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.

Bit random this one...

If I have 2 or more transports with units embarked upon them, when they arrive from reserve am I obliged to tell my opponent which unit is in which transport? Say for example I have 2 squads of Terminators in 2 LRC's. One lead by a Libby and one by a name special character. Do I have to tell my opponent which IC is in which transport?

It's never come up in a game because generally I offer the information freely as I'm a pretty sporting fella, I just wondered whether there's an official ruling on the subject?

Cheers.

No , however it is common courtesy . Once they disembark and that sort , in RL your enemy wouldn't know the composition of a unit -- no you don't have to tell him what's on them until they are engaged or they ask

Page 118:
"A NOTE ON SECRECY
Tokeep things fair,you should always allowyour opponent to
read your force roster after a game and alwaysmake it clear to
your opponent which squadsare 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."

pg 118, a note on secrecy.

yes, full disclosure, unless you agree before hand not to.

dang I'm slow

Agreed with Petre and sirlynchmob. Once they roll on you need to let your opponent know who is in what.

The primary reason is simply to ensure you are being honest. After all, if you don't tell your opponent then you could simply determine at the point of disembarkation what unit is where and that isn't fair.

The common way of doing this is to place a model from the unit that is embarked in the transport on top of it. This is easier with Rhinos, but is certainly possible with LR's as well.

Another way is to simply have an identifier on the LRs themselves which makes it easy to tell them apart. You would also have this identifier next to the unit that is embarked in it.

------

All of that said, if your opponent agrees, then you could go with keeping it a secret until disembarkation. But again, you should have it marked somehow ahead of time such that you know what goes were and that it can be confirmed by your opponent.

My group tried the "No disclosure" game once. We didn't care for it and follow the recommendation on page 118.

I never liked that rule. Yes, you should be able to see your opponent's army list, but in a scenario that allows so little actual tactical flexibility, why not add a little mystery to the contents of the transports? Maybe they're empty or maybe they have another unit in there, who knows?

I prefer full disclosure at least in terms of what my opponent is bringing (there are a couple guys who math wrong, or gives models upgrades they cannot have, etc.). This gives both players a chance to verify the army list is legal. If my opponent wanted to keep it secret what unit are embarked in a non-dedicated transport, that's fine by me, it adds a little spice to the game.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
I never liked that rule. Yes, you should be able to see your opponent's army list, but in a scenario that allows so little actual tactical flexibility, why not add a little mystery to the contents of the transports? Maybe they're empty or maybe they have another unit in there, who knows?

If you're playing against people you know and trust to do the right thing, by all means go for it.

In a pick up or tournament game against someone you don't know so well, it's an invitation to play shell games. Most players will do the right thing... but there's always someone who needs to win a little too badly who spoils it.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
I never liked that rule. Yes, you should be able to see your opponent's army list, but in a scenario that allows so little actual tactical flexibility, why not add a little mystery to the contents of the transports? Maybe they're empty or maybe they have another unit in there, who knows?

Because this opens up a window towards cheating. You need to select what squad is in what transport during deployment, and you can't change that during game. But how are you going to prove that rhino 1 had unit A or B in it when gets destroyed.

A better example: You have 2 tactical squads each with a identical looking dedicated rhino, you deploy 1 squad on the board, and deploy the 2 rhinos (1 with a squad inside). You can move the 2 rhinos up, and disembark from the one most beneficial to you, because how is your opponent going to prove that the squad was inside of rhino 1 or 2?

But if you both agree and find a way of proving which squad is in which transport (like marking the transports, and writhing it down during deployment which unit is in which transport), than it would make actual sense.
This is the same for not showing your army list, I feel that unless you play WYSIWYG, you should at least tell your opponent what each unit is and what wargear it has.

This all depends on your gaming environment of course.

 Esparoba3 wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
I never liked that rule. Yes, you should be able to see your opponent's army list, but in a scenario that allows so little actual tactical flexibility, why not add a little mystery to the contents of the transports? Maybe they're empty or maybe they have another unit in there, who knows?

Because this opens up a window towards cheating. You need to select what squad is in what transport during deployment, and you can't change that during game. But how are you going to prove that rhino 1 had unit A or B in it when gets destroyed.

A better example: You have 2 tactical squads each with a identical looking dedicated rhino, you deploy 1 squad on the board, and deploy the 2 rhinos (1 with a squad inside). You can move the 2 rhinos up, and disembark from the one most beneficial to you, because how is your opponent going to prove that the squad was inside of rhino 1 or 2?

I find a piece of paper with a pen dispels this issue really quick.

 xlEternitylx wrote:

 Esparoba3 wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
I never liked that rule. Yes, you should be able to see your opponent's army list, but in a scenario that allows so little actual tactical flexibility, why not add a little mystery to the contents of the transports? Maybe they're empty or maybe they have another unit in there, who knows?

Because this opens up a window towards cheating. You need to select what squad is in what transport during deployment, and you can't change that during game. But how are you going to prove that rhino 1 had unit A or B in it when gets destroyed.

A better example: You have 2 tactical squads each with a identical looking dedicated rhino, you deploy 1 squad on the board, and deploy the 2 rhinos (1 with a squad inside). You can move the 2 rhinos up, and disembark from the one most beneficial to you, because how is your opponent going to prove that the squad was inside of rhino 1 or 2?

