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.

So, A Note on Secrecy has been significantly changed this edition.

The standard that lists be shared after the game remains unchanged as is the abscence of any standard from distinguishing one squad from another and in which transports they are embarked. Gone is the full disclosure being the norm for tournaments with zero mention of using tactics versus surprise. Also gone is agreeing to sharing the list before the game, instead now stating during the game, but before deployment.

This was pretty contentious last time, so keep it civil with the assumptions of cheating/shell game.

The few changes to the wording are superficial, the rules handle exactly the same as they did in 5th edition.

I always tell my opponent what has what, and what is doing what. As a courtesy.

Though the wording may have changed, I see the end result as being exactly the same anyway. YOU and your opponent decide exactly how much disclosure to have.
Seeing as this is going to be defined for tournaments anyway, I don't see it being an issue.

The only possibility of imbalance between players is if one person has more to disclose than the other (for instance, I see my opponent's army list yet didn't prepare one myself). But that was still possible under the wording in 5th anyhow.

Well glad to see that I can continue to distinguish my squads by paint jobs and squad marking with coordinated paint jobs and squad markings on my transports.

Brother Ramses wrote:Well glad to see that I can continue to distinguish my squads by paint jobs and squad marking with coordinated paint jobs and squad markings on my transports.

And if you don't disclose what they are or they are not WYSIWYG the game ends because the two players did not agree.

There are no rules for secrecy actually in the rulebook. Not sharing lists is not the same as secrecy.

There are no rules...
*Can I not tell my opponent what I have in reserves?
*Can I not tell my opponent what is in every transport?
*Can I not tell my opponent my wargear combinations?
*Can I not tell my opponent my heavy weapons in a squad?
*Can I not tell my opponent my psychic powers (even though the generation of psychicpowers has to be done explicitly public)
*Can I make every model on the board a cloaked figure so his unit type and weapon loadout is unseen? they are WYSIWYG, but under a Green Stuff cloak.

There are zero actual rules in the rulebook to define secrecy and how it interacts with the game, which means no two people will ever agree the 'correct' way to play it... Which means only when *BOTH* players agree what limits they wish to impose will the game actually get played.

Hence why 100% of games will continue to be full disclosure and open list because the game doesn't function without secrecy 'house rules' which are not define and will never be universial. It makes the whole concept an optional agreement of both players which is how secrecy worked in 5th.If the players don't agree on the depth of secrecy, the game ends.

Your issue from the previous thread is you had in your mind a standard of secrecy you felt was supported by the core rulebook and tried to enforce it on unwilling opponents. Nothing has changed as there is no definition or rules for secrecy in 6th edition... Would have been cool if they added some like the old rules that allowed lictors to be deployed int errain via a token where the opponent didn't know when or if one of those tokens was the lictor... but GW dropped the ball and added nothing to 6th.

So you actually haven't read the new rulebook and A Note on Secrecy? Gotcha.

Brother Ramses wrote:So you actually haven't read the new rulebook and A Note on Secrecy? Gotcha.

I have and it defines no rules... Which means your version of secrecy which you promote still has no rules outside a mutual agreement between two players. No secrets inside transports.

I have a feeling the OP would enjoy Infinity. In that game ,the lists are not revealed as a rule, so you never know if the opponent has some unit outflanking or deep striking.

Warhammer 40k is not like that.

Brother Ramses wrote:So you actually haven't read the new rulebook and A Note on Secrecy? Gotcha.

The thing is, this is one of those situations where the rules will be ignored by the majority of players anyway.

If you're playing someone that you know and trust, then there is no reason that you can't keep a little secrecy in the game. If you're playing a pick-up game, some people will want you to tell them what is in each transport, and/or will want to be able to clearly distinguish individual units from 30 feet away... and others won't care. Discussion is the key here... If you want to keep things secret, and you're opponent doesn't, then you're going to have to reach some sort of compromise if you want to play the game, regardless of what the rules do or don't say.




And tournaments will still require full full disclosure.

