In 4th edition, the rulebook explicitly said that you don't have to tell your opponent, nor is he entitled even to ask.

I don't recall the 7th edition rulebook saying either way.

So, suppose I have on my army list that I have 5 rhinos as dedicated transports.

Am I obligated to tell my opponent who is in what transport?

Yes, dont be TFG. This isn't Infinity, everyone must state what is in what so we don't get confused.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Yes, dont be TFG. This isn't Infinity, everyone must state what is in what so we don't get confused.

Does it say so in the rules? If so, where?

Again, 4th edition explicitly said that not only need I not, but the opponent is forbidden from asking.

Traditio wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Yes, dont be TFG. This isn't Infinity, everyone must state what is in what so we don't get confused.

Does it say so in the rules? If so, where?

Again, 4th edition explicitly said that not only need I not, but the opponent is forbidden from asking.

Keywords there was "4th edition." The rules, AFAIK, do not say you don't need to tell them. What was your plan? Squish a bunch of different units into drop pods and have your opponent guess what the hell might be in each one?

Tactical_Spam wrote:Keywords there was "4th edition." The rules, AFAIK, do not say you don't need to tell them.

Yeah. I don't remember mention being made of it either way.

Of course, the converse of that is: "The rules don't say I do have to tell."

What was your plan? Squish a bunch of different units into drop pods and have your opponent guess what the hell might be in each one?

No, that would just be silly/tactically pointless. They disembark as soon as they drop.

I'm thinking about rhinos. Do I have to tell my opponent which one houses Pedro Kantor, which one houses my multimelta squads, etc?

It would make sense if I don't. Realistically, all that his army sees are big metal boxes.

As soon as the opponent asks, "What's in that rhino?" your whole plan is gone...

Check page 80 for the Embarking rules and page 117 for The Force Roster rule, on how you need to note that a unit is being transported and that you have to keep the details of your army on hand for your opponent to reference.

Traditio wrote:
Yeah. I don't remember mention being made of it either way.

Of course, the converse of that is: "The rules don't say I do have to tell."

Then like anything else the rules don't cover, it comes down to how both players agree to play it.

Only in Warhammer Fantasy(now extinct) do you keep the magic items a secret as a surprise.

In 40k, the various deployment and rules nullify any advantage. AFAIK you must tell your opponent what is where unless specified in rules or scenario. Such as Tau Monk'ta's picking a secret unit to kill. One of the scenarios in the new Tau campaign against the Raven Guard specifies that the RG rhinos must be empty except 1 that is carrying the chaplain, mark down which one in secret.

The rules also don't state I can't take a sledgehammer to your army the second you set it up. But common decency in gaming prohibits me from bringing old faithful out whenever I see my opponents army.

If your not going to say whats in each rhino then you will quickly find fewer people to play against. Furthermore unless your using some sort of marker system where you have it written down on paper nearby, IE (Blue dotted rhino holds X and Red dotted rhino holds Y) then you will quickly and rather fairly be accused of cheating, not saying you cheat yourself, I am just saying that by not stating what is in each rhino you are basically capable of saying "Ohh look you killed every rhino except this one and it has the unit that is most beneficial to the current situation where it is, what a coincidence"

When I run multiple transports I usually take the squads most identifiable model and place it in or on the vehicle to designate which is where. For instance, when I run a Mob of Boyz with a a Nob in a Battlewagon I usually place my Nob giving everyone the finger on top of it, also its funny

If you're going to keep transport contents a secret, you better write down what's in what, and have that on hand to prove it to your opponent. Otherwise, there's absolutely nothing to stop you from just driving around some Rhinos and deciding "Hey, I originally had my Multi-meltas in this one, but I need that firepower over here" and just popping them out of a totally different transport. If it's the start of the game and they've never gotten out, how will your opponent know the difference?

So I'll reiterate that no matter how you decide to play, you must have clear proof somewhere of what unit is in what transport, otherwise nothing you say will convince me that you're not just playing a shell game to cheat your units across the board to wherever they're needed.

Traditio wrote:

Tactical_Spam wrote:Keywords there was "4th edition." The rules, AFAIK, do not say you don't need to tell them.

Yeah. I don't remember mention being made of it either way.

Of course, the converse of that is: "The rules don't say I do have to tell."

What was your plan? Squish a bunch of different units into drop pods and have your opponent guess what the hell might be in each one?

No, that would just be silly/tactically pointless. They disembark as soon as they drop.

I'm thinking about rhinos. Do I have to tell my opponent which one houses Pedro Kantor, which one houses my multimelta squads, etc?

It would make sense if I don't. Realistically, all that his army sees are big metal boxes.

True in the fluff of the battle his army wouldn't know what was in what, but on the table top there is a "universal" truth of what box has what squad. I'm not saying you are forced to tell your opponent what squad is in what transport every time without them asking, but if an opponent ask what unit is in what transport where it is in both players interest for fair play to inform your opponent if they ask. Some people think that you should tell your opponent what is in what even if they don't ask to ensure fair play that a person isn't switching units in transports (or drop pods in some cases of making sure the 'right' unit comes in) but my personal view on that is that it is a bit much of volunteering information (even though it is a good and valid point).

AFAIK there is no rule to volunteer information aside from showing your opponent an army list.


In short it is a way to ensure honesty and to prevent any kind of attempt of cheating. (hopefully) no one is going to assume their opponent cheats and it is a way to show good faith in being honest, similar to how hand shakes came about to make sure each person wasn't hiding a weapon up their sleeve and a hand shake would shake any such loose weapon free.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
As soon as the opponent asks, "What's in that rhino?" your whole plan is gone...

Except, if the rules don't say I have to tell him, I can freely answer "What's in that rhino" with "Consult my force roster for the various possibilities."

Obviously, this goes out of the window if I declare that Pedro is firing dorn's arrow or that a tactical marine is firing a multimelta from the top hatch of a rhino.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 GoonBandito wrote:
Check page 80 for the Embarking rules and page 117 for The Force Roster rule, on how you need to note that a unit is being transported and that you have to keep the details of your army on hand for your opponent to reference.

I don't think that really solves the problem.

Suppose my roster says that I have two assault squads on rhinos, one of which has a captain, the other of which has a chaplain.

I put said rhinos on the table top and put my assault squads on the side of the table. Am I obligated to tell my opponent which is which?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xca|iber wrote:
If you're going to keep transport contents a secret, you better write down what's in what, and have that on hand to prove it to your opponent. Otherwise, there's absolutely nothing to stop you from just driving around some Rhinos and deciding "Hey, I originally had my Multi-meltas in this one, but I need that firepower over here" and just popping them out of a totally different transport. If it's the start of the game and they've never gotten out, how will your opponent know the difference?

So I'll reiterate that no matter how you decide to play, you must have clear proof somewhere of what unit is in what transport, otherwise nothing you say will convince me that you're not just playing a shell game to cheat your units across the board to wherever they're needed.

Very fair points all around.

So, here's what I'm getting from this thread:

1. The rules do not unequivocally say that I have to reveal what troops are embarked in what transports.

2. Common practice is to reveal what troops are embarked in what transports when asked?

This leads to you being able to switch what's in what to your advantage. Don't be a tfg

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
This leads to you being able to switch what's in what to your advantage. Don't be a tfg

That was true in 4th edition. Again, the 4th edition rulebook said: "You don't have to say, and your opponent can't ask" At least, in so many words.

Traditio wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
This leads to you being able to switch what's in what to your advantage. Don't be a tfg

That was true in 4th edition. Again, the 4th edition rulebook said: "You don't have to say, and your opponent can't ask" At least, in so many words.

I'll leave the fact I find you wanting to be able to do this hilarious due to the fact you were just calling me a TFG for liking to optimize my units, competitive or not, aside and stick to the thread at hand. It is widely known and done so in 40k as not only a courtesy but an unspoken rule to inform your opponent of the entirety of your army before starting a game. From the weapon they carry to the number of models in a unit. To include takin. A dedicated transport, starting in reserves, infiltrating, etc.

Traditio wrote:
Except, if the rules don't say I have to tell him, I can freely answer "What's in that rhino" with "Consult my force roster for the various possibilities."

No. If the rules don't cover the situation then it is up to both players to come to an agreement as to how it is handled. It is not a unilateral decision on your part to decide how situations not covered by the rules are to be handled.

Ghaz wrote:No. If the rules don't cover the situation then it is up to both players to come to an agreement as to how it is handled. It is not a unilateral decision on your part to decide how situations not covered by the rules are to be handled.

Well, it's not just a matter of "not covering it." The current rules don't cover it, but there's a precedent for it in previous editions.

Oddly enough, I haven't had anyone really willing to contest this. It's come up twice. In each case, I claimed: "The previous edition said that you can't ask and I don't have to tell. The current edition is silent. In point of fact, all that your guys really can see are these big metal boxes. However, these are the dedicated transports for so and so."

And they basically just rolled with it.

That said, if it's customary to reveal what's in what transport, then as St. Thomas says, "custom has the force of law."

That's how I'll play it from now on.

To the best of my knowledge, you aren't required to inform your opponent, but then when he accuses you of cheating by switching which units are in which inside your transports, how will you deal with that?

This is an unspoken rules of all games thing. It's not the law of the land. Sometimes you have to prove you're innocent and by clearly revealing your embarked units not only can you protect yourself from accusations of cheating, but you will have a more interesting and strategic game. Having your opponent know what's what is good sportsmanship, and is better for both parties enjoyment.

If you require a fluff reason... spy networks. Seriously, how hard would it be for a modern army to know what units are inside which transports? Really? So just do it.

 greatbigtree wrote:
To the best of my knowledge, you aren't required to inform your opponent, but then when he accuses you of cheating by switching which units are in which inside your transports, how will you deal with that?

Were such accusations common in 4th edition?

Such accusations are common whenever someone can 'fix' the results of a transport explosion. And yeah, I ran into several issues where I happened to blow up every Rhino except for the one containing the SM Lord'o'Doom with his smashy-smashy bodyguard. Weird. I blew up 4/5 Transports, but missed the right one? For multiple games? Sure, it's possible, but highly improbable.

And the regularity is irrelevant. If we show up to a pickup game, and you won't tell me what's what? I have every reason to believe you'll cheat. I can do that, because this isn't a court of law. This is the two of us having a game, and games need to be fair. More to the point, the game needs to appear to be fair.

Next game, insist that you not reveal which transport contains which minis. See how far you get. Vehemently insist. Do so before the game even starts. Do this with a total stranger.

How do you imagine that plays out? I'm truly curious. Maybe you and your buddies trust each other. Maybe that's cool. But a total stranger? I doubt it.

Now put yourself in the other shoes. Imagine someone insisting that they not tell you which minis are where, and they conveniently always have the right models in the right boxes to deal with what comes. How will you feel?

Traditio wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:
To the best of my knowledge, you aren't required to inform your opponent, but then when he accuses you of cheating by switching which units are in which inside your transports, how will you deal with that?

Were such accusations common in 4th edition?

No, because most players ignored the 'note on secrecy' and announced what was in their transports on deployment.


Keeping it secret is fine if you're playing with friends that you know aren't going to try anything dodgy, but it simply doesn't work in pickup or tournament games.

You could write which unit is in which on pieces of paper that you roll up and put inside each Rhino - like a fortune cookie.

Do your rhinos have squad markings that match your models?

insaniak wrote:No, because most players ignored the 'note on secrecy' and announced what was in their transports on deployment.


Keeping it secret is fine if you're playing with friends that you know aren't going to try anything dodgy, but it simply doesn't work in pickup or tournament games.

Fair nuff.

I think you're focusing too hard on "If you could" instead of "if you should". Whether you are allowed to hide the contents of your rhinos or not, its not really in the spirit of the game to do so. I'm a laid back player, (I play CSM, I have to be) but if we are playing a game and I ask you what a rhino contains and your response is "It's a secret", The game is over. I'll pack up my models right there and find someone new.to play with. Even if your not doing it to cheat or any other shenanigans, it is implied.

Traditio wrote:
In 4th edition, the rulebook explicitly said that you don't have to tell your opponent, nor is he entitled even to ask.

I don't recall the 7th edition rulebook saying either way.

So, suppose I have on my army list that I have 5 rhinos as dedicated transports.

Am I obligated to tell my opponent who is in what transport?

Are you obliged to? No. But most people do it anyway.

 Mr_Piddlez wrote:
I think you're focusing too hard on "If you could" instead of "if you should". Whether you are allowed to hide the contents of your rhinos or not, its not really in the spirit of the game to do so. I'm a laid back player, (I play CSM, I have to be) but if we are playing a game and I ask you what a rhino contains and your response is "It's a secret", The game is over. I'll pack up my models right there and find someone new.to play with. Even if your not doing it to cheat or any other shenanigans, it is implied.

Except, I wouldn't have said "it's a secret." I'd would have said "4th edition rules say that I don't have to say, and you can't ask, and later editions are silent on the matter."

Had you insisted on the matter, I would have divulged the information.

Your hypothetical response to this strikes me as utterly unsportsmanlike.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SemperMortis wrote:For instance, when I run a Mob of Boyz with a a Nob in a Battlewagon I usually place my Nob giving everyone the finger on top of it, also its funny

I think that this is likely what I'll do from now on, mutatis mutandis.

Traditio wrote:

 Mr_Piddlez wrote:
I think you're focusing too hard on "If you could" instead of "if you should". Whether you are allowed to hide the contents of your rhinos or not, its not really in the spirit of the game to do so. I'm a laid back player, (I play CSM, I have to be) but if we are playing a game and I ask you what a rhino contains and your response is "It's a secret", The game is over. I'll pack up my models right there and find someone new.to play with. Even if your not doing it to cheat or any other shenanigans, it is implied.

Except, I wouldn't have said "it's a secret." I'd would have said "4th edition rules say that I don't have to say, and you can't ask, and later editions are silent on the matter."

Had you insisted on the matter, I would have divulged the information.

Your hypothetical response to this strikes me as utterly unsportsmanlike.

...more unsportsmanlike than refusing to divulge what's in a transport...? He's making a reasonable choice - if a player demonstrates his unwillingness to play in a sportsmanlike fashion and refuses to divulge, it stands that the person is going to...slide...other things in. Refusing to play sends a message to that person that there are real and natural consequences to bad behaviors. Hell, he's probably doing the rest of us a favor.

Traditio wrote:

 Mr_Piddlez wrote:
I think you're focusing too hard on "If you could" instead of "if you should". Whether you are allowed to hide the contents of your rhinos or not, its not really in the spirit of the game to do so. I'm a laid back player, (I play CSM, I have to be) but if we are playing a game and I ask you what a rhino contains and your response is "It's a secret", The game is over. I'll pack up my models right there and find someone new.to play with. Even if your not doing it to cheat or any other shenanigans, it is implied.

Except, I wouldn't have said "it's a secret." I'd would have said "4th edition rules say that I don't have to say, and you can't ask, and later editions are silent on the matter."

Had you insisted on the matter, I would have divulged the information.

Your hypothetical response to this strikes me as utterly unsportsmanlike.

Forgive me, I did not mean to come off unsportsmanlike. That said, if I had asked about what was in your rhinos, especially if they are all different squads, and you had responded "Rules say I don't have to tell you and you shouldn't ask." There is no way that statement doesn't come off as abrasive to me and It's not a good first impression. First impressions are important, for example, you probably see me as unsportsmanlike or too whiney to play with from your first impression of me. What I seem to misunderstanding is, In this scenario, are we playing a 4th edition game or a different edition? If it's 4th edition, then your are completely right and I should be chastised for not knowing that rule. If not though, can you understand how I would be taken aback by the response?

HuskyWarhammer wrote:...more unsportsmanlike than refusing to divulge what's in a transport...?

There's nothing inherently unsportsmanlike about this. 1. Previous editions not only allowed, but commanded it and 2. it's wholly in keeping with the general feel of the game: Your anti-tank guys don't know which tank Pedro Kantor is in. He's in a metal box.

He's making a reasonable choice - if a player demonstrates his unwillingness to play in a sportsmanlike fashion and refuses to divulge, it stands that the person is going to...slide...other things in. Refusing to play sends a message to that person that there are real and natural consequences to bad behaviors. Hell, he's probably doing the rest of us a favor.

1. That's not necessarily a reasonable assumption. Yes, I obviously would be hesitant to divulge where the meltas are because I want to avoid their being targeted, so long as the rules permit me the advantage. From this it doesn't follow that I wish to cheat by mentally swapping who's in what.

2. It's not in and of itself "bad behavior." Again, previous editions commanded it.

The correct, sportsmanlike answer to "4th ed allowed it and later editions don't say otherwise" is not to pack up your stuff and end the game. It's simply to point out that the ordinary way of playing, vis-a-vis custom, is to divulge, i.e., that this is how it's commonly/popularly played in the absence of a determinate rule in the BRB.

If your opponent continues to refuse after being informed of this, THAT'S unsportsmanlike and merits an ending of the game.

Had either of my opponents answered me in this way, I gladly should have divulged the information.

But up and until then? I think that would be a hard case to make on your part.

.

Just because something was in the old versions of the rules doesn't make it applicable now.

I mean, the rules don't say anything about pistol wielder said that stand still shooting twice, now , do they? :p

You keep bringing up 4th, but I'm pretty sure nobody in 4th bothered to bring a transport, since it was safer to walk than drive around in one of those metal death traps. I mean, the ordnance damage table? Lol.

