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:

But your not shooting a the units inside , your shooting transport X. Why do you think you get to know the contents of the unit before they come on the table or do some sort of action ?

But they ARE on the table, they are deployed...

They are not in reserve, they are inside of a transport.

When you embark, you need to make a note, and all players need to be able to verify that rules were followed as such you need to tell your opponent which unit embarked through showing him the note or telling him.

kambien wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

kambien wrote:
So when we are playing poker you get to look at my cards to verify that i do not have any jokers in my hand right ? you must be a blast at poker games

Not at all a similar situation and a red herring.

However, all players should check the deck before play to ensure the deck is not stacked or missing any cards or have any extra cards...

Its not a red herring , its the exact situation .

It is not even close to the same situation.

RAW both players must agree on how this handled before the game begins.
As Kriswall has pointed out repeatedly, putting your notes next to/under/in your transport is a sure way to ensure rules are followed. If that is not agreeable to both sides, you wont play. If being open is not agreeable to both sides, you wont play.

Tournament instances are, of course, the responsibility of the TO

Inb4 "discuss with your opponent"

so now you are saying you are allowed to hide your Warlord rolls as well? Sheesh.

 DeathReaper wrote:


When you embark, you need to make a note, and all players need to be able to verify that rules were followed as such you need to tell your opponent which unit embarked through showing him the note or telling him.

I KNOW your not going to state that and not provide the rules reference to it correct ?

 DeathReaper wrote:

kambien wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

kambien wrote:
So when we are playing poker you get to look at my cards to verify that i do not have any jokers in my hand right ? you must be a blast at poker games

Not at all a similar situation and a red herring.
However, all players should check the deck before play to ensure the deck is not stacked or missing any cards or have any extra cards...

Its not a red herring , its the exact situation .

It is not even close to the same situation.

Part of Poker is the ability to bluff. It's part of the rules to allow you to "Win" a pot without revealing your cards.

That's not a part of 40k. You can't "Bluff" someone into a win in 40k, by rolling dice behind a screen, wagering money on the outcome and then allowing them to forfeit so they don't lose more money.

Your comparison is false.

kambien wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:


When you embark, you need to make a note, and all players need to be able to verify that rules were followed as such you need to tell your opponent which unit embarked through showing him the note or telling him.

I KNOW your not going to state that and not provide the rules reference to it correct ?)

It is actually a function of any ruleset.

Without verifying the rules have been followed there can not even be a game.

All games are like this. There does not need to be a rule saying follow the rules, there does not need to be a rule stating ensure everyone is following the rules, because it is intrinsic to ANY ruleset.

 DeathReaper wrote:

kambien wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:


When you embark, you need to make a note, and all players need to be able to verify that rules were followed as such you need to tell your opponent which unit embarked through showing him the note or telling him.

I KNOW your not going to state that and not provide the rules reference to it correct ?)

It is actually a function of any ruleset.

Without verifying the rules have been followed there can not even be a game.

All games are like this. There does not need to be a rule saying follow the rules, there does not need to be a rule stating ensure everyone is following the rules, because it is intrinsic to ANY ruleset.

So Zero rules support gotcha.
So what does the rules say to do with someone that isn't in compliance with the rules ? Does the rulebook even mention how to handle cheaters ? Are you going to provide ANY rule support for your position ?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 greatbigtree wrote:
Part of Poker is the ability to bluff. It's part of the rules to allow you to "Win" a pot without revealing your cards.

That's not a part of 40k. You can't "Bluff" someone into a win in 40k, by rolling dice behind a screen, wagering money on the outcome and then allowing them to forfeit so they don't lose more money.

Your comparison is false.

But your not bluffing . You can't add things to your army list mid game . Nothing new is being introduced . All the models listed is what was brought. Your opponent knows exactly how many elite squads there are ect , they know how many squads in total there are .

kambien wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

kambien wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:


When you embark, you need to make a note, and all players need to be able to verify that rules were followed as such you need to tell your opponent which unit embarked through showing him the note or telling him.

