Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I've always played full disclosure. I could see playing an occasional non disclosed game with friendly opponents if they wanted to but probably not regularly and never competitively.

So laughable seeing all the cries of "TFG" and "CHEATING" as it is a sure sign of ignorance of the actual rules.

The DEFAULT stance of GW is that to keep things fair, share your army list AFTER the game. If you and your opponent agree on full disclosure, you can share lists before/during the game. So, the accusations of "TFG" and "CHEATING" are founded on someone wanting to play the game as GW even defaults too?

A Note on Secrecy refers to the default stance of sharing army lists after the game. In the same spirit, you always must make clear which unit is embarked in which transport. So anyone feel free to answer this question,

If you take the stance that the standard for identifying embarked units is unit wargear composition, then how can the default stance of GW exist? GW defaults to sharing the army lists AFTER the game, yet some of you insist on the very information, that by default, is not shared until AFTER the game.

Even if you agree to full disclosure, which is defined by GW to share army lists before or during a game, unit wargear composition is still not the standard for identifying a unit that is embarked. I have brought up hypothetical situation before'

Me: "This Rhino with black runes on the doors has a Grey Hunter pack in it."

Opponent: "Which Grey Hunter pack?"

Me: "The Grey Hunter pack with black runes on their right shoulder pads that match the Rhino doors black runes."

To which Nos then accuses me of cheating by having multiple Grey Hunter packs painted with black runes in my model bag to suddenly spring upon him to win a game.

However, the above scenario fulfills the rules for A Note on Secrecy in that I have clearly distinguished the embarked Grey Hunter pack with black runes from another embarked Grey Hunter pack with say, red runes. What I haven't done, that some of you insist, is that I make clear what wargear that Grey Hunter squad has equipped. The rules for A Note on Secrecy do not compell you to reveal that, only that you can distinguish which unit is embarked in which transport.

People with the WYSWYG argument also need to read that rule in full and realize that it does not apply to A Note on Secrecy at all. Purchased wargear must be represented on the model. That is all WYSIWYG compels unless otherwise agreed to upon by opponents.

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?

Easy, in my armies any multiples of a type of transport are all numbered individually. In my Space Marine armies in particular, they follow the standard style of having numbered squad markings. (shrugs)

Brother Ramses wrote:Me: "This Rhino with black runes on the doors has a Grey Hunter pack in it."

Opponent: "Which Grey Hunter pack?"

Me: "The Grey Hunter pack with black runes on their right shoulder pads that match the Rhino doors black runes."

To which Nos then accuses me of cheating by having multiple Grey Hunter packs painted with black runes in my model bag to suddenly spring upon him to win a game.

I'm not accusing Brother Ramses nor anyone else here of cheating, but it is entirely possible for someone to cheat in this hypothetical situation, and I think that was the point being made.

And that's generally why no one plays it like Ramses suggests. Honestly, who cares what the rules say about it? Trying to make hard rules out of "A Note on Secrecy" is like doing the same thing with "WYSIWYG" ... it leads to a dark and silly place (see this thread for evidence). But just like WYSIWYG, full disclosure of transport contents is a widely accepted convention amongst gamers whether it's a "rule" or not.

At home we use the cards method, we prefer the style of play that grants, as I agree with Aegisgrimm, that even in a freindly game you can't help but metagame.

Of course I still remember when you had to cover the middle of the table with a barrier so you couldn't see your opponents deployment before the battle began.

Still do that on occasion even now, just for the extra buzz it grants when the table is opened up and you can see the mess your opposing battlelines are in.

BR - apparently you cant lay off the insults or, frankly, made up gak in your statements

"To which Nos then accuses me of cheating by having multiple Grey Hunter packs painted with black runes in my model bag to suddenly spring upon him to win a game. "

No, I did not accuse you of cheating. I am saying that a) It is not CLEARLY identifying the actual squad, and b) because of that you CAN cheat.

Not that you will necessarily, but you can - as a consequence of the fact you have not clearly identified the squad when asked. You have identified a potential squad, not the actual squad.

You are failing to clearly identify the squad as the rule requires. Period.

