# Revealing Transports



## sleepcascade (Feb 4, 2011)

Short and concise as possible: Do you have to reveal which squad is in each transport to the opponent, or is it a mystery until they either disembarked or forced out? I remember playing somebody in an older edition and they said that you only have to tell the opponent if its open-topped. My friends and I always reveal (plus all my transports are pretty telling, I like to decorate them up and it makes it quite obvious which squad belongs to which rhino/raider etc.) and this is they way I prefer to play. However, Im just wondering how you guys play. Thanks


----------



## Cheexsta (Mar 18, 2011)

Rulebook, p92, "A Note on Secrecy".


----------



## DeathKlokk (Jun 9, 2008)

Check out the BRB pg 92 under _A Note on Secrecy_. Basically you have to inform people of the contents of each transport.


----------



## Uber Ork (Aug 23, 2010)

Yep, as stated above, and yes I tell people.


----------



## Coldshrike (Sep 9, 2011)

I sometimes don't for friendlies, but a friend has to check the armies before we start.


----------



## sleepcascade (Feb 4, 2011)

Ok I have the small version of the rulebook Ill have to look for that. Thanks guys!


----------



## James Tiberius (Sep 1, 2011)

if someone asks I tell, if they don't there loss, don't ask don't get in my book


----------



## DeathKlokk (Jun 9, 2008)

Why am I not surprised by that.


----------



## sleepcascade (Feb 4, 2011)

James Tiberius said:


> if someone asks I tell, if they don't there loss, don't ask don't get in my book


Yea I would never really go out of my way to tell anyone, although like I said my transports are elaborately decorated and thus are telegraphed. 

Totally unrelated question but maybe I can save from making a thread by asking, How do you handle force organization charts that are over 2000 pts? Particularly 2500 im using tomorrow. Thanks.


----------



## Capt.Al'rahhem (Jan 24, 2009)

If the ask I tell them, most of my opponents are good friends so we trust each other. If I'm playing a pick up game in a store I usually place a model on top it to let them know what's inside. General the commander if its a command squad or a special or heavy weapon that the reg. squad is carrying.

As of FOCs at 2500 pts most people still us just 1, if you and your opponent agree you can use 2 but most people don't got to that option until 3000 pts. At that point you might as well play Apocalypse which generally throws FOCs out the window.


----------



## James Tiberius (Sep 1, 2011)

DeathKlokk said:


> Why am I not surprised by that.


why should you be?, in reality when a group of 6 APC's roll towards your position you can't just equip X-ray glasses to see whats inside, you deal with what comes when it comes.

heck if it was up to me I would never reveal what was inside even when asked just for that reason, I don't have to in any other system I play, why should I in this?

and its got nothing to do with being semantic pedantic or just an ass, you can't see through steel, its as simple as that


----------



## sleepcascade (Feb 4, 2011)

Capt.Al'rahhem said:


> If the ask I tell them, most of my opponents are good friends so we trust each other. If I'm playing a pick up game in a store I usually place a model on top it to let them know what's inside. General the commander if its a command squad or a special or heavy weapon that the reg. squad is carrying.
> 
> As of FOCs at 2500 pts most people still us just 1, if you and your opponent agree you can use 2 but most people don't got to that option until 3000 pts. At that point you might as well play Apocalypse which generally throws FOCs out the window.


How does it work in ard boyz? I thought I remember them adding one slot on to each choice, ie 3 hq 4 heavy etc. But that was 4th edition.


----------



## jaysen (Jul 7, 2011)

James Tiberius said:


> why should you be?, in reality when a group of 6 APC's roll towards your position you can't just equip X-ray glasses to see whats inside, you deal with what comes when it comes.
> 
> heck if it was up to me I would never reveal what was inside even when asked just for that reason, I don't have to in any other system I play, why should I in this?
> 
> and its got nothing to do with being semantic pedantic or just an ass, you can't see through steel, its as simple as that


 
I agree. Feints and subterfuge are as much a part of war as weapons and armor choice. Now, to keep fair, though, you must designate which squad is in what transport in some way (markings or counter). Otherwise, people will choose what squad is in a transport during the game or change it up to avoid a damaged vehicle, etc...

