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.

Andrew1975 wrote:

Aandayyan wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:There is no way that your army is psychic [and knows what weapons every one of my guys has and what transports they are in.

Actually. This is 40k. Near enough everyone has psykers. Explains a lot as to why there is no secrecy. And if there wasnt psykers? Its still the 41st millenium. Im sure they have very sophistimicated technologies to scan the opposing army and relay information to the troops on the ground.

It's SO sophisticated I still need line of site to shoot most artillery!

I can't see your stealth suits, but my equipment knows what gear they have!

My "Equipment" know one of my guys is really your assassin, but it can't tell me who or what unit he is in!

It's just laziness!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Steelmage99 wrote:During deployment you kinda have to tell your opponent which units are in which transports.
This includes specifying which units are kept in Reserve with intent to Deep Strike and which are kept in Reserve with intent to Outflank.

While you are not explicitly required to tell your opponent during the game, refusing to is a dick move and will only lead to you opponents starting to write down which units are in which transports, and employing their own system of marking.
This will invariably lead to delays in the game. All of which could have been avoided by simply telling your opponent.

I don't think it's a dick move if you make a record of everything before hand. Surprise is to be expected on the battle field. The way some people play it's like you get a full intel report before hand.

Steelmage99 wrote:During deployment you kinda have to tell your opponent which units are in which transports.
This includes specifying which units are kept in Reserve with intent to Deep Strike and which are kept in Reserve with intent to Outflank.

While you are not explicitly required to tell your opponent during the game, refusing to is a dick move and will only lead to you opponents starting to write down which units are in which transports, and employing their own system of marking.
This will invariably lead to delays in the game. All of which could have been avoided by simply telling your opponent.

The player is compelled to tell you what is embarked in what.

You: What is in that Rhino?
Me: A GH pack.

That is all you get. To insist on more when the rules do not require it seems a little more of the kind of move you mention above.

And if you already agreed to full disclosure, why the need to write anything down? You already have seen the army list and/or have a copy of it in your hand. At that point "A Note on Secrecy" requirements have been fulfilled.

Brother Ramses wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:During deployment you kinda have to tell your opponent which units are in which transports.
This includes specifying which units are kept in Reserve with intent to Deep Strike and which are kept in Reserve with intent to Outflank.

While you are not explicitly required to tell your opponent during the game, refusing to is a dick move and will only lead to you opponents starting to write down which units are in which transports, and employing their own system of marking.
This will invariably lead to delays in the game. All of which could have been avoided by simply telling your opponent.

The player is compelled to tell you what is embarked in what.

You: What is in that Rhino?
Me: A GH pack.

That is all you get. To insist on more when the rules do not require it seems a little more of the kind of move you mention above.

And if you already agreed to full disclosure, why the need to write anything down? You already have seen the army list and/or have a copy of it in your hand. At that point "A Note on Secrecy" requirements have been fulfilled.

As a unit is only allowed to be deployed inside the transport bought for it, you have to be more specific than that. Unless, of course, you have several identical units with identical transports. Then you only have to declare; "that the Grey Hunters are deployed inside their transports" as it won't make a difference game-wise.
If the units (or their) transports are not completely identical, then you have to declare; "that the Grey Hunter unit with the Melta gun is in this transport and the Grey Hunter unit with the attached Wolf Guard is in this one".

As a unit is only allowed to be deployed inside the transport bought for it, you have to be more specific than that. Unless, of course, you have several identical units with identical transports. Then you only have to declare; "that the Grey Hunters are deployed inside their transports" as it won't make a difference game-wise.
If the units (or their) transports are not completely identical, then you have to declare; "that the Grey Hunter unit with the Melta gun is in this transport and the Grey Hunter unit with the attached Wolf Guard is in this one".

I don't think you should even have to tell them it's a gh pack. How would an army possibly know that!

Please, stop trying to apply Real Life physics and logic to the rules.

Steelmage99 wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:During deployment you kinda have to tell your opponent which units are in which transports.
This includes specifying which units are kept in Reserve with intent to Deep Strike and which are kept in Reserve with intent to Outflank.

