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.

Tyr Grimtooth wrote: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.

That's an extension from WYSIWYG. Assuming models are equipped properly, you should be able to tell everything about it by just looking at the model.

But, as we all know, many models aren't WYSIWYG. That's why you're allowed to ask what it is equipped with. It's information you're meant to have.

Clive - you are required to positively identify the unit inside the vehicle.

When i look at the unit, out on the tabe, i must be able to see what it is armed with.

It amounts to exactly the same thing. No, you may not hide your models inthe case, as you may have more than one army in there and more than one list.

@nosferatu1001:
Yes, when the unit is physically on the table, you should be able to see what it's armed with...that's what wysiwig is for.

However, this is completely different than the secrecy rules regarding explicitly telling someone what your units are and/or showing them your roster. Especially for those units that are hidden whether by being embarked in a transport or reserved. In this case a known marker tied to a particular unit works pretty out well to identify the unit. Of course, identification is a very different concept from a complete description of the unit and capabilities. "Unit A" is an identifier. "5 Stormguard vets with plasma pistols" is a description.

I'm not entirely sure how much clearer I can be in the rules dissection so it's probably best that we just agree to disagree with a note that this is yet something else players should talk about before the game starts... per RAW. I wonder if anyone has compiled a list of those...


On a lighter note I'm pretty sure all of us can agree that someone abusing this to support cheating is quite frankly a douche.



BTW, just a small detail, but it's clively... Stands for chris lively. Thanks.

clively wrote: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.

Except we're not talking about sharing lists. We're talking about the next line in those same rules, the one that says you must always tell your opponents what is in a transport. They are two separate things covered in the same paragraph. One, the list, can be held off until post game if both players agree. The other, what's in the transports, must be shared, revealed, disclosed at any time during the game that your opponent asks.

don_mondo wrote:
Except we're not talking about sharing lists. We're talking about the next line in those same rules, the one that says you must always tell your opponents what is in a transport. Geex, read the thread next time.

Okay, last attempt:

The rule is: "In the same spirit, always make clear to your opponent which squads are embarked in which transport vehicle. "

The ONLY thing that says is that I have to identify the squad. It does not say I have to give you the roster. It does not say I have to tell you that it is full of terminators with thunder hammers. Further, it does not say "the makeup of the squads", nor does it say "the type of unit", nor anything like that.

It does say I have to "make clear .. which squads are embarked in which vehicle".

Ergo: Squad A is embarked in that landraider. If my roster shows that Squad A is made up of said terminators, then it can't be any more clear and I have met all of the conditions of the rule, whose apparent purpose is to keep me from swapping in a different squad at the last minute...

Going to the first part of that sentence: The first rule says don't show anything. In order to be "In the same spirit", you wouldn't give any more details than what is absolutely necessary to ensure that you aren't cheating. Again saying or identifying "Squad A" versus describing in detail the contents of the transport.

Now, do I share my roster with you during the game? By default: No, per RAW I do so at the end of the game.

-Nazdreg- wrote:

Uh, no, unless you both agree otherwise he does have to tell you what is in each of his transports. The relevant rules reference has aleady been posted.

Which is what I covered later in my post. If he wants to keep his passengers in secret, the necessary procedure is:

1. Telling the opponent about his intention
2. Waiting for a positive answer
3. Clarifying which is where in a transparent way

If any of this parts are not properly done, he does not play according to the rules.

you forgot a point

4. Being a douche

This game is meant to be fun and hiding things about your army removes the fun for the other player. It's like not saying what guy can do what. The game can get confusing, specially in firendly games where proxys can be used. Saying who is what in where is just sportsmanship imo

I never asked for the roster, I asked you to identify the squad. OK, you say it's a Tac squad. Do you have more than one of them? Are they armed differently. Did you combat squad them? All of those questions have to be answered to 'make clear' to me which squad is embarked in that particular transport.

"which squads are emabrked in WHICH VEHCICLE". See those last two words? Those are the words that say you have to tell me which squad is in which vehicle.

And by default, you're going to share your roster with ME before the game, cause that's the only way I'm going to play someone with a secrecy fetish. I can only see one reason for such a mania for secrecy, and it ain't a good one. Not trying to offend, but the rules are clear. "Ine the same spirit (ie the spirit of fair play, referring to the previous sentence), ALWAYS (that means at any time during the game) make clear (that means answer any questions I have about the unit so that I'm clear on which unit it is) which squads are embarked in which vehicle (which vehicle means I can point at Rhino A and you tell me waht's in it, then point at Rhino B, etc etc).

Don't know how we can make it much clearer to you. but if it will make you feel any better, focus on that bit about 'if both players agree'............... Cause I won't.

