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.

It is never going to be okay to do it that way BR, because saying "The squad with the blue helmets are in this transport" does not make it clear to both players which unit is embarked on which transport.

Tournaments require that you exchange army lists before the game, if the army list is marked in the same way as the transports, and lists all of the models and their wargear/rules etc, then just saying the blue helmeted squad works, but not if you do not identify the squad with the blue helmets to your opponent.

Just accept that because any pick up game will want that courtesy, as will 99.999% of any tournaments out there.

The issue is there is no clear definition how what needs to be secret. No two people will ever have the same definition. As soon as one person wants more secrecy than the other, the game ends because players are playing by different rules which instantly makes the one with the more secretive bent a cheater to the other player.

The only way to d o it is for both players to agree. Since this can never happen, full disclosure is the only way the game can exist.

Nothing has changed, and your version of secrecy is not supported by any rules. I would have no problem looking at every TO in the world and say your squad markings is not a legit or legal version of the rules and 100% of TOs I have met would agree.

Hiding units in transports is cheating. No clear secrecy rules are defined in the rulebook.

I 100% agree with nkelsch. This is an area me and BR vehemently disagree on.

If your opponent disagrees which could happen a lot then don't expect to play many games. I don't see any good reason not to provide your list prior to the start of a game - seems very shady not to do so.

Brother Ramses wrote:Mann, do you even understand the ramifications and required logistics of switching around units midgame based on paint/symbols/markings? Do you understand that in regard to identification by wargear composition all a player has to do is lie?

Of course. Which is why I do both with my armies. I paint identifying markings on my squads and transports, and tell me opponent BOTH that "squad 1 is in transport 1", AND what they are armed with.

Brother Ramses wrote:Scenario 1:I tell you wargear comp of one unit embarked and wargear of another unit embarked. I just switch them out midgame and when you complain, I just lie and say no, that is not what I said. We go back and forth and it just becomes a he said, she said argument. Who does the TO/judge believe and what proof does he have to make that decision?

Scenario 2: I give you a color scheme for one unit embarked and a different color scheme for another unit embarked. To pull a switcheroo with just one special weapon, I would have to have the replacement special weapon painted in a different color scheme and the alternative special weapon painted in a different color scheme. Now that only works if the two units are then completely identical in every single other aspect.

When a more secure method of ensuring that switching units does not happen and if it does happen it can be verified, why insist on a less secure method?

The simplest explanation would be that demanding wargear composition of embarked squads has absolutely nothing to do with preventing cheating and everything to do with garnering a tactical advantage at deployment.

You're drawing a false dichotomy, as my own (and scores other tournament players I've met across the country) practices demonstrate.

There is a difference of opinion about who is "garnering a tactical advantage at deployment". You can view it as the guy with the transports is garnering a tactical advantage by hiding info about weapon loadouts from his opponent, or you can view it as the guy without the transports is garnering a tactical advantage by requesting that he be given that information.

In most players' view, disclosure is most compatible with the stated intention of the WYSIWYG rules, which is to make sure that both players are always tell at a glance what their opponents' models are armed with. If it is not immediately 100% obvious (for example, when a squad is partially hidden in a ruin), we normally feel comfortable asking our opponent "is there a meltagun in that squad?", to save time. None of us respond to that question by making our opponent walk around the table and look for himself.

It is quite telling to see so many automatically jump to the assumption that secrecy equals cheating when the very RAW of the rule supports it as the default method of playing the game with disclosure being the option.

A NOTE ON SECRECY

To keep things fair, you should always allow your opponent to read your force roster after a game and always make it clear to your opponent which squads are embarked in which Transports. However, before deploying armies, agree whether or not you will read the opponent's force roster during the game as well.

"To keep things fair, you should always allow your opponent to read your force roster AFTER a game....."

So first and foremost, you are not even aware of what my wargear or army composition is until after the game, and that as the rules says is, "to keep things fair". That is the RAW of the rule.

