[mayegelt]

Kinda cut and paste from the khorne daemonkin topic, but thought actually it probably needs an answer, or may have one somewhere else.

I am still unclear on this one and it has been argued in my gaming circle lots of times before. But can you choose to write down on your army list (or scrap of paper kept in sight of both players where it cant be tampered with) what unit is in what vehicle (AKA the guys with the red bases are in the rhino with the black X on the top, the guys with the orange bases are in the one with the black star of chaos, and the unit of chosen are in the blue star of chaos. Of course with open topped ones you could tell what is inside, but if it is sealed up, can your opponent force out of you what the contents is.

The argument against not declaring your stuff is inside of X is normally that you could change it. Though if you have an official list then that is hard to do unless your opponent is endlessly distracted and has to leave the room continually.
Or the other major one is that my army has high tech scanners or spies that surely would have been able to work out who is inside of what before this point in the battle. Especially if the things inside look nothing alike (Aka Kroot vs Tau).

We seem to have worked out that IF you choose to fire out of a firepoint it is normally clear what is inside shooting out, though even then that has caused issues such as "Well you know 4 boltguns shot out, and 1 of them I rolled with BS5, so that is as much as you know about what is inside" (then of course on the great reveal then it must be the lord and some guys with boltguns or whatever and that needed to be written on the list priory to this event, so you didn't just happen to have them there cos that was the best spot for them to be).

This has also spread to Fortifications and stuff as well and having to work out if people can see inside, and this is normally based on how open the building actually is. Though of course you could have your guys all pressed up against the walls or ducked down under the windows until it is time to reveal themselves.

This could also lead to ghosts though. Where a player could have bought several fortifications or transports but less than 100% of them have anyone inside them. So your opponent may really want to kill that Landraider thinking there is a big squad of death inside it, but actually the big squad of death is in actually in reserve for deepstrike. I know you are allowed to keep your reserves secret, as it actually says that in the book that you can "... conceal your true strength from the foe." But of course you need to have some form of written down option to bring them in I presume, or at least the option to in some way that is legal (though I have heard people planned a unit of daemons to outflank and they ended up deepstriking.)

Whats your opinion, or if there is a rule written down somewhere from on high, where is it located (hopefully not done by page number, just section and "between X and Y rules" or something)

 

[Moriouce]

I think it is a great idea to write it down. Yes it is a Rhino but whats inside you'll know when you pop it. Yes it fires plasmarounds so you could guess some.

 

[neferhet]

imo, one of the worst think we can do when playing warhammer or tabletop wargaming is not declaring our list, or stating exactly what is where.
This can lead to lots of bad situations in a friendly enviroment, let alone in a gaming store.
If you want to have secret stuff to write down, secret placement, secret equipments, etc. you need a Game Master, a Referee or a Judge. In a campaign, maybe, we could arrange some rules for "secret" deployment and such, but mostly because a campaign has some sort of referee...

 

[Iraqiel]

I remember reading this in a rulebook once, though that could have been any time since 4th edition.

The general rule where I play is that lists are described or displayed before the battle and it's at that time you identify what is in each vehicle or bunker.

Tactically it should break down more easily, the melta and cc units will be the ones closing with you and the lord will be looking to take out your best asset.

Now that I think of it, I play with a model balanced on the hatch to ensure that I don't give the impression that I've swapped squads.

 

[neferhet]

I play with a model balanced on the hatch to ensure that I don't give the impression that I've swapped squads.

yeah, this happens to me too

 

[Deathypoo]

I always play that nothing at all can be hidden.

Page 117 says you have to share your roster with your opponent, so to me that covers everything, although I guess I could see the argument that that only covers dedicated transports.

You also have to declare what you have in reserve, and technically your opponent can't see those.

 

[mayegelt]

Can you tell me one of the headers on page 117, or what Chapter it is in, as said don't have real page numbers and my epub reader seems to throw 2-3 pages together randomly.
Equally though with the dedicated transports thing, that would only tell you that each of those units purchased a dedicated transport, not which one is which if you have multiple of the same type with same armaments.
Squad 1 has a Rhino
Squad 2 has a Rhino
Squad 3 has a Rhino
You have 1 black, 1 red and 1 green one.
You show your list to your opponent pregame (if that is what you are meant to do). Then post that you can then write down on deployment who is in what. As you don't have to deploy in a dedicated transport just because you bought it. Equally as said above not all transports are dedicated ones (such as land raiders).