A good way to do this is to have the embarked squads set out on a separate table with a numbered marker next to the squad. Then, put an identical marker inside the vehicle. Then, when the vehicle is destroyed or disembarks troops, reveal the marker inside.


----------



## Caratacos (Aug 26, 2008)

James Tiberius said:


> why should you be?, in reality when a group of 6 APC's roll towards your position you can't just equip X-ray glasses to see whats inside, you deal with what comes when it comes.
> 
> heck if it was up to me I would never reveal what was inside even when asked just for that reason, I don't have to in any other system I play, why should I in this?
> 
> and its got nothing to do with being semantic pedantic or just an ass, you can't see through steel, its as simple as that


Maybe because this is a game and not the reality?

It's all about sportsmanship.


----------



## James Tiberius (Sep 1, 2011)

Caratacos said:


> Maybe because this is a game and not the reality?
> 
> It's all about sportsmanship.


its a game recreating warfare in a future setting, in which the enemy would have no idea what is inside a vehicle, why must I declare the name, hobbies and distinguishing features of every man aboard a rhino or chimera in this game to avoid whiny little unwashed teenage pondscum complaining about sportsmanship, when I don't have to reveal fuck all in any other gaming system and people have got a pair of balls big enough to cope with that lack of knowledge and deal with it on the table?

why must I throw away all tactical superiority just because little Johnny spitwad wants to know what my chimera crew ate for breakfast, where they went on holiday and how much of a good time they had?
hell why don't I just hand all my plans over to my opponent, make things easier for him


----------



## Pssyche (Mar 21, 2009)

More often than not, I'll just put a model from the embarked unit alongside the transport.
But sometimes I use a similar method to that Jaysen described above.
I give a folded up copy of each vehicles manifest to my opponent, so he has the information, but can't act on it. When the corresponding transport reveals its contents, then he can open the relevent manifest to make sure that what is disembarking is what was actually in the transport to begin with. That way, I am complying with the rule saying I have to make clear to my opponent what squad is embarked in what transport, but without handing him a sizeable initiative.

Why should I tell my opponent the order in which to destroy my vehicles?
How can I deliver a feint attack when I'm telling you in advance that it's a bluff?

"Here mate, this Wave Serpent has nothing in it and this one here only has five Dire Avengers in it.
These two here are the ones you want to watch out for.
One has a squad of Howling Banshees and the other is my Seer Council. 
SO SHOOT THEM FIRST! THEY'RE THE DANGEROUS ONES! YOU DON'T WANT THEM REACHING YOUR LINES!"

Funnily enough, when I use a model placed at the side of the transports my win/loss ratio is around 50/50. 
But when I use the "secret manifest" method and force my opponent to split his fire, suddenly my win/loss ratio becomes around 95/5.


----------



## Haskanael (Jul 5, 2011)

depends realy. on how experienced my opponent is. i offten use a similiar method Pssyche uses. but i have it easier my transport only have veteran squads in them. so its more like "my transport all house a veteran squad. one of them has harker in it" then when loading out ill tell them what the loadout of each squad is. might not seem like sportsmanship but against lot of people when you tell them the loadout of each squad and in wich transport they are in you just lose every oppertunity to use them as intended or to use them at all.


----------



## DeathKlokk (Jun 9, 2008)

James Tiberius said:


> I don't have to in any other system I play, why should I in this?


Because the rules tell you to?

Because it keeps everyone honest as to what is where? 

Because people DO cheat at this game and I do not enjoy shell games?

It's all about Sportsmanship. Which is why I wasn't surprised you did it wrong.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

James Tiberius said:


> why must I throw away all tactical superiority just because little Johnny spitwad wants to know what my chimera crew ate for breakfast, where they went on holiday and how much of a good time they had?


Because not telling is fucking retarded, basically. 40k isn't a guessing game. If other systems allow people to hide transport's occupants then fine, but this one focuses on actual tactics instead of trying to guess things. Losing a game because you guessed incorrectly which Rhino held the squad with 4x meltaguns is about the dumbest thing I've ever heard.