It's pretty hypocritical IMO to go to such lengths to justify such underhanded behaviour by appealing to previous, unrelated editions just to give yourself an edge while at the same time whining and complaining about how one is automatically a TFG for playing Eldar/Tau even if one is starting off their army based on aesthetics or fluff. Given how you're so enamored with SM and their fluff portrayal of paragons of war, wouldn't you rather play the game in a more upfront, courageous and honest way befitting their status?

Here would be my opinion on the matter. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that I cannot use free speech to utter hate and disdain towards everyone. However, that speech, once uttered, is always open to judgment and the social consequence of that speech. You may choose to play in this fashion all you want. In the same vain you are open to the judgment and consequence of others, and if they chose to leave your game and to refuse to play you in the future, that is their free choice to do. You may find that this has social consequences in your group, and no amount of complaining will change it. If your group accepts this behavior, no matter how underhanded, you are also free to do it.

Traditio wrote:
Except, I wouldn't have said "it's a secret." I'd would have said "4th edition rules say that I don't have to say, and you can't ask, and later editions are silent on the matter."

Had you insisted on the matter, I would have divulged the information.

Your hypothetical response to this strikes me as utterly unsportsmanlike.

I would do the same after staring at you in the mode of "you got to be kidding me", ESPECIALLY if you did not discuss such a concept before the game. If you pulled this mid-game, I would immediately expect some cheating, no matter how you tried to justify it. How could I not?

If you came up and approached this as a game concept before set up, I might consider doing it, but after the game starts, any response from me once I started putting models away would be largely determined by how touchy my temper is at the time.

For all intents and purposes, you would be adding a rule to the game that does not currently exist. Things like this lead to a bad experience and can have you lose a lot of future games because you would get a reputation of introducing rules mid-game, and that can sour people.

 Grimskul wrote:
It's pretty hypocritical IMO to go to such lengths to justify such underhanded behaviour by appealing to previous, unrelated editions just to give yourself an edge while at the same time whining and complaining about how one is automatically a TFG for playing Eldar/Tau even if one is starting off their army based on aesthetics or fluff. Given how you're so enamored with SM and their fluff portrayal of paragons of war, wouldn't you rather play the game in a more upfront, courageous and honest way befitting their status?

To be clear, for those who have responded recently:

1. For those of you who are telling me that I'm introducing rules mid-game, this isn't entirely accurate. If I'm understanding correctly, the BRB is silent on the matter. It doesn't say that I have to divulge or that I'm forbidden from divulging. It doesn't even say that I may divulge. Likewise for my opponent asking. To divulge or not to divulge, to ask or not to ask, seems to be entirely a matter of popular custom.

If you disagree, then please, cite the relevant rules. You can't? Then I'm not introducing new rules, simply going by RAW, by refusing to answer a question that the rulebook doesn't tell me that I'm obligated to answer.

2. There's nothing underhanded about it. It's not like I go around asking people what's in their transports and then suddenly refuse to answer questions about what's in mine. I've been known to shoot at empty transports in complete ignorance of the fact that said transports are empty.

I simply assumed that the 4th edition practice was still legit.

I apparently was in error.

My bad.

That's why I asked you guys.

Personally I do not declare what is in a transport. I do however note it on my list so that if there are any issues, I can show my opponent that, yes, they did target a low threat unit transport rather than a transport full of killy doom (all my transports always have numbers or symbols on them for this reason).

And that is exactly why I do not declare what is in my transports but note it down instead.

As far as I am aware there is nothing in the rules which requires you to declare what is inside transports.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Personally I do not declare what is in a transport. I do however note it on my list so that if there are any issues, I can show my opponent that, yes, they did target a low threat unit transport rather than a transport full of killy doom (all my transports always have numbers or symbols on them for this reason).

And that is exactly why I do not declare what is in my transports but note it down instead.

As far as I am aware there is nothing in the rules which requires you to declare what is inside transports.

How do you answer when someone asks what is in a given transport?

Traditio wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Personally I do not declare what is in a transport. I do however note it on my list so that if there are any issues, I can show my opponent that, yes, they did target a low threat unit transport rather than a transport full of killy doom (all my transports always have numbers or symbols on them for this reason).

And that is exactly why I do not declare what is in my transports but note it down instead.

As far as I am aware there is nothing in the rules which requires you to declare what is inside transports.

How do you answer when someone asks what is in a given transport?

I run through my list at the start of the game, noting what units have purchased dedicated transports, and what other non-dedicated transports may be in my list. I will mention that each transport is numbered/etc and corresponds with a unit in the list. During the game I have actually not found it very common for people to ask what is in transports to be honest.

Genrally I would probably shrug and say that I prefer not to tell/laugh and say "you will find out if you kill it!". When a transport is destroyed, or deploys the unit inside, I will ask if my opponent wants to check my list to confirm that the correct unit is coming out of the transport. Again, most people seem to be happy to take my word for it but the offer is always there.

SilverMK2 wrote:I run through my list at the start of the game, noting what units have purchased dedicated transports, and what other non-dedicated transports may be in my list. I will mention that each transport is numbered/etc and corresponds with a unit in the list. During the game I have actually not found it very common for people to ask what is in transports to be honest.

Genrally I would probably shrug and say that I prefer not to tell/laugh and say "you will find out if you kill it!". When a transport is destroyed, or deploys the unit inside, I will ask if my opponent wants to check my list to confirm that the correct unit is coming out of the transport. Again, most people seem to be happy to take my word for it but the offer is always there.

This seems reasonable. That said, it seems at least some of the people in this thread would refuse to play you.

Because apparently: that's adding rules mid-game.

As I recall I think the way they were trying to word it was: You don't need to tell your opponent what's in the Rhino, because they won't know until the unit disembarks, but you must have noted on your army sheet who is in what transport so that you can't just have 5 units in 5 Rhinos and then disembark whichever unit from whichever Rhino is more convenient.

I think it comes down to your opponent, really - if they like to fully read over their opponent's army list before the game starts so they're fully prepared, then sure, you have to tell them. If they'd rather let it be a surprise and react organically to the battlefield like a real battle, then don't tell them. I think the key is that, if asked, you should answer.

Traditio wrote:

 Grimskul wrote:
It's pretty hypocritical IMO to go to such lengths to justify such underhanded behaviour by appealing to previous, unrelated editions just to give yourself an edge while at the same time whining and complaining about how one is automatically a TFG for playing Eldar/Tau even if one is starting off their army based on aesthetics or fluff. Given how you're so enamored with SM and their fluff portrayal of paragons of war, wouldn't you rather play the game in a more upfront, courageous and honest way befitting their status?

To be clear, for those who have responded recently:

1. For those of you who are telling me that I'm introducing rules mid-game, this isn't entirely accurate. If I'm understanding correctly, the BRB is silent on the matter. It doesn't say that I have to divulge or that I'm forbidden from divulging. It doesn't even say that I may divulge. Likewise for my opponent asking. To divulge or not to divulge, to ask or not to ask, seems to be entirely a matter of popular custom.

If you disagree, then please, cite the relevant rules. You can't? Then I'm not introducing new rules, simply going by RAW, by refusing to answer a question that the rulebook doesn't tell me that I'm obligated to answer.

I think the only thing I can find pertaining to it is page 132, Deployment subheading, "Models can be deployed 'inside' buildings, fortifications, or Transport vehicles". That to me implies that you deploy the vehicle first, then must announce what you're deploying something in it. Aside from that, I see nothing.

2. There's nothing underhanded about it. It's not like I go around asking people what's in their transports and then suddenly refuse to answer questions about what's in mine. I've been known to shoot at empty transports in complete ignorance of the fact that said transports are empty.

I simply assumed that the 4th edition practice was still legit.

I apparently was in error.

My bad.

That's why I asked you guys.

Again, you said yourself, it's a 4th Ed practice. There are no rules supporting it in the current rules, and none against. Unlike 4th, where the rules actively encouraged hidden units, 7th is completely ambiguous. To me, not telling your opponent about what's in a transport is rather shady, as it would be just like me not saying what a certain unit was armed with if I had proxied them. Your opponent has a right to know, as it can affect their shooting.

It's a fair question, but I think the best way to think about it is "how can it be abused?" With hidden deployments, you can swap over what units are embarked in a vehicle as appropriate. It doesn't matter if it doesn't personally apply to you, regardless if you don't abuse the mechanic - it only matters when it starts to offend your opponent.

If I was doing a pick-up game with you, and you asked for this rule, I'd pretty much decline and if you pushed, asked "why?".
I hope you find a satisfactory conclusion with what replies you've had.

As someone who plays in a group where all lists are open (Even in Fantasy), I have two ways I'd approach someone doing this.

If it's a friendly game and you didn't warn me until some point after you have deployed each unit that you're doing this, I'd ask for you to show proof that you have a list of which Rhino has what. If you show proof of such a list being with you, I'd keep playing, then make a note to not play you again. If you don't have a list showing which Rhino has what unit, I'll pack and find a new opponent.

If it's a tournament game, I'd call a TO instantly and get their ruling on it. If they rule in your favor, I'll expect you to show said TO proof that you have labeled where your units are. If you can, I'll respect his call. If he rules in my favor, then I'll expect you to respect that decision and divulge what each Rhino has.

Either way, if you intend on the path of secrecy, mark down where you hide your units.

As for the fact 4th edition said something, but 7th edition doesn't: This isn't 4th edition anymore and silence on a subject doesn't imply consent. In cases such as this where it talks nothing about whether or not you can keep a Rhino's contents secret, discuss with your opponent before gaming. No one likes to be blindsided with a rule that isn't explicitly stated in any current rulebook, and as you've seen from this thread, most people won't take kindly to it.

A note on secrecy in 6th required you to be open. So to say later editions were silent is untrue

When embarking you must make a note of what unit is transported. Nothing states this note is open or closed from view, but as this is a contemporaneous note, to ensure you are complying with the rule I will view you completing the note

And this includes deployment, of course.

Checking 4th edition now I can't see the rule you reference. Can you give a page and paragraph ref please? The books terrible so it possible it's elsewhere.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Personally I do not declare what is in a transport. I do however note it on my list so that if there are any issues, I can show my opponent that, yes, they did target a low threat unit transport rather than a transport full of killy doom (all my transports always have numbers or symbols on them for this reason).

Mine aren't marked, but as everyone of the guys know what will be in them it's not really an issue. If it starts on the table it's identical 10 SoB with Hflamer and flamer or meltagun, if it's in reserve it's Dominions with meltaguns or sometimes flamer. If I have different I will announce which squad is rolling for reserves.

OP, I'm not going to get into a rules debate with you, but here are my thoughts:

If you and your opponent agree that it is acceptable to keep the contents of your transport secret, that's a house ruling. As long as you are having fun.

Generally speaking 7th ed 40k goes to great lengths to reinforce the point that both players should agree on how the game is going to be played, and very little if anything is a secret.

You should divulge your full army list before the game begins. You should have this in writing. Your opponent can ask to review your list, and you must provide a copy if he asks. Your army list should include the details of which units are in which detachments, who your warlord is, what war gear each model has, and what units are in which transports. I believe this is covered under the Choosing Your Army section in the 7th ed BRB, p117, "The Force Roster". While this paragraph does not explicitly state you must divulge war gear, and which units are in which transports, I believe that is in the spirit of the rule. When you generate your Warlord traits and any psychic powers, those are also made public at the time they are generated. When you are deploying, you must state if you are reserving, outflanking, and/or deep striking any units, and if you are attaching IC's to units. If your opponent has a question about a rule in your codex, you should show him the rule in the codex. Measurements are made openly, and can be made at any time. Dice rolls are made openly. All of this is to keep things fair.

I hope this helps. Happy gaming!

I would not play an opponent that won't tell me what's In a transport.

My gaming time is very limited, and I'd rather spend it playing an eldar scatter laser bike spam list than TFG.

Best of luck to you!

Traditio wrote:
To be clear, for those who have responded recently:

1. For those of you who are telling me that I'm introducing rules mid-game, this isn't entirely accurate. If I'm understanding correctly, the BRB is silent on the matter. It doesn't say that I have to divulge or that I'm forbidden from divulging. It doesn't even say that I may divulge. Likewise for my opponent asking. To divulge or not to divulge, to ask or not to ask, seems to be entirely a matter of popular custom.

If you disagree, then please, cite the relevant rules. You can't? Then I'm not introducing new rules, simply going by RAW, by refusing to answer a question that the rulebook doesn't tell me that I'm obligated to answer.

But stating you don't have to tell would be adding a rule. As I said, the timing of the situation will determine my response more than anything else.

Traditio wrote:
2. There's nothing underhanded about it. It's not like I go around asking people what's in their transports and then suddenly refuse to answer questions about what's in mine. I've been known to shoot at empty transports in complete ignorance of the fact that said transports are empty.

It is the capacity of being underhanded which is at issue. Without any previous discussion, I have no choice but to assume you deliberately doing it to be able to cheat, aka being able to underhandedly change which unit is in the Transport to suit your needs.

If you seriously cannot see how this can be abused, more power to you, as you are more innocent than this game deserves.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
A note on secrecy in 6th required you to be open. So to say later editions were silent is untrue

When I first opened this thread, I thought, "Is no one remembering the "Note on Secrecy"??
But Nos is right, it's not in there anymore. Bummer.

Traditio wrote:

Ghaz wrote:No. If the rules don't cover the situation then it is up to both players to come to an agreement as to how it is handled. It is not a unilateral decision on your part to decide how situations not covered by the rules are to be handled.

Well, it's not just a matter of "not covering it." The current rules don't cover it, but there's a precedent for it in previous editions.

Oddly enough, I haven't had anyone really willing to contest this. It's come up twice. In each case, I claimed: "The previous edition said that you can't ask and I don't have to tell. The current edition is silent. In point of fact, all that your guys really can see are these big metal boxes. However, these are the dedicated transports for so and so."

And they basically just rolled with it.

That said, if it's customary to reveal what's in what transport, then as St. Thomas says, "custom has the force of law."

That's how I'll play it from now on.

There is also a precedent for revealing everything to your opponent.

5th ed said something about needing to disclose what was where. (though it said you could keep it secret if both parties agreed).

But if you are in a pick up game, it better for both involved if you reveal what is in which transport.

Fluff wise there are a whole ton of reasons that the opposing army would know what was where anyway. though advanced scouts, to Auspex to Psyckers etc...

Just talk to your opponent before hand. After all, he shouldn't have to tell you what's in his either. If he tells you what's in his though and than you tell him yours are secret, that's kind of a dick move.

Can we see the relevant rule from 4th?

And can you explain why you've ignored the 6th edition ruling to the contrary?

I asked that earlier, with no,response

I,checked the entire vehicle section and saw nothing like such a rule, but given that the rulebook isn't amazing that's not a shock...

I just dragged out my 4th ed rulebook to check. It’s the small one from the Battle of Macragge box.

pg. 81, last paragraph under the “Deploy Forces” heading

A note on secrecy. Your opponent cannot normally inspect your army roster, including asking you what is in each transport vehicle. Players are, however, free to share this information if they so wish.”

So this was, at one time, a valid rule. No arguments about that. If was flipped in later editions, and then dropped, so getting a RAI is going to be fuzzy.

I always go down my roster explaining what everything is, and will provide info at any point in the game when asked. I can’t recall an opponent who hasn’t provided the same courtesy. I’d rather win or loose due to generalship or luck then slight of hand. YMMV.

 Nevelon wrote:
I just dragged out my 4th ed rulebook to check. It’s the small one from the Battle of Macragge box.

pg. 81, last paragraph under the “Deploy Forces” heading

A note on secrecy. Your opponent cannot normally inspect your army roster, including asking you what is in each transport vehicle. Players are, however, free to share this information if they so wish.”

So this was, at one time, a valid rule. No arguments about that. If was flipped in later editions, and then dropped, so getting a RAI is going to be fuzzy.

That's the one. It's also on p. 81 of the 4th ed BRB. Admittedly, I completely forgot about the last clause of that note.

If I didn't bring up 6th, it's because I was ignorant of that 6th ed rule.

That said, it is interesting that there's absolutely nothing about it in 7th.

Previous edition rules have no bearing on 7th edition rules. It's not like this is English common law or some such where a precedent is set.

I think it comes down to if you play open lists or not.

Charistoph wrote:But stating you don't have to tell would be adding a rule. As I said, the timing of the situation will determine my response more than anything else.

I just as easily could claim that you're imposing a new rule mid-game by asking me and expecting me to answer, when the rules don't explicitly allow you to do so.

How can you accuse me of introducing a new rule when you ask where my stuff is and my answer is: "Do the rules say that you can ask me that"?

It is the capacity of being underhanded which is at issue. Without any previous discussion, I have no choice but to assume you deliberately doing it to be able to cheat, aka being able to underhandedly change which unit is in the Transport to suit your needs.

If you seriously cannot see how this can be abused, more power to you, as you are more innocent than this game deserves.

I can see how it would be abused. That said, in a casual setting, there should be a reasonable assumption that both players will play fairly and will not attempt to abuse it.

Nope but all models and transports must be marked to make sure you dont cheat.