 

[scscofield]

I play with 100% transparency, and if someone insisted on keeping shit 'secret' I would pack my stuff up and say 'Good day, Cunt'.

 

[Nordicus]

I play with 100% transparency, and if someone insisted on keeping shit 'secret' I would pack my stuff up and say 'Good day, Cunt'.

Gotta agree with this one - I base my games on being a good sport. Hiding things from your opponent is not good sportsmanship in my opinion.

There are enough weird rules in this game to make awkward situations. There's no need to create new ones yourself.

 

[mayegelt]

But what I am suggesting is that I have not found a rule that says either way. So it isn't creating a rule. It was an enquiry as to if there was a rule. This could be especially important if you go to games workshop events in their HQ or tournaments that do not have a clear rule.

The main one we tend to do is have battle tokens that are numbered or have symbols that look different in some way such as colour or pattern on the vehicles if they look the same. So each of the units that are embarked on the Vehicles will have a marker on the army list that corresponds to the number or symbol on the token.
The majority of the time we play with all the tokens face down so you cant see what symbol is what, and on firing or disembarking you flip it over and show the person on your army list that that token = whatever squad. This also means you can have multiple tokens with different symbols what if they don't have a marker next to any of your units on your army list will clearly indicate that nothing was contained inside.
So you could have a + - X V T L O or something as your symbols if you had 7 transport/fortification that are not able to be seen through. But your army list might only have a marker for + - X V. The other markers then indicating that they are empty.

 

[Vaz]

We’ve included rules for the most common method used to deploy here. This is often referred to as the ‘Standard Deployment Method’ and is the method used in the majority of Warhammer 40,000 missions. You should feel free to devise other methods for your own game if you prefer. For example, some players like to place a screen across the centre of the table so that their armies can deploy in secret; others draw a map showing where they plan to deploy their units, and so on.

Write down the details of the models that make up your army, which units belong to which Detachments, which Detachment is your Primary Detachment, and which model is the army’s Warlord. This written record is known as your army’s force roster, and you must keep it to hand while you play the game. To keep things fair, you must always allow your opponent to read your force roster before a game if they wish to do so.

Combined Reserve Units
During deployment, when deciding which units are kept as Reserves, you must specify if any of the Independent Characters in Reserve are joining a unit, in which case they must arrive together. Similarly, you must specify if any units in Reserve are embarked upon any Transport vehicles in Reserve, in which case they will arrive together. In either case, when making a Reserve Roll (see below) for a combined unit, roll a single dice for the unit and/or its Independent Character/Transport vehicle.

In the above cases, it's pretty explicitly clear that you should be honest with your opponent what units go where.

 

[mayegelt]

Interesting... So it says you need to share your list... that is fine.
You need to say if a char is joining a unit... again fine.
You need to say what is in reserve... fine.
You need to say if that reserve unit is in what Vehicle... fine.

However it does not say that you have to declare what unit is in what transport or fortification on deployment. THOUGH of course with dedicated transports it means that a person would know what transport they and any character joining them would be in.
So my Non-Dedicated transport thing or Fortifications thing is still not forcing you to reveal.

Quote taken just after the Night Fighting rule in preparing for battle section.

Reserves
Reserves are forces that can be called upon to reinforce a battle at short notice, or to conceal your true strength from the foe.

What does indicate that you can conceal from your foe, though the above quotes you said contradicts that completely by saying that you must hand over your army list and if they are in a vehicle in reserve.

Looks like rules lawyering could be done. But TBH I don't see a huge advantage in hiding what is where in most cases. Though as I put on the Khorne thread it would make it nice if you can buy Rhinos as fast attack (as the person on another forum seems to have leaked the information to say it does) then your opponent might shoot a rhino thinking it was full of bloodletters, when it was full of marines or nothing at all...

