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.

Page 92 text.
"However, before starting to deploy their armies, it is a good idea for players to agree whether or not they can read the opponent’s force roster before and during the game."

don_mondo wrote:

Thunderfrog wrote:

Is very black and white. It says, with no wiggle room, that if you dont want to reveal your roster until after the game, screw it, you dont have to.

So this line doesn't exist?
Page 92 text yet again:
"However, before starting to deploy their armies, it is a good idea for players to agree whether or not they can read the opponent’s force roster before and during the game."

Once I say I want to see your list, we have to come to an agreement one way or the other. And I'm only going to agree that we share lists. See my point. I don't see any wiggle room here either.
And note that it says before deployment, not after as you are suggesting. But to address your other concers (as I already covered once previously), after deployment. That means AFTER determining scenario/deployment, AFTER setting up terrain, AFTER rolling to see who goes first, AFTER setting out objective markers. In other words, I can't diddle the terrain on you because you're playing mech or footsloggers, I can't adjust my list (tweak wargear) based on your list. So wow, look at that, by following what the rules actually say, we've eliminated most of your concerns regarding showing lists. Imagine that..................

It is a Good Idea that does not make it mandatory. Just because you want it to be a rule does not make it so. If the game ends there, then that is on you.

"However, before starting to deploy their armies, it is a good idea for players to agree whether or not they can read the opponent’s force roster before and during the game."


You keep going to this line, and I'm going to point out those 5 little words again...

"IT IS A GOOD IDEA"

That does not = definitive.
That does not = mandatory.


It is a good idea for you to mail me all your miniatures.

It is a good idea to send me gobs of money.

You do not have to send me gobs of money or your miniatures.


Do you see which of those is unlike the other?


Were the wording..

"You must disclose your army list."

Then you would be right and no one would object.

Stop spouting the "OFFICIAL RULES" of a mere suggestion, because it is simply a suggestion/idea and nothing more.

"You do not have to show your list until after the battle/game/whatever."

That's concrete and solid. No real arguement should even exist.

It's a good idea to be nice to people.
It's against the law to murder someone.

To tell someone they HAVE to be nice or else they are breaking the law is both silly and childish. It's the same concept here.

If you don't like the rule he is following, then pack up your toys and go play with someone else.

Akaiyou, there is a rule which turns that "It's a good idea ..." phrasing into a mandate, it's called "The Most Important Rule" on page two of the rulebook. If the two players involved get to that point in the game and either haven't agreed whether to play with secret lists, or can't agree whether to play with secret lists, then that rule is being broken, probably by both players.

Solkan,

you are right.. especially at the end where it's being broken by both players. In which case you either have a non-game or should agree to a roll-off, with a non-game being the most probable outcome.

I just dont think its right to turn side B into a villian for wanting to follow a rule as written because someone else is afraid they are going to cheat or doesnt like the idea of not knowing everything about the opposing force before the forces deploy.

solkan wrote:Akaiyou, there is a rule which turns that "It's a good idea ..." phrasing into a mandate, it's called "The Most Important Rule" on page two of the rulebook. If the two players involved get to that point in the game and either haven't agreed whether to play with secret lists, or can't agree whether to play with secret lists, then that rule is being broken, probably by both players.

But you see the thing is i AGREE with you. If there is a conflict then a roll off or some other resolution would be the best course of action.

The thing is, i was given NO CHOICE. Which is what made me flip out. Otherwise i completely agree with you and i would be more than willing to roll off on ANY similar situation. And like thunderfrog has said and what i've been trying to say for ages now is that i am NOT required to nor is it mandated that i reveal my list at the beginning of the game.

STOP there do not read further into the rules. That's all i was saying nothing more nothing less.

If the entry said 'you MUST reveal your list prior to the game starting' then i would. Against any opponent i play i always state that we should reveal lists after deciding first turn if anyone would disagree then i would proceed to step B and find a different way to decide.

Hell my very first game in vassal was versus some guy from TO that told me "I'll only reveal my list after the game" back then i also thought you would need to reveal your list at game start and i read the rules on secrecy after he pointed it out and i said 'oh wow, didnt know that. Cool np' and we played the game.

I guess it's all a matter of how you approach someone on a disagreement. =shrugs= any how. I gotta go jog so catch you guys later

Setting aside the legalities for a moment...what is the ultimate goal, here?

If it's a tournament, it's a non issue.

If you and your opponent both desire to keep things secret (for whatever reason), it's a non issue.

Under any other circumstances, you become TFG.

Having Right on your side won't mean a whole lot if you alienate your local player base in the process...

+1

[ Edited by me for being pointless. ]


Well, it's crap that the guy following the rules and willing to roll off to solve a disagreement is considered TFG.

CatPeeler wrote:Setting aside the legalities for a moment...what is the ultimate goal, here?

If it's a tournament, it's a non issue.

If you and your opponent both desire to keep things secret (for whatever reason), it's a non issue.

Under any other circumstances, you become TFG.

Having Right on your side won't mean a whole lot if you alienate your local player base in the process...

I dont understand why Akaiyou would become TFG. He has move that once said that he would be willing to roll off.

This is how I see it.

guy1 says "I play this way but would be willing to talk about how we are going to play it."
guy2 say "I play a different way and am unwilling to play it any other way."

Guy1 has as much right to play it his way (if not more) as guy2 does.

You are saying that guy 1 has right on his side and I see him as being more flexible but he is still the bad guy?

Honestly I think both sides have valid points. As has been mentioned many times before if you are in a tournament no terrain should be being moved and list have to be shared anyway so its a non issue. If you both agree to keep it secret it is a non issue. But in a one off game where scenery can be moved and the two players don't know each other and there isn't an impartial judge it does take on different aspects.

