Switch Theme:

Do you tell your opponent what's in what transport?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





Oregon, USA

Its the same logic that lets you know where his units are even when they are out of LOS to everyone you have on the field.

If your opponent is cool with secret deployment, then cool, but if not you'd better be willing to fess up. I don't like it myself, at times,as my DE vehicles are made of tinfoil, and the expensive units inside are fragile as hell, but that's the way the game is intended to work.

I'd point out that the landing craft during the Normandy landings were open topped, so spotters looking from above probably could tell that there was a flamethrower (they are bulky) if they were looking with a scope (snipers did exist, and scoped rifles for them).

In a far future setting with orbital spysats and groovy future tech seeing inside the other guy's tanks isn't unreasonable.

The Viletide: Daemons of Nurgle/Deathguard: 7400 pts
Disclples of the Dragon - Ad Mech - about 2000 pts
GSC - about 2000 Pts
Rhulic Mercs - um...many...
Circle Oroboros - 300 Pts or so
Menoth - 300+ pts
 
   
Made in us
Abhorrent Grotesque Aberration





This has been discussed to death in YMDC: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/391691.page The thread was mercifully locked after 4 days of heated argument going back and forth over whether 40k was supposed to be Open or not. The note on secrecy was discussed.. to death.

End result?

The camps were divided on exactly what constituted being specific enough that prevented cheating while allowing you to effectively hide units.

Therefore, it's up to you and your opponent.

If you are okay with your opponent not telling you exactly what unit is in which transport (down to the exact wargear) then great, have fun!

If you are not okay with your opponent hiding such info, then simply don't play them. You can, after all, walk away. Sometimes it's called "taking your toys and going home"

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2012/03/13 22:39:06


------------------
"Why me?" Gideon begged, falling to his knees.
"Why not?" - Asdrubael Vect 
   
Made in fr
Regular Dakkanaut





You can justify everything and its contrary on fluff basis, so it's not unreasonable to assume they would have powerful detection and spying tools but neither is it unthinkable that they have developed equally powerful screening/jamming devices.

clively wrote:Pages and Pages of argument going back and forth over whether 40k was supposed to be Open or not. The note on secrecy was discussed.. to death.

End result?

The camps were divided on exactly what constituted being specific enough that prevented cheating while allowing you to effectively hide units.
So, nothing new in YMDC
   
Made in us
Wolf Guard Bodyguard in Terminator Armor





DeathReaper wrote:
AegisGrimm wrote:I would frankly refuse to tell another player what's in my transports. I'll show them the face-down slips that correspont to each one, so I can prove I'm not cheating, but no, I won't let you see which transport you can pop to specifically kill my best guys.

That is fine for house rules and games where you talk about allowing that kind of play.

The rules tell us to identify which units are riding in which transport.
"always make clear to your opponent which squads are embarked in which transport vehicle." (BRB 92)


Which he did by making it clear that paper a belongs to squad a. Not matter how many times people cry about it and try and quote a Note on Secrecy and WYSIWYG, nothing sets the standard in either rule for identifying which squad is embarked in which rhino by the composition of the unit. His use of slips of paper is perfectly legal and allows for no bait and switch.
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

Players need to "always make clear" which squads are embarked on any given transport.

A slip of paper does not make it clear to your opponent which squad is there. It only makes it clear to the person who wrote out the card.

Your opponent is allowed to know what is in what vehicle. You need to clearly identify what squad is within which transport. This includes squads with different wargear. because if you just say "10 marines are in that rhino" you have not made clear "which squads are embarked in which transport vehicle." Making it clear would be saying "These 10 marines on the table over here" while pointing to the 10 marines.

Then through WYSIWYG your opponent knows what they have anyway, and you may as well just tell them in the first place and not look like an

"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
 
   
Made in us
Flailing Flagellant



Florida

Normally you're supposed to let your opponent look at your list, but I suppose if that's not allowed you could still point to each squad and ask which vehicle is their dedicated transport. Even if you're just questioning his list to be sure he didn't misuse the force org. chart. A Ded transport can only start with the squad it's bought for (or nothing) at the games beginning. If he can't point to which transport is theirs, they can't be in it.