It is still the same:

"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 whlch transports" P.118

The underlined still says to always make it clear.

Saying the blue squad is in the rhino marked with a 1 is not making it clear.

DeathReaper wrote:It is still the same:

"To keep things fair, you should always allow your opponent to read your force roster after a garne and always make it clear to your opponent which squads are embarked in whlch transports" P.118

The underlined still says to always make it clear.

Saying the blue squad is in the rhino marked with a 1 is not making it clear.

And you fail to see that it does make clear which squad is embarked in which transport.

The last time this was brought up not a single person could state a rule that defined that wargear was the standard for distinguishing one squad from another. People tried to use the allocation of wounds rule that used wargear/profiles/characteristics to identify one unit from another however that rule does not even exist anymore.

Now even as stated above by someone, people will choose to ignore it and houserule full disclosure. However, per even your own words, no standard for making clear one unit from another has been established, so squad/transport markings is just a viable as wargear composition.

Brother Ramses wrote:so squad/transport markings is just a viable as wargear composition.

Only if you know what those squads are equipped with.

Saying grey Hunter Squad A does not make it clear.

Saying grey Hunter Squad A that has 2 plasma guns, makes it clear.

Brother Ramses wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:It is still the same:

"To keep things fair, you should always allow your opponent to read your force roster after a garne and always make it clear to your opponent which squads are embarked in whlch transports" P.118

The underlined still says to always make it clear.

Saying the blue squad is in the rhino marked with a 1 is not making it clear.

And you fail to see that it does make clear which squad is embarked in which transport.

The last time this was brought up not a single person could state a rule that defined that wargear was the standard for distinguishing one squad from another. People tried to use the allocation of wounds rule that used wargear/profiles/characteristics to identify one unit from another however that rule does not even exist anymore.

Now even as stated above by someone, people will choose to ignore it and houserule full disclosure. However, per even your own words, no standard for making clear one unit from another has been established, so squad/transport markings is just a viable as wargear composition.

It looks to me like you're standing on the definition of "Making it clear" - if your squad markings don't allow me to 100% identify at all times what squad is embarked where and what it's equipped with or if there is the possibility of confusing them at any point in the game, then you have not ''made it clear'' what squad is equipped in which transport.

This is of course not to be confused with your opponent just being bad and forgetting stuff and neglecting to ask what is where. If an opponent forgets something, says "Hey what is in that raider?" and you answer with anything that won't 100% allow them to know for themselves (not your definition of what you felt was clear, but them actually understanding which squad is in the transport) then you have again not 'made it clear'

DeathReaper wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:so squad/transport markings is just a viable as wargear composition.

Only if you know what those squads are equipped with.

Saying grey Hunter Squad A does not make it clear.

Saying grey Hunter Squad A that has 2 plasma guns, makes it clear.

But so does Green Squad is in this Rhino and Black Squad is in that. They don't want shell game tactics is all.

MikeMcSomething wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:It is still the same:

"To keep things fair, you should always allow your opponent to read your force roster after a garne and always make it clear to your opponent which squads are embarked in whlch transports" P.118

The underlined still says to always make it clear.

Saying the blue squad is in the rhino marked with a 1 is not making it clear.

And you fail to see that it does make clear which squad is embarked in which transport.

The last time this was brought up not a single person could state a rule that defined that wargear was the standard for distinguishing one squad from another. People tried to use the allocation of wounds rule that used wargear/profiles/characteristics to identify one unit from another however that rule does not even exist anymore.

Now even as stated above by someone, people will choose to ignore it and houserule full disclosure. However, per even your own words, no standard for making clear one unit from another has been established, so squad/transport markings is just a viable as wargear composition.

It looks to me like you're standing on the definition of "Making it clear" - if your squad markings don't allow me to 100% identify at all times what squad is embarked where and what it's equipped with or if there is the possibility of confusing them at any point in the game, then you have not ''made it clear'' what squad is equipped in which transport.

