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.

Boggy79 wrote:

AegisGrimm wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you want to set wargear composition as the standard,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

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

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

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

Brother Ramses wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

daedalus wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The rulebook states that 40k isnt a guessing game.

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

Its not a guesing game rofl

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BR - and, as pointed out:

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

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

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

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

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

Feel free to not respond, it will be ignored.

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

nosferatu1001 wrote:BR - and, as pointed out:

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

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

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

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

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

Feel free to not respond, it will be ignored.

Actually no Nos, that isn't the point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

kronk wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

DeathReaper wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Let me get this straight,

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

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

And reply with,

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

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

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is on P.92 of the rules.

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

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

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

Agreed.

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

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

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

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

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

"Which Farseer has the Runes of Warding?"

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

Works two ways.

Iranna.

Brother Ramses wrote:Let me get this straight,

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

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

And reply with,

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

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

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

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

DeathReaper wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:Let me get this straight,

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

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

And reply with,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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