While you are not explicitly required to tell your opponent during the game, refusing to is a dick move and will only lead to you opponents starting to write down which units are in which transports, and employing their own system of marking.
This will invariably lead to delays in the game. All of which could have been avoided by simply telling your opponent.

The player is compelled to tell you what is embarked in what.

You: What is in that Rhino?
Me: A GH pack.

That is all you get. To insist on more when the rules do not require it seems a little more of the kind of move you mention above.

And if you already agreed to full disclosure, why the need to write anything down? You already have seen the army list and/or have a copy of it in your hand. At that point "A Note on Secrecy" requirements have been fulfilled.

As a unit is only allowed to be deployed inside the transport bought for it, you have to be more specific than that. Unless, of course, you have several identical units with identical transports. Then you only have to declare; "that the Grey Hunters are deployed inside their transports" as it won't make a difference game-wise.
If the units (or their) transports are not completely identical, then you have to declare; "that the Grey Hunter unit with the Melta gun is in this transport and the Grey Hunter unit with the attached Wolf Guard is in this one".

You have already agreed to share your army list after, before, and/or during the game. Your opponent will already know what the squads are equipped and when you are compelled to make clear to your opponents which squads are embarked in which transport vehicles.

Squads is defined on page xii,

"Models are organized into squads, commonly of 5 or more models."

If I check in my SW codex, the composition of a GH pack is defined as,

"5-10 Grey Hunters"

So at no time am I compelled to give out how they are equipped beyond the established exchange of army lists. So as I said, identifying what squads are embarked in which transport,

"Grey Hunter pack in this Rhino"

Along with the exchange of army lists either after, before, and/or during the game is all that is required by the rule on page 92.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
GW wants to make it so you and your opponent know what is in eachother transports, just not how they are equipped. They make it pretty easy to deduce by exchanging of army lists and by simply paying attention.

How am I to check that you are actually following the rules? That you are actually deploying the correct units in the correct transports?

Only by you specifying which units are in which transport can I do that.

If, say, two Grey Hunter units are differently equipped and, Heaven forbid, have differently equipped transports, then you have to specify to allow me to check.

This, combined with WYSIWYG, makes secrecy utterly redundant and a waste of time.


I think that we, in essence, agree on the rules. Where we differ slightly is our mindset about said rules.

I agree that by having the opponents army-list and following WYSIWYG makes it easy to figure out.


My point is, that I believe it to be a waste of time to force my opponent to do that mental arithmetic when I can just as easily tell him the answer and allow us to get on with the game.
In some cases, it can be downright necessary. Should my opponent be unfamiliar with my army in general, and MY army specifically, then a requirement for him to be able to tell units/weapons/upgrades apart would, in my mind, seem unreasonable.
Insisting on keeping secrets in this case would only, I believe, lead to an uncomfortable feeling around the table as I continually refuse to answer his questions.

In short, I don't believe the secrecy-issue to be an important part of the game.
Should you feel otherwise, I totally respect that.

I don't really see the secrecy thing as an issue.

First of all, its pretty hard to cheat in 40k as most people tend to know when something dodgy has gone on. I've never met a person who cheated during a game apart from one guy who rolled a dodgy way to try to manipulate the dice.

i believe that as long as you both have legal army lists and in the event of multiple transports that they make a note of whats where then there is no problem. who's to say that future technology can scan an alien tank properly? with all the different technologies going around then it is plausible that it isn't as straightforward.

as for the deep-strike and outflank stuff, it makes for a challenging battle if there are surprises. plus it also means that for so many turns, you have all your units on the battlefield whereas your opponent has taken the gamble of starting weaker to gamble on an advantage later. I think, in most circumstances, that you can tell if someone is using less points than you and so its probably best to be cautious about the possibilty of a deep-striking unit.

this is just my opinion and i'm not singling anyone out. i've been playing for 11 years now and its always been like this for me. Coming out of a hard-fought game with a victory in the bag or even watching an opponent pull you apart with swift and well-thought tactics is the whole point of the game. focus more on your own planning and have faith in the other player to do the same and adhere to the rules.