"...and always make it clear to your opponent which squads are embarked in which Transports."

And now we have the issue of contention that so many of you want to place an unwarranted and unsupported condition of wargear composition. Why if we are not even told to share force rosters, which includes wargear composition, in the first part of this sentence until AFTER the game do any of you think that you are suddenly compelled to reveal wargear composition when distinguishing which squads are embarked in which transports? Do you not see the irony in your demand? The first part of the sentence says you won't see my force roster until after the game and then some of you are using the second sentence to bypass the first via demanding wargear composition. Please, please answer that clear as day conflict that some of you have created by demanding wargear composition as the sole means to distinguish one squad from another.

"However, before deploying armies, agree whether or not you will read the opponent's force roster during the game as well."

And right here we are given the only option for disclosure of force rosters DURING the game. Not full disclosure of walking your opponent through the exact wargear composition of each and every squad embarked, but sharing the force roster during the game, period.

In most players' view, disclosure is most compatible with the stated intention of the WYSIWYG rules, which is to make sure that both players are always tell at a glance what their opponents' models are armed with.

Mann, you are making up rules here that do not exist.

"What You See Is What You Get"

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 your 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".

The intention of WYSIWYG is NOT so that a person can tell at a glance what their opponent's models are armed with, but to force purchased wargear to be visually represented on the model. That means that if I have 10 scouts, all equipped with their default wargear, I can model them all completely covered in ghillie suits and they are completely legal. If I were to purchase one of those models a heavy bother, he has to then be modeled with said heavy bolter. That is the stated intention of WYSIWYG which has absolutely zero bearing on A Note on Secrecy and as noted does not even exist in 6th edition anymore.

As much as you and others have pretended, there are no such rules that models must be on display on a sideboard or tabletop for a impromptu WYSIWYG inspection. Considering that models not on the board are not in play yet, you get your "glance" to see if purchased wargear has been visually represented when the models go into play. At which time, if the agreement to share force rosters during the game was agreed upon, then verification of force roster and WYSIWYG is confirmed. Otherwise you fall upon the default status of checking the force roster after the game and thus verifying what was put into play was legal.

Now besides conjecture and unwarranted cries of cheating, not a single one of you has actually put forth a substantive rules argument against distinguishing one embarked squad from another via means other then wargear composition. I have presented the very fault of your reasoning within the very first sentence of the A Note on Secrecy, address that or I would suggest not bothering to respond at all.

Brother Ramses wrote:"To keep things fair, you should always allow your opponent to read your force roster AFTER a game....."

you missed the second part of that quote:

"and ALWAYS MAKE IT CLEAR to your opponent which squads are embarked in which Transports."

Brother Ramses wrote:not a single one of you has actually put forth a substantive rules argument against distinguishing one embarked squad from another via means other then wargear composition.

I have, with my notes above.

The only way to make it clear to opponents is by WYSIWYG.

The rules tell you to make it clear which squads are embarked on which transports. the only way to distinguish the squad with the two melta guns from the squad with the two plasma rifles are to look at the models and figure out WYSIWYG.

If you had them painted differently, and pointed to the squad that is in a certain transport, then that is fine as well, and due to WYSIWYG your opponent knows exactly the wargear load out of that squad.

It is the same as last edition. Nothing has changed.

Tournaments will still be run with full disclosure.

Most pick up games will be run with full disclosure.

In friendly games with your mates, you can be a secretive as you want to be.

Brother Ramses wrote:So first and foremost, you are not even aware of what my wargear or army composition is until after the game, and that as the rules says is, "to keep things fair". That is the RAW of the rule.

Yes, that's the RAW. It was the RAW previously, as well. But it's not how the vast majority of people actually play it.

Mann, you are making up rules here that do not exist.

Yes, he is. As is practically every tournament organiser on the face of the planet.

Because sharing lists only after the game is a bad, bad idea in a competitive environment.

The intention of WYSIWYG is NOT so that a person can tell at a glance what their opponent's models are armed with, but to force purchased wargear to be visually represented on the model.

