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.

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

Then please show me that the standard for identification is pointing out the squad? No one has yet to show me the RAW that equipment and now your point, of showing the squad, is the standard for identification.

Designation of each squad by whatever means, is fulfillment of making them clearly distinguished from each other. It may not be the detailed information you want, but it still clearly distinguishes one from another.

Oh god, this thread again. How painful. :(

Okay, what is the standard for identification? I've seen no provision for "naming squads" "Unit A" or "Squad B" or anything of the like anywhere in any of the rules. The only things in the rules that allow you to express identification (that is, a semblance of 'uniqueness') in the game are the following:

- wargear
- unit type (veterans, storm troopers, tac squad)
- model count (10 man tac squad vs. 5 man tac squad)

Nothing in the rules cares about or even makes allowances for unit names, otherwise, I'd be able to hand you a piece of paper with letters and point costs corresponding to my model's shoulderpads and tell you that I've expressed my model list in the form of my army on the board. You can follow the corresponding key to find out how much each individual one costs. I could try to rationalize that, but I'd just be being an ass.

The rule talks about things to do "to keep things fair", then it says, "in the same spirit, ALWAYS make clear". First off, if you're shell gaming the units behind labels and symbols and other such things, then you're not operating in the same spirit, and there's no way you can possibly argue otherwise. Secondly, "Unit A" doesn't '"always make clear", because it's not clear to me what "Unit A" is anymore than farting every time I ask you what's in the first Rhino, belching when I ask you what's in the second Rhino, and wiping your cheeto stained fingers off on your shirt when I ask you what's in the third Rhino does.

That's what sharing lists are for at the end, so that you can see what happened and the exact wargear/breakdown of each unit.

The rule is to keep people from playing the shell game. If Joe has the designated holding pens for each transport and only has the models that are in the transport in the holding pen for that transport, he is fine. If there is no way to distinguish between the models or he is just pulling them out of 1 box, then there is some potential for people to have a problem with it.

Having different boxes for each unit, saying 'this box's squad is in this trukk' is perfectly clear. The rules only say I need to specify which squad is in each transport, not what the squad is made of or what it is carrying. Consult my list after the battle for that info.

I like having a bit of secrecy in the game, simply because I am sick of people focusing on the one transport with a powerhouse unit in it and ignoring the other one. More often than not, I point out everything at deployment, but the uncertainty about what exactly is racing at your lines makes the game a little more fun, IMO.

-cgmckenzie

cgmckenzie wrote:
Having different boxes for each unit, saying 'this box's squad is in this trukk' is perfectly clear. The rules only say I need to specify which squad is in each transport, not what the squad is made of or what it is carrying. Consult my list after the battle for that info.

But unless you show me what's in the box, you haven't told me what squad was in the rhino. You've only indicated from where you will pull the squad from at the time of deployment, which isn't always making clear.

I like having a bit of secrecy in the game, simply because I am sick of people focusing on the one transport with a powerhouse unit in it and ignoring the other one. More often than not, I point out everything at deployment, but the uncertainty about what exactly is racing at your lines makes the game a little more fun, IMO.

I could see it being potentially fun, or I could see it being disastrous. For one, it makes playing a meched up army more rewarding, which isn't exactly what the game needs, for another, it puts nids and demons at a massive disadvantage. I would be potentially okay with playing it that way, but it would definitely need to be discussed before hand, because I can think of at least 3 game altering rule issues that would arise off the top of my head.

Edit. Stupid phone.

cgmckenzie wrote:You don't have to see them before they hit the table top. Show me the rule that says you do.

-cgmckenzie

You appear to misunderstand "social contract" and "clearly identify"

If you do nto CLEARLY identify, to my satisfaction, you are cheating. "Squad A in rhino A" does NOT, to my satisfaction, "clearly identify" the squad - you can have 5 differently armed guys all painted identically that you magically put into Squad A.
If I believe you are being shady, or playing the shell game you repeatedly ignore your "method" of "identification" allows, I will not play you.