 

[neferhet]

So my Non-Dedicated transport thing or Fortifications thing is still not forcing you to reveal.

please don't. Rules don't specifically tell that you can't smash enemy models with a chair, but i'll never do that. A thing like what you are proposing, imo, not being covered specifically in the ruls, should ALWAYS be pre-arranged with the opponent. it could be a fine house-rule and i would abide to it, in your house, but at a gaming store? you are just trying to be "that guy" :scare:

 

[mayegelt]

I say a lot of stuff on here that I wouldn't use myself as a version of the rules as interpreted by "That Guy". Though the usage of such things tends not to be the case.

As said the games I play are normally between friends or a gaming club, and we tend to be relatively flexible when it comes to some things. So the hidden in a fort or transport thing as said has come up before, and has been allowed under the common sense of "How would your guys know who is in what?" type of question, and as long as clearly marked so you cant cheat your opponent they are fine. With the normal argument again as said before being that they have spies or devices like infrared or heat sensors could tell that something has people inside or is empty.
Though if it looks like an argument will start over it we tend to just declare units as it is easier than someone then accusing you of having cheated after the game when it turned out they focus fired your empty land raider on turn 1 only to discover the guys were hiding in a building all along with an escape hatch.

The "That Guy" I tend to play against is a Deathwing player who takes 2 Inquisitors from Inquisition codex with a 3 Servo Skulls (costing a whopping 68pts out of his army to include both (not each)) and hides them in a building or at the very very corner of the map just so he can deepstrike his whole deathwing army on turn 1 only 1d6 scatter or maybe no scatter at all if they land within 12" of 2 separate skulls (as the rule says if you land within 12" of a skull you roll 1D6 less for scatter, rather than just saying they roll 1D6 scatter, so as written the effect is cumulative).

 

[Vaz]

It actually makes Deathwing somewhat useable, and is the wonderful bit about the way detachments work. Arguably, Deathwing needed something like that mechanic (i.e, only 1d6 scatter anyway) without the need for the Inquisitors.

In regards to getting them to land on target, he only rolls 1d6 less no matter how many Servo Skulls he is within range of. The rule says

"A friendly unit arriving by Deep Strike rolls one D6 less for scatter if it aims to arrive within 12" of a Servo-skull. Likewise, friendly blast templates placed within 12" of a Servo-skull roll one D6 less for scatter."

If you land within 12" of a Servo Skull, you roll 1d6 less.

Think of it this way.

You have the two Skulls 18" away. Around Skull A, you have a 12" Circle, and around Skull B, you have a 12" circle. If you in neither A or B's area of effect, you are not within 12" of a Skull, so there is no effect.

If you land within A, but not B, or B but not A, you are within range of a skull, so roll 1d6 less. If you land within A and B overlap, you are still within range of a skull.

There's no mention of what happens when you're within range of multiple, so you revert to the permissive ruleset baseline which is that you do exactly as the base rule says;

Basic Versus Advanced

Basic rules apply to all the models in the game, unless stated otherwise. They include the rules for movement, shooting and close combat as well as the rules for morale. These are all the rules you’ll need for infantry models.

Advanced rules apply to specific types of models, whether because they have a special kind of weapon (such as a boltgun), unusual skills (such as the ability to regenerate), because they are different to their fellows (such as a unit leader or a heroic character), or because they are not normal infantry models (a bike, a swarm or even a tank). The advanced rules that apply to a unit are indicated in its Army List Entry. Army List Entries can be found in a number of Games Workshop publications, such as a Warhammer 40,000 codex.

Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules. For example, the basic rules state that a model must take a Morale check under certain situations. If, however, that model has a special rule that makes it immune to Morale checks, then it does not take such checks – the advanced rule takes precedence. On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this rulebook, and one printed in a codex. Where this occurs, the rule printed in the codex or Army List Entry always takes precedence.

So, in this point, as you can see, there's inclusion of multiple, just "a" which implies landing within a 12" area of a skull. You are within a 12" area of a skull, it just so happens that there are 2 there. But you are still within a 12" area of a skull, which is all that it checks for.

If you think of the rule as an on/off switch, or a logic gate in an electrical circuit.