This is of course not to be confused with your opponent just being bad and forgetting stuff and neglecting to ask what is where. If an opponent forgets something, says "Hey what is in that raider?" and you answer with anything that won't 100% allow them to know for themselves (not your definition of what you felt was clear, but them actually understanding which squad is in the transport) then you have again not 'made it clear'

You are new to this old debate.

The first emboldened part of your comment above can be accomplished by specific squad paint jobs or markings with matching transport paint jobs or markings, which fulfills A Note on Secrecy completely.

The second emboldened part is not part of A Note on Secrecy at all, but is WYSIWYG, which is not even in the new rulebook and only slight referred to with regard to power weapons type and rules being tied to what has been modeled.

Now the truth of the matter is that distinguishing one squad from another via different paint schemes or markings clearly distinguishes one from another. To then further paint transports with the same cooresponding paint schemes or markings even further distinguishes one from another. To say that you can only definitively distinguish one embarked unit from another by wargear composition is at the least being disingenuous, with anything above that just flat out lying.

As has even been pointed out by someone else in this thread, no standard is set for disntiguishing one squad from another. Wargear comparison for wound allocation, which was an attempted standard in 5th is out of the rules now.. WYSIWYG, which didn't even apply to A Note on Secrecy, is also out of the rules now as well. Considering that a method of distinguishing one squad from another exists, without wargear comparison, I find it amusing people are still trying to argue against it.

but obviously your units are WYSIWYG right? and I have to be able to see these special paint jobs which you claim identify which unit is in which transport, otherwise you have failed to inform me which unit is in the transport properly, so then, where is the problem? I will look at "Squad A" or whatever designation you are using and know exactly what it is anyway.

Nothing has changed from 5th. You are making up rules for secrecy as your version of hidden trans ports is your personal interpretation. Unless two players agree, the game ends.

Your personal interpretation has No basis in rules and if you try to enforce that standard on an unwilling opponent you are cheating.

Now you and an opponent can choose to agree and implement your version of secrecy, then everything is ok.

Nothing has changed.

Seriously? This is even a question? Does the 40K rulebook also have to explain how to be social and interact with your opponent?

Lobukia wrote:But so does Green Squad is in this Rhino and Black Squad is in that. They don't want shell game tactics is all.

It only identifies them if the models are displayed on a side table somewhere so the opponent knows what the Green Squad, and the Black Squad look like. Of course with WYSIWYG the opponent can tell exactly what they are armed with because they can see the squad.

Nothing has changed from 5th to 6th in this regard.

Drunkspleen wrote:but obviously your units are WYSIWYG right? and I have to be able to see these special paint jobs which you claim identify which unit is in which transport, otherwise you have failed to inform me which unit is in the transport properly, so then, where is the problem? I will look at "Squad A" or whatever designation you are using and know exactly what it is anyway.

DeathReaper wrote:

Lobukia wrote:But so does Green Squad is in this Rhino and Black Squad is in that. They don't want shell game tactics is all.

It only identifies them if the models are displayed on a side table somewhere so the opponent knows what the Green Squad, and the Black Squad look like. Of course with WYSIWYG the opponent can tell exactly what they are armed with because they can see the squad.

Nothing has changed from 5th to 6th in this regard.

Your idea that models must be on display at all times to verify WYSIWYG is a false assumption. All WYSIWYG forces you to do is make sure purchased upgrades are represented on the model. This fallacy that models needed to be on the side of the table for WYSIWYG inspection was brought up time and time again in 5th edition debates yet not a single person could provide any rules support for it.

I can place a bolter equipped SW with red shoulderpads on a red doored rhino. I can also place a black shouldered SW on a black doored rhino. That has clearly distinguished which squad is embarked in which rhino. You know that red shouldered SW are in the red doored rhino and black shouldered SW are in the black doored rhino. A Note on Secrecy has been completely fulfilled.

