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.

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.