----------



## Viscount Vash (Jan 3, 2007)

The X-Ray specs nature of this rule used to bug the hell out of me and my old gaming group.
So we wrote down who was in what on slips of paper to keep the element of surprise but avoid any cheating.
It was actually more fun.

Revealing in advance is something that I have had to get used to now though and is just part of the game.


----------



## Digg40k (Sep 7, 2008)

Technically 'A Note On Secrecy' is sufficiently ambiguous to allow both outcomes to happen depending on what the players agree on. With the exception of tournaments which tend to go for full disclosure of both force lists and troop to transport allocations.

Personally I would favour having a bit of secrecy about what is where as well as what my force list consists of, it's more realistic in a wargaming sense and it works two ways. That said if I meet an opponent who really, really wants to see my list and my troop to transport allocations I can't really say no if they point to p92 in the BRB and at the end of the day I don't care it's just for fun.


----------



## Serpion5 (Mar 19, 2010)

Nearly every army has psykers. 

Those that don`t have advanced sensory systems. 

Most armies have both. 

Fluff issues solved. Have a fun game. :so_happy:


----------



## Annabelle (Nov 24, 2008)

This is a gentleman's game. I present a list or fully explain my army before each match.


----------



## Pssyche (Mar 21, 2009)

For 99% of my games, I have two pre-printed army lists from Army Builder that even has thumbnail pictures of the exact models that I will be fielding.
One is for my quick in-game reference and the other is for my opponent. So he knows what weapons and psychic powers and vehicle upgrades everything has.
I don't believe I can be any more sporting than that, in terms of army list disclosure.

As for the rule that you must make clear to your opponent what is in what vehicle, that is there to stop players saying, irrespective of which transport just went bang "Sorry, mate. My Über-unit weren't in that one you just took a full turn destroying, they're in the other one you ignored."

By writing down what unit is in which transport and giving that to my opponent to open when the passengers are revealed I believe is also sporting. 
I cannot change my mind as to what is in what vehicle once I've handed that information over.

So I meet all the criteria laid down in the "A note on secrecy" paragraph on page 92 of the Rulebook, but without handing my opponent a considerable tactical edge by telling him where everything is.
I know where it all is and in due course, so shall they.

Take for example this week I played a pick up game at short notice in which I used a model at the side of the transport. So I had a printed list but no time to "secretly" deploy.
My force consisted of, among other things the following in transports...
Farseer & 5 Warlocks
Howling Banshees & Exarch
Fire Dragons (no Exarch)
Dire Avengers & Exarch
Dire Avengers & Exarch

No prizes for guessing the order they were taken out.
So my opponent went from having a 20% chance of shooting my Seer Council down first to a 100% chance. 
Then my Banshees, 25% chance to 100% chance.
Ad nauseam...

Now, if you're expecting me to accept that significant change in odds every game, when I'm meeting all of the rule's criteria you're sadly mistaken.


----------



## James Tiberius (Sep 1, 2011)

DeathKlokk said:


> It's all about Sportsmanship. Which is why I wasn't surprised you did it wrong.


considering you've never played me your opinion on my sportsmanship is worth less than dog shit


Katie Drake said:


> Because not telling is fucking retarded, basically. 40k isn't a guessing game. If other systems allow people to hide transport's occupants then fine, but this one focuses on actual tactics instead of trying to guess things. Losing a game because you guessed incorrectly which Rhino held the squad with 4x meltaguns is about the dumbest thing I've ever heard.


Actual tactics IS guessing things, do you really think during war commanders sent notes back and forth telling the enemy the exact composition of each force they had sent out, who was sitting in each individual APC and where they were going and what they were doing?

of course F-ing not, actual tactics is things like sending an empty transport up the flank of the board towards a tank making your enemy concentrate on forward defence while you strike from behind with other units, your opponent can either ask it has something in it, learn its empty (which he would never know) and ignore it making your tactical assault a failure, or he can react to the logical assumption it has an anti-tank unit inside and units must be moved forward to counter it

that is bloody tactics, reveal all 40k is about as tactical as putting on a pair of trousers, your opponent needs no tactics, he just has to point unit a at unit b and roll dice


Serpion5 said:


> Nearly every army has psykers.
> 
> Those that don`t have advanced sensory systems.
> 
> ...