Prove that the 10 identically painted squads in your case, which all have a different load out depending on what youre facing AND have an appropriate list to match, are not being swapped around as you see fit. Oh wait, you cant. Guiess what? That means you havent clearly identifieed the squad, and have cheated.

"Clearly identify" means "beyond all doubt". Your method introduces doubt. You have broken the rule, and are cheating.

Understand yet? There are at least 3 ways youre trying to cheat the rules.

If I recall Trukks can only be used as dedicated transports for Boyz. Now a battle wagon can be purchased as a heavy choice and transport anything, but I don't have my Ork book in front of me. I also see nothing in the rules that states you must declare what is in your transport while it is embarked. I agree a childish move, but I don't ever recall that being a rule or in any FAQ.

Bottom line is, if the opponent you play is a jerk, just don't play them again. Call them on it too, that is what I do. Every gaming group has that one guy who is just slightly too competitive, and we call him on it when he does stuff like that. Usually that just smashes the whole issue and it is resolved before it becomes a problem.

The note on secrecy only requires the following:

1)Allow your opponent to check your list at the end.
2)Clearly indicate which squad is in which transport.

Everything else is a suggestion or good idea.

Separating the squads into boxes is a clear indication of which squad is where. You want more detail about the squad, like numbers, wargear, and composition but the rules do not make that a necessity.

-cgmckenzie

cgmckenzie wrote:The note on secrecy only requires the following:

1)Allow your opponent to check your list at the end.
2)Clearly indicate which squad is in which transport.

Sigh, sure. I then tell you that I wasn't aware that they had models that size and ask you what the box is a proxy for. You then say that, no, the box isn't the model inside the transport. I then compliment your fine box and inquire to its contents, being as how its cardboard exterior makes knowing what squad is inside the rhino an impossibility. You repeat yourself. I then gather every model I have on the table, replace them with dice and invoke 'wobbly model syndrome'. We play the rest of the game slowly degenerating into surreal madness.

Pretty soon your chimeras can't use their flamers because they would hit the tank they're mounted on and my gauss flux thingys start gaining attacks due to weapon destroyed rolls, which I will think is odd as I wasn't playing necrons to begin with.

cgmckenzie wrote:That's what sharing lists are for at the end,

Except the rules require you to share lists before the game starts.

cgmckenzie wrote:The note on secrecy only requires the following:

1)Allow your opponent to check your list at the end.
2)Clearly indicate which squad is in which transport.

Everything else is a suggestion or good idea.

Sure. But because there are two people involved, and 'clearly' is not an emperically definable term, it's ultimately down to what both players agree is clear enough. You can't just divulge as much as you feel you need to and decide that's as clear as you have to be. Your opponent has to agree that you've been clear enough on what is going on.

So this ultimately isn't as simple as 'You need to divulge this much, and only this much, information.'... Its an agreement between both players. You both have to be satisfied that you know what is going on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DarknessEternal wrote:Except the rules require you to share lists before the game starts.

No they don't.

cgmckenzie wrote: but the uncertainty about what exactly is racing at your lines makes the game a little more fun, IMO.

You mean makes the game unbalanced in favor of mechanized transports by giving units a wargear effect for no increase in points and drastically harming the effects of footslogging units and devaluing their effectiveness.

Nothing says clearly identify models on foot. I should be able to model all my models with cloaks on and say they have weapons under the cloaks and then you only know what they have when they shoot at you and a multimelta blows up your transport... how is that? As long as I agree not to cheat and clearly mark in a hidden book the blue markers are Unit A on foot, it works right?

Secrecy is not the 'default'. That is not what the rules say. It is cheating.

If we were playing and you were to accuse me of planning on cheating, I would walk out on you. The 'social contract' that nos keeps referring too goes both ways; Don't be an ass to me and I won't be one to you. Accuse me of cheating or planning on it, your are walking down a slippery line.

Per the rules, I only have to indicate what squad is in the transport. 99% of the time, people explain everything at deployment, but that isn't needed. Models with markings/in a box by themselves/ standing next to a token is clearly indicated.

If you have a problem with that and can't trust your opponent to not cheat after they have clearly indicated squads, go play somebody else, I want nothing to do with you.

