Hey folks!

The annual Alamo GT is coming up May 14-15 in San Antonio, TX. I spoke to the TO and he doesn't post on Dakka, so I thought I would advertise for him.

The website, details, registration, rules, etc etc etc...can be found at www.alamoGT40k.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I took 220 pictures while I was there, among which were pictures of some of the armies.



This guy won best painted and I think also player's choice:












This guy won one of the best painted, or maybe best painted...there were 3 awards and the tyranid player and this guy took most of them. These are Chaos Marines with some conversions out of Grey Knights (Like the former Dreadknight in the back).
























Those Tau are off the chain too.

























Those are my converted Khymerae and Razorwing flocks.









Not all of these pictures are the greatest, and I'm missing a *LOT* of the armies....probably more than 1/2 that were there. I just snapped pictures of what I could before the GT started.

Im probably going to this

Two weeks until the GT!

So who is the winner here now that it is over?

We need details!

Dash won

Made a lot of new friends, at least one bitter enemy, took lots of pictures and will do batreps as I have time.

Fantastic Job Dash!!

Those pictures are excellent.

Hope you have those Batreps up soon.

Well done, Dash!

"At least one bitter enemy" is right! Wargamescon is sure to be interesting...

Had I known, I should have thrown my first game so as to avoid facing your DE with my Necrons! 48" effective range on Venoms is too brutal. Could have reserved, but I have never had good results with that, especially as Necrons...

Did I mention I was playing Necrons? Only Robo-player there and I went 2-3. Represent!

Dashofpepper wrote:Made a lot of new friends, at least one bitter enemy, took lots of pictures and will do batreps as I have time.

Congratulations...PUNK!

I guess we have to make you an honorary Texan now. We need the address on where to send your oil wells.

Wolf 11x wrote:Well done, Dash!

"At least one bitter enemy" is right! Wargamescon is sure to be interesting...

Had I known, I should have thrown my first game so as to avoid facing your DE with my Necrons! 48" effective range on Venoms is too brutal. Could have reserved, but I have never had good results with that, especially as Necrons...

Did I mention I was playing Necrons? Only Robo-player there and I went 2-3. Represent!

Was nice to meet you and your dad.

Great pics!

That big Daemon Prince (I think it's a Daemon Prince) reminds me a lot of Shao Khan!

If what I hear is true, congratulations!

hehe I thought Dash was going to use his triple mono necron list.

Wolf 11x wrote:Well done, Dash!

"At least one bitter enemy" is right! Wargamescon is sure to be interesting...

Had I known, I should have thrown my first game so as to avoid facing your DE with my Necrons! 48" effective range on Venoms is too brutal. Could have reserved, but I have never had good results with that, especially as Necrons...

Did I mention I was playing Necrons? Only Robo-player there and I went 2-3. Represent!

I thought Dash's army was all raiders?

SonsofVulkan wrote:hehe I thought Dash was going to use his triple mono necron list.

Come on now, not even Dash believes in his own hyperbole.

whitedragon wrote:

Wolf 11x wrote:Well done, Dash!

"At least one bitter enemy" is right! Wargamescon is sure to be interesting...

Had I known, I should have thrown my first game so as to avoid facing your DE with my Necrons! 48" effective range on Venoms is too brutal. Could have reserved, but I have never had good results with that, especially as Necrons...

Did I mention I was playing Necrons? Only Robo-player there and I went 2-3. Represent!

I thought Dash's army was all raiders?

If by all Raiders you mean ~8 Venoms and 3 Ravagers. They are converted from Raiders though.

SonsofVulkan wrote:hehe I thought Dash was going to use his triple mono necron list.

They weren't done in time. The Monoliths are still unpainted, and the warriors only got half done. My wife does all the painting, and she was sick the week leading up to the GT - my DE weren't even done until Thursday night. In fact, they're still not done. I had a couple of stand-ins because she couldn't get them finished in time.

Wolf 11x wrote:

whitedragon wrote:

Wolf 11x wrote:Well done, Dash!

"At least one bitter enemy" is right! Wargamescon is sure to be interesting...

Had I known, I should have thrown my first game so as to avoid facing your DE with my Necrons! 48" effective range on Venoms is too brutal. Could have reserved, but I have never had good results with that, especially as Necrons...

Did I mention I was playing Necrons? Only Robo-player there and I went 2-3. Represent!

I thought Dash's army was all raiders?

If by all Raiders you mean ~8 Venoms and 3 Ravagers. They are converted from Raiders though.

and by converted you mean just adding an extra gun and not being WYSIWYG

To be fair, until recently they didn't have vehicle mounted SC's or a model. Technically, they still don't. So it's WYSIWYG as much as it can be

daKing wrote:and by converted you mean just adding an extra gun and not being WYSIWYG

Post count: 1

Fail flame fails. Also, quite a weak move to go make an alt-account to speak your mind.

Congrats Dash, can't wait to see/read some reports.

The Chaos are nice. The Tyranids depicted are IMO rather lackluster. I presume it was a different Tyranid army that won painting awards.

I liked the purple and white DE as well. Very striking en masse.

Hulksmash wrote:To be fair, until recently they didn't have vehicle mounted SC's or a model. Technically, they still don't. So it's WYSIWYG as much as it can be

Well, rather odd for someone that has a strong stance on WYSIWIG, that's all.

What exactly is the WYSIWYG discrepancy here, exactly?