so if I model psychic wards and sensor scramblers on my vehicles I can ignore that?
fluff issues not solved as counter fluff issues fuck them up
in fact there would be more fluff as to why you can't see in an APC as to how you can

a method of little notes on the vehicle and off board mounted squad that cannot be seen by your opponent seems fair to me, so if they ask whats in the rhino you can just say one of these 6 aquads


----------



## lemage (Jul 21, 2011)

James Tiberius said:


> Actual tactics IS guessing things, do you really think during war commanders sent notes back and forth telling the enemy the exact composition of each force they had sent out, who was sitting in each individual APC and where they were going and what they were doing?


true. 
"the are of war is guessing whats over the next hill"

though im 40k you should always show your army list.


----------



## James Tiberius (Sep 1, 2011)

lemage said:


> true.
> "the are of war is guessing whats over the next hill"
> 
> though im 40k you should always show your army list.


oh I'll show my list, but it might just say
10 marines
sgt with lala
2x doo dads
mounted in rhino with whatsit

I ain't gonna be specific


----------



## lemage (Jul 21, 2011)

James Tiberius said:


> oh I'll show my list, but it might just say
> 10 marines
> sgt with lala
> 2x doo dads
> ...


? that was a general statement just to say that as long as you show your list and the other person agrees to it , they cant complain.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

James Tiberius said:


> Actual tactics IS guessing things, do you really think during war commanders sent notes back and forth telling the enemy the exact composition of each force they had sent out, who was sitting in each individual APC and where they were going and what they were doing?


Obviously not, but this isn't actual war. It's a game, an exceedingly rough approximation of war in the fictional universe of the 41st millennium. It's not at all intended to emulate actual conflict.



> of course F-ing not, actual tactics is things like sending an empty transport up the flank of the board towards a tank making your enemy concentrate on forward defence while you strike from behind with other units, your opponent can either ask it has something in it, learn its empty (which he would never know) and ignore it making your tactical assault a failure, or he can react to the logical assumption it has an anti-tank unit inside and units must be moved forward to counter it


Sure, but that's not the sort of game that 40k is. 40K focuses on target priority, movement and positioning. Other than those things, 40K is extremely simple. Adding a guessing aspect to the game just doesn't fit, at least in my opinion.



> oh I'll show my list, but it might just say
> 10 marines
> sgt with lala
> 2x doo dads
> ...


So you'd show someone your list but wouldn't answer their questions about which transport contains what? If I'm understanding you correctly (and I don't mean this in an offensive manner) then I wouldn't want to play you. Honestly Stella, I'm surprised. I always had you figured for the sort of player that would play by the spirit of the rules.

Welcome back to Heresy by the way.


----------



## Pssyche (Mar 21, 2009)

I'll go back to what I posted earlier.
I almost always have a printed list for my opponent.
In the event that I don't, they have to make do with a clear, legible, handwritten one instead.
In twenty odd years of gaming in Games Workshop Manchester I have never once been offered a list by an opponent. 
Does that make me think them all unsporting?
Indeed it does not. 
I don't expect it. But I always offer it.

Is it unsporting to let your opponent have a separate manifest for each transport, but they can only consult one on revelation of the contents of that transport?
No, it is not.

Unsporting is someone taking my list and proceeding to write a new one before my very eyes, tailored to beating mine.
Daz with the glasses and ponytail, I'm glaring at you.

Unsporting is asking to play a game at X Points and then fielding X+25% against me.
D.J., it's you I'm glaring at now.


----------



## sleepcascade (Feb 4, 2011)

Katie Drake said:


> Because not telling is fucking retarded, basically. 40k isn't a guessing game. If other systems allow people to hide transport's occupants then fine, but this one focuses on actual tactics instead of trying to guess things. *Losing a game because you guessed incorrectly which Rhino held the squad with 4x meltaguns is about the dumbest thing I've ever heard*.


That about says it all, agreed entirely.


----------



## DeathKlokk (Jun 9, 2008)

James Tiberius said:


> oh I'll show my list, but it might just say
> 10 marines
> sgt with lala
> 2x doo dads
> ...





