Why must we tell our opponents what's in our transports?

[LoverzCry]

I'm not griping about it, I'm just wondering. Isn't it more "realistic" (I know 40k isn't anywhere near being realistic so let's stay on topic and not focus on this point) if your enemy has to guess and choose what transports are important and which ones aren't?

I think this would add a bit more excitement to the game, and more chance for those armies that might need it. I personally don't run transports usually in my armies, except for eldar, and I only run one Wave Serpent with a squad of Wraithguard in it so it's not like it matters. What're your opinions on this?

[Madness]

Fluff-wise there are scanners, auspex, scouts, divination, telepaths, sensitives, spies and a plethora of other stuff that doesn't get a battlefield representation, but is actually part of the war you're fighting, so I guess that's part of the acquired intelligence.

[Kahoolin]

I agree, it would make the game more exciting. I think if you just wrote down who was in what and folded it up before the battle that would be awesome. I don't rightly know why it's a rule that you have to reveal.

[Denzark]

Why the transports, and not squads in cover which the generals can see, but in real life, would be dug in and prone, and very difficult to target?

Actually you probably don't have to if you and opponent agree.

It's fairer that way is the answer.

My Iron Warriors' Rhino is metallic, my Berzerkers' is black, gold and brass and my Plague marines' is green and milliputted well. So you have an idea about what pops out where.

But you probably knew that.

If you ask the question to try and get justification for something you suspect to be morally dubious don't hold your breath waiting for support...

[BuFFo]

I'm not griping about it, I'm just wondering. Isn't it more "realistic" (I know 40k isn't anywhere near being realistic so let's stay on topic and not focus on this point) if your enemy has to guess and choose what transports are important and which ones aren't?

In 40k, there is NO rule which forces you to 1) show your army list and 2) show the contents of your transports.

The rule "A Note On Secrecy" actually says to the contrary. Players are obligated NOT to show army lists or the contents of their transports unless both players agree to do so, and even then, you aren't supposed to show your list until AFTER the game....

This is one of the biggest myths about the game, and even after you show people the rules, they still refuse to believe it. Just like the new rules on Pinning.... Oh well.... You can't teach old dogs new....

[Chumbalaya]

It prevents musical chairs, with units teleporting from transport to transport as it benefits them.

[BuFFo]

It prevents musical chairs, with units teleporting from transport to transport as it benefits them.

I must say that respectfully, "it" cannot prevent anything since "it" does not exist. "it" being a rule which forces you to show what unit is in what transport.

If this really is an issue with musical chairs, you have a few options;

1) Have your opponent write down a list on paper what unit is in which vehicle.

2) Right down on paper what unit is in the vehicle and place them face down on top the the vehicle.

3) Play with people you can trust and stop playing with cheaters.

Realistically, people I play with just jot down on paper what is in what. Most of the time though, we just trust each other and don't even do that.

[RocketRollRebel]

Its simply polite and sporting. I always explain what I have in each unit and let my opponent know who is in what transport. Same with units in reserve. I let them know about any of my deep striking/out flanking units and I ask about theirs.

[Gir]

Its simply polite and sporting. I always explain what I have in each unit and let my opponent know who is in what transport. Same with units in reserve. I let them know about any of my deep striking/out flanking units and I ask about theirs.

+1

[DarkLink]

"It" depends entirely on what you and your opponent agree on. Common courtesy is to make the contents of transports known, but you and your opponent can agree to forgo that.

[BuFFo]

Actually, common courtesy is playing by the rules. "Forcing" me to reveal what is in my transport (and thus breaking the rule) is cheating.

Just because 9 people out of 10 do something wrong does not make it right.

Sorry if some of you 1) play with too many cheaters or 2) need the god-like tactical knowledge of knowing where units are to be able to win.

[DarkLink]

"A Note on Secrecy
To keep things fair, you should always 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 on whether or not they can read the opponent's force roster before and during the game..."

I'm getting a few things out of this.

The rule doesn't state "you and your opponent agree on whether or not you should reveal which squads are embarked".

It says "always make clear to your opponent which squads are embarked in which transport vehicle." There is nothing about this part of the rule to imply that it is optional. There is no "agree with you opponent" here, only "you should do this".

The second part of the rule, which is optional, is about reading your opponent's list before the game. Here, it is indeed "agree with your opponent", and thus, optional.

However, there is nothing in the rule that makes the "agree with you opponent" apply to the first part of the rule. The first part of the rule is not "agree with your opponent". It is not implied to be optional.

Now, you can ignore it just like any other rule in the game. But after rereading it just now, it seems pretty clear to me that "you should always make clear to your opponent which squads are embarked in which transport vehicle." So, by default, always make it clear. Just like the rule explicitly and clearly states. You can ignore the rule, and if your opponent doesn't mind that's not a problem. But that doesn't change what the rule says.

[Aldramelech]

Goodbye

[Madness]

Combine the explicitness of what's being transported with the "obligation" of WYSIWYG, and you pretty much have to give up a lot of information.

[Bean]

Actually, common courtesy is playing by the rules. "Forcing" me to reveal what is in my transport (and thus breaking the rule) is cheating.

Just because 9 people out of 10 do something wrong does not make it right.

Sorry if some of you 1) play with too many cheaters or 2) need the god-like tactical knowledge of knowing where units are to be able to win.

Yeah, this is actually entirely false. As Darklink points out, there is actually a rule which specifically and un-ambivalently forces you to reveal to your opponent what is in each of your transports. Did you even read the rules before posting?

Interestingly, there is no rule which requires you to reveal your list to your opponent until after the game and there is no actual WYSIWYG rule in the book, as far as I can tell. So, you have to tell me what squad is in each transport, but you don't necessarily have to make it so that I can identify what each squad actually has.

[slxiii]

Yeah, this is actually entirely false. As Darklink points out, there is actually a rule which specifically and un-ambivalently forces you to reveal to your opponent what is in each of your transports. Did you even read the rules before posting?

Interestingly, there is no rule which requires you to reveal your list to your opponent until after the game and there is no actual WYSIWYG rule in the book, as far as I can tell. So, you have to tell me what squad is in each transport, but you don't necessarily have to make it so that I can identify what each squad actually has.

There is a rule pertaining to WYSIWYG, I believe it's near the area about independent characters, though i could be wrong.

[Madness]

Thanks slxiii, page 47, it states that you do not HAVE to WYSIWYG, but if you don't you have to explain what's what, which still disrupts most of the secrecy.

[AbusePuppy]

I'm of the same opinion as the OP- I don't like telling opponents what's in my transports during a game. There's a big tactical advantage in not doing so, and it keeps the game more interesting. In fact, sometimes I embark a squad into one squad into one transport and there disembark them from a different transport. Occasionally, I will embark a squad right out of the game and bring a different squad in their place- like if I realize my opponent has brought a lot of mech, I might bring in a melta squad to help out a bit. It brings a really interesting tactical aspect to the game that folks who require you to mark squad/vehicle pairs miss out on.

We don't really play WYSIWYG, either, for what it's worth. It's usually pretty obvious which of my Necrons is carrying the squad's heavy flamer, but if I just tell my opponent everything in my army at the beginning of the game it works out. I just tell them straight up, pointing to my pile of guys, "Okay, this one is the railgun and this one is the flayer and this one is the lance, not the power fist, even though they're the same, but they're not in the same squad so it should be easy. Oh, and one of the Lords is actually on a bike, so just remember which one when I'm moving them."

[Madness]

It's not a debate of how you're supposed to play, you can play however you want, there's fluff to back up both styles, the rulebook tells you to be upfront about it, but you're totally free to disregard that if both players agree.

[Master Bryss]

I usually run footsloggers with one or two transports so I'll usually say what's in them. I do agree though that it's more tactical to not tell them who goes in what, but I'm of the view that it's good practise to tell them.

However, my custom Codex (in my sig) actually prevents me from revealing all until Turn 2.

[Chumbalaya]

I'm getting a few things out of this.