If one feels that the rules as they stand now are illogical, then they are of course free to houserule things for their own personal games.
But for the purpose of tournaments and official rules discussions, there is no question: The game has no secrecy. Don't be a douchebag just because you want to play some cute little shellgame. Just tell your opponent what is in your transports, and what they are equipped with if he asks.
If you try to do anything but this in a tournament, I would expect a TO to be over shortly to tell you to stop being a gakker and start following the clearly and explicitly outlined rules.

That said, if you'd rather employ houserules in friendly games, then by all means go ahead! Just make clear and agree with your opponent on these houserules. If no such agreement has been made, you must assume that the actual rules are being used.
In short: If you have not explicitly agreed with your opponent to not divulge what are in the transports and what they are armed with, you are required by the rules to do so. No exceptions. No flaking. No shell games. No secrecy.
If it makes sense or not isn't relevant. It's the rules. If you have a better suggestion, I hope to see it up on the Proposed Rules subforum, where it belongs.

If you are trying to keep secrets from you enemy without agreeing beforehand, you're cheating.

If you're staring down your enemy in turn 7 because he didn't remember what squad X entered the dedicated rhino of squad Y during turn 2 three hours ago, your being TFG and and a bad sport.

In either case, try spending your time to become a better general, rather than finding nitpicks to give you an unfair advantage.

WH40k is full disclosure, if you want to hold a secret hand, go play a card game.

Brother Ramses wrote:GW wants to make it so you and your opponent know what is in eachother transports, just not how they are equipped. They make it pretty easy to deduce by exchanging of army lists and by simply paying attention.

You are wrong. You were wrong last thread when you argued you didn't have to share and secrecy was part of the game and you are wrong now.

Your models should be as transparent as if they were standing on the board fully WYSIWYG. If I ask what wargear is in that unit in that rhino 100 times you have to tell me 100 times. You don't get to say 'a generic unit, figure it out' You have to tell me explicitly what unit with what wargear and what upgrades and what character.

If I can see your models, I can probably figure it out for myself, but if you hide them off the table like you are some child playing Yu-Gi-oh who is going to activate a trap card on me, then expect that I will ask you anytime I feel like it and you will answer with full transparency.

Anything else is cheating.

Brother Ramses wrote:
You have already agreed to share your army list after, before, and/or during the game. Your opponent will already know what the squads are equipped and when you are compelled to make clear to your opponents which squads are embarked in which transport vehicles.

Squads is defined on page xii,

"Models are organized into squads, commonly of 5 or more models."

If I check in my SW codex, the composition of a GH pack is defined as,

"5-10 Grey Hunters"

So at no time am I compelled to give out how they are equipped beyond the established exchange of army lists. So as I said, identifying what squads are embarked in which transport,

"Grey Hunter pack in this Rhino"


Automatically Appended Next Post:
GW wants to make it so you and your opponent know what is in eachother transports, just not how they are equipped. They make it pretty easy to deduce by exchanging of army lists and by simply paying attention.

If it's so easy, why make such a big deal about it?

Also, page 92 says to always make clear to your opponent which squads are embarked in which transport vehicle.

"What's in that Rhino?"
"A 10 man Grey Hunters Squad."
"Okay. So that's its 'composition', but WHICH squad is it?" At this point I'm holding out the roster you handed me, asking you.

As much as people want to name call and pigeonhole, all of you are asking for information outside of the rules so are actually perpetuating that which you keep trying to label.

WYSIWYG does NOT compel you to tell you opponent what your units are equipped with. Read the rule before you try bringing it into this discussion! It is not even related and most of you just spout it out because you have heard it before from someone else just as uninformed:

What You See Is What You Get, page 47

"Character models in particular tend to have a lot of options as to what weapons and wargear they can use - given in the army list of their Codex. The rule is that such equipment must be visually represented on the model so you opponent can clearly see what they are facing. This concept is often referred to as WYSIWYG, which stands for 'what you see is what you get'.

Of course, many gamers enjoy trying out different combinations of wargear in different battles. So, if for example, a player might decide that for his next game a model's power sword will simply count as a close combat weapon, but he will also equip the model with melta bombs. While some tournaments may be more strict about this kind of thing, most opponents are happy to accommodate a small degree of one thing counting as another, so long as you explain exactly who has what at the start of the game."