...so that players can tell at a glance what their opponents' models are armed with.

Now besides conjecture and unwarranted cries of cheating, not a single one of you has actually put forth a substantive rules argument against distinguishing one embarked squad from another via means other then wargear composition. I have presented the very fault of your reasoning within the very first sentence of the A Note on Secrecy, address that or I would suggest not bothering to respond at all.

Yes, you have presented the rules as you see them. Good job.

It won't change the way the game is actually played, though... which is with lists shared at the start of the game.

Brother Ramses wrote:
And as to your first sentence, there are no rules whatsoever on distinguishing one squad from another. The standard is set by the players as to what constitutes a difference between on unit and another. You can try and demand wargear composition, but being clearly distinguished by any other way is just as viable per the rules and equally supported by the rules.

Totally wrong. The in-game definition of a squad is a grouping of models with statlines, equipment, and special rules. These are the pieces of data that are attached to the concept of a squad.

You are using the word "squad" in a generic, non-rules-based context. ie. "The IVth Russitanian Cavalry, aka the Awesomewolves!!!". In the [u]rules[/i] nothing about a unit's colourings, history, provenance or demeanour is taken into account in defining them in-game. Only models, statlines, equipment, and special rules. To explain a squad you must explain these things.

DeathReaper wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:"To keep things fair, you should always allow your opponent to read your force roster AFTER a game....."

you missed the second part of that quote:

"and ALWAYS MAKE IT CLEAR to your opponent which squads are embarked in which Transports."

Brother Ramses wrote:not a single one of you has actually put forth a substantive rules argument against distinguishing one embarked squad from another via means other then wargear composition.

I have, with my notes above.

The only way to make it clear to opponents is by WYSIWYG.

The rules tell you to make it clear which squads are embarked on which transports. the only way to distinguish the squad with the two melta guns from the squad with the two plasma rifles are to look at the models and figure out WYSIWYG.

If you had them painted differently, and pointed to the squad that is in a certain transport, then that is fine as well, and due to WYSIWYG your opponent knows exactly the wargear load out of that squad.

It is the same as last edition. Nothing has changed.

Tournaments will still be run with full disclosure.

Most pick up games will be run with full disclosure.

In friendly games with your mates, you can be a secretive as you want to be.

Actually, the second part of the first sentence was quoted and addressed in my post as the point of contention.

The issue at hand is that you and others are trying to use WYSIWYG as the means to enforce, "and ALWAYS MAKE IT CLEAR to your opponent which squads are embarked in which Transports" which is not supported by the rules at all. One, WYSIWYG does not even exist anymore and second, WYSIWYG was only ever meant to compel a person to model purchased wargear on a model. Combined with the fact that the first part of the sentence sets the tone of sharing force rosters after a game, trying to use WYSIWYG as a means to enforce "and ALWAYS MAKE IT CLEAR to your opponent which squads are embarked in which Transports" completely makes that first part of that sentence moot.

Full disclosure, full disclosure.....it doesn't even exist in the rules! It was an option left to the gamers to agree on in 5th edition, which even then only was specifically tied into sharing army lists before and during the game as opposed to after the game. The RAW is completely clear.

Frankly the only person out of everyone that has come even close to some resemblance of a rules centered argument is Nkelsch. He proposed there is no clear definition of secrecy, which touches on the more important point that there is no clear definition of what, "and ALWAYS MAKE IT CLEAR to your opponent which squads are embarked in which Transports" stipulates. There is no one standard given in the rules on distinguishing one squad from another which leaves us to the create a set of standards based on real life observation of the models in question. As I said, to say that you cannot tell the difference between a squad/transport marked one way and a squad/marked a different way, you are just outright lying. You take two people and stand them before you and ask the following,

Are they both human?

Yes. Well that does not distinguish one from another.

Are they both male?

Yes. Well that does not distinguish one from another.

Are they both Caucasian?