I find a piece of paper with a pen dispels this issue really quick.

that is why i say this right under it: "But if you both agree and find a way of proving which squad is in which transport (like marking the transports, and writhing it down during deployment which unit is in which transport), than it would make actual sense."

We did the "Secret paper inside the rhino" thing. We still didn't like it. Hmph! I say. Hmph!

Oh I agree whole heartedly about showing each other our lists beforehand, with a full points breakdown etc. My point was that if he has 2, 3 or even 4 transports that are all the same, and he had different units in 3 of them and one was empty, is there anything in the rules stating explicitly that he MUST tell me which squad is in which and which is empty?

Consider this scenario - I see on my opponent's list that he's fielding 4 Rhino's. His list clearly states that 3 of them have units in them and one is empty. He says that the tanks are all marked and he has a list of which unit is in which but he'd rather not disclose the information. It would offer him a distinct tactical advantage if I didn't know which Rhino his HQ was in or which was empty etc.

When asked, he is more than happy to prove after the game that he had which units are in which transports written down. This would be perfectly legal as per the rules, right? Not very sporting, but legal?

In theory, yes, writing it down works.

In practice it just gives TFG an opportunity to "accidentally" "forget" which unit was in which transport, and since you don't get to see it in the middle of the game the damage is already done. If you even catch it at all, that is. It's much easier to just openly declare what unit is in what transport and remove that opportunity for "mistakes".

Enceladus wrote:
Oh I agree whole heartedly about showing each other our lists beforehand, with a full points breakdown etc. My point was that if he has 2, 3 or even 4 transports that are all the same, and he had different units in 3 of them and one was empty, is there anything in the rules stating explicitly that he MUST tell me which squad is in which and which is empty?

Consider this scenario - I see on my opponent's list that he's fielding 4 Rhino's. His list clearly states that 3 of them have units in them and one is empty. He says that the tanks are all marked and he has a list of which unit is in which but he'd rather not disclose the information. It would offer him a distinct tactical advantage if I didn't know which Rhino his HQ was in or which was empty etc.

When asked, he is more than happy to prove after the game that he had which units are in which transports written down. This would be perfectly legal as per the rules, right? Not very sporting, but legal?

BRB p121 under Deploying Trasport Vehicles it says that you need to declare which units are embarked where as part of your deployment. So if you hadn't agreed beforehand to play this way, it wouldn't be legal.

I don't think I'd really have a problem with him not disclosing the information as long as we took measures to prove which unit is embarked in which transport after the game. It could just be as simple as assigning each unit a number just after I've seen his list (he writes it next the unit on the list) and then he numbers the tanks on the field to correspond to what's on his list. That way he can't cheat and I can't know what's in which tank until it jumps out (or not as the case may be).

After all, if I were on the battlefield myself there's no way I'd know which unit was in which transport, why would the army general of the opposing force freely offer me this information?

 Peregrine wrote:
In theory, yes, writing it down works.

In practice it just gives TFG an opportunity to "accidentally" "forget" which unit was in which transport, and since you don't get to see it in the middle of the game the damage is already done. If you even catch it at all, that is. It's much easier to just openly declare what unit is in what transport and remove that opportunity for "mistakes".

I completely agree.

Played a guy once where Tigurius leapt out of a rhino with a tac sqaud and began to fight some of my demon allies (I was csm)

2 Turns later, when my greater demon began to be a threat on the other side of the battle (he was late), my opponent declared Tigurius should've been in this other rhino over here near my greater demon - "look I wrote it down..."

So, even if it's written down it's still possible to have the issue...

I've had shell games played on me before, and it's not fun.
In addition to disclosure, we put small post-it notes under transport vehicles noting the contents.

PredaKhaine wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
In theory, yes, writing it down works.

In practice it just gives TFG an opportunity to "accidentally" "forget" which unit was in which transport, and since you don't get to see it in the middle of the game the damage is already done. If you even catch it at all, that is. It's much easier to just openly declare what unit is in what transport and remove that opportunity for "mistakes".

I completely agree.

Played a guy once where Tigurius leapt out of a rhino with a tac sqaud and began to fight some of my demon allies (I was csm)

2 Turns later, when my greater demon began to be a threat on the other side of the battle (he was late), my opponent declared Tigurius should've been in this other rhino over here near my greater demon - "look I wrote it down..."

So, even if it's written down it's still possible to have the issue...

I guess it can be just as easy to 'forget' which unit is where even if you've told your opponent pre-fight. I think I'd ask for them to be marked regardless of disclosure.

In any case, asking your opponent to double check he has the right unit before he disembarks it out of the tank isn't beyond the realms of reasonable if he's chosen to not disclose which unit is where.

The other solution has already been pointed out - a post-it note with the contents of the vehicle stuck to the underside will just mean you turn the vehicle over and remove the note, show the opponent and deploy the listed unit. Problem solved.

Though I guess from a fluff standpoint, if models are poking their head out of a firepoint to take shots, your army would begin to get an idea as to who is where.

 Happyjew wrote:
Though I guess from a fluff standpoint, if models are poking their head out of a firepoint to take shots, your army would begin to get an idea as to who is where.

Or if you have good scouting information your army can somewhat observe which units go in to which trasnports and report that info back. Like "10 marines with a meltagun are deploying through the rhino which is coming from riverside" .

Although this wouldn't work out for the drop pods, fluffwise.