@MonsterRain

There isn't one. If no model exists and it's a reasonable model you can't not be WYSIWYG. It has 2 guns, is consistant across the army, and fully painted. There isn't a thing wrong with his list.

Naturally my opinion of course but I think it's fairly valid.

Bah, I knew I forgot something this past weekend.

I got too busy studying/drinking/working.

Guess I'll catch you next year, Dash if you come back to SA.

Well, technically they are raider hulls with dual dark lances on them. While there may not be a "vehicle mounted" version of the Splinter Cannon, there are plenty of plastic versions left over from the atrocious 3rd ed DE Warriors.

It just seems odd to me that someone who vehemently opposed playing Wave Serpents with Brightlances as Scatter Lasers would do something similar here.

Thing is they aren't "Dark Lances" by the new WYSIWYG either. The silohuette for DL's has changed so I think it's fine across an army. Of course I'm a counts-as nut so maybe I'm the minority

whitedragon wrote:Well, technically they are raider hulls with dual dark lances on them. While there may not be a "vehicle mounted" version of the Splinter Cannon, there are plenty of plastic versions left over from the atrocious 3rd ed DE Warriors.

It just seems odd to me that someone who vehemently opposed playing Wave Serpents with Brightlances as Scatter Lasers would do something similar here.

A wave serpent with a bright lance on it counting as a scatter laser....can be confused for a wave serpent with a bright lance on it. A raider that has been cut down and reshaped into a venom with dual guns on the front...cannot be a raider, because no raiders have dual ANY guns. I've pre-ordered a full set of Venoms, and they'll arrive June 4th...and I'll pick them up when I get to those stores thereafter.

Until then though, the accepted route is to call the TO for the event you're attending, explain your conversion, possibly provide pictures, and get approval / disapproval for your conversions. Since I'm using new raiders as actual raiders, and converted old raiders as venoms, in a configuration not actually possible on a raider, there's no room for confusion.

Converted raider!? really? what did you convert? You added two guns to the front, big whoop. And wrong guns at that. You didn't even try. Most DE players went out of their way to actually convert a venom from vypers or something similar. They are CLEARLY smaller than a raider in the book. Tyranid players went out of their way to convert tervigons. So don't sit there and try to say your raiders are converted.

Here are the things that bothered me about our game. The very first argument was you trying to tell me that of the 4 pieces of terrain on the board, the two hills did not count as cover. I thought that was a bit rich considering you have 9 venoms... So I didn't let you get away with that one.

Second, you were not always consistent with your dice rolls. You said anything that rolled outside your dice box would get re-rolled. That only happened once during our game but the final match I watched you do it repeatedly. Just very shady in my opinion that you would follow your own rule when it suited you.

Third, now this isn't exactly against the rules but also very dirty. I watched you measure movement for your side ways counts as venoms and then rotate them to gain inches. Normally I would just shake my head at such cheasy tactics just to get a win but couple that with your extra long venoms, you actually gain a lot of extra distance by doing this.

Fourth and the one that bothered me the most. You cheating me out of that charge. My base was clearly touching yours without being "under" your so called venom. Also in this instance if you had a correctly modified venom I could have charged around the other side but it was so close the judges did not want to make a solid ruling on it. So we diced off on a game changing move that should never have even been a question.

Out of the 5 people you played this past weekend, 4 of them gave you bad games. how does that make you feel? Do you feel better by cheating to win? I don't know how you won having such a crappy sportsmanship score. And giving your prize to the last place person does not redeem you. That is an act of kindness done only by winners.

I hope you come to wargamescon and try to have fun by not cheating your opponents. But I will tell you this, cheating will not be tolerated. Have fun little man.

Well, I for one am happy to see all the new faces here on Dakka!

Welcome, fellows! I would take a quick gander at the forum rules if I were you! It can only enrich your experience here.

Greetings Caldera02. Welcome to Dakka!

Now on to your post. You are raising some issues you had with your game. Your post is relatively articulate, but smacks of rage and disdain. Can you tell us if others were also watching the game and could lend credence to your charges of cheating? As it is, it is going to be a he said versus he said shouting match that won't solve anything other than add more drama.

If possible, can you also give us a bit more background on yourself so we have a perspective of who we are listening and responding to?

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.

I don't agree with that, Ave... if I'm going to get tabled at a tourney (and it's happened ) it doesn't really matter to me if it gets dragged out for more turns. In fact, I'd usually rather it not... i.e. get the pain over and done with, take my lumps and move on.

I've had fantastically fun games where I get massacred... but not all of the time. If you're not having a great time, I don't necessarily think more turns changes that...

It's also really unfair to expect your opponent to "go easy" on you to make a game last longer in a tournament. I really don't think most people would expect that in this situation.

Ave wrote:

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.

It was also Dawn of War. We didn't really *start* the fight until turn two, and it *took* the whole game to kill him.

Dashofpepper wrote:

Ave wrote:

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.

It was also Dawn of War. We didn't really *start* the fight until turn two, and it *took* the whole game to kill him.

Sorry, I suppose I misspoke in terms of DoW. I should have said two turns of effective game play.

I think most tournament players are comfortable saying that good sportsmanship does not require pulling punches. Good sportsmanship is mostly about honesty, clear communication, and a respectful attitude, IMO.

While a close game may be more enjoyable on the losing side, I don't think it's my opponent's responsibility to only beat me by a little, if he's capable of beating me by a lot.

