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.

.

Just because something was in the old versions of the rules doesn't make it applicable now.

I mean, the rules don't say anything about pistol wielder said that stand still shooting twice, now , do they? :p

You keep bringing up 4th, but I'm pretty sure nobody in 4th bothered to bring a transport, since it was safer to walk than drive around in one of those metal death traps. I mean, the ordnance damage table? Lol.

It's pretty hypocritical IMO to go to such lengths to justify such underhanded behaviour by appealing to previous, unrelated editions just to give yourself an edge while at the same time whining and complaining about how one is automatically a TFG for playing Eldar/Tau even if one is starting off their army based on aesthetics or fluff. Given how you're so enamored with SM and their fluff portrayal of paragons of war, wouldn't you rather play the game in a more upfront, courageous and honest way befitting their status?

Here would be my opinion on the matter. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that I cannot use free speech to utter hate and disdain towards everyone. However, that speech, once uttered, is always open to judgment and the social consequence of that speech. You may choose to play in this fashion all you want. In the same vain you are open to the judgment and consequence of others, and if they chose to leave your game and to refuse to play you in the future, that is their free choice to do. You may find that this has social consequences in your group, and no amount of complaining will change it. If your group accepts this behavior, no matter how underhanded, you are also free to do it.

Traditio wrote:
Except, I wouldn't have said "it's a secret." I'd would have said "4th edition rules say that I don't have to say, and you can't ask, and later editions are silent on the matter."

Had you insisted on the matter, I would have divulged the information.

Your hypothetical response to this strikes me as utterly unsportsmanlike.

I would do the same after staring at you in the mode of "you got to be kidding me", ESPECIALLY if you did not discuss such a concept before the game. If you pulled this mid-game, I would immediately expect some cheating, no matter how you tried to justify it. How could I not?

If you came up and approached this as a game concept before set up, I might consider doing it, but after the game starts, any response from me once I started putting models away would be largely determined by how touchy my temper is at the time.

For all intents and purposes, you would be adding a rule to the game that does not currently exist. Things like this lead to a bad experience and can have you lose a lot of future games because you would get a reputation of introducing rules mid-game, and that can sour people.

 Grimskul wrote:
It's pretty hypocritical IMO to go to such lengths to justify such underhanded behaviour by appealing to previous, unrelated editions just to give yourself an edge while at the same time whining and complaining about how one is automatically a TFG for playing Eldar/Tau even if one is starting off their army based on aesthetics or fluff. Given how you're so enamored with SM and their fluff portrayal of paragons of war, wouldn't you rather play the game in a more upfront, courageous and honest way befitting their status?

To be clear, for those who have responded recently:

1. For those of you who are telling me that I'm introducing rules mid-game, this isn't entirely accurate. If I'm understanding correctly, the BRB is silent on the matter. It doesn't say that I have to divulge or that I'm forbidden from divulging. It doesn't even say that I may divulge. Likewise for my opponent asking. To divulge or not to divulge, to ask or not to ask, seems to be entirely a matter of popular custom.

If you disagree, then please, cite the relevant rules. You can't? Then I'm not introducing new rules, simply going by RAW, by refusing to answer a question that the rulebook doesn't tell me that I'm obligated to answer.

2. There's nothing underhanded about it. It's not like I go around asking people what's in their transports and then suddenly refuse to answer questions about what's in mine. I've been known to shoot at empty transports in complete ignorance of the fact that said transports are empty.

I simply assumed that the 4th edition practice was still legit.

I apparently was in error.

My bad.

That's why I asked you guys.

Personally I do not declare what is in a transport. I do however note it on my list so that if there are any issues, I can show my opponent that, yes, they did target a low threat unit transport rather than a transport full of killy doom (all my transports always have numbers or symbols on them for this reason).

And that is exactly why I do not declare what is in my transports but note it down instead.

As far as I am aware there is nothing in the rules which requires you to declare what is inside transports.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Personally I do not declare what is in a transport. I do however note it on my list so that if there are any issues, I can show my opponent that, yes, they did target a low threat unit transport rather than a transport full of killy doom (all my transports always have numbers or symbols on them for this reason).

And that is exactly why I do not declare what is in my transports but note it down instead.

As far as I am aware there is nothing in the rules which requires you to declare what is inside transports.

How do you answer when someone asks what is in a given transport?

Traditio wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Personally I do not declare what is in a transport. I do however note it on my list so that if there are any issues, I can show my opponent that, yes, they did target a low threat unit transport rather than a transport full of killy doom (all my transports always have numbers or symbols on them for this reason).

And that is exactly why I do not declare what is in my transports but note it down instead.

As far as I am aware there is nothing in the rules which requires you to declare what is inside transports.

How do you answer when someone asks what is in a given transport?

I run through my list at the start of the game, noting what units have purchased dedicated transports, and what other non-dedicated transports may be in my list. I will mention that each transport is numbered/etc and corresponds with a unit in the list. During the game I have actually not found it very common for people to ask what is in transports to be honest.

Genrally I would probably shrug and say that I prefer not to tell/laugh and say "you will find out if you kill it!". When a transport is destroyed, or deploys the unit inside, I will ask if my opponent wants to check my list to confirm that the correct unit is coming out of the transport. Again, most people seem to be happy to take my word for it but the offer is always there.

SilverMK2 wrote:I run through my list at the start of the game, noting what units have purchased dedicated transports, and what other non-dedicated transports may be in my list. I will mention that each transport is numbered/etc and corresponds with a unit in the list. During the game I have actually not found it very common for people to ask what is in transports to be honest.

Genrally I would probably shrug and say that I prefer not to tell/laugh and say "you will find out if you kill it!". When a transport is destroyed, or deploys the unit inside, I will ask if my opponent wants to check my list to confirm that the correct unit is coming out of the transport. Again, most people seem to be happy to take my word for it but the offer is always there.

This seems reasonable. That said, it seems at least some of the people in this thread would refuse to play you.

Because apparently: that's adding rules mid-game.

As I recall I think the way they were trying to word it was: You don't need to tell your opponent what's in the Rhino, because they won't know until the unit disembarks, but you must have noted on your army sheet who is in what transport so that you can't just have 5 units in 5 Rhinos and then disembark whichever unit from whichever Rhino is more convenient.

I think it comes down to your opponent, really - if they like to fully read over their opponent's army list before the game starts so they're fully prepared, then sure, you have to tell them. If they'd rather let it be a surprise and react organically to the battlefield like a real battle, then don't tell them. I think the key is that, if asked, you should answer.

Traditio wrote:

 Grimskul wrote:
It's pretty hypocritical IMO to go to such lengths to justify such underhanded behaviour by appealing to previous, unrelated editions just to give yourself an edge while at the same time whining and complaining about how one is automatically a TFG for playing Eldar/Tau even if one is starting off their army based on aesthetics or fluff. Given how you're so enamored with SM and their fluff portrayal of paragons of war, wouldn't you rather play the game in a more upfront, courageous and honest way befitting their status?

To be clear, for those who have responded recently:

1. For those of you who are telling me that I'm introducing rules mid-game, this isn't entirely accurate. If I'm understanding correctly, the BRB is silent on the matter. It doesn't say that I have to divulge or that I'm forbidden from divulging. It doesn't even say that I may divulge. Likewise for my opponent asking. To divulge or not to divulge, to ask or not to ask, seems to be entirely a matter of popular custom.

If you disagree, then please, cite the relevant rules. You can't? Then I'm not introducing new rules, simply going by RAW, by refusing to answer a question that the rulebook doesn't tell me that I'm obligated to answer.

I think the only thing I can find pertaining to it is page 132, Deployment subheading, "Models can be deployed 'inside' buildings, fortifications, or Transport vehicles". That to me implies that you deploy the vehicle first, then must announce what you're deploying something in it. Aside from that, I see nothing.

2. There's nothing underhanded about it. It's not like I go around asking people what's in their transports and then suddenly refuse to answer questions about what's in mine. I've been known to shoot at empty transports in complete ignorance of the fact that said transports are empty.

I simply assumed that the 4th edition practice was still legit.

I apparently was in error.

My bad.

That's why I asked you guys.

Again, you said yourself, it's a 4th Ed practice. There are no rules supporting it in the current rules, and none against. Unlike 4th, where the rules actively encouraged hidden units, 7th is completely ambiguous. To me, not telling your opponent about what's in a transport is rather shady, as it would be just like me not saying what a certain unit was armed with if I had proxied them. Your opponent has a right to know, as it can affect their shooting.

It's a fair question, but I think the best way to think about it is "how can it be abused?" With hidden deployments, you can swap over what units are embarked in a vehicle as appropriate. It doesn't matter if it doesn't personally apply to you, regardless if you don't abuse the mechanic - it only matters when it starts to offend your opponent.

If I was doing a pick-up game with you, and you asked for this rule, I'd pretty much decline and if you pushed, asked "why?".
I hope you find a satisfactory conclusion with what replies you've had.

As someone who plays in a group where all lists are open (Even in Fantasy), I have two ways I'd approach someone doing this.

If it's a friendly game and you didn't warn me until some point after you have deployed each unit that you're doing this, I'd ask for you to show proof that you have a list of which Rhino has what. If you show proof of such a list being with you, I'd keep playing, then make a note to not play you again. If you don't have a list showing which Rhino has what unit, I'll pack and find a new opponent.

If it's a tournament game, I'd call a TO instantly and get their ruling on it. If they rule in your favor, I'll expect you to show said TO proof that you have labeled where your units are. If you can, I'll respect his call. If he rules in my favor, then I'll expect you to respect that decision and divulge what each Rhino has.

Either way, if you intend on the path of secrecy, mark down where you hide your units.

As for the fact 4th edition said something, but 7th edition doesn't: This isn't 4th edition anymore and silence on a subject doesn't imply consent. In cases such as this where it talks nothing about whether or not you can keep a Rhino's contents secret, discuss with your opponent before gaming. No one likes to be blindsided with a rule that isn't explicitly stated in any current rulebook, and as you've seen from this thread, most people won't take kindly to it.

A note on secrecy in 6th required you to be open. So to say later editions were silent is untrue

When embarking you must make a note of what unit is transported. Nothing states this note is open or closed from view, but as this is a contemporaneous note, to ensure you are complying with the rule I will view you completing the note

And this includes deployment, of course.

Checking 4th edition now I can't see the rule you reference. Can you give a page and paragraph ref please? The books terrible so it possible it's elsewhere.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Personally I do not declare what is in a transport. I do however note it on my list so that if there are any issues, I can show my opponent that, yes, they did target a low threat unit transport rather than a transport full of killy doom (all my transports always have numbers or symbols on them for this reason).

Mine aren't marked, but as everyone of the guys know what will be in them it's not really an issue. If it starts on the table it's identical 10 SoB with Hflamer and flamer or meltagun, if it's in reserve it's Dominions with meltaguns or sometimes flamer. If I have different I will announce which squad is rolling for reserves.

OP, I'm not going to get into a rules debate with you, but here are my thoughts:

If you and your opponent agree that it is acceptable to keep the contents of your transport secret, that's a house ruling. As long as you are having fun.

Generally speaking 7th ed 40k goes to great lengths to reinforce the point that both players should agree on how the game is going to be played, and very little if anything is a secret.

You should divulge your full army list before the game begins. You should have this in writing. Your opponent can ask to review your list, and you must provide a copy if he asks. Your army list should include the details of which units are in which detachments, who your warlord is, what war gear each model has, and what units are in which transports. I believe this is covered under the Choosing Your Army section in the 7th ed BRB, p117, "The Force Roster". While this paragraph does not explicitly state you must divulge war gear, and which units are in which transports, I believe that is in the spirit of the rule. When you generate your Warlord traits and any psychic powers, those are also made public at the time they are generated. When you are deploying, you must state if you are reserving, outflanking, and/or deep striking any units, and if you are attaching IC's to units. If your opponent has a question about a rule in your codex, you should show him the rule in the codex. Measurements are made openly, and can be made at any time. Dice rolls are made openly. All of this is to keep things fair.

I hope this helps. Happy gaming!

I would not play an opponent that won't tell me what's In a transport.

My gaming time is very limited, and I'd rather spend it playing an eldar scatter laser bike spam list than TFG.

Best of luck to you!

Traditio wrote:
To be clear, for those who have responded recently:

1. For those of you who are telling me that I'm introducing rules mid-game, this isn't entirely accurate. If I'm understanding correctly, the BRB is silent on the matter. It doesn't say that I have to divulge or that I'm forbidden from divulging. It doesn't even say that I may divulge. Likewise for my opponent asking. To divulge or not to divulge, to ask or not to ask, seems to be entirely a matter of popular custom.

If you disagree, then please, cite the relevant rules. You can't? Then I'm not introducing new rules, simply going by RAW, by refusing to answer a question that the rulebook doesn't tell me that I'm obligated to answer.

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

Traditio wrote:
2. There's nothing underhanded about it. It's not like I go around asking people what's in their transports and then suddenly refuse to answer questions about what's in mine. I've been known to shoot at empty transports in complete ignorance of the fact that said transports are empty.

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

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

nosferatu1001 wrote:
A note on secrecy in 6th required you to be open. So to say later editions were silent is untrue

When I first opened this thread, I thought, "Is no one remembering the "Note on Secrecy"??
But Nos is right, it's not in there anymore. Bummer.

Traditio wrote:

Ghaz wrote:No. If the rules don't cover the situation then it is up to both players to come to an agreement as to how it is handled. It is not a unilateral decision on your part to decide how situations not covered by the rules are to be handled.

Well, it's not just a matter of "not covering it." The current rules don't cover it, but there's a precedent for it in previous editions.

Oddly enough, I haven't had anyone really willing to contest this. It's come up twice. In each case, I claimed: "The previous edition said that you can't ask and I don't have to tell. The current edition is silent. In point of fact, all that your guys really can see are these big metal boxes. However, these are the dedicated transports for so and so."

And they basically just rolled with it.

That said, if it's customary to reveal what's in what transport, then as St. Thomas says, "custom has the force of law."

That's how I'll play it from now on.

There is also a precedent for revealing everything to your opponent.

5th ed said something about needing to disclose what was where. (though it said you could keep it secret if both parties agreed).

But if you are in a pick up game, it better for both involved if you reveal what is in which transport.

Fluff wise there are a whole ton of reasons that the opposing army would know what was where anyway. though advanced scouts, to Auspex to Psyckers etc...

Just talk to your opponent before hand. After all, he shouldn't have to tell you what's in his either. If he tells you what's in his though and than you tell him yours are secret, that's kind of a dick move.

Can we see the relevant rule from 4th?

And can you explain why you've ignored the 6th edition ruling to the contrary?

I asked that earlier, with no,response

I,checked the entire vehicle section and saw nothing like such a rule, but given that the rulebook isn't amazing that's not a shock...

I just dragged out my 4th ed rulebook to check. It’s the small one from the Battle of Macragge box.

pg. 81, last paragraph under the “Deploy Forces” heading

A note on secrecy. Your opponent cannot normally inspect your army roster, including asking you what is in each transport vehicle. Players are, however, free to share this information if they so wish.”

So this was, at one time, a valid rule. No arguments about that. If was flipped in later editions, and then dropped, so getting a RAI is going to be fuzzy.

I always go down my roster explaining what everything is, and will provide info at any point in the game when asked. I can’t recall an opponent who hasn’t provided the same courtesy. I’d rather win or loose due to generalship or luck then slight of hand. YMMV.

 Nevelon wrote:
I just dragged out my 4th ed rulebook to check. It’s the small one from the Battle of Macragge box.

pg. 81, last paragraph under the “Deploy Forces” heading

A note on secrecy. Your opponent cannot normally inspect your army roster, including asking you what is in each transport vehicle. Players are, however, free to share this information if they so wish.”

So this was, at one time, a valid rule. No arguments about that. If was flipped in later editions, and then dropped, so getting a RAI is going to be fuzzy.

That's the one. It's also on p. 81 of the 4th ed BRB. Admittedly, I completely forgot about the last clause of that note.

If I didn't bring up 6th, it's because I was ignorant of that 6th ed rule.

That said, it is interesting that there's absolutely nothing about it in 7th.

Previous edition rules have no bearing on 7th edition rules. It's not like this is English common law or some such where a precedent is set.

I think it comes down to if you play open lists or not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nope but all models and transports must be marked to make sure you dont cheat.

I mean youre basically cherry picking rules. If a rule exists in a previous edition and isnt mentioned in a new edition that doesn't mean the rule still stands it means it no longer exists. You cant think of editions as expansions on a rule set its an entirely different game than 4th edition. Now with nothing being written in 7th edition about secrecy it means 2 things

General rule of thumb: everyone discloses lists and transports many putting markers on the vehicle itself

Agreement of all players: 7th does say that games can be customized any way so long as players agree BEFORE the game begins.

Because the general rule of thumb is clearly that these things are disclosed, keeping them secret must be a rule established before the game starts. Doing it in any other way would be grounds for a cheating accusation.

This is the sort of thinking that leads down the path to becoming TFG.

Not declaring will just lead to being accused of cheating and quickly running out of people willing to play you