-cgmckenzie

cgmckenzie wrote:
Per the rules, I only have to indicate what squad is in the transport. 99% of the time, people explain everything at deployment, but that isn't needed. Models with markings/in a box by themselves/ standing next to a token is clearly indicated.

That's clear to you, but not to me. If you have to explain something to me, and its not still not clear after explaining, then you haven't fulfilled the condition of the rule. Communication depends upon the other person understanding, not just you thinking that the other person did, otherwise one could play an entire game speaking only in esperanto, and it be your fault for not knowing what they're saying.

Interesting that time and time again the request for the RAW that declares the standard for identification is how a unit is how that unit is equipped. And now the new argument of models being on the table or visible when not in play is not supported by RAW either.

I understand your point, but it isn't supported by any rules, especially not WYSIWYG.

Say we have two identical twins. I designate them twin A and twin B and have them wear shirts with a big A and B on them respectively. I have clearly distinguished twin A from twin B.

Now I place twin A behind a door marked A and twin B behind a door marked B. I have already clearly distinguished twin A from twin B and now have clearly distinguished their locations.

I have fulfilled the RAW without ever telling you that twin A has a knife behind his back and twin B has a gun. They have been clearly distinguished without ever informing you that they are armed.

I find using the, "social contract" excuse pretty amusing. I insist on playing by the rules where identification of a unit and transport can be done with dissemination of information of which you have zero rule support to request yet you would call me a cheater for not following your houserule. And don't doubt that it isn't a houserule because there is absolutely zero RAW that dictates unit identification by gear equipped and absolutely zero RAW that dictate units embarked or not in play must be visible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And as mentioned, after I have identified which squad is in which transport and you still insist on gear equipped, then you are CHEATING because as I have pointed out, there is nor rules support for gear as a means of identifying nor having units that are embarked or not in play on the table. You are attempting to force me to conform to your houserule.

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

I have fulfilled the RAW without ever telling you that twin A has a knife behind his back and twin B has a gun. They have been clearly distinguished without ever informing you that they are armed.

No you haven't clearly distinguished them. You have not fulfilled RAW. If you tried this the game ends.

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:Interesting that time and time again the request for the RAW that declares the standard for identification is how a unit is how that unit is equipped. And now the new argument of models being on the table or visible when not in play is not supported by RAW either.

There's no RAW being presented for the 'standard of identification' because it's not a matter of RAW. It's a matter of both players agreeing that the unit is clearly identified.

The rules don't specify exactly how the unit should be identified beyond 'clearly'... so it's up to the players to agree on a standard.

It's that simple.

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:Interesting that time and time again the request for the RAW that declares the standard for identification is how a unit is how that unit is equipped. And now the new argument of models being on the table or visible when not in play is not supported by RAW either.

I understand your point, but it isn't supported by any rules, especially not WYSIWYG.

Say we have two identical twins. I designate them twin A and twin B and have them wear shirts with a big A and B on them respectively. I have clearly distinguished twin A from twin B.

Now I place twin A behind a door marked A and twin B behind a door marked B. I have already clearly distinguished twin A from twin B and now have clearly distinguished their locations.

I have fulfilled the RAW without ever telling you that twin A has a knife behind his back and twin B has a gun. They have been clearly distinguished without ever informing you that they are armed.

So, following your own argument, what RAW backs what any of what you've just stated? Where in the permissive system of rules we hold SO dear does it ever describe units as a set of labels or identifiers. For that reason, where in the rulebook does it state you CAN obfuscate the units inside your transports in ANY container? I have no RAW supporting my side. I have nothing beyond clear English on page 92, a sense of sportsmanship, and the willingness to enjoy my game at a playable level, sure. But neither really do you. And mind you, there's circumstantial evidence that you should be open and upfront with everything that's going on all over the rulebook, and not a bit I can find that says you shouldn't.

It sounds like you would be okay with the cloaked army idea though, which I find is interesting

As an interesting aside I decided to go through history so to speak to see what previous editions had to say on this subject. Namely in order to try and divine exactly what it was 5th is trying to say based on a simple analysis of the rules evolution. Please take the time to read this. Twice if necessary.