BRB pg 92 said:


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


I don't have to have played you to know that cheating doesn't make for good sportsmanship.


----------



## Coldshrike (Sep 9, 2011)

I don't think there's anything unsporting about wanting to keep transport capacity a secret. As long as you're following one of those methods to prevent retrospective allocation, it adds a fun element of realism to the game.


----------



## Pssyche (Mar 21, 2009)

Losing a game because you guessed incorrectly which Rhino held the squad with 4x meltaguns is about the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
That about says it all, agreed entirely.

Almost as dumb as shouting "Here's my best unit, shoot it quick!"


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Pssyche said:


> Losing a game because you guessed incorrectly which Rhino held the squad with 4x meltaguns is about the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
> That about says it all, agreed entirely.
> 
> Almost as dumb as shouting "Here's my best unit, shoot it quick!"


If you're good at the game you won't present any really obvious "best" targets by taking multiple redundant units. I mean, if one is into Death Stars then yeah, that'd be a problem.


----------



## Durandal (Sep 18, 2011)

James Tiberius said:


> avoid whiny little unwashed teenage pondscum complaining about sportsmanship,


Calm down there, Mr. Cool. Im sorry that you have to tolerate the presence of gamers to, you know, game, but I am sure they are all grateful for your presence in the store. 



> when I don't have to reveal fuck all in any other gaming system and people have got a pair of balls big enough to cope with that lack of knowledge and deal with it on the table?


Uh, because 40k is supposed to be less omg tactical page 5 big balls, and more laid back. Why do I have to roll like 30 dice in 40k, when monopoly only needs 2?????



> why must I throw away all tactical superiority just because little Johnny spitwad wants to know what my chimera crew ate for breakfast, where they went on holiday and how much of a good time they had?
> hell why don't I just hand all my plans over to my opponent, make things easier for him


Because sportsmanship is much more important than winning games.

I hand offer my opponent a copy of my army list, and walk them through what everything has/can do. I played 2 guys yesterday who had never fought grey knights before, and spent 10 minutes explaining what wargear, psychic powers, and what not all my guys have. Maybe it would be far if I didnt tell them what hammerhand was, or fortitude, or that paladins had 2 wounds? realistically an enemy commander wouldnt mail the other general a dossier detailing his troops, their weaponry, and capabilities. But it makes games easier on me and my opponent. I can also focus more on out-maneuvering them than going "lol surprise draigo raped your avatar"


----------



## Coldshrike (Sep 9, 2011)

That's kinda different though. It is entirly unsporting to try to hide what your units are or what they can do. In fluf terms, you would expect them to be an experience commander who understood the all capabilities of the other team, and IRL it's just poor form to take advantage of somebody not having to the time, money, or just having not played the game for long enough, to understand the detail of each and every codex. In the name of fair play, full disclosure in that regard is important. Ultimatly, it's just making sure they understand all the rules.


I think transports is another thing entirly though. To me, that just adds a fun little bit of narrative to the game. Sure, WH40k might not be able to exactly replicate warfare, but I don't see that as a reason to throw out every little rule that might help it. I'd be willing to re-consider if I was playing compedative matches, but because it is just a bit of laid back fun to me, I think it's kinda cool to be able to have my rhinos trundling up to the front line and my friend not knowing exactly what's gonna come out. It just seems more realistic to me.


And just a last note, I DO beleive that sportmanship is important. However, I DON'T think this is unsporting. Please recognise the difference.


----------



## Legiomortis (Jun 11, 2011)

Pssyche said:


> I'll go back to what I posted earlier.
> I almost always have a printed list for my opponent.
> In the event that I don't, they have to make do with a clear, legible, handwritten one instead.
> In twenty odd years of gaming in Games Workshop Manchester I have never once been offered a list by an opponent.
> ...


See this guy is an example of at once playing fair but tactical at the same time - mainly because ive played him 3/4 times (love the bit about Daz btw lol)

I agree on the part about the revelation of said transports, myself I always let the opponent know whats in my rhino's - the reason im not fussed why is because its three identical squads of plague marines, unless the squads start in buildings on an objective game (which again the opponent will know from deployment)

I see a lot of arguments about this being akin to a commander being passed notes on the battlefield and such, well if you are going to take that stance then surely you believe its also fair to ignore turns/dice rolls/deployment/initiative roll offs and so on and so on since they are also *non realistic* terms of tactical warfare. Lets remember guys - this is a game with little plastic/resin/metal soldiers, its not the end of the world.


