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.

Over the weekend I talked to an ex-40k player that switched over to Saga and Infinity.
He told me a bit about the concept of disguise, sabotage and the likes that is used in Infinity and I kind of liked that idea.
Adding a small bit of deception to 40k might be a fun house rule... But before I "enact that policy", I'd like some input

Usually we just show the opposing player the list we bring and unpack the models.
But what if we don't? Well unpacking is a necessity, but what about keeping your list, or at least the reserved part, in secret?
In any case you have the list with you to validate what you throw on the table, you just don't get to see it until it arrives in the game.

Say you play 2000 pts and bring 3 Drop Pods and a unit you intend to outflank with. You deploy as normal, but your opponent could fairly easy discern that something is missing.
The points just don't add up, so he KNOWS something is coming - just not exactly what, like you would in any "real" scenario.
Adds a layer of strategy to the deployment - are those melta vets coming down? Precision Terminator Deepstrike with a Heavy Flamer? Balistarii hunting my warlord?
Should I guard my vehicles or spread out my infantry into cover, reducing my movement? Is he playing mind games with me when he's repeatedly looking on the firing angles on my tanks?

To be fair, my meta does consist of IG, CSM, BA and my DA/AdMech, so we usually don't bring any Skyhammer-level lists to trounce the opposition, so YMMV.

This is similar to how I play reserves actually but with more complexity (because I go nuts when coming up with rules). This is what me and my regular opponents like to do:

1. Deep Strike Reserves are not revealed at all, as these appear suddenly by teleportation or jump-pack descent. The units that can do this (terminators and assault squads) tend to be underpowered anyway so this can be a interesting boost.
   
2. Regular Reserves are revealed by unit type and faction only. So I might say I have two Dark Angels Bike squads and a Skimmer in Reserve. We figure intelligence would give a good indication of nearby forces likely to enter the area, so there wouldn't be many surprises, but exact equipment may not be known so you have to consider where those bikes may be intended to strike.
   
3. Flyers are revealed by exact type (e.g- Storm Talon) but not any equipment options. We figure most armies will have some kind of air cover even if it doesn't participate, so flyers operating in the area would be known, as would any sudden redirection to the combat area.
   
4. Super Heavy/Gargantuan Units are revealed in full, they're not the easiest things to hide!

I think this gives a good narrative balance of surprise vs intelligence, so you're not taken totally unawares, though of course this can be tweaked for scenarios where you're trapped and alone etc.


I've also tried a few games in which Infiltrators aren't revealed, but instead deploy as counters (or spare bases of the same size). They aren't revealed until they either attack, or an enemy gets within 15" (8" if Shrouded, or have Stealth and are in cover). No-one I play against has larger infiltrating units, I don't recall if there are any, but you may want to adjust the distance for these accordingly.

Not that there's often a lot of choice for infiltrators, but sometimes an allied infiltrator can be a surprise for the enemy, especially if the enemy expects a weak scout squad but you've managed to bring something with more impact.


One thing we've found is that with the uncertainty it's sometimes worth adding a turn or two to the game, as this allows more cautious/defensive play to defend against surprises you know are coming. Six turns isn't usually enough for this, but it can depend on the armies you play.

This is a community where cheating strangers are so prevalent that every single large tournament is dominated by it.

Why would you introduce easier ways to do it?

 DarknessEternal wrote:
This is a community where cheating strangers are so prevalent that every single large tournament is dominated by it.

Why would you introduce easier ways to do it?

I'm not sure this idea is intended to be used in a tournament of dick players, but by more casual groups who play for fun rather than to win, even so, it's still predicated on you having created a valid army list and not tampering with it, which most tournaments should check against.
You could easily use this system by just putting your reserve units at the end of your list and cutting them off so your opponent can see only the part you're deploying, but consult your reserves list at the end of the game if they suspect imbalance; tournament organisers could check both parts before the game begins, assuming any tournament was happy to use home-made rules, which seems unlikely.

This is a great idea. The point about adding turns is a good one, especially since if this results I the players reserving large numbers of units, the first turns will be much faster with fewer units than with normal deployment of an entire army.