WYSIWYG has absolutely NOTHING to do with A Note on Secrecy. WYSIWYG was never meant to distinguish one squad from another, it was only in place to make sure purchased upgrades were represented on the model. That is IT. It doesn't even exist in the 6th edition rulebook anymore, but if it did, it still would have absolutely nothing to do with A Note on Secrecy.

The shell game comparison has now popped up again without any thought as the complexity of actually tring to do it with paint specific distinguished models.

Brother Ramses wrote:

Drunkspleen wrote:but obviously your units are WYSIWYG right? and I have to be able to see these special paint jobs which you claim identify which unit is in which transport, otherwise you have failed to inform me which unit is in the transport properly, so then, where is the problem? I will look at "Squad A" or whatever designation you are using and know exactly what it is anyway.

DeathReaper wrote:

Lobukia wrote:But so does Green Squad is in this Rhino and Black Squad is in that. They don't want shell game tactics is all.

It only identifies them if the models are displayed on a side table somewhere so the opponent knows what the Green Squad, and the Black Squad look like. Of course with WYSIWYG the opponent can tell exactly what they are armed with because they can see the squad.

Nothing has changed from 5th to 6th in this regard.

Your idea that models must be on display at all times to verify WYSIWYG is a false assumption. All WYSIWYG forces you to do is make sure purchased upgrades are represented on the model. This fallacy that models needed to be on the side of the table for WYSIWYG inspection was brought up time and time again in 5th edition debates yet not a single person could provide any rules support for it.

I can place a bolter equipped SW with red shoulderpads on a red doored rhino. I can also place a black shouldered SW on a black doored rhino. That has clearly distinguished which squad is embarked in which rhino. You know that red shouldered SW are in the red doored rhino and black shouldered SW are in the black doored rhino. A Note on Secrecy has been completely fulfilled.

WYSIWYG has absolutely NOTHING to do with A Note on Secrecy. WYSIWYG was never meant to distinguish one squad from another, it was only in place to make sure purchased upgrades were represented on the model. That is IT. It doesn't even exist in the 6th edition rulebook anymore, but if it did, it still would have absolutely nothing to do with A Note on Secrecy.

The shell game comparison has now popped up again without any thought as the complexity of actually tring to do it with paint specific distinguished models.

Wrong. All wrong.

It only fulfills secrecy if both players agree your version of secrecy is how they wish to play it. Your version is not supported by rules and if you refuse to disclose everything, the game ends. Nothing has changed, you are still cheating opponents with your version of secrecy unless both players agree to that level of house rules.

Since so many of your are clinging to vernacular of 5th edition,

5th Edition BRB, pg 92:

A NOTE ON SECRECY

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

Now we move on to what is now the standard.

6th Edition BRB, pg 118

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.

No standard exists on distinguishing one squad from another. That means absolutely anyway that can distinguish one squad from another and what transport they are embarked on is viable. My example if paint jobs or squad markings corresponding the matching transport vehicle. However other examples could just as easily be scraps of paper with matching note, squad/transport tokens, or squad composition cards matched to vehicle composition cards.

If you insist that you cannot see the difference between one color and another, or one number from another, you would be outright lying. To insist that wargear composition is the only standard by which to distinguish, you would be outright lying with absolutely zero rules support. To insist on "full disclosure" which doesn't even exist in the rule anymore as doesn't the agreement to share force rosters before the game would be outright lying with zero rules support.

Now onto the laughable cries of WYSIWYG,

5th Edition BRB, pg 47

"What You See Is What You Get"

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

WYSIWYG is only to ensure that purchased upgrades are represented on the model in question. It is NOT used to distinguish one squad from another. It has absolutely nothing to do with A Note On Secrecy. It also does not even compel you to have you models on the side of the gaming table, on a sideboard, or on display in your model case for "WYSIWYG" inspection by a paranoid opponent. It doesn't even exist in the 6th Edition rulebook, so trying to interject into a RAW conversation is a moot point anyway.

Now I question how exactly some of you are going to look an opponent, a judge, or a TO in the face and honestly say that you cannot tell one color from another or one symbol/number/mark from another? Will it be a completely straight face after what squads are embarked in which transports is explained to you that you will demand to know wargear composition?

