Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Congratulations on the win, Dashofpepper.

And for anyone who likes a nice friendly 5 game IGT, Alamo and the Bailey brothers run my favorite events. 40K in May, WFB in November. I recommend both of them, even if you don't really play the game system.

The location is a old-fashion social club, with ancient guys manning the taps and beer waitresses in short skirts. It's just plain a great venue for a small event.

I also found this image lurking the webs:

My name is Chris Carlile. I've played in more than a handful of GT's now. Placed very high in most of them and I have been playing 40k since late 2nd edition. I know the rules very well. In so much as I will be judging at Wargamescon this year.

Kingsley has also posted in this thread. A fellow austinite who had the misfortune of playing against Dash. He can lend credence to his cheaty behavior and shoddy play. As to the rules argument that changed the game, that was only dash, the two judges and I. They did not want to make a very tough call on table 1 so made us dice off on it.

@monster rain & Warone

Well played sirs. Well played.

Caldera02 wrote:My name is Chris Carlile. I've played in more than a handful of GT's now. Placed very high in most of them and I have been playing 40k since late 2nd edition. I know the rules very well. In so much as I will be judging at Wargamescon this year.

Kingsley has also posted in this thread. A fellow austinite who had the misfortune of playing against Dash. He can lend credence to his cheaty behavior and shoddy play. As to the rules argument that changed the game, that was only dash, the two judges and I. They did not want to make a very tough call on table 1 so made us dice off on it.

At this juncture with the event over and the result already decided, the only thing else I could think of in this situation is see if you can gain the perspective of the judges, hear DoP's response, and then move on. Contribute if you like to the forum (we like people who do that- especially in regards to positive feedback within the community to new ideas and strategies) and come to a resolution to the events that have happened.

@ Hulksmash- Just trying to keep the peace and keep things civil. We know Dash, but not the ones who are new to these forums.

Hey Justin it was really nice meeting you this weekend.

Hope to see you again at A-Kon!

As far as the tournament goes I had a ton of fun. I painted hard over a couple week period to get my army done so it was fun showing it off. So many great people at the tournament. I met alot of the BOLS guys from Austin like John and Chris who were great guys to play against. Overall it was a really fun tourney.

Dash grats on winning it, as far as the disagreements went I never played you so I dont really have an opinion on it. Giving your prize a way is a nice gesture imo.

And Dash, If you have something posted that explains how ur army works id love to read it , it obviously did really well so im interested in how it works. Mabe the batreps will explain.

Craftworld Avior Going 3-1-1! my army

@Angry Dash Haters:

1. The tournament you attended, is a competition in which, the TO makes all final calls.

2. The TO or one of his appointed judges must have approved Dash's venom models, or at the very least he let it go... if it was an unapproved conversion, then he would have been sent packing or asked to modify his list.

3. The TO or one of his appointed judges had you resolve the conflict with a roll off, which Dash won.

4. There is no model, currently, for a venom, so sling all the mud you like, but until June 4th, it isn't advantageous modeling.

5. The whole.. weapon thing? Really? Did it confuse you that they were splinter cannons? Did that change how you deployed, because you couldn't stop staring at their non-splinteryness? Doubtfull.

Rage @ TO's rulings on the coversions. Rage @ GW for not releasing all the models for a codex /w the codex. Rage @ the rulebook for the vehicle shuffle movement advantage thing...

But you quite literally can't rage @ Dash... because he is 100% within the letter of the laws of the competition that you freely chose to participate in. Bombing him on sportsmanship was a petty way to go about it, and a cheap attempt at keeping him from winning (since it sounds like y'all know each other).

In the end, DE are an effective codex, and Dash is an effective general, running a competitive tournament style list. You lost, within the rules of the tournament... You have no argument against DoP.

Smitty0305 wrote:Hey Justin it was really nice meeting you this weekend.

Hope to see you again at A-Kon!

As far as the tournament goes I had a ton of fun. I painted hard over a couple week period to get my army done so it was fun showing it off. So many great people at the tournament. I met alot of the BOLS guys from Austin like John and Chris who were great guys to play against. Overall it was a really fun tourney.

Dash grats on winning it, as far as the disagreements went I never played you so I dont really have an opinion on it. Giving your prize a way is a nice gesture imo.

And Dash, If you have something posted that explains how ur army works id love to read it , it obviously did really well so im interested in how it works. Mabe the batreps will explain.

Craftworld Avior Going 3-1-1! my army

After some discussion with you on the army list forums, I'd be really interested on how you think your army performed. Also, so close up pics as the army looks ace from the posted pic.

Well, I didn't get a chance to play Justin (THANKS ALOT KEVIN and your super Necron cover save magic! ), but there
is something to be said for 4 out of 5 bad game votes...

