this game exhibit and that complete lack of transparency was ripe for abuse. However, it's even more unfortunate that there is a pervasive trust no one attitude caused by it. Such is life, but more on this further down.

----

Now 5th edition comes along and you can bet that GW heard about the various ways people were hoodwinking their opponents through abuse of the exceedingly clear 4th edition rules.

I can imagine that a discussion during 5th edition development centered around 2 things: First, how to keep hidden deployments while eliminating cheating. Second, what to do about tournament play in which hidden deployments were all but banned because of that problem.

The first change makes the most sense: "To keep things fair, you should always allow your opponent to read your force roster after a game." This does two things. First, it maintains the secrecy aspect firmly established in 4th ed. Second it enables verifiability; meaning, your opponent will know if you swapped something in you shouldn't. Of course, there are still problems to be exploited, more on that further down. The main thing here is that the sentence emboddies two distinct concepts: secrecy and fairness.

The next change is more problematic and was obviously meant to cover the shell game issue of moving units between transports after the fact: "In the same spirit, always make clear to your opponent which squads are embarked in which transport vehicle".

This one sentence is very poorly written and has caused a lot of grief. So let's break it apart.

"In the same spirit": I hope we can agree that this is a direct reference to the previous sentence that covers two topics: secrecy and fairness.

"always": We all agree that always does indeed mean "throughout the entire game".

"make clear": This one is the problem as clarity is wholely dependent on the individual.

"to your opponent": Should be obvious.

"which squads are embarked in which transport vehicle": Unfortunately this is another problem area. After all how are squads to be identified as consisting of a particular set of models? Some armies are simply not painted; others are painted identically. Although others do have different schemes which make it extremely easy to identify a group. Simple examples include: one group having red shoulder pads while another has blue. One group having black bases while another has white. Of course there are many other ways to identify a squad such as through weapon makeup.

Coincidentally, squad identification is not just a problem for secrecy rules it is also a problem during multiple combat resolution. Consider the situation in which two different, but visually identical, tac marine squads assault a mob of orks. The models will be pretty well mixed together. Let's assume one squad loses a flamer and another loses 3 bolter marines and the orks are run down. How can you be certain that the marine player won't use the resulting consolidation to "rebalance" the two visually identical squads in some other manner? If you aren't completely vigilant it could happen.. even accidentally.

Tyr Grimtooth, WanderingFox, I and others have each offered different types of marker systems which would work to identify a particular squad and the transport it is embarked on. Those systems meet the aspects of being in force throughout the entire game while maintaining secrecy and fairness and being verifiable by a quick look through a roster at the end.

Don Mondo, Nosferatu1001, Insaniak and others have stated markers aren't "clear" enough to them. The primary reason here boils down to a lack of trust that the list a person hands over at the end of the game will match the list that the person supposedly started with. This is a very real concern. Not because models are still in a bag; but rather because it is very easy to print up several different lists and swap them out as the situation warrants. Of course, given even a modest number of transports such as four, each containing a different squad, a cheater would need 16 (or 24? can't remember if this is a factorial situation or not) different lists to keep track of in order to cover all of the possibilities. This in itself might alleviate the concern as watching someone look through a large stack of papers to pick one to show you at the end would be a huge red flag... Then again we do know those that are firmly entrenched in WAAC.

------

After carefully reading this section many times over the past couple of days and seriously considering the various viewpoints it really just boils down to trust. Either you trust me or you don't. Clarity and Trust are very different things but some people are having a hard time separating them.

If you don't trust me then there is no system we can come up with to ensure that the squad is "clearly" identified "to your opponent" short of placing a proxy from the unit on top of the ride and pointing to a single squad and saying "this goeth here.".

Example system: Blue token = blue shouldered marines. Blue shouldered marines are fully identified on roster. Roster is placed face down on the side of the table in plain view of everyone to be revealed at the end. Guido, an impartial bystander, makes sure no one peaks at or swaps out the rosters if someone has to go to the bathroom. Luigi watches Guido to make sure he wasn't paid off by the player who didn't go to the bathroom... :(

Which leaves us with the only sentence that matters in this whole thing, the one that tries to fix the issues with tournament rules vs local pick up games: "However, before starting to deploy their armies, it is a good idea to agree whether or not they can read the opponent's force roster before and during the game."