If you bought the model the wargear/equipment it must be represented on the model. If it isn't, you explain it at the start of the game, and only if your opponent is willing to accommodate. Absolutely nothing to do with A Note on Secrecy.

Squads are not defined by their equipment as I have already pointed out. Read the description on page xii, Squads. Check what ever codex you play, the composition of your squads/packs/broods are defined not by how they are equipped but by what they are.

3 hours prior? How about the rest of the army and the process of elimination to determine what is left in the Rhino from the previous turn? Has the enemy been reading the latest BL novel and not paying attention the previous 3 hours of gaming?

The funny part about this is that even GW's first point is that to be fair, army lists should be shared AFTER THE GAME. GW's first suggestion is that you and your opponent do not even know what is in each army until after the game with the caveat being to make clear which squad is embarked in which transport. Not what they are equipped with, just identifying which squads are embarked in which transport.

Yet everyone takes the voluntary option between gamers to share army lists before and/or during as holy writ, which still clearly and concisely points out the rosters being shared as full disclosure, not the equipment of embarked squads. Full disclosure is not,

"Tell me what is where with what is equipped!!"

It is exchanging army lists before and/or during the game instead of after. In fact nowhere in the BRB are you directed to tell your opponent anything he wants whenever he asks as so many of you want to try and point out. It does not exist.

I believe you are going too micro. Try a bit of macro-approach.

By combining the rules for WYSIWYG, the rules/conventions for sharing armylists, the rules for deployment and the rules for the things you are forced to disclose, you are left with such small and easily-figured-out secrets that insisting on keeping them amounts to TFG-behaviour.

This is of course only my opinion and should be taken as nothing more than that.

Who's name-calling?

Your army list has:
captain
10 tac marines with plasma gun and plasma cannon, rhino
10 tac marines with melta gun and multimelta, rhino

All I want you to do is to tell me WHICH SQUAD, per the rules on page 92, is in that Rhino right there.

The "which" portion of that implies that you must provide some unique identifier. "10 tac marines" would be sufficient if there was only one squad of "10 tac marines", but otherwise it's inadequate identification, no matter how loudly you declare otherwise.

Squads are not defined by their equipment as I have already pointed out. Read the description on page xii, Squads. Check what ever codex you play, the composition of your squads/packs/broods are defined not by how they are equipped but by what they are.

Wrong, page XII is not rules. Really, even if you ignore the 178 page long chapter named "Rules", the roman numbers should be a dead giveaway. The actual rules(pg. 3) tells us that "squads" are "units". Units differ in game terms if any models differ in game terms. Models differ in game terms if they have a different statline and/or wargear. A unit entry is not the same thing as a unit.

3 hours prior? How about the rest of the army and the process of elimination to determine what is left in the Rhino from the previous turn? Has the enemy been reading the latest BL novel and not paying attention the previous 3 hours of gaming?

I quite often have two or more battlewagons and/or trukks left on turn 7, while many of them have transported up to three units over the course of the game. Now guess in which of the two battlewagons(or even the trukk?) the bigmek has gone after his BW got destroyed on turn 2 and never did anything meaningful after that. He left one unit of boyz to join some burnaz in another battlewagon, who then charged something and the surviving two entered a trukk to not give up a killpoint easily. Did the bigmek charge with them? Maybe. Now my army might be a bad example, as my vehicles are all different colors and look different, so that might even be easy. But lets say I run all looted, identical, grey rhinos, the ones with a little red dot count as trukks, the other ones without are battlewagons. Try to find out by looking at my list! I guess, as you don't remember anyway, he will be in whatever Rhino-BW you decide to shoot.

The funny part about this is that even GW's first point is that to be fair, army lists should be shared AFTER THE GAME. GW's first suggestion is that you and your opponent do not even know what is in each army until after the game with the caveat being to make clear which squad is embarked in which transport. Not what they are equipped with, just identifying which squads are embarked in which transport.

As stated above, a squad is defined by it's equipment and statlines, not by the name of it's unit entry.

Yet everyone takes the voluntary option between gamers to share army lists before and/or during as holy writ, which still clearly and concisely points out the rosters being shared as full disclosure, not the equipment of embarked squads. Full disclosure is not,

Actually in my gaming group, we don't exchange lists at all most of the time, unless someone wants to see afterward. Perfectly fine, unless you actually refuse to show the list to someone, which would imply you were cheating.