I mean youre basically cherry picking rules. If a rule exists in a previous edition and isnt mentioned in a new edition that doesn't mean the rule still stands it means it no longer exists. You cant think of editions as expansions on a rule set its an entirely different game than 4th edition. Now with nothing being written in 7th edition about secrecy it means 2 things

General rule of thumb: everyone discloses lists and transports many putting markers on the vehicle itself

Agreement of all players: 7th does say that games can be customized any way so long as players agree BEFORE the game begins.

Because the general rule of thumb is clearly that these things are disclosed, keeping them secret must be a rule established before the game starts. Doing it in any other way would be grounds for a cheating accusation.

This is the sort of thinking that leads down the path to becoming TFG.

Not declaring will just lead to being accused of cheating and quickly running out of people willing to play you

Traditio wrote:

Charistoph wrote:But stating you don't have to tell would be adding a rule. As I said, the timing of the situation will determine my response more than anything else.

I just as easily could claim that you're imposing a new rule mid-game by asking me and expecting me to answer, when the rules don't explicitly allow you to do so.

How can you accuse me of introducing a new rule when you ask where my stuff is and my answer is: "Do the rules say that you can ask me that"?

It is the capacity of being underhanded which is at issue. Without any previous discussion, I have no choice but to assume you deliberately doing it to be able to cheat, aka being able to underhandedly change which unit is in the Transport to suit your needs.

If you seriously cannot see how this can be abused, more power to you, as you are more innocent than this game deserves.

I can see how it would be abused. That said, in a casual setting, there should be a reasonable assumption that both players will play fairly and will not attempt to abuse it.

And there's the assumption that transport content is declared and revealed on request.
As long as you make sure to stop your opponent from revealing all his embarked units voluntarily right at the start (which I do when setting up my army for play) so that both sides have the same intel AND you agree/suggest to write down which transporter has which unit loaded during deployment, all is fine. if you do it later during the game - without the enemy volunteering his transport arrangements - you GOTTA have a list at hand. Anything else will always smell fishy, even if it is not your intention to gain an unfair advantage.

Honestly: How is "I know of this obscure rule from 4th edition that handles stuff totally different to what people are used and I'm gonna use the absence of an official ruling in the current edition on the topic to gain a small advantage over my opponent" NOT a TFG move? I'd say that's not one bit better than eg. playing Necron and claiming "hey, your unit of two IC psykers only generate warp charges once." in the first psychic phase of your opponent. Sure, the rules as written might be on your side - or at least not against you. But it's still a WAAC TFG mentality.

I would like to call to mind a couple of the tenets of this forum:

"4. Rules as Written are not How You Would Play It. Please clearly state which one you are talking about during a rules debate, and do not argue a RAW point against a HYWPI point (or vice-versa).

- Many arguments can be avoided if this is made clear. Don't assume you know the point your opponent is arguing about.

5. Stick to discussing the rules, not the poster. Phrases like 'Rules Lawyer', 'Cheater' and 'TFG' have no place in rules discussions. Don't depart from rules discussions by attaching value judgments to different interpretations."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nekooni wrote:And there's the assumption that transport content is declared and revealed on request.

Based on the rulebook or popular custom?

As long as you make sure to stop your opponent from revealing all his embarked units voluntarily right at the start (which I do when setting up my army for play)

Right off hand, I can't call to mind a single game in which an opponent actually did this.

Honestly: How is "I know of this obscure rule from 4th edition that handles stuff totally different to what people are used and I'm gonna use the absence of an official ruling in the current edition on the topic to gain a small advantage over my opponent" NOT a TFG move? I'd say that's not one bit better than eg. playing Necron and claiming "hey, your unit of two IC psykers only generate warp charges once." in the first psychic phase of your opponent. Sure, the rules as written might be on your side - or at least not against you. But it's still a WAAC TFG mentality.

Is that actually a thing?

In the rules? Yes it's a thing. Because the psychic phase rules are broken

Traditio - you are required to note the contents. To ensure you comply with this rule, I can legitimately see your note.

Traditio wrote:

Charistoph wrote:But stating you don't have to tell would be adding a rule. As I said, the timing of the situation will determine my response more than anything else.

I just as easily could claim that you're imposing a new rule mid-game by asking me and expecting me to answer, when the rules don't explicitly allow you to do so.

How can you accuse me of introducing a new rule when you ask where my stuff is and my answer is: "Do the rules say that you can ask me that"?

Asking for clarification of a situation during a tabletop game is standard fare, especially when looking to prevent a potential cheating situation. If you have nothing to hide, then you have no problem telling me. Hiding behind a LACK of rule is what will start the suspicion of cheating, and without quick clarification, also start me packing up my models. If you can't handle that, that is your problem. I don't get to game as often as I'd like, playing against someone who I think may be cheating doesn't justify my letting it go by.

Traditio wrote:

It is the capacity of being underhanded which is at issue. Without any previous discussion, I have no choice but to assume you deliberately doing it to be able to cheat, aka being able to underhandedly change which unit is in the Transport to suit your needs.

If you seriously cannot see how this can be abused, more power to you, as you are more innocent than this game deserves.

I can see how it would be abused. That said, in a casual setting, there should be a reasonable assumption that both players will play fairly and will not attempt to abuse it.

Getting the game does that. Doing things like this will start the assumptions going in the opposite direction, though. There are too many stories of people people deliberately setting up a cheating situation that it has lead to the title of "That F***ing Guy" being a universal constant. The tolerance for such behavior is so low that even some honest mistakes that this guy does deliberately can get people to assume the worst about you and limit your gaming experience.

Charistoph wrote:Asking for clarification of a situation during a tabletop game is standard fare, especially when looking to prevent a potential cheating situation. If you have nothing to hide, then you have no problem telling me.

Ex hypothesi, I most certainly do have something to hide. I don't want you to know which rhino is empty and which houses a multimelta squad.

That has nothing to do with cheating, though.

At any rate, "standard fare" is not the same thing as "it says so on p. x of the BRB."

At any rate, again, I will of course comply in the future with the general consensus of this thread. If common practice is to divulge, then so be it.

Alright, I broke out my 6th ed BRB:

6th Edition Rulebook, p. 118 wrote:A NOTE ON SECRECY
To keep things fair, you should always allow your opponent to read your force roster after a game and always make it clear to your opponent which squads are embarked in which Transports. However, before deploying armies, agree whether or not you will read the opponent's force roster during the game as well.

That's the "most recent" ruling on the matter, from one edition previous. Hard to say what the intent is with 7th not having anything on the issue, since the rules are so sloppily written.

Traditio wrote:

Charistoph wrote:Asking for clarification of a situation during a tabletop game is standard fare, especially when looking to prevent a potential cheating situation. If you have nothing to hide, then you have no problem telling me.

Ex hypothesi, I most certainly do have something to hide. I don't want you to know which rhino is empty and which houses a multimelta squad.

That has nothing to do with cheating, though.

At any rate, "standard fare" is not the same thing as "it says so on p. x of the BRB."

At any rate, again, I will of course comply in the future with the general consensus of this thread. If common practice is to divulge, then so be it.

I played a game once where the player did not want to reveal the location of the only embarked squad of the 3 total that had bought dedicated transports. I was not sure so I asked the other gamers in the store and the operator. We all came to the conclusion that what ever order I destroyed his rhinos in that the melta command squad would be in the last one. Standard practice in all the games I have played to let the opponent know what is in which transport.

As for hidden units in transport i can see a case for playing a game as long as the squad is noted on a card or something hidden placed next to the transport, information would become reveled anyway since both players will have access to each others army list once someone fires from the top hatch; this is only the case if both parties agree though before hand. In a regular game against a random opponent my previous description is what id expect.

In most scenarios I play in 3 x 5 cards are used (mine are laminated) and denote on the back which enclosed transport and on the front whats in them they are face down in the off board area..not in front of thier units..

For open top the cards are lined up in front of the off board units that are in the transport..I do not have to tell my opponent as they can see what is in what.

It's specified in the most recent edition of the rules that it is mentioned, and the current rulebook says something along the same lines just written poorly.

If you need to TFG the rules this hard to win, you are both really bad at this game, and also no doubt the definition of the guy who everyone hates to play against. Hell it's flat out breaking the rules but even if it wasn't, hypothetically, what satisfaction would you gain by winning through bending the rules like this?

 SHUPPET wrote:
It's specified in the most recent edition of the rules that it is mentioned, and the current rulebook says something along the same lines just written poorly.

If you need to TFG the rules this hard to win, you are both really bad at this game, and also no doubt the definition of the guy who everyone hates to play against. Hell it's flat out breaking the rules but even if it wasn't, hypothetically, what satisfaction would you gain by winning through bending the rules like this?

That kind of attitude is not welcome here.

You have 2 options, either state what is in the transport before the game begins, or make sure you mark your rhino's or other transports (preferably with numbers) and when writing your list make sure to write down what units are in what numbered transport. You dont nessisarily have to show your component untill your declairing shooting with specific weapons/overwatch or disembarking.

Anything other than these 2 strategies (in competative play) can be used to blatantly cheat, and can have huge effects in the outcome of the battle if your opponent in his own mind swaps what was in the transports. "Oh that rhino your attacking dosn't have warlord in it..." happens far too often when not atleast writing down whats in the transports.

In tournaments the numbering system is prefered even more due to the fact that despite telling your opponent in person whats in the transports its better to have it written down in case they are either forgetful or a spiteful lil gak that wants to cheat. This way just causes alot less drama.

When i have done this , since its been a while , I have those little colored tokens people used to track mana from Magic TG. I have one color inside the transport and another off the table with the models with the corresponding color .

When ever i was asked what was in the transport i said the same color as the squad off the table. I got a few eyerolls because they wanted to know what to pop first but never had anyone pick up their models or not play me because of it

 jokerkd wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
It's specified in the most recent edition of the rules that it is mentioned, and the current rulebook says something along the same lines just written poorly.

If you need to TFG the rules this hard to win, you are both really bad at this game, and also no doubt the definition of the guy who everyone hates to play against. Hell it's flat out breaking the rules but even if it wasn't, hypothetically, what satisfaction would you gain by winning through bending the rules like this?

That kind of attitude is not welcome here.

thanks, guy who joined site 2 years after me, but its not attitude, its honesty. You will never get better if you rely on crutches like this, you aren't even playing the game, you are simply taking advantage of an opponent being unwillingly to argue the rules that you are INCORRECT on and making the experience abysmal for him in the process. Believe me, I know from personal experience what it's like to play against someone doing EXACTLY this and I can tell you it will not encourage people to like you, and if you are literally taking it to the extent of refusing to disclose which units are inside tanks then god knows what other liberties you are taking with butchering the rules for your own personal benefit. Don't be that guy.

Traditio wrote:

Charistoph wrote:Asking for clarification of a situation during a tabletop game is standard fare, especially when looking to prevent a potential cheating situation. If you have nothing to hide, then you have no problem telling me.

Ex hypothesi, I most certainly do have something to hide. I don't want you to know which rhino is empty and which houses a multimelta squad.

Maybe I should have stated, if you have no cheating to hide, you have no problem telling me.

Traditio wrote:
That has nothing to do with cheating, though.

I'm sorry, but if you are hiding something which is not explicitly stated as something to hide, how could I not start with cheating as a probability?

Traditio wrote:
At any rate, "standard fare" is not the same thing as "it says so on p. x of the BRB."

No more than using a statement 3 Editions out of date to justify an action and an attitude which is currently associated with cheating players.

Do note, that I have not stated that this is in the rules, just what my reaction is and as to why. You seem to be offended by this reaction, and to be honest, it would be no different a level of feeling to have this sprung on you unexpectedly in the middle of the game.

When you engage in a game, you make a basic contract of sportsmanship. Now, the limits you can go may be perceived differently by other players, but it would be wise to take in to consideration that just because something doesn't say you CAN'T do something, doesn't necessarily mean you should. And that is also one of the tenets of this board, keep in mind.

Traditio wrote:
I would like to call to mind a couple of the tenets of this forum:

"4. Rules as Written are not How You Would Play It. Please clearly state which one you are talking about during a rules debate, and do not argue a RAW point against a HYWPI point (or vice-versa).

- Many arguments can be avoided if this is made clear. Don't assume you know the point your opponent is arguing about.

5. Stick to discussing the rules, not the poster. Phrases like 'Rules Lawyer', 'Cheater' and 'TFG' have no place in rules discussions. Don't depart from rules discussions by attaching value judgments to different interpretations."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nekooni wrote:And there's the assumption that transport content is declared and revealed on request.

Based on the rulebook or popular custom?

Popular custom, just like "That said, in a casual setting, there should be a reasonable assumption that both players will play fairly and will not attempt to abuse it.", which is what I replied to. Please do consider context when I provide a quote and comment on it.

As long as you make sure to stop your opponent from revealing all his embarked units voluntarily right at the start (which I do when setting up my army for play)

Right off hand, I can't call to mind a single game in which an opponent actually did this.

As I said - I do, and if no opponent of yours does, please continue to read on and ignore this sentence. I've even included that case in the very next sentence, so please don't take quotes out of context:
if you do it later during the game - without the enemy volunteering his transport arrangements - you GOTTA have a list at hand.

Honestly: How is "I know of this obscure rule from 4th edition that handles stuff totally different to what people are used and I'm gonna use the absence of an official ruling in the current edition on the topic to gain a small advantage over my opponent" NOT a TFG move? I'd say that's not one bit better than eg. playing Necron and claiming "hey, your unit of two IC psykers only generate warp charges once." in the first psychic phase of your opponent. Sure, the rules as written might be on your side - or at least not against you. But it's still a WAAC TFG mentality.

Is that actually a thing?

It is under 7th edition rules as written, but noone plays like that. Just like with Blasts the RAW (try assigning wounds based on the written rule after scattering onto a different unit that the initial target; bonus points for the initial target being a vehicle and the scattered-onto unit infantry) are broken or not accepted by 99% of the players.

If I knew ahead of time that I wouldn't be able to know what was in my opponent's transports and it's not sprung on me mid game I think I might enjoy that tension of not knowing whats it the box when I shoot at it. Even more so when I would have to deduce what in it by seeing what's firing out of the fire points.

Plus I get to scream "What's in the box!" whenever I open one up like a scene out of SE7EN

I think concealing the contents of a transport is a valid part of the game, so long as the transportation is legal and that the player can confirm the missing units tally to the detachment rules.

If the player with the transports uses this to their advantage it is their responsibility to make sure every transport is clearly individually and distinctly marked and its contents prerecorded in a way that cannot be changed once play commences. Best way to do that is to have labeled cards with the transport contents on them off table, if a transport is knocked out or damage is dont to passengers the player reveals which card it is.

Other methods are equally acceptabler so long as.

1. The contents are visible off board so that the opponent knows what you are playing with.

2. You cannot get away with playing a shell game where no matter how you shoot, the last rhino shot at is always one with the command squad.

Its interesting in terms of custom and practice for sure. Every single game that I have played of 40k at a tournament (hundreds) in the UK and in Continental Europe in 6th and 7th edition, during deployment you talk your opponent through your deployment. This includes: "this independent character is in this rhino with such and such a squad". If someone said at a tournament in the UK "I'm not going to tell you" when you ask what is in a Rhino. Or worse still in response to: "where have you deployed your Warlord" it would just not stand.

I always thought it was weird that it was even mentioned in the ETC FAQ and other tournament FAQs because its so completely understood to be part of playing the game at every event I have ever been at. Its odd to hear about when you didn't have to do it. Like when pre-measuring wasn't allowed or whatever. So different to how the game is played now.

Seems to me the easiest thing to do is to write on a scrap of paper what's inside and keep it face down under the rhino model until the big reveal. I do think the element of surprise should be kept for armies that rely on it, but it needs to be fair. As long as you declare what you have before the game, I think...

Excpet it isnt valid. A note must be made of the contents, and like any rule the opponent has to verify it is being followed; it isnt good enough to say it will be fulfilled / proven in the future. I can require compliance to be proven now, if I so wish

Same as rolling dice in secret and keeping a picture of the results of the dice roll, and only showing me 3 turns later. Not sure many people would accept that...

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Excpet it isnt valid. A note must be made of the contents, and like any rule the opponent has to verify it is being followed; it isnt good enough to say it will be fulfilled / proven in the future. I can require compliance to be proven now, if I so wish

I think it's perfectly valid. If an opp wanted to see what was written on the cards that would be fine. They could then be turned over and hidden.

I am struggling to see what scenario you think someone could cheat doing this. Especially since, if cheating did happen, it should be an auto-lose thing, surely?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Excpet it isnt valid. A note must be made of the contents, and like any rule the opponent has to verify it is being followed; it isnt good enough to say it will be fulfilled / proven in the future. I can require compliance to be proven now, if I so wish

Same as rolling dice in secret and keeping a picture of the results of the dice roll, and only showing me 3 turns later. Not sure many people would accept that...

Where exactly in the rules does it say that? The following list is clearly valid:

1 Captain
2 Tactical Squads with Rhinos
3 empty Rhinos

All are deployed right away, and both Tactical Squads and the Captain are embarked. On the table all you see are 5 Rhinos, and you're told that no unit is held in reserve. It's clearly a valid deployment and that's all you really need to know as far as I know. Please provide a rule citation or reference if you know of a rule that says otherwise.
As long as there's definite proof of which Transport carries which units, I'll consider it legal rules-wise.