Cottonjaw wrote:2. The TO or one of his appointed judges must have approved Dash's venom models, or at the very least he let it go... if it was an unapproved conversion, then he would have been sent packing or asked to modify his list.

...

4. There is no model, currently, for a venom, so sling all the mud you like, but until June 4th, it isn't advantageous modeling.

"Modelling for an advantage" isn't technically against the rules, and also extremely subjective... however, most people do try to convert venoms out of smaller vehicles such as vypers, to avoid this possibility.

Dash, in this pic of yours, showing the old raiders counts-as venoms and the new ones as raiders, what part of the old raiders are cut down? It looks to be just some fins, but none of the length:



I'm not saying it's cool for people to come on here and flame you (ugh... net drama) but I honestly think you need to chop those down more if you want to use them as venoms. They're probably twice the length of the models that are coming out...

Will be a moot point in less than a month, anyway... assuming you're not using these as venoms after June 4th (although I'm sure it takes time to get the new ones painted up, once the model is actually released I think it's pretty black and white that these will be too long to use for counts-as).

WarOne wrote:I also found this image lurking the webs

That's an awesome pic, but probably comes from the Warhammer Fantasy GT Alamo. Same people, but a longer-running tournament.

Alamo GT has one of the most awesome venues I have ever been to. There is literally a bar with $2 draft beers inside the gaming hall!

I congratulated Dash after the tournament and explained to him that the reason I did not enjoy the game against him was simple. He made it uninteresting and completely unenjoyable for the person across the table from him.

He also went on to lecture me about what it takes to make a competitive build for a tournament and since "you can never lose a game and have fun" he was in no way to blame for my negative gaming experience.

However when I left the game I was no angry or upset, after all we are playing nerd games. In fact I would not even consider how Dash played to be cheating (in my game at least), however he was very WAAC. Locally when someone tries to rules lawyer you and twist the rules for an obvious unintended benefit TOs will strike them down.

The Alamo is very laid back and the TOs will just have you dice off for most rules disputes (which was also my experience last year). I hope Dash comes to Wargames Con, not that I expect that he will get beaten, just that I know if he tries to pull the same game he used at the Alamo the TOs will not allow it...

Again, good luck to Dash and hope to see him at future tournaments!

~daKing

Well, I'm planning on addressing this in my battle report. It helps that I have pictures. Quite a few pictures, including the intended charge, the denial...etc.

Chris, I got three votes for bad games. I've talked about them elsewhere (DCM forums).

Game #3: My opponent was running what I consider to be an uncompetitive army. To face me, he had to have had maximum battle points. I gave him every benefit during the game. Everywhere he wanted cover, he got it - even if he wasn't 50% covered. I let him have it. His 6.5" moves, I let him do it. We joked, I did my best to keep him cheerful, and at the end he said, "You were fine to play against, and I appreciate you being as friendly as you were, but your army simply isn't fun to play against. I sat here for 20 minutes during each of your first two turns and just rolled saves." I tried especially hard to joke and keep him cheerful because he was sullen throughout most of the game - and the more he lost, the angrier and sullen he got. Super kudos to him for having made it through two rounds with max points with a vanilla marine list consisting of two razorbacks, a landspeeder, two devastator squads, two units of foot-slogging terminators, and a crapton of walking tactical marines. I talked to him again after the tournament and he said, "It is your job to make the game fun for me." Short of bringing a different list - something that he could have gleefully trounced on...there's nothing to be done about it. So I got a bad game vote because he didn't have fun. Interesting that you're noting here that "he can lend credence to his cheaty behavior and shoddy play" - he told me that the game was fine, and I was fine, but the army wasn't fun to play against. Either you're calling him a liar...or he is a liar? I'll be honest, given that you two are friends, and that he prepped you for our game (as you gleefully pointed out), helping you with target priorities and knowing what I was going to do, I was half expecting you to tank my sportsmanship regardless of how the game went.

Game #4: Our game. Do you know WHY I always announce my intention for shooting during movement? How many times did I say "I think I have a clear shot from here to there...what do you think?" Its to avoid any issues that might arise when it comes around to shooting. You should practice the same. Enemy models are treated as impassable terrain. You MAY NOT move through an enemy model, or through the footprint of an enemy model to get to something on the other side. If you doubt me, visit the YMDC forums, and create a thread about it. There is no rule interpretation that in any way would EVER allow you to assault through a venom to the unit on the other side. If you had announced your intention during movement, I would have pointed out the illegality of what you were about to do, and saved you feeling exposed and unable to charge the target you were trying to get to. Then, after declaring the assault, discovering that what you were trying to do was illegal, you moved your models back...declared that you were going back to the shooting phase, and told me that you hadn't run them the full distance allowable - so you were going to move up a couple more inches so that you could go around the venom to assault them. I objected. The judges agreed with me, and ruled against you - we didn't have to dice off on it. And despite them ruling against you...you have the balls to accuse me of cheating. Then you went and told all your friends that I cheated you out of the game. And worst of all....as you're spectating at the top table in my last game, you have the bad form to shout, "STOP CHEATING!!!!" Your conduct was extremely unbecoming for a public venue.