"Tell me what is where with what is equipped!!"

It is exchanging army lists before and/or during the game instead of after. In fact nowhere in the BRB are you directed to tell your opponent anything he wants whenever he asks as so many of you want to try and point out. It does not exist.

"In the same spirit always make clear to your opponent which squads are embarked in which transport vehicle."( BRB pg. 92)

Whats so hard to understand about that?

If you really want to ruin you opponents day that hard, wait till he has deployed his army, then swipe everything off the table onto the ground and tell him to hurry up deploying und accuse him of using bad glue on the vehicle that broke. No rules against that in the BRB. You'll be done ruining the others players day way faster than actually playing him, and he still suffers as long as he would when playing you. Win-Win.

Jidmah wrote:

If you really want to ruin you opponents day that hard, wait till he has deployed his army, then swipe everything off the table onto the ground and tell him to hurry up deploying und accuse him of using bad glue on the vehicle that broke. No rules against that in the BRB. You'll be done ruining the others players day way faster than actually playing him, and he still suffers as long as he would when playing you. Win-Win.

Then he wouldn't have a full army and thus would have to concede. Genius! I feel my W/L ratio increasing already.

Brother Ramses wrote:As much as people want to name call and pigeonhole, all of you are asking for information outside of the rules so are actually perpetuating that which you keep trying to label.

WYSIWYG does NOT compel you to tell you opponent what your units are equipped with. Read the rule before you try bringing it into this discussion! It is not even related and most of you just spout it out because you have heard it before from someone else just as uninformed:

No, WYSIWYG prevents me from having to ask 100 times because I can look at the models and figure out the gear.

The note on secrecy and the fact this is a full disclosure game compels you to tell your opponent what units are equipped with. I can ask you at any time to tell me what any model or unit or unit inside a transport is and you have to tell me everything about that model. You don't have the right to hide that info. If you refuse, you are cheating and the game is over, that simple.

Jidmah wrote:

Squads are not defined by their equipment as I have already pointed out. Read the description on page xii, Squads. Check what ever codex you play, the composition of your squads/packs/broods are defined not by how they are equipped but by what they are.

Wrong, page XII is not rules. Really, even if you ignore the 178 page long chapter named "Rules", the roman numbers should be a dead giveaway. The actual rules(pg. 3) tells us that "squads" are "units". Units differ in game terms if any models differ in game terms. Models differ in game terms if they have a different statline and/or wargear. A unit entry is not the same thing as a unit.

3 hours prior? How about the rest of the army and the process of elimination to determine what is left in the Rhino from the previous turn? Has the enemy been reading the latest BL novel and not paying attention the previous 3 hours of gaming?

I quite often have two or more battlewagons and/or trukks left on turn 7, while many of them have transported up to three units over the course of the game. Now guess in which of the two battlewagons(or even the trukk?) the bigmek has gone after his BW got destroyed on turn 2 and never did anything meaningful after that. He left one unit of boyz to join some burnaz in another battlewagon, who then charged something and the surviving two entered a trukk to not give up a killpoint easily. Did the bigmek charge with them? Maybe. Now my army might be a bad example, as my vehicles are all different colors and look different, so that might even be easy. But lets say I run all looted, identical, grey rhinos, the ones with a little red dot count as trukks, the other ones without are battlewagons. Try to find out by looking at my list! I guess, as you don't remember anyway, he will be in whatever Rhino-BW you decide to shoot.

The funny part about this is that even GW's first point is that to be fair, army lists should be shared AFTER THE GAME. GW's first suggestion is that you and your opponent do not even know what is in each army until after the game with the caveat being to make clear which squad is embarked in which transport. Not what they are equipped with, just identifying which squads are embarked in which transport.

As stated above, a squad is defined by it's equipment and statlines, not by the name of it's unit entry.

Yet everyone takes the voluntary option between gamers to share army lists before and/or during as holy writ, which still clearly and concisely points out the rosters being shared as full disclosure, not the equipment of embarked squads. Full disclosure is not,

Actually in my gaming group, we don't exchange lists at all most of the time, unless someone wants to see afterward. Perfectly fine, unless you actually refuse to show the list to someone, which would imply you were cheating.

