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.

From a purely fluff perspective, (even seeing don mondo's post) it is highly unlikely units like Daemons, orks and 'nids would know who is in what vehicle or even care the least little bit.

It's also unlikely, given the decline of technology, that chaos marines or IoM units would know either. And most unit's of marines, still per fluff, wouldn't care anyway.

This leaves the Eldar variants and Necrons. I could absolutely see where Necrons would have the technology to peer into various vehicles to determine combat capabilities based on energy signatures. I could also see Eldar having similar tech.

So, fluff wise, it's a mixed bag. I guess you could argue that a chaos marine legion could have an agent at an IoM installation they are about to attack, but this would be very situational.

Now having a successful and enjoyable game is something else. Personally, if everyone wants to be open about it, just put a little man on the top of each vehicle to denote the unit inside.

If they don't, make sure it's written down and able to be revealed once they disembark (forcefully or otherwise).

Seems like such a simple thing.

Even in modern armies, the practice is to have certain vehicles marked on the exterior to show which unit they are assigned to. Most especially mark command vehicles so that their own people will salute the passing commander.

But one could make the arguement that the one vehicle that everyone is saluting to is the one that gets targeted first by rockets and snipers.

Jimsolo wrote:So it is your opinion, don mondo, that orks and tyranids have the intelligence capability of the US military? And some magic x-ray vision that tells them exactly who is in what vehicle?

The default practice that I have seen is that you must declare which vehicle an independant character is in, but other than that, you need to pop it to find out.

Forcing your opponent to reveal which units are in the tank seems kind of weak.

Orks? Sure, why not? Kommandos on the ground, fighta bombas in the air, even without sigint capability, ground and air recon will tell you a lot about what you're facing.

Thing is tho, while I can cite real world situations, they really don't matter. We're playing a game that has rules, not fighting a real war. And those rules are what matters. And they require full disclosure unless both players agree otherwise. Default around here is full disclosure. As for being weak, well, talk to the individuals who wrote the rules and ask them why they put that particular rule in there. When I asked, I was told it was to prevent cheating gits from playing shell games by making them tell you exactly what was in each transport whenever you asked them. So you tell me, which is worse. "Forcing" your opponent to disclose what's in the transport? Or someone playing a shell game because he doesn't have to disclose what's in the transport? And before you bring up writing it down or marking it or all that crap, I can think of several ways to game such a system, and if I can, then so can those who would try to take advantage of it. Do I feel strongly about this? Yes, I do, but as i posted earlier, I've run into those 'cheating gits' in games, so yeah, i'm in complete support of full disclosure. Fortunately for me, so are the rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yet, if youd read the thread, you would know that the rules are against you on this.

The default is FULL disclosure.

Thank you, Nos. I was indeed aware of that. My point is that the rule itself is stupid, and that I do not enjoy 'Full Disclosure,' any more than I do the 'Wobby Model Syndrome' rule, which can likewise be exploited.

There's lots of situations where the rules support behavior which is very unsportsmanlike. Read the 'Wobbly Model Syndrome rule,' and think about taking that to it's farthest logical extreme.

It makes perfect sense to have some kind of safeguard, such as tokens or whatnot, to ensure that there is no cheating. But, to me, concealment seems to be part of the reason to have a vehicle.



Mondo: I apologize, my response to you came off more inflammatory than I wanted. The point I was trying to make is that your comparison to real world intelligence capacities does not carry over to the game world when it comes to universal rules. And if you are smart enough to see how "these cheating gits" can game the system (as you said before your edit) then certainly you are also smart enough to have a system which both allows for some secrecy yet is "game proof?" I think that the whole point of the 'A Word On Secrecy' section is reaching some form of fair and equitable compromise.

Jimsolo wrote: But, to me, concealment seems to be part of the reason to have a vehicle.

And that's an assumption that you have made in direct conflict with the actual rules.

The point of having a vehicle is for faster movement and some degree of protection. Concealing your units has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

And yes, you can certainly come up with all sorts of systems to allow secrecy while still tracking who is where... but it's a lot easier simply to disclose what is where and get on with the game.

Tri wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:

helgrenze wrote:
My question about template weaopns was meant to clarify a point and suggest that dropping some blast templates on his trukks would make the passengers have to walk the rest of the way.
Most armies have some kind of template weapon. And A10 trukks are fairly easy to pop at range.

What do you think template/blast marker weapons do differently to open-topped vehicles?

don't have it to hand but I'm fairly that last edition open topped = vulnerable to blasts (so 1 hit becomes 2)

Not quite. Opened topped vehicles just get a +1 to the vehicle damage table (exactly as if it were hit with an AP1 weapon, for example). This applies to any damage done to the vehicle. See the Vehicle Damage Table in the BRB.