RiTides wrote:I don't agree with that, Ave... if I'm going to get tabled at a tourney (and it's happened ) it doesn't really matter to me if it gets dragged out for more turns. In fact, I'd usually rather it not... i.e. get the pain over and done with, take my lumps and move on.

I've had fantastically fun games where I get massacred... but not all of the time. If you're not having a great time, I don't necessarily think more turns changes that...

It's also really unfair to expect your opponent to "go easy" on you to make a game last longer in a tournament. I really don't think most people would expect that in this situation.

But the thing is, he didn't have to table him at all to gain full points. That is true of lots of tournaments, but not this one. Have you never taken your foot off the pedal in a game you knew without a doubt you would win? I have had a lot of easy tournament wins over the years, that were never in doubt, but I've never gotten a bad game. It doesn't take a genius to realize how to easily win a game but still have it be actually be engaging for their opponent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:I think most tournament players are comfortable saying that good sportsmanship does not require pulling punches. Good sportsmanship is mostly about honesty, clear communication, and a respectful attitude, IMO.

While a close game may be more enjoyable on the losing side, I don't think it's my opponent's responsibility to only beat me by a little, if he's capable of beating me by a lot.

Everyone is replying in generalities when I am talking about a specific situation. I'll even phrase it as a first person situation (remember the mission, you only have to win by a single KP, and reduce the enemy units below 50%):

You arrive at your table for a mid-tournament game and exchange army lists with your opponent. After a quick glance you realize the game is in the bag, their army is a very poor match-up to yours. You can completely wipe the floor with them. Do you do it? Or do you play a more conservative game that might be entertaining for your opponent?

I know Dashs answer. In his words after we spoke at the tournament, "Of course it wasn't fun, he was losing. Only one of the people at the table has fun at a tournament game."

Dash why you chosen your first 5ed list over wych cult?)

I wasn't there and don't have a lot to add about the specifics of the game, but I will say that I consider the Venom conversions shown to be tantamount to cheating if used with the rotation trick. The fact that Venoms are smaller than Raiders and on par sizewize with Vypers is very clear from the Dark Eldar Codex, despite the lack of an official model.

I don't see any cheating in using the big venom conversions. GW had given us no actual guidance as to size.

There are advantages to be gained from longer vehicles (like gaining distance from rotation), but they tend to be more useful in an assaulty list (which he wasn't running), and the disadvantage of big fragile vehicles in terms of being unable to hide is a significant one.

Mannahnin wrote:I don't see any cheating in using the big venom conversions. GW had given us no actual guidance as to size.

GW wrote:...craft no larger than the Vypers of the Eldar Craftworlds...

Ave wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:I think most tournament players are comfortable saying that good sportsmanship does not require pulling punches. Good sportsmanship is mostly about honesty, clear communication, and a respectful attitude, IMO.

While a close game may be more enjoyable on the losing side, I don't think it's my opponent's responsibility to only beat me by a little, if he's capable of beating me by a lot.

Everyone is replying in generalities when I am talking about a specific situation. I'll even phrase it as a first person situation (remember the mission, you only have to win by a single KP, and reduce the enemy units below 50%):

You arrive at your table for a mid-tournament game and exchange army lists with your opponent. After a quick glance you realize the game is in the bag, their army is a very poor match-up to yours. You can completely wipe the floor with them. Do you do it? Or do you play a more conservative game that might be entertaining for your opponent?

I don't believe in assuming that I will wipe the floor with anyone. Especially if my own army is fragile. For DE, the best (and really their only) defense is a good offense. If I whiff on a round of shooting, it's entirely possible that a big chunk of my skimmers will die as a consequence.

If the matchup is really as bad as you say, then most likely my opponent knows it too. If I choose to pull punches by choosing bad shooting targets, or not firing as much as I can, I run the risk of looking like I hold him/his army in contempt. That I don't think he deserves my best effort. I have an old gaming buddy who lost a good amount, but who got infuriated when he got the idea that someone was taking it easy on him.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fetterkey wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:I don't see any cheating in using the big venom conversions. GW had given us no actual guidance as to size.

GW wrote:...craft no larger than the Vypers of the Eldar Craftworlds...

Good catch!

It's still hard to call it cheating if the organizers approve it.

There are advantages to be gained from longer vehicles (like gaining distance from rotation), but they tend to be more useful in an assaulty list (which he wasn't running), and the disadvantage of big fragile vehicles in terms of being unable to hide is a significant one.

However when you Castle in game play, All bets are off.

Larger vehicles = TLOS issues.

However if the TO allowed this to happen then whose fault is it after all?

heh soft scores are so subjective and very opinionated sometime... I dont like soft scores and I prefer tournaments that doesnt include it.

No GW description on the size of vypers? Did dash not read the entry about venoms specifically? Where it goes on the say "no larger than craftworld eldar vypers".

Soft scores being subjective, I can agree to that. however, is it coincidence that more than just me gave him a bad game?

It's still a tournament. You are still there, effectively, for one main reason.

To win it.

If you read an opponents army list. It's inferior.. no.. it's terrible! The game is in the bag.. better pull some punches so that he has a good time...

And then he just turns out to be one of those cracked-out generals that runs some off the wall list with meltabombs on the devastator sergeant and what have you..

Then you'll feel dumb. Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeel dumb.

Or you pull some punches early.. and then the dice pull some more on you late.. and then his dice throw a few punches.... and we're right back to feeling dumb again.

Caldera02 wrote:Soft scores being subjective, I can agree to that. however, is it coincidence that more than just me gave him a bad game?