I KNOW your not going to state that and not provide the rules reference to it correct ?)

It is actually a function of any ruleset.

Without verifying the rules have been followed there can not even be a game.

All games are like this. There does not need to be a rule saying follow the rules, there does not need to be a rule stating ensure everyone is following the rules, because it is intrinsic to ANY ruleset.

So Zero rules support gotcha.
So what does the rules say to do with someone that isn't in compliance with the rules ? Does the rulebook even mention how to handle cheaters ? Are you going to provide ANY rule support for your position ?

"wheres the rule saying I need to follow the rules and my opponent needs to be able to verify it?"

well.... that doesn't need to be a rule... if both players are not sure you are following the rules of 40k, then you are no longer playing 40k...

"ok so zero rules say it, gotcha"


lol.


seems you've made your mind up and now amount of logic will convince you otherwise, I guess now the only thing you need to see is how many opponents you can keep with this attitude.

Are you really asking for rules to tell you how to follow rules

 SHUPPET wrote:
seems you've made your mind up and now amount of logic will convince you otherwise, I guess now the only thing you need to see is how many opponents you can keep with this attitude.

Maybe because i take a very simple approach. They rules need to tell you to do something in order to do it . Do the rules tell you to verify what you opponent does imminently after he does something ?
If he moves a model 5 1/4 inches , do you get up walk over and measure it again to verify ? Even if your sure and it truly doesn't matter ?
Do you verify his entire list when he gives it to you to make sure he has the correct points value , detachment , CAD ect? Do you take the needed hour to go over the list to verify these all these things ?

None of these things are in the rules. 40k is written assuming you do not break the rules, even by accident. We verify these things in the name of sportsmanship , not because they are in the rules ( because they are not in the rules) but because you want to know you are not being cheated or someone hasn't made a mistake and normally when you do do these things , they have no actual impact on game play.

But by demanding to see the note/tracking method before the unit's models touch the table or take any action , you have stopped having zero impact on play and have altered the game (with ZERO rules support to do so) . I have yet to see one person say they would withhold the information past unit performing actions/disembarking . There is no reason in the name of sportsmanship to demand the note before the unit does something on the table.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jokerkd wrote:
Are you really asking for rules to tell you how to follow rules

There are no rules to verify someone is following the rules . The rules don't give permission to cheat so there is no reason to check. Checking to see if someone is cheating has nothing to do with the 40k game , its about sportsmanship. The Must see note crowd is entirely HWIPI and not RAW

kambien wrote:
There are no rules to verify someone is following the rules.

There does not have to be. it is a function of ANY ruleset to have all players make sure no one is cheating.

The rules don't give permission to cheat...

True, but almost all rulesets do not give permission to cheat.

...so there is no reason to check.

False, there is a reason to check. to make sure everyone is in compliance with the rules.

Checking to see if someone is cheating has nothing to do with the 40k game ,

False, you are playing a game, therefore as a function of every ruleset ever you check to see if everyone is following the rules.

its about sportsmanship.

True, but it is also the function of every ruleset ever made.

The Must see note crowd is entirely HWIPI and not RAW

100% false. To ensure everyone is following the rules both players need to ensure that no rules are broken. not just one person.

The rules do not tell you how to roll dice, they do not tell you that you can touch your models, they do not tell you that you how to track lost wounds on a multiple wound creature, but that does not mean you can not do it...

 DeathReaper wrote:

kambien wrote:
There are no rules to verify someone is following the rules.

There does not have to be. it is a function of ANY rule set to have all players make sure no one is cheating.

I know your not making statements again with using the BRB to support you. Please quote the page and the relevant text that allows you to do this. It is a permissive rule set . You do need to be told to do things that are relevant to the game.There is no rules outside the BRB rules.

 DeathReaper wrote:

kambien wrote:
The rules don't give permission to cheat...

True, but almost all rule sets do not give permission to cheat.