"Squad A" makes nothing clear to me.
nosferatu1001 has the right of it.

don_mondo wrote: but if it will make you feel any better, focus on that bit about 'if both players agree'............... Cause I won't.

There's a rule for that ... page 2: under "The Most Important Rule!" let the dice decide or make a house rule.

The two sentences are definitely seperate clauses. RAW is "if I ask you have to tell me" regardless of roster secrecy.

I honestly think it's a bit ridiculous not playing with lists visible.

sirrah wrote:The two sentences are definitely seperate clauses. RAW is "if I ask you have to tell me" regardless of roster secrecy.

I honestly think it's a bit ridiculous not playing with lists visible.

same,

clively wrote:

don_mondo wrote: but if it will make you feel any better, focus on that bit about 'if both players agree'............... Cause I won't.

There's a rule for that ... page 2: under "The Most Important Rule!" let the dice decide or make a house rule.

there's also this

7. Do not bring The Most Important Rule (TMIR) into these rules discussions. While it is something you should most certainly abide by while playing (if you're not having fun, why ARE you playing?), it does not apply to rules debates.

under tenents of you make da call

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

clively wrote:

don_mondo wrote: but if it will make you feel any better, focus on that bit about 'if both players agree'............... Cause I won't.

There's a rule for that ... page 2: under "The Most Important Rule!" let the dice decide or make a house rule.

there's also this

7. Do not bring The Most Important Rule (TMIR) into these rules discussions. While it is something you should most certainly abide by while playing (if you're not having fun, why ARE you playing?), it does not apply to rules debates.

under tenents of you make da call

Yep, slipped up there. Won't happen again.

Incidentally, this exact topic appears to have been discussed in depth a little over a year ago. http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/288105.page with pretty much the exact same conclusion: Don Mondo and others stating that they only way they will play is if you declare your units in detail at the beginning of the game; and Insaniak, Akaiyou and others simply stating that the rules indicate that by default unit declaration is not mandatory. Plus, of course, the random other people saying how they play it. Seems like the only real difference is that I'm playing the role of Akaiyou this time around.

Which says to me that this thread should probably be closed up as being pointless.

Oh, and for the record, I am always happy to tell my opponent what I have and where.. in detail at any point in the process. Even though the rules say I don't have to.

Clively, you need to make it clear WHICH squad is in WHICH transport.

Having them named in the roster list, and stating that 'Squad A' is in transport 1, and 'Squad B' is in transport 2 does not do so. This is because I do not know which one of those is a reference to which unit. That is to say you have 2 rhinos, a red one and a blue one, and you have a tac squad labeled alpha and an assault squad labeled beta. You say that alpha is in red, and beta is in blue.

Great, I now know what is in the transports, however you fail to remove the ambiguity when units disembark from the transport. That is to say I do not know what alpha and beta reference unless you tell me what units are labeled as, which defeats the point you're making. The other option is to show me proof that the units were labeled as such at the start of the game, which means showing me your roster anyway.

This brings me back to my previous comment. The best way to do this is to mark the units and mark the transports. If you want to be super, ultra, secret about it leave both markers face down until you disembark the unit. As long as both markers are in view of me for the entire battle, and the marker with the unit remains with that unit, I have no problems. The second there becomes a possibility that any given transport could contain more than one unit, you've broken the spirit of the secrecy rule.

In short, while you do not have to disclose the contents of the transport, you must make it completely clear as to which unit is located in which transport.

clively wrote:Incidentally, this exact topic appears to have been discussed in depth a little over a year ago. http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/288105.page with pretty much the exact same conclusion: Don Mondo and others stating that they only way they will play is if you declare your units in detail at the beginning of the game; and Insaniak, Akaiyou and others simply stating that the rules indicate that by default unit declaration is not mandatory. Plus, of course, the random other people saying how they play it. Seems like the only real difference is that I'm playing the role of Akaiyou this time around.

Note though that the thread you linked was actually specifically discussing sharing your army list, rather than talking about vehicles.

Hence my slightly different position in this thread... its a different topic.


Sharing your army list before the game is by default not required.
Declaring what is in each vehicle is required.

You tell your enemy what is in your transports, it's in the rules
You should show him your list, it's good manners and allows for a more relaxed playing experience

It is just a matter of what you decide on before the game. Some people prefer the mystery others I'm sure don't mind telling you. Generally though this is something you should decide on before the game even starts, and before you share your own list.

Clively: one more attempt at this

You MUSt identify WHICH unit is in WHICH transport. You must say "see unit A, by the side of the table? This is in this rhino here"

Once you do that you have identified the unit. And, because youre playing wysiwyg, i know what they are and what theyre armed with.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Once you do that you have identified the unit. And, because youre playing wysiwyg, i know what they are and what theyre armed with.