In terms of your accusation about my inconsistency with dice rolls and the dice tray I was using: When the table is crowded with model and there's a lot of stuff going on, I'll break out the dice tray to make keeping the dice together easier. I always offer its use (and my dice) to every opponent before the game. If I'm rolling in the box, and die misses, goes off the table, on the floor, or anything else, I will reroll it into the box regardless of result. There is ONE exception to this policy. If I haven't announced to my opponent that I will reroll anything that doesn't land in the box, and I roll a bunch of armour saves and one rolls out of the box and fails - and *then* I announce that I will reroll anything that lands outside of the tray, it looks shady. *ESPECIALLY* when the die-roll is for Baron Sathonyx on a 2++ Shadowfield save and I roll a out of the tray. Then I said, "Alright...I'll keep it, but for future reference, anything that I roll in the tray that bounces out I will reroll back in the tray. My fifth round opponent commented on it twice that he was glad I was doing that, because I rolled a for Baron Sathonyx out of the box before I made that announcement and kept it...and I had a penetrating roll of bounce out of the box that turned into a inside the box. There was *never* a case in which I benefited. I didn't *always* roll in the tray. Rolling 1-3 dice, I usually do it on the table. But rolling attacks for wyches, beasts, splinter cannons.....those go in the tray so that dice don't scatter all over.

Game #5: They had announced game start, and I was starting to freak out because David still hadn't returned from lunch. I was randomly asking people if they knew who David Light was so that we could get our game underway. When he finally did show up, the player who was on the table before us was still packing his stuff up. Slowly. One model at a time back into his battlefoam so that he could go over to his table and take them back out again. I was starting to stress. David had quite a bit to drink over lunch apparently, and was still going at it...and had to take several breaks to use the restroom. So we got off to a late start because he got back late from lunch, a later start because our table wasn't cleared yet, and several delays so that he could go relieve himself. During the game, I tried several gentle "Alright, whatcha got?" to try speeding him along as he stood there studying the table. And the big one....we had a 30-40 minute pause in our game at the top of turn 2 because of a rules dispute. Wyches have surrounded and assaulted a storm raven and wrecked it. They didn't get a run far enough to COMPLETELY surround it, and left a 3" or so gap on one side of the base. Thus begins the rule dispute on disembarking. It went like this:

David: Alright, I'm going to get out 6 guys, and the other 4 and the dreadnought are destroyed.
Dash: I'm pretty sure that if the entire unit can't get out, then the unit is destroyed?
David and Dash consult rulebook.
David: No, it specifically says models that can't get out are destroyed.
Justin: But on the column next to it, it talks about the unit disembarkation.
David: But the model rule is more specific.
Justin: Hrm...alright. But you should still be able to emergency disembark, yeah? All 10 guys get out without 2" of the hull?
David: No, because that would put me within 1" of you.
Justin: <I'm actually arguing for his benefit here, I know> My models are 1", your models are 1", which means that 2" out from the hull puts you precisely 1" away from me.
David: No, I'd still be within 1".
Justin: Dude, its just addition. Its a mathematical certainty that you can get out.
David: Then my dreadnought can get out over here! <Puts dread on the other side of wyches>
Justin: Uh...no, you can't move through my models to disembark your own.
David: Yes I can, it says ANYWHERE within 2" of the hull, it doesn't say I can't move through you.
Justin: So they magically teleport to the other side? You can't get there without going through me and moving within 1" of my models.
David: It doesn't say that I can't.

Meanwhile, the judges are looking at the rulebook...and we're 40 minutes into repeating the same things over and over...and they haven't ruled one way or the other. Finally, I'm freaking out even more about the time and our game not finishing and say, "Alright...look - lets just do it your way so we can get on with the game." Judges say, "So you're good here?" I say, "Yeah, we're fine."

This is the ONE tournament that I didn't bring the GW FAQ with me. And in big bold text in the main rulebook FAQ, it says that disembarking models must follow the rules for normal model movement, and can't move through enemy models to disembark.

The end result was him getting a dreadnought out that he shouldn't have been able to, and 30-40 minutes of our game wasted. Yes...it was partly my fault. I tend to argue for the rules REGARDLESS of who they benefit - bringing things up that benefit my opponent as often as me. In this particular case, the concession hurt me severely; the Dreadnought that should not have been able to deploy ate a raider, a troop choice, an HQ, and absorbed a bunch of blaster shots that could have been pointed at his surviving storm raven.