There is nothing in the rules that ever allows a paintjob to come into play as an identifier (or ever interact with the rules in any way at all).

A squad consists of models. A model consists of statline + equipment + special rules. In order to answer the question "Which squad?" you must provide these items, because they are the sole constituents of the concept of a squad.

...always make it clear to your opponent which squads are embarked in which Transports.

The difference of opinion is what is the purpose of this rule?

Ramses: To ensure that you cannot switch around units between transports mid-game, but not to make clear to your opponent what they are equipped with before they disembark.

nkelsch: To supplement the WYSIWYG rules, in order that your opponent still "can clearly see what they are facing", even when he can't physically see the models, because they're not on the table.

In my experience, most players and TOs go with the latter interpretation, requiring full disclosure.

I love YMDC and really getting into rules that are unclear or help resolve weird issues.

It makes me sad when it devolves into "hay yall you don't know what i have and you can't make me cuz the book said this so zog off." Courtesy goes a long way in a world populated by selfish jerks, no insinuations on people posting in this thread.

He fixed it

My bad! Fixed.

Mannahnin wrote:My bad! Fixed.

No biggie :-)

Altruizine wrote:There is nothing in the rules that ever allows a paintjob to come into play as an identifier (or ever interact with the rules in any way at all).

A squad consists of models. A model consists of statline + equipment + special rules. In order to answer the question "Which squad?" you must provide these items, because they are the sole constituents of the concept of a squad.

What dark smelly orifice did you pull this one out of because no such standard exists. However, I do know that in the two codexes closest to me (BA/SW), there are entire sections detailing how colors and symbols are used to distinguish one squad from another quite elaborately.

And as to your first sentence, there are no rules whatsoever on distinguishing one squad from another. The standard is set by the players as to what constitutes a difference between on unit and another. You can try and demand wargear composition, but being clearly distinguished by any other way is just as viable per the rules and equally supported by the rules.

Mann, do you even understand the ramifications and required logistics of switching around units midgame based on paint/symbols/markings? Do you understand that in regard to identification by wargear composition all a player has to do is lie?

Scenario 1:

I tell you wargear comp of one unit embarked and wargear of another unit embarked. I just switch them out midgame and when you complain, I just lie and say no, that is not what I said. We go back and forth and it just becomes a he said, she said argument. Who does the TO/judge believe and what proof does he have to make that decision?

Scenario 2.

I give you a color scheme for one unit embarked and a different color scheme for another unit embarked. To pull a switcheroo with just one special weapon, I would have to have the replacement special weapon painted in a different color scheme and the alternative special weapon painted in a different color scheme. Now that only works if the two units are then completely identical in every single other aspect. Take SW as a prime example;

Red painted GH pack has two plasma guns, a power axe, and a plasma pistoll. Green painted GH pack has two melta guns, a power fist, and a model with Mark of the Wulfen. To pull the switcheroo I would need to have the following additional models painted up;

Two red painted melta gunners red painted power fist model, red painted Mark of Wulfen model, two green painted plasma gunners, green painted power axe model, and green painted plasma pistol mode.

That would be the only possible way to maintain the cheat. Now apply that to 3-6 GH packs, all differently colored and with different wargear loadouts. Logistically the con is not worth it and is easily discovered when challenged by a TO/judge to reveal a miniature case.

So as I have said even back in 5th edition debates,

Wargear identification to distinguish squads: Bypassed by simply lying about cheat with zero proof to verify cheat occured.

Symbols/paintjobs/markings to distinguish squads: Logistical nightmare to cheat and cheating verifiable by miniature case inspection.

So the questions begs to be asked,

When a more secure method of ensuring that switching units does not happen and if it does happen it can be verified, why insist on a less secure method?

The simplest explanation would be that demanding wargear composition of embarked squads has absolutely nothing to do with preventing cheating and everything to do with garnering a tactical advantage at deployment.