One guy in the local group is an ok player but always refuses to say what's in what transport. "Just gotta pop them and find out" is what he says. Maybe it'd not be so bad but he plays eldar and none of his transports are painted. Trying to "find the runes of warding" is getting kind of old but is there a rule that says you have to tell your opponent what is in what? Or that just a sportsmanship thing?

I do believe you have to answer your opponent truthfully when asked a question like that. Not sure if its an actual rule, but it certainly is good form.

You do otherwise it could be anything. Alternatively have him put numbers on the bases of the tanks that correspond to certrain units.

For my DE, I didnt put the guy shooting on the venom/Raiders.... I put the actual model that is IN the vehicles on the model.

It helps me and my opponent, PLUS you cant cheat this way.

I could have 3 venoms and 1 gets popped... I could simply unload 5 wyches when in fact it was the 5 incubi, but no one knew but me =]

kind of BS if you ask me...

If he won't tell you, he should still have to document which squad was where.

I think it's fair that he doesn't have to disclose the contents of transports, but he should be able to prove it when the models disembark. Make him have cards, or scraps of paper he can keep face down until they disembark.

It depends on whom I am playing.

I thought it was in the rulebook, you have to tell your opponent everything. Your list, whats in reserve, whats in your transports....

If he refuses to be open and up front about what is in each transport, then at a minimum, I'd have him do the following:

1) Number each transport, either through paint, or a die turned to the correct number.
2) Have a number of index cards numbered to match the transports.
3) Have the contents of each transport written on the back of the index card.

I can understand wanting to have some sort of fog of war involved, but there is simply just too much room for mistakes or cheating to not have some sort of system involved to track them.

I tend to have the squad leader surfing on the top of it and the squads ordered off to the side away from reserves if any. I think the rule says you don't actually have to tell, but it saves a lot of confusion just being open about it. Avoids transports concealing teleportation devices.

I thought it was a rule to tell your opponent everything, especially if he asks. Unfortunately, I seem to be the only player in my local area going by that rule...

I'd refuse to play against someone like that. Let them keep their secrets.

Joey wrote:I'd refuse to play against someone like that. Let them keep their secrets.

This. i tried to keep the troops in my transports hidden once as i was against old dark eldar and i knew he would pop the tank open first turn making them useless, but he refused to play unless i told him.

You'll find that a lot of people just refuse to play against that.

Nom

In the BRB, you have a section called a note on secrecy. Players need to agree on how much information will be shared. This includes army lists and what unit is in which transport. In addition, IC that are joined to units must be declared. However, unit composition does not need to be shared. An alternative method for identifying the units inside can be used. So using SW as an example I cannot say,

"All my Rhinos have Grey Hunters in them."

However I can say,

"The Rhino with the red doors has a Grey Hunter pack in it with red shoulder pads, the Rhino with black doors has a Grey Hunter pack with black shoulder pads."

I have clearly identified which Grey Hunter pack is embarked in which transport.

At the shop I play at, we let each other know who is in what and usually have the one in charge on top of the vehicle.

I don't think I've ever not played against people that were more than happy to be as forthright as posible.

I don't think I'd play against that guy very often if at all if there are other people you can play with.

It's usually sitting just off the table for them to see anyway right?

If you've got someone there to GM then they can make sure your playing by the rules and you can keep it from the opponent. Otherwise you should really be honest in the interest of transparency.

It's all filled with dire avengers I know but one of them has ashurman and another has the farseer with the runes of warding. 3 other ones with just the dire avengers guys inside. They unfortunately can't surf well on top of the slopped eldar vehicles so they never get put on top. Mostly just having problems figuring out which has special characters in there... hate the damn runes of warding especially as GK

If you are playing with disclosed lists, then you need to show whats in each transport somehow, otherwise you could easily cheat.

Even if your playing with secret lists, you still need to show which unit is in which transport, even if you don't say whats exactly what.

Keeping passengers secret is simply a way of slowing the game down way more than necessary, and is borderline-TFG behaviour.

I don't waste my time with that kind of players.

Steelmage99 wrote:Keeping passengers secret is simply a way of slowing the game down way more than necessary, and is borderline-TFG behaviour.

I don't waste my time with that kind of players.

Me too. I hate it when there is strategy in my tabeltop strategy games.

Veteran Sergeant wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:Keeping passengers secret is simply a way of slowing the game down way more than necessary, and is borderline-TFG behaviour.

I don't waste my time with that kind of players.

Me too. I hate it when there is strategy in my tabeltop strategy games.

Does that actually require a response, or are you that dumb?

Veteran Sergeant wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:Keeping passengers secret is simply a way of slowing the game down way more than necessary, and is borderline-TFG behaviour.

I don't waste my time with that kind of players.

Me too. I hate it when there is strategy in my tabeltop strategy games.

3 card monte is not strategy.

There's no strategy involved in the concepts of deception or the unknown?

Strange. And I thought those were both at the very core of warfare. Must be a machination of the video game generation.

There was no suggestion from me of any kind of three card monte or unfair play. So long as the contents of the transports are fixed and documented, there's no need for total initial disclosure.

In fact, one might suggest, and they'd be quite correct, that it's almost against the very spirit of the game to have complete knowledge of the opponent's forces. I guess people take the idea of WYSIWYG too far.

Kind of curious but what do people in tournaments do?

It's in the rulebook under the note on secrecy section. If you both agree, you can play like that. If not, it's full disclosure.

Veteran Sergeant wrote:There's no strategy involved in the concepts of deception or the unknown?

There's strategy, I neve said oterwise.

Strange. And I thought those were both at the very core of warfare. Must be a machination of the video game generation.

I believe it's a machination of your imagination.

There was no suggestion from me of any kind of three card monte or unfair play. So long as the contents of the transports are fixed and documented, there's no need for total initial disclosure.

There was no suggestion by you of any kind of fair play to begin with. Perhaps if you would have included the "So long as the contents of the transports are fixed and documented" in your quoted post, there would have been no room for missinterpretation.

In fact, one might suggest, and they'd be quite correct, that it's almost against the very spirit of the game to have complete knowledge of the opponent's forces.

That is not a fact.

I guess people take the idea of WYSIWYG too far.

Or the rulebook written by GW themselves...

I don't know why you chose to reply to me, but ok.

Because you chose to respond to me?

Anyhow, gon' help ya' out since yer not so good at the close readin':

Veteran Sergeant wrote:If he won't tell you, he should still have to document which squad was where.

I think it's fair that he doesn't have to disclose the contents of transports, but he should be able to prove it when the models disembark. Make him have cards, or scraps of paper he can keep face down until they disembark.

Officially, your opponent is entitled to know what units are in what transport. In friendly games, I'm not so big on it, but it is the law of the land in every tourney I've ever seen.

It's also a hot-button issue on the forums. Every thread I've ever seen on it has quickly degenerated into a flame war. People have very strong opinions on this issue, and I've seen people nearly come to blows over this arguement.

The rulebook says to discuss it before a game---it is not a firm rule. It is, however, customary that people disclose the information. I doubt many tournaments or very many serious players will allow three Rhino monte. (edited for clarity, maybe)

My opinion is that it's better to be safe than sorry, so disclose what's in the transport to avoid arguments.

However, if you know the person and want to play a more "Realistic" 40k game, then keep it secret but have index cards and markings on the tanks to show who's in what . Show him or her them once the "cat's out of the bag" so to speak.

If you're playing to have fun, you shouldn't be too worried about winning. Not telling your opponent what is in the transport is going to be a good way to not find another game at that store.

If you're at a tournament and really want to win, just ask the TO what the rule is. If you are allowed to not tell your opponent, tell him with a smile on your face and a pat on the back, so it doesn't tank your sportsmanship score.

Since my tau's Devilfishes both have 6 basic fire warriors riding in them, I don't even bother keeping track of what squad is in which fish. I just say "All Devilfishes have fire warriors".

The players at my local game store always seem to be happy to diclose the contents of transports, and of course appreciate the same level of disclosure from their opponents. Often people just do the surfing thing with models from the transported units, or they will simply volunteer the info without having to be asked. I think that is a good policy as it keeps things nice and friendly. I always disclose the content of transports.

you should just make an army all in transports and when he asks just say well just gatta pop em out and find out now dont we?

Commissar41.0 wrote:you should just make an army all in transports and when he asks just say well just gatta pop em out and find out now dont we?

technically its exactly what the guy fields, it's all dire avengers in transports. 2 of them are special that they have an attached IC (farseer and ashurman the phenoix lord or something). One of which has a board wide effect (runes of warding on the farseer). Playing guess the farseer's transport is essentially what's going on atm. Somewhat annoying given that I have alot of psychic powers on alot of stuff as GK.

I always have a unique unit from the squad surfing the transport to identify them. I never openly say what is in each transport, but if asked, I am more then happy to tell my opponent.

Veteran Sergeant wrote:Because you chose to respond to me?

Anyhow, gon' help ya' out since yer not so good at the close readin':

Veteran Sergeant wrote:If he won't tell you, he should still have to document which squad was where.

I think it's fair that he doesn't have to disclose the contents of transports, but he should be able to prove it when the models disembark. Make him have cards, or scraps of paper he can keep face down until they disembark.

And yet, that's not what you wrote in the post I quoted, implying a change in opinion. Just like I said in my last post.

'Cause you can't remember, here it is again for you

Veteran Sergeant wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:
Keeping passengers secret is simply a way of slowing the game down way more than necessary, and is borderline-TFG behaviour.

I don't waste my time with that kind of players.

Me too. I hate it when there is strategy in my tabeltop strategy games.

Boarderline TFG, slows the game down, and is against the rules. If you're not telling you're opponent what's in your transports when asked, you're cheating. You're welcome to play that way if you wish, but you'd get no games from me or anyone I know in real life. If people you play against play that way, cool, just make sure your location is in your avatar info area so at least I can avoid that place at all costs.

OP have a read of P.92 "A Note on Secrecy"

it specifies that "To keep things fair, you should show your opponent your roster after the game. in the same spirit, always make clear to your opponent which squads are embarked in which transport vehicle."

So you do need to clearly identify what squad is within which transport. This includes squads with different wargear.

Say I have 3 transports with 10 men in each, I also have to tell the opponent which squad has the two meltagun, which squad has the meltagun and power sword, and which squad has the meltagun and power fist.

To deny the opponent this information is not "always make clear to your opponent which squads are embarked in which transport vehicle"

Yup. Same answer as every time this question comes up: Yes, I DO tell my opponent what is in what transport.

I think you have to. And your opponent does too. Otherwise they could be cheating and swap the squads around without you knowing. Disclosure is the only way to keep the game honest. For non-competitive play, I would think you would disclose just because it's the friendly n sportsmenlike thing to do.

"A NOTE ON SECRECY
To keep things fair. you should always allow your
opponent to read your force roster after cl game. In the
same spirit, always make clear to your opponent which
squads are embarked in which transport vehicle."

It's right there in the rulebook. To do otherwise is cheating. And as mentioned there is a clause about discussing beforehand, but it isn't about transports. It specifically references discussing whether you can look at your opponent's list before or during a game.

If he asks, yes. Its usually polite to do so and i usually say so before the match starts.

Its a case of you make the call. it says in rules that some people play and know what everyone has and other people like the sense of mystery and shock. I havent been to a tournament where you can chose not to disclose information to an opponent.

According to the rules, you must disclose which units are in which transports. And, due to WYSIWYG, all models should be obvious as to what wargear they have. The only things that aren't immediately disclosed by default are upgrades that are not modeled (Psychic Powers, Exarch abilities, some Tau battlesuit upgrades, etc).

IMO, it's best to lay out all that information as well.

Woah, calm down boys. If you're intelligent civilized people, you should be able to participate in a conversation without being judgmental and calling others "cheater".

The paragraph in the rulebook about this issue is very clear. There's no arguing that and it should be the rule of thumb for the majority of games.

Note however that it says "you should". Not "you must". This is consistent with GW's encouraging houseruling, which relies on the good will of each party (crazy uh ?).

So, if both you and your opponent are open-minded level-headed individuals, you have every right to agree not to disclose such information to add some spice to your game. It does make for more tactical depth. [insert mandatory Sun Tzu quote]
Of course, in adequation with my premise saying you're both quite the gentle(wo)men and intend to play fair, that would entail writing down the content of each transport and making sure each metal box is unmistakably recognizable so there's no room to pull sneaky shenanigans. You might even designate a referee.

Barring mutual agreement, however, it's just sleazy. sudojoe, I'd tend to think your opponent is just being a douche.

Personally I think fully disclosing list and transport details is in the best spirit of the game. You eliminate a lot of confusion and bad spirit through a few simple discussions prior and during the game.

Whilst there is some wiggle room in the rules to do otherwise, it’s a little cheesy IMO, especially when someone is running a fully meched out list and attempting a “ball in cups” strategy. I’ve read a quite a few tournament batreps where players attempt this strategy (often through sneaky ambiguous responses to questions when asked) and it is never received well. Using loopholes is poor sportsmanship IMO.

Hyd wrote:
Barring mutual agreement, however, it's just sleazy. sudojoe, I'd tend to think your opponent is just being a douche.

This was really all that was required. I second this.

In all honesty a certain amount of deception is acceptable but not to much. One this subject you dont have to say whats in your transports unless your opponent asks and then you have to be truthful about what squad is in there but not to truthful

(fe i have a rhino speed along the table top that my opponent has ignored focusing on my land raider. After my rhino is where i want it my melta gun chosen pop out and blow his predator up. My opponent wasnt aware of the squads presence but he says its ok he didnt ask. In another battle he remembered the rhino and targeted it but before he fired on it he asked what was in it and i gave him the honest answer that it was empty and i was tricking him into thinking it was loaded which is true. He then decided to target my dread instead ofcourse he once again lost his predator as forgot that my rhino had a combi melta)

Wait, how does an empty rhino have a combi melta?