It was also partly his fault. He should have KNOWN that you can't move through enemy units. My bad for not having the FAQ with me, but all it did was clarify the obvious so that people couldn't try doing it. I wanted to clear the air and have a good rest of the game, so I apologized for being a douche and nitpicking about the rules. That took an incredible amount of humbleness to do, knowing that I was right. I told Mike Brandt (Nova Open TO) about it this morning and he instantly quotes me the FAQ clarification about it.

He gave me a bad game vote because we didn't get through six turns, we only got five. Well, if he wasn't late from lunch, taking pee breaks and contributing to a rules dispute that should have gone in my favor...we would have gotten six turns. I won the game 1 objective to 0. As it is, he had 4 scoring tactical marines left on the table, a stormraven to contest an objective, a razorback to contest one, and a dreadnought running around. I had two full units of trueborn, several scoring units, and half my vehicles left. And I would have gone first. A lot of the spectators commented at the end that nothing would have changed had we gone to six turns....he thinks he could have gotten a draw....I say that he had 6 models I had to kill to win by a larger margin. We could hardly hear each other because all the spectators were shouting into our game. Darkwynn was standing at the corner of the table...I ask David a question about movement, and Darkwynn says, "Dash, he's fine." Cool bro - but I asked my opponent, not you. Spectators are fine, but spectators participating in the game, especially hostile ones (looks pointedly at Chris) are extremely unwelcome.

Did I earn my bad game votes? I don't think so. I don't hold grudges; despite you loudly accusing me of cheating because the judges ruled against you..to keep YOU from cheating, accusing me of modeling for advantage by having venoms that were too long (something I got OKed by the TO before arriving), and being a HUGELY poor sport about the game after that ruling....I probably should have given you a bad game vote too. But I didn't.

I've got 8 venoms on pre-order. When they arrive at game stores on June 4th, I'll make my way throughout the coming weekends to get them (2.5 hours away), and start prepping them. They won't be ready for the Railhead Rumble, but possibly for Wargamescon, and definitely for the Nova Open.

I conducted myself professionally, was courteous, gave leeway where none was deserved....at the end of the day, as widely as I travel, I am forced to run into people like you from time to time. Sort through enough apples and you'll find a rotten one. I've spoken to other TOs and gamers whose opinions I respect, and am comfortable with my decisions and how I acted. I'd encourage you to revisit your motives for participating in big events, the professionalism you exhibit when there, and the level of maliciousness you're willing to exhibit to pursue a personal vendetta. What you're doing is not only disgraceful to yourself - its also disrespectful to the TO hosting and making rulings for you to keep nattering that I cheated you, when they ruled against you because YOU were trying to cheat.

Anyway, there's my two cents. My battle report on our game will be up this week, replete with pictures. The facts support what I've just written, I have the pictures to prove it. I think you'll find that the crowd of people supporting the idea of you assaulting through a vehicle to get to the unit on the other side pretty slim. Its even more ridiculous that your complaining about my venoms being too big only came up when you couldn't get through my venom. My venoms are modeled for a DISADVANTAGE. They're too big to hide, take up more deployment room than I need, don't contain assault units that would benefit from pivot movement...it happened to be a convenient argument for you to tack onto the pettiness you were already pursuing when you started your tantrum.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

daKing wrote:

He also went on to lecture me about what it takes to make a competitive build for a tournament and since "you can never lose a game and have fun" he was in no way to blame for my negative gaming experience.

I wasn't trying to lecture you....I apologize if that's what you got out of it. I was trying to explain to you that my army build is the minimum necessary to stand up against the current powerlists going around the GT circuit. Mech IG, Mech BA, razorfang spam being the biggest three, with Psyfleman spam now entering the fourth.

Yea Dash I watched ur Games 4 and 5. Your explanation of what happened is correct based on what I saw.

Dashofpepper wrote:Well, I'm planning on addressing this in my battle report. It helps that I have pictures. Quite a few pictures, including the intended charge, the denial...etc.

Chris, I got three votes for bad games. I've talked about them elsewhere (DCM forums).



