Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Is there a rule stating that you must divulge what squad is inside each of your transport vehicles?

Or can you have some squads deploy outside their transports, and use these empty ones as 'decoys' to pull fire away from your transports that deployed with guys inside?

Obviously once a unit embarks into a transport, your opponent knows what got in.

TakeABow wrote:Is there a rule stating that you must divulge what squad is inside each of your transport vehicles?

Yes. Page 92

Yes, unless you agree otherwise.

I once played a guy that asked if he needed to divulge what was inside. We agreed to not require it.

He then placed markers on each of his rhinos and when he later would pull out a unit from under the table to deploy, he would show me the matching marker underneath his sergeants base to show me that while we would not divulge what was in the transports, he was keeping it honest if I was to destroy a transport with a valuable unit inside.

no you cant have transports without units in them because they ae taken as OPTIONS remember this. i tryed this with my friends without knowing about the options thing and i didnt go down well :(

Thanks for the quick response, I didn't have a copy of the rulebook handy, but DakkaDakka on my phone saves the day.

^I'm about 99% sure you can take a dedicated transport, but not deploy the unit inside it at the start of the game.

(you can't take a dedicated transport without it 'belonging' to a squad though - and only the unit it was taken with can start deployed inside it.)

@ Taylor: It is legal to purchase a transport for a squad, then deploy the squad on the table. Voila, you have a decoy.


Also, if you do play that what's in transports is secret (this requires opponent's consent, as per page 92), you MUST write down or otherwise mark what squads are in what transports so that things are kept honest, as in brother ramses example.

taylorton147 wrote:no you cant have transports without units in them because they ae taken as OPTIONS remember this.

Nothing forces you to actually use the transport you bought as an option for a squad... The only restriction is that only the squad that bough it may start the game onboard.

taylorton147 wrote:no you cant have transports without units in them because they ae taken as OPTIONS remember this. i tryed this with my friends without knowing about the options thing and i didnt go down well :(

This may not entirely be true.

It is most definetly true if the transport vehicle you speak of is also a Dedicated Transport (and this would be noted in the Codex - IE The Rhino, Razorback and Drop Pod are all Dedicated Transport for Space Marines)
Dedicated Transports cannot be purchased on their own. They are always an 'upgrade' to a unit.

And like Orkestra stated.... when transport and unit are deployed.... the unit does not have to deploy embarked in their dedicated transport.

Otherwise, vehicles such as the Land Raider are transports also, but are not dedicated. Therefore, they could be deployed without any unit embarked within it...as well as be purchased by themselves - as opposed to being purchased as an upgrade to a unit. (Land Raiders do become Dedicated Transports when purchased as such with a Terminator unit).


Tsannik

taylorton147 wrote:no you cant have transports without units in them because they ae taken as OPTIONS remember this. i tryed this with my friends without knowing about the options thing and i didnt go down well :(

Again, that is between you and your friends. Nothing states you must deploy within your transport. The only rule is you can not deploy a unit within another units dedicated transport. The exception being an IC attacked to the squad it was bought for.

Its raining and I made a typo.

Orkestra wrote:Also, if you do play that what's in transports is secret (this requires opponent's consent, as per page 92), you MUST write down or otherwise mark what squads are in what transports so that things are kept honest, as in brother ramses example.

Fine as a house rule, but there is no rule requiring you to do this. Which is exactly why so many people don't like keeping it secret.

The Note on Secrecy on page 92 is not a rule.
It's a note with 'you should's' in it.
The last words in the 'rule' are 'the choice is yours'.

That said, most people (including me!) do prefer to play with no secrets, but it's something that's agreed on, it's not RAW.

InquisitorBob wrote:The Note on Secrecy on page 92 is not a rule.
It's a note with 'you should's' in it.
The last words in the 'rule' are 'the choice is yours'.

That said, most people (including me!) do prefer to play with no secrets, but it's something that's agreed on, it's not RAW.

"you should always" is not a gentle suggestion.

Didn't we just have this thread... like 3 times within the last week?