He could too easily cheat and say that a useful unit is in there, instead of a useless one. Even if he wrote them all down before hand and proved they were in the right spots after the fact. Even if he isn't cheating, it'll probably make him mad to point it out and try and correct him if you already said it to him and he hasn't changed his ways. I would guess your only choice is to say you'd rather not play against him and if he objects to demonstrate how easily you could cheat IF you used the same rules. Be as polite as possible because simply using the word cheat will likely piss him off. If necessary, simply avoid playing him all together. If it comes to a tournament situation, ask a TO. We're all fairly sure he'd have to reveal which units are where, but if it comes down to an hour of rule checking and a die roll, then so be it.

Besides, his stuff is probably open top. It's plenty obvious what's inside.

2000 0/4
1000 waiting to buy more... 
   
Made in at
Numberless Necron Warrior




Illinois

Either way you should tell them if they ask i mean come on thats just good sportsmanship

Have:
2250

Working on:
2250
 
   
Made in us
The Hive Mind





For the "it's not realistic" camp, ever heard of military intelligence? If the farseer normally rides around in the wave serpent with blue trim, it's a safe bet that he's still there when you blow it up.

My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
 
   
Made in us
Speedy Swiftclaw Biker




Newark, DE.

The only time I would not tell someone what is in a transport is if it was a closed list tournament. Otherwise there is no reason not to tell who you are playing, what is in what, if for nothing else, to be fair and no switching units around to have what you want where you want it.

My Armies:
Space Wolves
Ogre Kingdoms  
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




This is one area BR and I disagree on

If you say "they have red shoulder pads" then you have not "clearly" identified them to me - because, for all I know, you have 100 guys with shoulder pads in the case, ready to pop out the exact 10 you need.

So, this means you need to have those 10 guys, and only those 10 guys, out on the side, ready to go. That way when you say "I have 10 guys with red shoulder pads in there", I can then CLEARLY identify which exact 10 guys they are, and also because you adhere to wysiwyg WHAT they are armed with.

Anything less is not complying with the default rules for p92, and requires agreement. Only if i trust you will i risk you playing shell games.

I have never seen a tournament which permitted the level of "clearly" that BR is advocating, mainly because to most people it is NOT clear

Certainly if I were TO at a tournament BR was attending, I would "clearly" () point out what p92 means to me, and that that is the standard of "clearly" everyone will work to
   
Made in us
Wolf Guard Bodyguard in Terminator Armor





nosferatu1001 wrote:This is one area BR and I disagree on

If you say "they have red shoulder pads" then you have not "clearly" identified them to me - because, for all I know, you have 100 guys with shoulder pads in the case, ready to pop out the exact 10 you need.

So, this means you need to have those 10 guys, and only those 10 guys, out on the side, ready to go. That way when you say "I have 10 guys with red shoulder pads in there", I can then CLEARLY identify which exact 10 guys they are, and also because you adhere to wysiwyg WHAT they are armed with.

Anything less is not complying with the default rules for p92, and requires agreement. Only if i trust you will i risk you playing shell games.

I have never seen a tournament which permitted the level of "clearly" that BR is advocating, mainly because to most people it is NOT clear

Certainly if I were TO at a tournament BR was attending, I would "clearly" () point out what p92 means to me, and that that is the standard of "clearly" everyone will work to


I find it interesting that the assumption is always that a person is going to cheat you and that you create a standard that does not exist to assuage that personal bias in your opponents. What is to say that I just don't lie about what is in a transport and place a different squad then I originally said was going to be embarked? You can complain that I lied to the TO and then I can just counter that you are lying. It turns into a he said/she said. How did your created standard prevent that if you are already under the assumption that your opponent is out to cheat you no matter what?