As I couldn't source anything older than a 3rd edition book, I'll start there:

The 3rd edition rulebook has a section for Hidden Deployment. Each player placed a token counter to mark where a particular unit will go. Once both sides had completed deployment the counters were replaced with the actual units. Hidden Deployment was a rule used in certain missions. (I can provide page numbers later if someone really cares that much).

Mandrakes built on this rule to persist the hidden nature for as long as the controlling player wanted. Again using tokens.

The 3rd ed rules were pretty simple to follow and, provided your markers were tied in some verifiable way (e.g.: written down) to your units, the possibility of cheating was pretty low. Note that I could not locate a rule governing when or even if a roster should be shared between two players. There wasn't even a prescription that the points level should match, just that the forces "should be roughly equal in size". Also, deployment seemed to occur simultaneously and the rules were divided on whether it should be somehow completely blind deployment (meaning neither sees the others deployment until all units were placed) or if each player should alternate between placing units. I'm not sure how they expected the former to be accomplished.

----

4th edition radically changed the concept. The deployment rule was now a solid one for all games which said: "Your opponent cannot normally inspect your army roster, including asking you what is in each transport vehicle." (pg82?)

It was pretty clear that surprises and bluffs were to be an integral part of the game for everyone. Not only is the roster not available at any point for inspection, but they have clearly defined that transports are complete black boxes.

However, as Don Mondo and nosferatu1001 like to continue pointing out, cheating under those 4th edition rules was pretty easy to accomplish. After all you didn't have to supply any information to your opponent at all for any reason.

As we know, cheating is an unfortunate trait that some people who play this game exhibit and that complete lack of transparency was ripe for abuse. However, it's even more unfortunate that there is a pervasive trust no one attitude caused by it. Such is life, but more on this further down.

----

Now 5th edition comes along and you can bet that GW heard about the various ways people were hoodwinking their opponents through abuse of the exceedingly clear 4th edition rules.

I can imagine that a discussion during 5th edition development centered around 2 things: First, how to keep hidden deployments while eliminating cheating. Second, what to do about tournament play in which hidden deployments were all but banned because of that problem.

The first change makes the most sense: "To keep things fair, you should always allow your opponent to read your force roster after a game." This does two things. First, it maintains the secrecy aspect firmly established in 4th ed. Second it enables verifiability; meaning, your opponent will know if you swapped something in you shouldn't. Of course, there are still problems to be exploited, more on that further down. The main thing here is that the sentence emboddies two distinct concepts: secrecy and fairness.

The next change is more problematic and was obviously meant to cover the shell game issue of moving units between transports after the fact: "In the same spirit, always make clear to your opponent which squads are embarked in which transport vehicle".

This one sentence is very poorly written and has caused a lot of grief. So let's break it apart.

"In the same spirit": I hope we can agree that this is a direct reference to the previous sentence that covers two topics: secrecy and fairness.

"always": We all agree that always does indeed mean "throughout the entire game".

"make clear": This one is the problem as clarity is wholely dependent on the individual.

"to your opponent": Should be obvious.

"which squads are embarked in which transport vehicle": Unfortunately this is another problem area. After all how are squads to be identified as consisting of a particular set of models? Some armies are simply not painted; others are painted identically. Although others do have different schemes which make it extremely easy to identify a group. Simple examples include: one group having red shoulder pads while another has blue. One group having black bases while another has white. Of course there are many other ways to identify a squad such as through weapon makeup.

Coincidentally, squad identification is not just a problem for secrecy rules it is also a problem during multiple combat resolution. Consider the situation in which two different, but visually identical, tac marine squads assault a mob of orks. The models will be pretty well mixed together. Let's assume one squad loses a flamer and another loses 3 bolter marines and the orks are run down. How can you be certain that the marine player won't use the resulting consolidation to "rebalance" the two visually identical squads in some other manner? If you aren't completely vigilant it could happen.. even accidentally.

Tyr Grimtooth, WanderingFox, I and others have each offered different types of marker systems which would work to identify a particular squad and the transport it is embarked on. Those systems meet the aspects of being in force throughout the entire game while maintaining secrecy and fairness and being verifiable by a quick look through a roster at the end.