Game #5: They had announced game start, and I was starting to freak out because David still hadn't returned from lunch. I was randomly asking people if they knew who David Light was so that we could get our game underway. When he finally did show up, the player who was on the table before us was still packing his stuff up. Slowly. One model at a time back into his battlefoam so that he could go over to his table and take them back out again. I was starting to stress. David had quite a bit to drink over lunch apparently, and was still going at it...and had to take several breaks to use the restroom. So we got off to a late start because he got back late from lunch, a later start because our table wasn't cleared yet, and several delays so that he could go relieve himself. During the game, I tried several gentle "Alright, whatcha got?" to try speeding him along as he stood there studying the table. And the big one....we had a 30-40 minute pause in our game at the top of turn 2 because of a rules dispute. Wyches have surrounded and assaulted a storm raven and wrecked it. They didn't get a run far enough to COMPLETELY surround it, and left a 3" or so gap on one side of the base. Thus begins the rule dispute on disembarking. It went like this:

David: Alright, I'm going to get out 6 guys, and the other 4 and the dreadnought are destroyed.
Dash: I'm pretty sure that if the entire unit can't get out, then the unit is destroyed?
David and Dash consult rulebook.
David: No, it specifically says models that can't get out are destroyed.
Justin: But on the column next to it, it talks about the unit disembarkation.
David: But the model rule is more specific.
Justin: Hrm...alright. But you should still be able to emergency disembark, yeah? All 10 guys get out without 2" of the hull?
David: No, because that would put me within 1" of you.
Justin: <I'm actually arguing for his benefit here, I know> My models are 1", your models are 1", which means that 2" out from the hull puts you precisely 1" away from me.
David: No, I'd still be within 1".
Justin: Dude, its just addition. Its a mathematical certainty that you can get out.
David: Then my dreadnought can get out over here! <Puts dread on the other side of wyches>
Justin: Uh...no, you can't move through my models to disembark your own.
David: Yes I can, it says ANYWHERE within 2" of the hull, it doesn't say I can't move through you.
Justin: So they magically teleport to the other side? You can't get there without going through me and moving within 1" of my models.
David: It doesn't say that I can't.

Meanwhile, the judges are looking at the rulebook...and we're 40 minutes into repeating the same things over and over...and they haven't ruled one way or the other. Finally, I'm freaking out even more about the time and our game not finishing and say, "Alright...look - lets just do it your way so we can get on with the game." Judges say, "So you're good here?" I say, "Yeah, we're fine."

This is the ONE tournament that I didn't bring the GW FAQ with me. And in big bold text in the main rulebook FAQ, it says that disembarking models must follow the rules for normal model movement, and can't move through enemy models to disembark.

The end result was him getting a dreadnought out that he shouldn't have been able to, and 30-40 minutes of our game wasted. Yes...it was partly my fault. I tend to argue for the rules REGARDLESS of who they benefit - bringing things up that benefit my opponent as often as me. In this particular case, the concession hurt me severely; the Dreadnought that should not have been able to deploy ate a raider, a troop choice, an HQ, and absorbed a bunch of blaster shots that could have been pointed at his surviving storm raven.

It was also partly his fault. He should have KNOWN that you can't move through enemy units. My bad for not having the FAQ with me, but all it did was clarify the obvious so that people couldn't try doing it. I wanted to clear the air and have a good rest of the game, so I apologized for being a douche and nitpicking about the rules. That took an incredible amount of humbleness to do, knowing that I was right. I told Mike Brandt (Nova Open TO) about it this morning and he instantly quotes me the FAQ clarification about it.

He gave me a bad game vote because we didn't get through six turns, we only got five. Well, if he wasn't late from lunch, taking pee breaks and contributing to a rules dispute that should have gone in my favor...we would have gotten six turns. I won the game 1 objective to 0. As it is, he had 4 scoring tactical marines left on the table, a stormraven to contest an objective, a razorback to contest one, and a dreadnought running around. I had two full units of trueborn, several scoring units, and half my vehicles left. And I would have gone first. A lot of the spectators commented at the end that nothing would have changed had we gone to six turns....he thinks he could have gotten a draw....I say that he had 6 models I had to kill to win by a larger margin. We could hardly hear each other because all the spectators were shouting into our game. Darkwynn was standing at the corner of the table...I ask David a question about movement, and Darkwynn says, "Dash, he's fine." Cool bro - but I asked my opponent, not you. Spectators are fine, but spectators participating in the game, especially hostile ones (looks pointedly at Chris) are extremely unwelcome.

Did I earn my bad game votes? I don't think so. I don't hold grudges; despite you loudly accusing me of cheating because the judges ruled against you..to keep YOU from cheating, accusing me of modeling for advantage by having venoms that were too long (something I got OKed by the TO before arriving), and being a HUGELY poor sport about the game after that ruling....I probably should have given you a bad game vote too. But I didn't.

I've got 8 venoms on pre-order. When they arrive at game stores on June 4th, I'll make my way throughout the coming weekends to get them (2.5 hours away), and start prepping them. They won't be ready for the Railhead Rumble, but possibly for Wargamescon, and definitely for the Nova Open.

