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.

Traditio wrote:

Charistoph wrote:But stating you don't have to tell would be adding a rule. As I said, the timing of the situation will determine my response more than anything else.

I just as easily could claim that you're imposing a new rule mid-game by asking me and expecting me to answer, when the rules don't explicitly allow you to do so.

How can you accuse me of introducing a new rule when you ask where my stuff is and my answer is: "Do the rules say that you can ask me that"?

It is the capacity of being underhanded which is at issue. Without any previous discussion, I have no choice but to assume you deliberately doing it to be able to cheat, aka being able to underhandedly change which unit is in the Transport to suit your needs.

If you seriously cannot see how this can be abused, more power to you, as you are more innocent than this game deserves.

I can see how it would be abused. That said, in a casual setting, there should be a reasonable assumption that both players will play fairly and will not attempt to abuse it.

And there's the assumption that transport content is declared and revealed on request.
As long as you make sure to stop your opponent from revealing all his embarked units voluntarily right at the start (which I do when setting up my army for play) so that both sides have the same intel AND you agree/suggest to write down which transporter has which unit loaded during deployment, all is fine. if you do it later during the game - without the enemy volunteering his transport arrangements - you GOTTA have a list at hand. Anything else will always smell fishy, even if it is not your intention to gain an unfair advantage.

Honestly: How is "I know of this obscure rule from 4th edition that handles stuff totally different to what people are used and I'm gonna use the absence of an official ruling in the current edition on the topic to gain a small advantage over my opponent" NOT a TFG move? I'd say that's not one bit better than eg. playing Necron and claiming "hey, your unit of two IC psykers only generate warp charges once." in the first psychic phase of your opponent. Sure, the rules as written might be on your side - or at least not against you. But it's still a WAAC TFG mentality.

I would like to call to mind a couple of the tenets of this forum:

"4. Rules as Written are not How You Would Play It. Please clearly state which one you are talking about during a rules debate, and do not argue a RAW point against a HYWPI point (or vice-versa).

- Many arguments can be avoided if this is made clear. Don't assume you know the point your opponent is arguing about.

5. Stick to discussing the rules, not the poster. Phrases like 'Rules Lawyer', 'Cheater' and 'TFG' have no place in rules discussions. Don't depart from rules discussions by attaching value judgments to different interpretations."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nekooni wrote:And there's the assumption that transport content is declared and revealed on request.

Based on the rulebook or popular custom?

As long as you make sure to stop your opponent from revealing all his embarked units voluntarily right at the start (which I do when setting up my army for play)

Right off hand, I can't call to mind a single game in which an opponent actually did this.

Honestly: How is "I know of this obscure rule from 4th edition that handles stuff totally different to what people are used and I'm gonna use the absence of an official ruling in the current edition on the topic to gain a small advantage over my opponent" NOT a TFG move? I'd say that's not one bit better than eg. playing Necron and claiming "hey, your unit of two IC psykers only generate warp charges once." in the first psychic phase of your opponent. Sure, the rules as written might be on your side - or at least not against you. But it's still a WAAC TFG mentality.

Is that actually a thing?

In the rules? Yes it's a thing. Because the psychic phase rules are broken

Traditio - you are required to note the contents. To ensure you comply with this rule, I can legitimately see your note.

Traditio wrote:

Charistoph wrote:But stating you don't have to tell would be adding a rule. As I said, the timing of the situation will determine my response more than anything else.

I just as easily could claim that you're imposing a new rule mid-game by asking me and expecting me to answer, when the rules don't explicitly allow you to do so.

How can you accuse me of introducing a new rule when you ask where my stuff is and my answer is: "Do the rules say that you can ask me that"?

Asking for clarification of a situation during a tabletop game is standard fare, especially when looking to prevent a potential cheating situation. If you have nothing to hide, then you have no problem telling me. Hiding behind a LACK of rule is what will start the suspicion of cheating, and without quick clarification, also start me packing up my models. If you can't handle that, that is your problem. I don't get to game as often as I'd like, playing against someone who I think may be cheating doesn't justify my letting it go by.

Traditio wrote:

It is the capacity of being underhanded which is at issue. Without any previous discussion, I have no choice but to assume you deliberately doing it to be able to cheat, aka being able to underhandedly change which unit is in the Transport to suit your needs.

If you seriously cannot see how this can be abused, more power to you, as you are more innocent than this game deserves.