Isn't it compulsary but it is Sportsman base to do so.

sudojoe wrote:Wait, how does an empty rhino have a combi melta?

Chaos Rhinos can, I believe.

I don't think there is any requirement at all.

Using cards is definitely a good idea for sportsmanship, but insisting that someone use them is a direct accusation of cheating.

DeathReaper wrote:OP have a read of P.92 "A Note on Secrecy"

it specifies that "To keep things fair, you should show your opponent your roster after the game. in the same spirit, always make clear to your opponent which squads are embarked in which transport vehicle."

This exactly.

To the OP, if he won't tell you, stop playing him. Period. I would not put up with it. I'd rather not play at all than play with someone that refuses to tell me what is in each transport.

sudojoe wrote:Wait, how does an empty rhino have a combi melta?

Chaos rhinos can take combi-weapons. Fairly cheap, too.

My buddy and I secretly write down what's in each transport. Otherwise, even the best of friends can't get away from meta-gaming what vehicles to focus the fire on, and that's cheesy.

I would frankly refuse to tell another player what's in my transports. I'll show them the face-down slips that correspont to each one, so I can prove I'm not cheating, but no, I won't let you see which transport you can pop to specifically kill my best guys.

I think it is the right thing to do to give full disclosure unless it was agreed to before the game started.

Full disclosure all the way. It's what the rulebook says, and is easier for everyone.

I would only play without it in specific pre-arranged games with friends.

AegisGrimm wrote:I would frankly refuse to tell another player what's in my transports. I'll show them the face-down slips that correspont to each one, so I can prove I'm not cheating, but no, I won't let you see which transport you can pop to specifically kill my best guys.

That is fine for house rules and games where you talk about allowing that kind of play.

The rules tell us to identify which units are riding in which transport.
"always make clear to your opponent which squads are embarked in which transport vehicle." (BRB 92)

full disclosure is the way to go.

personally i mark my lad raiders with names so i know which is which ithen set belial and the chaplain on them to let him know which ic is where

From a strategic stand point why should we be divulging what is each exact transport? It gives a benefit to your opponents in that they know exactly what transport they need to destroy to halt your momentum.

Now, I divulge because it's the norm, but when at home with buddies we don't. When we don't it is a more enjoyable game. There is an air of mystery of what is being fired upon.

Take WWII DDay for example; When the landing craft of the allies came ashore, did the Germans know which ones had the flamethrowers or the demolition charges?

Someone said it would slow down the game. Granted I can see the ability for some TFG to use this to cheat, but others have already proposed the solution. How would this slow the game down?

UsdiThunder wrote:
Take WWII DDay for example; When the landing craft of the allies came ashore, did the Germans know which ones had the flamethrowers or the demolition charges?

The Germans didn't have interstellar ranged precision scanners, alpha level psykers, super-human battle machines with centuries of experience, etc.

You're opponent gets to know because their army already knows. It's the same reason you roll dice to hit with a shooting attack rather than relying on the player's ability to throw a dart at the target. The armies are fighting, not the players.

Its the same logic that lets you know where his units are even when they are out of LOS to everyone you have on the field.

If your opponent is cool with secret deployment, then cool, but if not you'd better be willing to fess up. I don't like it myself, at times,as my DE vehicles are made of tinfoil, and the expensive units inside are fragile as hell, but that's the way the game is intended to work.

I'd point out that the landing craft during the Normandy landings were open topped, so spotters looking from above probably could tell that there was a flamethrower (they are bulky) if they were looking with a scope (snipers did exist, and scoped rifles for them).

In a far future setting with orbital spysats and groovy future tech seeing inside the other guy's tanks isn't unreasonable.

This has been discussed to death in YMDC: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/391691.page The thread was mercifully locked after 4 days of heated argument going back and forth over whether 40k was supposed to be Open or not. The note on secrecy was discussed.. to death.

End result?

The camps were divided on exactly what constituted being specific enough that prevented cheating while allowing you to effectively hide units.

Therefore, it's up to you and your opponent.

If you are okay with your opponent not telling you exactly what unit is in which transport (down to the exact wargear) then great, have fun!

If you are not okay with your opponent hiding such info, then simply don't play them. You can, after all, walk away. Sometimes it's called "taking your toys and going home"

You can justify everything and its contrary on fluff basis, so it's not unreasonable to assume they would have powerful detection and spying tools but neither is it unthinkable that they have developed equally powerful screening/jamming devices.

clively wrote:Pages and Pages of argument going back and forth over whether 40k was supposed to be Open or not. The note on secrecy was discussed.. to death.

End result?

The camps were divided on exactly what constituted being specific enough that prevented cheating while allowing you to effectively hide units.

So, nothing new in YMDC

DeathReaper wrote:

AegisGrimm wrote:I would frankly refuse to tell another player what's in my transports. I'll show them the face-down slips that correspont to each one, so I can prove I'm not cheating, but no, I won't let you see which transport you can pop to specifically kill my best guys.

That is fine for house rules and games where you talk about allowing that kind of play.

The rules tell us to identify which units are riding in which transport.
"always make clear to your opponent which squads are embarked in which transport vehicle." (BRB 92)

Which he did by making it clear that paper a belongs to squad a. Not matter how many times people cry about it and try and quote a Note on Secrecy and WYSIWYG, nothing sets the standard in either rule for identifying which squad is embarked in which rhino by the composition of the unit. His use of slips of paper is perfectly legal and allows for no bait and switch.

Players need to "always make clear" which squads are embarked on any given transport.

A slip of paper does not make it clear to your opponent which squad is there. It only makes it clear to the person who wrote out the card.

Your opponent is allowed to know what is in what vehicle. You need to clearly identify what squad is within which transport. This includes squads with different wargear. because if you just say "10 marines are in that rhino" you have not made clear "which squads are embarked in which transport vehicle." Making it clear would be saying "These 10 marines on the table over here" while pointing to the 10 marines.

Then through WYSIWYG your opponent knows what they have anyway, and you may as well just tell them in the first place and not look like an

Normally you're supposed to let your opponent look at your list, but I suppose if that's not allowed you could still point to each squad and ask which vehicle is their dedicated transport. Even if you're just questioning his list to be sure he didn't misuse the force org. chart. A Ded transport can only start with the squad it's bought for (or nothing) at the games beginning. If he can't point to which transport is theirs, they can't be in it.

He could too easily cheat and say that a useful unit is in there, instead of a useless one. Even if he wrote them all down before hand and proved they were in the right spots after the fact. Even if he isn't cheating, it'll probably make him mad to point it out and try and correct him if you already said it to him and he hasn't changed his ways. I would guess your only choice is to say you'd rather not play against him and if he objects to demonstrate how easily you could cheat IF you used the same rules. Be as polite as possible because simply using the word cheat will likely piss him off. If necessary, simply avoid playing him all together. If it comes to a tournament situation, ask a TO. We're all fairly sure he'd have to reveal which units are where, but if it comes down to an hour of rule checking and a die roll, then so be it.

Besides, his stuff is probably open top. It's plenty obvious what's inside.

Either way you should tell them if they ask i mean come on thats just good sportsmanship

For the "it's not realistic" camp, ever heard of military intelligence? If the farseer normally rides around in the wave serpent with blue trim, it's a safe bet that he's still there when you blow it up.

The only time I would not tell someone what is in a transport is if it was a closed list tournament. Otherwise there is no reason not to tell who you are playing, what is in what, if for nothing else, to be fair and no switching units around to have what you want where you want it.

This is one area BR and I disagree on

If you say "they have red shoulder pads" then you have not "clearly" identified them to me - because, for all I know, you have 100 guys with shoulder pads in the case, ready to pop out the exact 10 you need.

So, this means you need to have those 10 guys, and only those 10 guys, out on the side, ready to go. That way when you say "I have 10 guys with red shoulder pads in there", I can then CLEARLY identify which exact 10 guys they are, and also because you adhere to wysiwyg WHAT they are armed with.

Anything less is not complying with the default rules for p92, and requires agreement. Only if i trust you will i risk you playing shell games.

I have never seen a tournament which permitted the level of "clearly" that BR is advocating, mainly because to most people it is NOT clear

Certainly if I were TO at a tournament BR was attending, I would "clearly" () point out what p92 means to me, and that that is the standard of "clearly" everyone will work to

nosferatu1001 wrote:This is one area BR and I disagree on

If you say "they have red shoulder pads" then you have not "clearly" identified them to me - because, for all I know, you have 100 guys with shoulder pads in the case, ready to pop out the exact 10 you need.

So, this means you need to have those 10 guys, and only those 10 guys, out on the side, ready to go. That way when you say "I have 10 guys with red shoulder pads in there", I can then CLEARLY identify which exact 10 guys they are, and also because you adhere to wysiwyg WHAT they are armed with.

Anything less is not complying with the default rules for p92, and requires agreement. Only if i trust you will i risk you playing shell games.

I have never seen a tournament which permitted the level of "clearly" that BR is advocating, mainly because to most people it is NOT clear

Certainly if I were TO at a tournament BR was attending, I would "clearly" () point out what p92 means to me, and that that is the standard of "clearly" everyone will work to

I find it interesting that the assumption is always that a person is going to cheat you and that you create a standard that does not exist to assuage that personal bias in your opponents. What is to say that I just don't lie about what is in a transport and place a different squad then I originally said was going to be embarked? You can complain that I lied to the TO and then I can just counter that you are lying. It turns into a he said/she said. How did your created standard prevent that if you are already under the assumption that your opponent is out to cheat you no matter what?

On the other hand, as has been described by others of a slip of paper with squad composition next to/on/in the transport, verifies what was said to be in the transport when starting the game. Even as I said in other threads in YMDC, where my transport markings (big runes painted on them that match the squad) is an acceptable means of clearly identifying which squad is embarked in which transport. I have fulfilled the rules on page 92. What I haven't done and what I am not compelled to do by the rules, is assuage your personal fear of being cheated by every single one of your opponents. That is something that you would probably need to get some help with out of game.

AegisGrimm wrote:My buddy and I secretly write down what's in each transport. Otherwise, even the best of friends can't get away from meta-gaming what vehicles to focus the fire on, and that's cheesy.

I would frankly refuse to tell another player what's in my transports. I'll show them the face-down slips that correspont to each one, so I can prove I'm not cheating, but no, I won't let you see which transport you can pop to specifically kill my best guys.

This is obviously something to decide before the game, but this is a good policy. However, if your opponent mentions before the game that you each should have full disclosure, it might be better to just go with it, especially if you're both using transports. If he's playing a shooting army, I wouldn't make it known.

I would also like to mention that while it is very good to write down what is what, it is a blatant accusation of dishonesty to require your opponent to do it.

“Acceptable means of identification” is where the heart of the issue is I’m afraid. The rule (like most GW rules) is somewhat ambiguous and offers neither an interpretation nor an example. I doubt we’ll be able to reach a consensus on this.

What is clear about the rule however is that at all times, you must make it clear to your opponent what squad is in what transport. Whilst markings and pieces of paper are excellent ways of fulfilling this, if your opponent asks you what squad is inside a transports, pg 92 dictates that you have to clearly answer their question. Anything less IMO is attempting a “ball in cups” strategy.

What’s sad though is that you’ll often find at tournaments, peoples answering transport questions with lame responses like “you already know what is inside the transport”, “I’ve shown you already”, “it’s a tac marine squad”.

That being said, if only the current environment wasn’t so meched out then this wouldn’t be an issue in the first place.

What’s sad though is that you’ll often find at tournaments, peoples answering transport questions with lame responses like “you already know what is inside the transport”, “I’ve shown you already”, “it’s a tac marine squad”.

Sounds like a lame tournament. I've never encountered that crap. The vast majority of tournaments I've attended have made it explicit in their rules that full disclosure is expected.

DeathReaper wrote:Players need to "always make clear" which squads are embarked on any given transport.

A slip of paper does not make it clear to your opponent which squad is there. It only makes it clear to the person who wrote out the card.

Your opponent is allowed to know what is in what vehicle. You need to clearly identify what squad is within which transport. This includes squads with different wargear. because if you just say "10 marines are in that rhino" you have not made clear "which squads are embarked in which transport vehicle." Making it clear would be saying "These 10 marines on the table over here" while pointing to the 10 marines.

Then through WYSIWYG your opponent knows what they have anyway, and you may as well just tell them in the first place and not look like an

This. To "make clear" which squad is in which transport to your opponent, you're going to have to point at them, or tell him what wargear so he knows which one you're talking about.

Playing with hidden squads can be a fun house rule, but it's not normally conducive to an enjoyable competitive game unless you and your opponent know and trust each other and agree to it.

Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:

AegisGrimm wrote:My buddy and I secretly write down what's in each transport. Otherwise, even the best of friends can't get away from meta-gaming what vehicles to focus the fire on, and that's cheesy.

I would frankly refuse to tell another player what's in my transports. I'll show them the face-down slips that correspont to each one, so I can prove I'm not cheating, but no, I won't let you see which transport you can pop to specifically kill my best guys.

This is obviously something to decide before the game, but this is a good policy. However, if your opponent mentions before the game that you each should have full disclosure, it might be better to just go with it, especially if you're both using transports. If he's playing a shooting army, I wouldn't make it known.

I would also like to mention that while it is very good to write down what is what, it is a blatant accusation of dishonesty to require your opponent to do it.