Well now that we are all on board that no one is allowed to cheat even by accidentally doing/not doing something what does the rule set say about cheating ? Do we get to flog them in a square ? Throw popcorn down their shirt ? Give them a friendly reminder they messed up ? Anything ? All this checking your doing it has got to be covered in a nice section in the BRB .

 DeathReaper wrote:

kambien wrote:
...so there is no reason to check.

False, there is a reason to check. to make sure everyone is in compliance with the rules.

Feel free to quote the page and paragraph relevant to this statement

 DeathReaper wrote:

kambien wrote:
Checking to see if someone is cheating has nothing to do with the 40k game ,

False, you are playing a game, therefore as a function of every ruleset ever you check to see if everyone is following the rules.

Again , prove it with the BRB.

 DeathReaper wrote:

kambien wrote:
its about sportsmanship.

True, but it is also the function of every ruleset ever made.

Again prove it with the BRB. Just curious , what do these other ruleset even say about cheating ? Is it even covered in their rules beyond "Don't" ?

 DeathReaper wrote:

kambien wrote:
The Must see note crowd is entirely HWIPI and not RAW

100% false. To ensure everyone is following the rules both players need to ensure that no rules are broken. not just one person.

Then there is no reason not to check at a later time when the unit disembarks/performs a action. Your still checking for compliance ( this nifty made up rule that doesn't appear to be a rule in the BRB ) How are you getting around the checking to see the contents of the noted without having permissions to view the contents of the noted. No one seems to have a issue with allowed to check for compliance ( even though no rules exists) , its the issue of viewing the contents without permission to do so .

 DeathReaper wrote:
The rules do not tell you how to roll dice

Quite right , it just specifies a d6 and comes with the word roll.Oh and it specifies me as the one whos rolling. I guess i could use your dice and use my butt cheeks to hold them then drop them and do that to get the dice to roll for a result.

 DeathReaper wrote:
they do not tell you that you can touch your models.

Your right they just specify that i can move my models and do so by placing it a distance away.

 DeathReaper wrote:
they do not tell you that you how to track lost wounds on a multiple wound creature, but that does not mean you can not do it...

Quite right , i use jelly belly jelly beans to track lost wounds . I get to enjoy it more when the model is removed and i can eat the counters

Oh and a side note . i agree with you 100% that this is a red herring. This has nothing to do with compliance. It has everything to do with using a made up a rule to check and see if someone is cheating in order to piggyback and do something they are not told to do to cheat themselves . Until you can come up with a way to check for compliance by viewing the contents of what is noted and still not know what was noted your stuck not being able to . Not only cause a check for compliance doesn't exist in the rule set , but you also are not allowed to view and know the contents of the note .

I do suppose you can invent a time machine , verify whats written on the note , go back in time before you verified it tell yourself its all good and that specific timeline can continue the game but i guess i would need to go too since i would need to verify you didn't disclose the unit inside either.But i'm not sure where you would return to.A new time line or the same one and then have your newerself go back in time to keep the continuity going But i prefer to not bring quantum entanglement theories to my 40k games

kambien wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

kambien wrote:
There are no rules to verify someone is following the rules.

There does not have to be. it is a function of ANY rule set to have all players make sure no one is cheating.

I know your not making statements again with using the BRB to support you. Please quote the page and the relevant text that allows you to do this. It is a permissive rule set . You do need to be told to do things that are relevant to the game.There is no rules outside the BRB rules.

LOL why the hell would the BRB have rules for how to play tabletop games. This is simply how games are played. There's no rule in Monopoly that says you can't hide your diceroll from your opponents, or take a snapshot of the dice to prove at a later date.




also, you are quoting the fact that its a permissive ruleset like it supports your position, when in reality it's the exact opposite. You can't hide any other information from your opponent, why do you think you are allowed to hide dice rolls, Warlord Traits and vehicle contents? Quite simply, you cannot.

 DeathReaper wrote:

nekooni wrote:
claiming that having to tell is clearly rules as written while failing to provide a rule which actually says that.