I conducted myself professionally, was courteous, gave leeway where none was deserved....at the end of the day, as widely as I travel, I am forced to run into people like you from time to time. Sort through enough apples and you'll find a rotten one. I've spoken to other TOs and gamers whose opinions I respect, and am comfortable with my decisions and how I acted. I'd encourage you to revisit your motives for participating in big events, the professionalism you exhibit when there, and the level of maliciousness you're willing to exhibit to pursue a personal vendetta. What you're doing is not only disgraceful to yourself - its also disrespectful to the TO hosting and making rulings for you to keep nattering that I cheated you, when they ruled against you because YOU were trying to cheat.

Anyway, there's my two cents. My battle report on our game will be up this week, replete with pictures. The facts support what I've just written, I have the pictures to prove it. I think you'll find that the crowd of people supporting the idea of you assaulting through a vehicle to get to the unit on the other side pretty slim. Its even more ridiculous that your complaining about my venoms being too big only came up when you couldn't get through my venom. My venoms are modeled for a DISADVANTAGE. They're too big to hide, take up more deployment room than I need, don't contain assault units that would benefit from pivot movement...it happened to be a convenient argument for you to tack onto the pettiness you were already pursuing when you started your tantrum.

I seem to have lost the login info for my previous DAKKA account (and the associated email address is from college and long dead), so I apologize for the new account required for a response.

I regards to game 5 against (ME) David Light:

1) I am not in any way associated with BOLS in anyway other than being a registered member on their forums and occasionally reading their website (the same can be said of me and Dakka).
2) I was not only ontime but 10 minutes early for the scheduled 12:30 PM start of the round. In the interest of perhaps finishing the tournament early, the TO announced players could start the 5th round early (which is what you heard).
3) I took 2 bathroom breaks during the game, the first immediately at game start (during your deployment, and returned to you still adjusting / lining up models, so no time lost) and the Second immediately after our 40 minute rules argument, and I took it half to go(I could have held it through the game) and half to calm down enough to reasonably play out the next turn. This process took all of 2 minutes spent mostly washing my face.

4) I was not remotely as intoxicated as you or anyone else may have thought. I tend to play up perceived weaknesses on purpose both to disarm the opponent and because its somewhat entertaining. I also enjoying playing the idiot. I think I pull it off fairly well.
5) At the end of our game I had a full 5 man assault squad, complete with attached priest, 6 inches from one of your TWO remaining warrior squads on the objective. I also had 3 living (UNDAMAGED) vehicles all capable of contesting, not to mention my deathcompany (still containing lemartes who is all I would need), or simply killing your warriors off of, the objectives. (Plus another razorback immobile but in range to shoot warriors on the objective (or whatever you may have used to contest with)
6) The rules argument that ate up the first 25 minutes of turn 2 centered around your (incorrect) belief that my inability to disembark an entire unit as the result of a vehicle wreck resulted in the death of the entire unit.
7) The remaining arguments eventually turned into a circular back and forth in which you tried to justify my being forced to emergency disembark as correct even though it required my models to both be placed within 1" of yours, and as you put it, magically teleport through your bases to get out of the vehicle. You did such a good job arguing this you convinced the judge to make me disembark out the back of my stormraven into a small gap (less than 1" wide but therefore creating space 2" out from the vehicle in which to locate the tip of a base) and I chose the dreadnaught to take that space.
8) The rules for the tournament explicitly state that you must have on hand and provide a copy of the relevant rules (codex / rulebook / FAQs) you wish to use in the tournament. Had you desired to use the FAQ, you would have needed a copy. Since the tournament allowed in your "converted" army of venoms that I feel are significantly WAY TOO LARGE in comparison to both the model being released by the company, and references to it in the codex, I willing accepted their legality for the purposes of the tournament. As such, the need for a copy of the FAQ fell on you. (In 3 separate cases in our game the significant size of your venoms allowed you to disembark a unit out of assault range that otherwise would have been impossible with the new model, and would have resulted in the death of the units, since they had no combat weapons and were up against either dreadnaughts or priest boosted assault squads)

9) At the end of your half of turn 5 (top) I had the one objective (that you won with) contested, and was in range to move in to contest the other (as I did in my turn) but moved off the objective under the assumption that the game would be played to completion. Were it made known that this were not going to happen, the game would have ended in a draw in 5 simply by my only moving to contest the objective (which I did) and doing nothing else, then calling it (giving me a 12-10 battle point advantage on secondaries, placing Thomas in first, Russel Adams in 2nd, and either yourself or myself in 3rd) Likely myself as they would have moved you to best general as the higher prize value than 3rd overall.
10) I still stand by my belief that turn 6 left open the possibility that I would win (20-6, and therefore take 2nd overall, Thomas has me on Paint) but that no matter what you did, the worst result was a repeat of the tie (12-11 this time because it would imply you got another secondary point). You had 2 warrior squads, 2 trueborn squads, 1 weaponless venom, and 2 functional venoms remaining. That is it. I had the razorback, death company, and death company dread in place to take you off the objective closest my board edge, and the other razorback, the stormraven (with cover save), and intact assault squad / priest) to get the other 5 warriors.