You are also dishonesty making this into a false dichotomy; the primary purpose of the army list is to confirm number of points and FOC restrictions in play - not necessarily wargear. So the default (sharing after) is preserved when you follow the rules of clearly disclosing units.

Vet_sarge - stop with the pathetic insults on others "maturity", belittling people who dont like playing shell games where transports become vastly under costed compared to the tactical advantage you are cheating to gain. I truly hope you never attempt to play a tournament anywhere near here - the shock you get when this "tactic" is laughed out of the house could be fatal, and the looks of "really?" on peoples faces when they realised you're actually being serious? Well, I wouldnt want peoples faces to potentially stick like that.

BR - Do you disclose all units that are in reserve and if they're deep striking/outflanking? You don't keep everything hidden until it hits the table, right?

We've done that in games at my place, Grakmar, adds a whole level of 'oh Gak' when the termie squad you didn't realise they had hits the table.

Although I love the story element you get when that kind of thing happens in game.

So as to stop people making wilder and wilder claims about what the rules say, the actual paragraph :

To keep things fair, you should allow your opponent to read your force roster after a game. In the same spirit, always make clear to your opponent which squads are embarked in which transport vehicle.
However, before starting to deploy their armies, it is a good idea for players to agree whether or not they can read the opponent's force roster before and during the game. Some players prefer full disclosure (which is the norm in tournaments, for example), as they want to concentrate on outmanoeuvering the enemy rather than springing a secret trump card on them. Other prefer to leave a feel of secrecy around their lists, as bluffing can make a game really entertaining. The choice is yours !

Emphasis mine.

Full disclosure is nothing more than a convention. That's it.

You have to be clear about the content of each vehicle so as to prevent the use of "Schrödinger transports" by less than commendable individuals.
If I state during deployment (or write down somewhere) that "Delta squad is in the Rhino with the Aquila painted on its flanks" so that the transport is unmistakably recognizable, and if the name of the squad is reported on my army list, there is no wiggle room. If I then make Alpha squad disembark from the same Rhino on turn 1, I am cheating and it is clear to my opponent. That is what is required by the second sentence of the note on secrecy.
Whether I tell you what Delta squad's wargear and unit composition consist of (by showing you the army list) is an entirely different matter that depends on the agreement reached by the two players as specified by the second paragraph of the note on secrecy.

haendas wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:Me: "This Rhino with black runes on the doors has a Grey Hunter pack in it."

Opponent: "Which Grey Hunter pack?"

Me: "The Grey Hunter pack with black runes on their right shoulder pads that match the Rhino doors black runes."

To which Nos then accuses me of cheating by having multiple Grey Hunter packs painted with black runes in my model bag to suddenly spring upon him to win a game.

I'm not accusing Brother Ramses nor anyone else here of cheating, but it is entirely possible for someone to cheat in this hypothetical situation, and I think that was the point being made.

However, if someone is intent on cheating, even A Note on Secrecy is not going to stop someone from cheating. I already brought it up, but if a person is intent on cheating they could just deny saying what they said was embarked and you can't do anything about it.

However my method, as well as others with cards/scraps of paper/unit markers, severely limits the ability to just deny what was said. As for the tinfoil conspiracy theorist stance that there are going to be multiple Grey Hunter packs with black runes all hidden away in a model bag, can that even be a serious scenario? If someone were to even accuse me of having multiple GH packs with black runed shoulderpads and demanded to see my model bag, first of all I would tell them to feg off for the accusation of cheating AND then I would call the TO over to verify that I did only have one GH pack of black runed shoulderpads.

If you are that paranoid about cheating, then why no worry about outright denial of what was said about what was embarked? If you are that worried about cheating, why is a more secure way of identifying what unit is embarked in which transport not acceptable? I can flip the small card that has been on the Rhino the entire game, show you that it says,

"GH pack: melta x2, MoW, powerfist"

and deploy that exact unit. Or I could deploy a dual plasma gun pack out of it with a power weapon to which you reply,

You: "I thought you said that was a dual meltagun pack with a powerfist?"

Me: "Nope, they are in that Rhino over there."

You: "No, you said they were in that Rhino."

Me: "Nope, they are in that Rhino over there."

Let me guess, now the tinfoil conspiracy theorists will state that some people with David Blaine magical abilities will be sleight of handing unit cards/scraps/unit markers to cheat?

The truth of the matter is that it has absolutely NOTHING to do about being worried about cheating, but about trying to glean as much information out of an opponents army to meta game the list. That is it. When a better standard for identifying which unit is embarked in which transport exists and it is denied in favor of unit wargear composition, the above explanation is all that remains.

nosferatu1001 wrote:I am saying that a) It is not CLEARLY identifying the actual squad, and b) because of that you CAN cheat.

Not that you will necessarily, but you can - as a consequence of the fact you have not clearly identified the squad when asked. You have identified a potential squad, not the actual squad.

Thing is, nos is completely right on this.

It has nothing to do with paranoia. It's just that there are still several possibilities left after that description, unless it is specified that no other squad has that marking.

nosferatu1001 wrote:BR - apparently you cant lay off the insults or, frankly, made up gak in your statements

"To which Nos then accuses me of cheating by having multiple Grey Hunter packs painted with black runes in my model bag to suddenly spring upon him to win a game. "

No, I did not accuse you of cheating. I am saying that a) It is not CLEARLY identifying the actual squad, and b) because of that you CAN cheat.

Not that you will necessarily, but you can - as a consequence of the fact you have not clearly identified the squad when asked. You have identified a potential squad, not the actual squad.

You are failing to clearly identify the squad as the rule requires. Period.

You are also dishonesty making this into a false dichotomy; the primary purpose of the army list is to confirm number of points and FOC restrictions in play - not necessarily wargear. So the default (sharing after) is preserved when you follow the rules of clearly disclosing units.

Vet_sarge - stop with the pathetic insults on others "maturity", belittling people who dont like playing shell games where transports become vastly under costed compared to the tactical advantage you are cheating to gain. I truly hope you never attempt to play a tournament anywhere near here - the shock you get when this "tactic" is laughed out of the house could be fatal, and the looks of "really?" on peoples faces when they realised you're actually being serious? Well, I wouldnt want peoples faces to potentially stick like that.

Nos, you are not trying to determine which unit is in which transport. You are trying to determine what each unit is equipped with in each transport by setting the standard for identification as wargear composition when perfectly valid and more secure methods of identification exist and have been proposed for identifying which unit is in which transport.

If we share army lists at the beginning of the game, you will KNOW that I have a Grey Hunter pack with dual melta guns, a Grey Hunter pack with dual plasma guns, and a Grey Hunter pack with dual flamers. When I disclose which units are embarked in which transports as being,

Grey Hunter pack marked with black runes is in the Rhino with black runes.
Grey Hunter pack marked with red runes is in the Rhino with red runes.
Grey Hunter pack marked with green runes is the Rhino with green runes.

I have clearly distinguished each Grey Hunter pack from each other, I have clearly distinguished each Rhino from each other, and I have clearly distinguished which Grey Hunter pack is embarked is which Rhino. For you to then demand wargear composition is not to clearly distinguish which units are embarked in which transports, as that has already been done, but instead to meta game the list, period.

Brother Ramses wrote:
Grey Hunter pack marked with black runes is in the Rhino with black runes.
Grey Hunter pack marked with red runes is in the Rhino with red runes.
Grey Hunter pack marked with green runes is the Rhino with green runes.

I have clearly distinguished each Grey Hunter pack from each other, I have clearly distinguished each Rhino from each other, and I have clearly distinguished which Grey Hunter pack is embarked is which Rhino. For you to then demand wargear composition is not to clearly distinguish which units are embarked in which transports, as that has already been done, but instead to meta game the list, period.

If you've already told him exactly what is in each rhino, how is him asking later for clarification, lack of memory, or whatever, metagaming?

Why would you refuse to tell him a second time what is in each rhino after telling him at the beginning of the game?

Hyd wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:I am saying that a) It is not CLEARLY identifying the actual squad, and b) because of that you CAN cheat.

Not that you will necessarily, but you can - as a consequence of the fact you have not clearly identified the squad when asked. You have identified a potential squad, not the actual squad.

Thing is, nos is completely right on this.

It has nothing to do with paranoia. It's just that there are still several possibilities left after that description, unless it is specified that no other squad has that marking.

You have missed the several other discussions regarding this where it was made clear that each Grey Hunter pack and their dedicated transports are unique and matching in their markings. Nos then insists that the possibility to cheat then still exists because individuals will then paint up several different models with wargear combinations to make the cheat swap when convenient but then dismisses the possibility of people just outright denying his method of declaring wargear composition as identification.

Brother Ramses wrote:meta game the list.

It is not "meta-gaming" if both players agree to full disclosure. In that case, it's just "gaming." There's a reason you can always find people on Tactics discussing the concept of "target priority" and no one discussing the advantages of disguising a unit's wargear in a Rhino. Few people actually play it your way.

You're reading too much into it.
He just raised that this method isn't foolproof.

Let's say another player use the same method as you. However, he happens to have in a box two squads that match the description of "marked with black runes". What's to prevent him from choosing which one he deploys from the transport ? "Why, his integrity of course !" you'll say. And I agree, which means I understand how thin a guarantee that is.

kronk wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:
Grey Hunter pack marked with black runes is in the Rhino with black runes.
Grey Hunter pack marked with red runes is in the Rhino with red runes.
Grey Hunter pack marked with green runes is the Rhino with green runes.

I have clearly distinguished each Grey Hunter pack from each other, I have clearly distinguished each Rhino from each other, and I have clearly distinguished which Grey Hunter pack is embarked is which Rhino. For you to then demand wargear composition is not to clearly distinguish which units are embarked in which transports, as that has already been done, but instead to meta game the list, period.

If you've already told him exactly what is in each rhino, how is him asking later for clarification, lack of memory, or whatever, metagaming?

Why would you refuse to tell him a second time what is in each rhino after telling him at the beginning of the game?

I had clearly let him know that a Grey Hunter pack with black runes was embarked in the a Rhino with black runes on the doors. I am not compelled by the rules to tell him that said Grey Hunter pack with black runes was the one with dual meltaguns, powerfist, and MoW. The standard for identifying which unit is in embarked in which transport is not wargear composition. He will know from the army list exchange that my army has a Grey Hunter pack with that wargear composition, but not know which transport they are using until they have deployed from their transport.

As has been stated, proof that it was indeed embarked in that transport can take the form of a card or scrap of paper with said unit info on/in the transport which eliminates the supposed "shell game" that has been running rampant in Warhammer 40k....

Dang, I'm lagging behind, one post late each time

Brother Ramses wrote:You have missed the several other discussions regarding this where it was made clear that each Grey Hunter pack and their dedicated transports are unique and matching in their markings.

Sounds legit.

Nos then insists that the possibility to cheat then still exists because individuals will then paint up several different models with wargear combinations to make the cheat swap when convenient

And I can't help agreeing on this, while insisting that it is not an accusation.

but then dismisses the possibility of people just outright denying his method of declaring wargear composition as identification.

I trust you on this, because I don't recall seeing it on this topic.

whigwam wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:meta game the list.

It is not "meta-gaming" if both players agree to full disclosure. In that case, it's just "gaming." There's a reason you can always find people on Tactics discussing the concept of "target priority" and no one discussing the advantages of disguising a unit's wargear in a Rhino. Few people actually play it your way.

And I have consistently seen it played it this way in the Phoenix area at various events where when a person deploys a unit from a transport he shows the number on the bottom of the vehicle that then matches the corresponding numbers on the bottom of the squad. Or opens up a folded piece of paper on/near the transport that says,

"Khorne Berzerker squad w/powerfist champ"

And then deploys a Khorne Berzerker squad with a powerfist champ. I have also seen people outright DENY saying what was embarked with nothing being able to be done except argue and either 4+ rolling it or accept so as not to get hit on sportsmanship scores.

I find it absolutely insane and suspect when a more secure way of ensuring what gets deployed from a transport is what was said to be embarked in said transport is attacked over a "word of mouth" standard set on wargear composition.

Brother Ramses wrote:I am not compelled by the rules to tell him that said Grey Hunter pack with black runes was the one with dual meltaguns, powerfist, and MoW. The standard for identifying which unit is in embarked in which transport is not wargear composition.
As has been stated, proof that it was indeed embarked in that transport can take the form of a card or scrap of paper with said unit info on/in the transport which eliminates the supposed "shell game" that has been running rampant in Warhammer 40k....

Indeed, that was my point in another post ; the two issues aren't necessarily related. If full disclosure is chosen, then it's only natural to use wargear as the standard, but otherwise, not so much.

It is not a ""word of mouth" standard set on wargear composition."

It is on P.92 of the rules.

If you say the squad with the black runes are in the rhino with the black runes, that does not make it clear to me which squad is there, unless there is only 1 squad with black runes, and they are off to the side, so I can see them.

Of course if I can see them i can tell what they are equipped with, due to WYSIWYG.

It is not about sharing lists. even if you only share the list after the game, the opponent will know what is in said transport due to WYSIWYG.

Hyd wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:I am not compelled by the rules to tell him that said Grey Hunter pack with black runes was the one with dual meltaguns, powerfist, and MoW. The standard for identifying which unit is in embarked in which transport is not wargear composition.
As has been stated, proof that it was indeed embarked in that transport can take the form of a card or scrap of paper with said unit info on/in the transport which eliminates the supposed "shell game" that has been running rampant in Warhammer 40k....

Indeed, that was my point in another post ; the two issues aren't necessarily related. If full disclosure is chosen, then it's only natural to use wargear as the standard, but otherwise, not so much.

The problem lies in that full disclosure is defined in the BRB as sharing army lists before or during the game as opposed to after the game, not what most people think of full disclosure being akin to a demand from an attorney or court order to release and and all information pertaining to a subject.

Furthermore, making clear which unit is embarked in which transport has absolutely nothing to do with agreeing to full disclosure at all. That is the default stance along with sharing army lists AFTER the game. If red painted tactical squad is in red painted rhino and blue painted tactical squad is in blue painted rhino, I have clearly distinguished one tactical from another and which rhino each is embarked. I have fulfilled the tenet of A Note on Secrecy without referring to wargear composition at all.

My point exactly, Brother Ramses.
Well, maybe there's a difference in that I take it for granted that what makes the unit recognizable is mentioned on the army list. If nothing connects "X marking" and "X wargear", then there's nothing to prevent a dishonest player from switching to a unit with X marking and Y wargear.

DeathReaper wrote:It is not a ""word of mouth" standard set on wargear composition."

It is on P.92 of the rules.

If you say the squad with the black runes are in the rhino with the black runes, that does not make it clear to me which squad is there, unless there is only 1 squad with black runes, and they are off to the side, so I can see them.

Of course if I can see them i can tell what they are equipped with, due to WYSIWYG.

It is not about sharing lists. even if you only share the list after the game, the opponent will know what is in said transport due to WYSIWYG.

Actually, a delicious fellow obligingly quoted the actual rules a few posts above. I suggest you to look it up, it doesn't say anything about wargear and unit composition.

It would be awfully nice if people stopped making such shortcuts and accepted that there are other ways.

Brother Ramses wrote:And I have consistently seen it played it this way in the Phoenix area at various events where when a person deploys a unit from a transport he shows the number on the bottom of the vehicle that then matches the corresponding numbers on the bottom of the squad. Or opens up a folded piece of paper on/near the transport that says,

"Khorne Berzerker squad w/powerfist champ"

At these events, do you have to disclose your army list with your opponent before the game?

DeathReaper wrote:It is not a ""word of mouth" standard set on wargear composition."

It is on P.92 of the rules.

If you say the squad with the black runes are in the rhino with the black runes, that does not make it clear to me which squad is there, unless there is only 1 squad with black runes, and they are off to the side, so I can see them.

Of course if I can see them i can tell what they are equipped with, due to WYSIWYG.

It is not about sharing lists. even if you only share the list after the game, the opponent will know what is in said transport due to WYSIWYG.