On the other hand, as has been described by others of a slip of paper with squad composition next to/on/in the transport, verifies what was said to be in the transport when starting the game. Even as I said in other threads in YMDC, where my transport markings (big runes painted on them that match the squad) is an acceptable means of clearly identifying which squad is embarked in which transport. I have fulfilled the rules on page 92. What I haven't done and what I am not compelled to do by the rules, is assuage your personal fear of being cheated by every single one of your opponents. That is something that you would probably need to get some help with out of game.
   
Made in us
Aspirant Tech-Adept






Aschknas, Sturmkrieg Sektor

AegisGrimm wrote:My buddy and I secretly write down what's in each transport. Otherwise, even the best of friends can't get away from meta-gaming what vehicles to focus the fire on, and that's cheesy.

I would frankly refuse to tell another player what's in my transports. I'll show them the face-down slips that correspont to each one, so I can prove I'm not cheating, but no, I won't let you see which transport you can pop to specifically kill my best guys.


This is obviously something to decide before the game, but this is a good policy. However, if your opponent mentions before the game that you each should have full disclosure, it might be better to just go with it, especially if you're both using transports. If he's playing a shooting army, I wouldn't make it known.

I would also like to mention that while it is very good to write down what is what, it is a blatant accusation of dishonesty to require your opponent to do it.

As a discussion grows in length, the probability of a comparison to Matt Ward or Gray Knights approaches one.

Search engine for Warhammer 40,000 websites
Note: Ads are placed by Google since it uses their service. Sturmkrieg does not make any money from the use of this service.

The Vault - Fallout Wiki Wikia still maintains their plagiarized copy 
   
Made in au
Member of a Lodge? I Can't Say



Australia

“Acceptable means of identification” is where the heart of the issue is I’m afraid. The rule (like most GW rules) is somewhat ambiguous and offers neither an interpretation nor an example. I doubt we’ll be able to reach a consensus on this.

What is clear about the rule however is that at all times, you must make it clear to your opponent what squad is in what transport. Whilst markings and pieces of paper are excellent ways of fulfilling this, if your opponent asks you what squad is inside a transports, pg 92 dictates that you have to clearly answer their question. Anything less IMO is attempting a “ball in cups” strategy.

What’s sad though is that you’ll often find at tournaments, peoples answering transport questions with lame responses like “you already know what is inside the transport”, “I’ve shown you already”, “it’s a tac marine squad”.

That being said, if only the current environment wasn’t so meched out then this wouldn’t be an issue in the first place.

H.B.M.C. wrote: Goood! Goooood!

Your hate has made you powerful. Now take your Privateer Press tape measure and strike me down with all your hatred and your journey to the dark side will be complete!!!


 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Tilter at Windmills






Manchester, NH

What’s sad though is that you’ll often find at tournaments, peoples answering transport questions with lame responses like “you already know what is inside the transport”, “I’ve shown you already”, “it’s a tac marine squad”.


Sounds like a lame tournament. I've never encountered that crap. The vast majority of tournaments I've attended have made it explicit in their rules that full disclosure is expected.


DeathReaper wrote:Players need to "always make clear" which squads are embarked on any given transport.

A slip of paper does not make it clear to your opponent which squad is there. It only makes it clear to the person who wrote out the card.

Your opponent is allowed to know what is in what vehicle. You need to clearly identify what squad is within which transport. This includes squads with different wargear. because if you just say "10 marines are in that rhino" you have not made clear "which squads are embarked in which transport vehicle." Making it clear would be saying "These 10 marines on the table over here" while pointing to the 10 marines.

Then through WYSIWYG your opponent knows what they have anyway, and you may as well just tell them in the first place and not look like an


This. To "make clear" which squad is in which transport to your opponent, you're going to have to point at them, or tell him what wargear so he knows which one you're talking about.