Whatever the case, logging in specifically to flame him doesn't really help to support your stance.

Why not write up a battle report of the incident in question, while trying to be objective, and let everyone see for themselves what happened? It would actually be quite interesting to read two separate accounts of the same battle, particularly one that seems to have such a controversial outcome.

Caldera02 wrote:No GW description on the size of vypers? Did dash not read the entry about venoms specifically? Where it goes on the say "no larger than craftworld eldar vypers".

Soft scores being subjective, I can agree to that. however, is it coincidence that more than just me gave him a bad game?

That was quite explained. You should read what I wrote.

In regard to the venoms...terrain was sparse. Hiding MY venoms behind terrain was nigh impossible. Hiding YOURS was not. While I've got a bunch of Venoms on pre-order....that's a matter for the future. In the meantime, I discuss my conversions with TOs before I attend events. I always have. You didn't start fussing about them because of pivoting tricks, or TLOS, or vehicles granting cover....you started fussing because if my venom was shorter, and I replicated my exact moves, you may have been able to get around my venom to assault my trueborn. And as I explained to you in person...you *still* wouldn't have gotten the assault. I WOULDN'T have replicated the exact same move, I would have stacked the venom right next door end to end to create the same wall of impassable "Haha, you still don't get to assault me" that you ran into.

You should stop. You disgraced yourself with your behavior at the event, have crossed a line by calling a judge's ruling in favor of the ACTUAL rules to be cheating, making an issue of a TO approved conversion for the event, been extremely clear on how much you dislike me, went completely berzerk as a spectator during my last game....you even booed me when I went up to get my plaque and prizes. And not finished yet, you've registered for Dakka to try causing more trouble here. I was hoping at the end of the event that you were just going through a bitter phase and you'd sleep it off. Dakka isn't the appropriate place for personal vendettas, and on that vein I can't tell you what I really think....but I'll make sure that we have a lively chat about civility and appropriate behavior when we next meet.

I was following this discussion on Blood of Kittens. To be honest I initially was interested in the results and how the BoLS players did. When I read the scathing article on BoK I wanted to know why Dash was given such harsh criticism. Call me a lurker, troll, whatever but I followed the link here to see what all the flaming was about. After reading through this thread here is my impression:

1) Dash used every fair and some unfair tactics to secure a victory. It is evident that he is someone who provides an unenjoyable gaming experience. Why would I say this, it's quite simple. He bent the rules to his advantage in modeling his Venoms ( seriously they are no where's near scale as described in the fluff! ) then with his "sideways shuffle / pivot" move to gain added movement ( at no point should any part of the vehicle move more that the maximum distance allotted for movement ). One bad sportsmanship score in a 5 round event happens but multiple bad scores indicate a trend that cannot be overlooked. He knows what he did but you will never get him to admit that he did anything wrong or unfair. In his mind the end justified the means.

2) The Alamo TO have to share some blame. Running a successful event is hard work. It also is hard work to attract players. Bad publicity, either real or perceived, drives players away. From reading the website detailing the Alamo, it is supposed to be a casual event that promotes fellowship among players not a WAAC event. I wish a detailed breakdown of the results were posted but it is hard for me to image how someone with multiple bad sportsmanship scores still can win an event that is geared at being fun not WAAC. This is a problem with your matrix and it needs to be corrected.

3) Rules discussions need to be resolved in a timely manner. When 5 minutes can make the difference between 5 rounds or 6 rounds, 25 minutes or more to discuss a ruling is way out of line. The TO should have handed down a decision within 5 minutes of the question being posed. Wasting gaming time did influence the final outcome.

4) Lastly its just a game of toy soldiers and none of this really matters. Yeah we all have had to play "that guy" at a tourney and it sucks but usually a bad game of 40K beats a good day at work.

Just my opinion...

Ooh...and I'm getting flamed over at Blood of Kittens. =p
http://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2011/05/16/indy-gt-circuit-alamo-40k-gt-results-with-a-dash-of-drama/



And my first batrep is up!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MajorSoB wrote:

2) The Alamo TO have to share some blame. Running a successful event is hard work. It also is hard work to attract players. Bad publicity, either real or perceived, drives players away. From reading the website detailing the Alamo, it is supposed to be a casual event that promotes fellowship among players not a WAAC event. I wish a detailed breakdown of the results were posted but it is hard for me to image how someone with multiple bad sportsmanship scores still can win an event that is geared at being fun not WAAC. This is a problem with your matrix and it needs to be corrected.

Yeah...I don't think you know what WAAC means.

The main thing I disagree with is them casting aspersions on the fine DCM program.

Well of the 3 people that gave dash negative scores only 1 guy is vehemently accusing him of cheating. The others including yourself all posted reasons for the negative scores, and yes they all seemed subjective and doesnt mean crap...

Now about those raider-venoms, although in the DE codex fluff it says venoms are small and that it can only fit 5. However the fluff section is not "law" and doesnt override GK's rules about non-existing models. But yes those are way too big and can leave a bad taste on the opponent. I'd probably give Dash a negative sportsmanship score just based on those venoms... that is if I lose to him. Now the bad thing about bigger vehicles is that they are hard to hide and can be hit easier by blasts and etc, if I beat dash based on that, I will give him a positive score for giving me such a advantage for my mech IG gun line.

You see what I mean about soft-scores? Everyone has their opinions and usually when you lose, especially at a major event you will feel frustrated and irritated.