Don Mondo, Nosferatu1001, Insaniak and others have stated markers aren't "clear" enough to them. The primary reason here boils down to a lack of trust that the list a person hands over at the end of the game will match the list that the person supposedly started with. This is a very real concern. Not because models are still in a bag; but rather because it is very easy to print up several different lists and swap them out as the situation warrants. Of course, given even a modest number of transports such as four, each containing a different squad, a cheater would need 16 (or 24? can't remember if this is a factorial situation or not) different lists to keep track of in order to cover all of the possibilities. This in itself might alleviate the concern as watching someone look through a large stack of papers to pick one to show you at the end would be a huge red flag... Then again we do know those that are firmly entrenched in WAAC.

------

After carefully reading this section many times over the past couple of days and seriously considering the various viewpoints it really just boils down to trust. Either you trust me or you don't. Clarity and Trust are very different things but some people are having a hard time separating them.

If you don't trust me then there is no system we can come up with to ensure that the squad is "clearly" identified "to your opponent" short of placing a proxy from the unit on top of the ride and pointing to a single squad and saying "this goeth here.".

Example system: Blue token = blue shouldered marines. Blue shouldered marines are fully identified on roster. Roster is placed face down on the side of the table in plain view of everyone to be revealed at the end. Guido, an impartial bystander, makes sure no one peaks at or swaps out the rosters if someone has to go to the bathroom. Luigi watches Guido to make sure he wasn't paid off by the player who didn't go to the bathroom... :(

Which leaves us with the only sentence that matters in this whole thing, the one that tries to fix the issues with tournament rules vs local pick up games: "However, before starting to deploy their armies, it is a good idea to agree whether or not they can read the opponent's force roster before and during the game."


RAW (on this topic) == fundamentally broke.

clively wrote:Don Mondo, Nosferatu1001, Insaniak and others have stated markers aren't "clear" enough to them.

I don't recall addressing my personal feelings on using markers at all, actually.


For what it's worth, I have no problem with playing that way so long as everything is clear. I just think it's more faffing about than is really worthwhile.

But then, most of the time I don't really care about full disclosure, either. Generally, an opponent saying 'There's a Tactical Squad in there,' is sufficient for me.


My point has simply been that full army disclosure is more in keeping with the current rules, and helps eliminate shell games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

If you don't trust me then there is no system we can come up with to ensure that the squad is "clearly" identified "to your opponent" short of placing a proxy from the unit on top of the ride and pointing to a single squad and saying "this goeth here.".

Which is pretty much exactly how a very large number of gamers actually play it.

... I can't believe this is still going on.

The rule is INTENTIONALLY VAGUE. That way it can apply to BOTH situations. That specific line does not specify WHEN you must be informed by the way, just that you must be ('always' meaning that I can't just not tell you).

Also, the definition of "clear" changes depending on how you decide to play the game. In full disclosure "clear" means you know exactly what is what. When playing with the 'secrecy' option named in the rule, "clear" means 'to the point where you cannot cheat'

That is to say the following:

Full Disclosure: You need to specify the unit, including wargear, that is in any given transport at any given time.

Secrecy: You need to provide a clear identifier that can only reference one unit in your army. Either by setting the models aside with a marker, painting them specifically and setting them aside in a second box, writing it down, what have you. When they disembark, you can then 'make it clear' as to which unit was in the transport to the point where you could not have cheated. Either by showing both markers, or if you were super-secret and put them in a box, showing the 'blue box' is now empty and the 'blue marines' are now disembarked next to the 'blue rhino'


In conclusion, you must decide on a level of secrecy at the start of the game, and form there you can infer the proper context of the rule.

This is the only logical and proper interpretation of the rule because if the game was always played with full disclosure, the rule would not mention bluffing, secrecy, or anything the like. It would instead read "You must tell your opponent exactly what is in your transports." Similarly, the rule does not state that you MUST be secretive as the rule itself provides you with the choice "The choice is yours!"