Its not a written rule, it is a function of all game rules.

With any game all players need to ensure the rules are being followed.

As such when you make a note of which unit embarks all players must be allowed to check if the rule was followed and it was a legal embarkation.

Therefore you MUST tell your opponents what is is which transport.

How many games have you played? Literally any card game disagrees with you. When playing cards you don't get to check the hand of your opponent for whether or not he had any spades left since that would give you an advantage the rules never said you should have. Some card games even have special mechanics that, as an EXCEPTION, allow you to check your opponents cards - not to verify rules compliance but to give you an advantage.

nekooni wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

nekooni wrote:
claiming that having to tell is clearly rules as written while failing to provide a rule which actually says that.

Its not a written rule, it is a function of all game rules.

With any game all players need to ensure the rules are being followed.

As such when you make a note of which unit embarks all players must be allowed to check if the rule was followed and it was a legal embarkation.

Therefore you MUST tell your opponents what is is which transport.

How many games have you played? Literally any card game disagrees with you. When playing cards you don't get to check the hand of your opponent for whether or not he had any spades left.

Again that is not the same situation AT ALL.

Checking the deck before the cards are dealt to see if the deck is stacked would be a close parallel.

Your red herring has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

I find it strange That you can appreciate the idea of a permissive ruleset being a fundamental part of the game without it being explained in the rules, but cant see that following the rules is also fundamental to the game.

 DeathReaper wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

nekooni wrote:
claiming that having to tell is clearly rules as written while failing to provide a rule which actually says that.

Its not a written rule, it is a function of all game rules.

With any game all players need to ensure the rules are being followed.

As such when you make a note of which unit embarks all players must be allowed to check if the rule was followed and it was a legal embarkation.

Therefore you MUST tell your opponents what is is which transport.

How many games have you played? Literally any card game disagrees with you. When playing cards you don't get to check the hand of your opponent for whether or not he had any spades left.

Again that is not the same situation AT ALL.

Checking the deck before the cards are dealt to see if the deck is stacked would be a close parallel.

Your red herring has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

actually what you are trying to show as a close parallel would be checking the players list to make sure its compliant . But what you are triyng to do with checking the contents of the transport is a parralell of trying to view someones hand to see if they are compliant


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SHUPPET wrote:

kambien wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

kambien wrote:
There are no rules to verify someone is following the rules.

There does not have to be. it is a function of ANY rule set to have all players make sure no one is cheating.

I know your not making statements again with using the BRB to support you. Please quote the page and the relevant text that allows you to do this. It is a permissive rule set . You do need to be told to do things that are relevant to the game.There is no rules outside the BRB rules.

LOL why the hell would the BRB have rules for how to play tabletop games. This is simply how games are played. There's no rule in Monopoly that says you can't hide your diceroll from your opponents, or take a snapshot of the dice to prove at a later date.




also, you are quoting the fact that its a permissive ruleset like it supports your position, when in reality it's the exact opposite. You can't hide any other information from your opponent, why do you think you are allowed to hide dice rolls, Warlord Traits and vehicle contents? Quite simply, you cannot.

Ah but a permissive rule set does support my position . This is what happens when you try and do something. When you are attempting to do X , you must show you re allowed to do X . Its very simple . If you are trying to roll a bowling ball across the table , you must show that you are allowed to roll a bowling ball across the table. If you wish to move a modle , you must show the relevent rule to move a model. If i say you cannont move a model i must show a rule that disallowed it after a rule has given you permission to move it . It goes on and on .

So not only is there no rule to check if someone is following a rule , there is still no rule to allow you to look at my notes. You would need to satisfy both of those with rules. Its sorta like deep striking with a transport with assault ramps and trying to assult out of it . Even if you have permission to assault out of a vehicle , you still cannot assault after deep striking.

kambien wrote:

actually what you are trying to show as a close parallel would be checking the players list to make sure its compliant . But what you are triyng to do with checking the contents of the transport is a parralell of trying to view someones hand to see if they are compliant

Not at all.

