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.

Around here we mostly play with closed lists following the rules in the BGB. However my question is, if one is playing like that and one brings a unit onto the board, must one declare every single upgrade, piece of weaponry, etc that is not WYSIWYG ?
I would say yes and that is how I have always played, but recently an opponent didn't declare his melta bombs and after destroying my tank claimed that he didn't have to. The same was done with upgrades bought for a Chaos Lord.

So, does one have to make sure that the opponent knows of all the upgrades, weapons, etc on a unit when it comes into play (be this disembarking from a transport or coming into play out of reserve or deployment or any other means) ? And is the opponent allowed to ask what weapons are what, even if they are WYSIWYG ?

I'm just trying to make a fair game following the rules and not be ****** by someone claiming he doesn't have to declare stuff.


Thanks

I would say that yes, you need to clarify anything which is not (or cannot be) represented on the model if your opponent asks you.. it is a gray area in the case of things like Meltabombs because your opponent will target them with higher priority if they know what they can do, but I also consider it unfair and unsportsmanlike to NOT tell your opponent of anything he should be aware of.

I also say yes to your opponent being able to ask what is what, WYSIWYG or not. I typically (well, back when I played) honored any request to clarify what a model/unit/vehicle/etc. had even if it was obvious.

I usually make a point of asking "so what do they have on them" for each unit that comes on.

As for having to declare anything not wysiwyg. Certain things are hard, even if he had modeled grenades, how were you to know they were melta not frag?

Usually I will say things like "These pathfinders are FCW and have Pulse Rifles not carbines" (doesn't happen often but sometimes needed if I run troop heavy tau) also I have some AC terminators with thunderhammers and just note "count as chainfist" (long story on why)

Basically, I have nothing really helpful to add but I wouldn't begrudge my opponent for not noting that they had melta-bombs on the models and just chalk it up to "next time remember to ask"

Oh, as a note, I WILL often ask "so is there ANYTHING that can bust my tanks in there?" And often have opponents ask the same which works out alright too.

As a rule of thumb it is only common courtesy to explain what the unit is when they appear on table. WYSIWYG is tough even with standard models (how do I model furious charge on my blood angels?). Failing that a player should be very willing to explain the unit when asked. If that is refused then any "hidden" upgrades like your opponents meltabombs should be nullified unless he can prove it on a written list or something.

As with anything, enforcing this could go both ways. You may be the one that gets called the jerk if you refuse to allow him to use his upgrades even though the fault lies with him.

This brings up an interesting point to me. How often do you guys see pre-made army lists or closed lists like Mephet'ran describes? Personally, I create a few lists printed out on paper at varying point sizes, but innevitably someone wants to play an odd point value game. I always have my laptop on me though so I just fire up armybuilder and create one there. I always allow anyone else to use the Lappy too if they need to make a list. I must see at least half of the people using scraps of paper and pencils to make their lists right there on the table though.

If your model isn't WYSIWYG, and the rules call for it, such a "every vehicle upgrade must be represented on the vehicle" or something like that, and you have upgrades on your vehicle that you haven't modelled, you have a moral obligation to tell your opponent what upgrades you failed to model.

You are breaking a very minor rule, and while it's not a huge deal, if you do not immediately declare the unmodelled upgrades upon the unit's deployment, I don't see how that could not be construed as cheating.

I've played at places with both sets of conventions--both declaring and not declaring--so I just go with whatever the local custom is. But I've never played against anybody who didn't volunteer the information at least about models that weren't wysiwyg or that were slight proxies or variations, and that seems like common courtesy to me.

As a sportsmanship thing I would never ask if a model had something that wasn't obvious like meltabombs, but I might ask if something obvious like the giant blue sword represented a power weapon. Personally I find it more fun to be surprised about what that daemon prince is gifted with.

Where I play we always use closed lists and most people use pretty much the same list week to week with maybe some minor tweaks if they're trying to tune it for tournament play or something. All-comers lists are the rule and the consensus is that if you keep changing a list, you never get good with that army. So you also pretty much get to know everybody else's army after a little while.

stuff like melta bombs should be declared but once again its simpler if you ask the opponent what each squad has.

The rules DO say that grenades (Which includes melta bombs) do not need to be modeled.

I don't really care what needs to be modelled or not, whats important is that he has to declare everything the unit has. No magically conjuring Melta bombs just before assaulting me or suddenly having Rune on his lord after it has been wounded by a Railgun shot.

Posted By Mephet'ran on 11/23/2006 11:45 AM
I don't really care what needs to be modelled or not, whats important is that he has to declare everything the unit has. No magically conjuring Melta bombs just before assaulting me or suddenly having Rune on his lord after it has been wounded by a Railgun shot.

Why do I have to declare anything? Can't I just plonk the unit on the table and say "Your turn to deploy!" ?