Ffyllotek wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Excpet it isnt valid. A note must be made of the contents, and like any rule the opponent has to verify it is being followed; it isnt good enough to say it will be fulfilled / proven in the future. I can require compliance to be proven now, if I so wish

I think it's perfectly valid. If an opp wanted to see what was written on the cards that would be fine. They could then be turned over and hidden.

I am struggling to see what scenario you think someone could cheat doing this. Especially since, if cheating did happen, it should be an auto-lose thing, surely?

Its sadly a common way of cheating.

Take an army with metal bawxses, and a mix of regular and powerful assault units. Traditionally Space Marines or CSM, but Eldar armies also apply here. The cheater takes a number of squads with transports, let us say four Razorbacks, three containing five man tacticals with melta, one containing a a maxed out Reliquary command squad, or worse. You as the opponent are playing Tau or Guard today and don't want a Reliquary command squad to get anywhere near assault for obvious reasons, and target the Razorbacks as priority. Unless you stop all four the Chaplain and Co get to your lines because its never their transport which gets hit, but an ablative tactical combat squad. It doesn't matter which Razorback you target as they all look the same and this SM player, being a total cheesebucket, will swear blind that the last one is the one they always intended to be the command transport.

Its known as the 'shell game' as its similar to slight of hand tricks when you have a pea under three cups and they are swapped around, and you think you know which one but will always lose because the pea is actually in the players hand until its needed to be placed under a not chosen cup.

 Orlanth wrote:

Ffyllotek wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Excpet it isnt valid. A note must be made of the contents, and like any rule the opponent has to verify it is being followed; it isnt good enough to say it will be fulfilled / proven in the future. I can require compliance to be proven now, if I so wish

I think it's perfectly valid. If an opp wanted to see what was written on the cards that would be fine. They could then be turned over and hidden.

I am struggling to see what scenario you think someone could cheat doing this. Especially since, if cheating did happen, it should be an auto-lose thing, surely?

Its sadly a common way of cheating.

Take an army with metal bawxses, and a mix of regular and powerful assault units. Traditionally Space Marines or CSM, but Eldar armies also apply here. Take a number of squads with transports, let us say four Razorbacks, three containing five man tacticals with melta, one containing a a tooled up Reliquary command squad. The enemy, say they are playing Tau or Guard don t want your Reliquary unit to get anywhere near assault for obvious reasons, and target the Razorbacks as priority. Unless they stop all four the Chaplain and Co get into assault because its never their transport which gets hit, but an ablative tactical combat squad. It doesnt matter which Razorback you target as they all look the same and the SM player, being a total cheesebucket will swear blind that the last one is the one they always intended to be the command transport.



Its known as the 'shell game' as its similar to slight of hand tricks when you have a pea under three cups and they are swapped around, and you think you know which one but will always lose because the pea is actually in the players hand until its needed to be placed under a not chosen cup.

It is still hard, I would suggest, to cheat with a slip of paper underneath a rhino...

The game tells us to use tokens and counters etc. Of course a blind counter can be switched for a broken counter with some slight of hand. I'm not sure that actually helps anyone...

As long as the transports are identical, then this is a valid tactic.

You aren't obliged to tell him, but this will annoy him, he will challenge it, and so i would make great lengths to demonstrate how you aren't trying to trick him, so show all the options on separate bits of paper, number the transports wiht markers and write down the number next to them, leave that bit of paper to one side (so you dont have all combinations written down and reveal the one you want when it suits you).

Efforts to show you arent trying to cheat the guy will go a long way to making him like you and most will appreciate this as its not exactly anti fluff. It's not like his units could see inside the charging transports. or make any guesses based on their loadout, but if they see a tank vaporised by a shot from one of them, they can be pretty sure it wasnt a bolter.

Traditio wrote:

Charistoph wrote:Asking for clarification of a situation during a tabletop game is standard fare, especially when looking to prevent a potential cheating situation. If you have nothing to hide, then you have no problem telling me.

Ex hypothesi, I most certainly do have something to hide. I don't want you to know which rhino is empty and which houses a multimelta squad.

And it adds an element to the game which I find exciting. I'd be happy if you marked somewhere what goes where and then upon disembarging provided this information. In other words, tell your opponent what and why

nekooni wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Excpet it isnt valid. A note must be made of the contents, and like any rule the opponent has to verify it is being followed; it isnt good enough to say it will be fulfilled / proven in the future. I can require compliance to be proven now, if I so wish

Same as rolling dice in secret and keeping a picture of the results of the dice roll, and only showing me 3 turns later. Not sure many people would accept that...

Where exactly in the rules does it say that? The following list is clearly valid:

1 Captain
2 Tactical Squads with Rhinos
3 empty Rhinos

All are deployed right away, and both Tactical Squads and the Captain are embarked. On the table all you see are 5 Rhinos, and you're told that no unit is held in reserve. It's clearly a valid deployment and that's all you really need to know as far as I know. Please provide a rule citation or reference if you know of a rule that says otherwise.
As long as there's definite proof of which Transport carries which units, I'll consider it legal rules-wise.

Oddly enough, in the Embarking section. 3rd para or so down. Its not a long section.

It states when embarking you must make a note of the contents. Deployment is also embarking (already embarked...) and so the same requirement applies. So you make a note detailing the units that are embarking on rhino A, I read your note. You then embark your next unit, making a note. I read your note.

And so on.

Done.

 SHUPPET wrote:

 jokerkd wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
It's specified in the most recent edition of the rules that it is mentioned, and the current rulebook says something along the same lines just written poorly.

If you need to TFG the rules this hard to win, you are both really bad at this game, and also no doubt the definition of the guy who everyone hates to play against. Hell it's flat out breaking the rules but even if it wasn't, hypothetically, what satisfaction would you gain by winning through bending the rules like this?

That kind of attitude is not welcome here.

thanks, guy who joined site 2 years after me, but its not attitude, its honesty. You will never get better if you rely on crutches like this, you aren't even playing the game, you are simply taking advantage of an opponent being unwillingly to argue the rules that you are INCORRECT on and making the experience abysmal for him in the process. Believe me, I know from personal experience what it's like to play against someone doing EXACTLY this and I can tell you it will not encourage people to like you, and if you are literally taking it to the extent of refusing to disclose which units are inside tanks then god knows what other liberties you are taking with butchering the rules for your own personal benefit. Don't be that guy.

Why are you acting like I'm the one wanting to play this way?

You're being a member for so much longer suggests you should already know the tenets of ymdc.

So, this seems like a hotly contested topic, with one side absolutely certain that the other side is a bunch of no good, rotten cheaters. Super fun stuff!

Anyways, here's my take, and how my local group plays this. We'll assume that I have a Captain, two 5-man Tactical Squads with Rhinos, a Melta Command Squad and 3 empty Rhinos.

During deployment, I'll deploy the 5 Rhinos on the table with small markers or slips of paper tagged as A, B, C, D and E. This is how I differentiate the Rhinos. I decide to deploy the two Tactical Squads into their Rhinos. I make a note of which Rhino belongs to each squad on a small slip of paper and set that note face down next to each squad. I deploy the Command Squad in an empty Rhino, making a note of which Rhino it is and put that note face down next to the Command Squad. I deploy the Captain with the Command Squad. I make a note of which Rhino he's in and place it face down next to his model. I have fulfilled the obligation to make a note and there is no way that I can cheat. During deployment, I've created an unbreakable link between which units are in which Rhinos. No "shell game" is possible.

When it comes time for me to disembark a unit, I pick up the note next to the unit and say "See, this unit was in Rhino C, so I'll be disembarking there." At this point, it's up to my opponent to remember that Rhino C is empty and that the other two units are in two of the other four Rhinos. They'll figure out which ones when they either pop Rhinos or I disembark.

So, you see that I've made a note as required. I haven't shown that note to my opponent as there is no requirement to do so ahead of time. I'm really only showing it to him when I disembark out of a sense of sportsmanship to prove that I'm not up to shenanigans. Realistically speaking, his troops won't have any idea who is in which Transport. We feel it adds an element of mystery and realism to the game. It also make something weak like a Rhino far more useful when they can be used as legitimate decoys.

This works fine in our local community. Nobody cries foul. I told you that Squad A is in a Rhino and I've made a note as to which Rhino so that when the reveal occurs, you know it's the decision I made during deployment.

 Xca|iber wrote:
Alright, I broke out my 6th ed BRB:

6th Edition Rulebook, p. 118 wrote:A NOTE ON SECRECY
To keep things fair, you should always allow your opponent to read your force roster after a game and always make it clear to your opponent which squads are embarked in which Transports. However, before deploying armies, agree whether or not you will read the opponent's force roster during the game as well.

That's the "most recent" ruling on the matter, from one edition previous. Hard to say what the intent is with 7th not having anything on the issue, since the rules are so sloppily written.

You nailed it and I think it's not worth debating anymore. The 6th ed invalidates 4th ed. That is all she wrote. OP has not replied since your post.

On a personal note, this type of behavior and necro-rule lawyering (Let's call it what it is) is not welcome at our club and sets a very bad exemple for new players.

 Erik_Morkai wrote:

 Xca|iber wrote:
Alright, I broke out my 6th ed BRB:

6th Edition Rulebook, p. 118 wrote:A NOTE ON SECRECY
To keep things fair, you should always allow your opponent to read your force roster after a game and always make it clear to your opponent which squads are embarked in which Transports. However, before deploying armies, agree whether or not you will read the opponent's force roster during the game as well.

That's the "most recent" ruling on the matter, from one edition previous. Hard to say what the intent is with 7th not having anything on the issue, since the rules are so sloppily written.

You nailed it and I think it's not worth debating anymore. The 6th ed invalidates 4th ed. That is all she wrote. OP has not replied since your post.

On a personal note, this type of behavior and necro-rule lawyering (Let's call it what it is) is not welcome at our club and sets a very bad exemple for new players.

Out of curiosity, and in the context of the game being at 7th Edition, how is looking at a 4th Edition rule for guidance any different from looking at a 6th Edition rule? Feels a little like the pot calling the kettle black. Both rules are equally from an outdated edition and both are equally not relevant to a 7th Edition rules discussion. We should really only be looking at 7th Edition rules in a vacuum. If you're going to call citing a rule from 4th Edition as evidence of how to play 7th "necro rules lawyering", than you really need to also call citing a rule from 6th edition as evidence of how to play 7th the same thing.

In other words... 6th Edition rules only invalidate 4th Edition rules in an environment where you're playing 6th Edition. They mean very little in an environment where you're playing 7th Edition.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

nekooni wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Excpet it isnt valid. A note must be made of the contents, and like any rule the opponent has to verify it is being followed; it isnt good enough to say it will be fulfilled / proven in the future. I can require compliance to be proven now, if I so wish

Same as rolling dice in secret and keeping a picture of the results of the dice roll, and only showing me 3 turns later. Not sure many people would accept that...

Where exactly in the rules does it say that? The following list is clearly valid:

1 Captain
2 Tactical Squads with Rhinos
3 empty Rhinos

All are deployed right away, and both Tactical Squads and the Captain are embarked. On the table all you see are 5 Rhinos, and you're told that no unit is held in reserve. It's clearly a valid deployment and that's all you really need to know as far as I know. Please provide a rule citation or reference if you know of a rule that says otherwise.
As long as there's definite proof of which Transport carries which units, I'll consider it legal rules-wise.

Oddly enough, in the Embarking section. 3rd para or so down. Its not a long section.

It states when embarking you must make a note of the contents. Deployment is also embarking (already embarked...) and so the same requirement applies. So you make a note detailing the units that are embarking on rhino A, I read your note. You then embark your next unit, making a note. I read your note.

And so on.

Done.

That's not what the rule says though.

When the unit embarks, remove it from the table and place it aside, making a note that the unit is being transported.

"This unit is being transported." would suffice. All it does is tell you that this unit is not in reserves or destroyed.

WHEN the unit embarks

Prove you can do this simultaneously

Unit A embarks. I know who UNit A are, as you have to say the action you are taking.

You have to prove they are legally embarking to me. So you have to point to the RHino you are embarking on, so I Can verify that you have met all requirements. Say this is Rhino 1

So I know when you make a note, that Unit A is embarked, and I know it is Rhino 1.

Or just announce. Much easier, and still complies with the rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
WHEN the unit embarks

Prove you can do this simultaneously

Unit A embarks. I know who UNit A are, as you have to say the action you are taking.

You have to prove they are legally embarking to me. So you have to point to the RHino you are embarking on, so I Can verify that you have met all requirements. Say this is Rhino 1

So I know when you make a note, that Unit A is embarked, and I know it is Rhino 1.

Or just announce. Much easier, and still complies with the rules.

Why would they have to point at a specific Rhino? During deployment, they should be able to embark on any Rhino that's empty. If you find out later that they chose an illegal option or tried to pull some sort of shell game (impossible if they're clearly marking the Rhinos and then secretly marking the squads), you cross that bridge then, and deal with the cheating as you'd deal with any cheating.

So you get to work on trust that the unit embarked legally?

So I can hide dice rolls, and not show you until it matters, as long as I made a note of the results in some manner?

 Kriswall wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
WHEN the unit embarks

Prove you can do this simultaneously

Unit A embarks. I know who UNit A are, as you have to say the action you are taking.

You have to prove they are legally embarking to me. So you have to point to the RHino you are embarking on, so I Can verify that you have met all requirements. Say this is Rhino 1

So I know when you make a note, that Unit A is embarked, and I know it is Rhino 1.

Or just announce. Much easier, and still complies with the rules.

Why would they have to point at a specific Rhino? During deployment, they should be able to embark on any Rhino that's empty. If you find out later that they chose an illegal option or tried to pull some sort of shell game (impossible if they're clearly marking the Rhinos and then secretly marking the squads), you cross that bridge then, and deal with the cheating as you'd deal with any cheating.

Exactly. Deployment isn't really covered well in that regard, so you could argue "well, all of the squads are marked as "in a transport", so I've done all that the BRB requires of me.

As I said - I'm personally only OK with this if you also have a hidden note saying "unit A is in transport A" and so on so you can provide proof as to which unit was embarked on that blown up Rhino. But that's not really covered / supported by the rules as far as I can tell. HIWPI though is if you refuse to provide proof and refuse to tell me what squad is where beforehand, I'll simply not play with you. I really don't care if it is a house rule or not, to be honest - it's a matter of fairplay, I don't need a rule for that - just like I won't punch you or move your miniatures around or take a look at your secret mission objectives while you're taking a bio break.

The problem is, even notes leave open the possibility of a shell game, as notes can be made deliberately ambiguous, or multiple symbols could be plastered on a given Rhino, or whathaveyou, and one could easily say "well, I meant this one, sorry if you can't interpret my note or figure out which symbol on which rhino I was using. I always use the one on the door - this game! Tomorrow it might be the one under the headlights, I haven't decided yet..."

I think it is much easier and sportsmanlike to simply announce.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So you get to work on trust that the unit embarked legally?

So I can hide dice rolls, and not show you until it matters, as long as I made a note of the results in some manner?

No, I'm not looking to "work on trust". I'm just legitimately curious what you mean my an illegal embarkation. What would that look like. I can't exactly embark onto a full Rhino or anything as you'd figure out I cheated as soon as you blew up the Rhino in question or I disembarked, showing you my secret note in the process. I'm just not sure what this illegal embarkation would look like.

Plus, show me a dice roll where the result doesn't matter immediately and we'll talk. I can't think of any.

Unless you have a rule that specifically says so (i.e. 6th edition Deathwing, where the owner wrote down whether they'd deepstrike in Turn 1 or 2 and it was a secret choice), I'd say yes, you have to.

Even if rules wise you don't have to tell your opponent, it's common courtesy. Don't be a tool.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The problem is, even notes leave open the possibility of a shell game, as notes can be made deliberately ambiguous, or multiple symbols could be plastered on a given Rhino, or whathaveyou, and one could easily say "well, I meant this one, sorry if you can't interpret my note or figure out which symbol on which rhino I was using. I always use the one on the door - this game! Tomorrow it might be the one under the headlights, I haven't decided yet..."

I think it is much easier and sportsmanlike to simply announce.

Ambiguous notes wouldn't really be notes at all. Assume a foolproof way of identifying the tanks. Your argument seems a little weak. "I'm putting a green token on top of this Rhino and a red one on top of that Rhino. That's how I'm uniquely identifying them." "How do I know that your color perception is the same as mine and you're not just trying to pull off some sort of color blind shell game? Sorry, but your system isn't good enough." Sheesh.

It's pretty obvious that an ambiguous scheme for identifying unique units is useless. There are countless unambiguous ways to do so, though, so we should be fine assuming a player can uniquely identify a Rhino should he/she choose to.

Sportsmanship is also variable. My group assume you don't have to specify the Transport ahead of time so long as it's unambiguously noted and the note is revealed when needed. Telling your opponent which specific Transport your squads are in ahead of time isn't viewed as sporting. It's viewed as foolish.

 Kriswall wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The problem is, even notes leave open the possibility of a shell game, as notes can be made deliberately ambiguous, or multiple symbols could be plastered on a given Rhino, or whathaveyou, and one could easily say "well, I meant this one, sorry if you can't interpret my note or figure out which symbol on which rhino I was using. I always use the one on the door - this game! Tomorrow it might be the one under the headlights, I haven't decided yet..."