Your analogy falls flat. It is not the same as checking someones had, because it is not at all the same situation.

Card games and 40K are two completely different types of games therefore you can not draw many parallels between them.

 DeathReaper wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

nekooni wrote:
claiming that having to tell is clearly rules as written while failing to provide a rule which actually says that.

Its not a written rule, it is a function of all game rules.

With any game all players need to ensure the rules are being followed.

As such when you make a note of which unit embarks all players must be allowed to check if the rule was followed and it was a legal embarkation.

Therefore you MUST tell your opponents what is is which transport.

How many games have you played? Literally any card game disagrees with you. When playing cards you don't get to check the hand of your opponent for whether or not he had any spades left.

Again that is not the same situation AT ALL.

Checking the deck before the cards are dealt to see if the deck is stacked would be a close parallel.

Your red herring has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

It's the same.

Checking my MtG deck for compliance is equivalent to you checking my army list for compliance. Which card I actually have on my hand is similar to "which transport contains which unit" in that it is not stated by the rules that you have any obligation to show this to your opponent and doing so gives your opponent an advantage he otherwise would not have had.
You are seeing me drawing X cards at the beginning of the turn and you're free to count them again, but you will only see them face-down.
If I write a note saying "unit X is embarked on Y" and do this three times for three different squads, you're free to count the notes, but you will only see them face-down.

Other card games use "active" cards on the table face-down, I think they're called trap cards in yugioh - you are not allowed to check that it actually is one of these cards unless I say "this is now activated, let me show the card to you now".

And sorry, but you can't claim that "all games work like this" and then say "no no, your examples are different games, THEY don't count!"

---

Oh, and let me reiterate what the "note rule" actually tells you to do: It only tells you to write down that the squad is being transported, so the "status" of the squad is written down. It does NOT, at any point, require you to write down which squad is loaded onto which transport.

 Kriswall wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
Is this a rules issue? Feels more like most people just think it's not fair if they don't know which Rhino to focus fire on. Issues of "not fair" tend to go away when you become a better player.

For some it is to know which to shoot at, but that indicates a situation where they know certain units are already embarked.

For some it is the simply trying to avoid the Rhino Shell Game where they all have internal portals to avoid having their good units lose their ride before their ready.

Timing and communication are what are needed to avoid problems in this area.

Well, the Rhino Shell Game is ridiculously easy to avoid by just agreeing which Rhino is which at the beginning of the game. I can't believe this is even a legitimate concern. Taking 5 seconds to make sure you agree with how your opponent is differentiating Transports at the start of the game is trivial and allays any concerns you might have about potential shenanigans. You'll immediately know if they cheated as soon as they disembark a unit and you see the note they were required to make. Deal with cheaters how you normally would, talk it through and either resolve the issue or find a new opponent.

It seems like the only real concern is wanting to know which Rhino to shoot at to hurt your opponent the most. Coming from a group where we don't tell each other which unit is in which Transport until a disembarkation occurs, claiming that I have to tell you seems a little whiny/needy. You don't get to know my strategies ahead of time. You want to know what's in that Rhino? Light the sucker up and see who crawls out. But again, this second point isn't a rules issue, but a HIWPI/local convention issue. From a rules standpoint, you just have to make a note, presumably so you don't forget. Showing your opponent the note when you disembark seems extremely reasonable to set his mind at ease that you didn't cheat, but isn't actually required by the rules.

i dont have to differentiate identical transports in the same way i dont have to differentiate identical scout squads or tactical marines, or tank formations

Trazer985 wrote:
i dont have to differentiate identical transports in the same way i dont have to differentiate identical scout squads or tactical marines, or tank formations

And Kriswall never claimed that you HAVE to, he just said that it is the easiest solution to put your opponent at ease IF you want to keep the content of your transport secret. It's a suggestion.

nekooni wrote:

It's the same.

No it is not at all the same situation.

I think this has gone around in circles for long enough for now.

Moving on.