And your WYSIWYG argument gets shut down as well because when I deploy that unit, you can WYSIWYG. The BRB does not demand that your army is on display prior to a game nor does it compel you to have your army to the side of the table for verification. WYSIWYG compels you to visually model purchased wargear on a model unless otherwise agreed upon, that is it. Models off the table are off the table until deployed/come in from reserve/deep strike/etc. At that time you can WYSIWYG until your hearts content. Furthermore, by employing a more secure method, WYSIWYG is confirmed by matching card/paper/unit marker to unit deployed.

And as I said, if I tell you that the black runed squad is in the black runed rhino, the green runed squad is in the green runed rhino, etc, etc, they squads have been distinctly distinguished from each other and as to what transport they have embarked in. All that has not been distinguished is what each squad is equipped with, which A Note on Secrecy does not compel you to reveal. You are only told to make clear which squad is embarked in which transport. That has been done via color and markings, not wargear composition.

Brother Ramses wrote:I find it absolutely insane and suspect when a more secure way of ensuring what gets deployed from a transport is what was said to be embarked in said transport is attacked over a "word of mouth" standard set on wargear composition.

And I find it suspect when someone thinks they're entitled to transports that act as an invisibility cloak for the embarked squad. I'm really not that concerned about getting cheated, I want the in-game advantage of knowing what's in each transport. That, and nothing less, is what most people expect, especially in a competitive setting. Out of curiosity, which events have you seen it played your way at? Any major ones? I'm just not buying that this is the standard of play anywhere outside of gaming clubs.

sudojoe wrote:One guy in the local group is an ok player but always refuses to say what's in what transport. "Just gotta pop them and find out" is what he says. Maybe it'd not be so bad but he plays eldar and none of his transports are painted. Trying to "find the runes of warding" is getting kind of old but is there a rule that says you have to tell your opponent what is in what? Or that just a sportsmanship thing?

Don't play the guy. If your at a tourney with him, tell the TO. If they TO rules that you don't need to tell, just doc him for sportmanship.

Here is the problem. If he does not tell you whats in what transport, he could just cheat and make it up on the fly. "Well, my fire dragons need to be in there, so Ill now say that this serpent has dragons!"

As has been mentioned, you can mitigate this with index cards or other tools, but unless both of you agree to play that way, its a TFG move.

kronk wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:And I have consistently seen it played it this way in the Phoenix area at various events where when a person deploys a unit from a transport he shows the number on the bottom of the vehicle that then matches the corresponding numbers on the bottom of the squad. Or opens up a folded piece of paper on/near the transport that says,

"Khorne Berzerker squad w/powerfist champ"

At these events, do you have to disclose your army list with your opponent before the game?

Yes. I print up twice the number of army lists as games I have as to have enough to share and let people keep if they want to go over their strats or things they might have wanted to do different after the tournament.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

labmouse42 wrote:

sudojoe wrote:One guy in the local group is an ok player but always refuses to say what's in what transport. "Just gotta pop them and find out" is what he says. Maybe it'd not be so bad but he plays eldar and none of his transports are painted. Trying to "find the runes of warding" is getting kind of old but is there a rule that says you have to tell your opponent what is in what? Or that just a sportsmanship thing?

Don't play the guy. If your at a tourney with him, tell the TO. If they TO rules that you don't need to tell, just doc him for sportmanship.

Here is the problem. If he does not tell you whats in what transport, he could just cheat and make it up on the fly. "Well, my fire dragons need to be in there, so Ill now say that this serpent has dragons!"

The problem the OP had was not that his opponent did not reveal wargear composition. That is not required to distinguish what unit is embarked in which transport. The problem that the OP was facing is that his opponent did not reveal which units had an attached IC, which is required.

AegisGrimm wrote:

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?

Easy, in my armies any multiples of a type of transport are all numbered individually. In my Space Marine armies in particular, they follow the standard style of having numbered squad markings. (shrugs)

And I'd have no reason to complain, you've played within the rules.

Thankfully, as I previously said, I haven't ever come across this. Our group is nice and chilled, it's more about pizza, beer and stupid dice rolls than winning