"Tell me what is where with what is equipped!!"

It is exchanging army lists before and/or during the game instead of after. In fact nowhere in the BRB are you directed to tell your opponent anything he wants whenever he asks as so many of you want to try and point out. It does not exist.

"In the same spirit always make clear to your opponent which squads are embarked in which transport vehicle."( BRB pg. 92)

Whats so hard to understand about that?

If you really want to ruin you opponents day that hard, wait till he has deployed his army, then swipe everything off the table onto the ground and tell him to hurry up deploying und accuse him of using bad glue on the vehicle that broke. No rules against that in the BRB. You'll be done ruining the others players day way faster than actually playing him, and he still suffers as long as he would when playing you. Win-Win.

And yet all I have to do is point out to you that all the GH with a black X on their knee pad are in that Rhino with the black Y on the hatch. I have identified which squad is embarked in which transport. Done. As I have continued to point out, you do not need to disclose how the squads are equipped to identify them. The result is exactly the same as,

"What is in that rhino?'

"A GH pack."

Because you have not gleaned any information about what the GH pack in said Rhino is equipped with and yet identified what squad is embarked on which Rhino.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nkelsch wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:As much as people want to name call and pigeonhole, all of you are asking for information outside of the rules so are actually perpetuating that which you keep trying to label.

WYSIWYG does NOT compel you to tell you opponent what your units are equipped with. Read the rule before you try bringing it into this discussion! It is not even related and most of you just spout it out because you have heard it before from someone else just as uninformed:

No, WYSIWYG prevents me from having to ask 100 times because I can look at the models and figure out the gear.

The note on secrecy and the fact this is a full disclosure game compels you to tell your opponent what units are equipped with. I can ask you at any time to tell me what any model or unit or unit inside a transport is and you have to tell me everything about that model. You don't have the right to hide that info. If you refuse, you are cheating and the game is over, that simple.

Wrong.

Read the rule and come back. At no time are you required to tell your opponent whatever he wants whenever he asks. Full disclosure is telling your opponent which squad is embarked in which transport and sharing your army lists either after, before, and/or during. Read the rule before trying to just arbitrarily create a rule. As I pointed out to Jid, I can just as easily tell you which squad is embarked on which transport by paint jobs or other distinguishing markings without disclosing what they are equipped with.

Read the rule before you try calling out people on cheating.

Okay, so what you're saying is that you tell people that your Grey Hunter squad with the X on the kneepad are in Rhino Y. They then look over at your squad sitting off-table and see what weapons they're equipped with. Unless you're secreting them away to gloat over while exclaiming, 'my pressssssssscious,' like some kind of donkey-cave, then your opponent has all the information he needs to know what's in the transport.

Which brings me to my next point: Why play all coy and try to be elusive, when you could just save everyone else the hassle and respond to the situation like everyone else does, which is just offer the information up?

daedalus wrote:Okay, so what you're saying is that you tell people that your Grey Hunter squad with the X on the kneepad are in Rhino Y. They then look over at your squad sitting off-table and see what weapons they're equipped with. Unless you're secreting them away to gloat over while exclaiming, 'my pressssssssscious,' like some kind of donkey-cave, then your opponent has all the information he needs to know what's in the transport.

Which brings me to my next point: Why play all coy and try to be elusive, when you could just save everyone else the hassle and respond to the situation like everyone else does, which is just offer the information up?

Nice going with the name-calling to only prove my earlier point.

Every tournament I have played the tables have a lower level on them where a gaming tray holds your models, so they are off table anyway. Embarked models are considered off the table anyway in game terms so I don't see your point.

Two siimple questions;

Has the GH with the X on his kneepad that is embarked in the Rhino with the Y on the hatch been identified as to which squad has embarked on which transport?

When I disembark that pack of GH with X's on their kneepads from the Rhino with the Y on the hatch and the melta gunners have melta guns, the powerfist GH has a powerfist, the wolf standard bearer has a wolf standard, and the Mark of the Wulfen model with two chainswords and facial tattoo (as explained BEFORE the game as being the Mark of the Wulfen model per WYSIWYG) has two chainswords and a facial tattoo, has WYSIWYG been fullfilled?