----------



## Durandal (Sep 18, 2011)

Coldshrike said:


> And just a last note, I DO beleive that sportmanship is important. However, I DON'T think this is unsporting. Please recognise the difference.


I think its sporting if say, both players agree to play that way. If that is how you and your friends prefer to play, more power to you. I think though that, players are under an obligation to reveal the contents of transports in games, and only when both agree not to does this obligation go away. And in tournaments obviously, both players should always reveal the content to prevent any possibility of cheating.



> I see a lot of arguments about this being akin to a commander being passed notes on the battlefield and such, well if you are going to take that stance then surely you believe its also fair to ignore turns/dice rolls/deployment/initiative roll offs and so on and so on since they are also *non realistic* terms of tactical warfare. Lets remember guys - this is a game with little plastic/resin/metal soldiers, its not the end of the world.


I agree, realistic warfare only applies to some degree in a game where demons, genetically engineered warrior monks, elves with ninja star guns, and psychic bugs are common.


----------



## Coldshrike (Sep 9, 2011)

Yeah. As somebody's sig says, the rules are just what the people in the current game agree to. Most people just agree to ones Game Workshop writes.

If somebody wanted to keep their troops secret but not give the other player a chance, or let the other player reveal theirs to tell them about the secret manifestos after, well that's just a dick move. But to say a hidden transports rule is unsportsman like seems a little over the top to me.


----------



## Durandal (Sep 18, 2011)

No, obviously nothing in and of itself is unsportsmanlike, because sportsmanship only exists in a social context. I do feel though that, the way Stella Cadente, uh, I mean, James T Derp here has approached the issue is clearly very unsporting.


----------



## Samules (Oct 13, 2010)

Also using the hidden manifesto really gives players with transports an edge against those who don't. For example what are 'nids gunna do? Or tau? (since they only have 2 units that can fit in transports) Or crons? (although they do have DS) And what about Orks or Dark Edar? You can see right into their transports. These are good reasons not to use the system, or if you do use it, to make SM (in all colors of the rainbow), IG, Eldar and CSM transports a decent bit more expensive.

But as the sig says, if both players agree, then it is so.

(P.S. Nice to see Im getting some unofficial rep around here :biggrin


----------



## Durandal (Sep 18, 2011)

Thats a good point too, foot armies should be able to have some kind of equal "lololol hidden surprise" ability, otherwise the game is not balanced.


----------



## Caratacos (Aug 26, 2008)

Once upon a time, in a gala... no wait, it was in the 40K universe... it was allowed to use hidden setup. Though that time is past, or maybe in the future, but anyways, it kind of sped up the game when they removed that part. Also took away an element of possible cheating.

And I afree with Samules, that the balance is getting tipped if some armies can hide their troops while others can't.


----------



## James Tiberius (Sep 1, 2011)

Durandal said:


> James T Derp here has approached the issue is clearly very unsporting.


well if it is I won't give a shit, its only unsporting to the little sprog children who play, and these days if everyone is acting like a prick to win, I may as well join the club and make sure my opponent has a shitty game and only I enjoy myself, everyone else does.


----------



## Durandal (Sep 18, 2011)

I think, as evidenced here, more than "sprog children" find it unsporting. If your local community are assholes, and seeing your attitude I doubt they are, the solution is to be a nicer person, rather than a bigger jerk. If fun for you is going "lol surprise" when your stuff jumps out of rhinos, evaluate your life and change it.


----------



## Coldshrike (Sep 9, 2011)

That is a good point about the foot sloggers. It does tip the scales a bit in the imperial's favour. It's probably fair to say that if you want the game to be more about tactics, full disclosure is the way to go. It doesn't disadvantage either side in reality to do that since it puts both teams on the same footing. And priority targeting shouldn't really be a problem, since they'd be doing that regardless. If you want to proove your tactical superiority, find a way to make sure it's your important transports that survive.