The rule doesn't state "you and your opponent agree on whether or not you should reveal which squads are embarked".

It says "always make clear to your opponent which squads are embarked in which transport vehicle." There is nothing about this part of the rule to imply that it is optional. There is no "agree with you opponent" here, only "you should do this".

The second part of the rule, which is optional, is about reading your opponent's list before the game. Here, it is indeed "agree with your opponent", and thus, optional.

However, there is nothing in the rule that makes the "agree with you opponent" apply to the first part of the rule. The first part of the rule is not "agree with your opponent". It is not implied to be optional.

Now, you can ignore it just like any other rule in the game. But after rereading it just now, it seems pretty clear to me that "you should always make clear to your opponent which squads are embarked in which transport vehicle." So, by default, always make it clear. Just like the rule explicitly and clearly states. You can ignore the rule, and if your opponent doesn't mind that's not a problem. But that doesn't change what the rule says.

http://cdn0.knowyourmeme.com/i/7346/original/pwned4.jpg

[BuFFo]

I'm getting a few things out of this.

The rule doesn't state "you and your opponent agree on whether or not you should reveal which squads are embarked".

It says "always make clear to your opponent which squads are embarked in which transport vehicle." There is nothing about this part of the rule to imply that it is optional. There is no "agree with you opponent" here, only "you should do this".

The second part of the rule, which is optional, is about reading your opponent's list before the game. Here, it is indeed "agree with your opponent", and thus, optional.

However, there is nothing in the rule that makes the "agree with you opponent" apply to the first part of the rule. The first part of the rule is not "agree with your opponent". It is not implied to be optional.

Now, you can ignore it just like any other rule in the game. But after rereading it just now, it seems pretty clear to me that "you should always make clear to your opponent which squads are embarked in which transport vehicle." So, by default, always make it clear. Just like the rule explicitly and clearly states. You can ignore the rule, and if your opponent doesn't mind that's not a problem. But that doesn't change what the rule says.

You are wrong.

You missed a few very important parts of A Note On Secrecy. Here, let me show you.

A Note on Secrecy

"To keep things fair, you SHOULD always allow your opponent to read your force roster AFTER the game. IN THE SAME SPIRIT, always make clear to your opponent which squads are embarked in which transport vehicle."

Let us start here first....

1) "Should" is a suggestive word, it is not a requirement by the player. So right off the bat, plays SHOULD show their lists, but it is not even a requirement.

2) "After" shows us that even if we agree to show lists, we do so AFTER the game. Not before, nor during the game, but AFTER the game is over. The rule is very clear about this.

3) "In the same spirit" means that you do the next rule just like you did the last rule. What does that mean?

In the same spirit in that you SHOULD show your opponent your list AFTER the game, you SHOULD let your opponent know what is in your transports AFTER the game.

"However, before starting to deploy their armies it is a good idea for players to AGREE whether or not they can read rosters before and during the game"

1) "Agree" here is another form of a suggestion. To show the rosters before and during a game has to be AGRED upon. Yet again, nothing forces either player to show rosters to each other. Note, that here, there is NO provision concerning showing what is in transports before or during the game, as this you can simply see on a player's roster.

The next two sentences show examples of players who want full disclosure, and a players who want secrecy. Got it? Because the last sentence in the entire rule puts the nail in the coffin;

"The choice is yours!"

Everything in the rule is a suggestion that must be agreed upon both players.

It would be WRONG for a player to force another player to either show or hide units in a transport. This is one of the rare rules in the game which must always be agreed upon before the game, and can be different every single time.

The fact remains that you can NEVER force your opponent to show you anything, either their roster or their passengers.


Yeah, this is actually entirely false. As Darklink points out, there is actually a rule which specifically and un-ambivalently forces you to reveal to your opponent what is in each of your transports.

No, what Darklink did was cut out/misunderstand important parts of a rule in reaching his final conclusion.

If you read the ENTIRE rule, and understand basic English, you understand what the words/phrases 'Should', 'Agree'. 'in the same spirit', and 'The choice is yours!' actually mean.

"In the same spirit means" exactly what it means. If you want to follow the next rule, you must go about it in the same way as the previous rule.


Did you even read the rules before posting?

Yes I did. I must ask you the same thing. Did you even see the words "In the same spirit" before defending another poster who missed it himself?

In the same spirit that the previous rule is optional, so is the next rule.

In the same spirit that the previous rule SHOULD be played, so SHOULD the next rule.

There is NO RULE in the entire book that forces a player to disclose his roster or his passengers.

[Fellend]

See embarking rules on transports. You are to make a note of which unit is traveling where.

So yes technically as long as you have it written down on a note somewhere you don't need to tell your opponent. But then again there's no specific rule against cheating, obfuscating dice, calling your opponent a grotborn asshat, It's just suggested that you don't in the spirit of the game.

I doubt anyone would play with you if you try to spring this on them but I as long as your opponent is fine with it then go ahead.

If kept in reserve however you must declare who is in what transport.

[Madness]

The sentence stands alone

always make clear to your opponent which squads are embarked in which transport vehicle
There's not much of a wiggle room there.
I'm all for playing however you want, but you surely can't blame a guy for bringing that up.

The roster, you can keep secret until the end of the game (hopefully it will match what you declared it was), but you have to have representative (or explained) units and declare which of the not-on-the-field units are in which transport.

[Fellend]

SHOULD
–auxiliary verb
1.
pt. of shall.
2.
(used to express condition): Were he to arrive, I should be pleased.
3.
must; ought (used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency): You should not do that.
4.
would (used to make a statement less direct or blunt): I should think you would apologize.

—Synonyms
3. See must1.

—Usage note
Rules similar to those for choosing between shall and will have long been advanced for should and would, but again the rules have had little effect on usage. In most constructions, would is the auxiliary chosen regardless of the person of the subject: If our allies would support the move, we would abandon any claim to sovereignty. You would be surprised at the complexity of the directions.
Because the main function of should in modern American English is to express duty, necessity, etc. (You should get your flu shot before winter comes), its use for other purposes, as to form a subjunctive, can produce ambiguity, at least initially: I should get my flu shot if I were you. Furthermore, should seems an affectation to many Americans when used in certain constructions quite common in British English: Had I been informed, I should (American would) have called immediately. I should (American would) really prefer a different arrangement. As with shall and will, most educated native speakers of American English do not follow the textbook rule in making a choice between should and would. See also shall.

Basic undestanding of the english language SHOULD = MUST.

[Madness]

Should is not the same as must, but that doesn't matter since it's irrelevant.

[BuFFo]

SHOULD
–auxiliary verb
1.
pt. of shall.
2.
(used to express condition): Were he to arrive, I should be pleased.
3.
must; ought (used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency): You should not do that.
4.
would (used to make a statement less direct or blunt): I should think you would apologize.

—Synonyms
3. See must1.

—Usage note
Rules similar to those for choosing between shall and will have long been advanced for should and would, but again the rules have had little effect on usage. In most constructions, would is the auxiliary chosen regardless of the person of the subject: If our allies would support the move, we would abandon any claim to sovereignty. You would be surprised at the complexity of the directions.
Because the main function of should in modern American English is to express duty, necessity, etc. (You should get your flu shot before winter comes), its use for other purposes, as to form a subjunctive, can produce ambiguity, at least initially: I should get my flu shot if I were you. Furthermore, should seems an affectation to many Americans when used in certain constructions quite common in British English: Had I been informed, I should (American would) have called immediately. I should (American would) really prefer a different arrangement. As with shall and will, most educated native speakers of American English do not follow the textbook rule in making a choice between should and would. See also shall.

Basic undestanding of the english language SHOULD = MUST.

http://www.englishpage.com/modals/should.html

If the Authors of the rule book wanted 'must' they would have used 'must' and not should.

Should is NOT must.


Should is not the same as must, but that doesn't matter since it's irrelevant.

Yeah, you are right, 'should' is irrelevant when you wish to misinterpret rules the way you want them to be, instead of how they are plainly written.