Playing with hidden squads can be a fun house rule, but it's not normally conducive to an enjoyable competitive game unless you and your opponent know and trust each other and agree to it.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/03/15 00:43:03


Adepticon 2015: Team Tourney Best Imperial Team- Team Ironguts, Adepticon 2014: Team Tourney 6th/120, Best Imperial Team- Cold Steel Mercs 2, 40k Championship Qualifier ~25/226
More 2010-2014 GT/Major RTT Record (W/L/D) -- CSM: 78-20-9 // SW: 8-1-2 (Golden Ticket with SW), BA: 29-9-4 6th Ed GT & RTT Record (W/L/D) -- CSM: 36-12-2 // BA: 11-4-1 // SW: 1-1-1
DT:70S++++G(FAQ)M++B++I+Pw40k99#+D+++A+++/sWD105R+++T(T)DM+++++
A better way to score Sportsmanship in tournaments
The 40K Rulebook & Codex FAQs. You should have these bookmarked if you play this game.
The Dakka Dakka Forum Rules You agreed to abide by these when you signed up.

Maelstrom's Edge! 
   
Made in us
Wolf Guard Bodyguard in Terminator Armor





Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:
AegisGrimm wrote:My buddy and I secretly write down what's in each transport. Otherwise, even the best of friends can't get away from meta-gaming what vehicles to focus the fire on, and that's cheesy.

I would frankly refuse to tell another player what's in my transports. I'll show them the face-down slips that correspont to each one, so I can prove I'm not cheating, but no, I won't let you see which transport you can pop to specifically kill my best guys.


This is obviously something to decide before the game, but this is a good policy. However, if your opponent mentions before the game that you each should have full disclosure, it might be better to just go with it, especially if you're both using transports. If he's playing a shooting army, I wouldn't make it known.

I would also like to mention that while it is very good to write down what is what, it is a blatant accusation of dishonesty to require your opponent to do it.


And that is what the threads regarding this topic degenerate into. If you propose an alternative way of identifying the models that are mebarked OTHER then specifically listing wargear composition you are accused of wanting to play the shell game. The stance taken is,

"Despite the rules not compelling you to tell me wargear composition, you need to tell me so I know you are not cheating."

Beyond just being a blatant accusation, it is forcing your opponent into doing something that the rules do not support. The scrap paper idea not only fulfills the requirements but is also more secure. As I said, if I am dishonest enough to attempt a shell game, what is going to stop me from lying about embarked squads and then counter accuse you of lying to the TO?
   
Made in au
Member of a Lodge? I Can't Say



Australia

Mannahnin wrote:Sounds like a lame tournament. I've never encountered that crap. The vast majority of tournaments I've attended have made it explicit in their rules that full disclosure is expected.
You made some excellent comments Mannahnin although I’ll comment on this one specifically.

Most people will generally have their heads screwed correctly provide full disclosure. The problem is that there always is TFG/WAAC types who try and take any advantage they can take. I’ve seen tournaments where full disclosure is the done deal and people still try and weasel their way out of it (through ambiguous responses) and yes they were “lame tournaments”.

H.B.M.C. wrote: Goood! Goooood!

Your hate has made you powerful. Now take your Privateer Press tape measure and strike me down with all your hatred and your journey to the dark side will be complete!!!


 
   
Made in us
Nihilistic Necron Lord




The best State-Texas

I always give full disclosure on the matter. I've never been to a tournament that didn't have full disclosure as well.







4000+
6000+ Order. Unity. Obedience.
Thousand Sons 4000+
:Necron: Necron Discord: https://discord.com/invite/AGtpeD4  
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Tilter at Windmills






Manchester, NH

candy.man wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:Sounds like a lame tournament. I've never encountered that crap. The vast majority of tournaments I've attended have made it explicit in their rules that full disclosure is expected.
You made some excellent comments Mannahnin although I’ll comment on this one specifically.

Most people will generally have their heads screwed correctly provide full disclosure. The problem is that there always is TFG/WAAC types who try and take any advantage they can take. I’ve seen tournaments where full disclosure is the done deal and people still try and weasel their way out of it (through ambiguous responses) and yes they were “lame tournaments”.