I'm not sure that Dash and his Sports record at the Alamo GT is that much of an indictment on Sportsmanship scoring.

That's rather off topic and should just be left alone, as there have been about 6,000 too many of those threads already.

MajorSoB wrote:
1) Dash used every fair and some unfair tactics to secure a victory. It is evident that he is someone who provides an unenjoyable gaming experience. Why would I say this, it's quite simple. He bent the rules to his advantage in modeling his Venoms ( seriously they are no where's near scale as described in the fluff! ) then with his "sideways shuffle / pivot" move to gain added movement ( at no point should any part of the vehicle move more that the maximum distance allotted for movement ).

Ah, and I must also encourage you to visit this thread to gain a fundamental understanding of how movement works. http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/369233.page

You seem to be confusing "bending rules" with "following rules."

You know dash you are some fine piece of work. you were losing and had to pull that gak on me to eek out the win. So whatever, this is just he said she said and doesn't change anything. I just wonder if you can sleep at night, I know I can. I don't have to cheat to win.

TO's just want to sell tickets to their events so they will approve almost anything that you put before them.

They also don't want to take a stand on rules judging, and most of the time when they are not using the INAT they will have 2 players "dice off" so there is no hard feeling toward the tournament.

Caldera02 wrote:No GW description on the size of vypers? Did dash not read the entry about venoms specifically? Where it goes on the say "no larger than craftworld eldar vypers".

Soft scores being subjective, I can agree to that. however, is it coincidence that more than just me gave him a bad game?

GW also describes Kaldor Draigo as being the next Space jesus, with the ability to wipe out powerful beings and armies singlehandedly
Should his model rules reflect that?

At the end of the day the models weren't available, the TO allowed it and it gave you a significant advantage to shoot at bigger targets, this should not be an issue.
The problem is you, your coming off as being sour about losing and your claims of cheating, when apparentlly the TO ruled in his favour on your issues is coming off really badly

Take some time to either compose yourself and come up with actual rational reasons as to why you think he cheated, rather than grasping at straws

Truth is dash is the type of player that will use all the tools available to win his games. This does include taking advantage of the rules in his favor but within legality. He did get approval of his venom conversions but it is a case of he should have known better. Let us also acknowledge his skills in winning with dark eldar.

I will say dash congratulations with your win but be mindful that a negative reputation can go a long way and you have seen it first hand at jacksonville. I do not think that you do this intentionally but I feel you play at 100% and with an intensity that most other players are not accustomed to. In the end of this, a win is a win.

I watched Dashs games and never saw him cheat. He was fair and respectful and overall a nice guy.

The de player that lost to dash round 4 heckled dash the rest of the day. When dash won his award chris from round 4 yelled "boo, cheater". I thought that was in poor taste. Its a game.

Overall I respect both sides and liked the event. The TOs did a great job and dragging them into this is just sad.

thread locked for now, pending some tinkering.

I've opened the thread back up. Let's keep this calm, polite and about the tournament, please. I'm sure that there's much more news about the tournament than just DoP's games.

They ran out of Mississippi Mud on Sunday. :( I had a single beer on Saturday (one of the muds) and was going to indulge for another one on Sunday, but none were to be found!! It was horrifying. And the Captain was not in attendance.

Nice pictures of the armies present, Dash, thanks for sharing. I'm even more looking forward to Wargamescon and the Nova Open just to see more good looking armies.

On the topic of Sportsmanship...
It is always going to be subjective. It's asking someone to judge how fun/challenging your opponent was to play against. Some people can't separate fun/challenging from winning or losing. I know i used to not be able to.
But in the end it's a game and you should be able to evaluate it objectively. If you can't and you have to rage for days on end, then maybe you should take a look at yourself.

WarOne wrote:I also found this image lurking the webs:

Yeah I made that yesterday, forgot that it stays on memegenerator. A possible tshirt for the Fall.

--
john bailey

So what were the results Dash? Did you get overall or best general?

Awesome armies! very impressed at the iron warriors and nids!

Brother Ramses wrote:So what were the results Dash? Did you get overall or best general?

I won Best Overall.

However, John sent out an e-mail this morning noting that his matrix was messed up, and apparently I didn't win.

*shrugs* I was the only one who went 5-0, and that's what I truly care about.

That's silly. If they gave you the win on-site, it should stay put... I'm not a fan of "recounts". I'm guessing that means you would've had Best General (by a long shot) anyway.

I hope the last place guy you gave the prize to gets to keep it... that was a really nice gesture, imo.

Good tourney again Justin. I was really hoping to get the chance to play agianst your DE. It looked like a really sick list. Plus I personally think Tau vs. Dark Eldar can be a very fun game. I truly am sorry that this whole fiasco is happening in regards to your games. I unfortunately didn't watch any of your games, but I did chat with you quite a few times and you struck me as a great guy all around. Our crew from Tacoma, WA really hopes to see you again at Wargamescon in July. Well done again.

RiTides wrote:That's silly. If they gave you the win on-site, it should stay put... I'm not a fan of "recounts". I'm guessing that means you would've had Best General (by a long shot) anyway.

I hope the last place guy you gave the prize to gets to keep it... that was a really nice gesture, imo.

Isn't the results being accurate more important? Should someone who went 5-0, but got 3 bad games (justified or not), win Best Overall? Hell no, they should win Best General. I'm pretty sure all prizes are staying in place, so no worry there.