The sentence stands alone

"IN THE SAME SPIRIT, Always make clear to your oponent which squads are embarked in which transport vehciles"

There's not much of a wiggle room there.
I'm all for playing however you want, but you surely can't blame a guy for bringing that up.

The roster, you can keep secret until the end of the game (hopefully it will match what you declared it was), but you have to have representative (or explained) units and declare which of the not-on-the-field units are in which transport.

I helped you quote the ENTIRE sentence. :)

[Fellend]

Not always but in this case it is.

shall
O.E. sceal "I owe/he owes, will have to, ought to, must" (infinitive sculan, pt. sceolde), a common Gmc. preterite-present verb, from P.Gmc. *skal-, *skul- (cf. O.S. sculan, O.N., Swed. skola, M.Du. sullen, O.H.G. solan, Ger. sollen, Goth. skulan "to owe, be under obligation;" related via past tense form to O.E. scyld "guilt," Ger. Schuld "guilt, debt;" also O.N. Skuld, name of one of the Norns). Ground sense probably is "I owe," hence "I ought." The sense shifted in M.E. from a notion of "obligation" to include "futurity." Its past tense form has become should (q.v.). Cognates outside Gmc. are Lith. skeleti "to be guilty," skilti "to get into debt;" O.Prus. skallisnan "duty," skellants "guilty."

should
c.1200, from O.E. sceolde, past tense of sceal (see shall). Preserves the original notion of "obligation" that has all but dropped from shall.

should (shŏŏd)
aux.v. Past tense of shall

1.

Used to express obligation or duty: You should send her a note.

[Fellend]

Yes ought to as in if you don't something bad will happend. You are obliged to do it unless you want your opponent to refuse playing you or worse.

[Madness]

Hm? How did I misinterpret that? The sentence is clear: "always make clear to your opponent which squads are embarked in which transport vehicle", what a word in another sentence means is irrelevant.

[Fellend]

According to the english teacher sitting behind me apparantly I'm wrong. You should, you do not need to but be expected to be called an asshat.

[Bean]

There is a rule pertaining to WYSIWYG, I believe it's near the area about independent characters, though i could be wrong.

No, you're right. Good catch. This rule only requires WYSIWYG for character models, though, and it allows you to substitute telling your opponent what a character model has for WYSIWYG.



If you read the ENTIRE rule, and understand basic English, you understand what the words/phrases 'Should', 'Agree'. 'in the same spirit', and 'The choice is yours!' actually mean.

"In the same spirit means" exactly what it means. If you want to follow the next rule, you must go about it in the same way as the previous rule.


As others have pointed out, the word "shall" can be used as an equivalent to "must." This is extremely common in legal writing, and "should" is just a conjugation of "shall."

When the rules tell you that you should do something, that something constitutes a rule.

Again, you're just flatly incorrect. The rule clearly states that you should always tell your opponent what is in each of your transports. Thus, you should always tell your opponent what is in each of your transports. If you do not, you are violating the rule.

As's been stated, this is just basic reading comprehension. I don't know who posted this link (http://www.englishpage.com/modals/should.html), but it makes it quite clear that should can be used to assert an obligation.



Beyond that, the phrase, "in the same spirit" does not mean, "that you do the next rule just like you did the last rule." It means that you do the next rule for the same reason that you did the last rule.

The first rule, which requires you to reveal your roster after the game, is included explicitly "to keep things fair." The phrase, "In the same spirit" in the second rule refers back to this phrase, which expresses the intent or "spirit" of the first rule. It does not say anything about how you actually, mechanically enact the second rule--it only speaks to the purpose of the second rule.

The phrase, "In the same spirit," does not change the phrase, "Always do X" (which, as you'll note, doesn't actually include the word "should" at all) into anything other than a command. It does not imply that following that command is optional.

Again, this is really just basic reading comprehension. Nothing in the actual rule supports your assertions at all.

[Squirrel_Fish]

The fact that people are justifying the use of "should" vs "must" to argue that they don't have to declare who's riding in what is really just pulling at straws. As the previous poster said, the term "In the same spirit" does not mean "Do this exactly the same", but is saying that you should do this as a matter of fairness and sportsmanship in the same vein as WYSIWYG.

While not having to declare units in transports makes the game a little more interesting, it also ruins any ability to form an effective strategy against mechanized armies since you cannot prioritize which those Rhinos to kill and 40k turns into a shell game. The principle applies to why WYSIWYG is in place - to prevent hiding any necessary information.

[DarkLink]

I'm of the same opinion as the OP- I don't like telling opponents what's in my transports during a game. There's a big tactical advantage in not doing so, and it keeps the game more interesting. In fact, sometimes I embark a squad into one squad into one transport and there disembark them from a different transport.

This is exactly the sort of thing that most players find very questionable.



Occasionally, I will embark a squad right out of the game and bring a different squad in their place- like if I realize my opponent has brought a lot of mech, I might bring in a melta squad to help out a bit. It brings a really interesting tactical aspect to the game that folks who require you to mark squad/vehicle pairs miss out on.

Are you saying you change your list as the game starts to match your opponent after you've seen their list? I hope your local group knows and doesn't mind, because pulling that on someone is really, really sketchy.



"To keep things fair, you SHOULD always allow your opponent to read your force roster AFTER the game. IN THE SAME SPIRIT, always make clear to your opponent which squads are embarked in which transport vehicle."

There is NO RULE in the entire book that forces a player to disclose his roster or his passengers.

Sure it isn't strictly required, but strongly suggested. Whereas you were claiming not just that the rule isn't required, but that it required the exact opposite of what it suggests.

You claimed that forcing your opponent to reveal what is embarked where is cheating, because this rule forbids that. In fact, the rule suggests the exact opposite, that you should always reveal what is in what.

So, contrary to your earlier claims (that I probably should have quoted but am to lazy to go back and add now), common courtesy would dictate that you tell your opponent what is embarked where. Yes, it isn't strictly required. Yes, you can ultimately choose not to do it. But don't get angry if your opponent gives you grief about sportsmanship stuff for doing it.


You should, you do not need to but be expected to be called an asshat.

Right, at least if you don't clear it with your opponent. I don't think many people in my gaming group would be receptive to not making it clear what is embarked where, and my group is much more on the "hardcore, no comp, RAW only" side of things. I know I wouldn't be happy about my opponent trying to pull it on me out of the blue.

[Lerra]

I think this is one of those instances where RAW really doesn't matter. For a tournament, you have to submit your list beforehand and there are usually tourney rules on disclosing what's in what transport, so it's a moot point. For a casual game, there is an understanding of how the game is played. Regardless of whether or not you think that understanding is wrong, you know how most people play the game.

If you come to the game and explain your preference for playing with secrecy, that's great. If you expect the other player to play the same way that you do, when you know that most people do not (regardless of what RAW says), you'll look like a douche.

[Aldramelech]

Goodbye

[Melissia]

The fact that people are justifying the use of "should" vs "must" to argue that they don't have to declare who's riding in what is really just pulling at straws.
Agreed. This is some grade A rules lawyering here.

[scadugenga]

DarkLink: I think you missed the /sarcasm in Abusepuppy's post.

At least, I sincerely hope that was meant to be sarcasm...

That being said, one of the things that may have been missed as a point is that you have to identify what unit is embarked in what transport, not the composition of said unit. So saying "Tac squad 1 is embarked in Rhino A, Tac Squad 2 is embarked..." is just fine, and it doesn't imply you have to identify the load-out of the squad. (Las/Plas, melt, whatever)

I have yet to have someone try a bait & switch on me, nor obfuscate which unit has what upgrades while proxy-ing. If someone tried to pull those stunts under the questionable logic of "should-does-not-mean-I-have-to" I would end the game immediately. Life's too short to waste time on asshats, and frankly, the Bunker would probably frown upon me for holding some turd-brained lackwit by the neck and dangling him 10 or so inches off the ground while he turned purple and wet himself for attempting to pull such a stunt.