So then what is your problem?

The squad has been identified, what transport they are embarked in has been identified, and they are WYSIWYG.

I see, you want me to identify them by YOUR standard that is not supported at all by the rules. Good luck with that.

its the only way to make sure you opponent is not cheating so yes. I usually put sarge or nob or whoever is in it on top of it. Only douche bags have to use secrecy to win.

Ah, this thread again.

BR- by saying "a" gh pack you have not complied, unless you only have one gh pack. Aka you've cheated. You failed in your own thread, and you're missing the mark again.

tgf wrote:its the only way to make sure you opponent is not cheating so yes. I usually put sarge or nob or whoever is in it on top of it. Only douche bags have to use secrecy to win.

And yet, this does nothing to tell you what the unit embarked is equipped with. By your own actions are you a douche bag? I don't think so as you have identified what unit is embarked by placing a representative of said embarked unit on the transport.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Ah, this thread again.

BR- by saying "a" gh pack you have not complied, unless you only have one gh pack. Aka you've cheated. You failed in your own thread, and you're missing the mark again.

Nos, popping in any thread with a one liner or two continually using the term "fail" or some variation of it only shows that it is really you that are failing.

How about answering the two questions I asked above and then by all means tell me how that the rules have not been fulfilled?

Brother Ramses wrote:
Two siimple questions;

Has the GH with the X on his kneepad that is embarked in the Rhino with the Y on the hatch been identified as to which squad has embarked on which transport?

When I disembark that pack of GH with X's on their kneepads from the Rhino with the Y on the hatch and the melta gunners have melta guns, the powerfist GH has a powerfist, the wolf standard bearer has a wolf standard, and the Mark of the Wulfen model with two chainswords and facial tattoo (as explained BEFORE the game as being the Mark of the Wulfen model per WYSIWYG) has two chainswords and a facial tattoo, has WYSIWYG been fullfilled?

Does your army list identify which GH squad has the X on their kneepad?

Do you have the models on view so that the squad with the X can clearly be seen?

If neither, then you have not adequately identified the unit as you could proceed to pull any models with X on them out of your army case.

Brother Ramses wrote:
And yet, this does nothing to tell you what the unit embarked is equipped with. By your own actions are you a douche bag? I don't think so as you have identified what unit is embarked by placing a representative of said embarked unit on the transport.

Sure it does...

1. "I an putting this Nob on my Trukk... he is from 'this' unit" Point to my sideboard. My opponent can inspect those models and see the WYSIWYG for them and know the equipment.
2. "I an putting this Nob on my Trukk... he is from 'Gorbags krusha boyz' on my armylist" My opponent can inspect my army list and see what the guys inside have.
3. "I an putting this Nob on my Trukk... The guys in this trukk are a basic trukk boy unit with a PK nob and a rokkit launcha and the rest are sluggas. If you need to know, just ask me again. " My opponent can ask again and again 'those are sluggas?' all game if he wants. Preferably doing 1 or 2 means he can remember easier.

No matter how it is done, the basic fact is he has the right to full disclosure at any time during the game and in any way he wants it. And you should try to accommodate him the best way you can either via a clear armylist, visual WYSIWYG or constantly re-explaining.

Anything else makes you a cheater... unless your opponent has agreed to special secrecy rules.

Brother Ramses wrote:
Nice going with the name-calling to only prove my earlier point.

Well, I was failing to meet your previous expectations, and that's a big thing where I come from, so I figured I should make sure to oblige.

Every tournament I have played the tables have a lower level on them where a gaming tray holds your models, so they are off table anyway. Embarked models are considered off the table anyway in game terms so I don't see your point.

And every tournament I have played at would be astounded at your unwillingness to share information openly. Furthermore, every one of them also expected you to provide your list to your opponent upfront.

Two siimple questions;

Has the GH with the X on his kneepad that is embarked in the Rhino with the Y on the hatch been identified as to which squad has embarked on which transport?

