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.

All my chimeras are intuitively marked. So when my opponent asks where my command squad is. I usually reply 'take a guess' and the usual response is 'the one with a skull and the number 1?'

enmitee wrote:If you never told him, what's stopping you from conveniently putting shoota boys in the trukk he blew up when initially you put a warboss there. And trukk's are opened top btw.

Perfect answer <3

In "real life" we have very robust intelligence. You hear plenty of stories of missiles being launched at a specific car on the street in a city and taking out three targets who were in the car. Superb intelligence is required to pinpoint the exact location and time a person will be at.

40,000 years from now intelligence reports will probably be a little better, so I would imagine you can make a very strong argument that you and your opponent both know exactly what you're up against.

The only exception to this, from a fluff point of view, would be Chaos Daemons who show up from the warp. But, even that can probably be predicted with the right sort of intelligence reports.

Soup and a roll wrote:

@nkelsch

I take your point, but, in my opinion, the rule is there to prevent cheating between players who don't trust each other. I also hope you'll agree that 40k is not as exquisitely balanced as chess, though your game variant sounds intriguing. I suppose the cost isn't built into transports otherwise there would be not such rule. I see the reason for the rule, but I reserve my right to hate it for being deleterious to my enjoyment of the game.

There is no way, in my mind, that your forces could know what was in the rhino (excepting army intelligence, scouts etc) let alone whether my commander has frag grenades or not until he gets out and you see the model. Changing this can only detract from the 'realism' of the game. If you don't think that 'realism' in the game adds to the fun chess is a good alternative. The unknown forces a general to think on his feet- hidden objectives, blips in spacehulk, relatively-old-school treasure map lictors etc.

But your disregard of the rule breaks the game. It makes it 100% broken and unfair and heavily slants advantages towards transport-heavy armies and disadvantages towards foot-based armies. Now all models on foot have a huge disadvantage for no change in points.

I can't see inside your transports for realisim and game enhancement? Maybe you can't see the Armor save or the weapons of my orks as they all keep that hidden till the very last minute.

My ork army will be 100 models with non-descript cloaks or heavy coats and I will tell you what type of weapons they are hiding or what armorsave they have when I choose to disclose it through action on the table. Realistically if my orks did wear such cloaks, you would have no way to tell who was a 'ard boy, who was a loota and who was a Nob and who was 2 grots pretending to be an ork the same way I can't see inside your transports. Did I mention my Dreds keep the guns in a closed compartment which doesn't come out until the weapon is used? You can't tell the weapons my dreds are using either. Only fair right?

The only way it is 'fair' is if such "fog of war" type game mechanics are usable to both sides equally like Stratego. Since this is not the case and only gives a massive advantage to one type of unit, it is gamebreaking, unfair and enhances nothing (except for the person getting the advantage at the expense of his opponent)

40k has no such valid way to handle "fog of war" therefor it is removed. And your examples are poor. The game has balanced and fair rules for Hidden Objectives as both sides can use them equally, Blips in Spacehulk are built into the core of the game and the rules are designed for it and Lictors pay for their hidden advantage in points.

[insert obligatory internet answer here]
if i asked what was in your trukk and you didnt tell me id punch you in the face and smash your models with a hammer.

Obscurity is not tactical. Basing your victory on whether or not the enemy randomly targets the right trukk doesn't make you a good general.

Wait a second people. We are talking about real life I can't see what is in your Trukk or Chimera? WTF? What about thermal scanners or Infered radar? They look at what is inside by heat.

Also if you want to talk about real life, how come both sides are "supposidly" equal be it a 1000, 1500, 2000 point game etc. Where do you see that in real life?

Come on, it's a game for fun, and to the OP, you were out of line for not disclosing what was in your trucks. You should have and hopefully you have lernt that you should do this unless agreed before the game begins not to disclose. Hopefully you have realized you made an error in judgement in what you did, if not, it dosn't look like you will be getting many games in if it keeps up, from reading the posts in here.

If you did it to me, you would only get in one game and never again with me. But we all make mistakes and we learn from our mistakes.

I always fully disclose everything as I'm deploying.

"this falcon has X Y and Z and is carrying my squad of *blah* with a farseer"
"this wave serpent has X Y and Z and is carrying my squad of *blah*"
"this is an Avatar..." well duh...
etc.

As for the secrecy... There are ways to figure it out... most armies have a way of knowing whats what by either scanning said vehicles, scouting the enemy, just plain knowing enemy squad marking, or just being psychic.