And on a completely barely-related note: for whomever might be interested, the old english pronunciations are almost identical to the common day versions. (The lingering benefits of my English grad school education.)

[scadugenga]

Agreed. This is some grade A rules lawyering here.


I would say it's more grade A weaseling, or someone really just wanting to start an argument, really.

[Kahoolin]

Oh for god's sake people, the important word in that sentence is not "should", you could remove the word "should" completely and the rule would still carry exactly the same meaning. It's just garnish.

The important bit is whether or not "in the same spirit" means "voluntarily and by agreement" as BuFFo thinks, or "in the interests of fair play" as Bean claims.

I think Bean's interpretation seems more accurate, even though personally I don't like the idea of revealing which units are embarked. And no I'm not a cheat, I just find that adding elements of chance and guesswork to the game greatly increases my fun. Which is why my first army was orks.

[scadugenga]

Oh for god's sake people, the important word in that sentence is not "should", you could remove the word "should" completely and the rule would still carry exactly the same meaning. It's just garnish.

The important bit is whether or not "in the same spirit" means "voluntarily and by agreement" as BuFFo thinks, or "in the interests of fair play" as Bean claims.



You are slightly incorrect. The crux of the argument-ahem-I-mean-discussion is that the general writing of the rule is not so-absolutely-clear-a-5-year-old-can-get-it and provides multiple potential interpretations that allow some people to potentially sink to sub-gutter levels of asshattery.

Will everyone potentially abuse it? No. But some will. And it's the writing of the entire rule, that "should" as well as "in the spirit of" are open for interpretation. Personally, I also like Bean's position on the topic.

However, that doesn't invalidate the other arguments.

GW, in the interest of trying not to have their rulebooks read like grammar school texts, tends towards slightly more "fluffy" writing. Ye gods, they still use "whilst!" :)

And as for the reason to make your list open to your opponent for viewing? The simplest reason (and experience I've run into more than once over the years) is to make certain you're both playing the same points. I've run about a 25% occurrence outside of my regular gaming group of playing people who somehow managed to "miscalculate" anywhere from 50-150 points in their forces. Let me quickly state this is during casual play! (Mostly during my college days--but I won't even begin to go into the crazy cheat-fests that are the "mega battles" that the bunker holds...)

[Bedroom General]

Getting all pedantic about sentence structure n' stuff makes for an amusing read.
I'll put in my 2 cents aus.
It's pretty obvious that you have to inform your opponent which unit is in which transport. It works for you too in that you can't be called a "cheating douche etc etc" if you do disclose this info. Also in the heat of battle it is important that you yourself are absolutely sure what unit is where.
I have my rhino's marked slightly differently so that I know which unit goes where myself, 'cos a battle can get confusing, and I'd rather lose a hundred times than win by accidentally cheating.

I have cheated by misremembering or forgetting rules, abilities myself, and have had it happen to me. This is a symptom, in my case, of having read and played so many editions of the game, and I have been picked up on relying on the ol' memory of rules that either don't exist anymore, or are slightly different in 5th. No big deal, as I don't play for sheep stations. So disclosure of who goes in what benefits the game I play.
Anyway, my little plastic guys are happier if they ride to battle in their own vehicle, then they know where they are too!:)

[DarkLink]

DarkLink: I think you missed the /sarcasm in Abusepuppy's post.

At least, I sincerely hope that was meant to be sarcasm...


Hmmm, so it would seem:o.

If that was indeed sarcasm, then that whole post makes a whole lot more sense, actually:rolleyes:.

[Polonius]

I'd make the argument that a pedantic reading of the rules for dedicated transports makes some of this discussion mute. All dedicated transports can only carry the unit they were both with, so I think that any time a dedicated transport is deployed, a player has every right to make sure that it's carrying the unit it was bought for. In a sense, dedicated transports have a rules value beyond "Rhino," they are actually "Squad B's Rhino." After that, it's just a matter of diligently watching all future movements.


Edit: Honestly, this is going to turn into a discussion similar to one involving a guy that won't tip waiters. Some people have a compulsion to ignore social rules that aren't explicitly mandatory.

[BuFFo]

As long as everything about 'A Note On Secrecy" is suggestive, and not direct, you don't have to show anything unless, as the rule says, both players agree on it. Well, maybe I am cursed with being able to read.... It sucks sometimes, but I'll bear that cross if need be....

There is a reason that for Tournaments, especially 'Ard Boyz, there is a rule that GW puts out for the entire event at any level that players MUST disclose their lists and specifically, what is inside transports. If it was mandatory in the first place, there wouldn't be a need for such a strict ruling.

But hey, I can see where this 'discussion' is going (much like discussions about Pinning in 5th). People are so used to playing things with Red for many years, that when a new rule comes out and says Blue, people still want Red because it is so familiar.

[Polonius]

Three things:

1) stating that you know how to read, and thus are clearly right, implies that we're all either stupid or illiterate. That's a direct insult, and not particularly nice. It's also, btw, agains the stated rules here, not just the suggested ones.

2) Second, there are very strong arguments for every aspect of the rule to be mandated, not suggestive. You can read it as either, so you can feel free to point out that we both might be wrong, but english is constructed such that should, in the sense of rules (or laws), implies a requirement.

3) Finally, if you think you can clean a single objective truth from a text by reading, than you are clearly literate, but perhaps less aware of modern literary theory than you think. Postmodern thought has basically destroyed the idea that anything but the most precisely technical language can be unambiguous.

My Contracts professor once wrote gave the following hypothetical: "Imagine you're at the park, and see a sign that says 'no vehicles in the park.' What does that mean?" We all figured we knew, until we got into the guts of it. What about wheelchairs? Toy Wagons? What about parking in the parking lot? What about roller skates? The point was, a clearly stated rule is incredibly ambiguous.

Plenty of rules interpretations rest on parsing sentences, and analyzing them. For anything that gets heated, there is generally a pretty even split in possibilities. So, while I think a rule in a rulebook that says I should do something is actually mandatory, I don't think it's out of question to think otherwise. what I do find odd is your complete disbelief the other way.

Oh, and by the way, the 4th ed rules actually explicitly stated that you did NOT have to reveal what was in a transport.

[scadugenga]

As long as everything about 'A Note On Secrecy" is suggestive, and not direct, you don't have to show anything unless, as the rule says, both players agree on it. Well, maybe I am cursed with being able to read.... It sucks sometimes, but I'll bear that cross if need be....

This...is pathetic. There's really no other word. People disagree with you and your only defense is a sarcastic insult in assuming you're the only literate person in the discussion? Bravo. My graduate education in literature* must not amount to much, compared to your "excellent" witticism and somewhat salty sarcasm. Truly, perhaps I am just not 'reading' up to my level...


There is a reason that for Tournaments, especially 'Ard Boyz, there is a rule that GW puts out for the entire event at any level that players MUST disclose their lists and specifically, what is inside transports. If it was mandatory in the first place, there wouldn't be a need for such a strict ruling.

The reason is that tournaments (GT & particularly 'Ard Boyz) carry cash-value prizes. And when "acclaim, prestige, and most importantly stuff are on the line, you can guarantee that the organizers have to do everything possible to prevent any misconceptions or cheating. Else-wise in our incredibly litigious environment, they will get sued, or in the very least, have people complain about the unfairness of the event to all and sundry, potentially reducing participation and revenue intake.


But hey, I can see where this 'discussion' is going (much like discussions about Pinning in 5th). People are so used to playing things with Red for many years, that when a new rule comes out and says Blue, people still want Red because it is so familiar.

Polonious already debunked your assertion about that re: 4th ed. Perhaps you didn't read it very closely?

What's really sad about this entire post, is that you've reduced yourself to a straw man argument. You can't even agree to disagree. And by taking the straw man tactic, it just effectively reduced any value your prior arguments/posts had.



*Which, of course, predicates that my statement about having attended grad school for English/Literature is accepted as fact. This is the internet after all, and we know you can't accept everything at face value.

[DarkLink]

Edit: Honestly, this is going to turn into a discussion similar to one involving a guy that won't tip waiters. Some people have a compulsion to ignore social rules that aren't explicitly mandatory.