And that is what the threads regarding this topic degenerate into. If you propose an alternative way of identifying the models that are mebarked OTHER then specifically listing wargear composition you are accused of wanting to play the shell game. The stance taken is,

"Despite the rules not compelling you to tell me wargear composition, you need to tell me so I know you are not cheating."

Beyond just being a blatant accusation, it is forcing your opponent into doing something that the rules do not support. The scrap paper idea not only fulfills the requirements but is also more secure. As I said, if I am dishonest enough to attempt a shell game, what is going to stop me from lying about embarked squads and then counter accuse you of lying to the TO?

Mannahnin wrote:Sounds like a lame tournament. I've never encountered that crap. The vast majority of tournaments I've attended have made it explicit in their rules that full disclosure is expected.

You made some excellent comments Mannahnin although I’ll comment on this one specifically.

Most people will generally have their heads screwed correctly provide full disclosure. The problem is that there always is TFG/WAAC types who try and take any advantage they can take. I’ve seen tournaments where full disclosure is the done deal and people still try and weasel their way out of it (through ambiguous responses) and yes they were “lame tournaments”.

I always give full disclosure on the matter. I've never been to a tournament that didn't have full disclosure as well.

candy.man wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Sounds like a lame tournament. I've never encountered that crap. The vast majority of tournaments I've attended have made it explicit in their rules that full disclosure is expected.

You made some excellent comments Mannahnin although I’ll comment on this one specifically.

Most people will generally have their heads screwed correctly provide full disclosure. The problem is that there always is TFG/WAAC types who try and take any advantage they can take. I’ve seen tournaments where full disclosure is the done deal and people still try and weasel their way out of it (through ambiguous responses) and yes they were “lame tournaments”.

To be fair, I've played in some lame events as well. Sometimes it's the only game in town, and I love the game. That said, IME most such TFGs can be dealt with by being polite but firm. Worst case scenario, if you can't make the guy see reason, you can generally get help from the TO.

Brother Ramses wrote:And that is what the threads regarding this topic degenerate into. If you propose an alternative way of identifying the models that are embarked OTHER then specifically listing wargear composition you are accused of wanting to play the shell game. The stance taken is,

"Despite the rules not compelling you to tell me wargear composition, you need to tell me so I know you are not cheating."

Beyond just being a blatant accusation, it is forcing your opponent into doing something that the rules do not support. The scrap paper idea not only fulfills the requirements but is also more secure. As I said, if I am dishonest enough to attempt a shell game, what is going to stop me from lying about embarked squads and then counter accuse you of lying to the TO?

Actually the rules tell us to make it clear which squads are embarked on what transports. It is not about any type of "Shell Game"

So the rules actually do compel you to tell your opponent your units wargear composition, doing otherwise is not making it clear, and is breaking a rule

It is not about any type of "Shell Game" it is about breaking the rule of making it clear, and if you break a rule you are cheating.

nosferatu1001 wrote:way when you say "I have 10 guys with red shoulder pads in there", I can then CLEARLY identify which exact 10 guys they are, and also because you adhere to wysiwyg WHAT they are armed with.

I have requoted myself, because this is where you and I disconnect.

For me, "CLEARLY" identifying the unit requires you to point to the exact unit. Then, as you have shown me the unit and the models it is composed of, I will be able to discern what they are armed with, etc.

Brother Ramses wrote:I find it interesting that the assumption is always that a person is going to cheat you and that you create a standard that does not exist to assuage that personal bias in your opponents.

No, this is not the case. I dont assume people are cheating - it is just that "clearly" identifying the unit IS more than saying "I have 10 guys, who I will not let you see, that have red shoulder pads" - I want you to clearly identify them by pointing to them on the side of the table.

I just gave a simple example of how you have NOT clearly identified them by just saying you have 10 guys with shoulder pads - because I cannot "clearly" identigy WHICH 10 guys you are talking about unti lyou present them to me, which in your method of playing is after the vehicle is destroyed. This means you havent complied with the rule - so no, I vehemently disagree that I am creating a standard that does not exist, I am *exactly* using the "clearly" standard to show you that your standard is not "clear" and therefore falls short.

Plus, I was trying to keep this light hearted, yet you immediately went on the offensive with this, by stating that people are afraid of people cheating. This isnt the case.

Brother Ramses wrote:What is to say that I just don't lie about what is in a transport and place a different squad then I originally said was going to be embarked? You can complain that I lied to the TO and then I can just counter that you are lying. It turns into a he said/she said.

Not when I can point to the preponderence of evidence - that you just so happen to have 10 models in your case which DO have the equipment you said you were placing. As a TO myself you would have a HARD job explaining to me why someone who has likely never met you suddenly knows you have 10 models, with their equipment, in the case and how they are painted. Yo uwould then almost certainly be DQ'd and barred from competing in any tournament I ran or colleagues ran.

Is it beyond all doubt? No. Is that necessary to ensure you never get a game around here ("here" encompassing most of the southern half of the UK) again? No. Which is the point. By "clearly" identifying the unit you have a) complied with the rules and b) dramatically reduced the chances of the opponent being able to succesfully cheat, which is a by product of the rules.

Brother Ramses wrote:How did your created standard prevent that if you are already under the assumption that your opponent is out to cheat you no matter what?

Im not under the assumption - I'm just pointing out that the rule, as written and NOT created, acts as a control to people attempting to cheat.

Brother Ramses wrote:On the other hand, as has been described by others of a slip of paper with squad composition next to/on/in the transport, verifies what was said to be in the transport when starting the game.

It verifies what was in it, however you have not *clearly* identified THE unit it was carrying *when* I asked. "The slip of paper says wha tis in there" is NOT clearly identifying the unit - only pointing to the actual unit does.

Brother Ramses wrote:Even as I said in other threads in YMDC, where my transport markings (big runes painted on them that match the squad) is an acceptable means of clearly identifying which squad is embarked in which transport. I have fulfilled the rules on page 92. What I haven't done and what I am not compelled to do by the rules, is assuage your personal fear of being cheated by every single one of your opponents. That is something that you would probably need to get some help with out of game.

Seriously, lay off the personal attacks or just stop posting here. It gets tiresome. This isnt a "personal fear" of mine, this is compliance with the rules whcih you are not wanting to comply with.

Unit A is in Transport A does NOT clearly identify THE unit AT THE TIME I ASK - how can it? Until the piece of paper is revealed, it could be any number of units that can legally embark - thus it is the very opposite of clear.

As I said: if I knew you were coming to a tournament I was running, I would reiterate what "clearly" means, and require you to follow it. It is not a made up standard, you are just deliberately confusing the word "clearly" and failing to meet the requirements of the rule. Page 92 is very easy to follow - when I ask "what models are in the vehicle" yo upoint at the models. Anything less and you have failed to identify the unit *at the time of asking*

Saying "you will find out exactly what it carries when you destroy it" is the exact opposite of what p92 requires, unless both parties agree to it.

I don't really know how my idea (well, not mine, but I support it) would be a shell game. If I have three transports: (a rhino, a razorback and a Land Raider, for instance) and have three business cards, labelled "Rhino", "Razorback" and "Land Raider", all with the exact composition of the squad being held by them written on the back.

How exactly do I pull some sort of 'switcheroo"? What- have another trio of cards hidden in my pocket with alternate squads on them so I can switch them at will so my best stuff doesn't get killed?

I understand how a thread like this could get out of hand. One side doesn't seem have a problem with it, regardless of rules, while the other side seems to see cheaters lurking around every dark corner.

Of course this all comes from the fact that I have the most experience with 4th Edition, which as far as i know, has absolutely no mention of a rule like this in the rulebook.

My group is fairly casual so I've never come across this. If an opponent refused to let me know what was in each transport i wouldn't mind but I'd calmly ask him if he has recorded which unit is in which transport before the battle.

If they hadn't I'd insist that he did at that time so that I could check at the end of the game. i wouldn't carry on playing until it was done. That's not me trying to be difficult, I understand why he'd like to keep it secret during battle. Afterwards however I'd expect complete transparency.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AegisGrimm wrote:I don't really know how my idea (well, not mine, but I support it) would be a shell game. If I have three transports: (a rhino, a razorback and a Land Raider, for instance) and have three business cards, labelled "Rhino", "Razorback" and "Land Raider", all with the exact composition of the squad being held by them written on the back.

How exactly do I pull some sort of 'switcheroo"? What- have another trio of cards hidden in my pocket with alternate squads on them so I can switch them at will so my best stuff doesn't get killed?

I understand how a thread like this could get out of hand. One side doesn't seem have a problem with it, regardless of rules, while the other side seems to see cheaters lurking around every dark corner.

Of course this all comes from the fact that I have the most experience with 4th Edition, which as far as i know, has absolutely no mention of a rule like this in the rulebook.

The 'switcheroo' would only work if there were multiple versions of the same tank on the board.

Imagine I run with three rhinos. In one holds 10 Death Company, one 5 Man Tac squad without upgrades and the last a 10 Man Tac squad with melta and power fist. When one of my rhinos is destroyed what is to stop me saying it was the one with the 5 man squad? Or how about I deploy all three spread across my board edge and charge them forward in the first two turns. Then based on how the first two turns have gone, and by where the biggest threat is on the board, I then decide which unit is in which transport?

As long as a written record, completed before deployment, of what unit is in which transport is available after the game then there's no issue.

I do believe it actually IS a rule, as in the rulebook it clearly states in regards to army lists, that you are obliged to present them to your opponent . The rationale behind this rule is that this game should not be about suprises on the battlefield (except tactical ones). So under this argumentation and analogy, you are clearly bound to present what is in a vehicle.

If I have aLandRaider full of terminators moving towards my opponent, he hasevery right to try and stop it (knowing what's inside).

n0t_u wrote:I tend to have the squad leader surfing on the top of it and the squads ordered off to the side away from reserves if any. I think the rule says you don't actually have to tell, but it saves a lot of confusion just being open about it. Avoids transports concealing teleportation devices.

Lol same here, or another non generic model.
But i thinks its good sportsmanship and it makes it easier for everyone, even the player controlling.

Oppressor wrote:Boarderline TFG, slows the game down, and is against the rules. If you're not telling you're opponent what's in your transports when asked, you're cheating

Whoa, whoa whoa there Slappy. I was willing to forgive your poor thread reading skills. But this is just Please don't offensively misuse words or make up variants on them as a slur. Thanks! ~Manchu Find me the rule that says that transport contents have to be disclosed. When you do that, come back. Cheating? I'll refrain from personal attacks against you, but rest assured I have a far less praising term for what I think of people like you.

See, boy, what you call sportsmanship doesn't apply unilaterally. I personally think that you requesting a game advantage is bad sportsmanship. Because knowing what units are in what transport is an unfair advantage to you. Part of the advantage of certain army lists and formations might be a measure of strategic deception. See, real war is full of that. They're called feints. I understand that some people don't want that level of manliness on their table, and just want to roll dice and pull as many models off the table as fast as possible. But it isn't bad sportsmanship to desire to play in a different manner.

I smell a cheat...well, its not necessarily cheating, but its not in the spirit of a fun game. Most tournaments I've been part of have guidance notes on secrecy and they would advise to give a copy of your army list to your opponent and talk through any tricks, transports and units in reserve.

Besides, Ork's don't need to be conniving to win, they just need to get into close combat!!!

Brother Ramses wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

AegisGrimm wrote:I would frankly refuse to tell another player what's in my transports. I'll show them the face-down slips that correspont to each one, so I can prove I'm not cheating, but no, I won't let you see which transport you can pop to specifically kill my best guys.

That is fine for house rules and games where you talk about allowing that kind of play.

The rules tell us to identify which units are riding in which transport.
"always make clear to your opponent which squads are embarked in which transport vehicle." (BRB 92)

Which he did by making it clear that paper a belongs to squad a. Not matter how many times people cry about it and try and quote a Note on Secrecy and WYSIWYG, nothing sets the standard in either rule for identifying which squad is embarked in which rhino by the composition of the unit. His use of slips of paper is perfectly legal and allows for no bait and switch.

Exactly.

If the contents of vehicles are specifically written down at the beginning, and there is no option or ability to change that which has been written down, then the player has met the criteria for "always make clear".

Everything else after this is whining. And, honesty, bad sportsmanship. Like the other guy said, it's impossible to not use meta-game knowledge to focus fire on the most valuable transports simply because you now hold inside information as to their contents. That's cheating. In every possible ethical way. Sportsmanship is on ethics, not on rules lawyering. If you're trying to exploit the wording of a rule to demand another player show you the contents of his transports when he has created legitimate, provable, clear identifiers for them, you are the cheater and the bad sport, not him.

Veteran Sergeant wrote:Everything else after this is whining. And, honesty, bad sportsmanship. Like the other guy said, it's impossible to not use meta-game knowledge to focus fire on the most valuable transports simply because you now hold inside information as to their contents. That's cheating. In every possible ethical way. Sportsmanship is on ethics, not on rules lawyering. If you're trying to exploit the wording of a rule to demand another player show you the contents of his transports when he has created legitimate, provable, clear identifiers for them, you are the cheater and the bad sport, not him.

I couldn't possibly disagree any more than I do with everything in this post.

Furthermore, I'd never play you. Your tone smacks of more TFG than I've read in a long time. I really hope I'm wrong and you're not this type of person in real life.

"Everything else after this is whining" That is a true statemnt. Everything in your post after that is exactly that.

Full disclosure is just the way the game is played...or at least it is at every single place I've played it, with every single player I've ever faced. Years of playing this game, and it's never once been a question that opponents reveal exactly what is in which transport. Only on the Internet...

If "secret transports" works for you and your group, by all means keep playing that way. But don't expect for this to make any sense to the rest of the world. Don't expect that it will fly in a tournament. And definitely don't accuse others of "bad sportsmanship" or "cheating" for expecting you to adhere to what is a long-standing convention.