11) Any and all reasons for someone giving you a bad game vote are both unknown to me (I didnt ask them why) or a matter of personal opinion (in the case of me) that dont really matter and the discussion of which would be fruitless.

David, are you saying that you knew about the disembarkation rule and exploited it because I didn't have the FAQ on hand? ><

I was presuming you were drunk because of your loud statements about it and how the rules argument had you talking louder and louder. I don't ever presume to have an advantage over someone else though, regardless of the state that they are in (or profess to be in).

After the rule issue got out of the way, we had an extremely close game that was challenging and competitively enjoyable. So many spectators chiming in diminished the enjoyment of it, but I hope we get to play again. In our next game, I bet that I don't miss most of my shots, you make cover saves on the rest, while your dice rolls explode almost everything they look at.

I don't want to jump on DoP cause he'll say I'm stalking him. I wasn't there, I don't know what happened, and all we have to go on is two or more different people's accounts.

Dash - I'm sure that your explanations/rationalizations on the poor scores are reasonable. That said, if a majority of your opponents indicate that they're having unpleasant games with you, regardless of how right you are, or how rational the cause for each specific game is, you might want to consider adjusting your behaviour. I don't know how, nor can I offer any specific suggestion. But, like Mannahin's sports scoring suggestion indicates - one 'bad' game is likely a reflection on the person giving the rating. When it's most of your opponents, it's time to do some self-reflection.

Congrats on the win. I look forward to your battle reports, as always

I stated multiple times that I was not able to disembark my guys like you wanted me to, but was not sure of the specifics of the FAQ Rules, nor which FAQ they were from. This being a tournament where only GW rules were in effect, and not Nova, INAT, ETC, or other tourny rules.

Having read all of them multiple times and the frequency with which I play both Fantasy and Warmachine, I could not determine from whence the rule may have come. (obviously there is no disembarking in warmachine, but you get the point about rules confusion).

You seemed completely convinced that not only could I get the models out there, but I HAD to. You convinced the judge on hand to make me place the dreadnaught there, and at a tournament the ruling of a judge is law. This was the one case where I differed to your rules knowledge (not because I felt you were correct, but because the judge ruled so).

I still stand by my ability to get out the 4-5 death company and do with them as I pleased in future turns. The majority of the argument we had, both in time and back and forth, was your claim that the entire unit was dead because part of the unit was dead.

I'm sorry if my normal loudness ( I am a quite loud person) increased during the argument, but other games were finishing and we were drawing quite a crowd (and the murmuring and general crowd noise helped to drown out some of the conversation between both of us and the judge, so I simply compensated by getting louder).

Redbeard wrote: That said, if a majority of your opponents indicate that they're having unpleasant games with you, regardless of how right you are, or how rational the cause for each specific game is, you might want to consider adjusting your behaviour.

I was doing some serious introspection on the way home yesterday - getting three bad game votes is worthy of consideration. After due consideration....my take on it is this: I've been to a *LOT* of events. I usually get maximum sportsmanship scores. When I don't, its always been 7/10, 8/10 for a couple games...ending up with 36/40 sort of scores.

One GT is an outlier. Several of them is a trend.

Its the first time its happened...and given the reasons for them, I'm not particularly concerned.

This will be added to my previous post I assume, but in response to dice, we each had our own ups and downs.

It took you rolling 4 6's to hit my storm raven out of 9 dice to even start the argument we had, let alone the prolific rate with which I would achieve penetrating hits on vehicles only to roll a 1-2 or the at least 55% flickerfield saves you made from turn 3 on.

Lets neither of us place any importance on the dice in this game

Was it not made clear on turn 5 that that would be the last turn? It seems like that's a pretty important thing to have clear before not moving to contest an objective...

I had a similar experience happen in a much smaller venue. I assumed we had time for another turn, but didn't check with my opponent. I moved away from an objective, finished my turn... and he called it saying there wasn't enough time to finish. I don't know how it came about in the case described above, but it pays to be clear as time is running down whether or not you both intend to play another turn.

I also think it's rather poor form to be talking about your opponent's state... and taking bathroom breaks of all things, Dash. You like to drink when playing, have posted frequently about it, and he seems to remember the game pretty clearly so must have been somewhat lucient. I'd rather just hear the facts of what happened...

I know a few other people came on here and flamed you first (in imo unjustifiable ways, regardless of what they thought of your army), but in the case of Game 5 you were taking the initiative in slinging mud not related to the game... and I really only want to hear about what happened on the tabletop...

Immediately prior to the start of turn 5 I asked if we would be given additional time to finish out the game and was told yes, we can have some extra time.