Well, there's no game definition of what it means to be identified, so we need to fall back to English. M-W says that identify means to 'establish the identity of'. Now the question here is whether their identity is an expression of game terms, or what paint is on the models. Since DA ROOLZ do not offer any provision for two units with different paint schemes being different, I can only assume that the only way to differentiate the units would be through dictating what wargear they have, or pointing them out either on a roster or on the side of the board.

When I disembark that pack of GH with X's on their kneepads from the Rhino with the Y on the hatch and the melta gunners have melta guns, the powerfist GH has a powerfist, the wolf standard bearer has a wolf standard, and the Mark of the Wulfen model with two chainswords and facial tattoo (as explained BEFORE the game as being the Mark of the Wulfen model per WYSIWYG) has two chainswords and a facial tattoo, has WYSIWYG been fullfilled?

Yes, but that's immaterial, because it never had anything to do with it to begin with.

I see, you want me to identify them by YOUR standard that is not supported at all by the rules. Good luck with that.

Ditto.

I do have a couple other questions though that could settle this from my point of view. What tournaments do you play in? What state is your FLGS in? Do you actually discuss this with your opponents during deployment?

Andrew1975 wrote:

As a unit is only allowed to be deployed inside the transport bought for it, you have to be more specific than that. Unless, of course, you have several identical units with identical transports. Then you only have to declare; "that the Grey Hunters are deployed inside their transports" as it won't make a difference game-wise.
If the units (or their) transports are not completely identical, then you have to declare; "that the Grey Hunter unit with the Melta gun is in this transport and the Grey Hunter unit with the attached Wolf Guard is in this one".

I don't think you should even have to tell them it's a gh pack. How would an army possibly know that!

Actually quite easy. Imagery, signals, scouts observations, live video feeds from drones, etc etc etc. Years back, during an exercise, we told the commander where all of his vehicles were, who they belonged to, and for some of them the drivers name.

Bottom line, the rules say that if I ask, you tell. Nothing more really needs to be said.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tgf wrote:its the only way to make sure you opponent is not cheating so yes. I usually put sarge or nob or whoever is in it on top of it. Only douche bags have to use secrecy to win.

Call it what it is, cheating. I've had someone try to pull the shell game on me (at a GW GT, no less), so I tend to insist on FULL disclosure. Yes, that means equipment, since for all I know you have two squads with the same symbols in your case.

The point of identifying which squad is in which transport is nothing to do with psychics, intelligence or other such concern, it is to prevent cheats from teleporting squads between different transports as is most convenient to gain them their best advantage.

Obviously no member of DakkaDakka would ever stoop so low as to indulge that behaviour, but there are people who would.

I don't see how saying that this rhino contains GH squad 1 and this one contains GH squad 2 isn't telling you what squad is in what vehicle. You don't need to tell your opponent which one has which gear and could in fact, if so inclined, do all your unit names in cyrilic or some other such language you don't expect your opponent to know so even looking at your list won't tell them which is squad 1 and which is squad 2. Each squad is still clearly labeled with all the correct info on the sheet, just because you chose non-english/non-native language names for your squads doesn't mean that the info doesn't exist or isn't clear to a player that knows your coding system of choice.

Example if I want to label things like this on my sheet: *Subject to the internet translators used for this example giving the right translation.*
Šedá lovec komando dva
Серые/Пепельные Хантер Squad двух
グレーのハンター隊（の・もの・人）
گري شكارچي جوخه دو

There is no less information and I can still say that I have GH squads 1, 2, 3, & 4. Pointless, perhaps, but not at all against the rules which never say that your list need all be in one language or that your opponent needs to know your coding system. Nothing to say that you need to show the TO the same way of typing your list as you do your opponent either so long as both are the same and clearly legible to somebody able to read them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:The point of identifying which squad is in which transport is nothing to do with psychics, intelligence or other such concern, it is to prevent cheats from teleporting squads between different transports as is most convenient to gain them their best advantage.

Obviously no member of DakkaDakka would ever stoop so low as to indulge that behaviour, but there are people who would.

If I put a slip of paper or daub of paint at the bottom of each transport and keep a list of what's in what updated as the game goes on cheating would be impossible anyway. If my opponent asks where a squad is I give them no less info by saying the GH squad is in the rhino with white paint beneath it than I do pointing to a rhino, the difference is that while I know which rhino is where he/she might not.