RAW (on this topic) == fundamentally broke.

clively wrote:Don Mondo, Nosferatu1001, Insaniak and others have stated markers aren't "clear" enough to them.

I don't recall addressing my personal feelings on using markers at all, actually.


For what it's worth, I have no problem with playing that way so long as everything is clear. I just think it's more faffing about than is really worthwhile.

But then, most of the time I don't really care about full disclosure, either. Generally, an opponent saying 'There's a Tactical Squad in there,' is sufficient for me.


My point has simply been that full army disclosure is more in keeping with the current rules, and helps eliminate shell games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

If you don't trust me then there is no system we can come up with to ensure that the squad is "clearly" identified "to your opponent" short of placing a proxy from the unit on top of the ride and pointing to a single squad and saying "this goeth here.".

Which is pretty much exactly how a very large number of gamers actually play it.

... I can't believe this is still going on.

The rule is INTENTIONALLY VAGUE. That way it can apply to BOTH situations. That specific line does not specify WHEN you must be informed by the way, just that you must be ('always' meaning that I can't just not tell you).

Also, the definition of "clear" changes depending on how you decide to play the game. In full disclosure "clear" means you know exactly what is what. When playing with the 'secrecy' option named in the rule, "clear" means 'to the point where you cannot cheat'

That is to say the following:

Full Disclosure: You need to specify the unit, including wargear, that is in any given transport at any given time.

Secrecy: You need to provide a clear identifier that can only reference one unit in your army. Either by setting the models aside with a marker, painting them specifically and setting them aside in a second box, writing it down, what have you. When they disembark, you can then 'make it clear' as to which unit was in the transport to the point where you could not have cheated. Either by showing both markers, or if you were super-secret and put them in a box, showing the 'blue box' is now empty and the 'blue marines' are now disembarked next to the 'blue rhino'


In conclusion, you must decide on a level of secrecy at the start of the game, and form there you can infer the proper context of the rule.

This is the only logical and proper interpretation of the rule because if the game was always played with full disclosure, the rule would not mention bluffing, secrecy, or anything the like. It would instead read "You must tell your opponent exactly what is in your transports." Similarly, the rule does not state that you MUST be secretive as the rule itself provides you with the choice "The choice is yours!"


In short: Both sides of this argument are correct, just in different contexts. Can we please stop the cyclical arguing now? I'm getting dizzy.

So, what's exactly there to stop you from going, oh it's now convenient to unload meltas so I'll unload this squad. Oh look I could certainly use a flamer here so I'll unload that squad.

clively wrote:

After carefully reading this section many times over the past couple of days and seriously considering the various viewpoints it really just boils down to trust.

It isn't about trust to me. It is about game balance. When old lictors could hide in terrain with tokens or terrain pre-marked... that was fine because it was balanced into the lictors point values.

The current system would have to re-adjust mech units and transports up in points for the large in-game advantage you would get from this secrecy token ruleset you add to the game. Not like the metagame needs any more shift to MSU and transports. But the 'clearly identified' rulesets you are making are already house rules that are not outlined in the book, you can also come up with point cost adjustments to balance the secrecy.

Even if I trusted you wouldn't shellgame, the imbalance it causes makes the game fundamentally unfair and basically when a game is starting off unfair the game becomes unplayable IMHO.

I was on a long drive home from work and got to thinking;

Can we just cut the crap? Markings/labels/tokens/etc for units and transports are more then clear enough to distinguish them apart and ensure matching squads disembarking from mathcing transports. If you say that they are not, it is not because it isn't clear to you which unit is embarked in which transport but it isn't clear to you what the unit is equipped with. That is all you are fishing for with this rolling eyes-victimized crying excuse of,

"Well I just can't tell the difference between blue guys in a blue rhino and red guys in a red rhino."

And really, it is all a completely moot point because it will not matter if it isn't clear to you, it will matter if it is clear to the judge and TO. How do you see that working out for you?

TO: What's up?

Player 1: Well I told him the Grey Hunters with the one red stripe is in the Rhino with one red stripe, the Grey Hunters with the two red stripes are in the Rhino with two red stripes. I even put a Grey Hunter with cooresponding number of stripes on each Rhino.

You: It isn't clear.

Or

You: But he won't tell me what they are equipped with.