No, one is white and one is black. Ding, ding, ding, they have been distinguished from one another. You do not need to know what each man does for a living, you do not need to know if they have girlfriends/boyfriends/wives/life partners. They have been distinguished from each other based on the most simplest observation. Now to take the game to real life observation even farther,

If I tell you that the white man is driving a red Volvo and the black man is driving a green Volvo, I have even taken it a step further in distinguishing not only the men from themselves, but also which vehicles they are driving. That is all you are bound by the RAW to do, is make clear which squad is embarked in which transport. NOT that the white man driving in the red Volvo has a wife and 12 kids and the black man driving the green Volvo is single with two English Bulldogs. The distinction between who is who and who is driving what has been established and made clear.

The ongoing opposition to this whole debate has always been the assumption that not sharing wargear composition allows a player to cheat via switching out units, Yet even in past debates, where the proposition has been made to distinguish units by color/markings and then placing a unit composition card in the transport to ensure what is disembarked was originally embarked, the whiners still insist on a wargear composition as a means to distinguish despite the squads already clearly distinguished. I have even gone as far to recognize in the absence of any other distinguishing features, with wargear being the ONLY distinguishing feature, you must then use wargear as the standard to make clear to your opponents which squad is embarked in which transport. However, wargear composition is not the ONLY way that one squad can be distinguished from another and thus many,many other standards exist.

every GT and RTT I have played in has been bring 7 copies of your list, 1 for the TO and 1 for each opponent, and full disclosure was required. Anything less is douche baggery. If you can't win on your tactics in this game you should consider checkers.

This post was not acceptable. -Mannahnin

Brother Ramses wrote:The issue at hand is that you and others are trying to use WYSIWYG as the means to enforce, "and ALWAYS MAKE IT CLEAR to your opponent which squads are embarked in which Transports" which is not supported by the rules at all. One, WYSIWYG does not even exist anymore and second, WYSIWYG was only ever meant to compel a person to model purchased wargear on a model. Combined with the fact that the first part of the sentence sets the tone of sharing force rosters after a game, trying to use WYSIWYG as a means to enforce "and ALWAYS MAKE IT CLEAR to your opponent which squads are embarked in which Transports" completely makes that first part of that sentence moot.

Yes the latter part of the sentence makes the first part of the sentence moot. Blame GW.

WYSIWYG IS the only way to make it clear.

Saying "The blue squad is in that vehicle" says nothing as you could have 5 different blue squads packed away waiting to exit the vehicle. (Not you personally, just someone in general).

But I will just say what I said before, because it is the best way to handle this, as you will never relent on your position with these less than clear rules:


It is the same as last edition. Nothing has changed.

Tournaments will still be run with full disclosure.

Most pick up games will be run with full disclosure.

In friendly games with your mates, you can be a secretive as you want to be.

Brother Ramses wrote:

Are they both human?

Yes. Well that does not distinguish one from another.

Are they both male?

Yes. Well that does not distinguish one from another.

Are they both Caucasian?

No, one is white and one is black. Ding, ding, ding, they have been distinguished from one another. You do not need to know what each man does for a living, you do not need to know if they have girlfriends/boyfriends/wives/life partners. They have been distinguished from each other based on the most simplest observation. Now to take the game to real life observation even farther,
.

Ok, so you have defined 'secrecy' to limit to unit colorings and to hide what is in transports.

What if I define it as we all play with colored poker chips. You do not ever get to know what any unit actually is until you actually interact with it.

I have 3 units on foot. One blue, one red, one yellow. They are distinguished and red/blue/yellow are on my hidden list. You have no right to know what kind of unit they are, what they are equipped with, anything. As long as you know one squad is one thing, and one squad is another, they are distinguished by RAW.

When you shoot a unit, then I will disclose what you need to wound them is. When You wound then you will know what the armor value is. If you can figure out that unit BLUE are grots because they have T2 and Unit Red are orks because they T4 with a 6+ save, then cool. I don't have to disclose.