Succinctly put.




On a side note, not to brag or anything (:rolleyes:) but by the time I was, oh, say six or seven, I'd already read Mysterious Island, 20,000 Leagues under the Sea, The Count of Monte Cristo, Ivanhoe, The Last of the Mohicans, Call of the Wild, a couple Sherlock Holmes books, War of the Worlds, The Invisible Man, Robinson Crusoe, the Time Machine, and any number of others that I've forgotten about since then.

My parents had a heck of a time finding books for me to read, I went through them so fast.

[terminus]

Actually, common courtesy is playing by the rules. "Forcing" me to reveal what is in my transport (and thus breaking the rule) is cheating.

Just because 9 people out of 10 do something wrong does not make it right.

Sorry if some of you 1) play with too many cheaters or 2) need the god-like tactical knowledge of knowing where units are to be able to win.
From the book: "A Note on Secrecy
To keep things fair, you should always 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."

Wow, it seems once we actually read the rules, you're either dead wrong or a liar, and you are, in fact, the cheater. So you can get off your cross now. We need the space to nail the next fool martyr. :rolleyes:

[Madness]

Fluff-wise there are scanners, auspex, scouts, divination, telepaths, sensitives, spies and a plethora of other stuff that doesn't get a battlefield representation, but is actually part of the war you're fighting, so I guess that's part of the acquired intelligence.
Fluff reason why you should disclose

The sentence stands alone

always make clear to your opponent which squads are embarked in which transport vehicle

There's not much of a wiggle room there.
I'm all for playing however you want, but you surely can't blame a guy for bringing that up.

The roster, you can keep secret until the end of the game (hopefully it will match what you declared it was), but you have to have representative (or explained) units and declare which of the not-on-the-field units are in which transport.
Rule reason why you should disclose.

A fair way to say who's in what is to point on the non-fielded squad and saying "this one is in that and this other one is in that", if the models are equipped with the wrong weapons, tell the opponent what those weapons are supposed to be, you do not have to disclose stuff like grenades or combat knives or other below-WYSIWYG stuff until after the game.

Tournament rules re-instate rules that are already clear in RAW interpretation all the time, so that's no excuse.

So, if you want to keep the embarked unit secret, make sure your opponents agree to it beforehand since it's a house rule.

[Fellend]

Once again pointing out that the rules of embarking requires you to make a note of which unit is where. (doesn't specifically state that you need to show it to your opponent but it's suggested)

[BuFFo]

Once again pointing out that the rules of embarking requires you to make a note of which unit is where. (doesn't specifically state that you need to show it to your opponent but it's suggested)

I am not sure exactly to whom you are responding to, but I do agree with you.

During the game, if you take a squad and embark it into a transport, yes, you must label the vehicle somehow with something.

But before the game, there is no such rule forcing you to do so.

[Madness]

Yes, there is, it says "always make clear to your opponent which squads are embarked in which transport vehicle" no exception is made if the vehicle was filled when he entered the field.

[BuFFo]

Yes, there is, it says "always make clear to your opponent which squads are embarked in which transport vehicle" no exception is made if the vehicle was filled when he entered the field.

If you are going to quote a sentence, quote the ENTIRE sentence. :confused:

Try again please :)

[Madness]

It is an entire sentence. It works, doesn't it? There's not much to misinterpret.

[Bean]

If you are going to quote a sentence, quote the ENTIRE sentence. :confused:

Try again please :)

"In the same spirit, always make clear to your opponent which squads are embarked in which transport vehicle."

There. That's the whole sentence, and it's functionally identical to the sentence minus the portion Madness left off.

Guess you're still just obviously wrong.

[Polonius]

guys, please. I think Buffo made it clear that he's way smarter than us, and we should stop embarrassing our selves with things like "analysis" or "sentence construction."

He's clearly on a higher plane, and I think we should respect that. And then ignore him, because at this point he's just a troll.

[MVBrandt]

Buffo, "in the same spirit" is not the same as "additionally" or any other moving phrase that would render the "always" as a "should" line.

It means that in the same SPIRIT, you must ALWAYS. That's to say, that the rule to always is simply there due to the spirit of the first sentence, not in the same "should" capacity.

"The first president of the united states decided that you should only have two terms at most. In the spirit of his example, constitutional amendment later ruled that you can NEVER have more than two terms."

That the rule was written in the spirit of a "should" convention does not mean it is not a firm rule in and of itself. I hope that you will pause your evasiveness and criticisms of other peoples' grammatical skills to momentarily assess what you have innocently missed in this case. There's no harm and no foul, you've simply misread the rule and/or misapplied your clearly exceptional grasp of English. Truly.

[Fellend]

I am not sure exactly to whom you are responding to, but I do agree with you.

During the game, if you take a squad and embark it into a transport, yes, you must label the vehicle somehow with something.

But before the game, there is no such rule forcing you to do so.

But they are embarked. No matter if it's before or after the game, Once they are embarking pregame, ingame or not it's not mentioned thus we must assume that all embarktion (is that a word?) requires you to make notes of what goes where.

[Polonius]

But they are embarked. No matter if it's before or after the game, Once they are embarking pregame, ingame or not it's not mentioned thus we must assume that all embarktion (is that a word?) requires you to make notes of what goes where.

Actually, unless I missed something the rules dont' really actually define deployment. There really are no defined mechanisms for deploying a unit into a transport. They aren't embarking, because embarkation can only occur in the movement phase.

In the absence of rules to contrary, it's arguable that you could deploy three landraiders, and then point to three units and say, "these are in the landraiders." It's also arguable that, you need to be specific what is deploying where. For example, in the rules for reserves it's clear that you have to say what's deployed in what, and how they're arriving from reserves.

For dedicated transports, I think that a player is in his rights to ask "what rhino is that" to any deployment.

The rules, outside of the note on secrecy, seem to strongly imply, but not state, that mounted units are deployed into the transports, and thus their deployment can be tracked.

The reason for the note on secrecy is, of course, pretty persuasive. Outside of eliminating cheating, allowing shell game transports only hurts the hobby as a whole. I think most dedicated painters add squad markings to all transports (I know I do), meaning that the rules now favor a person that doesn't paint properly. In addition, only mechanized armies have this advantage, while footsloggers (as was noted by a previous poster) are easily spotted, even when out of LOS.

This is why in a previous post, I recommend we stop responding to Buffo. There are about four compelling arguments for transparency (game balance, fairness, unclear deployment rules and one reading of a note on secrecy), and one argument for secrecy (a specific interpretation of a note on secrecy). Add in that nearly all tournaments and clubs require it, and any two players that want to ignore it can, and I think 99% of players are onboard.

[BuFFo]

Buffo, "in the same spirit" is not the same as "additionally" or any other moving phrase that would render the "always" as a "should" line.

It means that in the same SPIRIT, you must ALWAYS. That's to say, that the rule to always is simply there due to the spirit of the first sentence, not in the same "should" capacity.

"The first president of the united states decided that you should only have two terms at most. In the spirit of his example, constitutional amendment later ruled that you can NEVER have more than two terms."

That the rule was written in the spirit of a "should" convention does not mean it is not a firm rule in and of itself. I hope that you will pause your evasiveness and criticisms of other peoples' grammatical skills to momentarily assess what you have innocently missed in this case. There's no harm and no foul, you've simply misread the rule and/or misapplied your clearly exceptional grasp of English. Truly.

"In the spirit of his example"

is not the same as

"In the same spirit".

Try again.

I appreciate the snarky remarks some of you make. I really do, makes me blush :)

I don't mind being the minority here. Especially when I am right. It is a cross I bear, but I bear it proudly.

[Madness]

"In the same spirit" is non-normative, it's an interjection, and there's no interpretation of "in the same spirit" that tantamounts to "the following sentence means the opposite than what you think it would".

[Bean]

"In the spirit of his example"

is not the same as

"In the same spirit".

Try again.