The first response will have the judge/TO asking if you have been drinking or if you identification. After reading the rule, the judge/TO will see that at no point is gear equipped the standard for identification and rule that the units and which transports they are embarked have been identified and are distinguished from eachother.

So play the dumb blonde role and act like you can't tell blue from red or A from B. You will be ruled against by a TO that is able to distinguish them.

I run Astaroth and an all Death Company army. I have a DC squad led by Astaroth in a Stormraven along with a DC Dread with Bloodfists, another DC squad led by Lemartes and a DC Dread with Blood Talons in another Stormraven, and 2 Rhinos with identical DC squads. On my army list sheet I have these clearly identified as to what is riding in what, what they are equipped with, etc.

When I am playing and I am deploying the transports, I will say "This rhino has a DC squad in it, this Rhino also has a DC squad in it, this Stormraven has a DC squad led by Astaroth and also a DC Dread, and this Stormraven has a DC squad led by Lemartes and also a DC Dread." When rolling for reserves, I will say something like "Rolling for Astaroth's squad, rolling for Lemartes' squad, etc." I don't go into what all the models are equipped with or how many models are in the transport, as I have satisfied the RAW by identifying what squads are in what transport.

If I only said "This Stormraven has a DC squad in it." and didn't mention that it was led by Astaroth or Lemartes and that there was also a DC Dread on board, then I haven't satisfied RAW. Why? Because when I disembark my units from it within assault range of the enemy and my opponent says in horror "Oh, crap! You didn't say that Lemartes was in the squad and that there was a DC Dread in there!" then I have "cheated" because I didn't disclose enough info to satisfy RAW. At the end of the game, if my opponent wants to see my list, then they will see that what is written on paper matches exactly what I played with and that the units I said were in certain transports matched what was listed on my sheet of paper.

terranarc wrote:So, what's exactly there to stop you from going, oh it's now convenient to unload meltas so I'll unload this squad. Oh look I could certainly use a flamer here so I'll unload that squad.

Depends on what system I'm using at the time. If I'm using the markers, you get to physically watch me flip over the marker on the transport, showing blue, and then go over to the squad with the blue marker and place it by the transport. If I used the color code method and set aside method, you'll see me pull a bunch of blue marines out of the box i put the squad in at deployment, place them next to the blue rhino, and then show you that those were the only models in the blue box. If I had it written down, when I disembarked them, I'd show you the piece of paper that I wrote on during deployment that said the unit composition of the squad and that it was embarked in.

There's plenty of ways to keep the unit comp secret until it's placed while simultaneously preventing 'shell-gaming'

Also, have yet to see the RAW that I can't pull my models from the Battlefoam bag or that I MUST have my embarked models or models not yet on the table or visually displayed for my opponent.

Juust another set of houserules trying to be pushed as official.

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:Also, have yet to see the RAW that I can't pull my models from the Battlefoam bag or that I MUST have my embarked models or models not yet on the table or visually displayed for my opponent.

Juust another set of houserules trying to be pushed as official.

I have also yet to see the RAW that says you can hide your models embarked in transports. It doesn't exist...

If making up non-existing rules for identifying units in 'shell games' and saying they are RAW isn't "Juust another set of houserules trying to be pushed as official" then I don't know what is. None of these 'hide in my bag' or 'use tokens to distinguish units' is not RAW at all.

nkelsch wrote:

I have also yet to see the RAW that says you can hide your models embarked in transports. It doesn't exist...

If making up non-existing rules for identifying units in 'shell games' and saying they are RAW isn't "Juust another set of houserules trying to be pushed as official" then I don't know what is. None of these 'hide in my bag' or 'use tokens to distinguish units' is not RAW at all.

The entire thread is about that. The rules say that you have to identify the squad, not explain what it is. These are not random things we are making up, just doing exactly what the rules say. Rules say to identify the squad, I tell you it is this one here in the box. That is all. Not run down each load out or even who is in each squad, literally just the squad.

The bag vs table issue is a matter of deployment. The rules do not say to put the models on the table edge while they are in reserve/embarked in a transport, so you don't have to.

-cgmckenzie

cgmckenzie wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

I have also yet to see the RAW that says you can hide your models embarked in transports. It doesn't exist...

If making up non-existing rules for identifying units in 'shell games' and saying they are RAW isn't "Juust another set of houserules trying to be pushed as official" then I don't know what is. None of these 'hide in my bag' or 'use tokens to distinguish units' is not RAW at all.