That's the key here, really. The whole game is inherently transparent because of the models. Swapping army lists at the end of the game isn't like in a game of battleships, where your opponent doesn't reveal his fleet until the end. You don't see your opponent's list and go 'Oh, that was a multimelta!'... You already know what your opponent had on the table, because you could see the models. Swapping lists is purely a double-check that points add up and everything fielded was accounted for.

insaniak wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Once you do that you have identified the unit. And, because youre playing wysiwyg, i know what they are and what theyre armed with.

That's the key here, really. The whole game is inherently transparent because of the models. Swapping army lists at the end of the game isn't like in a game of battleships, where your opponent doesn't reveal his fleet until the end. You don't see your opponent's list and go 'Oh, that was a multimelta!'... You already know what your opponent had on the table, because you could see the models. Swapping lists is purely a double-check that points add up and everything fielded was accounted for.

Insaniak, let's, for the sake of discussion, assume what you've just said is right. Riddle me this: Exactly what is the point of the body of text on page 92: " A note on Secrecy" then?

Given:
1. Through wysiwyg you can identify everything in plain view on the table.
2. Through your reading of that sentence, everything contained within a transport is known in detail by your opponent. Exact units, numbers of models, locations, weapon loadout, etc.

With those two items, there is no room left for "springing a secret trump card" or "bluffing" as identified later in the paragraph. It's all out there and, as a result, no reason at all for that note.

So, given your reading, what "trump card" or "bluff" is left to be played?

Read my post Clively. It's a provision so you can run the transports with markers corresponding to units. That is to say, either physical tokens, or writing down what unit is where. Yes, with WYSIWYG you will know what the unit contains the second it disembarks, that does not mean you need to physically tell the opponent that is what is in the unit.

The rule requires that you simply discern "which unit is in which vehicle" beyond any doubt. That is to say, you must be able to prove that the unit that disembarks from any given vehicle was the unit that embarked onto said vehicle last.

This can be done either by using visible markers, hidden markers, pieces of paper, fully telling your opponent exactly what's inside, whatever. As long as at any point you can prove that you did not tamper with the unit positioning, you're okay.

Let me give you an example, I have an assault marine squad with 2 meltas in a rhino, and an assault marine squad with 2 flamers in a second rhino. I must be able to, when one of those units disembarks form their vehicle, prove to you beyond a reasonable doubt that that was the unit initially embarked on the vehicle.

I could:
1. Have told you which unit was in which vehicle at the start of the game. ie. "The squad with the meltas is in this rhino, and the squad with the flamers is in this other rhino."

2. I can write down which is in which, and then show you when the unit disembarks if you contest that I have shuffled the units "No, see I wrote it down at deployement, the melta unit is in the red rhino, and the flamer unit is in the blue one"

3. I can use a visible marker. Placing one of the melta marines on the red rhino, and one of the flamer marines on the blue rhino for example.

4. I can use a hidden marker. Placing a base on each rhino and on the bottom of one base it has a M and on the other is a F. I can then disclose this information at the start, and show you the bottom of the base when that unit disembarks. Ie. "The melta assault squad is represented by an M base, and the flamer squad is represetnted with an F base." *disembrks melta unit and flips base, showing the M*

I cannot, however, simply designate names without assigning them to the unit. "Unit alpha is in the red rhino, and unit beta is in the blue rhino" does not cut it because it does not prove to me that the unit alpha that is in the rhino is actually composed of the models you say it is.

Secrecy is fine, especially in friendly games, but you must be able to prove that you're not 'playing the shell game' as someone earlier in the thread stated.

@WanderingFox:

I've already agreed with you several times that markers clearly identifying a unit and the placement of those markers with the transports in question is the only way to play this. You and I have said the same thing many times here. Yes those markers must be matched to a particular unit in your list in a verifiable manner.


None of that is what Don Mondo, Insaniak et al. are arguing.

The whole thing under discussion is that they believe the second sentence means you are forced by the rules to explicitly outline the exact contents of the transports and let the opponent know those contents immediately. Not through markers that you can later reveal the association of to your units but rather just prior to turn 1 starting and at pretty much any other point in the game when they decide to ask.

I think otherwise.