I appreciate the snarky remarks some of you make. I really do, makes me blush :)

I don't mind being the minority here. Especially when I am right. It is a cross I bear, but I bear it proudly.


"In the same spirit"

is not the same as

"do the next rule just like you did the last rule."

Try again.

[harrybuttwhisker]

In this case, in the same spirit, is being used to infer that you must do this to be a decent member of the gaming community. Not one who would use a flimsy misinterpretation of a throw away phrase to avoid an obligation of the rules. Isn't that right Buffo ;-)

Having gone to the source its official you must inform your opponent what units are in which transport. This is courtesy of the design studio, enjoy.

[Madness]

Having gone to the source [...] This is courtesy of the design studio, enjoy.Wait, what?

[harrybuttwhisker]

Text messages to friends in high places. Enjoy

[Madness]

Unless you mean you can get reception on the Himalaya I'd like to hear proof, it's not that I don't trust you, it's just that I ... don't trust you. But nothing personal, I wouldn't trust anyone who were to make that claim.

[harrybuttwhisker]

I have a friend in the paint studio who when i pester him enough gets stuff cleared up for me by the design studio guys. The value of having nearly worked for the studio on the painting side. Apparently that one was a simple one, doom of malantai is still a bit of a blush moment.

[Jwolf]

Talking to the actual designers of the game as to their intent means nothing, unfortunately, for how the game must be played.
There are a number of currently FAQed items that have been discussed with the writers of various books, in person, and first hand, as having been meant to be opposite of the current FAQ. The FAQ is still correct on these points.
For unFAQed items, local preference or tournament rules apply. Most tournaments that I have read the rules for require disclosure of the contents of transports.

[Bean]

Frankly, Jwolf, while I agree that input from the designers--second-hand, third-hand, or otherwise--isn't really important, I think it's worth noting that local preference and the rules for specific tournaments always apply, even when they directly contradict a rule or an FAQ.

That is, the TO can always add, remove, or change whatever rules he wants as part of the tournament, and any group can always choose to add, remove, or change any rules they agree to add, remove, or change.

Of course, to look at it a different way, in lieu of an FAQ or a specific agreement among players or ruling by a relevant tournament organizer, the rules as written are the only thing to which you can actually go for answers.

And the rules on this one are perfectly clear, as they are written in the rulebook. It's good that a bunch of tournament rules agree with the rules in the book, but that data isn't really necessary for the conclusion, here.

[MVBrandt]

"In the spirit of his example"

is not the same as

"In the same spirit".

Try again.

I appreciate the snarky remarks some of you make. I really do, makes me blush :)

I don't mind being the minority here. Especially when I am right. It is a cross I bear, but I bear it proudly.

/waves hand

Your presence as a dissident on these boards is as irrelevant as anything else about you. It's an internet forum for a silly tabletop game. Willfully ignoring common sense, logic, clear rules, and other things in order to "bear a cross" and try to be counter-cultural is about as unoriginal and immaterial as possible.

Let me try to reiterate my point, which isn't at all addressed by you simply claiming my example to be "bad" or nontopical (really, that's all you did to try and refute me, and highlights why your position is more driven by a willful desire to be right than it is by actual critical thinking. A true critical thinker would have done more than attempt to eliminate an argument by targeting only the supporting example).

"You should not drink too much, for it causes you to be badly behaved. In the same spirit, you may not drink and drive."

To wit, for our rules example from a note on secrecy, "In the same spirit" links the two sentences as related, and explains how they are related, but does not invalidate terms like "always."

Please note that this is done for your benefit, as your opinion on the matter is so discolored by aforementioned counter-cultural cross-bearing that it's not meaningful or relevant to me.

[Madness]

@JWolf, I kinda disagree with you there, the game is shaped by the game designers will and if they accidentally misworded or forgot something, for me it's very interesting (and relevant) to have the "original" interpretation of the rule(s).

In fact the original interpretation is much more valuable than the strict interpretation, since the latter is subject to human mistake while the earlier is what the game was intended to do.

I'm also of the idea that neither original intepretation or literal interpretation should be in the way of having fun.

[Aldramelech]

Goodbye

[Kramanal]

Hi
I have just trolled through this thread and while it is interesting to read Americans discusing their accuracy of English I am still waiting for an answer to the original question.
Why?
Having come late to 40K from historical wargaming the one rule/tradition I hate is this general god like exposure of units.
In historicall gaming the fog of war etc NEED to be played.
Usually we would write orders and mark maps showing deployment and unit composition.
These would only be represented by actual models AFTER detection, this is critical in most situations just like iin actual conflict.
Even using 40K's fancy equipment, auspexes etc you may know there is a unit in cover but its actual strength should have to be reconitered, possibly by advance to contact.
This would allow the true use of tactics.
Why should my oponent know that that unit hiding in a building is a 5 man squad of cheap scouts and that unit is a 5 man terminator squad?
It might even allow ambushes!!
It is madness that allows oponents to target transports knowing what is in each.
I am not advocating cheating in any way, a piece of paper on the transport showing what is in each should be perfectly acceptable.
Opponents would then have to destroy a transport before they knew what was in it, (Just like reality).

[Aldramelech]

Goodbye

[Kramanal]

Yea, 40K is great fun!
Your right, but being able to ambush and trick is great fun as well!
I would just like initial deployment by marker token (unless line of sight) and hidden units in vehicles.

[Madness]

If you want to play variants of the game you're free to, even better, tell us your scenarios/rules/whatever, 40k was thought and balanced so transports didn't provide that secrecy mechanic on its own, and that is one of the FEW things it takes away from mechanized armies.

Consider that the game should also be fun for those who don't use transports.

[Aldramelech]

Goodbye

[Jwolf]

@JWolf, I kinda disagree with you there, the game is shaped by the game designers will and if they accidentally misworded or forgot something, for me it's very interesting (and relevant) to have the "original" interpretation of the rule(s).

In fact the original interpretation is much more valuable than the strict interpretation, since the latter is subject to human mistake while the earlier is what the game was intended to do.

I'm also of the idea that neither original intepretation or literal interpretation should be in the way of having fun.

You can disagree, but that has no impact on the behavior of GW in clarifying issues. GW has as often as not ignored the designers' intent when issuing FAQs. We agree that the designers' intent is interesting, but it is irrelevant because it has no statistically significant bearing on future FAQs.

[Faultie]

"In the spirit of his example"

is not the same as

"In the same spirit".

Try again.

I appreciate the snarky remarks some of you make. I really do, makes me blush :)

I don't mind being the minority here. Especially when I am right. It is a cross I bear, but I bear it proudly.
This is the best trolling I've seen on the Lounge, probably ever (and I lived through the female space marines thread!) <--Not sarcasm

Well done, sir!

[DarkLink]

You can disagree, but that has no impact on the behavior of GW in clarifying issues. GW has as often as not ignored the designers' intent when issuing FAQs. We agree that the designers' intent is interesting, but it is irrelevant because it has no statistically significant bearing on future FAQs.

Plus, how often is it that we really know what the designer's intent was.

[Madness]

You can disagree, but that has no impact on the behavior of GW in clarifying issues. GW has as often as not ignored the designers' intent when issuing FAQs. We agree that the designers' intent is interesting, but it is irrelevant because it has no statistically significant bearing on future FAQs.
Yeah but that doesn't mean that GW's approach to FAQ publishing is actually smart or anything, for what I have seen GW kinda takes the community consensus and builds from there. But to be honest I don't play by the FAQs as much as I play by what I intend to be acceptable, and the original author opinion is what shifts my opinion most.

[Duke]

As far as FAQs and what not go this is how I would like GW to do it.

1. After a new codex the flunkies that answer the phone take note of the most Frequently asked (and relevant) questions.

2. After about a month of compiling the most asked and pertinent questions those guys pass along the top 20 to the Codex writer/ developer.

3. The developer then plays 20 Questions and answers all of them as official interpretations of the dex Example: "Q: Can Doom of Malanti affect models in transports... A: My intent was to make him powerful, and the NIds have needed an anti vehicle solution for a long time, so yes he can."