Now on my turn, when I shoot 9 rokkits at you, you might be able to deduce unit Yellow are tankbusters... but I didn't have to tell you.

Post game, you can verify I did not cheat.

The issue is with no clear rules, no two players will ever agree on a level of secrecy, unless they do. In EVERY game, someone will have a list which gains an advantage more with secrecy than the other. A transport heavy armor gets an advantage over footsloggers so obviously one person is motivated to have a personally advantages version of secrecy (like you do) and opponents who do not benefit have no reason to agree with your version.

So house rule it and agree, or full disclosure. Just move on and write GW a pointless letter because they didn't bother to actually write rules for secrecy...

Eat catpoop. That is very nice.

Brother Ramses,
Just to clarify, you paint the doors of your rhinos and the shoulders of your marines the same color to designate what squad is in what rhino. Thats fine, I have plenty of friends who do that, myself included, only i use numbers, it looks more like something the guard would do.

However, from your posts you what, leave your squads in their foam and wait until they disembark to get them out? If so, how do i know what weapon is in there, you could have painted a melta, a plasma, or a flamer with the same colored shoulder and grabbed it. I'd have no idea, and as long as it was in your list, I'd have no proof that you cheated.

On the other hand, if you do place your squads on the table to where i can look at them and see what they are armed with, there is no question of whats in the transport. Its the decent thing to do.

I think that you should just tell the OP your colorblind. Then his definition dooesnt apply to you and you can get a different "thing to distinguish" for his models. Maybe wargear? The fact of the matter is that if you dont want to play against the OP then dont. Any tourney will either tell him to display his list and whats where or leave. I dont see where there's a problem lol

Well following the rules of making it clear which squad is in each transport i could do the this and be following the rules. My army list labels each of my squads as A to Z. I mark each transport as the squad it is holding. I have now made it clear which squad is in which ride and now all I would need to do is show the other player the part of my army list covering the squad in question when it comes time to put the models in play or if they interact with the game in anyway other then just sitting there. So if I wanted to shot the plasma gun in the squad I would then need to Show everything for the squad. But all of my other squads would be secrete still. As a rule I would think you would be required to show all of the stuff for a unit once it becomes visible. Most of the people I have played against have been forth coming with all of the stuff they had and I had no reason to doubt them. But there will always be that one person that refuses to show you his list at all and they are more then likely cheating.

Meh, this thread again.

Brother Ramses wants to buy only one melta squad and then make his opponent guess which rhino has the melta(random example). He probably doesn't even want to play any shell games, he just wants the extra advantage provided by that layer of secrecy.

While probably tactically interesting, it's not supported by the rules whatsoever. If your opponent(or TO) insists on you making clear which models are inside your transport, you have no way of dodging around telling him that you have a melta gun. We really don't need another 10 page thread to get to the same conclusion again.

Brother Ramses wrote:One, WYSIWYG does not even exist anymore and second, WYSIWYG was only ever meant to compel a person to model purchased wargear on a model.

Outside of a character-specific boxout, as far as I'm aware WYSIWYG has never been a rulebook rule anyway, it's generally been in the individual codices. In other words, nothing has changed and as DeathReaper points out, tournaments and pick-up games will continue to be played with full disclosure.

Actually it wasnt even codex specific - apart from Eldar.

It has ALWAYS been a tournament rule, there to ensure people can play a game in a reasonable length of time with as little confusion as possible.

BRs interpretation of the secrecy rules has never meshed with how pick up and tournament games are played in more than 99.9% of occasions, espeically the idea that i dont get to look at the actual squad on the side of the table. Any TO, including myself, would be suspicious of any player that wants to keep models in their case and refuses to state what is what.

Codex-specific in that most of them include 'Any upgrades that are taken must be shown on the model.' or similar on the same page as the FOC diagram.

Which isnt quite the same as WYSIWYG - WYSIWYG is more than just upgrades being shown.

an ork's approach to secrecy...

Dis for krumpin
Dis for Dakka

any questions? WWWWAAAGH

Word