I can see how it would be abused. That said, in a casual setting, there should be a reasonable assumption that both players will play fairly and will not attempt to abuse it.

Getting the game does that. Doing things like this will start the assumptions going in the opposite direction, though. There are too many stories of people people deliberately setting up a cheating situation that it has lead to the title of "That F***ing Guy" being a universal constant. The tolerance for such behavior is so low that even some honest mistakes that this guy does deliberately can get people to assume the worst about you and limit your gaming experience.

Charistoph wrote:Asking for clarification of a situation during a tabletop game is standard fare, especially when looking to prevent a potential cheating situation. If you have nothing to hide, then you have no problem telling me.

Ex hypothesi, I most certainly do have something to hide. I don't want you to know which rhino is empty and which houses a multimelta squad.

That has nothing to do with cheating, though.

At any rate, "standard fare" is not the same thing as "it says so on p. x of the BRB."

At any rate, again, I will of course comply in the future with the general consensus of this thread. If common practice is to divulge, then so be it.

Alright, I broke out my 6th ed BRB:

6th Edition Rulebook, p. 118 wrote:A NOTE ON SECRECY
To keep things fair, you should always allow your opponent to read your force roster after a game and always make it clear to your opponent which squads are embarked in which Transports. However, before deploying armies, agree whether or not you will read the opponent's force roster during the game as well.

That's the "most recent" ruling on the matter, from one edition previous. Hard to say what the intent is with 7th not having anything on the issue, since the rules are so sloppily written.

Traditio wrote:

Charistoph wrote:Asking for clarification of a situation during a tabletop game is standard fare, especially when looking to prevent a potential cheating situation. If you have nothing to hide, then you have no problem telling me.

Ex hypothesi, I most certainly do have something to hide. I don't want you to know which rhino is empty and which houses a multimelta squad.

That has nothing to do with cheating, though.

At any rate, "standard fare" is not the same thing as "it says so on p. x of the BRB."

At any rate, again, I will of course comply in the future with the general consensus of this thread. If common practice is to divulge, then so be it.

I played a game once where the player did not want to reveal the location of the only embarked squad of the 3 total that had bought dedicated transports. I was not sure so I asked the other gamers in the store and the operator. We all came to the conclusion that what ever order I destroyed his rhinos in that the melta command squad would be in the last one. Standard practice in all the games I have played to let the opponent know what is in which transport.

As for hidden units in transport i can see a case for playing a game as long as the squad is noted on a card or something hidden placed next to the transport, information would become reveled anyway since both players will have access to each others army list once someone fires from the top hatch; this is only the case if both parties agree though before hand. In a regular game against a random opponent my previous description is what id expect.

In most scenarios I play in 3 x 5 cards are used (mine are laminated) and denote on the back which enclosed transport and on the front whats in them they are face down in the off board area..not in front of thier units..

For open top the cards are lined up in front of the off board units that are in the transport..I do not have to tell my opponent as they can see what is in what.

It's specified in the most recent edition of the rules that it is mentioned, and the current rulebook says something along the same lines just written poorly.

If you need to TFG the rules this hard to win, you are both really bad at this game, and also no doubt the definition of the guy who everyone hates to play against. Hell it's flat out breaking the rules but even if it wasn't, hypothetically, what satisfaction would you gain by winning through bending the rules like this?

 SHUPPET wrote:
It's specified in the most recent edition of the rules that it is mentioned, and the current rulebook says something along the same lines just written poorly.

If you need to TFG the rules this hard to win, you are both really bad at this game, and also no doubt the definition of the guy who everyone hates to play against. Hell it's flat out breaking the rules but even if it wasn't, hypothetically, what satisfaction would you gain by winning through bending the rules like this?

That kind of attitude is not welcome here.

You have 2 options, either state what is in the transport before the game begins, or make sure you mark your rhino's or other transports (preferably with numbers) and when writing your list make sure to write down what units are in what numbered transport. You dont nessisarily have to show your component untill your declairing shooting with specific weapons/overwatch or disembarking.

Anything other than these 2 strategies (in competative play) can be used to blatantly cheat, and can have huge effects in the outcome of the battle if your opponent in his own mind swaps what was in the transports. "Oh that rhino your attacking dosn't have warlord in it..." happens far too often when not atleast writing down whats in the transports.

In tournaments the numbering system is prefered even more due to the fact that despite telling your opponent in person whats in the transports its better to have it written down in case they are either forgetful or a spiteful lil gak that wants to cheat. This way just causes alot less drama.