In short: Both sides of this argument are correct, just in different contexts. Can we please stop the cyclical arguing now? I'm getting dizzy.

So, what's exactly there to stop you from going, oh it's now convenient to unload meltas so I'll unload this squad. Oh look I could certainly use a flamer here so I'll unload that squad.

clively wrote:

After carefully reading this section many times over the past couple of days and seriously considering the various viewpoints it really just boils down to trust.

It isn't about trust to me. It is about game balance. When old lictors could hide in terrain with tokens or terrain pre-marked... that was fine because it was balanced into the lictors point values.

The current system would have to re-adjust mech units and transports up in points for the large in-game advantage you would get from this secrecy token ruleset you add to the game. Not like the metagame needs any more shift to MSU and transports. But the 'clearly identified' rulesets you are making are already house rules that are not outlined in the book, you can also come up with point cost adjustments to balance the secrecy.

Even if I trusted you wouldn't shellgame, the imbalance it causes makes the game fundamentally unfair and basically when a game is starting off unfair the game becomes unplayable IMHO.

I was on a long drive home from work and got to thinking;

Can we just cut the crap? Markings/labels/tokens/etc for units and transports are more then clear enough to distinguish them apart and ensure matching squads disembarking from mathcing transports. If you say that they are not, it is not because it isn't clear to you which unit is embarked in which transport but it isn't clear to you what the unit is equipped with. That is all you are fishing for with this rolling eyes-victimized crying excuse of,

"Well I just can't tell the difference between blue guys in a blue rhino and red guys in a red rhino."

And really, it is all a completely moot point because it will not matter if it isn't clear to you, it will matter if it is clear to the judge and TO. How do you see that working out for you?

TO: What's up?

Player 1: Well I told him the Grey Hunters with the one red stripe is in the Rhino with one red stripe, the Grey Hunters with the two red stripes are in the Rhino with two red stripes. I even put a Grey Hunter with cooresponding number of stripes on each Rhino.

You: It isn't clear.

Or

You: But he won't tell me what they are equipped with.

The first response will have the judge/TO asking if you have been drinking or if you identification. After reading the rule, the judge/TO will see that at no point is gear equipped the standard for identification and rule that the units and which transports they are embarked have been identified and are distinguished from eachother.

So play the dumb blonde role and act like you can't tell blue from red or A from B. You will be ruled against by a TO that is able to distinguish them.

I run Astaroth and an all Death Company army. I have a DC squad led by Astaroth in a Stormraven along with a DC Dread with Bloodfists, another DC squad led by Lemartes and a DC Dread with Blood Talons in another Stormraven, and 2 Rhinos with identical DC squads. On my army list sheet I have these clearly identified as to what is riding in what, what they are equipped with, etc.

When I am playing and I am deploying the transports, I will say "This rhino has a DC squad in it, this Rhino also has a DC squad in it, this Stormraven has a DC squad led by Astaroth and also a DC Dread, and this Stormraven has a DC squad led by Lemartes and also a DC Dread." When rolling for reserves, I will say something like "Rolling for Astaroth's squad, rolling for Lemartes' squad, etc." I don't go into what all the models are equipped with or how many models are in the transport, as I have satisfied the RAW by identifying what squads are in what transport.

If I only said "This Stormraven has a DC squad in it." and didn't mention that it was led by Astaroth or Lemartes and that there was also a DC Dread on board, then I haven't satisfied RAW. Why? Because when I disembark my units from it within assault range of the enemy and my opponent says in horror "Oh, crap! You didn't say that Lemartes was in the squad and that there was a DC Dread in there!" then I have "cheated" because I didn't disclose enough info to satisfy RAW. At the end of the game, if my opponent wants to see my list, then they will see that what is written on paper matches exactly what I played with and that the units I said were in certain transports matched what was listed on my sheet of paper.

terranarc wrote:So, what's exactly there to stop you from going, oh it's now convenient to unload meltas so I'll unload this squad. Oh look I could certainly use a flamer here so I'll unload that squad.