If your opponent forces you to share your list before the game then insists on changing terrain then that means they might as well be cheating. I don't think I can think of a single instance where an opponent has a good reason not to share their list after deployment though. If you wont share after all of the objective have been placed, the scenery chosen and all begining models placed on the table then you have become, without a shadow of a doubt TFG.

Before deployment and what not I can see a reason for secrecy or at least not sharing, but after deployment the only advantage you gain by not sharing your list is DOUCHE BAGITTY-NESS, and that is not a cool ability to have.

Akaiyou wrote:

solkan wrote:Akaiyou, there is a rule which turns that "It's a good idea ..." phrasing into a mandate, it's called "The Most Important Rule" on page two of the rulebook. If the two players involved get to that point in the game and either haven't agreed whether to play with secret lists, or can't agree whether to play with secret lists, then that rule is being broken, probably by both players.

But you see the thing is i AGREE with you. If there is a conflict then a roll off or some other resolution would be the best course of action.

The thing is, i was given NO CHOICE. Which is what made me flip out. Otherwise i completely agree with you and i would be more than willing to roll off on ANY similar situation. And like thunderfrog has said and what i've been trying to say for ages now is that i am NOT required to nor is it mandated that i reveal my list at the beginning of the game.

No, unfortunately, I don't think you do agree with me. Reaching an agreement with the other player whether or not to use secret lists is mandated by the rules by application of principles of TMIR. You'll note that the statement in that rule is "If a dispute does crop up then work out the answer in a gentlemanly manner." By what standard does flipping out constitute a gentlemanly settlement of the dispute?

If the other player says "I want to play this way" and you disagree with no opportunity for discussion, the correct thing to do at that point is to not play. At that point it is not a rules issue, it is a sportsmanship and etiquette issue. An argument of the form "But it doesn't say I have to..." does not reflect well on anyone in this sort of situation. Various people have posted various explanations of why they would not play casual games with secret lists, and dismissing those concerns with a casual "Well, roll off for it" is not going to produce a satisfactory resolution of the problem, and does not demonstrate a gentlemanly manner of addressing those concerns.

Edit'd P.S.:
Please note that rolling off for dispute resolution is not mandated by TMIR, but rather given as an example of a popular dispute resolution mechanism.

Also, also note that the gentlemanly way of resolving an intractable dispute is to drop it, regardless of who did what or who should be at fault.

Thunderfrog wrote:Well, it's crap that the guy following the rules and willing to roll off to solve a disagreement is considered TFG.

Under most circumstances, I'd agree with you 100%.

When it's a simple dispute involving the application of a rule (does that MC have 50% cover? etc.), a roll off is a simple way to resolve things and move on.

As has been pointed out repeatedly, not knowing what your opponent is using can have a *huge* effect on deployment and gameplay. Between friends, this could absolutely make a game even better or help to keep things fresh. Between strangers, though, you don't have that history of trust established. Refusing to answer simple questions actually creates a sense of mistrust. Giving a stranger the benefit of the doubt becomes a lot harder when they are actively hiding things from you.

A simple dispute about cover type, etc., may directly affect the outcome of a game, but it usually won't affect how the game will be played. How's this for a counterexample:

Want to play Planetstrike?

No, I'd like to play a regular game.

Well I do, so let's roll off. If I win, you have to play Planetstrike with me.

What I'm getting at is that trying to settle the disclosure issue with a roll off isn't as simple as settling how a particular rule is applied--it's an attempt to settle what type of game you're about to play. In that case, whoever loses will end up playing a game that they aren't interested in, and where's the fun in that?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

moltenchicken wrote:This is how I see it.

guy1 says "I play this way but would be willing to talk about how we are going to play it."
guy2 say "I play a different way and am unwilling to play it any other way."

Guy1 has as much right to play it his way (if not more) as guy2 does.

You are saying that guy 1 has right on his side and I see him as being more flexible but he is still the bad guy?

No, what I'm saying is that, "On a 4+, you have to trust me," just doesn't work.

Platuan4th wrote:

insaniak wrote:

Alerian wrote:In the old days, you were encouraged NOT to share lists prior to the game.

Last edition the rules said to not show your list, unless you and your opponent agreed otherwise.

Before that, there were no rules one way or the other.

Not true. 3rd had a rule stating that you didn't have to show your opponent your list and in fact could outright refuse if asked.

Primarch wrote:In the Adpeticon WHFB Team Tournament, it was a closed list tournament. That really sucked, as I was pretty new to the game and trying to figure things out, I now had to worry about not knowing anything about my opponents list.

No, it wasn't. All 3 rounds Ozy and I received our opponents lists and handed copies of ours over, too.

In fact, from the rules packet:

"Each Contingent must provide an army list to their opponents with the stats of their army. Magic Items do not need to be named, but a line should appear denoting the cost of items. Hidden models (Assassins, Fanatics, etc…) should be listed separate of the unit they are contained in."

If your opponents held out on you, they were breaking the rules.

If what you say is true, then the Adepticon WHFB Team tournament was FUBAR. Mainly because I specifically asked a judge, and he told me it was a closed list tournament, and ALL DAY LONG, every team I played against, used the closed list format. Not sure what to tell you if your experience was different.



Clay

I think this thread has gone as far as it's productively going to. Particularly since people seem to have felt compelled to bring personal issues back into it.

As a final point to consider, though: If the rules ask you to reach an agreement with your opponent on something, and you choose to insist on one particular way of doing it, the problem is yours, not your opponent's. Stamping your feet and insisting that your way is the only acceptable way to play is not in any way, shape or form conducive to reaching an agreement.

No matter how right you think your way of playing the game may be, it's still just a game of toy soldiers.