When i have done this , since its been a while , I have those little colored tokens people used to track mana from Magic TG. I have one color inside the transport and another off the table with the models with the corresponding color .

When ever i was asked what was in the transport i said the same color as the squad off the table. I got a few eyerolls because they wanted to know what to pop first but never had anyone pick up their models or not play me because of it

 jokerkd wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
It's specified in the most recent edition of the rules that it is mentioned, and the current rulebook says something along the same lines just written poorly.

If you need to TFG the rules this hard to win, you are both really bad at this game, and also no doubt the definition of the guy who everyone hates to play against. Hell it's flat out breaking the rules but even if it wasn't, hypothetically, what satisfaction would you gain by winning through bending the rules like this?

That kind of attitude is not welcome here.

thanks, guy who joined site 2 years after me, but its not attitude, its honesty. You will never get better if you rely on crutches like this, you aren't even playing the game, you are simply taking advantage of an opponent being unwillingly to argue the rules that you are INCORRECT on and making the experience abysmal for him in the process. Believe me, I know from personal experience what it's like to play against someone doing EXACTLY this and I can tell you it will not encourage people to like you, and if you are literally taking it to the extent of refusing to disclose which units are inside tanks then god knows what other liberties you are taking with butchering the rules for your own personal benefit. Don't be that guy.

Traditio wrote:

Charistoph wrote:Asking for clarification of a situation during a tabletop game is standard fare, especially when looking to prevent a potential cheating situation. If you have nothing to hide, then you have no problem telling me.

Ex hypothesi, I most certainly do have something to hide. I don't want you to know which rhino is empty and which houses a multimelta squad.

Maybe I should have stated, if you have no cheating to hide, you have no problem telling me.

Traditio wrote:
That has nothing to do with cheating, though.

I'm sorry, but if you are hiding something which is not explicitly stated as something to hide, how could I not start with cheating as a probability?

Traditio wrote:
At any rate, "standard fare" is not the same thing as "it says so on p. x of the BRB."

No more than using a statement 3 Editions out of date to justify an action and an attitude which is currently associated with cheating players.

Do note, that I have not stated that this is in the rules, just what my reaction is and as to why. You seem to be offended by this reaction, and to be honest, it would be no different a level of feeling to have this sprung on you unexpectedly in the middle of the game.

When you engage in a game, you make a basic contract of sportsmanship. Now, the limits you can go may be perceived differently by other players, but it would be wise to take in to consideration that just because something doesn't say you CAN'T do something, doesn't necessarily mean you should. And that is also one of the tenets of this board, keep in mind.

Traditio wrote:
I would like to call to mind a couple of the tenets of this forum:

"4. Rules as Written are not How You Would Play It. Please clearly state which one you are talking about during a rules debate, and do not argue a RAW point against a HYWPI point (or vice-versa).

- Many arguments can be avoided if this is made clear. Don't assume you know the point your opponent is arguing about.

5. Stick to discussing the rules, not the poster. Phrases like 'Rules Lawyer', 'Cheater' and 'TFG' have no place in rules discussions. Don't depart from rules discussions by attaching value judgments to different interpretations."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nekooni wrote:And there's the assumption that transport content is declared and revealed on request.

Based on the rulebook or popular custom?

Popular custom, just like "That said, in a casual setting, there should be a reasonable assumption that both players will play fairly and will not attempt to abuse it.", which is what I replied to. Please do consider context when I provide a quote and comment on it.

As long as you make sure to stop your opponent from revealing all his embarked units voluntarily right at the start (which I do when setting up my army for play)

Right off hand, I can't call to mind a single game in which an opponent actually did this.

As I said - I do, and if no opponent of yours does, please continue to read on and ignore this sentence. I've even included that case in the very next sentence, so please don't take quotes out of context:
if you do it later during the game - without the enemy volunteering his transport arrangements - you GOTTA have a list at hand.

Honestly: How is "I know of this obscure rule from 4th edition that handles stuff totally different to what people are used and I'm gonna use the absence of an official ruling in the current edition on the topic to gain a small advantage over my opponent" NOT a TFG move? I'd say that's not one bit better than eg. playing Necron and claiming "hey, your unit of two IC psykers only generate warp charges once." in the first psychic phase of your opponent. Sure, the rules as written might be on your side - or at least not against you. But it's still a WAAC TFG mentality.