Depends on what system I'm using at the time. If I'm using the markers, you get to physically watch me flip over the marker on the transport, showing blue, and then go over to the squad with the blue marker and place it by the transport. If I used the color code method and set aside method, you'll see me pull a bunch of blue marines out of the box i put the squad in at deployment, place them next to the blue rhino, and then show you that those were the only models in the blue box. If I had it written down, when I disembarked them, I'd show you the piece of paper that I wrote on during deployment that said the unit composition of the squad and that it was embarked in.

There's plenty of ways to keep the unit comp secret until it's placed while simultaneously preventing 'shell-gaming'

Also, have yet to see the RAW that I can't pull my models from the Battlefoam bag or that I MUST have my embarked models or models not yet on the table or visually displayed for my opponent.

Juust another set of houserules trying to be pushed as official.

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:Also, have yet to see the RAW that I can't pull my models from the Battlefoam bag or that I MUST have my embarked models or models not yet on the table or visually displayed for my opponent.

Juust another set of houserules trying to be pushed as official.

I have also yet to see the RAW that says you can hide your models embarked in transports. It doesn't exist...

If making up non-existing rules for identifying units in 'shell games' and saying they are RAW isn't "Juust another set of houserules trying to be pushed as official" then I don't know what is. None of these 'hide in my bag' or 'use tokens to distinguish units' is not RAW at all.

nkelsch wrote:

I have also yet to see the RAW that says you can hide your models embarked in transports. It doesn't exist...

If making up non-existing rules for identifying units in 'shell games' and saying they are RAW isn't "Juust another set of houserules trying to be pushed as official" then I don't know what is. None of these 'hide in my bag' or 'use tokens to distinguish units' is not RAW at all.

The entire thread is about that. The rules say that you have to identify the squad, not explain what it is. These are not random things we are making up, just doing exactly what the rules say. Rules say to identify the squad, I tell you it is this one here in the box. That is all. Not run down each load out or even who is in each squad, literally just the squad.

The bag vs table issue is a matter of deployment. The rules do not say to put the models on the table edge while they are in reserve/embarked in a transport, so you don't have to.

-cgmckenzie

cgmckenzie wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

I have also yet to see the RAW that says you can hide your models embarked in transports. It doesn't exist...

If making up non-existing rules for identifying units in 'shell games' and saying they are RAW isn't "Juust another set of houserules trying to be pushed as official" then I don't know what is. None of these 'hide in my bag' or 'use tokens to distinguish units' is not RAW at all.

The entire thread is about that. The rules say that you have to identify the squad, not explain what it is. These are not random things we are making up, just doing exactly what the rules say. Rules say to identify the squad, I tell you it is this one here in the box. That is all. Not run down each load out or even who is in each squad, literally just the squad.

The bag vs table issue is a matter of deployment. The rules do not say to put the models on the table edge while they are in reserve/embarked in a transport, so you don't have to.

-cgmckenzie

And you don't have a RAW definition between 'identify the squad' and 'not explain what it is.' And your rules to hide units and the degree to which you hide them are exactly 'random things you are making up.'

And there are not rules for these shell games because there is no definition of what constitutes identifying the squad. Identifying the squad has to be mutually agreed upon to move forward the same way identifying terrain does.


As soon as you try to shell game with made up house rules players don't agree to the game stops being played.

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:And really, it is all a completely moot point because it will not matter if it isn't clear to you, it will matter if it is clear to the judge and TO. How do you see that working out for you?

See, there's an interesting point right there... Because the whole 'keeping the contents secret' thing is actually only any good to you in friendly games, which generally don't have 'TOs or judges'...

In a tournament, once you've played your first game there is absolutely no point in trying to keep the composition o f your transported units secret, because by that point everyone's already seen your army anyway.


So, really, why bother? Just save the argument and tell your opponent what's in your transports. End of problem.

That exact argument can be flipped around and used against you in the exact same manner you're trying to use it against us.

If no RAW definition of "identify the squad" exists, as per your own admission, then the rule itself is open to the interpretation of the player. This means the rule is ambiguous and can be interpreted in multiple ways, as I said several posts ago.

In short, it's entirely dependent on the tournament and/or the two people playing. /thread