Does anyone know when there going to post the scores online for everyone who didnt get top 3?

Dashofpepper wrote:

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

I know this isn't the place, so we can take this to YMDC if you like, but this isn't necessarily true. Emergency Disembarkation isn't "disembarking" at all. It is deployment. And deployment =/= movement. You're right, disembarking through enemy troops is illegal. And that is all that the FAQ is talking about. It is not referring to Emergency Disembarkation at all. You're applying a FAQ ruling to something that isn't really related. Where all other rules involving disembarking reference the disembarking unit, Emergency Disembarkation references deploying your unit. Not disembarking it.

Edit: Let me edit the post to include that the wording here and the rules result thereof is an opinion of mine and how the rules read. There has been a debate already here, but I don't consider that thread conclusive at all, since the OP simply abandoned her case.

Puma, there's a short list of Dakkanauts that I can reliably count on to jump on any opportunity to scream anti-Dashofpepper slogans in the street, and when I saw your name here I mentally sighed in preparation of dealing with some more propoganda.

I'm happily disappointed in my assumption, and give you +1 Dakka point! Lets be friends.

Topically, I'm not sure what you're saying. :(

I think that if you were to look up disembarkation and deployment, you'd find that they are often interchangeable.

Wow how did they screw up rankings... well thats their lost in terms of dishing out another set of prizes. No way they will get the other one back.

Hey guys this is Chris one of the Alamo Indy GT tournie runners.....You know....the extremely good looking model fine conan like sexy stripper wannabe running around like the mad hatter judging painting hahahah. Anyway I just joined this site right now after a ridiculous hour long read on the final Dash/David whatever game hahaha. What a novel. First of all I want to say even us organizers were astounded at how many people turned out and to tell the truth...for a jame crammed 70 person 40k tournie....with 5 hard games...really....there were not alot of serious issues. We enjoyed ourselves immensely and I really didnt meet anyone I didnt like. So we are looking forward to next years and we are also looking forward to the Fantasy Indy tournie we are really known for in November (this was only our 2nd year running the 40k tournie). I do want to say on as positive note as I can that for sure next year we will try to brush up on the rules enough to iron them out ASAP. I do want to thank whomever Smitty0305 is for defending us TOs and saying "dragging the TOs into the mix is sad" cause I was a little bummed about that having happened. But it happens. Just for the record though to whomever it was that said the rules debate went on for 25 plus minutes and then the TOs/judges voted on it....well frankly that is not true in the case of the judges. The argument might have gone on that long who knows....but I was the one called over to look at the ruling and i was literally on in the spot rulling for 3-5 minutes. Done. Period. It was heated before I...we...came over.....and really was hard to understand clearly what all had led up to the debated portion and make a fair ruling as the players and some spectators were heated and arguing. We tried to get kinda as clear a picture as we could with what we heard and make a calling to hopefully get the game back on track but I think at that point it was a bit beyond. Even ther judges were somehwhat being ignored at that point. So anyway .....I think next time what I have learned the problem is/was...is not even the rules question so much as that.....I should have very manlike stopped the argument with no ifs, ands, ors or buts, gotten the side of each with no talking over each other....discussed quickly with 1-2 other judges, made a call, and stopped it from continuing to go further and enforced a hug and kiss policy hahahahaha or crushed the skulls of the arguers between my massive bicep like thews and smiled for the camera!! WOOT! But anyway fellas it is a done deal....its over with...I know most everyone had fun.....we were very pleased with things, you guys will just have to rematch next year. To tell the truth in all honesty I am a big fantasy gamer and I know a lot more 40kers are hot headed and rules lawyerly and I thought it would be alot more discrepancies. I was quite please really and revamped my opinion that tru love CAN EXIST between 40kers hahahahaha.

As for poor sportsmanship scores, my friend got a bad score because his opponent felt 18 Melta weapons (6 of which were combis on Rhinos) were too many. He was playing Slaneesh with the actual CSM codex. Double lash wasn't even a concern of his opponents. Some people...

Well, in a perfect world that person would have been dinged on their own scores for such a frivolous attempt to chipmunk someone.

@AlamoGT players

How did everyone feel about the scoring and scenarios this year?

The missions and the scoring system was the same as last year (the first year of the Alamo 40k). At first I was a little disapointed that the missions were staying the same (all straight from the book) but once things got going it was refresshing. Lot of tournaments have overly complicated missions that you really have to pay attention to detail to score max points. The missions out of the book might not be the most exciting but they certainly are fair for all armies.

The player with the Best Painted Tyranids is part of my local group. I can't tell ya'll how nice his models are in person. Great fellow to game with aswell. Lots of war stories. Great to see him do so well there.

thehod wrote: @AlamoGT players

How did everyone feel about the scoring and scenarios this year?

The scenarios were fine; they were basic book missions with secondary objectives that were special. There were two pitched battle games, two DoW games, one spearhead game, two seize ground, two killpoint, and one capture and control game. Both seize ground missions were 5 objectives, but the TO made a last minute change due to player request and made the other objective mission 3 objectives instead of five.

I don't have any particularly strong feelings about sportsmanship being part of a tournament scoring system, although I'd prefer it not be included - people should take for granted that the people at the event are going to behave responsibly, and if they don't, get ejected from the event. If there *is* sportsmanship scoring at an event, I prefer a checklist instead of a subjective score, which makes it harder (though not impossible) to chipmunk.