4. We as the gaming community would have an answer direct from the source who wrote the book. I personally don't think it would be all that hard to do either.

Thoughts/ Comments (Now were totally off topic.)

Duke

[Aldramelech]

Goodbye

[Fellend]

Seems like a clever way to do it. In the IKEA restaurant they have a questionarie by the cashiers that are filled with the most common questions people ask (where are the forks, is this vegetarian bla bla bla and blank slots so they can fill in new questions.) Every time a question is asked they simply mark it down and then each month the see if there's a question that is being asked an unreasonable amount of times. If so they put up a solution like a sign to point to the forks or big red letters saying vegetarian meals

GW could easily do the same. They could simply mark down which the most frequent questions regarding an new release was and then a month later post a faq answering these questions.
But they are lazy sods.

[Duke]

And they could use the white dwarf to distribute the FAQ... It would almost be a reason to buy the magazine again.

[Madness]

The Q&A feature in white dwarf in NOTHING new.

[Vepr]

My IG friend and I don't bother telling each other what we are fielding. I don't ask what he has in his Chimeras and he does not ask what I have deep striking etc. It works out fine.

[Duke]

And they could use the white dwarf to distribute the FAQ... It would almost be a reason to buy the magazine again.

[Shavnir]

My IG friend and I don't bother telling each other what we are fielding. I don't ask what he has in his Chimeras and he does not ask what I have deep striking etc. It works out fine.

If a house rule works out for you two rock on. I don't think anyone's contesting your ability to make up variants at home; just know that's not how 40k normally works.

[Fellend]

I don't think there's a problem when you are playing with a close group of friends. Hell I don't really care what's in deepstrike or what is in which transport, I assume my friends aren't cheating just as they assume that I'm not (allthough my rhinos are clearly marked so it's a bit useless to hide it)
But when you are playing pick up games or playing with someone you don't know very well it might be important.

[Denzark]

The spirit referred to - the reason you show lists after the game - is so that there can be no allegation of cheating. The way this spirit of preventing allegations of cheating works with regard to transports, is to confirm prior to, what is in them - yes yes please protest you and your bestest bezzer won't need it - but as a common ground for a quick pick up in the store or wherever it is probably quite necessary.

This spirit will not work if you only tell them what was in the transports after the game (you'll know by then) hence the spirit must be applied at 2 different times.

[Razorx1970]

Its simply polite and sporting. I always explain what I have in each unit and let my opponent know who is in what transport. Same with units in reserve. I let them know about any of my deep striking/out flanking units and I ask about theirs.

Yeah I 200% agree with that. If some tool wants to play all secret-like, then they'd be playin by themselves where I play. Either be a good sport and have fun, or go home is way I see it.

I never realized it wasn't a rule that you had to either, it just makes sense, and is just polite and quite frankly the right thing to do, to keep from chaos occuring later on.

[Kahoolin]

Yea, 40K is great fun!
Your right, but being able to ambush and trick is great fun as well!
I would just like initial deployment by marker token (unless line of sight) and hidden units in vehicles.I totally agree with you. The argument that hidden embarkation is overly complicated and wrecks the game or the fun just doesn't hold water. Write it down, fold it up and put the bits of paper where you can both see them. Easy.

And the argument that it actually reduces your ability to be tactical or strategic is completely laughable. It simply changes the way the players respond.

Heh, I wonder if the OP was expecting pages and pages of argument over whether the rules require you to or not? I got the feeling he actually wanted to know what people thought the justification for it was in a metagame sense, not a game sense. :rolleyes:

[DarkLink]

I totally agree with you. The argument that hidden embarkation is overly complicated and wrecks the game or the fun just doesn't hold water. Write it down, fold it up and put the bits of paper where you can both see them. Easy.


That'd be a cool special mission. Someone should put together some rules for that.

[scadugenga]

I totally agree with you. The argument that hidden embarkation is overly complicated and wrecks the game or the fun just doesn't hold water. Write it down, fold it up and put the bits of paper where you can both see them. Easy.

And the argument that it actually reduces your ability to be tactical or strategic is completely laughable. It simply changes the way the players respond.

Heh, I wonder if the OP was expecting pages and pages of argument over whether the rules require you to or not? I got the feeling he actually wanted to know what people thought the justification for it was in a metagame sense, not a game sense. :rolleyes:

As long as hidden embarkation is played in such a way that it is impossible for the player to cheat, then I'd be find with that.

As long as their army list was disclosed at the end of the game. ;)

[Kramanal]

As WH40K players we should all try to make the game more interesting, more fun and more playable.
I think if we all started to ask our competitors to agree to hidden deployment and hidden embarkation before each game we will find that most reasonable people would agree to this .
The additional tactical awareness will lead to us all enjoying the game more.
Simplest way we used to do this when fighting ancient battles was to use numbered tokens.
Before the game we would write a small note confirming the unit composition.Each numbered note would correspond to a numbered token.
Before deployment we would hand our pile of folded notes to our opponent.
When a unit was located then your opponent would find the relevent note unfold it and know what was there.
We would then place the models.
Simple, quick and foolproof.

[Madness]

I'm all for extra layers, but you're giving quite an advantage to mechanized armies, footsloggers get absolutely no love by this "new rule". And mechanized armies are already all over the place.

[Kramanal]

I find it disappointing when some sad people feel they must attempt to insult anyone who disagrees with them.
I have enjoyed wargaming for 40years and nearly every rule set other than 40k requires the use of "Fog of War" rules. Warhammer which you must remember was originally a childrens game is one of the few which does not.
Why do you feel so threatened by hidden deployment?
Do you doubt your tactical and strategic abilities that much?
Sad!

[Kramanal]

I am sorry Madness but I completelly disagree.
It would be very beneficial to "footslogger" armies.
It would allow you to position units, say devestators under cover with good line of sight and your mechanised opponent would not immediatelly know. You could have a cheap scout unit in an obvious ambush position which would entice your opponent to avoid it thinking you would probably put your devestators there while you put your devs where you think your opponent will head instead.
Imagine the shock of a Rhino force running into a 4 LC dev unit!
It would allow ambushes, stratagems, creating killzones etc.
Great fun!

[Kramanal]

Sorry people,
I was aiming my post about being sad to Razorx1970, who appears to be the only person lowering the tone of the sublect.

[Fellend]

Yes and all of this is great fun if you're opponent is aware and has agreed upon it. But if you go in to a store and play a pick up game and suddenly point out that you don't have to show what's in your transport you are going to have a very confused and possibly upset opponent.

[Kramanal]

Sorry, I have never played in a store.

[Sister Rosette Soulknyt]

Its laughable how people need to be so secretive, seriously, i think that all transports need to be attached and noted which squad there with simple.
You cant just change your mind, wow did that rhino havea teleporterin it??
NO
So people, were all intelligent players who like to play, win and have fun right??
Well if you answered to all three then we should write down whats in each transport (no chance of cheating then) and/or just disclose whats in each vehicle. Whats seriously the big deal anyway, there going to find out very quickly, just make sure you win the first round if your so worried.
Hell (if i can say that here with all this political correctness) i play a Apoc Witch hunters army with 7 Immoloators, 3 Repressors, 1 Rhino and 2 Landraiders so far, and yes i have absolutley no problem telling my opponent if they ask, or most time i just be curtiuos and just tell them what each transport hold.
WHY??
Its called Fair Play thats why.

But if you want to play by the lettering of the rules (guidelines) then play like that, but i have and will do so again ask whats in each transport facing me if he/she doesnt tell me so before the game.

[Kramanal]

Sister Rosette
Sorry, I think you have missed our points, it is not about being secretive, changing contents etc.
What I certainly would like would be to be able to play a game where it is not blindingly obvious where and what all the forces are.
I would welcome the fact that my opponent can surprise me either by ambush or by hiting me with a surprise unit from a transport.
Surely it must "feel" wrong to you to deploy your units where there might not even be line of sight.
It defeats all ideas of tactical misdirection, the art of winning battles since Sun Tzu.
Again, we don't want to cheat , just be tactical.