I think it is much easier and sportsmanlike to simply announce.

Ambiguous notes wouldn't really be notes at all. Assume a foolproof way of identifying the tanks. Your argument seems a little weak. "I'm putting a green token on top of this Rhino and a red one on top of that Rhino. That's how I'm uniquely identifying them." "How do I know that your color perception is the same as mine and you're not just trying to pull off some sort of color blind shell game? Sorry, but your system isn't good enough." Sheesh.

It's pretty obvious that an ambiguous scheme for identifying unique units is useless. There are countless unambiguous ways to do so, though, so we should be fine assuming a player can uniquely identify a Rhino should he/she choose to.

Sportsmanship is also variable. My group assume you don't have to specify the Transport ahead of time so long as it's unambiguously noted and the note is revealed when needed. Telling your opponent which specific Transport your squads are in ahead of time isn't viewed as sporting. It's viewed as foolish.

Yes, but why does a player need to make it unambiguous? There's no reason other than sportsmanship to not play the Shell Game, so at this point it's just HYWPI to avoid that, in which case you'd get 12 opinions from 9 people.

I mean heck, there might be a group out there that considers the Shell Game sporting, and thinks that restricting your units to the transport they're in is foolish. *Shrug*

Ffyllotek wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Ffyllotek wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Excpet it isnt valid. A note must be made of the contents, and like any rule the opponent has to verify it is being followed; it isnt good enough to say it will be fulfilled / proven in the future. I can require compliance to be proven now, if I so wish

I think it's perfectly valid. If an opp wanted to see what was written on the cards that would be fine. They could then be turned over and hidden.

I am struggling to see what scenario you think someone could cheat doing this. Especially since, if cheating did happen, it should be an auto-lose thing, surely?

Its sadly a common way of cheating.

Take an army with metal bawxses, and a mix of regular and powerful assault units. Traditionally Space Marines or CSM, but Eldar armies also apply here. Take a number of squads with transports, let us say four Razorbacks, three containing five man tacticals with melta, one containing a a tooled up Reliquary command squad. The enemy, say they are playing Tau or Guard don t want your Reliquary unit to get anywhere near assault for obvious reasons, and target the Razorbacks as priority. Unless they stop all four the Chaplain and Co get into assault because its never their transport which gets hit, but an ablative tactical combat squad. It doesnt matter which Razorback you target as they all look the same and the SM player, being a total cheesebucket will swear blind that the last one is the one they always intended to be the command transport.



Its known as the 'shell game' as its similar to slight of hand tricks when you have a pea under three cups and they are swapped around, and you think you know which one but will always lose because the pea is actually in the players hand until its needed to be placed under a not chosen cup.

It is still hard, I would suggest, to cheat with a slip of paper underneath a rhino...

The game tells us to use tokens and counters etc. Of course a blind counter can be switched for a broken counter with some slight of hand. I'm not sure that actually helps anyone...

Where does the game tell us to use counters or tokens for this purpose?

Nekooni - again, you're told you can deploy embarked. Meaning you go through embarkation. Meaning you make a note

Yes you can cheat later. The point is you don't get to make me wait until later , if I don't allow it. Exactly the same as rolling dice.

You're making a note. Per unit. Per transport. I can verify your compliance with this rule at any time I wish.

Prove otherwise. Rules would help,

No she'll games. No secrecy.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Nekooni - again, you're told you can deploy embarked. Meaning you go through embarkation. Meaning you make a note

Yes you can cheat later. The point is you don't get to make me wait until later , if I don't allow it. Exactly the same as rolling dice.

You're making a note. Per unit. Per transport. I can verify your compliance with this rule at any time I wish.

Prove otherwise. Rules would help,

No she'll games. No secrecy.

I guess the flipside would be to prove you can look at my note. Not to be difficult, but the rules just require that I make a note, presumably so I don't forget... accidentally or intentionally (i.e. cheating). The rules don't say if or when I have to show you my note. Yes, you can verify that I made a note. You don't necessarily get to read what I wrote.

I've obeyed the obligation to make a note. Do you have rules evidence stating you're allowed to read my note OR that my note has to be displayed for all to see at all times?

Now, I'd obviously show the note whenever I disembark a unit to be sporting, but we're talking more about when they're still IN the transports.

I can verify your compliance with the rule. The only absolute way to do that is to review the note.

Again. If you state otherwise, shoe how you are entitled to know the results of to hit before I roll to wound.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I can verify your compliance with the rule. The only absolute way to do that is to review the note.

Again. If you state otherwise, shoe how you are entitled to know the results of to hit before I roll to wound.

The dice thing is a red herring and an entirely different situation. I have total discretion over what I choose to write on the note. I.e. I get to pick the Transport. Ergo, if I make a decision, write it down and keep it secret until the choice is relevant, there is zero opportunity for shenanigans. I never have the option of falsifying anything and I can't change my mind midstream.

With the dice situation, you have zero discretion over the result of the To Hit roll. It's random. If you make the roll in private and then write the results down on a piece of paper, revealing them only when they become relevant (immediately before To Wound rolls are made or thereabouts)... well, there is a huge opportunity for shenanigans. You have every opportunity to falsify a dice roll to your advantage.

I'm not looking to create shenanigans. I'm just not looking to give you free tactical knowledge that your army, realistically speaking, is unlikely to have. I'll show you the note when it becomes necessary to do so. It doesn't become necessary until a unit chooses, or is forced to, disembark.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It feels like you just want to know what is in each Transport to gain tactical advantage. A good player can derive what is in each Transport by watching where they go and what they do.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I can verify your compliance with the rule. The only absolute way to do that is to review the note.

Again. If you state otherwise, shoe how you are entitled to know the results of to hit before I roll to wound.

the note I have to write thanks to the rules as written says "this unit is in a transport". It doesn't tell you which one, and I'll simply say "all 4 of these units are in transports", pointing at 3 Tactical Squads and a Captain. You may review these notes of course, if you insist that I write them. But you do not get to look at the actual assignment, which I'd have to write on a separate paper.

That being said I'm really not advocating doing so, I'd only do it if my opponent WANTED to do things this way, like the OP does. It's an interesting modification to how I usually play (everything is out in the open, no secrets). But I don't see how the rules would ENFORCE a policy of "tell everything to your opponent", and you've yet to come up with a rule citation for that claim.

nekooni wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I can verify your compliance with the rule. The only absolute way to do that is to review the note.

Again. If you state otherwise, shoe how you are entitled to know the results of to hit before I roll to wound.

the note I have to write thanks to the rules as written says "this unit is in a transport". It doesn't tell you which one, and I'll simply say "all 4 of these units are in transports", pointing at 3 Tactical Squads and a Captain. You may review these notes of course, if you insist that I write them. But you do not get to look at the actual assignment, which I'd have to write on a separate paper.

That being said I'm really not advocating doing so, I'd only do it if my opponent WANTED to do things this way, like the OP does. It's an interesting modification to how I usually play (everything is out in the open, no secrets). But I don't see how the rules would ENFORCE a policy of "tell everything to your opponent", and you've yet to come up with a rule citation for that claim.

It's an interesting modification in that I think you'd have no friends afterwards.

 jreilly89 wrote:

nekooni wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I can verify your compliance with the rule. The only absolute way to do that is to review the note.

Again. If you state otherwise, shoe how you are entitled to know the results of to hit before I roll to wound.

the note I have to write thanks to the rules as written says "this unit is in a transport". It doesn't tell you which one, and I'll simply say "all 4 of these units are in transports", pointing at 3 Tactical Squads and a Captain. You may review these notes of course, if you insist that I write them. But you do not get to look at the actual assignment, which I'd have to write on a separate paper.

That being said I'm really not advocating doing so, I'd only do it if my opponent WANTED to do things this way, like the OP does. It's an interesting modification to how I usually play (everything is out in the open, no secrets). But I don't see how the rules would ENFORCE a policy of "tell everything to your opponent", and you've yet to come up with a rule citation for that claim.

It's an interesting modification in that I think you'd have no friends afterwards.

I doubt I'd loose a single friend over that especially considering the part you apparently missed - I've highlighted it for your convenience.

SCNR-edit: Did you REALLY miss how I stated that I'm not advocating doing that and how I said that I'd only do it if asked to do so and that my regular play style includes telling my opponent every single detail? Come on, my English's not that hard to comprehend.

 Kriswall wrote:
Realistically speaking, his troops won't have any idea who is in which Transport.

in a universe with Psychic powers, Auspex, and advanced scouting "Realistically speaking" the enemy would know what is in any given transport.

However what would make sense in the real world has no bearing on the 40k ruleset

Real World Common Sense/Real World Logic/How it works in the real world has no bearing on the 40k Ruleset.

Remember: The rules were not written to be "Modern day real world" logical.

The rules are an abstract system used to simulate a battle in the year 40,000.

What would happen in the modern day real world has nothing to do with the RAW, or the simulation of a battle fought 38,000 years from now. (and maybe not even on a planet with the same physical makeup as our earth, and probably different physics as well).

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
Realistically speaking, his troops won't have any idea who is in which Transport.

in a universe with Psychic powers, Auspex, and advanced scouting "Realistically speaking" the enemy would know what is in any given transport.

Yes, this makes sense.

"What do you mean you didn't notice the Wraithknight in the small ruined building?"

Maybe there is also a way to hide the details from the enemy?

Naw wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
Realistically speaking, his troops won't have any idea who is in which Transport.

in a universe with Psychic powers, Auspex, and advanced scouting "Realistically speaking" the enemy would know what is in any given transport.

Yes, this makes sense.

"What do you mean you didn't notice the Wraithknight in the small ruined building?"

Maybe there is also a way to hide the details from the enemy?

Not according to the rules there isn't.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Naw wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
Realistically speaking, his troops won't have any idea who is in which Transport.

in a universe with Psychic powers, Auspex, and advanced scouting "Realistically speaking" the enemy would know what is in any given transport.

Yes, this makes sense.

"What do you mean you didn't notice the Wraithknight in the small ruined building?"

Maybe there is also a way to hide the details from the enemy?

Not according to the rules there isn't.

So after all there is a rule describing that I must tell my opponent what is in each transport? Didn't we already establish that there is no such rule?

Naw wrote:
So after all there is a rule describing that I must tell my opponent what is in each transport? Didn't we already establish that there is no such rule?

Except there is a rule. nosferatu1001 stated it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
...in the Embarking section. 3rd para or so down. Its not a long section.

It states when embarking you must make a note of the contents. Deployment is also embarking (already embarked...) and so the same requirement applies. So you make a note detailing the units that are embarking on rhino A, I read your note. You then embark your next unit, making a note. I read your note.

And so on.

Done.

So in rules where does it tell us for whom the note is?

Naw wrote:
So in rules where does it tell us for whom the note is?

What is giving you permission to withhold the note from your opponent?

 CrownAxe wrote:

Naw wrote:
So in rules where does it tell us for whom the note is?

What is giving you permission to withhold the note from your opponent?

Rather than responding to a question with a question, could you either provide a quote or tell me the page so I can read it myself.

Naw wrote:
So in rules where does it tell us for whom the note is?

It doesn't say for whom the note is, so both parties must be privy to that information to ensure everyone is following the rules.


There is no permission to withhold the note from your opponent in the rules.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Naw wrote:
So in rules where does it tell us for whom the note is?

It doesn't say for whom the note is, so both parties must be privy to that information to ensure everyone is following the rules.


There is no permission to withhold the note from your opponent in the rules.

Thats a giant leap.
You are required to make a note where is what .
Permissive ruleset , the opponent does not have permission to view your notes.

Permissive ruleset, the opponent doesn't have permission to keep his note secret. See, it works both ways.

kambien wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Naw wrote:
So in rules where does it tell us for whom the note is?

It doesn't say for whom the note is, so both parties must be privy to that information to ensure everyone is following the rules.


There is no permission to withhold the note from your opponent in the rules.

Thats a giant leap.
You are required to make a note where is what .
Permissive ruleset , the opponent does not have permission to view your notes.

By that logic you don't have permission to view your notes either

 jokerkd wrote:


Why are you acting like I'm the one wanting to play this way?

You're being a member for so much longer suggests you should already know the tenets of ymdc.

I'm not saying it's you who wants to play like this I'm not even implying it, I'm saying "if you do this etc etc" which is a hypothetical way of discussion that absolutely everyone uses and has been using in this thread. You know that. Just stop.

 Ghaz wrote:
Permissive ruleset, the opponent doesn't have permission to keep his note secret. See, it works both ways.

its actual secret by default. You are told to track it . You are not told you can share the information with your opponent .You are also not told he can look at it. That would require being told you/they can do so.

And where do the rules say that it is secret by default? Page and paragraph please.

 Ghaz wrote:
And where do the rules say that it is secret by default? Page and paragraph please.

You are told to track it . You are not told you can share the information with your opponent .You are also not told he can look at it. That would require being told you/they can do so.

kambien wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
Permissive ruleset, the opponent doesn't have permission to keep his note secret. See, it works both ways.

its actual secret by default. You are told to track it . You are not told you can share the information with your opponent .You are also not told he can look at it. That would require being told you/they can do so.

I'm going to view your note, to ensure you have complied with the rule

That's how games work. I get to know the rules have been complied with.

Done. If you refuse to show the note, I declare the rule has not been complied with. The game halts until the rule is complied with to both players satisfaction

Prove otherwise. Page and graph.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

kambien wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
Permissive ruleset, the opponent doesn't have permission to keep his note secret. See, it works both ways.

its actual secret by default. You are told to track it . You are not told you can share the information with your opponent .You are also not told he can look at it. That would require being told you/they can do so.

I'm going to view your note, to ensure you have complied with the rule

That's how games work. I get to know the rules have been complied with.

Done. If you refuse to show the note, I declare the rule has not been complied with. The game halts until the rule is complied with to both players satisfaction

Prove otherwise. Page and graph.

you can review my note , but it cannot be before the unit is deployed on the table , otherwise you have have done something ( found out what is in the transport ) when you lack the permission to do so

kambien wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

kambien wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
Permissive ruleset, the opponent doesn't have permission to keep his note secret. See, it works both ways.

its actual secret by default. You are told to track it . You are not told you can share the information with your opponent .You are also not told he can look at it. That would require being told you/they can do so.

I'm going to view your note, to ensure you have complied with the rule

That's how games work. I get to know the rules have been complied with.

Done. If you refuse to show the note, I declare the rule has not been complied with. The game halts until the rule is complied with to both players satisfaction

Prove otherwise. Page and graph.

you can review my note , but it cannot be before the unit is deployed on the table , otherwise you have have done something ( found out what is in the transport ) when you lack the permission to do so

A unit deployed inside of its transport is deployed on the table.

kambien wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
And where do the rules say that it is secret by default? Page and paragraph please.

You are told to track it . You are not told you can share the information with your opponent .You are also not told he can look at it. That would require being told you/they can do so.

So you're making up permission that the rules tell you can keep it secret? Gotcha. You lack any rules to support your position, as the rules never give you permission to keep the information secret any more than they give your opponent permission to see the information. Seems like its a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Incorrect. I require the note contents to confirm you have complied with the rule

Prove otherwise. Bear in mind this is fundamental games design ,,so you're going to struggle here

You have a note which the contents of proves or otherwise you have complied with the rules. Absent a specific rule otherwise both players get to know the rules have been complied with. Done.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

kambien wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

kambien wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
Permissive ruleset, the opponent doesn't have permission to keep his note secret. See, it works both ways.

its actual secret by default. You are told to track it . You are not told you can share the information with your opponent .You are also not told he can look at it. That would require being told you/they can do so.

I'm going to view your note, to ensure you have complied with the rule

That's how games work. I get to know the rules have been complied with.

Done. If you refuse to show the note, I declare the rule has not been complied with. The game halts until the rule is complied with to both players satisfaction

Prove otherwise. Page and graph.

you can review my note , but it cannot be before the unit is deployed on the table , otherwise you have have done something ( found out what is in the transport ) when you lack the permission to do so

A unit deployed inside of its transport is deployed on the table.

i did mean disembarked


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Incorrect. I require the note contents to confirm you have complied with the rule

Prove otherwise. Bear in mind this is fundamental games design ,,so you're going to struggle here

You have a note which the contents of proves or otherwise you have complied with the rules. Absent a specific rule otherwise both players get to know the rules have been complied with. Done.

Again you can have the note that proves what is inside , as soon as you cannot gain the information of what is inside before it comes outside otherwise you are doing something ( gaining the information of what is inside that specific transport) without the permissions to do so


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:

kambien wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
And where do the rules say that it is secret by default? Page and paragraph please.

You are told to track it . You are not told you can share the information with your opponent .You are also not told he can look at it. That would require being told you/they can do so.

So you're making up permission that the rules tell you can keep it secret? Gotcha. You lack any rules to support your position, as the rules never give you permission to keep the information secret any more than they give your opponent permission to see the information. Seems like its a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

I'm not making up rules saying its a secret . It doesn't say it is a secret, it doesn't imply its a secret . But you can go ahead and show you have the persmisions to know excatly what is inside the transport ?

Then the game halts, because I posit you have not complied with the rule, and you will not show you have.