The entire thread is about that. The rules say that you have to identify the squad, not explain what it is. These are not random things we are making up, just doing exactly what the rules say. Rules say to identify the squad, I tell you it is this one here in the box. That is all. Not run down each load out or even who is in each squad, literally just the squad.

The bag vs table issue is a matter of deployment. The rules do not say to put the models on the table edge while they are in reserve/embarked in a transport, so you don't have to.

-cgmckenzie

And you don't have a RAW definition between 'identify the squad' and 'not explain what it is.' And your rules to hide units and the degree to which you hide them are exactly 'random things you are making up.'

And there are not rules for these shell games because there is no definition of what constitutes identifying the squad. Identifying the squad has to be mutually agreed upon to move forward the same way identifying terrain does.


As soon as you try to shell game with made up house rules players don't agree to the game stops being played.

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:And really, it is all a completely moot point because it will not matter if it isn't clear to you, it will matter if it is clear to the judge and TO. How do you see that working out for you?

See, there's an interesting point right there... Because the whole 'keeping the contents secret' thing is actually only any good to you in friendly games, which generally don't have 'TOs or judges'...

In a tournament, once you've played your first game there is absolutely no point in trying to keep the composition o f your transported units secret, because by that point everyone's already seen your army anyway.


So, really, why bother? Just save the argument and tell your opponent what's in your transports. End of problem.

That exact argument can be flipped around and used against you in the exact same manner you're trying to use it against us.

If no RAW definition of "identify the squad" exists, as per your own admission, then the rule itself is open to the interpretation of the player. This means the rule is ambiguous and can be interpreted in multiple ways, as I said several posts ago.

In short, it's entirely dependent on the tournament and/or the two people playing. /thread

nkelsch wrote:

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:Also, have yet to see the RAW that I can't pull my models from the Battlefoam bag or that I MUST have my embarked models or models not yet on the table or visually displayed for my opponent.

Juust another set of houserules trying to be pushed as official.

I have also yet to see the RAW that says you can hide your models embarked in transports. It doesn't exist...

If making up non-existing rules for identifying units in 'shell games' and saying they are RAW isn't "Juust another set of houserules trying to be pushed as official" then I don't know what is. None of these 'hide in my bag' or 'use tokens to distinguish units' is not RAW at all.

It is a means of identifying the units embarked which is all A Note on Secrecy calls for you to do. The method I propose fulfills the rule. The method you propose fulfils the rule and goes one step further by then identifying the squad composition. When the unit has already been clearly identified, you insist on additional information that does not identify the unit, but instead describes the unit.

I also never once said that marking/markers/labels was RAW. Several on your side have said and continue to say that not doing those things is cheating and breaking the RAW of A Note on Secrecy.

Like I said, you can continue to pretend that you are so puzzled by colors and numbers identifying units and transports, but we know it is just a crap excuse to find out squad composition which any TO when actually shown the rule is going to laugh at that response.

Tyr Grimtooth wrote: which any TO when actually shown the rule is going to laugh at that response.

Not a single TO ever run would allow your method of secrecy ever. I would be floored to find a real tourney anywhere who has used this standard in 5th edition. Find a thread on Dakka where the tourney packet allowed it.

You would never be able to do this in competitive play. It doesn't happen. No TO would 'laugh' at me because you tried to impose some made up standard of 'identify' which is not identified or supported in the rulebook.

If a TO did want secrecy, he would have to rigidly define a 'house rule' for doing it and define 'identify' so everyone follows the same standard. He may not agree with your standard.

Outside of a tourney, the only valid interpretation of 'identify' is a mutually agreed to standard, just like terrain defining. If there isn't an agreement, the game doesn't exist. No one will ever agree to your house rule and it is never raw. If you find a like-minded gamer, enjoy your secrecy, the game is not balanced for it. Your definition of 'identify' isn't supported by the rules and I will never agree to it so I will never play a game with your standard.

Lord_Mortis wrote:I run Astaroth and an all Death Company army. I have a DC squad led by Astaroth in a Stormraven along with a DC Dread with Bloodfists, another DC squad led by Lemartes and a DC Dread with Blood Talons in another Stormraven, and 2 Rhinos with identical DC squads. On my army list sheet I have these clearly identified as to what is riding in what, what they are equipped with, etc.