I'm not concerned about what is "nice" or "sportsmanlike"....I'm looking for a rule.

with that attitude I doubt you would get many games. Its supposed to be fun, and you are supposed to be sportmanlike, its the cornerstone to the game. Its not about how big your cahoonas are. Nobody should feel like there manhood is at stake if they are not ultra competitive. (your playing with toy soldiers) And if people feel that winning is all that counts go seek therapy

 

I ran a tournament once where the guys were deploying...and the one player was blind. He can see shapes and thats about it. So everytime the opponent puts down a unit he asks what it is, etc, since he can't read army lists.

In the final game, for the win of the tournament pretty much, he asks as usual, and his opponent goes, you don't need to know until it matters.

I didn't give out sportsmanship cards because the players always gave each other high marks....(One of them even said it was a joke doing them), so there was no way for the blind player to judge his opponent. I was tempted to dock points on the side but the blind player won the game and the tournament anyway.

 

Interesting story, I'm glad the blind guy won!

But I bet his painting sucked.

probably about as good as my painting I suppose?

Hey,

Beef wrote:
"with that attitude I doubt you would get many games."

SM's attitude is perfectly legal: BGB pg81 "A note on secrecy..."

Disclosing Unit details, while not strictly forbidden, is definitely optional.

It's a poor attitude to say that anyone declining the option is a cheat.

I'll cheerfully submit a very nice army list *after* the match.

Until then, opponents will just have to roleplay a little . . .


Playa

Well, I get rather pissed off when they use 'counts as' and claim it's WYSIWYG...For instance-
I was playing the store manager at a GW store. He kept on repeating that everything was WYSIWYG...But once his chainsword-armed commander charged me, he suddenly had a power weapon...

Posted By beef on 11/23/2006 11:22 PM
with that attitude I doubt you would get many games. Its supposed to be fun, and you are supposed to be sportmanlike, its the cornerstone to the game. Its not about how big your cahoonas are. Nobody should feel like there manhood is at stake if they are not ultra competitive. (your playing with toy soldiers) And if people feel that winning is all that counts go seek therapy

And in all that, you didn't manage to come up with a rule saying I have to declare anything.

Don't get me wrong. I'm as nice and sportsmanlike as the next player. I loathe the elitist "win-at-all-costs" attitude. For that very same reason, I have stopped wasting time with tournaments. I play in a group of 6 people (representing some 20-odd armies) and we have a lot of fun playing this game.

BUT.......somebody shouldnt state the fact; "you have to declare everything...." without backing it up with a rule. Said person should make it very clear that this is his oppinion and carries value as such.

Posted By Steelmage99 on 11/23/2006 2:04 PM

Why do I have to declare anything? Can't I just plonk the unit on the table and say "Your turn to deploy!" ?

I'm not concerned about what is "nice" or "sportsmanlike"....I'm looking for a rule.

The rule is found in every codex, where it says that "you cannot field models that are equipped with weapons and wargear not shown on the model" (wording taken from the Eldar codex, as an example).


So while you don't have to officially "declare" what your models have on them, you do have to have absolutely everything you've equipped your models with plainly modeled so both sides can see and recognize them.

As most players don't want to waste their time modeling grenades (especially since GW hasn't made a standard template for what a Melta-bomb looks like to my knowledge), it's a whole lot easier just to declare what your unit is equipped with.

But not SM traits as they're not weapons or wargear.

Well, a lot of codices have upgrades which are virtually impossible to model, such as psychic powers, vet skills, and the like. No one expects you to model something inside a guy's head.

That said, creative modeling can sometimes allow you to represent things. For example, in the entry for the Space Marine Trait which gives them Preferred Enemy against a particular race, they say you should model the marines with trophies from that race.

AFAIK WYSIWYG only applies to weapons, vehicle upgrades, and wargear. So things like daemonic gifts, skill, and psychic powers, which are neither,do not need to be modelled. Grenades are wargear, but are generally depicted by the plethora of pouches, bags, pockets, nubs, etc. on a model. Models not correctly modelled are illegal. Tournaments may alter the requirements.

Personally, anything that I think may cause confusion or isn't clearly modelled I explain. This goes so far as to explain discrepencies between old and new models (for example, the old blastmasters look nothing like the new). Since deception is not part of my required tactics for 40k and I enjoy a "clean" game, I have no incentive to try to be "sneaky" (oh no! you know my units have power weapons! ;-)). Further, in many tournaments and leagues, you must play with an open list anyway, so I believe it benefits a player to be able to function in that setting.

I think the only time I dont come out and say this is this is when I have a daemonvessel. I personally think its obvious when a str 8 power sword swings at you. Thats a fun "hidden" unit. If you dont know why my only HQ is hanging out with mutants well, I guess thats part of the surprise.