TheSecretSquig wrote:Myself and my gaming friends strictly play the secrecy. We do not disclose what is in the vehicles until they disembark, either voluntary or forced. This we find, plays a far more tactical and interesting game. Nor do we disclose any reserves we may have lurking off the board. In real life, you would not know what is in your enemies APC's without prior intelligence or whether or not he has the ability to call in some reserves. I think that in one of the game expansions (like planetfall) there should be a strategic assest to take in order to find this information out.

This method prevents your Warboss and Nob squad being deliberately targeted because your opponent knows which Trukk its in. However, there are caviats.............

We write down what squad is in what vehicle before the game starts and what is in reserve. E.g., That Rhino with the 3 bullet holes in the front armour (to tell it from the other Rhinos) is carrying the Tac. Squad with the Flamer and H Bolter...etc etc etc. When the squad disembarks, this is shown to the opponent to prove there is no cheating. If there is, game is forfiet.

Its a more interesting game when you don't know. I've 6 Trukks speeding towards my line, 1 has the Nob Squad of death in, the others are just Boyz. I've only 3 shots at taking them out. Is his Nobz on the left flank for my Devastators, the right for my Assault Marines, or is he coming down the middle?????????

You can see how this makes the game more interesting, your forced into thinking and making a choice, rather than knowing your target priority.


Each to their own I guess. This is just the way I and my friends prefere. But then we have a lot of house rules.

As long as theirs a list saying whats in each vehicle at the side of the table (face down of course). To stop cheating, why not.???
And the same for reserves.
Even better have multiple mission cards, choose one primary and one secondary, put them in a box, and let battle begin

Maybe us british like a challenge

Because it's as tactical as drawing a card.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:Because it's as tactical as drawing a card.

Where as now its like ludo.
He who gets good rolls on the dice wins

Dice do make quite a difference, but with essentially random transports it's next to impossible to make a tactical decision.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:Because it's as tactical as drawing a card.

Poker can be quite a tactical game...

But anyway. If anybody plays like that in the FLGS stating that i couldn't possibly know what was in where... well...
I wont be deploying anything that the opponent cannot draw a LOS to, he couldn't possibly know what was behind that wall after all...

The biggest thing to decide is do you hold what you've got, or split you forces to intercept his troops.
Is that his primary worth 50 points, or secondary worth 25.
IF you got your pirmary and he hasn't thats a 25 point lead, if your holding his point thats a 25 bonus aswell.
Or is it a feint to drawn off your troops.

your right no tactics in this.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Thats how we play at home

I'll change my wording due to backlash: You wouldn't necessarily and absolutely know what is in a rhino down to the last detail, regardless of scenario, race or battle size. Can we agree on that?

nkelsch wrote: But your disregard of the rule breaks the game. It makes it 100% broken and unfair and heavily slants advantages towards transport-heavy armies and disadvantages towards foot-based armies. Now all models on foot have a huge disadvantage for no change in points.

I can't see inside your transports for realisim and game enhancement? Maybe you can't see the Armor save or the weapons of my orks as they all keep that hidden till the very last minute.

My ork army will be 100 models with non-descript cloaks or heavy coats and I will tell you what type of weapons they are hiding or what armorsave they have when I choose to disclose it through action on the table. Realistically if my orks did wear such cloaks, you would have no way to tell who was a 'ard boy, who was a loota and who was a Nob and who was 2 grots pretending to be an ork the same way I can't see inside your transports. Did I mention my Dreds keep the guns in a closed compartment which doesn't come out until the weapon is used? You can't tell the weapons my dreds are using either. Only fair right?

The only way it is 'fair' is if such "fog of war" type game mechanics are usable to both sides equally like Stratego. Since this is not the case and only gives a massive advantage to one type of unit, it is gamebreaking, unfair and enhances nothing (except for the person getting the advantage at the expense of his opponent)

40k has no such valid way to handle "fog of war" therefor it is removed. And your examples are poor. The game has balanced and fair rules for Hidden Objectives as both sides can use them equally, Blips in Spacehulk are built into the core of the game and the rules are designed for it and Lictors pay for their hidden advantage in points.

You want to model an army of tipis, you go for it. I doubt it would be worth the effort. What you are doing there is taking a situation I say I find fun and using it in a way that is obviously not in the spirit of the game, which I obviously would not condone. Also, I think you are going a bit far considering what I actually said. Nobody is questioning the usefulness WYSIWYG, despite the obvious drawbacks this has modelling-wise. You can tell, say, that a squad of berserkers are such because that's what they look like. If you don't recognise them, by all means ask. If, however, you want to know what psychic powers a guy has, how much a squad costs, what's in a rhino, you would have to wait and see. I'M NOT SAYING I WOULDN'T SHOW YOU MY LIST IN THIS SITUATION, I just don't like the rule. I'll have it written down, so you don't even have to take my word for it.