I probably should have dished out a bad game vote to my fourth round opponent after the sleaziness that he engaged in during and after the round, but a simple "yes/no" with no clarification on what a good/bad game is left me uncomfortable knowing what I'm answering to. I had asked the TO what it constituted and he said it was a personal choice. Was it a good game? Well, if you outplay your opponent and win, it was a good game. If you outplay your opponent and win, and they're a jerk...it was a good game against a bad opponent.

I hope that in the future the sportsmanship scoring is a little more explanatory.

Caldera02 wrote:Converted raider!? really? what did you convert? You added two guns to the front, big whoop. And wrong guns at that. You didn't even try. Most DE players went out of their way to actually convert a venom from vypers or something similar. They are CLEARLY smaller than a raider in the book. Tyranid players went out of their way to convert tervigons. So don't sit there and try to say your raiders are converted.

Here are the things that bothered me about our game. The very first argument was you trying to tell me that of the 4 pieces of terrain on the board, the two hills did not count as cover. I thought that was a bit rich considering you have 9 venoms... So I didn't let you get away with that one.

Second, you were not always consistent with your dice rolls. You said anything that rolled outside your dice box would get re-rolled. That only happened once during our game but the final match I watched you do it repeatedly. Just very shady in my opinion that you would follow your own rule when it suited you.

Third, now this isn't exactly against the rules but also very dirty. I watched you measure movement for your side ways counts as venoms and then rotate them to gain inches. Normally I would just shake my head at such cheasy tactics just to get a win but couple that with your extra long venoms, you actually gain a lot of extra distance by doing this.

Fourth and the one that bothered me the most. You cheating me out of that charge. My base was clearly touching yours without being "under" your so called venom. Also in this instance if you had a correctly modified venom I could have charged around the other side but it was so close the judges did not want to make a solid ruling on it. So we diced off on a game changing move that should never have even been a question.

Out of the 5 people you played this past weekend, 4 of them gave you bad games. how does that make you feel? Do you feel better by cheating to win? I don't know how you won having such a crappy sportsmanship score. And giving your prize to the last place person does not redeem you. That is an act of kindness done only by winners.

I hope you come to wargamescon and try to have fun by not cheating your opponents. But I will tell you this, cheating will not be tolerated. Have fun little man.

And you were surprised?

Welcome to the tournament setting. Everyone is a WAAC in disguise. Everyone.

From the AlamoGT 40K website:

After each game the players will have one question on the score sheet which asks, "Did your opponent's behavior make this a bad game for you?" Here are the criteria to apply:

1) Did the opponent play sloppily (sloppy measuring, sloppy movement)?

2) Did the opponent appear to deliberately slow play to avoid finishing the game?

3) Was your opponent prepared (on time, had a copy of his list for you, etc.)?

4) Was your opponent open with die rolls—i.e. did he clearly announce what rolls were for, did he allow you to see all dice results before picking them up, etc.

5) Did the opponent remain consistent in his rules interpretations—i.e. did he interpret a rule one way when it worked in his favor, and another way when it did not work in his favor?

6) Did the opponent treat you with respect? He doesn't have to be your best buddy, but can't be a total asshat either.

This list is not exhaustive, but please reserve bad game votes for people who really deserve it.

Next year I will print the above list and put it in the player pack. Probably will make the fluff bunny award totally judge-given to clean up the game tracker sheet as well. On the fantasy side, things are much looser. I forget sometimes that 40K players prefer more precision.

BTW, forgive Chris his wall of text above. He gets excited.

--
john

Under those criteria, I should have been dishing out bad games, not getting them.

Always helps to read the rules, Dash!

Sounds like a solid system, from what's been described of it. Just sorry to hear that the final result was somehow in error and had to be adjusted after the fact.

thehod wrote: @AlamoGT players

How did everyone feel about the scoring and scenarios this year?

The scoring is very old school GT scoring, which means it is familiar and almost nostalgic to me at this point. The scenarios were fine, book objective primary and a 4 point secondary objective.

I think the Alamo has a great venue and the Baileys are great hosts; I attend both their 40K and WFB tournaments and enjoy them. I don't think there is a better experience for the size of event anywhere.

Thanks for posting those army pictures, those Iron Warriors especially look awesome. Stuff like this (the pics, not the net-drama) really get me excited to get back into the game.

I won Best Overall.

However, John sent out an e-mail this morning noting that his matrix was messed up, and apparently I didn't win.

*shrugs* I was the only one who went 5-0, and that's what I truly care about.

I dont get that
If one goes 5-0 and say the second guy goes 4-1 how can you not finish top? Would sportsmanship/painting points account for that much of a difference?
I acknowledge someone else might have gone 5-0 and had a better painting record or something.

Some excellently painted armies btw, really love the blue Eldar (Smittys was it?).

Glad to see John replied to this thread!

I posted this in another thread and felt it should apply here as well:

Dash, and others at the tournament, can attest that every table was nearly bare. I spoke with John Friday night and he explained that this was his second year running a 40K GT. His terrain is optimized for the Fantasy tournaments he has been running for years. You do the math... In each of my games, literally every one of my opponents guns was able to shoot one of my units. There was nothing to hide behind.

Additionally, which I found mortifying, John's "Rules Judge" and I had a conversation about terrain. He feels that too much terrain makes the game "less fun" and leads to armies "skirting around one another" instead of "getting in the fight." As a Dark Eldar player (and former Wood Elf Player), I felt this merely indicated he has no idea how 40k tables are supposed to look and how games are suppose to be played. I should note this same rules judge had a conversation with myself explaining how much he loves Fantasy tournaments because of the atmosphere and whatnot. This furthers my suspicion that the Alamo GT could have used better 40k judges...