To be fair, I've played in some lame events as well. Sometimes it's the only game in town, and I love the game. That said, IME most such TFGs can be dealt with by being polite but firm. Worst case scenario, if you can't make the guy see reason, you can generally get help from the TO.


Adepticon 2015: Team Tourney Best Imperial Team- Team Ironguts, Adepticon 2014: Team Tourney 6th/120, Best Imperial Team- Cold Steel Mercs 2, 40k Championship Qualifier ~25/226
More 2010-2014 GT/Major RTT Record (W/L/D) -- CSM: 78-20-9 // SW: 8-1-2 (Golden Ticket with SW), BA: 29-9-4 6th Ed GT & RTT Record (W/L/D) -- CSM: 36-12-2 // BA: 11-4-1 // SW: 1-1-1
DT:70S++++G(FAQ)M++B++I+Pw40k99#+D+++A+++/sWD105R+++T(T)DM+++++
A better way to score Sportsmanship in tournaments
The 40K Rulebook & Codex FAQs. You should have these bookmarked if you play this game.
The Dakka Dakka Forum Rules You agreed to abide by these when you signed up.

Maelstrom's Edge! 
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

Brother Ramses wrote:And that is what the threads regarding this topic degenerate into. If you propose an alternative way of identifying the models that are embarked OTHER then specifically listing wargear composition you are accused of wanting to play the shell game. The stance taken is,

"Despite the rules not compelling you to tell me wargear composition, you need to tell me so I know you are not cheating."

Beyond just being a blatant accusation, it is forcing your opponent into doing something that the rules do not support. The scrap paper idea not only fulfills the requirements but is also more secure. As I said, if I am dishonest enough to attempt a shell game, what is going to stop me from lying about embarked squads and then counter accuse you of lying to the TO?

Actually the rules tell us to make it clear which squads are embarked on what transports. It is not about any type of "Shell Game"

So the rules actually do compel you to tell your opponent your units wargear composition, doing otherwise is not making it clear, and is breaking a rule

It is not about any type of "Shell Game" it is about breaking the rule of making it clear, and if you break a rule you are cheating.

"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




nosferatu1001 wrote:way when you say "I have 10 guys with red shoulder pads in there", I can then CLEARLY identify which exact 10 guys they are, and also because you adhere to wysiwyg WHAT they are armed with.


I have requoted myself, because this is where you and I disconnect.

For me, "CLEARLY" identifying the unit requires you to point to the exact unit. Then, as you have shown me the unit and the models it is composed of, I will be able to discern what they are armed with, etc.

Brother Ramses wrote:I find it interesting that the assumption is always that a person is going to cheat you and that you create a standard that does not exist to assuage that personal bias in your opponents.


No, this is not the case. I dont assume people are cheating - it is just that "clearly" identifying the unit IS more than saying "I have 10 guys, who I will not let you see, that have red shoulder pads" - I want you to clearly identify them by pointing to them on the side of the table.

I just gave a simple example of how you have NOT clearly identified them by just saying you have 10 guys with shoulder pads - because I cannot "clearly" identigy WHICH 10 guys you are talking about unti lyou present them to me, which in your method of playing is after the vehicle is destroyed. This means you havent complied with the rule - so no, I vehemently disagree that I am creating a standard that does not exist, I am *exactly* using the "clearly" standard to show you that your standard is not "clear" and therefore falls short.

Plus, I was trying to keep this light hearted, yet you immediately went on the offensive with this, by stating that people are afraid of people cheating. This isnt the case.

Brother Ramses wrote:What is to say that I just don't lie about what is in a transport and place a different squad then I originally said was going to be embarked? You can complain that I lied to the TO and then I can just counter that you are lying. It turns into a he said/she said.

Not when I can point to the preponderence of evidence - that you just so happen to have 10 models in your case which DO have the equipment you said you were placing. As a TO myself you would have a HARD job explaining to me why someone who has likely never met you suddenly knows you have 10 models, with their equipment, in the case and how they are painted. Yo uwould then almost certainly be DQ'd and barred from competing in any tournament I ran or colleagues ran.