Game halts, as you will refuse to,provide compliance.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Then the game halts, because I posit you have not complied with the rule, and you will not show you have.

Game halts, as you will refuse to,provide compliance.

Where is the rule that requires you to check my rules ?

kambien wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Then the game halts, because I posit you have not complied with the rule, and you will not show you have.

Game halts, as you will refuse to,provide compliance.

Where is the rule that requires you to check my rules ?

How else does your opponent verify you are following them?

It's like moving 9" and then claiming you moved 6" and not allowing your opponent to check because he doesn't have permission to do so.

If a unit "must be deployed or held in reserves", then when you deploy the rhino, you must also deploy the unit, no?

The deployment rules are quite clear about being able to modify the standard deployment method if that's what both players want. It's only the "standard deployment method" which I believe would require you to deploy with the transport.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Then the game halts, because I posit you have not complied with the rule, and you will not show you have.

Game halts, as you will refuse to,provide compliance.

And well done. You've successfully managed to halt a game into a stalemate because there is no rules supporting your perspective and thus no rules that can be argued against it. If this rule has no correct outcome when argued rules wise, why would you try to play it?


But then it's irrelevant you have this line under units in transports.

"When the unit embarks, remove it from the table and place it aside, making a note that the unit is being transported."

seems that you have to keep track of where units go regardless

Traditio wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Yes, dont be TFG. This isn't Infinity, everyone must state what is in what so we don't get confused.

Does it say so in the rules? If so, where?

Again, 4th edition explicitly said that not only need I not, but the opponent is forbidden from asking.

In any and every tournament I've ever been to and even most casual games the you and your opponent are required to exchange lists physically or at least verbally thus both players have perfect information on whats in play

By trial and error you will be able to tell whats in each transport without asking.

99.99% players shortcut this by simply asking. If you wan't to be that .01 then feel free to have me review your list to see whats what.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

kambien wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Then the game halts, because I posit you have not complied with the rule, and you will not show you have.

Game halts, as you will refuse to,provide compliance.

Where is the rule that requires you to check my rules ?

How else does your opponent verify you are following them?

It's like moving 9" and then claiming you moved 6" and not allowing your opponent to check because he doesn't have permission to do so.

its actually the funny thing about 40k rules, it doesn't state to check you opponent rules because it assumes your opponent follows all the rules

 jokerkd wrote:
If a unit "must be deployed or held in reserves", then when you deploy the rhino, you must also deploy the unit, no?

The deployment rules are quite clear about being able to modify the standard deployment method if that's what both players want. It's only the "standard deployment method" which I believe would require you to deploy with the transport.

It appears i may have confused deploying from reserves with deploying pre-game. It seems the latter has no requirement to deploy one unit at a time


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kambien wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

kambien wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Then the game halts, because I posit you have not complied with the rule, and you will not show you have.

Game halts, as you will refuse to,provide compliance.

Where is the rule that requires you to check my rules ?

How else does your opponent verify you are following them?

It's like moving 9" and then claiming you moved 6" and not allowing your opponent to check because he doesn't have permission to do so.

its actually the funny thing about 40k rules, it doesn't state to check you opponent rules because it assumes your opponent follows all the rules

Both players are required to ensure the rules are being followed (or not if both players agree to house rule something)

If both players cannot agree on agree on something, and do not wish to roll off, either one can decide not to continue. This is why these things should be discussed before the game, so nobody's time is wasted

I gotta say as someone who plays competitively, absoutly NO standard tournament (NOVA, ITC...) will allow you to withhold information from your opponent unless it is explicitly mentioned to. If I forget what is in a rhino and you won't tell me, you better believe the TO is coming over. Now if you want to have a casual game and do that with a consenting opponent go for it. Just don't expect to hide anything like that at a tournament.

 gdzilla wrote:
I gotta say as someone who plays competitively, absoutly NO standard tournament (NOVA, ITC...) will allow you to withhold information from your opponent unless it is explicitly mentioned to. If I forget what is in a rhino and you won't tell me, you better believe the TO is coming over. Now if you want to have a casual game and do that with a consenting opponent go for it. Just don't expect to hide anything like that at a tournament.

I'm more curious on why you think your entitled to that information

As someone mentioned in an earlier post the current game is ment to be more diy as far as determine missions, starting points and rules that are unclear. If I recall correctly the brb says in cases of uncertainty a die roll can determine who's right (I might be wrong). A tournament has rules set by organizers and they don't allow hiding information in their tournaments and I wouldn't play at one where you could hide information. The spirit of 7th Ed 40k is not one where you hide information and get angry at your opponent if he asks.

kambien wrote:

 gdzilla wrote:
I gotta say as someone who plays competitively, absoutly NO standard tournament (NOVA, ITC...) will allow you to withhold information from your opponent unless it is explicitly mentioned to. If I forget what is in a rhino and you won't tell me, you better believe the TO is coming over. Now if you want to have a casual game and do that with a consenting opponent go for it. Just don't expect to hide anything like that at a tournament.

I'm more curious on why you think your entitled to that information

The rules say both players must agree on how deployment is handled. Any player is entitled to insist on either knowing which transports were purchased for which units or not playing with you.

As gdzilla Said, in a tournament setting, its up to the TO

I'd love this. Takin on a mechanized army legit. Would had just a hint of realism for fun.

2 things though like everyone else has said.

1. I'd like to see the list before game.

2. The transports need to be marked. Like 3 rhinos and three corresponding cards face down with their contents. So when "Rhino 1" opens, the card is flipped to guarantee its contents haven't changed.

Funny how many people instantly responded so maliciously. Shady, underhanded, tfg, and cheater came out very quickly. Like page one without any discussion. So much hostility in a game meant for fun. In a game as asymmetrical and rule ridden as wh40k, "that's not fair" is such a weak argument.

My first thought was can this work without me being taken advantage of. Then someone dropped the idea of marking transports. If the list corresponds, problem solved. So why not?

Edited.

No. Tell your opponent what everything is, and where it is, otherwise someone might just "forget" that the melta squad wasnt in the one they just blew up, no oh, it was the OTHER rhino!

 cosmicsoybean wrote:
Amazing, you call for eldar, tau, necrons to be squatted because they're op and you try pulling this TFG cheese....lol

No. Tell your opponent what everything is, and where it is, otherwise someone might just "forget" that the melta squad wasnt in the one they just blew up, no oh, it was the OTHER rhino!

From the tenets of ymdc:

"5. Stick to discussing the rules, not the poster. Phrases like "Rules Lawyer", "Cheater" and "TFG" have no place in rules discussions. Don't depart from rules discussions by attaching value judgments to different interpretations."

By op logic, I also don't have to disclose what any of my units are, what their gear is, or even what the units do. It is a bad idea to make up rules unless both players agree.

 cosmicsoybean wrote:
Edited.

No. Tell your opponent what everything is, and where it is, otherwise someone might just "forget" that the melta squad wasnt in the one they just blew up, no oh, it was the OTHER rhino!

I'm reminded of how one of the the mainstays of 'I played a cheater/TFG hit the table at the club today' posts back in 3rd/4th edition when I started reading the board usually included tails of 'amazing' luck in which the vital squad was always in the last transport to survive.

Clearly marking the Transports prevents any sort of shell game wherein a dishonest player can change the contents on the fly. Simply agree which face down note corresponds to which Transport before the game and you've eliminated the chance for dishonesty.

So, given that the "he might change which Transport he said these guys were in" argument is measurably bad and very easily avoided... it sounds like whether or not you choose to disclose where your embarked squads are is a matter of local community convention. It sounds like many people consider it poor sportsmanship to keep this info secret while others consider it a normal and extra layer of tactical decision making.

The rules simply require us to make a note, but don't stipulate that you your opponent gets to see the note. Even the loosest definition of sportsmanship would require that you show the note when the models hit the table for the first time.

This thread might as well be locked. It's not so much a rules debate as it is a debate on whether or not keeping your specific embarkations secret until models disembark is fair and sporting. That's going to vary from player to player, community to community and tournament to tournament.

 SHUPPET wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Then the game halts, because I posit you have not complied with the rule, and you will not show you have.

Game halts, as you will refuse to,provide compliance.

And well done. You've successfully managed to halt a game into a stalemate because there is no rules supporting your perspective and thus no rules that can be argued against it. If this rule has no correct outcome when argued rules wise, why would you try to play it?


But then it's irrelevant you have this line under units in transports.

"When the unit embarks, remove it from the table and place it aside, making a note that the unit is being transported."

seems that you have to keep track of where units go regardless

Game construction supports my position. BOth players need to ensure rules are being followed.

Or I move 9" and refuse to allow you to check how far they went. HOw about that. You just have to trust I mvoed correctly.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Then the game halts, because I posit you have not complied with the rule, and you will not show you have.

Game halts, as you will refuse to,provide compliance.

And well done. You've successfully managed to halt a game into a stalemate because there is no rules supporting your perspective and thus no rules that can be argued against it. If this rule has no correct outcome when argued rules wise, why would you try to play it?


But then it's irrelevant you have this line under units in transports.

"When the unit embarks, remove it from the table and place it aside, making a note that the unit is being transported."

seems that you have to keep track of where units go regardless

Game construction supports my position. BOth players need to ensure rules are being followed.

Or I move 9" and refuse to allow you to check how far they went. HOw about that. You just have to trust I mvoed correctly.

If I'm paying attention and I watch you move, how could I possibly not know that you moved 9"? If you moved 10" and I'm paying attention, I'll see what you did. This feels like a ridiculous argument as movement occurs in the open, visible to both players.

But yes, in general I'll be playing with people I trust to follow the rules. If you don't trust that your opponent is following the rules, you have deeper issues that Transport embarkations and should probably find new opponents or work on your trust issues.

Quite an odd discussion here, well below the usual standards of dakka, and has clearly touched a nerve of many.

"you can't withhold this information from me"
"you're required to swap lists"

There is no clear rule about this, the point that says "make a note of it" i can write it in a cyphered code or in a second language if you want to be super difficult about this.

Ultimately we can debate theory til the cows come home, the reality situations are as follows:

casual club game: either roll for it, or agree with your opponent before the game, but probably before you even pick the list
serious club game: agree beforehand as above
local tournament: email the organisers asking whether its allowed and whether it will be against the spirit of the event
serious tournament; email the organisers

it's quite a hard mechanic to abuse and given the lists out there it would certainly not be too antisocial.

I've stated my view, and anyone getting too upset over this has to remember the above scenarios, and that in any situation where they have any say in the outcome, they get to veto it, and if they don't, then the organiser does.

 Kriswall wrote:
Clearly marking the Transports prevents any sort of shell game wherein a dishonest player can change the contents on the fly. Simply agree which face down note corresponds to which Transport before the game and you've eliminated the chance for dishonesty.

So, given that the "he might change which Transport he said these guys were in" argument is measurably bad and very easily avoided... it sounds like whether or not you choose to disclose where your embarked squads are is a matter of local community convention. It sounds like many people consider it poor sportsmanship to keep this info secret while others consider it a normal and extra layer of tactical decision making.

The rules simply require us to make a note, but don't stipulate that you your opponent gets to see the note. Even the loosest definition of sportsmanship would require that you show the note when the models hit the table for the first time.

This thread might as well be locked. It's not so much a rules debate as it is a debate on whether or not keeping your specific embarkations secret until models disembark is fair and sporting. That's going to vary from player to player, community to community and tournament to tournament.

I agree with this. If you make your note clearly and put it with the transport it belongs to then there will be no question later when units disembark/rhino gets popped. What's the issue with this?

 Kriswall wrote:
But yes, in general I'll be playing with people I trust to follow the rules. If you don't trust that your opponent is following the rules, you have deeper issues that Transport embarkations and should probably find new opponents or work on your trust issues.

Or a majority of the people you DO play around take the phrase "if you aren't cheating you aren't trying" as standard. While I can't say that is the case with my local group, I do know there are snakes waiting in the corners to do just that because one hears stories and one usually doesn't get a face with who they are until AFTER the game is done (one way or another).

As I have said, it is all in the approach. You bring this up during game setup where we can discuss it, I don't have a problem with it.

You bring it up in Turn 3, I get the feeling you like to announce House Rules (and it IS a House Rule as nothing addresses it) just to work to your advantage. That right there feels like cheating. So I have no problem with just packing up when I fel like someone is trying to cheat me.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Game construction supports my position. BOth players need to ensure rules are being followed.

Or I move 9" and refuse to allow you to check how far they went. HOw about that. You just have to trust I mvoed correctly.

I re-read your post 5 times over and I cannot work out how it's doing anything but arguing another reason of exactly why you shouldn't be hiding which units are in which transports

You quoted the exact line I already quoted earlier in the thread.

Kriswall - again. Basic game construction. BOTH players have the right to know the rules are being followed, if they so wish

Without question.

Not a trust issue. The note is by definition "open" because its the only way to verify the rule has been complied with

SImilarly I could erect a GM screen round my units, then move them. You can just "trust" that I moved correctly. Or I can accuse you of having trust issues...

There are no secrets in this game except where specifically noted - such as the old DWA rule.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You quoted the exact line I already quoted earlier in the thread.

Kriswall - again. Basic game construction. BOTH players have the right to know the rules are being followed, if they so wish

Without question.

Not a trust issue. The note is by definition "open" because its the only way to verify the rule has been complied with

SImilarly I could erect a GM screen round my units, then move them. You can just "trust" that I moved correctly. Or I can accuse you of having trust issues...

There are no secrets in this game except where specifically noted - such as the old DWA rule.

To which I would respond, "quote the rule saying you get to look at my note whenever you want". I'm instructed to make a note. So long as you see me write SOMETHING down, I've obeyed the rule to make a note and you've seen me make a note, validating that I followed the rule.

The thing is that the rules assume we're following the rules. The rules don't provide a mechanism for the OTHER player to validate that we're following the rules. Obviously, if you see something wrong, you raise your hand. That Tactical Squad moves 9" in the Movement Phase? Raise your hand. Your opponent doesn't remove a model when he takes wounds to a unit? Raise your hand. A Command Squad disembarks from a Transport that doesn't match the note that was made during deployment? Raise your hand.

Ergo, there is no rule being broken by keeping this information secret. Whether or not it's sporting is entirely dependent on your local crew. It's perfectly acceptable with the people I play with. This isn't You Make Da Sportsmanship Call.

Is this a rules issue? Feels more like most people just think it's not fair if they don't know which Rhino to focus fire on. Issues of "not fair" tend to go away when you become a better player.

 Kriswall wrote:

The thing is that the rules assume we're following the rules. The rules don't provide a mechanism for the OTHER player to validate that we're following the rules.

Indeed. What's the punishment for cheating as per the rulebook? Public flogging?

I'm not saying a rule us being broken

I'm requiring you to prove the rule was complied with.

Until you do, the game halts.

 Kriswall wrote:
Is this a rules issue? Feels more like most people just think it's not fair if they don't know which Rhino to focus fire on. Issues of "not fair" tend to go away when you become a better player.

For some it is to know which to shoot at, but that indicates a situation where they know certain units are already embarked.

For some it is the simply trying to avoid the Rhino Shell Game where they all have internal portals to avoid having their good units lose their ride before their ready.

Timing and communication are what are needed to avoid problems in this area.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I'm not saying a rule us being broken

I'm requiring you to prove the rule was complied with.

Until you do, the game halts.

Exactly this.

Rules need to be followed. All players should know that the rules are being followed. This is with any game.

I think this is rather pointless. All we're doing here is saying "do it the way you agreed upon with the other player", and the only voice saying anything differently is nosferatu, claiming that having to tell is clearly rules as written while failing to provide a rule which actually says that. All you came up with is a line where a note of "this unit is being transported" is required, which does not have to contain anything else - including WHO is transporting that unit. "that it is being transported" is all you have to write down as per the rules.

You clearly should also have a means to prove you're not playing the shell game, but the rules don't tell us HOW to achieve that. Tell a third party, write it down and only reveal it when it becomes relevant in the game or just tell your opponent right away all achieve that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I'm not saying a rule us being broken

I'm requiring you to prove the rule was complied with.

Until you do, the game halts.

It's the same thing, you're simply shifting the burden of proof to the other guy.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
Is this a rules issue? Feels more like most people just think it's not fair if they don't know which Rhino to focus fire on. Issues of "not fair" tend to go away when you become a better player.

For some it is to know which to shoot at, but that indicates a situation where they know certain units are already embarked.

For some it is the simply trying to avoid the Rhino Shell Game where they all have internal portals to avoid having their good units lose their ride before their ready.

Timing and communication are what are needed to avoid problems in this area.

Well, the Rhino Shell Game is ridiculously easy to avoid by just agreeing which Rhino is which at the beginning of the game. I can't believe this is even a legitimate concern. Taking 5 seconds to make sure you agree with how your opponent is differentiating Transports at the start of the game is trivial and allays any concerns you might have about potential shenanigans. You'll immediately know if they cheated as soon as they disembark a unit and you see the note they were required to make. Deal with cheaters how you normally would, talk it through and either resolve the issue or find a new opponent.

