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.

 Erik_Morkai wrote:

 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.

Out of curiosity, and in the context of the game being at 7th Edition, how is looking at a 4th Edition rule for guidance any different from looking at a 6th Edition rule? Feels a little like the pot calling the kettle black. Both rules are equally from an outdated edition and both are equally not relevant to a 7th Edition rules discussion. We should really only be looking at 7th Edition rules in a vacuum. If you're going to call citing a rule from 4th Edition as evidence of how to play 7th "necro rules lawyering", than you really need to also call citing a rule from 6th edition as evidence of how to play 7th the same thing.

In other words... 6th Edition rules only invalidate 4th Edition rules in an environment where you're playing 6th Edition. They mean very little in an environment where you're playing 7th Edition.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

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.

That's not what the rule says though.

When the unit embarks, remove it from the table and place it aside, making a note that the unit is being transported.

"This unit is being transported." would suffice. All it does is tell you that this unit is not in reserves or destroyed.

WHEN the unit embarks

Prove you can do this simultaneously

Unit A embarks. I know who UNit A are, as you have to say the action you are taking.

You have to prove they are legally embarking to me. So you have to point to the RHino you are embarking on, so I Can verify that you have met all requirements. Say this is Rhino 1

So I know when you make a note, that Unit A is embarked, and I know it is Rhino 1.

Or just announce. Much easier, and still complies with the rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
WHEN the unit embarks

Prove you can do this simultaneously

Unit A embarks. I know who UNit A are, as you have to say the action you are taking.

You have to prove they are legally embarking to me. So you have to point to the RHino you are embarking on, so I Can verify that you have met all requirements. Say this is Rhino 1

So I know when you make a note, that Unit A is embarked, and I know it is Rhino 1.

Or just announce. Much easier, and still complies with the rules.

Why would they have to point at a specific Rhino? During deployment, they should be able to embark on any Rhino that's empty. If you find out later that they chose an illegal option or tried to pull some sort of shell game (impossible if they're clearly marking the Rhinos and then secretly marking the squads), you cross that bridge then, and deal with the cheating as you'd deal with any cheating.

So you get to work on trust that the unit embarked legally?

So I can hide dice rolls, and not show you until it matters, as long as I made a note of the results in some manner?

 Kriswall wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
WHEN the unit embarks

Prove you can do this simultaneously

Unit A embarks. I know who UNit A are, as you have to say the action you are taking.

You have to prove they are legally embarking to me. So you have to point to the RHino you are embarking on, so I Can verify that you have met all requirements. Say this is Rhino 1

So I know when you make a note, that Unit A is embarked, and I know it is Rhino 1.

Or just announce. Much easier, and still complies with the rules.

Why would they have to point at a specific Rhino? During deployment, they should be able to embark on any Rhino that's empty. If you find out later that they chose an illegal option or tried to pull some sort of shell game (impossible if they're clearly marking the Rhinos and then secretly marking the squads), you cross that bridge then, and deal with the cheating as you'd deal with any cheating.

Exactly. Deployment isn't really covered well in that regard, so you could argue "well, all of the squads are marked as "in a transport", so I've done all that the BRB requires of me.

As I said - I'm personally only OK with this if you also have a hidden note saying "unit A is in transport A" and so on so you can provide proof as to which unit was embarked on that blown up Rhino. But that's not really covered / supported by the rules as far as I can tell. HIWPI though is if you refuse to provide proof and refuse to tell me what squad is where beforehand, I'll simply not play with you. I really don't care if it is a house rule or not, to be honest - it's a matter of fairplay, I don't need a rule for that - just like I won't punch you or move your miniatures around or take a look at your secret mission objectives while you're taking a bio break.

The problem is, even notes leave open the possibility of a shell game, as notes can be made deliberately ambiguous, or multiple symbols could be plastered on a given Rhino, or whathaveyou, and one could easily say "well, I meant this one, sorry if you can't interpret my note or figure out which symbol on which rhino I was using. I always use the one on the door - this game! Tomorrow it might be the one under the headlights, I haven't decided yet..."

I think it is much easier and sportsmanlike to simply announce.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So you get to work on trust that the unit embarked legally?