Is that actually a thing?

It is under 7th edition rules as written, but noone plays like that. Just like with Blasts the RAW (try assigning wounds based on the written rule after scattering onto a different unit that the initial target; bonus points for the initial target being a vehicle and the scattered-onto unit infantry) are broken or not accepted by 99% of the players.

If I knew ahead of time that I wouldn't be able to know what was in my opponent's transports and it's not sprung on me mid game I think I might enjoy that tension of not knowing whats it the box when I shoot at it. Even more so when I would have to deduce what in it by seeing what's firing out of the fire points.

Plus I get to scream "What's in the box!" whenever I open one up like a scene out of SE7EN

I think concealing the contents of a transport is a valid part of the game, so long as the transportation is legal and that the player can confirm the missing units tally to the detachment rules.

If the player with the transports uses this to their advantage it is their responsibility to make sure every transport is clearly individually and distinctly marked and its contents prerecorded in a way that cannot be changed once play commences. Best way to do that is to have labeled cards with the transport contents on them off table, if a transport is knocked out or damage is dont to passengers the player reveals which card it is.

Other methods are equally acceptabler so long as.

1. The contents are visible off board so that the opponent knows what you are playing with.

2. You cannot get away with playing a shell game where no matter how you shoot, the last rhino shot at is always one with the command squad.

Its interesting in terms of custom and practice for sure. Every single game that I have played of 40k at a tournament (hundreds) in the UK and in Continental Europe in 6th and 7th edition, during deployment you talk your opponent through your deployment. This includes: "this independent character is in this rhino with such and such a squad". If someone said at a tournament in the UK "I'm not going to tell you" when you ask what is in a Rhino. Or worse still in response to: "where have you deployed your Warlord" it would just not stand.

I always thought it was weird that it was even mentioned in the ETC FAQ and other tournament FAQs because its so completely understood to be part of playing the game at every event I have ever been at. Its odd to hear about when you didn't have to do it. Like when pre-measuring wasn't allowed or whatever. So different to how the game is played now.

Seems to me the easiest thing to do is to write on a scrap of paper what's inside and keep it face down under the rhino model until the big reveal. I do think the element of surprise should be kept for armies that rely on it, but it needs to be fair. As long as you declare what you have before the game, I think...

Excpet it isnt valid. A note must be made of the contents, and like any rule the opponent has to verify it is being followed; it isnt good enough to say it will be fulfilled / proven in the future. I can require compliance to be proven now, if I so wish

Same as rolling dice in secret and keeping a picture of the results of the dice roll, and only showing me 3 turns later. Not sure many people would accept that...

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Excpet it isnt valid. A note must be made of the contents, and like any rule the opponent has to verify it is being followed; it isnt good enough to say it will be fulfilled / proven in the future. I can require compliance to be proven now, if I so wish

I think it's perfectly valid. If an opp wanted to see what was written on the cards that would be fine. They could then be turned over and hidden.

I am struggling to see what scenario you think someone could cheat doing this. Especially since, if cheating did happen, it should be an auto-lose thing, surely?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Excpet it isnt valid. A note must be made of the contents, and like any rule the opponent has to verify it is being followed; it isnt good enough to say it will be fulfilled / proven in the future. I can require compliance to be proven now, if I so wish

Same as rolling dice in secret and keeping a picture of the results of the dice roll, and only showing me 3 turns later. Not sure many people would accept that...

Where exactly in the rules does it say that? The following list is clearly valid:

1 Captain
2 Tactical Squads with Rhinos
3 empty Rhinos

All are deployed right away, and both Tactical Squads and the Captain are embarked. On the table all you see are 5 Rhinos, and you're told that no unit is held in reserve. It's clearly a valid deployment and that's all you really need to know as far as I know. Please provide a rule citation or reference if you know of a rule that says otherwise.
As long as there's definite proof of which Transport carries which units, I'll consider it legal rules-wise.

Ffyllotek wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Excpet it isnt valid. A note must be made of the contents, and like any rule the opponent has to verify it is being followed; it isnt good enough to say it will be fulfilled / proven in the future. I can require compliance to be proven now, if I so wish

I think it's perfectly valid. If an opp wanted to see what was written on the cards that would be fine. They could then be turned over and hidden.

I am struggling to see what scenario you think someone could cheat doing this. Especially since, if cheating did happen, it should be an auto-lose thing, surely?