On the other hand, hidden transports gives the game a a bit more of a realistic feel, so if you're a more RPGcentric person, it can be a good rule to add to the fun of the game, but in the name of fairness it's probably good to say units can also hide in buildings or something to make it a bit more fair. If you're going to argue for realism in one section, you have to accept the parts the work against you as well.


----------



## jaysen (Jul 7, 2011)

There are three main aspects to winning WH40k.

1. The List
2. The Dice
3. The player and his tactics

Without tactics, the game resorts to who has the best list and who is the luckiest with dice. That's not my idea of a fun game unless I'm strictly playing amateurs.


----------



## Coldshrike (Sep 9, 2011)

Um, can I assume that puts you in favour of revealing?


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

Revealing is not optional anyway, so who cares what Stell....James thinks. He doesn't even have to reveal his lists, I can simply walk around the table and look at his dudes and see what they have. I mean his army will be 100% WYSIWYG I would assume. 

I agree with Katie on this, it's not a guessing game. It's not as if Space Marines are big on secrecy anyway, seeing's how they paint the unit designation on the vehicles. And I know it's faulty logic to compare today's technology with that of the 41st millennium but we have binoculars and I'm pretty sure they have them in the future as well. 

If you want a game with secrecy play WHFB which does allow for a measure of secret equipment (But then also has items for reveal those secrets)


----------



## Dave T Hobbit (Dec 3, 2009)

There is nothing unsporting in two players agreeing on a per game basis whether or not transport contents will be revealed. However, an issue can arise if there is a group with several heavy mech players who all agree with each other that transport contents are hidden applying pressure to a Tyranid player (who gains no reciprocal benefit) by saying everyone else agrees with the house rule.

Also transports are costed in the basis that the contents are known, so if you wanted to be really sporting you could offer to pay more for hidden transports.

*EDIT* Looks like my Nids point was ninja'd.


----------



## Serpion5 (Mar 19, 2010)

Keeping transport secret is not within the rules for that exact reason. 

Neither nids nor necrons have any transport ability and would be at a disadvantage against mech lists unless their rules somehow provided a counter. 

Nids have no such rule, and necrons are not strong enough atm for it to make a difference. :cray:


----------



## Samules (Oct 13, 2010)

Yes and tau and orks and DE. But it all comes down to rule number 1. Have Fun. If you and your opponent will have more fun with hidden lists or can agree to a compromise (more points ect.) then go right ahead. Otherwise shove off.

And also James, your constant profanity will not convince anyone of anything. Either present a clear, logical arguement or leave us alone.


----------



## Ravner298 (Jun 3, 2011)

Hiding the contents of your transports would absolutely give you an advantage. That's why the rule exists. Go to a GW tournie and see how far you'll get with any other logic or beardy interpretation of the rule. The End.


----------



## Rathios1337 (Jul 2, 2010)

Aramoro said:


> Revealing is not optional anyway, so who cares what Stell....James thinks. He doesn't even have to reveal his lists, I can simply walk around the table and look at his dudes and see what they have. I mean his army will be 100% WYSIWYG I would assume.
> 
> I agree with Katie on this, it's not a guessing game. It's not as if Space Marines are big on secrecy anyway, seeing's how they paint the unit designation on the vehicles. And I know it's faulty logic to compare today's technology with that of the 41st millennium but we have binoculars and I'm pretty sure they have them in the future as well.
> 
> If you want a game with secrecy play WHFB which does allow for a measure of secret equipment (But then also has items for reveal those secrets)


ICWATUDIDTHAR

But seriously for example Im playing my crons against a Mech DE list 1 transport has Wyches 1 transport has 5 trueborn, 1 transport has warriors and 1 transport is empty and I had no idea which was which it would be an autolose for me, and wins dont come easy with the crons


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

James Tiberius said:


> well if it is I won't give a shit, its only unsporting to the little sprog children who play, and these days if everyone is acting like a prick to win, I may as well join the club and make sure my opponent has a shitty game and only I enjoy myself, everyone else does.


Either you need to find a new place to play, or you're a dick. Probably both.

Midnight


----------