When I am playing and I am deploying the transports, I will say "This rhino has a DC squad in it, this Rhino also has a DC squad in it, this Stormraven has a DC squad led by Astaroth and also a DC Dread, and this Stormraven has a DC squad led by Lemartes and also a DC Dread." When rolling for reserves, I will say something like "Rolling for Astaroth's squad, rolling for Lemartes' squad, etc." I don't go into what all the models are equipped with or how many models are in the transport, as I have satisfied the RAW by identifying what squads are in what transport.

If I only said "This Stormraven has a DC squad in it." and didn't mention that it was led by Astaroth or Lemartes and that there was also a DC Dread on board, then I haven't satisfied RAW. Why? Because when I disembark my units from it within assault range of the enemy and my opponent says in horror "Oh, crap! You didn't say that Lemartes was in the squad and that there was a DC Dread in there!" then I have "cheated" because I didn't disclose enough info to satisfy RAW. At the end of the game, if my opponent wants to see my list, then they will see that what is written on paper matches exactly what I played with and that the units I said were in certain transports matched what was listed on my sheet of paper.

Solid method, let's game!

If I ever forget to specify which unit I am rolling for, I ask my opponent if he wants me to re-roll or if he wants to pick the unit.

So if I forget to say,

"Grey Hunter unit with 3 stripes on shoulderpads."

And instead just says something like,

"Grey Hunters in Rhino."

Then I just let him decide if he wants me to re-roll if it was successful or I let him pick which Grey Hunter pack in a Rhino he wants me to bring one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nkelsch wrote:

Tyr Grimtooth wrote: which any TO when actually shown the rule is going to laugh at that response.

Not a single TO ever run would allow your method of secrecy ever. I would be floored to find a real tourney anywhere who has used this standard in 5th edition. Find a thread on Dakka where the tourney packet allowed it.

You would never be able to do this in competitive play. It doesn't happen. No TO would 'laugh' at me because you tried to impose some made up standard of 'identify' which is not identified or supported in the rulebook.

If a TO did want secrecy, he would have to rigidly define a 'house rule' for doing it and define 'identify' so everyone follows the same standard. He may not agree with your standard.

Outside of a tourney, the only valid interpretation of 'identify' is a mutually agreed to standard, just like terrain defining. If there isn't an agreement, the game doesn't exist. No one will ever agree to your house rule and it is never raw. If you find a like-minded gamer, enjoy your secrecy, the game is not balanced for it. Your definition of 'identify' isn't supported by the rules and I will never agree to it so I will never play a game with your standard.

The funny part is that I have no doubt with you protesting it to a TO, he would agree with you because I have seen your argument here.

"A Note on Secrecy on page 92 says he has to tell what the squad is equipped with!"

However that is not what the rule says and is not what a TO in my prescence would be given without me showing the exact wording of the rule, NOT your houserule as quoted above.

Touching on my, "secrecy" playing; I am not holding anything back then you are given the right to know per the rule. The rule tells you to identify which unit is embarked in which transport. I have done exactly that and nothing more.

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:The funny part is that I have no doubt with you protesting it to a TO, he would agree with you because I have seen your argument here.

"A Note on Secrecy on page 92 says he has to tell what the squad is equipped with!"

However that is not what the rule says and is not what a TO in my presence would be given without me showing the exact wording of the rule, NOT your house rule as quoted above.

Please show up to a Tourney and try this and let us know. Not a single Tourney will allow it. If you try to argue your ruling a RAW... you will fail as it doesn't say what you are saying. Your standard is not defined, your hiding is not supported, your shell-game rules are made up rules to facilitate an interpretation of rules that don't exist.

Touching on my, "secrecy" playing; I am not holding anything back then you are given the right to know per the rule. The rule tells you to identify which unit is embarked in which transport. I have done exactly that and nothing more.

No you haven't. You haven't identified the unit. You have fulfilled a limited definition which needs to be mutually agreed upon to work. What you have done is broken the game and the game never starts.

I thnk this has gone round enough times by now.

At the end of the day, whether or not it would fly in a tournament is less important than how it would work out in a firendly game since, as I pointed out just before, trying to keep your unit composition secret is a pretty pointless tactic for tournament play.

In a friendly game, it's going to come down to whatever the two players agree should be divulged regardless of just what the rules say on the issue. Discuss it with your opponent and move on.