Turn 5 took all of about 5 minutes, and then BAM, we get no turn 6. Even though it would have also taken about 5-6 minutes.

DoP posted.

I was doing some serious introspection on the way home yesterday - getting three bad game votes is worthy of consideration. After due consideration....my take on it is this: I've been to a *LOT* of events. I usually get maximum sportsmanship scores. When I don't, its always been 7/10, 8/10 for a couple games...ending up with 36/40 sort of scores.

One GT is an outlier. Several of them is a trend.

Its the first time its happened...and given the reasons for them, I'm not particularly concerned.

I think that you should due to the fact the Internet and your exposure to this site in particular is huge. Once you are labeled in a negative way, true or not, it tends to grow until what is the truth and what is not is blurred. And it is very hard to clean up the mess afterward.

A person's reputation is something is very tangible and very real. It would be a pity to see it go awry because of the probable situation I have posted above.

Regardless, congrats on your game.

Neither David or I were pleased that the game didn't get to finish. After we turned in our score sheet, I asked him if he wanted to finish our game to see what would happen, but he declined because the result wouldn't impact the standings. I figured it would be a good way to settle our differing opinion on how it would end with another turn.

I disagree with you about what I convinced the judge of...because you neither did it my way, nor your way, but a middle ground that benefited you the most, me the least, and definitely didn't fit either of our rules position.

If you both wanted to finish the game, why wasn't it played out? I.e., did the judges intervene and call time?

bushidoredpanda wrote:Well, I didn't get a chance to play Justin (THANKS ALOT KEVIN and your super Necron cover save magic! ), but there
is something to be said for 4 out of 5 bad game votes...

My Codex needed all the help I could get! I will say I absolutely love your list and painting. If it's any consolation, winning that game led to me getting phased out in two turns by Justin and then Jon Cook.

As someone in attendance at the tournament, I can say this:

Friday night I spoke extensively with David and he's a great guy.
Saturday I spoke extensively with Justin and he and his wife are great people.

I hope everyone involved can learn and move on from the whole situation.

If the biggest concern in your life at the moment is a game involving toy soldiers, such that you still feel need to vent about it, I urge you to reconsider just how good you've got it.

Looking forward to seeing you all at Wargamescon!

It is a game of Plastic Dudesmen.

The weekend was fun. The venue is nice enough and the booze is cheap. All in all a good event. I had 5 good games and ended up getting 2nd overall behind Dash.

Everyone should come down to it and Wargames Con if they had a chance.

The more annoying thing is the way GW now is giving out Vouchers. Bleeh indeed. But either way - fun time and I will be there every year I can.

GoatboyBBMA wrote:It is a game of Plastic Dudesmen.

The weekend was fun. The venue is nice enough and the booze is cheap. All in all a good event. I had 5 good games and ended up getting 2nd overall behind Dash.

Everyone should come down to it and Wargames Con if they had a chance.

The more annoying thing is the way GW now is giving out Vouchers. Bleeh indeed. But either way - fun time and I will be there every year I can.

Was nice to meet you. =D

In responce to the sportmanship scores...
I dont get why people expect to have a fun "game" at a tourney, as opposed to a fun game! If you get me...

You can get along with each other like the best of buds, laugh, joke, give advice afterwards, point out where each went wrong, go for a pint and eventually end up staying in contact. That would be an example of perfect sportsmanship IMO and result in a good game! overall.

But where i fail to see the point, is when bad scores are given to people who do most/all of the above, but just happen to have a superior list / tactics and crush the opponent during the "game". It's a tournement... isn't that kind of the point? You can be friendly all you want and get on really well for a good game! But the overall aim of the "game" would be to minimise you own casualties, wipe out the enemy if possible, all while following the letter of the rules. (some leeway can be given in certain areas of course)

sportmanship =/= playing a sub-par game so the opponent gets free kills.

If your opponent made an effort to intereact, make you laugh, helped you out, followed the rules according and was generally a pleasure to be around (or at least, not a chore to be around) then they have been a good sportman. How bad they crush your army should have no impact on this.

dayve110 wrote:
sportmanship =/= playing a sub-par game so the opponent gets free kills.

If your opponent made an effort to intereact, make you laugh, helped you out, followed the rules according and was generally a pleasure to be around (or at least, not a chore to be around) then they have been a good sportman. How bad they crush your army should have no impact on this.

I would generally agree with this, but not in this situation. In game 3 they were playing kill points, and the tournaments scoring was such that you only had to win by one kill point, and reduce enemy units to 50% or less to get max points. If Dash supposedly had such a superior list, then surely it would have been easy to allow this game to last longer than two turns and still gain max points, with little risk, right? The way the tournament rules were written seems to discourage just wiping your opponent away, and not allowing them to really interact with the game, besides with saving throws. So in this situation, I would call it poor sportsmanship.