I wonder, those saying you will "refuse to reveal" what's in your transports: do you get out much? I mean, do you go out and find pick-up games with strangers often? Do you go to tournaments? These questions sound snarky as I write them, but I'm genuinely curious how you might interact with the wider gaming community.

I've always played full disclosure. I could see playing an occasional non disclosed game with friendly opponents if they wanted to but probably not regularly and never competitively.

So laughable seeing all the cries of "TFG" and "CHEATING" as it is a sure sign of ignorance of the actual rules.

The DEFAULT stance of GW is that to keep things fair, share your army list AFTER the game. If you and your opponent agree on full disclosure, you can share lists before/during the game. So, the accusations of "TFG" and "CHEATING" are founded on someone wanting to play the game as GW even defaults too?

A Note on Secrecy refers to the default stance of sharing army lists after the game. In the same spirit, you always must make clear which unit is embarked in which transport. So anyone feel free to answer this question,

If you take the stance that the standard for identifying embarked units is unit wargear composition, then how can the default stance of GW exist? GW defaults to sharing the army lists AFTER the game, yet some of you insist on the very information, that by default, is not shared until AFTER the game.

Even if you agree to full disclosure, which is defined by GW to share army lists before or during a game, unit wargear composition is still not the standard for identifying a unit that is embarked. I have brought up hypothetical situation before'

Me: "This Rhino with black runes on the doors has a Grey Hunter pack in it."

Opponent: "Which Grey Hunter pack?"

Me: "The Grey Hunter pack with black runes on their right shoulder pads that match the Rhino doors black runes."

To which Nos then accuses me of cheating by having multiple Grey Hunter packs painted with black runes in my model bag to suddenly spring upon him to win a game.

However, the above scenario fulfills the rules for A Note on Secrecy in that I have clearly distinguished the embarked Grey Hunter pack with black runes from another embarked Grey Hunter pack with say, red runes. What I haven't done, that some of you insist, is that I make clear what wargear that Grey Hunter squad has equipped. The rules for A Note on Secrecy do not compell you to reveal that, only that you can distinguish which unit is embarked in which transport.

People with the WYSWYG argument also need to read that rule in full and realize that it does not apply to A Note on Secrecy at all. Purchased wargear must be represented on the model. That is all WYSIWYG compels unless otherwise agreed to upon by opponents.

The 'switcheroo' would only work if there were multiple versions of the same tank on the board.

Imagine I run with three rhinos. In one holds 10 Death Company, one 5 Man Tac squad without upgrades and the last a 10 Man Tac squad with melta and power fist. When one of my rhinos is destroyed what is to stop me saying it was the one with the 5 man squad? Or how about I deploy all three spread across my board edge and charge them forward in the first two turns. Then based on how the first two turns have gone, and by where the biggest threat is on the board, I then decide which unit is in which transport?

Easy, in my armies any multiples of a type of transport are all numbered individually. In my Space Marine armies in particular, they follow the standard style of having numbered squad markings. (shrugs)

Brother Ramses wrote:Me: "This Rhino with black runes on the doors has a Grey Hunter pack in it."

Opponent: "Which Grey Hunter pack?"

Me: "The Grey Hunter pack with black runes on their right shoulder pads that match the Rhino doors black runes."

To which Nos then accuses me of cheating by having multiple Grey Hunter packs painted with black runes in my model bag to suddenly spring upon him to win a game.

I'm not accusing Brother Ramses nor anyone else here of cheating, but it is entirely possible for someone to cheat in this hypothetical situation, and I think that was the point being made.

And that's generally why no one plays it like Ramses suggests. Honestly, who cares what the rules say about it? Trying to make hard rules out of "A Note on Secrecy" is like doing the same thing with "WYSIWYG" ... it leads to a dark and silly place (see this thread for evidence). But just like WYSIWYG, full disclosure of transport contents is a widely accepted convention amongst gamers whether it's a "rule" or not.

At home we use the cards method, we prefer the style of play that grants, as I agree with Aegisgrimm, that even in a freindly game you can't help but metagame.

Of course I still remember when you had to cover the middle of the table with a barrier so you couldn't see your opponents deployment before the battle began.

Still do that on occasion even now, just for the extra buzz it grants when the table is opened up and you can see the mess your opposing battlelines are in.

BR - apparently you cant lay off the insults or, frankly, made up gak in your statements

"To which Nos then accuses me of cheating by having multiple Grey Hunter packs painted with black runes in my model bag to suddenly spring upon him to win a game. "

No, I did not accuse you of cheating. I am saying that a) It is not CLEARLY identifying the actual squad, and b) because of that you CAN cheat.

Not that you will necessarily, but you can - as a consequence of the fact you have not clearly identified the squad when asked. You have identified a potential squad, not the actual squad.

You are failing to clearly identify the squad as the rule requires. Period.

You are also dishonesty making this into a false dichotomy; the primary purpose of the army list is to confirm number of points and FOC restrictions in play - not necessarily wargear. So the default (sharing after) is preserved when you follow the rules of clearly disclosing units.

Vet_sarge - stop with the pathetic insults on others "maturity", belittling people who dont like playing shell games where transports become vastly under costed compared to the tactical advantage you are cheating to gain. I truly hope you never attempt to play a tournament anywhere near here - the shock you get when this "tactic" is laughed out of the house could be fatal, and the looks of "really?" on peoples faces when they realised you're actually being serious? Well, I wouldnt want peoples faces to potentially stick like that.

BR - Do you disclose all units that are in reserve and if they're deep striking/outflanking? You don't keep everything hidden until it hits the table, right?

We've done that in games at my place, Grakmar, adds a whole level of 'oh Gak' when the termie squad you didn't realise they had hits the table.

Although I love the story element you get when that kind of thing happens in game.

So as to stop people making wilder and wilder claims about what the rules say, the actual paragraph :

To keep things fair, you should 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 outmanoeuvering the enemy rather than springing a secret trump card on them. Other prefer to leave a feel of secrecy around their lists, as bluffing can make a game really entertaining. The choice is yours !

Emphasis mine.

Full disclosure is nothing more than a convention. That's it.

You have to be clear about the content of each vehicle so as to prevent the use of "Schrödinger transports" by less than commendable individuals.
If I state during deployment (or write down somewhere) that "Delta squad is in the Rhino with the Aquila painted on its flanks" so that the transport is unmistakably recognizable, and if the name of the squad is reported on my army list, there is no wiggle room. If I then make Alpha squad disembark from the same Rhino on turn 1, I am cheating and it is clear to my opponent. That is what is required by the second sentence of the note on secrecy.
Whether I tell you what Delta squad's wargear and unit composition consist of (by showing you the army list) is an entirely different matter that depends on the agreement reached by the two players as specified by the second paragraph of the note on secrecy.

haendas wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:Me: "This Rhino with black runes on the doors has a Grey Hunter pack in it."

Opponent: "Which Grey Hunter pack?"

Me: "The Grey Hunter pack with black runes on their right shoulder pads that match the Rhino doors black runes."

To which Nos then accuses me of cheating by having multiple Grey Hunter packs painted with black runes in my model bag to suddenly spring upon him to win a game.

I'm not accusing Brother Ramses nor anyone else here of cheating, but it is entirely possible for someone to cheat in this hypothetical situation, and I think that was the point being made.

However, if someone is intent on cheating, even A Note on Secrecy is not going to stop someone from cheating. I already brought it up, but if a person is intent on cheating they could just deny saying what they said was embarked and you can't do anything about it.

However my method, as well as others with cards/scraps of paper/unit markers, severely limits the ability to just deny what was said. As for the tinfoil conspiracy theorist stance that there are going to be multiple Grey Hunter packs with black runes all hidden away in a model bag, can that even be a serious scenario? If someone were to even accuse me of having multiple GH packs with black runed shoulderpads and demanded to see my model bag, first of all I would tell them to feg off for the accusation of cheating AND then I would call the TO over to verify that I did only have one GH pack of black runed shoulderpads.

If you are that paranoid about cheating, then why no worry about outright denial of what was said about what was embarked? If you are that worried about cheating, why is a more secure way of identifying what unit is embarked in which transport not acceptable? I can flip the small card that has been on the Rhino the entire game, show you that it says,

"GH pack: melta x2, MoW, powerfist"

and deploy that exact unit. Or I could deploy a dual plasma gun pack out of it with a power weapon to which you reply,

You: "I thought you said that was a dual meltagun pack with a powerfist?"

Me: "Nope, they are in that Rhino over there."

You: "No, you said they were in that Rhino."

Me: "Nope, they are in that Rhino over there."

Let me guess, now the tinfoil conspiracy theorists will state that some people with David Blaine magical abilities will be sleight of handing unit cards/scraps/unit markers to cheat?

The truth of the matter is that it has absolutely NOTHING to do about being worried about cheating, but about trying to glean as much information out of an opponents army to meta game the list. That is it. When a better standard for identifying which unit is embarked in which transport exists and it is denied in favor of unit wargear composition, the above explanation is all that remains.

nosferatu1001 wrote:I am saying that a) It is not CLEARLY identifying the actual squad, and b) because of that you CAN cheat.

Not that you will necessarily, but you can - as a consequence of the fact you have not clearly identified the squad when asked. You have identified a potential squad, not the actual squad.

Thing is, nos is completely right on this.

It has nothing to do with paranoia. It's just that there are still several possibilities left after that description, unless it is specified that no other squad has that marking.

nosferatu1001 wrote:BR - apparently you cant lay off the insults or, frankly, made up gak in your statements

"To which Nos then accuses me of cheating by having multiple Grey Hunter packs painted with black runes in my model bag to suddenly spring upon him to win a game. "

No, I did not accuse you of cheating. I am saying that a) It is not CLEARLY identifying the actual squad, and b) because of that you CAN cheat.

Not that you will necessarily, but you can - as a consequence of the fact you have not clearly identified the squad when asked. You have identified a potential squad, not the actual squad.

You are failing to clearly identify the squad as the rule requires. Period.

You are also dishonesty making this into a false dichotomy; the primary purpose of the army list is to confirm number of points and FOC restrictions in play - not necessarily wargear. So the default (sharing after) is preserved when you follow the rules of clearly disclosing units.

Vet_sarge - stop with the pathetic insults on others "maturity", belittling people who dont like playing shell games where transports become vastly under costed compared to the tactical advantage you are cheating to gain. I truly hope you never attempt to play a tournament anywhere near here - the shock you get when this "tactic" is laughed out of the house could be fatal, and the looks of "really?" on peoples faces when they realised you're actually being serious? Well, I wouldnt want peoples faces to potentially stick like that.

Nos, you are not trying to determine which unit is in which transport. You are trying to determine what each unit is equipped with in each transport by setting the standard for identification as wargear composition when perfectly valid and more secure methods of identification exist and have been proposed for identifying which unit is in which transport.

If we share army lists at the beginning of the game, you will KNOW that I have a Grey Hunter pack with dual melta guns, a Grey Hunter pack with dual plasma guns, and a Grey Hunter pack with dual flamers. When I disclose which units are embarked in which transports as being,

Grey Hunter pack marked with black runes is in the Rhino with black runes.
Grey Hunter pack marked with red runes is in the Rhino with red runes.
Grey Hunter pack marked with green runes is the Rhino with green runes.

I have clearly distinguished each Grey Hunter pack from each other, I have clearly distinguished each Rhino from each other, and I have clearly distinguished which Grey Hunter pack is embarked is which Rhino. For you to then demand wargear composition is not to clearly distinguish which units are embarked in which transports, as that has already been done, but instead to meta game the list, period.

Brother Ramses wrote:
Grey Hunter pack marked with black runes is in the Rhino with black runes.
Grey Hunter pack marked with red runes is in the Rhino with red runes.
Grey Hunter pack marked with green runes is the Rhino with green runes.

I have clearly distinguished each Grey Hunter pack from each other, I have clearly distinguished each Rhino from each other, and I have clearly distinguished which Grey Hunter pack is embarked is which Rhino. For you to then demand wargear composition is not to clearly distinguish which units are embarked in which transports, as that has already been done, but instead to meta game the list, period.

If you've already told him exactly what is in each rhino, how is him asking later for clarification, lack of memory, or whatever, metagaming?

Why would you refuse to tell him a second time what is in each rhino after telling him at the beginning of the game?

Hyd wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:I am saying that a) It is not CLEARLY identifying the actual squad, and b) because of that you CAN cheat.

Not that you will necessarily, but you can - as a consequence of the fact you have not clearly identified the squad when asked. You have identified a potential squad, not the actual squad.

Thing is, nos is completely right on this.

It has nothing to do with paranoia. It's just that there are still several possibilities left after that description, unless it is specified that no other squad has that marking.

You have missed the several other discussions regarding this where it was made clear that each Grey Hunter pack and their dedicated transports are unique and matching in their markings. Nos then insists that the possibility to cheat then still exists because individuals will then paint up several different models with wargear combinations to make the cheat swap when convenient but then dismisses the possibility of people just outright denying his method of declaring wargear composition as identification.

Brother Ramses wrote:meta game the list.

It is not "meta-gaming" if both players agree to full disclosure. In that case, it's just "gaming." There's a reason you can always find people on Tactics discussing the concept of "target priority" and no one discussing the advantages of disguising a unit's wargear in a Rhino. Few people actually play it your way.

You're reading too much into it.
He just raised that this method isn't foolproof.