It's a mystery to you when your units will arrive, it should be at least a little bit more mysterious for your opponent.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
This is a community where cheating strangers are so prevalent that every single large tournament is dominated by it.

Why would you introduce easier ways to do it?

I think this is for his community, where apparently that doesn't happen. It's not a suggestion to "the community" it's a request for help.

I dig it. Check out codex Catachans for inspiration. I think old lictors too. These sources offer infiltration inspiration but the thought process is the same.

Sorry, I've not been very clear on the "who is this intended for".
I totally agree that, in a competitive environment or tournament setting, would be possible way to cheat a bit. But you'd have to try a bit.

My "meta" mostly consists of me and 3 IRL Friends which know each other for years now, sometimes even a decade.
We all dig the fluff and the modelling aspect, so no WAAC or TFG behavior around. WYSIWYG is also used for like 95%, so no big qualms there also.
This is the basic setting I proposed this for.

Still, a valid, printed list is required so you can just check if the stuff that came in REALLY is what was bought.

No. The first step in any game is exchanging lists and making sure both players are clear on what each army contains and what each model represents. This avoids the possibility of having an argument mid-game about something because each player had different ideas about what a unit was. Skipping over this step just doesn't seem like a good idea at all.

And on top of the communication issues I don't think it would be very much fun. A hidden reserves rule is effectively a penalty to players who don't have their opponent's codex memorized well enough to spot the missing points, and often reduces the game to "you didn't see that coming, I win" rather than any real strategy. And it rewards the players who have the biggest budget to spend on the game. If you have lots of money to spend on new units you get to surprise your opponent mid-game with something they didn't know you even owned, if you don't have lots of money then your opponent knows all of your available units and your "surprise" is worthless. Finally, it does all of this in a way that doesn't even match the fluff very well. Why do I have perfect information about the units on the table, even if they're out of LOS of every one of my units, but no clue that the units held in reserve just off the imaginary line created by the table edge even exist?

It's a cool idea, but I reckon it would cause more problems than it's worth. This idea kind of reminds me of this thread, with the rational discussion seeming to end with the idea that not knowing something about your opponent's army opens your opponent up to cheating and dick-fethery.

That being said, I reckon it could possible work if you and your close mates gave it a go. It most likely wouldn't work with somebody you barely know or don't know.

It's a very good way to keep things fresh, and interesting.

A layer of mind games where the opponent does not know exactly what you have opens the path to bluffs and trickery, and erase much of the "know result at deployment" issue that sometimes rises,as even if you don't have an answer to a spesific threat, you can attempt to bluff it, or alternatively pretend to be helpless while not to lure the enemy to a trap.

Games with hidden knowledge are just better.



As for cheating, it's REALLY easy to solve.
You have a written list before the match starts, each unit in the list is given a codename/number.
You hand over the list, face down/folded, so you each got each other's list, but can't see it yet.
Play the game, each time you deploy a unit/roll for reserves etc you call out the unit's codename/number.
End of the match you look at the list in your hand, the game is not long enough to forget what showed up when (and if you think you'll forget, make notes)

Not any more easy to cheat than any other game.

That other thread was about the opponent REFUSING to reveal reseves/transported units in a way you couldn't verify - which was rife for cheating.

This sounds much more reasonable; you can check the list after the units hit the board or after the game. There also doesn't seem to be transport shenanigans. Also, its something BOTH parties agree to before the game, not one person dictating to the other.

 Stormonu wrote:
That other thread was about the opponent REFUSING to reveal reseves/transported units in a way you couldn't verify - which was rife for cheating.

This sounds much more reasonable; you can check the list after the units hit the board or after the game. There also doesn't seem to be transport shenanigans. Also, its something BOTH parties agree to before the game, not one person dictating to the other.

But the core principle of it is the same - I need to be able to verify that my opponent's list is legal, and my opponent needs to be able to verify my list is 100% legal. Yes, in this case, we are agreeing to Secret Reserves (as opposed to one player refusing to provide information), but without a 3rd party on hand to check both lists to make sure they're both legal, there's still the opportunity for lists to be illegal (intentionally or otherwise).

Why on earth do you need a third party?

Hand each other lists as usual, just don't LOOK at them until after the game is over. its really simple.
Sure, if one side cheats you'll only find out after the game is over, but you'll know non-the-less, and the cheater will find it difficult to find a game again.


Heck, most of my games people don't even bother checking each other's lists unless something seems fishy.

 BoomWolf wrote:
Why on earth do you need a third party?

Hand each other lists as usual, just don't LOOK at them until after the game is over. its really simple.
Sure, if one side cheats you'll only find out after the game is over, but you'll know non-the-less, and the cheater will find it difficult to find a game again.

Heck, most of my games people don't even bother checking each other's lists unless something seems fishy.

Because I'd rather not play a game against a person who's cheated on their list and then find out after the game that they did indeed cheat. All of my games are against my mates as well as acquaintances, and we always go through our lists with each other. The remainder of my games are against employees of GW, and it'd be a sad day indeed when I have to check the lists formed by a GW employee. So the idea that I'm not seeing the list of my opponent is weird and why I have a problem with secret reserves, especially if there's nobody there to check the lists (even if it's just a case of miscalculating the points rather than actually cheating).

 BoomWolf wrote:
A layer of mind games where the opponent does not know exactly what you have opens the path to bluffs and trickery, and erase much of the "know result at deployment" issue that sometimes rises,as even if you don't have an answer to a spesific threat, you can attempt to bluff it, or alternatively pretend to be helpless while not to lure the enemy to a trap.

The problem, IMO, is that it's just a really awkward way of adding hidden information. Why am I completely unaware that a unit of infantry just off the edge of the table (since they can move 6" onto the table next turn) even exists, while I have perfect information on an identical unit of infantry hidden completely out of LOS from all of my units? Do you really want to spend time while I look through your codex, add up all of the point costs of the units you've deployed, and figure out how much stuff you're holding in reserve? Do you really want games to be decided by "lol, I win" gimmicks where one player buys a new model without their opponent knowing about it and effectively wins the game when it arrives?

As for cheating, it's REALLY easy to solve.

Sure, but cheating is only part of the problem. There's also unintentional mistakes, ambiguity about what a model represents, ambiguity about rules interactions that you might want to resolve before the game begins, etc. Things just work so much better if you go over each player's army before the game begins.

Ambiguity about representation is solved with WYSIWYG. Not always perfect, but works well with such rules-what you can SEE is what you know (so even troops in boxes can be unknown factors)

Mistakes are no reason to avoid hidden info, nor are unforseen interactions. Many games use hidden information successfully, proving it CAN be done.


As for gimmick surprise units stealing wins-thats kind of the point. In many games, especially TCGs, the best moments are when a player pulls off an unexpected tactic, a bizarre combo, a well timed card you just didn't expect because "who even plays that?" or a massive bluff.
You just can't do these without hidden information. And these are awesome to pull of, and still great when pulled on you, because you appreciate the thought put behind them. The fact both players know that they don't know EVERYTHING and by such the result of the game remains a mystery until the very last moment because miracle comebacks DO happen with a bit of luck, shrewd thinking and leaving yourself an "out"
But without any hidden info, it's reduced to comeback by pure luck as everyone knows exactly what is within the realm of possibility, what outs to close off and what "twist" is coming.


TCGs do hidden info since ever, it works great. You generally know what to expect in a tournament because of meta dictated top decks, you know what to expect in casual due to getting familiar with your friend's collection and play style, but every once in a while someone shakes you up with something unexpected, and this keeps you on your toes, every game, all game long.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
This is a community where cheating strangers are so prevalent that every single large tournament is dominated by it.

Why would you introduce easier ways to do it?

I doubt every tournament is dominated by them...

Anyway this isn't meant for tournaments as secrets are blown there up anyway(you know by being used...) and outside tournaments you can select your opponents anyway(even in tournament really. I don't want to play against somebody I won't. Good luck forcing me to play game I don't think is going to be fun game!)