Its sadly a common way of cheating.

Take an army with metal bawxses, and a mix of regular and powerful assault units. Traditionally Space Marines or CSM, but Eldar armies also apply here. The cheater takes a number of squads with transports, let us say four Razorbacks, three containing five man tacticals with melta, one containing a a maxed out Reliquary command squad, or worse. You as the opponent are playing Tau or Guard today and don't want a Reliquary command squad to get anywhere near assault for obvious reasons, and target the Razorbacks as priority. Unless you stop all four the Chaplain and Co get to your lines because its never their transport which gets hit, but an ablative tactical combat squad. It doesn't matter which Razorback you target as they all look the same and this SM player, being a total cheesebucket, will swear blind that the last one is the one they always intended to be the command transport.

Its known as the 'shell game' as its similar to slight of hand tricks when you have a pea under three cups and they are swapped around, and you think you know which one but will always lose because the pea is actually in the players hand until its needed to be placed under a not chosen cup.

 Orlanth wrote:

Ffyllotek wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Excpet it isnt valid. A note must be made of the contents, and like any rule the opponent has to verify it is being followed; it isnt good enough to say it will be fulfilled / proven in the future. I can require compliance to be proven now, if I so wish

I think it's perfectly valid. If an opp wanted to see what was written on the cards that would be fine. They could then be turned over and hidden.

I am struggling to see what scenario you think someone could cheat doing this. Especially since, if cheating did happen, it should be an auto-lose thing, surely?

Its sadly a common way of cheating.

Take an army with metal bawxses, and a mix of regular and powerful assault units. Traditionally Space Marines or CSM, but Eldar armies also apply here. Take a number of squads with transports, let us say four Razorbacks, three containing five man tacticals with melta, one containing a a tooled up Reliquary command squad. The enemy, say they are playing Tau or Guard don t want your Reliquary unit to get anywhere near assault for obvious reasons, and target the Razorbacks as priority. Unless they stop all four the Chaplain and Co get into assault because its never their transport which gets hit, but an ablative tactical combat squad. It doesnt matter which Razorback you target as they all look the same and the SM player, being a total cheesebucket will swear blind that the last one is the one they always intended to be the command transport.



Its known as the 'shell game' as its similar to slight of hand tricks when you have a pea under three cups and they are swapped around, and you think you know which one but will always lose because the pea is actually in the players hand until its needed to be placed under a not chosen cup.

It is still hard, I would suggest, to cheat with a slip of paper underneath a rhino...

The game tells us to use tokens and counters etc. Of course a blind counter can be switched for a broken counter with some slight of hand. I'm not sure that actually helps anyone...

As long as the transports are identical, then this is a valid tactic.

You aren't obliged to tell him, but this will annoy him, he will challenge it, and so i would make great lengths to demonstrate how you aren't trying to trick him, so show all the options on separate bits of paper, number the transports wiht markers and write down the number next to them, leave that bit of paper to one side (so you dont have all combinations written down and reveal the one you want when it suits you).

Efforts to show you arent trying to cheat the guy will go a long way to making him like you and most will appreciate this as its not exactly anti fluff. It's not like his units could see inside the charging transports. or make any guesses based on their loadout, but if they see a tank vaporised by a shot from one of them, they can be pretty sure it wasnt a bolter.

Traditio wrote:

Charistoph wrote:Asking for clarification of a situation during a tabletop game is standard fare, especially when looking to prevent a potential cheating situation. If you have nothing to hide, then you have no problem telling me.

Ex hypothesi, I most certainly do have something to hide. I don't want you to know which rhino is empty and which houses a multimelta squad.

And it adds an element to the game which I find exciting. I'd be happy if you marked somewhere what goes where and then upon disembarging provided this information. In other words, tell your opponent what and why

nekooni wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Excpet it isnt valid. A note must be made of the contents, and like any rule the opponent has to verify it is being followed; it isnt good enough to say it will be fulfilled / proven in the future. I can require compliance to be proven now, if I so wish

Same as rolling dice in secret and keeping a picture of the results of the dice roll, and only showing me 3 turns later. Not sure many people would accept that...

Where exactly in the rules does it say that? The following list is clearly valid:

1 Captain
2 Tactical Squads with Rhinos
3 empty Rhinos

All are deployed right away, and both Tactical Squads and the Captain are embarked. On the table all you see are 5 Rhinos, and you're told that no unit is held in reserve. It's clearly a valid deployment and that's all you really need to know as far as I know. Please provide a rule citation or reference if you know of a rule that says otherwise.
As long as there's definite proof of which Transport carries which units, I'll consider it legal rules-wise.