Let's say another player use the same method as you. However, he happens to have in a box two squads that match the description of "marked with black runes". What's to prevent him from choosing which one he deploys from the transport ? "Why, his integrity of course !" you'll say. And I agree, which means I understand how thin a guarantee that is.

kronk wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:
Grey Hunter pack marked with black runes is in the Rhino with black runes.
Grey Hunter pack marked with red runes is in the Rhino with red runes.
Grey Hunter pack marked with green runes is the Rhino with green runes.

I have clearly distinguished each Grey Hunter pack from each other, I have clearly distinguished each Rhino from each other, and I have clearly distinguished which Grey Hunter pack is embarked is which Rhino. For you to then demand wargear composition is not to clearly distinguish which units are embarked in which transports, as that has already been done, but instead to meta game the list, period.

If you've already told him exactly what is in each rhino, how is him asking later for clarification, lack of memory, or whatever, metagaming?

Why would you refuse to tell him a second time what is in each rhino after telling him at the beginning of the game?

I had clearly let him know that a Grey Hunter pack with black runes was embarked in the a Rhino with black runes on the doors. I am not compelled by the rules to tell him that said Grey Hunter pack with black runes was the one with dual meltaguns, powerfist, and MoW. The standard for identifying which unit is in embarked in which transport is not wargear composition. He will know from the army list exchange that my army has a Grey Hunter pack with that wargear composition, but not know which transport they are using until they have deployed from their transport.

As has been stated, proof that it was indeed embarked in that transport can take the form of a card or scrap of paper with said unit info on/in the transport which eliminates the supposed "shell game" that has been running rampant in Warhammer 40k....

Dang, I'm lagging behind, one post late each time

Brother Ramses wrote:You have missed the several other discussions regarding this where it was made clear that each Grey Hunter pack and their dedicated transports are unique and matching in their markings.

Sounds legit.

Nos then insists that the possibility to cheat then still exists because individuals will then paint up several different models with wargear combinations to make the cheat swap when convenient

And I can't help agreeing on this, while insisting that it is not an accusation.

but then dismisses the possibility of people just outright denying his method of declaring wargear composition as identification.

I trust you on this, because I don't recall seeing it on this topic.

whigwam wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:meta game the list.

It is not "meta-gaming" if both players agree to full disclosure. In that case, it's just "gaming." There's a reason you can always find people on Tactics discussing the concept of "target priority" and no one discussing the advantages of disguising a unit's wargear in a Rhino. Few people actually play it your way.

And I have consistently seen it played it this way in the Phoenix area at various events where when a person deploys a unit from a transport he shows the number on the bottom of the vehicle that then matches the corresponding numbers on the bottom of the squad. Or opens up a folded piece of paper on/near the transport that says,

"Khorne Berzerker squad w/powerfist champ"

And then deploys a Khorne Berzerker squad with a powerfist champ. I have also seen people outright DENY saying what was embarked with nothing being able to be done except argue and either 4+ rolling it or accept so as not to get hit on sportsmanship scores.

I find it absolutely insane and suspect when a more secure way of ensuring what gets deployed from a transport is what was said to be embarked in said transport is attacked over a "word of mouth" standard set on wargear composition.

Brother Ramses wrote:I am not compelled by the rules to tell him that said Grey Hunter pack with black runes was the one with dual meltaguns, powerfist, and MoW. The standard for identifying which unit is in embarked in which transport is not wargear composition.
As has been stated, proof that it was indeed embarked in that transport can take the form of a card or scrap of paper with said unit info on/in the transport which eliminates the supposed "shell game" that has been running rampant in Warhammer 40k....

Indeed, that was my point in another post ; the two issues aren't necessarily related. If full disclosure is chosen, then it's only natural to use wargear as the standard, but otherwise, not so much.

It is not a ""word of mouth" standard set on wargear composition."

It is on P.92 of the rules.

If you say the squad with the black runes are in the rhino with the black runes, that does not make it clear to me which squad is there, unless there is only 1 squad with black runes, and they are off to the side, so I can see them.

Of course if I can see them i can tell what they are equipped with, due to WYSIWYG.

It is not about sharing lists. even if you only share the list after the game, the opponent will know what is in said transport due to WYSIWYG.

Hyd wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:I am not compelled by the rules to tell him that said Grey Hunter pack with black runes was the one with dual meltaguns, powerfist, and MoW. The standard for identifying which unit is in embarked in which transport is not wargear composition.
As has been stated, proof that it was indeed embarked in that transport can take the form of a card or scrap of paper with said unit info on/in the transport which eliminates the supposed "shell game" that has been running rampant in Warhammer 40k....

Indeed, that was my point in another post ; the two issues aren't necessarily related. If full disclosure is chosen, then it's only natural to use wargear as the standard, but otherwise, not so much.

The problem lies in that full disclosure is defined in the BRB as sharing army lists before or during the game as opposed to after the game, not what most people think of full disclosure being akin to a demand from an attorney or court order to release and and all information pertaining to a subject.

Furthermore, making clear which unit is embarked in which transport has absolutely nothing to do with agreeing to full disclosure at all. That is the default stance along with sharing army lists AFTER the game. If red painted tactical squad is in red painted rhino and blue painted tactical squad is in blue painted rhino, I have clearly distinguished one tactical from another and which rhino each is embarked. I have fulfilled the tenet of A Note on Secrecy without referring to wargear composition at all.

My point exactly, Brother Ramses.
Well, maybe there's a difference in that I take it for granted that what makes the unit recognizable is mentioned on the army list. If nothing connects "X marking" and "X wargear", then there's nothing to prevent a dishonest player from switching to a unit with X marking and Y wargear.

DeathReaper wrote:It is not a ""word of mouth" standard set on wargear composition."

It is on P.92 of the rules.

If you say the squad with the black runes are in the rhino with the black runes, that does not make it clear to me which squad is there, unless there is only 1 squad with black runes, and they are off to the side, so I can see them.

Of course if I can see them i can tell what they are equipped with, due to WYSIWYG.

It is not about sharing lists. even if you only share the list after the game, the opponent will know what is in said transport due to WYSIWYG.

Actually, a delicious fellow obligingly quoted the actual rules a few posts above. I suggest you to look it up, it doesn't say anything about wargear and unit composition.

It would be awfully nice if people stopped making such shortcuts and accepted that there are other ways.

Brother Ramses wrote:And I have consistently seen it played it this way in the Phoenix area at various events where when a person deploys a unit from a transport he shows the number on the bottom of the vehicle that then matches the corresponding numbers on the bottom of the squad. Or opens up a folded piece of paper on/near the transport that says,

"Khorne Berzerker squad w/powerfist champ"

At these events, do you have to disclose your army list with your opponent before the game?

DeathReaper wrote:It is not a ""word of mouth" standard set on wargear composition."

It is on P.92 of the rules.

If you say the squad with the black runes are in the rhino with the black runes, that does not make it clear to me which squad is there, unless there is only 1 squad with black runes, and they are off to the side, so I can see them.

Of course if I can see them i can tell what they are equipped with, due to WYSIWYG.

It is not about sharing lists. even if you only share the list after the game, the opponent will know what is in said transport due to WYSIWYG.

And your WYSIWYG argument gets shut down as well because when I deploy that unit, you can WYSIWYG. The BRB does not demand that your army is on display prior to a game nor does it compel you to have your army to the side of the table for verification. WYSIWYG compels you to visually model purchased wargear on a model unless otherwise agreed upon, that is it. Models off the table are off the table until deployed/come in from reserve/deep strike/etc. At that time you can WYSIWYG until your hearts content. Furthermore, by employing a more secure method, WYSIWYG is confirmed by matching card/paper/unit marker to unit deployed.

And as I said, if I tell you that the black runed squad is in the black runed rhino, the green runed squad is in the green runed rhino, etc, etc, they squads have been distinctly distinguished from each other and as to what transport they have embarked in. All that has not been distinguished is what each squad is equipped with, which A Note on Secrecy does not compel you to reveal. You are only told to make clear which squad is embarked in which transport. That has been done via color and markings, not wargear composition.

Brother Ramses wrote:I find it absolutely insane and suspect when a more secure way of ensuring what gets deployed from a transport is what was said to be embarked in said transport is attacked over a "word of mouth" standard set on wargear composition.

And I find it suspect when someone thinks they're entitled to transports that act as an invisibility cloak for the embarked squad. I'm really not that concerned about getting cheated, I want the in-game advantage of knowing what's in each transport. That, and nothing less, is what most people expect, especially in a competitive setting. Out of curiosity, which events have you seen it played your way at? Any major ones? I'm just not buying that this is the standard of play anywhere outside of gaming clubs.

sudojoe wrote:One guy in the local group is an ok player but always refuses to say what's in what transport. "Just gotta pop them and find out" is what he says. Maybe it'd not be so bad but he plays eldar and none of his transports are painted. Trying to "find the runes of warding" is getting kind of old but is there a rule that says you have to tell your opponent what is in what? Or that just a sportsmanship thing?

Don't play the guy. If your at a tourney with him, tell the TO. If they TO rules that you don't need to tell, just doc him for sportmanship.

Here is the problem. If he does not tell you whats in what transport, he could just cheat and make it up on the fly. "Well, my fire dragons need to be in there, so Ill now say that this serpent has dragons!"

As has been mentioned, you can mitigate this with index cards or other tools, but unless both of you agree to play that way, its a TFG move.

kronk wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:And I have consistently seen it played it this way in the Phoenix area at various events where when a person deploys a unit from a transport he shows the number on the bottom of the vehicle that then matches the corresponding numbers on the bottom of the squad. Or opens up a folded piece of paper on/near the transport that says,

"Khorne Berzerker squad w/powerfist champ"

At these events, do you have to disclose your army list with your opponent before the game?

Yes. I print up twice the number of army lists as games I have as to have enough to share and let people keep if they want to go over their strats or things they might have wanted to do different after the tournament.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

labmouse42 wrote:

sudojoe wrote:One guy in the local group is an ok player but always refuses to say what's in what transport. "Just gotta pop them and find out" is what he says. Maybe it'd not be so bad but he plays eldar and none of his transports are painted. Trying to "find the runes of warding" is getting kind of old but is there a rule that says you have to tell your opponent what is in what? Or that just a sportsmanship thing?

Don't play the guy. If your at a tourney with him, tell the TO. If they TO rules that you don't need to tell, just doc him for sportmanship.

Here is the problem. If he does not tell you whats in what transport, he could just cheat and make it up on the fly. "Well, my fire dragons need to be in there, so Ill now say that this serpent has dragons!"

The problem the OP had was not that his opponent did not reveal wargear composition. That is not required to distinguish what unit is embarked in which transport. The problem that the OP was facing is that his opponent did not reveal which units had an attached IC, which is required.

AegisGrimm wrote:

The 'switcheroo' would only work if there were multiple versions of the same tank on the board.

Imagine I run with three rhinos. In one holds 10 Death Company, one 5 Man Tac squad without upgrades and the last a 10 Man Tac squad with melta and power fist. When one of my rhinos is destroyed what is to stop me saying it was the one with the 5 man squad? Or how about I deploy all three spread across my board edge and charge them forward in the first two turns. Then based on how the first two turns have gone, and by where the biggest threat is on the board, I then decide which unit is in which transport?

Easy, in my armies any multiples of a type of transport are all numbered individually. In my Space Marine armies in particular, they follow the standard style of having numbered squad markings. (shrugs)

And I'd have no reason to complain, you've played within the rules.

Thankfully, as I previously said, I haven't ever come across this. Our group is nice and chilled, it's more about pizza, beer and stupid dice rolls than winning

Boggy79 wrote:

AegisGrimm wrote:

The 'switcheroo' would only work if there were multiple versions of the same tank on the board.

Imagine I run with three rhinos. In one holds 10 Death Company, one 5 Man Tac squad without upgrades and the last a 10 Man Tac squad with melta and power fist. When one of my rhinos is destroyed what is to stop me saying it was the one with the 5 man squad? Or how about I deploy all three spread across my board edge and charge them forward in the first two turns. Then based on how the first two turns have gone, and by where the biggest threat is on the board, I then decide which unit is in which transport?

Easy, in my armies any multiples of a type of transport are all numbered individually. In my Space Marine armies in particular, they follow the standard style of having numbered squad markings. (shrugs)

And I'd have no reason to complain, you've played within the rules.

Thankfully, as I previously said, I haven't ever come across this. Our group is nice and chilled, it's more about pizza, beer and stupid dice rolls than winning

Howeer some would here would have you think that the only way to distinguish one unit from another is by wargear composition. I really wonder how that works out at a tournament;

Me: "The red squad squad is in the red rhino and the blue squad is in the blue rhino."
Opponent: "I can't distinguish which unit is embarked in which transport."
Me/TO/Bystanders/God: "Are you f'ing kidding me?"

BR - you keep on lying to try to prove a point that is simply wrong.

"but then dismisses the possibility of people just outright denying his method of declaring wargear composition as identification."

No, I did not dismiss it. I explicitly covered what would happen if you pulled out another unit than the one you said was going to be deployed. The fact you chose to ignore it, and pretend it didnt exist, is further proof of your dishonesty when it comes to posting on this subject. If you attempted to cheat by pulling a set of models out of a bag to fit a situation, then the preponderance of evidence is easily against you - and as a TO that would be all I would need to DQ you for cheating, and do my best to ensure you never game in a tournament in the UK again.

You are way too emotionally involved in defending your interpretation of "clearly" that is clearly not a common interpretation (and in fact, isnt even a valid interpretation, as it fails to actually identify a unit with no ambiguity) to be able to rationaly argue this. You proved it in YMDC, and you are proving it here.

You have to clearly identify the squad. Saying "the one with black shoulderpads" when there are no units with black shoulder pads present in view does not CLEARLY identify the squad - as there is a potential for multiple squads with black shoulder pads to exist.

This is an undeniable fact. It is simple logic tht you are now denying. If more than one squad could meet the statements truth value, then it is not a clear identification.

So, your only option is to say "these black shoulder pad marines, here" and point to the exact guys you are referring to.

Now, BECAUSE you are following WYSIWYG, I can then derive information about a) what the unit are, b) what they are armed with and c) how many there are. Or, to save time - you can tell me, and help the game continue at a pace. You are within your rights to refuse, but that becomes dickish behaviour *very* quickly, and is likely to earn you a bad reputation.

Your claim of being able to hide what is in your army behind 35 point invisibility shields is laughable. If you are willing to pay a true price for that ability - say, 150 points a vehicle, on top of their normal price - then you can have your little secret unrealistic game*.

Meanwhile the rest of the competent generals, the vast majority of the tournament gaming community, will win despite their opponents knowing what is in their vehicles.

*sigint can usually pinpoint exactly who is where and what they are carrying during a battle, and we can do that now - 38k years down the line you shouldnt be too shocked to find the exact same ability

Edit: your last post amply demonstrates the lack of understanding of the word "identify the squad" you have

It does not mean "identify any squad" (a blue squad is in the blue rhino, and is fulfilled by you pulling out any blue squad you choose) it means identify the singular entity that is embarked - "this blue squad just here is in the blue rhino"

This then specifically fixes THE squad - and bam you have complied with the rule.

As a consequence of this and the WYSIWYG rules enforced at most tournaments, I will now also know exactly what they are armed with. That is unavoidable

I try to match the heraldry on my transports with the unit that could hold them (i take razorbacks for full units just incase they suffer wounds or combat squads)

EDIT: All my tac squads are generally the same equipmentwise so it really doesnt make a whole lot of difference ... in my instance...

I usually say somethign akin to "This group here is in this Valkarie (one turned helicopter) and these guys are in this one" but only if they ask. for the most part the troop composition is not different from either vehicle. just Stormtroopers with Anti-tank weapons with their mission to drop behind enemy lines with Valkaries and tear up armor.

as for other transports, if they ask ill tell them. otherwise my chimera keeps trucking along with its cargo.

nosferatu1001 wrote:BR - you keep on lying to try to prove a point that is simply wrong.

"but then dismisses the possibility of people just outright denying his method of declaring wargear composition as identification."

No, I did not dismiss it. I explicitly covered what would happen if you pulled out another unit than the one you said was going to be deployed. The fact you chose to ignore it, and pretend it didnt exist, is further proof of your dishonesty when it comes to posting on this subject. If you attempted to cheat by pulling a set of models out of a bag to fit a situation, then the preponderance of evidence is easily against you - and as a TO that would be all I would need to DQ you for cheating, and do my best to ensure you never game in a tournament in the UK again.

You are way too emotionally involved in defending your interpretation of "clearly" that is clearly not a common interpretation (and in fact, isnt even a valid interpretation, as it fails to actually identify a unit with no ambiguity) to be able to rationaly argue this. You proved it in YMDC, and you are proving it here.

You have to clearly identify the squad. Saying "the one with black shoulderpads" when there are no units with black shoulder pads present in view does not CLEARLY identify the squad - as there is a potential for multiple squads with black shoulder pads to exist.

This is an undeniable fact. It is simple logic tht you are now denying. If more than one squad could meet the statements truth value, then it is not a clear identification.

So, your only option is to say "these black shoulder pad marines, here" and point to the exact guys you are referring to.

Now, BECAUSE you are following WYSIWYG, I can then derive information about a) what the unit are, b) what they are armed with and c) how many there are. Or, to save time - you can tell me, and help the game continue at a pace. You are within your rights to refuse, but that becomes dickish behaviour *very* quickly, and is likely to earn you a bad reputation.

Your claim of being able to hide what is in your army behind 35 point invisibility shields is laughable. If you are willing to pay a true price for that ability - say, 150 points a vehicle, on top of their normal price - then you can have your little secret unrealistic game*.

Meanwhile the rest of the competent generals, the vast majority of the tournament gaming community, will win despite their opponents knowing what is in their vehicles.

*sigint can usually pinpoint exactly who is where and what they are carrying during a battle, and we can do that now - 38k years down the line you shouldnt be too shocked to find the exact same ability

Edit: your last post amply demonstrates the lack of understanding of the word "identify the squad" you have

It does not mean "identify any squad" (a blue squad is in the blue rhino, and is fulfilled by you pulling out any blue squad you choose) it means identify the singular entity that is embarked - "this blue squad just here is in the blue rhino"

This then specifically fixes THE squad - and bam you have complied with the rule.

As a consequence of this and the WYSIWYG rules enforced at most tournaments, I will now also know exactly what they are armed with. That is unavoidable

And again, you continue to place the standard on wargear composition because it "suits" your need to know what they equipped, not because you need to be "clear".

The rule tells me that I need to make clear which units are embarked in which transports. Not make it clear that I do not own other black runed GH packs, not that I do not have black runed GH packs in my model bag, nor that I might even have magical magnetic black runed shoulder pads hidden up my sleeve just to cheat you.

By me telling you that whatever comes out of a black runed Rhino WILL be a GH pack with black runed shoulder pads and that whatever comes out of a red runed Rhino WILL be a GH pack with red runed shoulder pads, I have CLEARLY, CONCISELY, AND ABSOLUTELY distinguished which units are embarked in which transports. I have fulfilled the RAW of the rule exactly to the letter. That you continue to demand that I distinguish which units are embarked in which transports, specifically and ONLY by wargear, as well as now even distinguish them by what I may or may not have in my bag, my pockets, my lunch box, or in hidden compartments up my sleeves is not only not the RAW of the rule, but even more "dickish" of the behavior you have continued to try and label me of doing. It is assuming that your opponent is going to cheat despite knowing absolutely nothing about him.

As far as the denial issue, we are having a mental block here as to what I am saying about wargear composition as a standard and how it can be just as easily cheated.

If you want to set wargear composition as the standard,

"This rhino has a GH pack with 2x melta and this rhino has a GH pack with 2x plasma."

And then later on in the game when deploying, the SW player decides due to game movement that it would be better to switch them so he does, where are you at? You are in a position where it comes down to a he said/she said. The opponent says, "No it wasn't!" and the SW player says, "Yes it was!" As the TO, who do you side with and how can you be sure you are siding with the innocent party? That was my point about showing you that despite you thinking wargear is the absolute end all for ending a shell game, it isn't.

Now you are trying to debunk that distinguishing differently colored shoulder pads would not suffice as a person could have models with the same paint scheme to replace the wanted equipment in order to cheat their opponent. Lets think about the likelihood of that using the SW as an easy example with two GH packs; a black runed GH pack with 2x meltas and red runed GH pack with 2x plasmas.

1. A person is going to paint two models with black runes but have them equipped with plasma guns instead of meltas to pull a switcheroo when he needs black runed plasma models instead of black runed meltas.

2. In order to pull the above trick, he will also need to paint two models with red runed meltas to replace his existing red runed plasmas or else the shell game falls apart when he deploys the red runed GH pack.

3. Now apply this to multiple differently colored GH packs where you need to paint an additional two models with differently colored shoulder pads with different special weapons; plasma/metla/flamers for every pack to replace. Add a blue runed GH pack with 2x flamers and suddenly you need to add two black runed flamers, two red runed flamers, two blue runed plasmas, and two blue runed meltas. Now think of 4 GH packs with different colored runes and the combinations that would need to be painted to allow a shell game. How about 6 packs, filling up the Troops FOC?

4. Now apply the fact the other different variables such as a Mark of the Wulfen model, powerfist model, power weapon model, wolf standard, and plasma pistol, all needing an additional model with differently colored shoulder pads with a different wargear item to replace for each differently colored GH pack. Again apply that to 6 packs, filling up the Troops FOC.

5. Now apply that to transport options that may differ between GH packs. Additionally modeled Rhinos/Razorbacks with additionally painted runes to account for all the combinations?

So fine, we find the sneakiest bastard in ALL of Warhammer 40k that does indeed paint and model all the different variables to actually pull the shell game with differently painted and equipped models when he deploys them and his opponent calls foul. Well like you said, the preponderance of evidence is there in his bag.

Nos wrote:Not when I can point to the preponderence of evidence - that you just so happen to have 10 models in your case which DO have the equipment you said you were placing. As a TO myself you would have a HARD job explaining to me why someone who has likely never met you suddenly knows you have 10 models, with their equipment, in the case and how they are painted. Yo uwould then almost certainly be DQ'd and barred from competing in any tournament I ran or colleagues ran.

It would be an open and shut (game)case in that matter as opposed to the he said/she said argument that wargear composition as the standard presents. That is not even to mention that the TO does come over and God forbid, there are no additional models with the same paint scheme.

Which again raises the question as to why, when more secure methods are presented unit cards/markers/scraps of paper/paint schemes, do you, even as a TO, insist on a less secure method with the opportunity of far more conflict? Especially when as I pointed out, it is not covered in the rules per the RAW.

And just for the record, I have NEVER seen an elaborate scheme of multiple painted models to pull a shell game, but I have seen more then enough he said/she said arguments across the spectrum from major national/international tournaments to 10 man RT.

The rule tells me that I need to make clear which units are embarked in which transports. Not make it clear that I do not own other black runed GH packs, not that I do not have black runed GH packs in my model bag, nor that I might even have magical magnetic black runed shoulder pads hidden up my sleeve just to cheat you.

How about keeping your models on the table so people can see what models you are referring to, or is that to much for you, who seems to want to hide all your models in a bag till the time to reveal them comes.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

The rule tells me that I need to make clear which units are embarked in which transports. Not make it clear that I do not own other black runed GH packs, not that I do not have black runed GH packs in my model bag, nor that I might even have magical magnetic black runed shoulder pads hidden up my sleeve just to cheat you.

How about keeping your models on the table so people can see what models you are referring to, or is that to much for you, who seems to want to hide all your models in a bag till the time to reveal them comes.

Care to show me in the BRB that my models are to be displayed on the table? How about where tournaments that do not have the space for a sideboard? Or people that carry a model tray around and set it under the table as there is no room? How about actually address the points of the conversation instead of just a snide remark?

Brother Ramses wrote:

By me telling you that whatever comes out of a black runed Rhino WILL be a GH pack with black runed shoulder pads and that whatever comes out of a red runed Rhino WILL be a GH pack with red runed shoulder pads, I have CLEARLY, CONCISELY, AND ABSOLUTELY distinguished which units are embarked in which transports. I have fulfilled the RAW of the rule exactly to the letter. That you continue to demand that I distinguish which units are embarked in which transports, specifically and ONLY by wargear, as well as now even distinguish them by what I may or may not have in my bag, my pockets, my lunch box, or in hidden compartments up my sleeves is not only not the RAW of the rule, but even more "dickish" of the behavior you have continued to try and label me of doing. It is assuming that your opponent is going to cheat despite knowing absolutely nothing about him.

You know, I keep telling people it's fair for me to roll all my dice behind my "Angel: the Role Playing Game" GM Screen where they can't see, cause there's nothing in the rules that says it's illegal, and they keep thinking I'm cheating, even though I totally miss, like, 5 shots the whole game. Sucks, doesn't it!

Also, there's no game terms to express color, insignia, or standard, therefore, they're not valid terms by which to describe the models in your transport.

And then later on in the game when deploying, the SW player decides due to game movement that it would be better to switch them so he does, where are you at? You are in a position where it comes down to a he said/she said. The opponent says, "No it wasn't!" and the SW player says, "Yes it was!" As the TO, who do you side with and how can you be sure you are siding with the innocent party? That was my point about showing you that despite you thinking wargear is the absolute end all for ending a shell game, it isn't.

The accepted mechanism for doing this at every regional and national tournament setting I have been to has been to place one of the models from each squad (usually one of the most uniquely identifying [i.e. melta guy]) either atop the vehicle, or if you're concerned about the paint job, alongside it to denote. Otherwise, I would also accept an army builder (or equivalent) list that was numbered, along with some corresponding legend for the vehicles. Again, I have seen both of these mechanisms used, in actual games, including at tournaments both regional and national.

Which again raises the question as to why, when more secure methods are presented unit cards/markers/scraps of paper/paint schemes, do you, even as a TO, insist on a less secure method with the opportunity of far more conflict? Especially when as I pointed out, it is not covered in the rules per the RAW.

Because that's how absolutely everyone on the site who has ever been to a tournament except for you has always played it.

daedalus wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:

By me telling you that whatever comes out of a black runed Rhino WILL be a GH pack with black runed shoulder pads and that whatever comes out of a red runed Rhino WILL be a GH pack with red runed shoulder pads, I have CLEARLY, CONCISELY, AND ABSOLUTELY distinguished which units are embarked in which transports. I have fulfilled the RAW of the rule exactly to the letter. That you continue to demand that I distinguish which units are embarked in which transports, specifically and ONLY by wargear, as well as now even distinguish them by what I may or may not have in my bag, my pockets, my lunch box, or in hidden compartments up my sleeves is not only not the RAW of the rule, but even more "dickish" of the behavior you have continued to try and label me of doing. It is assuming that your opponent is going to cheat despite knowing absolutely nothing about him.

You know, I keep telling people it's fair for me to roll all my dice behind my "Angel: the Role Playing Game" GM Screen where they can't see, cause there's nothing in the rules that says it's illegal, and they keep thinking I'm cheating, even though I totally miss, like, 5 shots the whole game. Sucks, doesn't it!

I see absolutely zero comparison. In fact you admit to a scenario that is blatantly cheating and yet what I do is following the RAW of the rule by distinguishing which unit is embarked in which transport. Albeit not by wargear, but by clearly distinguished paint jobs.

Also, there's no game terms to express color, insignia, or standard, therefore, they're not valid terms by which to describe the models in your transport.

Actually there is in every single codex a recommended painting guide for distinguishing models. And the Note on Secrecy sets no standard, neither wargear composition or paint or large lit sparklers attached to bases to be lit at the beginning of the game.

And then later on in the game when deploying, the SW player decides due to game movement that it would be better to switch them so he does, where are you at? You are in a position where it comes down to a he said/she said. The opponent says, "No it wasn't!" and the SW player says, "Yes it was!" As the TO, who do you side with and how can you be sure you are siding with the innocent party? That was my point about showing you that despite you thinking wargear is the absolute end all for ending a shell game, it isn't.

The accepted mechanism for doing this at every regional and national tournament setting I have been to has been to place one of the models from each squad (usually one of the most uniquely identifying [i.e. melta guy]) either atop the vehicle, or if you're concerned about the paint job, alongside it to denote. Otherwise, I would also accept an army builder (or equivalent) list that was numbered, along with some corresponding legend for the vehicles. Again, I have seen both of these mechanisms used, in actual games, including at tournaments both regional and national.

So not following the actual rules is the accepted norm so it must the right way? And I find it quite hilarious that "usually the most uniquely identifying model" is up to the interpretation of who? What about the bolter/close combat guy with the custom base that was professional painted that makes him the most unique model out of the squad that has normal bases and were not professionally painted? Interesting that what you are willing to accept, must then be the norm, because you are willing to accept it.

Which again raises the question as to why, when more secure methods are presented unit cards/markers/scraps of paper/paint schemes, do you, even as a TO, insist on a less secure method with the opportunity of far more conflict? Especially when as I pointed out, it is not covered in the rules per the RAW.

Because that's how absolutely everyone on the site who has ever been to a tournament except for you has always played it.

And just for the record, I have NEVER seen an elaborate scheme of multiple painted models to pull a shell game, but I have seen more then enough he said/she said arguments across the spectrum from major national/international tournaments to 10 man RT.

rodgers37 wrote:I thought it was in the rulebook, you have to tell your opponent everything. Your list, whats in reserve, whats in your transports....

The rulebook states that 40k isnt a guessing game.

You opponent needs to tell you where what is, and what upgrades everything has.

Its not a guesing game rofl

Brother Ramses wrote:
I see absolutely zero comparison. In fact you admit to a scenario that is blatantly cheating and yet what I do is following the RAW of the rule by distinguishing which unit is embarked in which transport. Albeit not by wargear, but by clearly distinguished paint jobs.

Sir, I am insulted! You simply ASSUME I'm cheating because you can't see my die rolls.

Actually there is in every single codex a recommended painting guide for distinguishing models. And the Note on Secrecy sets no standard, neither wargear composition or paint or large lit sparklers attached to bases to be lit at the beginning of the game.

Every single codex? Can you show me where that is in the IG codex? I've always wondered what box to buy and how to paint my Veterans to denote that they are such. Maybe you can show me where in the Tyranid Codex it denotes how to distinguish a Mycetic Spore with ripper arms from one of the other Mycetic Spore pods with different weapon options.

So not following the actual rules is the accepted norm so it must the right way? And I find it quite hilarious that "usually the most uniquely identifying model" is up to the interpretation of who? What about the bolter/close combat guy with the custom base that was professional painted that makes him the most unique model out of the squad that has normal bases and were not professionally painted? Interesting that what you are willing to accept, must then be the norm, because you are willing to accept it.

"Hey, what's in that transport with the space marine with the badass base?"
"That? Oh, 10 man tac squad with a metlagun and missile launcher."
"Nice."

I find it interesting that you find it that interesting. It's really not. I merely accept it because I and everyone else I have ever played has been perfectly comfortable with it. It allows there to be this nice open feeling of gentlemanly sportsmanship and has not yet caused a problem in any game I've ever played. If that's not reason enough, then I don't know what else to say.

Do we need to start linking the batreps of Adepticon battles or links of "blatant cheating" from Blood of Kittens where it several arguments of, "you already moved that unit" versus "no I didn't move that unit" or "you already finished that phase and can't assault now" versus "I was not finished and was still assaulting."? That is he said/she said crap that falls upon the judges to determine who is right based on what one person is saying versus another. Unless of course you are actually attacking the semantics of he said/she said by saying you never see female gamers.

I wasn't attacking semantics. I'd be interesting in some of these links. I'd never heard of any real issues with games up at Adepticon. You can pass on the BoK links though. My life has been perfectly happen avoiding that site this long; I think I can go another day.

BR - and, as pointed out:

You have identified A possible unit, not THE unit. Identification of THE unit is what is required by the rule, and you are identifying A unit.

Guess what follows the rules - hint, its not you.

You are cheating, and getting an unpaid for advantage out of your transports.

As a semi regular TO I have yet to see these fabled arguments, and have yet to see anyone attempt to hide the contents of vehicles in that way - it just honestly never happens.

Feel free to carry on playing as you wish, however the rules do not support it, the vast majority of regular gamers do not do it, and overall you are a better general if you can cope with your opponent knowing your weak spots.

Feel free to not respond, it will be ignored.

I don't see what the big deal is about sayin what's in a transport.. Not like it makes my squad easier to kill. Still have to roll and there's not just that one squad thatll cost me.

nosferatu1001 wrote:BR - and, as pointed out:

You have identified A possible unit, not THE unit. Identification of THE unit is what is required by the rule, and you are identifying A unit.

Guess what follows the rules - hint, its not you.

You are cheating, and getting an unpaid for advantage out of your transports.

As a semi regular TO I have yet to see these fabled arguments, and have yet to see anyone attempt to hide the contents of vehicles in that way - it just honestly never happens.

Feel free to carry on playing as you wish, however the rules do not support it, the vast majority of regular gamers do not do it, and overall you are a better general if you can cope with your opponent knowing your weak spots.

Feel free to not respond, it will be ignored.

Actually no Nos, that isn't the point.

The rule orders you make clear to your opponent which unit is embarked in which transport, not distinguish which unit has a powerfist and which unit has a power weapon and by that standard distinguish which unit is embarked in which transport. You are reading A Note on Secrecy, creating a standard based on wargear composition, and then using that to follow the rule. I am doing exactly the same thing, but my standard is based on something that makes one unit distinguished from another as well as one transport distinguished from another, without revealing any wargear composition.

See, to you it isn't about stopping a cheat. As I showed in my other post, "the 100 other red shoulder pad models hidden away" scenario is a full blown strawman as it is easily blown away by the effort required behind it and how easily it can be uncovered by your own admission. To you it is only about revealing of the wargear composition because my standard does not contain it and yet does what you say you are trying to prevent, but better. Combined with the other suggestions of unit cards or coresponding unit markings it even makes it damn near impossible to cheat, all without revealing wargear composition.

All your standard does is allow for you to place your mech away from anti-tank and your infantry away from anti-infantry. That is why you insist upon it despite the RAW to the contrary and despite a more secure meyethod existing that is supported by the RAW.

Brother Ramses wrote:The rule orders you make clear to your opponent which unit is embarked in which transport, not distinguish which unit has a powerfist and which unit has a power weapon and by that standard distinguish which unit is embarked in which transport. You are reading A Note on Secrecy, creating a standard based on wargear composition, and then using that to follow the rule. I am doing exactly the same thing, but my standard is based on something that makes one unit distinguished from another as well as one transport distinguished from another, without revealing any wargear composition.

"which unit has a powerfist and which unit has a power weapon"

That is the whole point, the ONLY way to clearly identify a unit within a transport to your opponent is to either tell him what wargear they have

E.G. Unit A is in that transport, that is the unit with the Power Fist sarge, the unit in this rhino over here is the one with the Power Weapon.

Or to show him the models that are within each transport noting which transport each squad is embarked within, and by virtue of WYSIWIG your opponent will know what is where.

All your standard does is allow for you to place your mech away from anti-tank and your infantry away from anti-infantry. That is why you insist upon it despite the RAW to the contrary and despite a more secure meyethod existing that is supported by the RAW.

So basically, you are trying to rules lawyer the situation to have an artificial advantage in gameplay.

Tell me, has this situation ever flown at the table for you? Has anyone allowed you to play like this? I really want to know.

This is Games Workshop we're dealing with here. The Most Important Rule is the most commonly ignored rule of the entire rulebook. Why? Because it is a rule relating to how to deal with rules that you find odd or out of place in the rule book.

That said, I present page 66: "When the unit embarks, it is removed from the table and placed aside, making a note or otherwise marking that the unit is being transported (we find that placing one of the unit's models on top of the transport works well!)."

So. A Note of Secrecy suggests that you do not have to play according to all rules if you don't want to, and that it is in fact your own choice, while embarkation rules tells you to make a note of any and all units and models embarked.

To further support my side of the argument, is there anywhere in the rules you are ever allowed to keep any given movement or unit placement secret unless specifically told in what way?

But all this is rather moot. The OP simply needs to let his opponent know that he prefers to play it according to tournament norms. After that it is a case of a social battle - unless the opponent actually is ignorant enough to think secrecy is the norm.

kronk wrote:

Veteran Sergeant wrote:Everything else after this is whining. And, honesty, bad sportsmanship. Like the other guy said, it's impossible to not use meta-game knowledge to focus fire on the most valuable transports simply because you now hold inside information as to their contents. That's cheating. In every possible ethical way. Sportsmanship is on ethics, not on rules lawyering. If you're trying to exploit the wording of a rule to demand another player show you the contents of his transports when he has created legitimate, provable, clear identifiers for them, you are the cheater and the bad sport, not him.

I couldn't possibly disagree any more than I do with everything in this post.

Furthermore, I'd never play you. Your tone smacks of more TFG than I've read in a long time. I really hope I'm wrong and you're not this type of person in real life.

Actually, I'm further from TFG than anyone you've ever met when it comes to gaming. I play for fun, hate the tournament scene with its unsavory odorous social miscreants, dislike the haughty arrogant "If it isn't painted well it sucks" jerkoffs that riddle the hobby as if somehow this is no longer a game, but some kind of art contest.

But I'm a wargamer, not a model setter-upper, dice roller, and model remover. If people want to play weaksauce games where you get to use meta-game knowledge to essentially cheat and take undue advantage, that's their business. But the way that has been presented of pre-written cards is perfectly acceptable within the rules, and honestly, the way wargames should be played. Some people obviously want everything handed to them as easily as possible. I see a lot of people cry for pre-measuring too, something that is absolutely astounding to a long time, real wargamer like myself. It's really no surprise being the current generation of young players come from the Entitlement Generation.

Honestly though, with all the neckbeards in here saying they'd never play me, I will present a question. What makes you think I'd lower myself to playing with you in the first place? lol. It isn't like that is even remotely an insult to tell me you wouldn't play me. It's more of a relief.

DeathReaper wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:The rule orders you make clear to your opponent which unit is embarked in which transport, not distinguish which unit has a powerfist and which unit has a power weapon and by that standard distinguish which unit is embarked in which transport. You are reading A Note on Secrecy, creating a standard based on wargear composition, and then using that to follow the rule. I am doing exactly the same thing, but my standard is based on something that makes one unit distinguished from another as well as one transport distinguished from another, without revealing any wargear composition.

"which unit has a powerfist and which unit has a power weapon"

That is the whole point, the ONLY way to clearly identify a unit within a transport to your opponent is to either tell him what wargear they have

E.G. Unit A is in that transport, that is the unit with the Power Fist sarge, the unit in this rhino over here is the one with the Power Weapon.

Or to show him the models that are within each transport noting which transport each squad is embarked within, and by virtue of WYSIWIG your opponent will know what is where.

Let me get this straight,

You are going to look at somebody who just told you,

"The red painted unit is in the red painted Rhino and the blue painted unit is in the blue painted Rhino."

And reply with,

"I can't tell which unit is embarked in which transport."

Granted you could be color blind, but any other markings or numbers that would distinguish one unit from another as well as distinguish which transports they are embarked fulfill A Note on Secrecy. Wargear composition is NOT the only way from telling one unit from another.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

All your standard does is allow for you to place your mech away from anti-tank and your infantry away from anti-infantry. That is why you insist upon it despite the RAW to the contrary and despite a more secure meyethod existing that is supported by the RAW.

So basically, you are trying to rules lawyer the situation to have an artificial advantage in gameplay.

Tell me, has this situation ever flown at the table for you? Has anyone allowed you to play like this? I really want to know.

First of it isn't rules lawyering at all. The rule as written does not set ANY standard for comparing wargear. It doesn't exist and the fact that people insist on it without any rules backing is more rules lawyer then anything.

Second of all, this isn't my idea at all. I think it was about 4yrs ago that I first experienced it by two players at the Battlefoam GT in Phoenix who told me what units were in their transports. One used some scraps of paper to verify what disembarked was what was declared and another used extra based bases with numbers to match the embarked units.

Since then I have done the same and have other players doing the same with either the scraps of paper, tokens, or paint jobs. Both in friendly and tournament play. Not once has anyone ever accused me of cheating as they see me deploy the painted unit that matches the painted transport. Frankly the only people I have ever seen so intent on knowing wargear composition are the people here.

Gladly I game with more people in real life then what is represented in these threads. It is interesting to actually have a couple of people that will try and debate A Note on Secrecy to then only have people jump in with knee jerk reaction/comments not based on the rule but upon emotion or habit.

nosferatu1001 wrote:*sigint can usually pinpoint exactly who is where and what they are carrying during a battle, and we can do that now -

You have such an extremely rosy and unrealistic view of modern sigint capabilities. If only it were that easy. You watch too many movies, lol.

TheCustomLime wrote:My opinion is that it's better to be safe than sorry, so disclose what's in the transport to avoid arguments.

However, if you know the person and want to play a more "Realistic" 40k game, then keep it secret but have index cards and markings on the tanks to show who's in what . Show him or her them once the "cat's out of the bag" so to speak.

I completly agree, though, at my gaming club you have to tell your oponents what's in what's.

im pretty sure brb states you have to declare whats in what vehicle upon deployment, ESPECIALLY when asked. if i asked someone i was playing what was in a transport and i got the "pop it and see" or something else to that effect, i wont even respond. ill just pack up and leave. that kind of attitude is a really big indicator im in for a game full of asshatery BS and whining about everything and who the heck knows what else under the sun.

I always put my Marshal/Champion on top of his transport, and on the generic transports I put any special weapons on the top as well, I think it's perfectly reasonable to show and to ask to be shown whats in the vehicles without having to crack them open first.

DeathReaper wrote:It is not a ""word of mouth" standard set on wargear composition."

It is on P.92 of the rules.

If you say the squad with the black runes are in the rhino with the black runes, that does not make it clear to me which squad is there, unless there is only 1 squad with black runes, and they are off to the side, so I can see them.

Of course if I can see them i can tell what they are equipped with, due to WYSIWYG.

It is not about sharing lists. even if you only share the list after the game, the opponent will know what is in said transport due to WYSIWYG.

Agreed.

In fairness, the way Brother Ramses describes playing it is 100% in keeping with the 4th edition rules and standard practice in 4th edition tournaments. I suspect that his local play group has simply not switched over to the 5th edition standard regarding this issue.

Edit: On second thought, my post was way OT and retracted.

I always insist on full disclosure in my games; eg, what unit is in which transport.

If my opponent doesn't agree with this, I would most likely find another opponent; I've played one-too-many a cheater in my time. (Of course, not everyone who plays 'Fog of War' is a cheater.)

If I was in a tournament then I'd probably either call a judge over to resolve the matter or play the guy at his own game:

"Which Farseer has the Runes of Warding?"

"You'll have to kill one and I'll tell you if you get it right."

Works two ways.

Iranna.

Brother Ramses wrote:Let me get this straight,

You are going to look at somebody who just told you,

"The red painted unit is in the red painted Rhino and the blue painted unit is in the blue painted Rhino."

And reply with,

"I can't tell which unit is embarked in which transport."

Granted you could be color blind, but any other markings or numbers that would distinguish one unit from another as well as distinguish which transports they are embarked fulfill A Note on Secrecy. Wargear composition is NOT the only way from telling one unit from another.

No, I would reply with "Which ones are the blue painted unit?" and if you say the blue painted ones in my army case, that does not make it clear to me which ones are painted blue.

If you show me the the entire unit of blue painted ones, by having them set off to the side, then I can tell the unit to which you are referring and that makes it clear. it is really the only way to make it clear, is to either show them the unit, or describe the unit on the basis of wargear/WYSIWIG representation.

DeathReaper wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:Let me get this straight,

You are going to look at somebody who just told you,

"The red painted unit is in the red painted Rhino and the blue painted unit is in the blue painted Rhino."

And reply with,

"I can't tell which unit is embarked in which transport."

Granted you could be color blind, but any other markings or numbers that would distinguish one unit from another as well as distinguish which transports they are embarked fulfill A Note on Secrecy. Wargear composition is NOT the only way from telling one unit from another.

No, I would reply with "Which ones are the blue painted unit?" and if you say the blue painted ones in my army case, that does not make it clear to me which ones are painted blue.

If you show me the the entire unit of blue painted ones, by having them set off to the side, then I can tell the unit to which you are referring and that makes it clear. it is really the only way to make it clear, is to either show them the unit, or describe the unit on the basis of wargear/WYSIWIG representation.

The rule does not tell you to verify that a red unit exists. I have no idea where you are getting that impression as the rule tells you to make clear which unit is embarked in which transport.

By telling you that a red unit is in a red transport and a blue unit is in a blue transport, you have made the following clear which is fully compliant with the rule:

1. The red unit is in the red transport and the blue unit is in the blue transport.
2. The red unit is NOT in the blue transport and the blue unit is NOT in the red transport.

What you and others keep fishing for and is not covered in the rule is,

1. The red unit is in the red transport and the blue unit is in the blue transport.
2. The red unit is NOT in the blue transport and the blue unit is NOT in the red transport.
3. The red unit is not equipped like the blue unit and the blue unit is not equipped like the red unit.

Number 3 is NOT in the rule. Number 3 is NOT required by the rule. Number 3 has been created as a standard by you and others in this thread despite zero backing by the rules.

I normally put the leader of each unit on the top of the tank, e.g: a sergeant surfs the rhino containing the rest of his squad, or a captain and champion surf the razorback containing the captain and command squad, etc.

Again BR, you are fundamentally altering the text of the rule.

The rule tells you to make clear THE unit that is embarked; not A unit.

As long as multiple units CAN exist that CAN be embarked in the unit, then you have not complied with the rule and are cheating.

If you point to THE unit that is embarked, you have removed any ambiguity.

AT NO POINT is this a "wargear" standard - that is you simply making stuff up to make your cheating standard sound slightly more plausible.

As a CONSEQUENCE - you know, something not directly intended but unavoidable in this case? stop me if this is too tricky - I can examine the unit and, because you are following accepted practice WYSIWYG what the unit is then armed with

It is the same as measuring a units move and by doing so gleaning information about an enemies range to your units. In order to comply with one action you end up giving away information.

I am sorry but you dont get an extra 100 points per transport of utility for free by cheating with them.

VetSarge - nope, I have a colleague who is ex-RMC, who Off-topic, inappropriate, and flamebaiting text redacted. You know better. -Mannahnin

You are not only being unrealistic NOW, you are being unrealistic in a game about space elves and genetic super-xenophobes. Shock.

Also, I prefer playing painted armies, as it makes the game more enjoyable for me, less painful to play (a sea of grey miniatures is uninspiring and also takes more effort to determine what is what)

Additionally playing with full disclosure makes you a better general, as your vehicles dont give you an unintended and unpaid for bonus against non mech armies. The meta of mech is already dull without making it even more powerful

AegisGrimm wrote:My buddy and I secretly write down what's in each transport. Otherwise, even the best of friends can't get away from meta-gaming what vehicles to focus the fire on, and that's cheesy.

I would frankly refuse to tell another player what's in my transports. I'll show them the face-down slips that correspont to each one, so I can prove I'm not cheating, but no, I won't let you see which transport you can pop to specifically kill my best guys.

Do you enjoy cheating?

I always do, if i have them.

Several off-topic comments and posts have been redacted. Keep it friendly and on-topic, folks.

the WYSIWYG on the side of the table plan would also kind of fall apart when you start to have psychic powers thrown in there such as the runes of wardings or potentially different librarian powers on different models. Can't tell if the blue one has the jaws/murder hurricane or if your red one has w/e else powers you decided to put in. Wargear wise I guess can be still countered by side of the table.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Again BR, you are fundamentally altering the text of the rule.

The rule tells you to make clear THE unit that is embarked; not A unit.

As long as multiple units CAN exist that CAN be embarked in the unit, then you have not complied with the rule and are cheating.

If you point to THE unit that is embarked, you have removed any ambiguity.

AT NO POINT is this a "wargear" standard - that is you simply making stuff up to make your cheating standard sound slightly more plausible.

As a CONSEQUENCE - you know, something not directly intended but unavoidable in this case? stop me if this is too tricky - I can examine the unit and, because you are following accepted practice WYSIWYG what the unit is then armed with

It is the same as measuring a units move and by doing so gleaning information about an enemies range to your units. In order to comply with one action you end up giving away information.

I am sorry but you dont get an extra 100 points per transport of utility for free by cheating with them.

VetSarge - nope, I have a colleague who is ex-RMC, who Off-topic, inappropriate, and flamebaiting text redacted. You know better. -Mannahnin

You are not only being unrealistic NOW, you are being unrealistic in a game about space elves and genetic super-xenophobes. Shock.

Also, I prefer playing painted armies, as it makes the game more enjoyable for me, less painful to play (a sea of grey miniatures is uninspiring and also takes more effort to determine what is what)

Additionally playing with full disclosure makes you a better general, as your vehicles dont give you an unintended and unpaid for bonus against non mech armies. The meta of mech is already dull without making it even more powerful

Since you seem to not actually know the rule by your own words,

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The rule tells you to make clear THE unit that is embarked; not A unit

.

Here it is verbatim,

A NOTE ON SECRECY

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 transports

.

Absolutely NOTHING about making clear about THE unit that is embarked. You are to distinguish which squads are embarked in which transports, THAT IS IT. You are not distinguishing one squad from another squad, or squads from squads in a model bag, or squads from squads left at home, or squad from squads that have not yet been bought. You are distinguishing which squads are embarked in which transport, period!

Now as I said before and will again,

The red painted squad is embarked the red painted transport and the blue painted squad is embarked in the blue painted transport.

1. It is clear that the red painted squad and ONLY the red painted squad is embarked the red painted transport. If a blue painted squad disembarks out of the red painted transport, I am cheating.
2. It is clear that the blue painted squad and ONLY the blue painted squad is embarked in the blue painted transport. If a red painted squad disembarks out of the blue painted transport, I am cheating.

That has made it completely clear which squad is embarked in which transport. What it doesn't make clear, which you keep trying to create;

3. It is clear that the red painted squad is equipped differently then the blue painted squad and the blue painted squad is equipped differently then the red painted squad.

You have ZERO rules standing for that. You are insisting on a standard to distinguish one squad from another with zero backing to say that it is the standard and furthermore it isn't even what the rule asks you for. The rule does not even ask you to distinguish one squad from another, much less how they are equipped. It tells you to distinguish which squads are embarked in which transport. You keep using a standard that tells your opponent how they are equipped when other standards absolutely exist that do the exact same thing without revealing how they are equipped.

And I am not fundamentally changing the text of the rule. It is as clear as day. What you are doing however is creating this false atmosphere of "BOOGETY BOOGETY SCARY" that somehow, someway you cannot tell red from blue and blue from red. Seriously, you are coming across as someone that you cannot distinguish one color from another, one symbol from another, one letter from another, or one number from another. You sound like a person that will look at two completely different looking humans and say,

"I am gonna need DNA testing to make sure these two people are different.".

And then you cry cheat, TFG, or whatever else it takes to scare people into thinking that the standard you insist on is the only absolute way of distinguishing which squad is embarked in which transport to prevent some idiotic cheating scenario you created of multiple painted models being hidden away in model cases and lunchboxes. Yet when I show you the insane logistics behind your idiotic cheating scenario to make it feasible, you are dumbstruck silent about it. I then show you, using your own words, how easily a person that did take on the monumental task to make the cheat work would be caught, again dumbstruck silence.

As for your last points regarding transport cost versus what they are supposed to provide or not; you just sound like you are whining. GW created transports in Warhammer 40k. The players have created a mech meta game. To cry and use points cost or what the current meta game happens to be at the time has zero bearing on the discussion. It sounds like someone crying over Long Fang splitfire, Grey Hunter counter-attack, or thunderwolf cavalry to prove a rules discussion. You have chastised people for it, don't lower yourself to that standard.

BR, if I ask you which squad is in which transport, I expect you to identify clearly to me in a manner which lets me know exacty what that squad contains.

The standard you are using for identifying "which squads are embarked in which transports" is not one which is actually informative to an opponent. I could similarly say "That's squad alpha" as you could say "it's the one with the red shoulderpads", but neither of those statements actually means anything to our opponents unless they know what upgrades squad alpha or the squad with the red shoulderpads have.

The way you're playing it is the way it was played in 4th editiion. Maybe the folks down in Pheonix are mostly still playing it that way, but that's not the way most of the world plays. And it's not the way it's played in any of the big regional, national, or international tournaments.

Mannahnin wrote:BR, if I ask you which squad is in which transport, I expect you to identify clearly to me in a manner which lets me know exacty what that squad contains.

The standard you are using for identifying "which squads are embarked in which transports" is not one which is actually informative to an opponent. I could similarly say "That's squad alpha" as you could say "it's the one with the red shoulderpads", but neither of those statements actually means anything to our opponents unless they know what upgrades squad alpha or the squad with the red shoulderpads have.

The way you're playing it is the way it was played in 4th editiion. Maybe the folks down in Pheonix are mostly still playing it that way, but that's not the way most of the world plays. And it's not the way it's played in any of the big regional, national, or international tournaments.

The rule tells you to make clear which squad is embarked in which transport. How do you extrapolate from that rule, the demand in the above emboldened text? If we looked at two differently painted AND equipped squads, and you were told to list how they are different from one another, would that list only comprise of one item?

As far as your comparison, it is not a very good one at all. A name is not a distinguishing feature. I could tell you to look at a bird, but that doesn't tell you which bird in a flock of birds to look at. However if I tell you to look at a red bird among white birds, you will know exactly what I am telling you to do. I do not need to tell you that the red bird has greater wing span or that it has large talons. You can clearly find the red bird among the white birds with the information I have given you.

It isn't about 4th Edition versus 5th edition. It is about people believing that the only possible distinguishing feature between models is wargear, which is so blatantly false that it is insulting to any rational human able to discern one color from another, one symbol from another, one letter from another, or one number from another. I was discussing this with someone and they mentioned what would happen if an army was only primered black and I applied the same rationale. In the absence of any other distinguishing features, wargear would be the last defining feature to tell which squads are embarked in which transports and would have to be used.