It seems like the only real concern is wanting to know which Rhino to shoot at to hurt your opponent the most. Coming from a group where we don't tell each other which unit is in which Transport until a disembarkation occurs, claiming that I have to tell you seems a little whiny/needy. You don't get to know my strategies ahead of time. You want to know what's in that Rhino? Light the sucker up and see who crawls out. But again, this second point isn't a rules issue, but a HIWPI/local convention issue. From a rules standpoint, you just have to make a note, presumably so you don't forget. Showing your opponent the note when you disembark seems extremely reasonable to set his mind at ease that you didn't cheat, but isn't actually required by the rules.

I have to agree that the note has to be verifiable some way.

I don't care if its me who gets to verify it, but somebody besides yourself has to be able to look at it and verify that you have satisfied the rule.

If you want to keep the info secret, that's fine, have a friend come in and look and verify that you wrote it down and are sticking to it.

But if there is no one else around, and your opponent asks to verify that you did follow the rule, you are going to have to cough it up.

Alternatively, a house rule could be something like this: you both could agree to set it aside somewhere, and you can look at it as much as you want during the game, but after the game is over, but before the models are picked up, your opponent can look and verify that you had the appropriate squads embarked on the correct vehicles. If you cheated, you lose the game automatically, and never get to play with them hidden again.

nekooni wrote:
claiming that having to tell is clearly rules as written while failing to provide a rule which actually says that.

Its not a written rule, it is a function of all game rules.

With any game all players need to ensure the rules are being followed.

As such when you make a note of which unit embarks all players must be allowed to check if the rule was followed and it was a legal embarkation.

Therefore you MUST tell your opponents what is is which transport.

Yes you do, because you have to tell your oponent what all is in your army and declare what units doing what (such as joining a squad) at the begining of the turn. Meaning you have to declare that your IC is joining unit X and unit X has a dedicated transport that it will be in. Now lets say you take 3 fast atk rhinos with no units other then your IC in them. I beleive you still have to declare what units are embarked when saying what is in play and what is im transports. Otherwise you did not declare and could randomly change your mind... look under the first little bit about setting up on the rule book.

 DeathReaper wrote:

nekooni wrote:
claiming that having to tell is clearly rules as written while failing to provide a rule which actually says that.

Its not a written rule, it is a function of all game rules.

With any game all players need to ensure the rules are being followed.

As such when you make a note of which unit embarks all players must be allowed to check if the rule was followed and it was a legal embarkation.

Therefore you MUST tell your opponents what is is which transport.

Can't wait for the BRB rules quote on that rule.....

kambien wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

nekooni wrote:
claiming that having to tell is clearly rules as written while failing to provide a rule which actually says that.

Its not a written rule, it is a function of all game rules.

With any game all players need to ensure the rules are being followed.

As such when you make a note of which unit embarks all players must be allowed to check if the rule was followed and it was a legal embarkation.

Therefore you MUST tell your opponents what is is which transport.

Can't wait for the BRB rules quote on that rule.....

There isn't one, it is a function of any ruleset. All players, in any given game, must ensure that all of the rules are being followed.

It is like this for all games.

 DeathReaper wrote:

kambien wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

nekooni wrote:
claiming that having to tell is clearly rules as written while failing to provide a rule which actually says that.

Its not a written rule, it is a function of all game rules.

With any game all players need to ensure the rules are being followed.

As such when you make a note of which unit embarks all players must be allowed to check if the rule was followed and it was a legal embarkation.

Therefore you MUST tell your opponents what is is which transport.

Can't wait for the BRB rules quote on that rule.....

There isn't one, it is a function of any ruleset. All players, in any given game, must ensure that all of the rules are being followed.

It is like this for all games.

So when the actual rule tells me to make a note in your world it means I have to immediately show it to you? What then, as has been pointed out, my note said "unit in a transport C" and each of my transports had the letter (different, mmkay?) in the bottom to say which transport it is, you would insist that I must also show you where each of the transports are? If you answer yes, then you need to produce the rule for that.

I have satisfied the rule as written, I have also satisfied your curiosity, why are you still unhappy?

 DeathReaper wrote:

kambien wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

nekooni wrote:
claiming that having to tell is clearly rules as written while failing to provide a rule which actually says that.

Its not a written rule, it is a function of all game rules.

With any game all players need to ensure the rules are being followed.

As such when you make a note of which unit embarks all players must be allowed to check if the rule was followed and it was a legal embarkation.

Therefore you MUST tell your opponents what is is which transport.

Can't wait for the BRB rules quote on that rule.....

There isn't one, it is a function of any ruleset. All players, in any given game, must ensure that all of the rules are being followed.

It is like this for all games.

So when we are playing poker you get to look at my cards to verify that i do not have any jokers in my hand right ? you must be a blast at poker games

 Kriswall wrote:

Well, the Rhino Shell Game is ridiculously easy to avoid by just agreeing which Rhino is which at the beginning of the game. I can't believe this is even a legitimate concern. Taking 5 seconds to make sure you agree with how your opponent is differentiating Transports at the start of the game is trivial and allays any concerns you might have about potential shenanigans. You'll immediately know if they cheated as soon as they disembark a unit and you see the note they were required to make. Deal with cheaters how you normally would, talk it through and either resolve the issue or find a new opponent.

It seems like the only real concern is wanting to know which Rhino to shoot at to hurt your opponent the most. Coming from a group where we don't tell each other which unit is in which Transport until a disembarkation occurs, claiming that I have to tell you seems a little whiny/needy. You don't get to know my strategies ahead of time. You want to know what's in that Rhino? Light the sucker up and see who crawls out. But again, this second point isn't a rules issue, but a HIWPI/local convention issue. From a rules standpoint, you just have to make a note, presumably so you don't forget. Showing your opponent the note when you disembark seems extremely reasonable to set his mind at ease that you didn't cheat, but isn't actually required by the rules.

That's a very narrow view point on the situation. Wouldn't assuming that one is asking just to make sure just to nail a specific unit is as equally reprehensible as assuming the other is doing the Shell Game?

Again, proper communication, including timing, is all that is needed to avoid any problems, including any accusations of cheating. On that, it seems we are agreed.

If you plan on closed lists including Embarked units, you should make sure that is idea is amenable to the other player instead of springing it on them mid-game, even if it is just from prior experience. This is a simple case of sportsmanship.

kambien wrote:
So when we are playing poker you get to look at my cards to verify that i do not have any jokers in my hand right ? you must be a blast at poker games

Not at all a similar situation and a red herring.

However, all players should check the deck before play to ensure the deck is not stacked or missing any cards or have any extra cards...

Naw wrote:


So when the actual rule tells me to make a note in your world it means I have to immediately show it to you?

To ensure compliance with the rules? Yes.

What then, as has been pointed out, my note said "unit in a transport C" and each of my transports had the letter (different, mmkay?) in the bottom to say which transport it is, you would insist that I must also show you where each of the transports are? If you answer yes, then you need to produce the rule for that.

Or I could ask you to show me, or get a mirror and look myself... If you don't show me then I can not verify that the rule has been complied with. no rule in the book needed, it is just verification that all rules are complied with.

I have satisfied the rule as written, I have also satisfied your curiosity, why are you still unhappy?

You may have satisfied the rule as written, but without knowing how can your opponent know that you are not breaking the rules?

Naw - when I roll my say twenty to-hit dice, I will do so in secret. After all, nothing says you have to verify the result. I'll even take a photo and you can check at a time of my choosing

Oh wait, but already those who don't like rules verification say that's not acceptable. But not allowing your opponent to verify your compliance with another rule is perfect fine ?


Naw - follow the embarking rules. Show where you can embark simultaneously. If you fail to specify the transport vehicle then I csnnot verify you may embark either.

Basic function of a rule set.

Except, I wouldn't have said "it's a secret." I'd would have said "4th edition rules say that I don't have to say, and you can't ask, and later editions are silent on the matter."

Had you insisted on the matter, I would have divulged the information.

Your hypothetical response to this strikes me as utterly unsportsmanlike.

You do realize that everything from previous editions are null and void. Stop being TFG and just tell your opponent want inside your transports, dude. You really have no excuse not too unless your playing Alpha Legion.

You guys realize it tells you that you have to show your oponent an army list of they ask so they know what you have. Such as 3 tact squads in rhinos...

Then if you guys would read the rule book on page 166 for Independent Characters it states... " An independemt character can begin the the game already with a unit, either by.... .. ,BY YOU INFORMING YOUR OPONENT WHICH UNIT HE HAS JOINED!

If he is in reserves or in a transport then you MUST inform your oponent.

 DeathReaper wrote:

kambien wrote:
So when we are playing poker you get to look at my cards to verify that i do not have any jokers in my hand right ? you must be a blast at poker games

Not at all a similar situation and a red herring.

However, all players should check the deck before play to ensure the deck is not stacked or missing any cards or have any extra cards...

Its not a red herring , its the exact situation . You are using the guise of "I need to check and make sure you are following the rules , therefore i get to see what you have" for the excuse of seeing what is being held. You could ask to see the note after the unit disembarks or uses weaponry/powers but no you are demanding to see it now completely nullifying the purpose of withholding it ( aka so you don't shoot something squishy/important off the table more making something very slow spend the entire game walking across the table ) . Go try that in a poker game . Tell people to show you their cards to verify they are in compliance with the correct number of cards and making sure they have a card that is from 2 to Ace and of a correct suit.

You even admit it yourself you have ZERO rule basis to do so (so permissive rule set , you don't get to ) , I'm not sure why you are so adamant that you are allowed to

 DeathReaper wrote:

Naw wrote:


So when the actual rule tells me to make a note in your world it means I have to immediately show it to you?

To ensure compliance with the rules? Yes.

And why must it be shown immediately , why can it not be shown when it becomes relevant ? Like when they disembark

 DeathReaper wrote:

What then, as has been pointed out, my note said "unit in a transport C" and each of my transports had the letter (different, mmkay?) in the bottom to say which transport it is, you would insist that I must also show you where each of the transports are? If you answer yes, then you need to produce the rule for that.

Or I could ask you to show me, or get a mirror and look myself... If you don't show me then I can not verify that the rule has been complied with. no rule in the book needed, it is just verification that all rules are complied with.

Stop doing things you don't have permissions to do ! None of that is listed of things you can do in the BRB

 DeathReaper wrote:

I have satisfied the rule as written, I have also satisfied your curiosity, why are you still unhappy?

You may have satisfied the rule as written, but without knowing how can your opponent know that you are not breaking the rules?

kambien wrote:

Because 40k rules are written under the assumption that all rules are followed. Where does the rule book state you are the checker of all rules ? It doesn't !!!. When you can check rules without compromising the game go ahead , but in this situation you cannot do so , how can you verify the contents of the note immediately without knowing the contents of the note ? Its not possibly. Stop doing extra things you have no permission to do that effect the game.

Like all tabletop games, its written in a manner so that both players can be sure at all times that the rules are being followed. There is no exception to this, outside of the excerption you are trying to make for this specific rule right here, which should tell you all you need to know right away. Your opponent checking rules states are being followed isn't compromising the game, you refusing to be transparent with all your models and lists is compromising the game.

 SHUPPET wrote:

kambien wrote:

Because 40k rules are written under the assumption that all rules are followed. Where does the rule book state you are the checker of all rules ? It doesn't !!!. When you can check rules without compromising the game go ahead , but in this situation you cannot do so , how can you verify the contents of the note immediately without knowing the contents of the note ? Its not possibly. Stop doing extra things you have no permission to do that effect the game.

Like all tabletop games, its written in a manner so that both players can be sure at all times that the rules are being followed. There is no exception to this, outside of the excerption you are trying to make for this specific rule right here, which should tell you all you need to know right away. Your opponent checking rules states are being followed isn't compromising the game, you refusing to be transparent with all your models and lists is compromising the game.

There is zero reason to know what unit is inside what transport immediately , since its all written down and can be verified when relevant. Its compromising as soon as he learns the contents of said transports before he opens them up or the units inside takes some sort of action. I am also being 100% transparent with all my models as well . Everything is labeled and put in their proper place. Like i said , go ahead and check compliance with the rules, as long as you get nothing besides the conformation that i have done so , this includes finding out what is inside the transports

kambien wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

kambien wrote:

Because 40k rules are written under the assumption that all rules are followed. Where does the rule book state you are the checker of all rules ? It doesn't !!!. When you can check rules without compromising the game go ahead , but in this situation you cannot do so , how can you verify the contents of the note immediately without knowing the contents of the note ? Its not possibly. Stop doing extra things you have no permission to do that effect the game.

Like all tabletop games, its written in a manner so that both players can be sure at all times that the rules are being followed. There is no exception to this, outside of the excerption you are trying to make for this specific rule right here, which should tell you all you need to know right away. Your opponent checking rules states are being followed isn't compromising the game, you refusing to be transparent with all your models and lists is compromising the game.

There is zero reason to know what unit is inside what transport immediately , since its all written down and can be verified when relevant. Its compromising as soon as he learns the contents of said transports before he opens them up or the units inside takes some sort of action. I am also being 100% transparent with all my models as well . Everything is labeled and put in their proper place. Like i said , go ahead and check compliance with the rules, as long as you get nothing besides the conformation that i have done so , this includes finding out what is inside the transports

its relevant as soon as it becomes you shooting phase and you wish to know the contents of your opponents vehicles. You don't get to hide your dice for a turn, you don't get to hide your list till halfway through a game, you don't get to hide the movement of your units not in transports, not sure why you think you are allowed to hide your models inside transports, especially when the only time you have ever been allowed to do that in the game's history, it was specifically stated in the rules that you could.

 SHUPPET wrote:

kambien wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

kambien wrote:

Because 40k rules are written under the assumption that all rules are followed. Where does the rule book state you are the checker of all rules ? It doesn't !!!. When you can check rules without compromising the game go ahead , but in this situation you cannot do so , how can you verify the contents of the note immediately without knowing the contents of the note ? Its not possibly. Stop doing extra things you have no permission to do that effect the game.

Like all tabletop games, its written in a manner so that both players can be sure at all times that the rules are being followed. There is no exception to this, outside of the excerption you are trying to make for this specific rule right here, which should tell you all you need to know right away. Your opponent checking rules states are being followed isn't compromising the game, you refusing to be transparent with all your models and lists is compromising the game.

There is zero reason to know what unit is inside what transport immediately , since its all written down and can be verified when relevant. Its compromising as soon as he learns the contents of said transports before he opens them up or the units inside takes some sort of action. I am also being 100% transparent with all my models as well . Everything is labeled and put in their proper place. Like i said , go ahead and check compliance with the rules, as long as you get nothing besides the conformation that i have done so , this includes finding out what is inside the transports

its relevant as soon as it becomes you shooting phase and you wish to know the contents of your opponents vehicles. You don't get to hide your dice for a turn, you don't get to hide your list till halfway through a game, you don't get to hide the movement of your units not in transports, not sure why you think you are allowed to hide your models inside transports, especially when the only time you have ever been allowed to do that in the game's history, it was specifically stated in the rules that you could.

But your not shooting a the units inside , your shooting transport X. Why do you think you get to know the contents of the unit before they come on the table or do some sort of action ? Are you not the one who is now gaming the system of checks just to learn of a target that you should have no information about ?
Hiding my dice for a turn ? I'm not sure what dice you think i could possibly hide for a turn where the roll is not relevant to what happening. Maybe the warlord roll ? i'm ok with that . As long as you keep the dice roll available and off to the side to show you didn't cheat , you know for sportsmanship.

kambien wrote:

But your not shooting a the units inside , your shooting transport X. Why do you think you get to know the contents of the unit before they come on the table or do some sort of action ?

But they ARE on the table, they are deployed...

They are not in reserve, they are inside of a transport.

When you embark, you need to make a note, and all players need to be able to verify that rules were followed as such you need to tell your opponent which unit embarked through showing him the note or telling him.

kambien wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

kambien wrote:
So when we are playing poker you get to look at my cards to verify that i do not have any jokers in my hand right ? you must be a blast at poker games

Not at all a similar situation and a red herring.

However, all players should check the deck before play to ensure the deck is not stacked or missing any cards or have any extra cards...

Its not a red herring , its the exact situation .

It is not even close to the same situation.

RAW both players must agree on how this handled before the game begins.
As Kriswall has pointed out repeatedly, putting your notes next to/under/in your transport is a sure way to ensure rules are followed. If that is not agreeable to both sides, you wont play. If being open is not agreeable to both sides, you wont play.

Tournament instances are, of course, the responsibility of the TO

Inb4 "discuss with your opponent"

so now you are saying you are allowed to hide your Warlord rolls as well? Sheesh.

 DeathReaper wrote:


When you embark, you need to make a note, and all players need to be able to verify that rules were followed as such you need to tell your opponent which unit embarked through showing him the note or telling him.

I KNOW your not going to state that and not provide the rules reference to it correct ?

 DeathReaper wrote:

kambien wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

kambien wrote:
So when we are playing poker you get to look at my cards to verify that i do not have any jokers in my hand right ? you must be a blast at poker games

Not at all a similar situation and a red herring.
However, all players should check the deck before play to ensure the deck is not stacked or missing any cards or have any extra cards...

Its not a red herring , its the exact situation .

It is not even close to the same situation.

Part of Poker is the ability to bluff. It's part of the rules to allow you to "Win" a pot without revealing your cards.

That's not a part of 40k. You can't "Bluff" someone into a win in 40k, by rolling dice behind a screen, wagering money on the outcome and then allowing them to forfeit so they don't lose more money.

Your comparison is false.

kambien wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:


When you embark, you need to make a note, and all players need to be able to verify that rules were followed as such you need to tell your opponent which unit embarked through showing him the note or telling him.

I KNOW your not going to state that and not provide the rules reference to it correct ?)

It is actually a function of any ruleset.

Without verifying the rules have been followed there can not even be a game.

All games are like this. There does not need to be a rule saying follow the rules, there does not need to be a rule stating ensure everyone is following the rules, because it is intrinsic to ANY ruleset.

 DeathReaper wrote:

kambien wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:


When you embark, you need to make a note, and all players need to be able to verify that rules were followed as such you need to tell your opponent which unit embarked through showing him the note or telling him.

I KNOW your not going to state that and not provide the rules reference to it correct ?)

It is actually a function of any ruleset.

Without verifying the rules have been followed there can not even be a game.

All games are like this. There does not need to be a rule saying follow the rules, there does not need to be a rule stating ensure everyone is following the rules, because it is intrinsic to ANY ruleset.

So Zero rules support gotcha.
So what does the rules say to do with someone that isn't in compliance with the rules ? Does the rulebook even mention how to handle cheaters ? Are you going to provide ANY rule support for your position ?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 greatbigtree wrote:
Part of Poker is the ability to bluff. It's part of the rules to allow you to "Win" a pot without revealing your cards.

That's not a part of 40k. You can't "Bluff" someone into a win in 40k, by rolling dice behind a screen, wagering money on the outcome and then allowing them to forfeit so they don't lose more money.

Your comparison is false.

But your not bluffing . You can't add things to your army list mid game . Nothing new is being introduced . All the models listed is what was brought. Your opponent knows exactly how many elite squads there are ect , they know how many squads in total there are .

kambien wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

kambien wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:


When you embark, you need to make a note, and all players need to be able to verify that rules were followed as such you need to tell your opponent which unit embarked through showing him the note or telling him.

I KNOW your not going to state that and not provide the rules reference to it correct ?)

It is actually a function of any ruleset.

Without verifying the rules have been followed there can not even be a game.

All games are like this. There does not need to be a rule saying follow the rules, there does not need to be a rule stating ensure everyone is following the rules, because it is intrinsic to ANY ruleset.

So Zero rules support gotcha.
So what does the rules say to do with someone that isn't in compliance with the rules ? Does the rulebook even mention how to handle cheaters ? Are you going to provide ANY rule support for your position ?

"wheres the rule saying I need to follow the rules and my opponent needs to be able to verify it?"

well.... that doesn't need to be a rule... if both players are not sure you are following the rules of 40k, then you are no longer playing 40k...

"ok so zero rules say it, gotcha"


lol.


seems you've made your mind up and now amount of logic will convince you otherwise, I guess now the only thing you need to see is how many opponents you can keep with this attitude.

Are you really asking for rules to tell you how to follow rules

 SHUPPET wrote:
seems you've made your mind up and now amount of logic will convince you otherwise, I guess now the only thing you need to see is how many opponents you can keep with this attitude.

Maybe because i take a very simple approach. They rules need to tell you to do something in order to do it . Do the rules tell you to verify what you opponent does imminently after he does something ?
If he moves a model 5 1/4 inches , do you get up walk over and measure it again to verify ? Even if your sure and it truly doesn't matter ?
Do you verify his entire list when he gives it to you to make sure he has the correct points value , detachment , CAD ect? Do you take the needed hour to go over the list to verify these all these things ?

None of these things are in the rules. 40k is written assuming you do not break the rules, even by accident. We verify these things in the name of sportsmanship , not because they are in the rules ( because they are not in the rules) but because you want to know you are not being cheated or someone hasn't made a mistake and normally when you do do these things , they have no actual impact on game play.

But by demanding to see the note/tracking method before the unit's models touch the table or take any action , you have stopped having zero impact on play and have altered the game (with ZERO rules support to do so) . I have yet to see one person say they would withhold the information past unit performing actions/disembarking . There is no reason in the name of sportsmanship to demand the note before the unit does something on the table.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jokerkd wrote:
Are you really asking for rules to tell you how to follow rules

There are no rules to verify someone is following the rules . The rules don't give permission to cheat so there is no reason to check. Checking to see if someone is cheating has nothing to do with the 40k game , its about sportsmanship. The Must see note crowd is entirely HWIPI and not RAW

kambien wrote:
There are no rules to verify someone is following the rules.

There does not have to be. it is a function of ANY ruleset to have all players make sure no one is cheating.

The rules don't give permission to cheat...

True, but almost all rulesets do not give permission to cheat.

...so there is no reason to check.

False, there is a reason to check. to make sure everyone is in compliance with the rules.

Checking to see if someone is cheating has nothing to do with the 40k game ,

False, you are playing a game, therefore as a function of every ruleset ever you check to see if everyone is following the rules.

its about sportsmanship.

True, but it is also the function of every ruleset ever made.

The Must see note crowd is entirely HWIPI and not RAW

100% false. To ensure everyone is following the rules both players need to ensure that no rules are broken. not just one person.

The rules do not tell you how to roll dice, they do not tell you that you can touch your models, they do not tell you that you how to track lost wounds on a multiple wound creature, but that does not mean you can not do it...

 DeathReaper wrote:

kambien wrote:
There are no rules to verify someone is following the rules.

There does not have to be. it is a function of ANY rule set to have all players make sure no one is cheating.

I know your not making statements again with using the BRB to support you. Please quote the page and the relevant text that allows you to do this. It is a permissive rule set . You do need to be told to do things that are relevant to the game.There is no rules outside the BRB rules.

 DeathReaper wrote:

kambien wrote:
The rules don't give permission to cheat...

True, but almost all rule sets do not give permission to cheat.

Well now that we are all on board that no one is allowed to cheat even by accidentally doing/not doing something what does the rule set say about cheating ? Do we get to flog them in a square ? Throw popcorn down their shirt ? Give them a friendly reminder they messed up ? Anything ? All this checking your doing it has got to be covered in a nice section in the BRB .

 DeathReaper wrote:

kambien wrote:
...so there is no reason to check.

False, there is a reason to check. to make sure everyone is in compliance with the rules.

Feel free to quote the page and paragraph relevant to this statement

 DeathReaper wrote:

kambien wrote:
Checking to see if someone is cheating has nothing to do with the 40k game ,

False, you are playing a game, therefore as a function of every ruleset ever you check to see if everyone is following the rules.

Again , prove it with the BRB.

 DeathReaper wrote:

kambien wrote:
its about sportsmanship.

True, but it is also the function of every ruleset ever made.

Again prove it with the BRB. Just curious , what do these other ruleset even say about cheating ? Is it even covered in their rules beyond "Don't" ?

 DeathReaper wrote:

kambien wrote:
The Must see note crowd is entirely HWIPI and not RAW

100% false. To ensure everyone is following the rules both players need to ensure that no rules are broken. not just one person.

Then there is no reason not to check at a later time when the unit disembarks/performs a action. Your still checking for compliance ( this nifty made up rule that doesn't appear to be a rule in the BRB ) How are you getting around the checking to see the contents of the noted without having permissions to view the contents of the noted. No one seems to have a issue with allowed to check for compliance ( even though no rules exists) , its the issue of viewing the contents without permission to do so .

 DeathReaper wrote:
The rules do not tell you how to roll dice

Quite right , it just specifies a d6 and comes with the word roll.Oh and it specifies me as the one whos rolling. I guess i could use your dice and use my butt cheeks to hold them then drop them and do that to get the dice to roll for a result.

 DeathReaper wrote:
they do not tell you that you can touch your models.

Your right they just specify that i can move my models and do so by placing it a distance away.

 DeathReaper wrote:
they do not tell you that you how to track lost wounds on a multiple wound creature, but that does not mean you can not do it...

Quite right , i use jelly belly jelly beans to track lost wounds . I get to enjoy it more when the model is removed and i can eat the counters

Oh and a side note . i agree with you 100% that this is a red herring. This has nothing to do with compliance. It has everything to do with using a made up a rule to check and see if someone is cheating in order to piggyback and do something they are not told to do to cheat themselves . Until you can come up with a way to check for compliance by viewing the contents of what is noted and still not know what was noted your stuck not being able to . Not only cause a check for compliance doesn't exist in the rule set , but you also are not allowed to view and know the contents of the note .

I do suppose you can invent a time machine , verify whats written on the note , go back in time before you verified it tell yourself its all good and that specific timeline can continue the game but i guess i would need to go too since i would need to verify you didn't disclose the unit inside either.But i'm not sure where you would return to.A new time line or the same one and then have your newerself go back in time to keep the continuity going But i prefer to not bring quantum entanglement theories to my 40k games

kambien wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

kambien wrote:
There are no rules to verify someone is following the rules.

There does not have to be. it is a function of ANY rule set to have all players make sure no one is cheating.

I know your not making statements again with using the BRB to support you. Please quote the page and the relevant text that allows you to do this. It is a permissive rule set . You do need to be told to do things that are relevant to the game.There is no rules outside the BRB rules.

LOL why the hell would the BRB have rules for how to play tabletop games. This is simply how games are played. There's no rule in Monopoly that says you can't hide your diceroll from your opponents, or take a snapshot of the dice to prove at a later date.




also, you are quoting the fact that its a permissive ruleset like it supports your position, when in reality it's the exact opposite. You can't hide any other information from your opponent, why do you think you are allowed to hide dice rolls, Warlord Traits and vehicle contents? Quite simply, you cannot.

 DeathReaper wrote:

nekooni wrote:
claiming that having to tell is clearly rules as written while failing to provide a rule which actually says that.

Its not a written rule, it is a function of all game rules.

With any game all players need to ensure the rules are being followed.

As such when you make a note of which unit embarks all players must be allowed to check if the rule was followed and it was a legal embarkation.

Therefore you MUST tell your opponents what is is which transport.

How many games have you played? Literally any card game disagrees with you. When playing cards you don't get to check the hand of your opponent for whether or not he had any spades left since that would give you an advantage the rules never said you should have. Some card games even have special mechanics that, as an EXCEPTION, allow you to check your opponents cards - not to verify rules compliance but to give you an advantage.

nekooni wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

nekooni wrote:
claiming that having to tell is clearly rules as written while failing to provide a rule which actually says that.

Its not a written rule, it is a function of all game rules.

With any game all players need to ensure the rules are being followed.

As such when you make a note of which unit embarks all players must be allowed to check if the rule was followed and it was a legal embarkation.

Therefore you MUST tell your opponents what is is which transport.

How many games have you played? Literally any card game disagrees with you. When playing cards you don't get to check the hand of your opponent for whether or not he had any spades left.

Again that is not the same situation AT ALL.

Checking the deck before the cards are dealt to see if the deck is stacked would be a close parallel.

Your red herring has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

I find it strange That you can appreciate the idea of a permissive ruleset being a fundamental part of the game without it being explained in the rules, but cant see that following the rules is also fundamental to the game.

 DeathReaper wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

nekooni wrote:
claiming that having to tell is clearly rules as written while failing to provide a rule which actually says that.

Its not a written rule, it is a function of all game rules.

With any game all players need to ensure the rules are being followed.

As such when you make a note of which unit embarks all players must be allowed to check if the rule was followed and it was a legal embarkation.

Therefore you MUST tell your opponents what is is which transport.

How many games have you played? Literally any card game disagrees with you. When playing cards you don't get to check the hand of your opponent for whether or not he had any spades left.

Again that is not the same situation AT ALL.

Checking the deck before the cards are dealt to see if the deck is stacked would be a close parallel.

Your red herring has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

actually what you are trying to show as a close parallel would be checking the players list to make sure its compliant . But what you are triyng to do with checking the contents of the transport is a parralell of trying to view someones hand to see if they are compliant


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SHUPPET wrote:

kambien wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

kambien wrote:
There are no rules to verify someone is following the rules.

There does not have to be. it is a function of ANY rule set to have all players make sure no one is cheating.

I know your not making statements again with using the BRB to support you. Please quote the page and the relevant text that allows you to do this. It is a permissive rule set . You do need to be told to do things that are relevant to the game.There is no rules outside the BRB rules.

LOL why the hell would the BRB have rules for how to play tabletop games. This is simply how games are played. There's no rule in Monopoly that says you can't hide your diceroll from your opponents, or take a snapshot of the dice to prove at a later date.




also, you are quoting the fact that its a permissive ruleset like it supports your position, when in reality it's the exact opposite. You can't hide any other information from your opponent, why do you think you are allowed to hide dice rolls, Warlord Traits and vehicle contents? Quite simply, you cannot.

Ah but a permissive rule set does support my position . This is what happens when you try and do something. When you are attempting to do X , you must show you re allowed to do X . Its very simple . If you are trying to roll a bowling ball across the table , you must show that you are allowed to roll a bowling ball across the table. If you wish to move a modle , you must show the relevent rule to move a model. If i say you cannont move a model i must show a rule that disallowed it after a rule has given you permission to move it . It goes on and on .

So not only is there no rule to check if someone is following a rule , there is still no rule to allow you to look at my notes. You would need to satisfy both of those with rules. Its sorta like deep striking with a transport with assault ramps and trying to assult out of it . Even if you have permission to assault out of a vehicle , you still cannot assault after deep striking.

kambien wrote:

actually what you are trying to show as a close parallel would be checking the players list to make sure its compliant . But what you are triyng to do with checking the contents of the transport is a parralell of trying to view someones hand to see if they are compliant

Not at all.

Your analogy falls flat. It is not the same as checking someones had, because it is not at all the same situation.

Card games and 40K are two completely different types of games therefore you can not draw many parallels between them.

 DeathReaper wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

nekooni wrote:
claiming that having to tell is clearly rules as written while failing to provide a rule which actually says that.

Its not a written rule, it is a function of all game rules.

With any game all players need to ensure the rules are being followed.

As such when you make a note of which unit embarks all players must be allowed to check if the rule was followed and it was a legal embarkation.

Therefore you MUST tell your opponents what is is which transport.

How many games have you played? Literally any card game disagrees with you. When playing cards you don't get to check the hand of your opponent for whether or not he had any spades left.

Again that is not the same situation AT ALL.

Checking the deck before the cards are dealt to see if the deck is stacked would be a close parallel.

Your red herring has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

It's the same.

Checking my MtG deck for compliance is equivalent to you checking my army list for compliance. Which card I actually have on my hand is similar to "which transport contains which unit" in that it is not stated by the rules that you have any obligation to show this to your opponent and doing so gives your opponent an advantage he otherwise would not have had.
You are seeing me drawing X cards at the beginning of the turn and you're free to count them again, but you will only see them face-down.
If I write a note saying "unit X is embarked on Y" and do this three times for three different squads, you're free to count the notes, but you will only see them face-down.

Other card games use "active" cards on the table face-down, I think they're called trap cards in yugioh - you are not allowed to check that it actually is one of these cards unless I say "this is now activated, let me show the card to you now".

And sorry, but you can't claim that "all games work like this" and then say "no no, your examples are different games, THEY don't count!"

---

Oh, and let me reiterate what the "note rule" actually tells you to do: It only tells you to write down that the squad is being transported, so the "status" of the squad is written down. It does NOT, at any point, require you to write down which squad is loaded onto which transport.

 Kriswall wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
Is this a rules issue? Feels more like most people just think it's not fair if they don't know which Rhino to focus fire on. Issues of "not fair" tend to go away when you become a better player.

For some it is to know which to shoot at, but that indicates a situation where they know certain units are already embarked.

For some it is the simply trying to avoid the Rhino Shell Game where they all have internal portals to avoid having their good units lose their ride before their ready.

Timing and communication are what are needed to avoid problems in this area.

Well, the Rhino Shell Game is ridiculously easy to avoid by just agreeing which Rhino is which at the beginning of the game. I can't believe this is even a legitimate concern. Taking 5 seconds to make sure you agree with how your opponent is differentiating Transports at the start of the game is trivial and allays any concerns you might have about potential shenanigans. You'll immediately know if they cheated as soon as they disembark a unit and you see the note they were required to make. Deal with cheaters how you normally would, talk it through and either resolve the issue or find a new opponent.

It seems like the only real concern is wanting to know which Rhino to shoot at to hurt your opponent the most. Coming from a group where we don't tell each other which unit is in which Transport until a disembarkation occurs, claiming that I have to tell you seems a little whiny/needy. You don't get to know my strategies ahead of time. You want to know what's in that Rhino? Light the sucker up and see who crawls out. But again, this second point isn't a rules issue, but a HIWPI/local convention issue. From a rules standpoint, you just have to make a note, presumably so you don't forget. Showing your opponent the note when you disembark seems extremely reasonable to set his mind at ease that you didn't cheat, but isn't actually required by the rules.

i dont have to differentiate identical transports in the same way i dont have to differentiate identical scout squads or tactical marines, or tank formations

Trazer985 wrote:
i dont have to differentiate identical transports in the same way i dont have to differentiate identical scout squads or tactical marines, or tank formations

And Kriswall never claimed that you HAVE to, he just said that it is the easiest solution to put your opponent at ease IF you want to keep the content of your transport secret. It's a suggestion.

nekooni wrote:

It's the same.

No it is not at all the same situation.

I think this has gone around in circles for long enough for now.

Moving on.