Gorkamorka wrote:Didn't we just have this thread... like 3 times within the last week?

Yes, we did. I'm making a mental note to add it to a "Please do not ask these in YMTC look here are the 7008 previous threads on it" list for when/if we ever get such a sticky.

If you're tired of responding to the same old questions, there is nothing forcing you to respond... If you don't, someone else will.

Just saying.

insaniak wrote:If you're tired of responding to the same old questions, there is nothing forcing you to respond... If you don't, someone else will.

Just saying.

What? I thought we were search Nazis!

Question: it says in SM codex that you may take a rhino or razorback, but it just says 'may select' it doesn't have to deploy INSIDE the transport, does it?

Unless I'm wrong and they've errat'd this.

I think it'd be cool to deploy an extra HS option without paying for it in FOC. (razorback)
what, really holds you to taking the squad inside the transport?

it's a bit confusing to me, maybe I'm being a RAW TFG, but I'm pretty sure I could claim this as a legal deployment.

Page 67 tells you what you can do with dedicated transports.

Captain Solon wrote:
I think it'd be cool to deploy an extra HS option without paying for it in FOC. (razorback)
what, really holds you to taking the squad inside the transport?

What do you mean by that "sentence"?
Your wholesale murder of the written language makes it a bit hard to understand.

Steelmage99 wrote:

Captain Solon wrote:
I think it'd be cool to deploy an extra HS option without paying for it in FOC. (razorback)
what, really holds you to taking the squad inside the transport?

What do you mean by that "sentence"?
Your wholesale murder of the written language makes it a bit hard to understand.

"I think it's useful that you can take a Razorback as a dedicated transport, because I feel it worth a Heavy Support slot, so it is nice to be able to take one without using a Heavy Support slot. It doesn't tie the squad that bought it down, because I am not obliged to place the squad in the transport."

Translation complete.

Pika_power wrote:

insaniak wrote:If you're tired of responding to the same old questions, there is nothing forcing you to respond... If you don't, someone else will.

Just saying.

What? I thought we were search Nazis!

If a topic is one that tends to spawn multi-page threads, then yes, suggesting a search for a previous discussion is an appropriate response.

If a question is about a straightforward rule and easily answered with a page reference, there is no reason to not simply answer it and move on.

If you see a thread entitled 'Do I have to tell my opponent what's in my transports' and you have answered that question 3 times already today and are sick of the question, just don't open the thread and save yourself the irritation... let someone else answer it.

People will ask questions. That's what the forum is for.

On a personal note, I think telling whats in transports is kinda lame... I think its to keep people on the straight and narrow, but it gives people target priority which I feel makes the game kinda lame. If I have 2 land raiders telling my opponent which one has abaddon kinda kills the "surprise!" of it... I always thought the point of transports was to roll across the field, your foe shooting at whatever one presents the best opportunity, not "Unload on the red rhino, it has berserkers!" or "pop the left land raider its got wolf guard!" Kinda ruins it a bit, thats why me and my gaming group always agree to not tell. Just one of the issues I have with the game. In a tourney I can understand it, but for casual play it shouldn't be required. You could tell if someones cheating if their HQ or whatever doesn't pop out until the last transport (unless your bad at guessing)

Zid wrote:On a personal note, I think telling whats in transports is kinda lame... I think its to keep people on the straight and narrow, but it gives people target priority which I feel makes the game kinda lame.

It's no different to your opponent being able to tell your other units apart on the table.

If I have 2 land raiders telling my opponent which one has abaddon kinda kills the "surprise!" of it...

Frankly, the way the 40K fluff is set up, there really shouldn't be any surprise in it... Abaddon would be getting out of the more ornate Land Raider bearing his personal iconography...

I always thought the point of transports was to roll across the field, your foe shooting at whatever one presents the best opportunity, not "Unload on the red rhino, it has berserkers!" or "pop the left land raider its got wolf guard!"

The point of transports is to give your infantry units a lightly faster movement. Not to play shell games. Yes, your opponent will shoot at the one that presents the greatest threat. They'll do that with all your other units, too... It's not specific to transports.