The rule requires 12" within a servo skull; if yes, -1d6 scatter.

There is no rule for are you within 12" of two servo skulls; if yes, -2d6 scatter.

And if that's how he wants to play, pick up your own deep strike counters or similar; Drop Pods or similar. Not sure if there are other 1st turn deep strikes available to Chaos (I assume you're chaos?)

 

[mayegelt]

And if that's how he wants to play, pick up your own deep strike counters or similar; Drop Pods or similar. Not sure if there are other 1st turn deep strikes available to Chaos (I assume you're chaos?)

I am many things

But yeah I have argued the same point with this guy, his argument always being he is landing within 12" of a servo skull so he rolls 1D6 less, then he is also landing in 12" of the second servo skull so is permitted to roll the additional 1D6 less. Otherwise it would say
"A friendly unit arriving by Deep Strike rolls 1D6 for scatter if it aims to arrive within 12" of a Servo-skull."
rather than
"A friendly unit arriving by Deep Strike rolls one D6 less for scatter if it aims to arrive within 12" of a Servo-skull."
What I guess is probably correct... kinda, as nothing as far as I know scatters more than 2D6 for deepstrike, or scatters only 1D6 by any other means.

TBH the person even using this doesn't win to many games and he will only throw a tantrum if he doesn't.
It is also one of the many many questions sent to GW for FAQ and never got published... much like the Daemons who get 3 spells... (God Primus, Malefic Primus and Malefic rolled for). What has been answered in both ways of yes they do and no they don't at 2 separate GW events I have been to by devs.

 

[Vaz]

Tell him to tell you were the quote is for landing within 12" of two servo skulls, or -1d6 for each.

That is how the verbiage for this works.

This is my job. I'm a contracts manager. I make companies pay for their mistakes in not following the contract laid out to them. Our estimators quote for a job, and send that quote out with our qualifiers. When the companies have the work done, and they don't agree to the terms in an attempt to squeal out from not having to pay citing XYZ reasons, it's my job to go through the estimators quote, and find out what exactly they've been told quoted for.

The difference between "a" and "each", or rather "a" and "per". Legalese differentiates between the two, "per" denoting the accuracy.

Games Workshop Dev's don't know the rules of the game they're being written on. That's why you come to people like me who can actually understand what they're writing. And honestly, why GW should ask people like me to check that the wording of these rules is easy enough.

But in this instance, the wording of "within 12" of a" is in reference to within "12" of one or more" the more technical way of saying it, as opposed to "-1d6 for each". Tell the lad to stop being such a whiny little bitch too, and that by attempting to "game" the system in such a way is tantamount to cheating.

 

[mayegelt]

I keep thinking that I need to schedule games against people like Matt Ward and other rules writers, just for the purpose of using the common law legal thing of "in the event of an ambiguity you rule against the party that drafted the document as they ability to draft the document and to remove ambiguity." So starting to use all sorts of crazy rules against them while having a banner that lights up behind me saying to fix the FAQs

 

[Vaz]

Good luck vs Mat Ward, he's a goner.

Being fair to him, his rules were pretty decent. It's very niche scenarios and interactions that the writers didn't bother to properly play test. Bug fixing, rather than outright code failures, as it were, which is what we've had in the past. (With the exception of the recent Infiltrate rule which is royally stupid).

The worst people are those who just can't balance those rules properly. Phil Kelly. Cough.

 

[mayegelt]

I think some of the trouble is that TBH they kinda need to remove the paper copies of the books. Because if it was all digital then it would be possible to make updates to any book several weeks or months after release what would then download it self to patch in to the copies people have.
I think they don't like making FAQs even when glaringly obvious issues appear in competitive play they seem to think that people don't want to have to reference FAQs continually to make sure no one changed how there stuff works.
Equally with some units they discover no one uses because of cost or ability and they attempt to fix that by making a formation that either forces you to take them for some benefit or makes them good. See Tomb Blades being mandatory for Decurion for example of forcing people to take something that hardly anyone used before. Or the Helbrute Dataslates making people take them because they became ok, rather than just a slow poor mans Maulerfiend.