I also spread out my icons so my daemons coming in will be a surprise. I think thats the only true deception in my gaming. Then again, its only part of the tactics of the army. I even pop the clips and break the chainswords of my zombie guardsmen to make it clear to the other player. I guess the only things I dont model on my units are marks and grenades. After play testing them enough I have just switch to using the appropriate colors of the cults they belong to with a black and gold pauldron to show thier affiliation with my legion. So Death Guard and World Eaters armor colors with only the right pauldron black and gold.

I don't thin I understand what you're posting. Icons need to be represented on the models, at least according to the Chaos Codex. Are you saying you don't model them to suprise your opponent? The main thing I don't like about this (and I'm not saying you do this) is I play folks who don't have icons modelled and it seems whatever model I do kill (including the Aspiring Champion), I never seem to kill the Icon Bearer. Mind War/Torrent of Fire type attacks is something I'm always using to get rid of icon bearers. They don't want to tell me which model has the icon, and this is when I show them the codex ruling. It can detract from the game constantly having to watch out for opponents who don't use the WYSIWYG.

Please reread my post.

Personaly ,I will demand a disclosure. Its only fair.. if not its easy for me to pick up and move to another table.

And on what grounds would you "Demand" a disclosure?
Fairness has nothing to do with it.

Don't get me wrong. I am fully into WYSIWYG and model everything on my models including grenades, Marks, pretty much anything I can (have yet to find a way to model all the Veteran-skills, but working on it.)

But...

During deployment, I'll happily put a Rhino/Trukk/Devilfish on the table saying; "My Sisters/Trukk-boyz/Tau start inside the vehicle".
Unless the tournament/house-rules insures we play with open lists, there is nothing you can do about it.

Unless you come up with a rule (and Yakface got it wrong), I'm going to "demand" you only play with half your list.

Its common courtesy to show eachother thier lists. A player who refuses such a simple request isnt worth my time. IT shows me they are there for more than just playing and having fun and are taking it way to serious. I have learned over the years from RT days all the way to 4th that players who ninypick such an issue make for a tense and unfriendly game. I dont like playing against players like that so I will kindly back out and find another player. Its not a thing about winnig and losing for me, its the Story, history and Flavor of 40k that is the draw, I like to see what other people play and how they use it on the tabletop. Sneaky players ruin it for me. sorry!

 

Edit: I would like to say its has only happend 4 times since i have been playing 40k that this has occured. The vast majority of players usualy let me see thier list after explain it to them on how i see the game and we usualy end up having a fun game and exciting battles once they realize im not a table top head hunter. Perhaps the word "demand" in my previous post was too strong.

It was a little strong. Is it every match that you request to see the list?

Maybe its just me but the excitement is the surprise to see what they put out. Sure, we all metagame in 40k but being able to review the list in its entirety could take it to a whole new level of metagaming. Sure, there are intelligence reports and all that in real militaries but knowing the color of the commander's socks is a bit over the top. So, how often do you make the opposing player tell you where his daemonvessel is hiding?

Having faith in the other player is also a big aspect of the "friendly" game. You are assuming they are honest, not recalculating thier points in front of them. I never bother to ask for lists or show mine unless asked by the opponent. I would be a bit surprised if I was asked to see my list. I would then assume something is up and they do not believe what I am telling them. In essence, calling me out.

Now, when I deploy and play my list sits on my side of the table out in the open. I leave it out because Im lazy and want to be sure Im deploying right and I normally have stats there too for quick reference. I guess with me the rule of being a little secretive makes me make my models better and makes fog of war / element of surprise something still available in a game that is metagamed down to having whole battles figured out move by move after 3rd turn.

Posted By Playa on 11/24/2006 5:11 PM

Hey,

Beef wrote:
"with that attitude I doubt you would get many games."

SM's attitude is perfectly legal: BGB pg81 "A note on secrecy..."

Disclosing Unit details, while not strictly forbidden, is definitely optional.

It's a poor attitude to say that anyone declining the option is a cheat.

I'll cheerfully submit a very nice army list *after* the match.

Until then, opponents will just have to roleplay a little . . .


Playa

He didn't say they were cheating. He said they were having a cranial/rectal inversion and wouldn't get many opponents with an attitude like that. I agree.

If you have the attitude, then its WYSIWYG time.  Everything besides grenades has to be modeled.  I believe that includes such things as melta bombs but don’t have a copy of the rules here to verify. If its not, I’d call you out publicly about your cheating behavior, because at that point it is cheating.  If not playing friendly, you’ll get treated as an unfriendly legalistic player.  

I don't mind playing against an opponent who does not reveal their list, if I know that opponent.  At that point its legal and can make an interesting game.

Having said that, its only common courtesy to recite, or at least answer a query concerning what a unit or model has when it comes on the board.  Saying "its WYSIWYG" and you don't have to say anything reveals where you're coming from.  At that point it goes from friendly game to defeating you at all costs and then never playing you again.