You could tell if someones cheating if their HQ or whatever doesn't pop out until the last transport (unless your bad at guessing)

...or unless that happens to be the transport that the HQ was in to begin with.

Zid wrote: Just one of the issues I have with the game. In a tourney I can understand it, but for casual play it shouldn't be required. You could tell if someones cheating if their HQ or whatever doesn't pop out until the last transport (unless your bad at guessing)

The issue is the game is not designed for this, and the drastic unbalancing impact this type of house rule has on the game makes it pretty much makes it unfair for a heavy transport army to play any army that doesn't use a lot of transports. And these transport units are getting a drastic boost in effectiveness without paying for it in points. A Shell game is not tactics or game enhancement, and 'priority' lists are by no means cut and dry and often people still have to make hard choices without this abuse of 'secrecy'.

The only way this type of play would be fair is if all units regardless of type could take advantage of deploying in a secret way until 'discovered' in some way or transports became more expensive in points.

Anything else is a joke. How good a player are you when you field 8 rhinos and hide all your units but can see 100% of your opponent's units because he happens to use foot-based units. I guess when you say "Kinda ruins it a bit" I assume that means "harder to win without a gamebreaking advantage in your favor."

nkelsch wrote:

Zid wrote: Just one of the issues I have with the game. In a tourney I can understand it, but for casual play it shouldn't be required. You could tell if someones cheating if their HQ or whatever doesn't pop out until the last transport (unless your bad at guessing)

The issue is the game is not designed for this, and the drastic unbalancing impact this type of house rule has on the game makes it pretty much makes it unfair for a heavy transport army to play any army that doesn't use a lot of transports. And these transport units are getting a drastic boost in effectiveness without paying for it in points. A Shell game is not tactics or game enhancement, and 'priority' lists are by no means cut and dry and often people still have to make hard choices without this abuse of 'secrecy'.

The only way this type of play would be fair is if all units regardless of type could take advantage of deploying in a secret way until 'discovered' in some way or transports became more expensive in points.

Anything else is a joke. How good a player are you when you field 8 rhinos and hide all your units but can see 100% of your opponent's units because he happens to use foot-based units. I guess when you say "Kinda ruins it a bit" I assume that means "harder to win without a gamebreaking advantage in your favor."

This is true, which is why I said I understand the rule. Its subject to abuse otherwise, but when you play with the same guys every week for the last year ya'll have a kinda bond of trust lol

It's not a trust issue at all, i just dont like giving my friend an advantage.

I guess im a detail nazi here .... I have unit marking on my transports( rhinos/ razorbacks) that goes with the Squad so if i have rhin0/ razor back 3, and 5 on the table , you will see squads 3 and 5 there, and each squad is combat squaded out too. So if you see only half the men on the table you can guess were the other half at..

I actually color coated my rhinos (red = zerkers, green = PM's, silver = normal marines or plague marines depending on my list)

the idea of the rule was to stop any possibility of the opponent cheating, as you have those from time to time, lets take the CSM landraider, as Zid had used, he has abbadon in one and say a squad of termies in the other, whats to say that the opponent blows up the one with abbadon in it, how could we make sure that zid actually uses the one with abadon in it, for all we know it really could be the LR with abaddon in it but he doesn't want abadon to be killed to he sends out his termies instead, thus cheating. how is that fair to the other player?

Now im not saying that zid is in any way a cheater, but the rule is there as to stop people from cheaply protecting their more valued models.

however it does not flow properly, i mean what army in their right mind would tell the other army where his commander is

the idea with most of the 40k rules was not to make a realistic game as such but one that trys to let people play a game on level terms.

As long as you want to talk realism....virtually all armies would let you know which one was the command vehicle. In the 40k universe commanders are flamboyant, their vehicles will be more ornate and more wildly decorated. In the real world the command vehicle will tend to have upgraded commo gear. So yes it often would be possible to pick out the command vehicle.



Sliggoth