So I can hide dice rolls, and not show you until it matters, as long as I made a note of the results in some manner?

No, I'm not looking to "work on trust". I'm just legitimately curious what you mean my an illegal embarkation. What would that look like. I can't exactly embark onto a full Rhino or anything as you'd figure out I cheated as soon as you blew up the Rhino in question or I disembarked, showing you my secret note in the process. I'm just not sure what this illegal embarkation would look like.

Plus, show me a dice roll where the result doesn't matter immediately and we'll talk. I can't think of any.

Unless you have a rule that specifically says so (i.e. 6th edition Deathwing, where the owner wrote down whether they'd deepstrike in Turn 1 or 2 and it was a secret choice), I'd say yes, you have to.

Even if rules wise you don't have to tell your opponent, it's common courtesy. Don't be a tool.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The problem is, even notes leave open the possibility of a shell game, as notes can be made deliberately ambiguous, or multiple symbols could be plastered on a given Rhino, or whathaveyou, and one could easily say "well, I meant this one, sorry if you can't interpret my note or figure out which symbol on which rhino I was using. I always use the one on the door - this game! Tomorrow it might be the one under the headlights, I haven't decided yet..."

I think it is much easier and sportsmanlike to simply announce.

Ambiguous notes wouldn't really be notes at all. Assume a foolproof way of identifying the tanks. Your argument seems a little weak. "I'm putting a green token on top of this Rhino and a red one on top of that Rhino. That's how I'm uniquely identifying them." "How do I know that your color perception is the same as mine and you're not just trying to pull off some sort of color blind shell game? Sorry, but your system isn't good enough." Sheesh.

It's pretty obvious that an ambiguous scheme for identifying unique units is useless. There are countless unambiguous ways to do so, though, so we should be fine assuming a player can uniquely identify a Rhino should he/she choose to.

Sportsmanship is also variable. My group assume you don't have to specify the Transport ahead of time so long as it's unambiguously noted and the note is revealed when needed. Telling your opponent which specific Transport your squads are in ahead of time isn't viewed as sporting. It's viewed as foolish.

 Kriswall wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The problem is, even notes leave open the possibility of a shell game, as notes can be made deliberately ambiguous, or multiple symbols could be plastered on a given Rhino, or whathaveyou, and one could easily say "well, I meant this one, sorry if you can't interpret my note or figure out which symbol on which rhino I was using. I always use the one on the door - this game! Tomorrow it might be the one under the headlights, I haven't decided yet..."

I think it is much easier and sportsmanlike to simply announce.

Ambiguous notes wouldn't really be notes at all. Assume a foolproof way of identifying the tanks. Your argument seems a little weak. "I'm putting a green token on top of this Rhino and a red one on top of that Rhino. That's how I'm uniquely identifying them." "How do I know that your color perception is the same as mine and you're not just trying to pull off some sort of color blind shell game? Sorry, but your system isn't good enough." Sheesh.

It's pretty obvious that an ambiguous scheme for identifying unique units is useless. There are countless unambiguous ways to do so, though, so we should be fine assuming a player can uniquely identify a Rhino should he/she choose to.

Sportsmanship is also variable. My group assume you don't have to specify the Transport ahead of time so long as it's unambiguously noted and the note is revealed when needed. Telling your opponent which specific Transport your squads are in ahead of time isn't viewed as sporting. It's viewed as foolish.

Yes, but why does a player need to make it unambiguous? There's no reason other than sportsmanship to not play the Shell Game, so at this point it's just HYWPI to avoid that, in which case you'd get 12 opinions from 9 people.

I mean heck, there might be a group out there that considers the Shell Game sporting, and thinks that restricting your units to the transport they're in is foolish. *Shrug*

Ffyllotek wrote:

 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...

Where does the game tell us to use counters or tokens for this purpose?

Nekooni - again, you're told you can deploy embarked. Meaning you go through embarkation. Meaning you make a note

Yes you can cheat later. The point is you don't get to make me wait until later , if I don't allow it. Exactly the same as rolling dice.

You're making a note. Per unit. Per transport. I can verify your compliance with this rule at any time I wish.

Prove otherwise. Rules would help,

No she'll games. No secrecy.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Nekooni - again, you're told you can deploy embarked. Meaning you go through embarkation. Meaning you make a note

Yes you can cheat later. The point is you don't get to make me wait until later , if I don't allow it. Exactly the same as rolling dice.

You're making a note. Per unit. Per transport. I can verify your compliance with this rule at any time I wish.

Prove otherwise. Rules would help,

No she'll games. No secrecy.

I guess the flipside would be to prove you can look at my note. Not to be difficult, but the rules just require that I make a note, presumably so I don't forget... accidentally or intentionally (i.e. cheating). The rules don't say if or when I have to show you my note. Yes, you can verify that I made a note. You don't necessarily get to read what I wrote.

I've obeyed the obligation to make a note. Do you have rules evidence stating you're allowed to read my note OR that my note has to be displayed for all to see at all times?

Now, I'd obviously show the note whenever I disembark a unit to be sporting, but we're talking more about when they're still IN the transports.

I can verify your compliance with the rule. The only absolute way to do that is to review the note.

Again. If you state otherwise, shoe how you are entitled to know the results of to hit before I roll to wound.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I can verify your compliance with the rule. The only absolute way to do that is to review the note.

Again. If you state otherwise, shoe how you are entitled to know the results of to hit before I roll to wound.

The dice thing is a red herring and an entirely different situation. I have total discretion over what I choose to write on the note. I.e. I get to pick the Transport. Ergo, if I make a decision, write it down and keep it secret until the choice is relevant, there is zero opportunity for shenanigans. I never have the option of falsifying anything and I can't change my mind midstream.

With the dice situation, you have zero discretion over the result of the To Hit roll. It's random. If you make the roll in private and then write the results down on a piece of paper, revealing them only when they become relevant (immediately before To Wound rolls are made or thereabouts)... well, there is a huge opportunity for shenanigans. You have every opportunity to falsify a dice roll to your advantage.

I'm not looking to create shenanigans. I'm just not looking to give you free tactical knowledge that your army, realistically speaking, is unlikely to have. I'll show you the note when it becomes necessary to do so. It doesn't become necessary until a unit chooses, or is forced to, disembark.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It feels like you just want to know what is in each Transport to gain tactical advantage. A good player can derive what is in each Transport by watching where they go and what they do.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I can verify your compliance with the rule. The only absolute way to do that is to review the note.

Again. If you state otherwise, shoe how you are entitled to know the results of to hit before I roll to wound.

the note I have to write thanks to the rules as written says "this unit is in a transport". It doesn't tell you which one, and I'll simply say "all 4 of these units are in transports", pointing at 3 Tactical Squads and a Captain. You may review these notes of course, if you insist that I write them. But you do not get to look at the actual assignment, which I'd have to write on a separate paper.

That being said I'm really not advocating doing so, I'd only do it if my opponent WANTED to do things this way, like the OP does. It's an interesting modification to how I usually play (everything is out in the open, no secrets). But I don't see how the rules would ENFORCE a policy of "tell everything to your opponent", and you've yet to come up with a rule citation for that claim.

nekooni wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I can verify your compliance with the rule. The only absolute way to do that is to review the note.

Again. If you state otherwise, shoe how you are entitled to know the results of to hit before I roll to wound.

the note I have to write thanks to the rules as written says "this unit is in a transport". It doesn't tell you which one, and I'll simply say "all 4 of these units are in transports", pointing at 3 Tactical Squads and a Captain. You may review these notes of course, if you insist that I write them. But you do not get to look at the actual assignment, which I'd have to write on a separate paper.

That being said I'm really not advocating doing so, I'd only do it if my opponent WANTED to do things this way, like the OP does. It's an interesting modification to how I usually play (everything is out in the open, no secrets). But I don't see how the rules would ENFORCE a policy of "tell everything to your opponent", and you've yet to come up with a rule citation for that claim.

It's an interesting modification in that I think you'd have no friends afterwards.

 jreilly89 wrote:

nekooni wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I can verify your compliance with the rule. The only absolute way to do that is to review the note.

Again. If you state otherwise, shoe how you are entitled to know the results of to hit before I roll to wound.

the note I have to write thanks to the rules as written says "this unit is in a transport". It doesn't tell you which one, and I'll simply say "all 4 of these units are in transports", pointing at 3 Tactical Squads and a Captain. You may review these notes of course, if you insist that I write them. But you do not get to look at the actual assignment, which I'd have to write on a separate paper.

That being said I'm really not advocating doing so, I'd only do it if my opponent WANTED to do things this way, like the OP does. It's an interesting modification to how I usually play (everything is out in the open, no secrets). But I don't see how the rules would ENFORCE a policy of "tell everything to your opponent", and you've yet to come up with a rule citation for that claim.

It's an interesting modification in that I think you'd have no friends afterwards.

I doubt I'd loose a single friend over that especially considering the part you apparently missed - I've highlighted it for your convenience.

SCNR-edit: Did you REALLY miss how I stated that I'm not advocating doing that and how I said that I'd only do it if asked to do so and that my regular play style includes telling my opponent every single detail? Come on, my English's not that hard to comprehend.

 Kriswall wrote:
Realistically speaking, his troops won't have any idea who is in which Transport.

in a universe with Psychic powers, Auspex, and advanced scouting "Realistically speaking" the enemy would know what is in any given transport.

However what would make sense in the real world has no bearing on the 40k ruleset

Real World Common Sense/Real World Logic/How it works in the real world has no bearing on the 40k Ruleset.

Remember: The rules were not written to be "Modern day real world" logical.

The rules are an abstract system used to simulate a battle in the year 40,000.

What would happen in the modern day real world has nothing to do with the RAW, or the simulation of a battle fought 38,000 years from now. (and maybe not even on a planet with the same physical makeup as our earth, and probably different physics as well).

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
Realistically speaking, his troops won't have any idea who is in which Transport.

in a universe with Psychic powers, Auspex, and advanced scouting "Realistically speaking" the enemy would know what is in any given transport.

Yes, this makes sense.

"What do you mean you didn't notice the Wraithknight in the small ruined building?"

Maybe there is also a way to hide the details from the enemy?

Naw wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
Realistically speaking, his troops won't have any idea who is in which Transport.

in a universe with Psychic powers, Auspex, and advanced scouting "Realistically speaking" the enemy would know what is in any given transport.

Yes, this makes sense.

"What do you mean you didn't notice the Wraithknight in the small ruined building?"

Maybe there is also a way to hide the details from the enemy?

Not according to the rules there isn't.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Naw wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
Realistically speaking, his troops won't have any idea who is in which Transport.

in a universe with Psychic powers, Auspex, and advanced scouting "Realistically speaking" the enemy would know what is in any given transport.

Yes, this makes sense.

"What do you mean you didn't notice the Wraithknight in the small ruined building?"

Maybe there is also a way to hide the details from the enemy?

Not according to the rules there isn't.

So after all there is a rule describing that I must tell my opponent what is in each transport? Didn't we already establish that there is no such rule?

Naw wrote:
So after all there is a rule describing that I must tell my opponent what is in each transport? Didn't we already establish that there is no such rule?

Except there is a rule. nosferatu1001 stated it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
...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.

So in rules where does it tell us for whom the note is?

Naw wrote:
So in rules where does it tell us for whom the note is?

What is giving you permission to withhold the note from your opponent?

 CrownAxe wrote:

Naw wrote:
So in rules where does it tell us for whom the note is?

What is giving you permission to withhold the note from your opponent?

Rather than responding to a question with a question, could you either provide a quote or tell me the page so I can read it myself.

Naw wrote:
So in rules where does it tell us for whom the note is?

It doesn't say for whom the note is, so both parties must be privy to that information to ensure everyone is following the rules.


There is no permission to withhold the note from your opponent in the rules.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Naw wrote:
So in rules where does it tell us for whom the note is?

It doesn't say for whom the note is, so both parties must be privy to that information to ensure everyone is following the rules.


There is no permission to withhold the note from your opponent in the rules.

Thats a giant leap.
You are required to make a note where is what .
Permissive ruleset , the opponent does not have permission to view your notes.

Permissive ruleset, the opponent doesn't have permission to keep his note secret. See, it works both ways.