[LoverzCry]

I totally agree with you. The argument that hidden embarkation is overly complicated and wrecks the game or the fun just doesn't hold water. Write it down, fold it up and put the bits of paper where you can both see them. Easy.

And the argument that it actually reduces your ability to be tactical or strategic is completely laughable. It simply changes the way the players respond.

Heh, I wonder if the OP was expecting pages and pages of argument over whether the rules require you to or not? I got the feeling he actually wanted to know what people thought the justification for it was in a metagame sense, not a game sense. :rolleyes:

Haha, for sure I did not think this would be such a heated debate. I was indeed asking about the metaphysics on the game, and not the specific rules, but no, there was no true structure to my question. It was completely open to interpretation. I have to admit though; there have been a lot of great responses.

I find it funny how so many people responding have the mindset of a five year old though, saying "I'm right and I'm the only one who can possibly be right." I have to agree with the half that have said that it's not really a solidified, but is up for individual interpretation. It all depends on how you read "should" and "in the same spirit." In truth? I honestly don't think there is a right or wrong answer to this. It's all on personal opinion and agreement (outside of tournaments).

On one hand, you can say that tactically and realistically (no I'm not saying 40k is realistic) even with all the technology and fluff behind it all, the only logical model that would have some great foresight into the logistics of the field would be Eldrad. Aside from that, a note on Kramanal's comments, the commanders indeed might know that a squad of some sort is beyond a few buildings, but they wouldn't know "Oh hey, there's a squad of Space Marines there in that building with a flamethrower and its Sergeant has a power weapon, we should mind our distance guys." That's just stupid. As said above though, I have no problems with this rule, considering I don't really use transports. I actually like the challenge of facing an enemy and not knowing entirely what I'm up against. The risk of that gamble with certain units makes the game (for me at least) more exciting, realistic, and overall more enjoyable.

Though at the same time, you have the other side where some think the game needs to be "balanced" due to the fact that they don't think that they could compete without knowing what they need to pick out so their own forces aren't mowed down. I can understand this form of thinking, but I don't think this "enhances" your tactica, it in fact makes you a weaker player. In seeing, and having the knowledge of what's important in YOUR mind, you might overlook something that might be more valuable to your opponent.

If you play without knowing what's inside your opponents’ transports, you're more likely to lock on to your opponents’ eyes, their mannerisms, and their reactions to different units, allowing you to scope in and think more tactically in a different field than you might normally.

*shrugs* Like I said though, it's all personal opinion. Now you know my two cents. : P

[Polonius]

Fog of war is a great component to war games. That can't be denied.

What can be denied is that 40k is a wargame. It's not. It's a skirmish level miniatures game. Fog of War is great in chit-based hex grid games, but when great looking minis are part of the raison d'etre of the game, fog of war feels a little tacked on. Few taple top minis games that I'm aware of have any real fog of war elements.

Even if you like the idea of adding such thing to 40k, secret mechanization isn't exactly where to start. As others have pointed out, why should a squad in a rhino be secret when one in a bunker isn't? Or even one in reserve?

In discussions like this, the specter of "if you were a good tactician, you'd adapt" gets raised. No doubt, the good players would stay good under the new rules. That's not in doubt. But, like any other rule, it changes the game, and changes balance. In terms of simple mechanization secrecy, it helps mech armies and hurts non-mech. For greater fog of war, including secret deployment, it adds a huge random element to the game. Yes, the game uses dice which are random, but there are hundreds of dice rolls a game. Realizing you deployed your devastators where they won't be able to shoot all game is a huge weakness. Purer wargamers tend to enjoy scenarios where one side is greatly handicapped, but a lot of 40k players are looking for an even, balance game.

[Madness]

Not to mention that you kinda get that with reserves.

[Aldramelech]

Goodbye

[LoverzCry]

Fog of war is a great component to war games. That can't be denied.

What can be denied is that 40k is a wargame. It's not. It's a skirmish level miniatures game. Fog of War is great in chit-based hex grid games, but when great looking minis are part of the raison d'etre of the game, fog of war feels a little tacked on. Few taple top minis games that I'm aware of have any real fog of war elements.

Even if you like the idea of adding such thing to 40k, secret mechanization isn't exactly where to start. As others have pointed out, why should a squad in a rhino be secret when one in a bunker isn't? Or even one in reserve?

In discussions like this, the specter of "if you were a good tactician, you'd adapt" gets raised. No doubt, the good players would stay good under the new rules. That's not in doubt. But, like any other rule, it changes the game, and changes balance. In terms of simple mechanization secrecy, it helps mech armies and hurts non-mech. For greater fog of war, including secret deployment, it adds a huge random element to the game. Yes, the game uses dice which are random, but there are hundreds of dice rolls a game. Realizing you deployed your devastators where they won't be able to shoot all game is a huge weakness. Purer wargamers tend to enjoy scenarios where one side is greatly handicapped, but a lot of 40k players are looking for an even, balance game.

I'm not disputing whether or not 40k is a wargame, I'm simply stating that in my own games, I prefer to allow my opponents to have their forces in a bit of secrecy to add more flare and difficulty to my games. And "secret mechanization" is not the final line. I also like to have my opponents (if they agree to it), use markers for units in hiding as well as other sorts of "secrecy", as you will, in the layout of our games to add that sort of realism.

Although I love WWII, and have based many scrawled writings on its tactics and ideals, I'm not as much a fan of them as I am 40k. This is why I try and add a bit more of this sort of gameplay into my encouters. I'm not saying a certain way of playing is right or wrong, or whether the base playing style of the game should be changed (which seems like you're getting that sort of idea >.>), or how balanced the game is, I was merely pointing out something that I do in my games in relation to my question asked.

Hope that cleared up the misunderstanding you seemed to have with my post. : /

[S0ULDU5T]

*edit* nevermind

[Kramanal]

Loverzcry
I am the one who has been suggesting secret deployment, where you got the idea I like the "godview" I can't understand.
Of course it is stupid that we all know that that unit in cover is "this" strong and has "that" special weapon.
This is why I like token deployment.

[S0ULDU5T]

Loverzcry
I am the one who has been suggesting secret deployment, where you got the idea I like the "godview" I can't understand.
Of course it is stupid that we all know that that unit in cover is "this" strong and has "that" special weapon.
This is why I like token deployment.

I don't think that the reason why 40k is why it is bears justification; it just is. There are only so many thing you would be able to change about 40k before it's no longer 40k and is in some sort a hisotrical simulation game in which case it would be much easier to just go and play a historical simulation game than it would be to discuss different rule implementation with a group that enjoys the rules as they are; this is probably why, while not having anything against historical simulations, players have chosen to play this game over others.

[Aldramelech]

Goodbye

[Renegade]

So if I have read the rule right, and have understood what has been said. All I have to tell you is that unit 3, H or Purple is in transport X,Y or Z. I dont need to tell you what that unit is comprised of as you can read that when I show you my list after the game.

I can't se anyone in my area complaining about that if it was made clear before they started mentioning what they have and where.

[LoverzCry]

Loverzcry
I am the one who has been suggesting secret deployment, where you got the idea I like the "godview" I can't understand.
Of course it is stupid that we all know that that unit in cover is "this" strong and has "that" special weapon.
This is why I like token deployment.

I'm sorry if this sounds rude but, you can read properly, right? I was posting in agreement with you. I never said anything about a "godview" Please, read more carefully >,> I was saying that I USE token deployment... I wasn't going against it. Please reread, you'll notice you read my post incorrectly.

[joescalise]

where does it say in the rule book, you do not have to show what is in the transport?

[joescalise]

where does it say you do not have to show what is in your transports.

[ShadowDeth]

where does it say you do not have to show what is in your transports.

It doesn't. The rules explicitly state you show what's in your transports. The permissive rules, as usual then state that "If you two don't want to - whatever! Have fun!" But the default is disclosure.