WanderingFox wrote:

Tri wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:

helgrenze wrote:
My question about template weaopns was meant to clarify a point and suggest that dropping some blast templates on his trukks would make the passengers have to walk the rest of the way.
Most armies have some kind of template weapon. And A10 trukks are fairly easy to pop at range.

What do you think template/blast marker weapons do differently to open-topped vehicles?

don't have it to hand but I'm fairly that last edition open topped = vulnerable to blasts (so 1 hit becomes 2)

Not quite. Opened topped vehicles just get a +1 to the vehicle damage table (exactly as if it were hit with an AP1 weapon, for example). This applies to any damage done to the vehicle. See the Vehicle Damage Table in the BRB.

He did say last edition. The rule then was open topped took double the number of hits from templates and blast... 1 hit becoming 2.

insaniak wrote:

Jimsolo wrote: But, to me, concealment seems to be part of the reason to have a vehicle.

And that's an assumption that you have made in direct conflict with the actual rules.

The point of having a vehicle is for faster movement and some degree of protection. Concealing your units has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

And yes, you can certainly come up with all sorts of systems to allow secrecy while still tracking who is where... but it's a lot easier simply to disclose what is where and get on with the game.

Perhaps I should rephrase, Insaniak, since you seem to have misunderstood me.

Concealment seems to be part of the reason to be inside a vehicle, if you were a person in real life, and not a player of a wargame. I should think that the game would in some fashion reflect that.

I recognized already, a few posts up, that my opinion is not supported by the rules. I haven't said anywhere in this thread that my preference is the way that the rule reads.

Maybe I need to back up. See, I thought we had already established that the rule works as it is written in the book, and the thread had moved on to opinions in general about the rule. I tossed in my opinion (albeit with more venom than I meant to, but I already apologized to that person) and have been immediately attacked by three different people.

If you are reading this thread and have any doubt, Insaniak and Nosferatu are correct: You have to tell your opponent exactly what is in your vehicle.

I don't like the rule, and I think that it allows too much advantage to certain armies, but that's the way it is.

Jimsolo wrote:Concealment seems to be part of the reason to be inside a vehicle, if you were a person in real life, and not a player of a wargame.

In real life, you would be more likely to not be aboard the transport once the engagement has started in the first place.

The thing is, though, we're not talking about real life. We're talking about a wargame that includes super-advanced alien technology, hyper-acute alien senses, psychic powers, and armies that feel the need to paint giant unit designations in white paint on the roof of their transport vehicles. Those that actually have a roof on their transport vehicles...

helgrenze wrote:

He did say last edition. The rule then was open topped took double the number of hits from templates and blast... 1 hit becoming 2.

So he did, I misread it when I wrote the response. My bad

coolyo294 wrote:If you asked him what was in the Trukk, he has to tell you. But if you don't ask, he doesn't have to tell you.

The Don't Ask, Don't Tell law has been repealed ya' know...

I... do Orks even? ... Umm perhaps this thread is getting a tad bit off topic...

Jimsolo wrote:So it is your opinion, don mondo, that orks and tyranids have the intelligence capability of the US military? And some magic x-ray vision that tells them exactly who is in what vehicle?

The default practice that I have seen is that you must declare which vehicle an independant character is in, but other than that, you need to pop it to find out.

Forcing your opponent to reveal which units are in the tank seems kind of weak.

How is obeying the rules weak? If your opponent fields 3000 points in a 1500 point game, is calling him out on that weak? Is telling your opponent to remove models that lost all their wounds weak?

The "default practice" you are reffering to is a house rule which is not even close to the rules.

And for the or ork/tyranid thing: Weirdboyz are a pretty decent source of accurate intel, not to mention scouts and kommandoz. Lictors and Genestealers should deliver better intel than any inquisitional spys can.

helgrenze wrote:

WanderingFox wrote:

Tri wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:

helgrenze wrote:
My question about template weaopns was meant to clarify a point and suggest that dropping some blast templates on his trukks would make the passengers have to walk the rest of the way.
Most armies have some kind of template weapon. And A10 trukks are fairly easy to pop at range.

What do you think template/blast marker weapons do differently to open-topped vehicles?

don't have it to hand but I'm fairly that last edition open topped = vulnerable to blasts (so 1 hit becomes 2)

Not quite. Opened topped vehicles just get a +1 to the vehicle damage table (exactly as if it were hit with an AP1 weapon, for example). This applies to any damage done to the vehicle. See the Vehicle Damage Table in the BRB.

He did say last edition. The rule then was open topped took double the number of hits from templates and blast... 1 hit becoming 2.