Again, I take your point that transparency is necessary to make the game as fair as possible, and as such, important for tournament play to stop complaints. I still say, however, that it is unrealistic, borderline unsportsmanlike and, for me, removes a fun aspect of the game.

MasterSlowPoke wrote: Obscurity is not tactical. Basing your victory on whether or not the enemy randomly targets the right trukk doesn't make you a good general.

I agree with this, but would also say, as an example, that being forced to scramble when the rhino bearing down on one of your objectives turns out to be empty can prove it.

Can I ask, to try and stop this turning into mud flinging, does anyone think less transparency (within reason and with accountability to -sigh- stop cheating) would be more fun if the advantages were accounted in the cost of the transports/reserves etc to make it more fair?

dayve110 wrote:

MasterSlowPoke wrote:Because it's as tactical as drawing a card.

Poker can be quite a tactical game...

When everyone can hide thier cards, then it is part of the game. Everyone is effected by the rules equally. In your situation, You are playing with your cards hidden while requiring your opponents to play face up on the table and are then expecting them to gamble against you while you make your decisions based while having an unfair advantage.

If you think playing texas hold'em with everyone but you playing with all thier cards face up is 'fair' and 'tactical' then all that apparently matters about a game is winning, not beating opponents in a fair game.

If, however, you want to know what psychic powers a guy has, how much a squad costs, what's in a rhino, you would have to wait and see. I'M NOT SAYING I WOULDN'T SHOW YOU MY LIST IN THIS SITUATION, I just don't like the rule. If a player's word can't be accepted, ask them to write it down.

Again, I take your point that transparency is necessary to make the game as fair as possible, and as such, important for tournament play to stop complaints. I still say, however, that it is unrealistic, borderline unsportsmanlike and, for me, removes a fun aspect of the game.

If you are playing by the rules, you need to disclose it unless you and your opponent agree to this variation of the core rules before the game. If he doesn't he is not a bad sport and calling him such while you attempt to impose a impact to the game to give yourself a huge and unfair advantage that may ruin the game for your opponent could make you the bad sport. Sacrificing your opponent's FUN for your own gratification.

The ruels state that you MUST be transparent unless you both agree.

You cannot state the other person is unsportsmanlike if they do not agree with you - after all you are told by the rules that the position you are taking is not the default one.

Soup and a roll wrote:does anyone think less transparency (within reason and with accountability to -sigh- stop cheating) would be more fun if the advantages were accounted in the cost of the transports/reserves etc to make it more fair?

If costs were included (possibly via an upgrade, "auspex jammers" or something) then i'd have no problem not knowing what was in a vehicle, as the player payed for that privilege, but as the rules are now its a huge advantage to those who mech up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nkelsch wrote:

dayve110 wrote:

MasterSlowPoke wrote:Because it's as tactical as drawing a card.

Poker can be quite a tactical game...

When everyone can hide thier cards, then it is part of the game. Everyone is effected by the rules equally. In your situation, You are playing with your cards hidden while requiring your opponents to play face up on the table and are then expecting them to gamble against you while you make your decisions based while having an unfair advantage.

If you think playing texas hold'em with everyone but you playing with all thier cards face up is 'fair' and 'tactical' then all that apparently matters about a game is winning, not beating opponents in a fair game.

Nkelsch, im actually debating on the same side as you... don't get all sarcy over one comment about cards

nosferatu1001 wrote:The ruels state that you MUST be transparent unless you both agree.

You cannot state the other person is unsportsmanlike if they do not agree with you - after all you are told by the rules that the position you are taking is not the default one.

Agreed. I find it against the spirit and fun of the game, however, when they are scouring my army list every turn to make sure I'm not cheating.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
OK. I'm going to condense most of the last page, with a few exceptions, to "We all disagree, ya loon, go take your bizarre play styles and ride out on the same horse you came in on" and 'Don't try that crape round here'.

I'll bow out now and go off and create a new threat discussing these house rules and what people would pay to stealth up their transports and so on. Thanks all.

I would suggest rules development as well - as you are looking to change rules (and points) to do this.

As for people scouring my list every turn? Never had it happen. Ever. Normally all that is required is a 5min run down - only ever even had one person both to look at my list, even after the game...