Is it beyond all doubt? No. Is that necessary to ensure you never get a game around here ("here" encompassing most of the southern half of the UK) again? No. Which is the point. By "clearly" identifying the unit you have a) complied with the rules and b) dramatically reduced the chances of the opponent being able to succesfully cheat, which is a by product of the rules.

Brother Ramses wrote:How did your created standard prevent that if you are already under the assumption that your opponent is out to cheat you no matter what?


Im not under the assumption - I'm just pointing out that the rule, as written and NOT created, acts as a control to people attempting to cheat.

Brother Ramses wrote:On the other hand, as has been described by others of a slip of paper with squad composition next to/on/in the transport, verifies what was said to be in the transport when starting the game.

It verifies what was in it, however you have not *clearly* identified THE unit it was carrying *when* I asked. "The slip of paper says wha tis in there" is NOT clearly identifying the unit - only pointing to the actual unit does.

Brother Ramses wrote:Even as I said in other threads in YMDC, where my transport markings (big runes painted on them that match the squad) is an acceptable means of clearly identifying which squad is embarked in which transport. I have fulfilled the rules on page 92. What I haven't done and what I am not compelled to do by the rules, is assuage your personal fear of being cheated by every single one of your opponents. That is something that you would probably need to get some help with out of game.


Seriously, lay off the personal attacks or just stop posting here. It gets tiresome. This isnt a "personal fear" of mine, this is compliance with the rules whcih you are not wanting to comply with.

Unit A is in Transport A does NOT clearly identify THE unit AT THE TIME I ASK - how can it? Until the piece of paper is revealed, it could be any number of units that can legally embark - thus it is the very opposite of clear.

As I said: if I knew you were coming to a tournament I was running, I would reiterate what "clearly" means, and require you to follow it. It is not a made up standard, you are just deliberately confusing the word "clearly" and failing to meet the requirements of the rule. Page 92 is very easy to follow - when I ask "what models are in the vehicle" yo upoint at the models. Anything less and you have failed to identify the unit *at the time of asking*

Saying "you will find out exactly what it carries when you destroy it" is the exact opposite of what p92 requires, unless both parties agree to it.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





West Michigan, deep in Whitebread, USA

I don't really know how my idea (well, not mine, but I support it) would be a shell game. If I have three transports: (a rhino, a razorback and a Land Raider, for instance) and have three business cards, labelled "Rhino", "Razorback" and "Land Raider", all with the exact composition of the squad being held by them written on the back.

How exactly do I pull some sort of 'switcheroo"? What- have another trio of cards hidden in my pocket with alternate squads on them so I can switch them at will so my best stuff doesn't get killed?

I understand how a thread like this could get out of hand. One side doesn't seem have a problem with it, regardless of rules, while the other side seems to see cheaters lurking around every dark corner.

Of course this all comes from the fact that I have the most experience with 4th Edition, which as far as i know, has absolutely no mention of a rule like this in the rulebook.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/03/15 12:42:45




"By this point I'm convinced 100% that every single race in the 40k universe have somehow tapped into the ork ability to just have their tech work because they think it should."  
   
Made in gb
Raging Ravener




Maidstone, Kent

My group is fairly casual so I've never come across this. If an opponent refused to let me know what was in each transport i wouldn't mind but I'd calmly ask him if he has recorded which unit is in which transport before the battle.

If they hadn't I'd insist that he did at that time so that I could check at the end of the game. i wouldn't carry on playing until it was done. That's not me trying to be difficult, I understand why he'd like to keep it secret during battle. Afterwards however I'd expect complete transparency.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
AegisGrimm wrote:I don't really know how my idea (well, not mine, but I support it) would be a shell game. If I have three transports: (a rhino, a razorback and a Land Raider, for instance) and have three business cards, labelled "Rhino", "Razorback" and "Land Raider", all with the exact composition of the squad being held by them written on the back.