I was mearly explaining why people thought open topped was quite bad. It took me a while to get round the idea when i moved over to 5th. Even now I still expect open-top vehicles to do much worse then they do.

it really shouldn't be a problem to tell what's inside. I had to play one of those guys before, I just told him "don't tell me, I'll find out with my lascannons what's inside", he thought I was kidding, but 3 turns later, and concentrated attacks, I found out what exactly was inside his trukks. Point is, let him do it, if he's doing it, he probably knows he's beat, then never play him again

Me and those I play against have always gone through what is in each transport (Tho mostly only after we have both set up) and I always place a choppa boy or shoota boy if I'm using a mix and any IC likes to sit in the back of the Battlewagons.

I can see why it would be fun for what's in transports to be secret (If both parties agree to it) but I've seen too many games devolve into shouting matches over dodgy lists when called to prove that you really did put X item that is perfect at killing my Y unit.

The rules are clear but if you have really have a problem with them then surely you can convince some of your friends to try "Blind" games and just get a 2nd friend to hold both lists with everything clearly listed after deployment "Gazzer is in my red and blue battle wagon, and the KKF Mek is in the Pink one"

I reread the rules for this area last night and they are very clear. (pg92: A note on secrecy)

First off you must have an army list which clearly defines who is in what.

Next the default position is one of secrecy. "You should always allow your opponent to read your force roster *after* a game.

Now it leaves it open to the players involved to determine whether to go ahead and share that list prior to the game or after it is done: "...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" and "The choice is yours!"

Technically speaking you have two situations for discussion: showing the list before and allowing them to read it during. Both are up for discussion between the players prior to the game starting.

Regardless of what they decide, the list must be shown at the end of the game and it must be clear.

So, from a rules perspective the potential cheating situation is covered. Albeit you may not know until the end of the game, but it will come into the full Emporer's Light so to speak.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yet, if youd read the thread, you would know that the rules are against you on this.

The default is FULL disclosure.

Sorry but the default position per RAW is not one of openness, but rather one of secrecy... At least until the game ends.

As per RAW you should disclose which squads are in which vehicle. This has been said at least a dozen times so far.

Here's the specific note:
To keep things fair, you should always allow your
opponent to read your force roster after a game. In the
same spirit, always make clear to your opponent which
squads are embarked in which transport vehicle.
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. Some players prefer full disclosure (which is the
norm in tournaments, for example), as they want to
concentrate on outmanoeuvring the enemy rather than
springing a secret trump card on them. Others prefer to
leave a feel of secrecy around their lists, as bluffing can
make a game really entertaining. The choice is yours!

You honestly just need to agree upon one or the other, but regardless of the situation you need to mark which vehicle has which squad in it. Whether your opponent can see said markers is up to the two of you, but they must be marked in order to prevent cheating.

Pg:92 A note on secrecy:-
...In the same spirit, always make clear to your opponent which squads are embarked in which transport vehicle.

RAW is full disclosure

@WanderingFox: I think we just said essentially the same thing.

The roster should clearly identify the vehicle a particular squad is embarked in.

Whether the opponent gets to see this list before (or during) the game is up for grabs.

Although the default per RAW is only to show it after. Which answers the question that started this thread.

I think we also agree that if the vehicles are modeled in such a way that a simple note on the roster is insufficient to clearly define the particular transport, then some other marker should be used that may not have meaning until the roster is read.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Foxfyre wrote:

Pg:92 A note on secrecy:-
...In the same spirit, always make clear to your opponent which squads are embarked in which transport vehicle.

RAW is full disclosure

AFTER the game has ended: it should absolutely be clear what was where. I didn't say anything else.

clively wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Pg:92 A note on secrecy:-
...In the same spirit, always make clear to your opponent which squads are embarked in which transport vehicle.

RAW is full disclosure

AFTER the game has ended: it should absolutely be clear what was where. I didn't say anything else.

The use of the present tense 'embarked' implies that the sentence quoted is for whenever an opponent asks. No-one will ask AFTER a game which unit is embarked as it is too late to tell if someone's been playing shell games; or if you want to be petty you could disembark all units during the last turn thus negating the need to ask AFTER a game anyway.

The sentence begins with "In the same spirit..." in reference to the prior sentence which begins "To keep things fair..." as referring to any other part of the prior sentence is a nonsense.

Clively - youre misreading that sentence; DURING the game you MUST make people fully aware of what is happening.

The default is full disclosure of what units are in what transport.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Clively - youre misreading that sentence; DURING the game you MUST make people fully aware of what is happening.

The default is full disclosure of what units are in what transport.

I don't believe I'm misreading anything.

Look at it this way. If you are forced to provide a detailed rundown of the squad embarked in a transport, the rest of the paragraph is meaningless. Particularly the part about bluffing becomes impossible.