It boils down to agreeing to something at the start of the game, honestly. Barring any dispute, I'd rule in the favor of full disclosure as it removes the potential of cheating. Outside of that, use the normal resolution methods for stuff like this I personally enjoy starting a second warhammer game to solve the dispute in the first game. By the time you get back to the original game, no one knows what the hell you were disputing in the first place.

edit:
The way you're phrasing your argument makes you come off as if you're implying that you don't need to prove what unit is where, but rather simply state a unit is in the vehicle (Just sayin)

clively wrote:

The whole thing under discussion is that they believe the second sentence means you are forced by the rules to explicitly outline the exact contents of the transports and let the opponent know those contents immediately. Not through markers that you can later reveal the association of to your units but rather just prior to turn 1 starting and at pretty much any other point in the game when they decide to ask.

I think otherwise.

The only way you can play with secrecy is if both players agree. If you try any form of secrecy, the game ends unless both players agree. The game is not balanced around secrecy. You are trying to warp a few words meanings to promote a skewed interpretation that goes in the face of 25 years of GW games and is not followed anywhere.

clively wrote:So, given your reading, what "trump card" or "bluff" is left to be played?

There really isn't one. But keeping in mind that the paragraph in question is talking overall about army lists in general, not just about transports, there is never any such trump card available, other than those few upgrades and abilities that don't get modelled, like psychic powers or the like.

So yes, if you tell your opponent exactly what is in each of your transports, you have no 'secret trump card' to use later.
But if you don't have any transport vehicles, the same thing happens.

This isn't some crazy restriction that people are trying to place on transport vehicles. We're just expecting the same transparency as there is for the rest of the army, because nothing says that you should be allowed to keep the contents of your vehicles secret unless both players specifically agree to do so.

nkelsch wrote:

clively wrote:

The whole thing under discussion is that they believe the second sentence means you are forced by the rules to explicitly outline the exact contents of the transports and let the opponent know those contents immediately. Not through markers that you can later reveal the association of to your units but rather just prior to turn 1 starting and at pretty much any other point in the game when they decide to ask.

I think otherwise.

The only way you can play with secrecy is if both players agree. If you try any form of secrecy, the game ends unless both players agree. The game is not balanced around secrecy. You are trying to warp a few words meanings to promote a skewed interpretation that goes in the face of 25 years of GW games and is not followed anywhere.

Regarding the "..in the face of 25 years of GW games.." part. Interesting given 4th ed said "Your opponent cannot normally inspect your army roster, including asking you what is in each transport vehicle." on page 81... But that was 4th and is as relevant to this discussion as is "25 years of GW games"...

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? refuse to tell me what is what and where is what? I know that in tournaments he has to show me his list, but this?? (I showed his The Most Importent rule citing his douchiness, but no luck)

All I can say is...



Besides the fact he HAS to give you a copy of his list at a tourney, and he HAS to tell you when you ask him in a tourney... if your playing a "friendly" game and he refuses... just pack up and walk... unless of course your tabling him and thats his last unit... then humor him.

clively wrote:

Regarding the "..in the face of 25 years of GW games.." part. Interesting given 4th ed said "Your opponent cannot normally inspect your army roster, including asking you what is in each transport vehicle." on page 81... But that was 4th and is as relevant to this discussion as is "25 years of GW games"...

Incomplete quote is incomplete...

"...Players are, however, free to share this information if they so wish."

And 3rd edition also had no secrecy the same way 5th edition does.

And the rulebook doesn't say what you are saying it says. Yours is just an interpretation... and if you try that interpretation the game doesn't actually get played as both players have to agree. No one will agree to that anymore than agree my trukks have armor 14 and cost 2 points. But if both players agree... then so be it!

My God i've created a monster ...

insaniak wrote:

clively wrote:So, given your reading, what "trump card" or "bluff" is left to be played?

There really isn't one. But keeping in mind that the paragraph in question is talking overall about army lists in general, not just about transports, there is never any such trump card available, other than those few upgrades and abilities that don't get modelled, like psychic powers or the like.

So yes, if you tell your opponent exactly what is in each of your transports, you have no 'secret trump card' to use later.
But if you don't have any transport vehicles, the same thing happens.

This isn't some crazy restriction that people are trying to place on transport vehicles. We're just expecting the same transparency as there is for the rest of the army, because nothing says that you should be allowed to keep the contents of your vehicles secret unless both players specifically agree to do so.

I understand your reasoning and even agree with the desire for full transparency for obvious reasons; but given the surrounding text I can't draw the same conclusion you have.

If there is no secret, then you can't bluff. Therefore the discussion on bluffs in the text is immaterial. Which means there is absolutely zero reason to say anything other than "Provide a copy of your army list before the game, unless you and your opponent to agree not to exchange lists until the end."

If there is a possibility of a secret, then there can be a "bluff". Which means it's an option that has a default position and should be discussed. If this is the case, then the first sentence outlined that default position.

I think we've hashed this out as far as it goes. BTW, thank you for a thoughtful response.