How exactly do I pull some sort of 'switcheroo"? What- have another trio of cards hidden in my pocket with alternate squads on them so I can switch them at will so my best stuff doesn't get killed?

I understand how a thread like this could get out of hand. One side doesn't seem have a problem with it, regardless of rules, while the other side seems to see cheaters lurking around every dark corner.

Of course this all comes from the fact that I have the most experience with 4th Edition, which as far as i know, has absolutely no mention of a rule like this in the rulebook.


The 'switcheroo' would only work if there were multiple versions of the same tank on the board.

Imagine I run with three rhinos. In one holds 10 Death Company, one 5 Man Tac squad without upgrades and the last a 10 Man Tac squad with melta and power fist. When one of my rhinos is destroyed what is to stop me saying it was the one with the 5 man squad? Or how about I deploy all three spread across my board edge and charge them forward in the first two turns. Then based on how the first two turns have gone, and by where the biggest threat is on the board, I then decide which unit is in which transport?

As long as a written record, completed before deployment, of what unit is in which transport is available after the game then there's no issue.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/03/15 13:11:49


More than 7pts, less than 7000...just
4000+ 2500 2000+
 
   
Made in nl
Regular Dakkanaut





I do believe it actually IS a rule, as in the rulebook it clearly states in regards to army lists, that you are obliged to present them to your opponent . The rationale behind this rule is that this game should not be about suprises on the battlefield (except tactical ones). So under this argumentation and analogy, you are clearly bound to present what is in a vehicle.

Get 'em boyz!

Dakka dakka dakka!

WAAAGH! THE ORKS!

WAAAGH!  
   
Made in us
Long-Range Land Speeder Pilot





If I have aLandRaider full of terminators moving towards my opponent, he hasevery right to try and stop it (knowing what's inside).

Space Marines, Orks, Imperial Guard, Chaos, Tau, Necrons, Germans (LW), Protectorate of Menoth

 
   
Made in us
Member of the Ethereal Council






n0t_u wrote:I tend to have the squad leader surfing on the top of it and the squads ordered off to the side away from reserves if any. I think the rule says you don't actually have to tell, but it saves a lot of confusion just being open about it. Avoids transports concealing teleportation devices.

Lol same here, or another non generic model.
But i thinks its good sportsmanship and it makes it easier for everyone, even the player controlling.

5000pts 6000pts 3000pts
 
   
Made in us
Ancient Venerable Dreadnought





The Beach

Oppressor wrote:Boarderline TFG, slows the game down, and is against the rules. If you're not telling you're opponent what's in your transports when asked, you're cheating

Whoa, whoa whoa there Slappy. I was willing to forgive your poor thread reading skills. But this is just Please don't offensively misuse words or make up variants on them as a slur. Thanks! ~Manchu Find me the rule that says that transport contents have to be disclosed. When you do that, come back. Cheating? I'll refrain from personal attacks against you, but rest assured I have a far less praising term for what I think of people like you.

See, boy, what you call sportsmanship doesn't apply unilaterally. I personally think that you requesting a game advantage is bad sportsmanship. Because knowing what units are in what transport is an unfair advantage to you. Part of the advantage of certain army lists and formations might be a measure of strategic deception. See, real war is full of that. They're called feints. I understand that some people don't want that level of manliness on their table, and just want to roll dice and pull as many models off the table as fast as possible. But it isn't bad sportsmanship to desire to play in a different manner.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2012/03/15 13:41:19


Marneus Calgar is referred to as "one of the Imperium's greatest tacticians" and he treats the Codex like it's the War Bible. If the Codex is garbage, then how bad is everyone else?

True Scale Space Marines: Tutorial, Posing, Conversions and other madness. The Brief and Humorous History of the Horus Heresy

The Ultimate Badasses: Colonial Marines 
   
Made in gb
Battle-tested Knight Castellan Pilot






UK

I smell a cheat...well, its not necessarily cheating, but its not in the spirit of a fun game. Most tournaments I've been part of have guidance notes on secrecy and they would advise to give a copy of your army list to your opponent and talk through any tricks, transports and units in reserve.