However, if you only say "squad A is in Transport 1", with the only definition of Squad A being on your roster then secrecy in a fair way is possible and the rest of the paragraph can apply. This meets the concept of full disclosure and allows for bluffing by not providing the verifiable information until the end. Which, again, is the default position based on the first sentence of the note.


----
Taking an example:

What it appears you have said is that we have to tell our opponent at the beginning of the game that Vulkan and 4 terminators are in the Landraider with a number 1 on it.

Whereas what I'm saying is the Roster should state "Vulkan is embarked in the Landraider with a 1 on it" and it's up to the players to determine whether the roster can be seen before the end of the game.

Now you might have a token of some type (coin or whatever) that indicates Squad A placed on top of the transport so that you can clearly show it is carrying something of interest. Further you can use another token in the case of when a squad embarks onto a transport in the middle of the game. The token should be clearly tied to that squad on the roster. This would fully meet the requirement of showing which squad is in which transport without identifying the details of the squad to the opponent until the end of the game.

Any other reading makes the entire "note on secrecy" paragraph moot and a waste of ink.

What it means is that, at any point, I should be able to verify that the squad you say is in a given transport really is the one that was their at deployment. This can be done 2 ways. You tell me which units are in each transport at the start of the game, or you place an identifiable marker on each transport, and a similar marker with each unit. For example, my friends and I use spare bases with the undersides colored differently. If we're playing a game where we want concealed units, we place one base on the tank colored side down, and one with the unit off-bored colored side up. When a unit disembarks we flip the base on the tank, and place the appropriate unit.

WanderingFox wrote:What it means is that, at any point, I should be able to verify that the squad you say is in a given transport really is the one that was their at deployment. This can be done 2 ways. You tell me which units are in each transport at the start of the game, or you place an identifiable marker on each transport, and a similar marker with each unit. For example, my friends and I use spare bases with the undersides colored differently. If we're playing a game where we want concealed units, we place one base on the tank colored side down, and one with the unit off-bored colored side up. When a unit disembarks we flip the base on the tank, and place the appropriate unit.

Exactly what I've been saying.

The details of the actual unit are not made public knowledge until they disembark or the game ends. It doesn't happen simply because a player asks unless it was agreed upon prior to the start of the game to show the full roster list to each other before or during the game. With the default position being one of secrecy due to the first sentence of the rule and full disclosure occuring at the end of the game.

Which gets us back to the original question:

maxthecat122 wrote:Hey, so I just played a game agaist some orks and my opponnent did not want to tell me what was in his trukks... turns out it was nobz with a pain boyz and a big .... So, can he do that?

And the answer is: absolutely he can do that. Provided his roster indicated that the nobz etc were in that particular trukk and maxthecat122 knew something was in it during the game.

Nice points Clive as well as being supported by the rules.

clively wrote:

WanderingFox wrote:What it means is that, at any point, I should be able to verify that the squad you say is in a given transport really is the one that was their at deployment. This can be done 2 ways. You tell me which units are in each transport at the start of the game, or you place an identifiable marker on each transport, and a similar marker with each unit. For example, my friends and I use spare bases with the undersides colored differently. If we're playing a game where we want concealed units, we place one base on the tank colored side down, and one with the unit off-bored colored side up. When a unit disembarks we flip the base on the tank, and place the appropriate unit.

Exactly what I've been saying.

The details of the actual unit are not made public knowledge until they disembark or the game ends. It doesn't happen simply because a player asks unless it was agreed upon prior to the start of the game to show the full roster list to each other before or during the game. With the default position being one of secrecy due to the first sentence of the rule and full disclosure occuring at the end of the game.

Which gets us back to the original question:

maxthecat122 wrote:Hey, so I just played a game agaist some orks and my opponnent did not want to tell me what was in his trukks... turns out it was nobz with a pain boyz and a big .... So, can he do that?

And the answer is: absolutely he can do that. Provided his roster indicated that the nobz etc were in that particular trukk and maxthecat122 knew something was in it during the game.

Kinda guess they didn't agree on secrecy before the game ... either way the guy's a douche

I think that if it's someone you don't know very well, you should play tournament rules, but if it's with a friend, then you should both agree on whether to use deviations from these rules. In other words, he has to tell you because you did not agree on changing this rule from the official rule. Hope this helped.

Thinking about the alternative marking method for identifying embarked units, that seems to fulfill the requirement completely for A Note on Secrecy. The stance that, "you must tell your opponent exactly what each squad is armed with whenever he asks", is not supported by the rules at all.

Someone pointed out placing a model on top of the transport as a valid means. I think that would only be valid if the all the models in the unit had some identifying squad marking that matched the one present on top of the transport.

Kinda encourages getting an army painted.