Oddly enough, in the Embarking section. 3rd para or so down. Its not a long section.

It states when embarking you must make a note of the contents. Deployment is also embarking (already embarked...) and so the same requirement applies. So you make a note detailing the units that are embarking on rhino A, I read your note. You then embark your next unit, making a note. I read your note.

And so on.

Done.

 SHUPPET wrote:

 jokerkd wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
It's specified in the most recent edition of the rules that it is mentioned, and the current rulebook says something along the same lines just written poorly.

If you need to TFG the rules this hard to win, you are both really bad at this game, and also no doubt the definition of the guy who everyone hates to play against. Hell it's flat out breaking the rules but even if it wasn't, hypothetically, what satisfaction would you gain by winning through bending the rules like this?

That kind of attitude is not welcome here.

thanks, guy who joined site 2 years after me, but its not attitude, its honesty. You will never get better if you rely on crutches like this, you aren't even playing the game, you are simply taking advantage of an opponent being unwillingly to argue the rules that you are INCORRECT on and making the experience abysmal for him in the process. Believe me, I know from personal experience what it's like to play against someone doing EXACTLY this and I can tell you it will not encourage people to like you, and if you are literally taking it to the extent of refusing to disclose which units are inside tanks then god knows what other liberties you are taking with butchering the rules for your own personal benefit. Don't be that guy.

Why are you acting like I'm the one wanting to play this way?

You're being a member for so much longer suggests you should already know the tenets of ymdc.

So, this seems like a hotly contested topic, with one side absolutely certain that the other side is a bunch of no good, rotten cheaters. Super fun stuff!

Anyways, here's my take, and how my local group plays this. We'll assume that I have a Captain, two 5-man Tactical Squads with Rhinos, a Melta Command Squad and 3 empty Rhinos.

During deployment, I'll deploy the 5 Rhinos on the table with small markers or slips of paper tagged as A, B, C, D and E. This is how I differentiate the Rhinos. I decide to deploy the two Tactical Squads into their Rhinos. I make a note of which Rhino belongs to each squad on a small slip of paper and set that note face down next to each squad. I deploy the Command Squad in an empty Rhino, making a note of which Rhino it is and put that note face down next to the Command Squad. I deploy the Captain with the Command Squad. I make a note of which Rhino he's in and place it face down next to his model. I have fulfilled the obligation to make a note and there is no way that I can cheat. During deployment, I've created an unbreakable link between which units are in which Rhinos. No "shell game" is possible.

When it comes time for me to disembark a unit, I pick up the note next to the unit and say "See, this unit was in Rhino C, so I'll be disembarking there." At this point, it's up to my opponent to remember that Rhino C is empty and that the other two units are in two of the other four Rhinos. They'll figure out which ones when they either pop Rhinos or I disembark.

So, you see that I've made a note as required. I haven't shown that note to my opponent as there is no requirement to do so ahead of time. I'm really only showing it to him when I disembark out of a sense of sportsmanship to prove that I'm not up to shenanigans. Realistically speaking, his troops won't have any idea who is in which Transport. We feel it adds an element of mystery and realism to the game. It also make something weak like a Rhino far more useful when they can be used as legitimate decoys.

This works fine in our local community. Nobody cries foul. I told you that Squad A is in a Rhino and I've made a note as to which Rhino so that when the reveal occurs, you know it's the decision I made during deployment.

 Xca|iber wrote:
Alright, I broke out my 6th ed BRB:

6th Edition Rulebook, p. 118 wrote:A NOTE ON SECRECY
To keep things fair, you should always allow your opponent to read your force roster after a game and always make it clear to your opponent which squads are embarked in which Transports. However, before deploying armies, agree whether or not you will read the opponent's force roster during the game as well.

That's the "most recent" ruling on the matter, from one edition previous. Hard to say what the intent is with 7th not having anything on the issue, since the rules are so sloppily written.

You nailed it and I think it's not worth debating anymore. The 6th ed invalidates 4th ed. That is all she wrote. OP has not replied since your post.

On a personal note, this type of behavior and necro-rule lawyering (Let's call it what it is) is not welcome at our club and sets a very bad exemple for new players.