Besides, Ork's don't need to be conniving to win, they just need to get into close combat!!!

Stick to the shadows - Strike from the darkness - Victorus aut Mortis - Ravenguard 1st Company 
   
Made in us
Ancient Venerable Dreadnought





The Beach

Brother Ramses wrote:
DeathReaper wrote:
AegisGrimm wrote:I would frankly refuse to tell another player what's in my transports. I'll show them the face-down slips that correspont to each one, so I can prove I'm not cheating, but no, I won't let you see which transport you can pop to specifically kill my best guys.

That is fine for house rules and games where you talk about allowing that kind of play.

The rules tell us to identify which units are riding in which transport.
"always make clear to your opponent which squads are embarked in which transport vehicle." (BRB 92)

Which he did by making it clear that paper a belongs to squad a. Not matter how many times people cry about it and try and quote a Note on Secrecy and WYSIWYG, nothing sets the standard in either rule for identifying which squad is embarked in which rhino by the composition of the unit. His use of slips of paper is perfectly legal and allows for no bait and switch.
Exactly.

If the contents of vehicles are specifically written down at the beginning, and there is no option or ability to change that which has been written down, then the player has met the criteria for "always make clear".

Everything else after this is whining. And, honesty, bad sportsmanship. Like the other guy said, it's impossible to not use meta-game knowledge to focus fire on the most valuable transports simply because you now hold inside information as to their contents. That's cheating. In every possible ethical way. Sportsmanship is on ethics, not on rules lawyering. If you're trying to exploit the wording of a rule to demand another player show you the contents of his transports when he has created legitimate, provable, clear identifiers for them, you are the cheater and the bad sport, not him.

Marneus Calgar is referred to as "one of the Imperium's greatest tacticians" and he treats the Codex like it's the War Bible. If the Codex is garbage, then how bad is everyone else?

True Scale Space Marines: Tutorial, Posing, Conversions and other madness. The Brief and Humorous History of the Horus Heresy

The Ultimate Badasses: Colonial Marines 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






New Orleans, LA

Veteran Sergeant wrote:Everything else after this is whining. And, honesty, bad sportsmanship. Like the other guy said, it's impossible to not use meta-game knowledge to focus fire on the most valuable transports simply because you now hold inside information as to their contents. That's cheating. In every possible ethical way. Sportsmanship is on ethics, not on rules lawyering. If you're trying to exploit the wording of a rule to demand another player show you the contents of his transports when he has created legitimate, provable, clear identifiers for them, you are the cheater and the bad sport, not him.


I couldn't possibly disagree any more than I do with everything in this post.

Furthermore, I'd never play you. Your tone smacks of more TFG than I've read in a long time. I really hope I'm wrong and you're not this type of person in real life.

"Everything else after this is whining" That is a true statemnt. Everything in your post after that is exactly that.

DA:70S+G+M+B++I++Pw40k08+D++A++/fWD-R+T(M)DM+
 
   
Made in us
Ruthless Interrogator





Ann Arbor, MI

Full disclosure is just the way the game is played...or at least it is at every single place I've played it, with every single player I've ever faced. Years of playing this game, and it's never once been a question that opponents reveal exactly what is in which transport. Only on the Internet...

If "secret transports" works for you and your group, by all means keep playing that way. But don't expect for this to make any sense to the rest of the world. Don't expect that it will fly in a tournament. And definitely don't accuse others of "bad sportsmanship" or "cheating" for expecting you to adhere to what is a long-standing convention.

I wonder, those saying you will "refuse to reveal" what's in your transports: do you get out much? I mean, do you go out and find pick-up games with strangers often? Do you go to tournaments? These questions sound snarky as I write them, but I'm genuinely curious how you might interact with the wider gaming community.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/03/15 14:23:44


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: