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.

I always tell my opponent and put one model from the squad in the transport (open back of trukks ftw)
It's just plain nice..

Norade wrote:
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.

I'm not even going to touch the erroneousness in that statement. That's like saying government can not be corrupt because the government is stopping itself from being corrupt.

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.

But which squad is in that Rhino? I get to know because of page 92, and you've still not told me. You've talked about your paintjobs, which I'm sure are quite nice, but you've not told me which squad is in that Rhino.

BR- I asked how you saying :

"a gh pack"

Could positively identify THE actual gh unit, when you have more than one? It doesn't, of course.

You are required to identify the actual unit at all times when asked. 40k is, by default, full disclosure.

daedalus wrote:

Norade wrote:
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.

I'm not even going to touch the erroneousness in that statement. That's like saying government can not be corrupt because the government is stopping itself from being corrupt.

What if I instead build a paper holder beneath each transport and slide a new slip in each time a new unit enters.

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.

But which squad is in that Rhino? I get to know because of page 92, and you've still not told me. You've talked about your paintjobs, which I'm sure are quite nice, but you've not told me which squad is in that Rhino.

No, I told you that the GH squad is in the rhino, if I only had one that would be it. With more than one I would say GH squad 2 is in the rhino with the white paint beneath it and the slip of paper representing GH squad 2 in the holder beneath. You now have all the info you need and still might not know which transport is which as I wouldn't allow you to touch my model at the table to check.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:BR- I asked how you saying :

"a gh pack"

Could positively identify THE actual gh unit, when you have more than one? It doesn't, of course.

You are required to identify the actual unit at all times when asked. 40k is, by default, full disclosure.

You can ID it by number and simply write that number on your sheet in another language so the opponent can't read it. The info is still just as there as it ever was.

At which point you have an illegal army list, as its contents cannot be verified by both players.

You have failed to identify the actual unit. entirely so.

I think it would increase the strategy of the game if there were some system of secrecy without the ability to cheat. Because as soon as you know what vehicle is holding that really powerful nasty squad of course its going to be priority #1 in shooting.

Since there isn't and you do have to divulge all information...

What I have done to get around this is that all my raiders carry the same stuff 9 wyches and a hekatrix. One raider has the Duke in it which if you really want to kill it doesn't make that big of a difference since I already got his ability for combat drugs. And when there is 6 raiders full of nasty CC monsters it makes target prioritizing pointless.

Norade wrote:

What if I instead build a paper holder beneath each transport and slide a new slip in each time a new unit enters.

Then I would be confused as to why that would be different. Without the ability to know what is on each slip of paper, how do I know you're not just playing a cup game on me? The burden is on you to prove you're not cheating, just as it's on me to prove I'm not cheating, and your method doesn't hold up your end.

No, I told you that the GH squad is in the rhino, if I only had one that would be it. With more than one I would say GH squad 2 is in the rhino with the white paint beneath it and the slip of paper representing GH squad 2 in the holder beneath. You now have all the info you need and still might not know which transport is which as I wouldn't allow you to touch my model at the table to check.

What's 'GH squad 2'? You've given me a name that doesn't correlate with anything; it's not a valid identifier because it doesn't identify what squad you're talking about. It's a label, yes, true, but until you correlate it to a squad, it's meaningless.

If you hand me a roster (with point values and upgrades, of course) that has GH squad 2 on it, however, then you've identified what squad is in the transport.

You can ID it by number and simply write that number on your sheet in another language so the opponent can't read it. The info is still just as there as it ever was.

That's not identifying a squad. That's wasting my time. And it's CERTAINLY NOT 'full disclosure'. You can't disclose something if you make it so that the other person can't understand it. Might as well have said you write your entire lists in invisible ink and then act surprised when people get bent out of shape about it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:At which point you have an illegal army list, as its contents cannot be verified by both players.

You have failed to identify the actual unit. entirely so.

Hardly, each player can see the symbols on the page equally well and so long as things such as points costs and gear are listed in legible form you can name your squads whatever you like.

Norade wrote: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.

Let me get this straight.

You're claiming that showing your opponent an army list written in a code that only you know is full disclosure? Seriously?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Norade wrote: but not at all against the rules which never say that your list need all be in one language

Do the rules give you permission to use other languages?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Norade wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:At which point you have an illegal army list, as its contents cannot be verified by both players.

You have failed to identify the actual unit. entirely so.

Hardly, each player can see the symbols on the page equally well and so long as things such as points costs and gear are listed in legible form you can name your squads whatever you like.

But you have still failed to identify which squad in your army is inside the transport.

That wasn't the premise, though. Nothing about upgrade being legible.

daedalus wrote:

Norade wrote:

What if I instead build a paper holder beneath each transport and slide a new slip in each time a new unit enters.

Then I would be confused as to why that would be different. Without the ability to know what is on each slip of paper, how do I know you're not just playing a cup game on me? The burden is on you to prove you're not cheating, just as it's on me to prove I'm not cheating, and your method doesn't hold up your end.

No, seeing as you can't prove a negative you'd actually have to prove that I did cheat. Innocent until proven guilty and all that. If you think otherwise then prove that there isn't an invisible floating being floating behind my left ear that nobody but can see or interact with.

No, I told you that the GH squad is in the rhino, if I only had one that would be it. With more than one I would say GH squad 2 is in the rhino with the white paint beneath it and the slip of paper representing GH squad 2 in the holder beneath. You now have all the info you need and still might not know which transport is which as I wouldn't allow you to touch my model at the table to check.

What's 'GH squad 2'? You've given me a name that doesn't correlate with anything; it's not a valid identifier because it doesn't identify what squad you're talking about. It's a label, yes, true, but until you correlate it to a squad, it's meaningless.

If you hand me a roster (with point values and upgrades, of course) that has GH squad 2 on it, however, then you've identified what squad is in the transport.

Great, I'll show you my paper with squad names written in four languages and let you sort it all out. All the info would be there you just wouldn't be ale to read it and that's frankly your issue and not mine.

You can ID it by number and simply write that number on your sheet in another language so the opponent can't read it. The info is still just as there as it ever was.

That's not identifying a squad. That's wasting my time. And it's CERTAINLY NOT 'full disclosure'. You can't disclose something if you make it so that the other person can't understand it. Might as well have said you write your entire lists in invisible ink and then act surprised when people get bent out of shape about it.

How is that not full disclosure? The words all mean the same thing regardless of how I write them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:That wasn't the premise, though. Nothing about upgrade being legible.

I never stated that anything but squad names would be in other languages you made that assumption all on your own.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Scott-S6 wrote:

Norade wrote: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.

Let me get this straight.

You're claiming that showing your opponent an army list written in a code that only you know is full disclosure? Seriously?

Using other languages that exist and are spoken is hardly a code only I know.

Norade wrote: but not at all against the rules which never say that your list need all be in one language

Do the rules give you permission to use other languages?

Do they need to and do you mean to say you wouldn't play with say a french player who speaks passable English but prefers to write in his native language? Does this change if he's Russian?

Norade wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:At which point you have an illegal army list, as its contents cannot be verified by both players.

You have failed to identify the actual unit. entirely so.

Hardly, each player can see the symbols on the page equally well and so long as things such as points costs and gear are listed in legible form you can name your squads whatever you like.

But you have still failed to identify which squad in your army is inside the transport.

No, I've told you that squad two is in the yellow daubed rhino. That you can't see the yellow paint at anytime that isn't deployment or the end of the game and that you can't read the language I wrote squad two in doesn't mean a thing.

Norade wrote:No, seeing as you can't prove a negative you'd actually have to prove that I did cheat.

This is not really true.

Norade wrote:Innocent until proven guilty and all that.

In U.S. courts, sure. It really should not get that far.

Norade wrote:If you think otherwise then prove that there isn't an invisible floating being floating behind my left ear that nobody but can see or interact with.

Really?

Try this and then try again.

Yes. You have to tell them.

kirsanth wrote:

Norade wrote:No, seeing as you can't prove a negative you'd actually have to prove that I did cheat.

This is not really true.

Norade wrote:Innocent until proven guilty and all that.

In U.S. courts, sure. It really should not get that far.

Norade wrote:If you think otherwise then prove that there isn't an invisible floating being floating behind my left ear that nobody but can see or interact with.

Really?

Try this and then try again.

Yes. You have to tell them.

Great, then I suppose you'll prove one way or the other with definitive proof that there is or isn't an almighty God. You'll also prove that I've never dreamed of a purple sphere with a yellow dot on it. Wait, you won't? How odd.

Cheaters in favor of these complicated non-disclosure are breaking the game way past the most important rule. The basic social contract of human interaction has broken down way before you give someone a coded army list.

Also, the game is not balanced for secrecy as transports would need their points values drastically increased in order to make up for the severe disadvantage footslogging units would have as they would be exposed visually.

Don't cheat, just do full disclosure. You are not playing Yu-Gi-oh and the game doesn't need secrecy to be tactical.

Norade wrote:

No, seeing as you can't prove a negative you'd actually have to prove that I did cheat. Innocent until proven guilty and all that. If you think otherwise then prove that there isn't an invisible floating being floating behind my left ear that nobody but can see or interact with.

Which is completely fine if you let me roll all my dice in secret. Since you can't see my dice, you can't prove I didn't cheat. Innocent until proven guilty right? As far as there being an invisible being floating behind your left ear, I think we should both forget about him. He doesn't have anything to do with the rules, and besides, you should be more concerned with the one floating behind your right ear. He told me he doesn't like you and he knows where you live.

No, I told you that the GH squad is in the rhino, if I only had one that would be it. With more than one I would say GH squad 2 is in the rhino with the white paint beneath it and the slip of paper representing GH squad 2 in the holder beneath. You now have all the info you need and still might not know which transport is which as I wouldn't allow you to touch my model at the table to check.
Great, I'll show you my paper with squad names written in four languages and let you sort it all out. All the info would be there you just wouldn't be ale to read it and that's frankly your issue and not mine.

And as there's no "GH Squad 2" written on that paper, you've still not identified which squad is in the Rhino. You might have "Hombres de Cazador Gris" (apologies for bad Spanish. Not a native) written on your sheet, but that's not what you said earlier.

How is that not full disclosure? The words all mean the same thing regardless of how I write them.

It's not full disclosure because it's not a language I understand. You're playing immature kid games, rather than playing 40k.

I never stated that anything but squad names would be in other languages you made that assumption all on your own.

Which I suppose is fine, if you indicate to us which one is which. If you're doing it in a way we can't understand, then it's not an indication to us. In order to communicate you must be understood as well as be speaking. It's a pretty fundamental concept.

Using other languages that exist and are spoken is hardly a code only I know.

It doesn't matter if the other person playing doesn't get it.

Do they need to and do you mean to say you wouldn't play with say a french player who speaks passable English but prefers to write in his native language? Does this change if he's Russian?

If he prefers writing in French, that's fine. I would ask him for the English translation and write it next to each unit myself. Language is not, nor does it need to be, a barrier to play.

No, I've told you that squad two is in the yellow daubed rhino. That you can't see the yellow paint at anytime that isn't deployment or the end of the game and that you can't read the language I wrote squad two in doesn't mean a thing.

There is no yellow Rhino, you can't speak the language to vocalize whatever translation of 'squad two' you're trying to gyp us with, and I can't read it. This game never happened because you can't consent to the social contract necessary to play it, because you can't even select a consistent language with which we can play, and are wasting our time at best, and outright trolling at worst.

Which squad is in this Rhino?

N - and at that moment in time you still have not identified the squad.

A failure on your Parr to communicate understanding is a failure on your part to identify. You cannot weasel out of your responsibility to the game.

I suppose if you did try these attempts to cheat, it would be early enough to walk away without wasting too much time. Or for a tourney ref to laugh and remove you from the tourney. and, if its part of the uk scene potentially further tournaments as well.

I find this hilarious.

People need to read what GW considers full disclosure on page 92 and then compare it to the crap they keep spouting as full disclosure. It is clear as day what GW considers full disclosure and it sure as hell never says tell your opponent whatever he wants whenever he asks.

And then to top it off, most of you are not even about distinguishing which squad is in which transport but only about what each squad is equipped with. Several examples have been given to determine which squad is with what transport, which is what the rule specifically calls for, and yet the call continues to for disclosure of equipment as a means of identifying under the falsehood of "full disclosire".

Before anyone spouts off, "full disclosure dictates anything asked has to be answered" read the fricking rule for what GW has dictated as "full disclosure". It is clearly laid out.

Identifying squads is not dictated by equipment at all. Those of you that are insisting on it as well as insisting that it is required are not within the rules on page 92 at all. It is you wanting equipment disclosure for equipment disclosure sake only.

Brother Ramses wrote:

And then to top it off, most of you are not even about distinguishing which squad is in which transport but only about what each squad is equipped with.

There is no difference. You can't distinguish the squad without distinguishing everything about it.

Either you tell them what it has, show them via wysiwyg models or pointing out the unit on a full army list, all 3 give every last piece of wargear and information about the squad. It is full disclosure.

So refuse is to be cheating.

Stop cheating, no one plays the game the way you are suggesting and the game is not balanced for it.

nkelsch wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:

And then to top it off, most of you are not even about distinguishing which squad is in which transport but only about what each squad is equipped with.

There is no difference. You can't distinguish the squad without distinguishing everything about it.

Either you tell them what it has, show them via wysiwyg models or pointing out the unit on a full army list, all 3 give every last piece of wargear and information about the squad. It is full disclosure.

So refuse is to be cheating.

Stop cheating, no one plays the game the way you are suggesting and the game is not balanced for it.

Yea, I can totally see how you need the DNA of two different peole to tell them apart. Read what GW asks for in full disclosure, per the rules, not what you just make up, and then try posting again.

You share lists after the game, unless you agree to full disclosure at which you can share the lists before and?or after. You have to make clear which squad is embarked in which transport to your opponent which can easily be done with distinguishing paint and or markings.

See how I did that? Full disclosure is not answering everything your opponent asks despite how wrong everyone keep defining full disclosure.

Brother Ramses wrote:

Yea, I can totally see how you need the DNA of two different peole to tell them apart. Read what GW asks for in full disclosure, per the rules, not what you just make up, and then try posting again.

You share lists after the game, unless you agree to full disclosure at which you can share the lists before and?or after. You have to make clear which squad is embarked in which transport to your opponent which can easily be done with distinguishing paint and or markings.

See how I did that? Full disclosure is not answering everything your opponent asks despite how wrong everyone keep defining full disclosure.

You are wrong. Nothing distinguishes units except for wargear. To distinguish, you have to disclose full wargear. Otherwise I could have two trukk boy units, one with a PK and one without, and the Pk ends up in the trukk that survives shooting.

You are purposefully parsing words to cheat and are playing the game wrong. Also, if you are not playing WYSIWYG then you HAVE to disclose your proxies and have opponents permission to proxy. If you do not fully disclose every piece of wargear on every unit at any time, you are cheating.

I just love how you always ignore any part of my posts that actually counter your arguments, Ramses. I actually had a remark about that in there, but deleted it. Should have known better.

There rules says you always have to make clear what unit is riding the Rhino I'm pointing at.
If you answer "Grey Hunters", I'm not clear about it.
If you refuse to answer "Which one?", your violating the rule, because you didn't make it clear to me.
If I'm confused about your hieroglyphic squad markings, you didn't make it clear to me.
If your list is written in a foreign language and you refer to something I can't understand, you didn't make it clear to me.
If you say "the green ones in my suitcase", you didn't make it clear to me.
If there is no "Grey Hunters 2" on your list but only "!§$%&/" and ")(/&%", you didn't make it clear to me.
If you show me your models sitting on the side, thats clear.
If you numbered(or equivalent) on your Grey Hunters and I can find "Grey Hunters 2" on your list, that's clear.
If you simply tell me, that's clear too, surprise.

If you don't make clear what unit is in what transport, you are violating the rules.

As for norade: How about encoding my list in a high level encryption algorithm? The information is right there, you only need a high-power computer and about ten years to decode it without my decryption key. While you do that I'll just pull the special weapons out of my case as I need them when disembarking. Not my fault you don't have my decryption key to find "Grey Hunters 2" in that list. How's that not full disclosure?
As soon as you hide or encode(languages are code) anything, you have the option to cheat.

The only way to ever not tell your opponent what exactly is in your transports, is agreeing to do that before the game.

Ramses,

You have in your list:

Captain
10 Tac marines, melta, multi-melta, Rhino
10 Tac marines, plasma, plasma cannon, Rhino

You put on the table:

Two rhinos.

I point at a Rhino and ask:

"Per page 92, which squad is in this Rhino?"

Please tell me how you answer that question.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, please tell me what state you play in, what tournaments you play in, and whether you discuss this prior to games with your opponents. If you do that, chances are I'll not contest anything you say on this topic ever again.

In tourny play, I bring 1list for the Mod, 1 List for me and 1 List for my Enemy. On the list of mine and the Mods i annotate which squads are in which transports, and only the basic list to my enemy. That way the mod can be there to keep honesty (not that he needs to but for the sake of the other player.) In friendly games though, openness is the best policy.

I don't think I've ever played a single person who wouldn't tell me exactly what squad is in what vehicle (and what they're armed with). It's like...I don't know...inconceivable to me why you'd want to play any other way. Unless you agreed before hand to do it that way as part of some special mission.

Is it so painful just to say, "yeah, that squad has a meltagun, a powerfist, and meltabombs"...? What's the issue here, other than trying to make what's supposed to be a fun game decidedly un-fun for your opponent?

Also, because these things seem to be important for some reason, it was the Rhino on the (my) left, and it was predominantly a dark green with some rust toward the bottom with a white number "8675309" on it. Long as we're referencing paint schemes and other things that have no bearing on anything in DA ROOLZ, it also has a pink flamingo painted on it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
We'll say you've been referring to the Rhino as "Maggie" as well. It might be a reference to Ms. Thatcher. I'm not entirely sure.

The Thunder Child wrote:In tourny play, I bring 1list for the Mod, 1 List for me and 1 List for my Enemy. On the list of mine and the Mods i annotate which squads are in which transports, and only the basic list to my enemy. That way the mod can be there to keep honesty (not that he needs to but for the sake of the other player.) In friendly games though, openness is the best policy.

I have never played in a single tournament where this behavior would be allowed or one that used this type of secrecy. You would be cheating and disqualified from most tourneys I know of.

What tourney are you allowed to provide your opponent a censored list and then not disclose what squads are in which transports? I have my broom ready because I am ready to declare shenanigans on this.

nkelsch wrote:

The Thunder Child wrote:In tourny play, I bring 1list for the Mod, 1 List for me and 1 List for my Enemy. On the list of mine and the Mods i annotate which squads are in which transports, and only the basic list to my enemy. That way the mod can be there to keep honesty (not that he needs to but for the sake of the other player.) In friendly games though, openness is the best policy.

I have never played in a single tournament where this behavior would be allowed or one that used this type of secrecy. You would be cheating and disqualified from most tourneys I know of.

What tourney are you allowed to provide your opponent a censored list and then not disclose what squads are in which transports? I have my broom ready because I am ready to declare shenanigans on this.

Furthermore, what tournament has a judge for every game to insure no one is cup gaming? I'd be surprised if any I've been to have a judge for every 5 games.

The Thunder Child wrote:In tourny play, I bring 1list for the Mod, 1 List for me and 1 List for my Enemy. On the list of mine and the Mods i annotate which squads are in which transports, and only the basic list to my enemy. That way the mod can be there to keep honesty (not that he needs to but for the sake of the other player.) In friendly games though, openness is the best policy.

GW GT standard was full, utter and complete disclosure, right down to the color of their shoelaces. Former GW GT/GD RTT judge speaking, so yeah, I do indeed know what I'm talking about. And why did we do it that way? Because that's what the rules say and that's what the studio staff said the entire purpose of page 92 was when we asked them. Don't ever try to pull that gak at any tourney I'm running, you will be put out for cheating.

daedalus wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

The Thunder Child wrote:In tourny play, I bring 1list for the Mod, 1 List for me and 1 List for my Enemy. On the list of mine and the Mods i annotate which squads are in which transports, and only the basic list to my enemy. That way the mod can be there to keep honesty (not that he needs to but for the sake of the other player.) In friendly games though, openness is the best policy.

I have never played in a single tournament where this behavior would be allowed or one that used this type of secrecy. You would be cheating and disqualified from most tourneys I know of.

What tourney are you allowed to provide your opponent a censored list and then not disclose what squads are in which transports? I have my broom ready because I am ready to declare shenanigans on this.

Furthermore, what tournament has a judge for every game to insure no one is cup gaming? I'd be surprised if any I've been to have a judge for every 5 games.

1st off, this list is not censored its a complete normal list. The only differnce is that mine and the mods have the transport and squad match noted. They still know which squad has what just not in which transport. 2nd no, there is not a judge for every game, he just keeps the list so that if my oppenant wants to he can verify my notes. (nuetral party). and 3rd, before deployment i suggest that the other player quickly make notes to make the playing field even. Its not behavior, i'm not being a jerk about it, for players who like a little more tactical and realistic play its pretty fun not knowing whats in the transports. Its not cheating, its bringing a sliver of realism into the game.

Okay, but what tournaments actually do this? I'm not challenging the legitimacy of your statement; just genuinely curious about the format.