Don't get me wrong. This rules judge was a great guy. However, I certainly don't want him setting up my table! 25% terrain with plenty of blocking LoS is necessary for a great 40k game.

All the terrain the BOLS guys brought was superb. Perhaps John needs to ask more players to bring whatever they can or raise the registration fee to purchase more terrain. I know that I, for one, would gladly help in whatever manner possible.

@Smitty - Love your Eldar! Shame I didn't get to meet you in person, but I did see your army at the tournament.

sleziness during the game? really? I will admitted to being hot headed after the game. To be honest I was quite furious. Especially after I saw how your game with David was going and you were pulling the same crap with him, so it just infuriated me even more.

Ratius wrote:

I won Best Overall.

However, John sent out an e-mail this morning noting that his matrix was messed up, and apparently I didn't win.

*shrugs* I was the only one who went 5-0, and that's what I truly care about.

I dont get that
If one goes 5-0 and say the second guy goes 4-1 how can you not finish top? Would sportsmanship/painting points account for that much of a difference?
I acknowledge someone else might have gone 5-0 and had a better painting record or something.

Some excellently painted armies btw, really love the blue Eldar (Smittys was it?).

According to earlier posts that were edited out during the thread lock, Dash lost alot of points in the sportmanship category. It's also possible that others scored higher in the painting category. Either way, going 5-0 shouldn't guarantee you the best overall slot if others rock the other categories (although in most tournies it does help significantly more than any other category). It should pretty much lock in best general though.

Guy that won overall for fantasy at the lsat GT I went to went 3-1-1. Max sportsmanship and max painting are worth a lot of points.

I had a great time at the event with with 5 good games and five nice opponents. I got to meet Dash and found him to be very pleasant. I noticed significant consternation at Dash's table during games 4 and 5 but I was to busy in my games to find out the details. I played Chris in game 3, who played Dash in game 4, and found him be very friendly and had a very fun game. It was great to meet so many new people.

The only problem I had with the tourney was the terrain. There was almost no LOS blocking terrain and much of had a very small footprint. I was surprised at how players from different areas interpret the same piece of terrain. I was always go over what the terrain is and it effects before the game with my opponent. I dont usually care what it is designated as long as both players are in agreement about it. My first opponent from Oklahoma wanted a hill to be difficult on the edges but no cover saves on it's flat top. Most of the other pieces were counted as area terrain. (This is how it is played at the stores I have been to in Houston). The next 3 players, all from Austin, counted the same type of hill as area terrain with a 4+ cover save. The Austin players tend to count most terrain as area of terrain and alll 3 players from Austin were consistent in that. My last opponent from Washington did not want to count the hill as difficult or having a cover save. I did not feel any of my opponents were doing this for their advantage but were following their local customs. Some of the terrain discussions may be from the differing house rules from different areas. I think having TO's explaining the types of terrain would be a good idea.

As a side note the Austin players have pieces of felt cut into shapes to represent a crater after a vehicle is destroyed. This was an excellent idea to me since it cheap and portable.

To be fair, I've seen some pretty nice guys (myself included, I like to think) get into some rather intense "discussions" about rules, particularly when they're at one of the higher tables with the tournament on the line.

I went 4-0-1 so the last game was a draw not a loss. I didn't max out all the games either unlike Dash.

The terrain was sparse - but I think that will get resolved for next year. John talked to me as well as JWolf about getting ahold of the terrain we brought up. We have found a good place to purchase the terrain at a decent price that is both light and easy to transport and use.

We specifically built the buildings to have the bottom floor be fully covered to allow for more LOS blocking terrain as well as a game that just doesn't feel like a shooting gallery.

Congrates again brother Dash for another win, just that much closer to are little face off in a few months. Abby and his boyz are awaiting a fine battle from your DE forces. You bring the pointy ears and I will make em corpses, just for you my fine daisy eating friend.

Anyone that think it's wise to have your opponent score something subjective (even check boxes are subjective) that effects your overall standings obviously doesn't understand the theory of conflict of interest.

There have been exhaustive conversations on this forum about that very subject Leenus.

This isn't the thread for it.

This thread has many conversations about sportsmanship within the context of the Alamo. In fact, it is likely that the person that went 5-0 did not win overall, BECAUSE of his sports scoring.

My comment was neither irrelevant nor off topic. I was hardly making an exhaustive diatribe on the subject, so step back, chill and stop acting like you are king of what is appropriate for this thread. This thread IS about the Alamo GT and one purpose would be to improve the Alamo on a go forward basis. I was adding my input, based on the previous discussions in the thread, about the effectiveness of sportsmanship in the GT environment.

Leenus, your comment was about sportsmanship in general and we've had plenty of those, and it is not appropriate for this thread... which should be focusing specifcally on the Alamo GT.

If you want to talk about their specific rubric, or the like, that'd be on-topic... this:

Leenus wrote:Anyone that think it's wise to have your opponent score something subjective (even check boxes are subjective) that effects your overall standings obviously doesn't understand the theory of conflict of interest.

Is not, and that ground's been covered many, many times...

If Alamo, wargamecon and all the other GTs got rid of sportsmanship scores do you think less people will come to tournaments? probably not...

But if they got rid of painting scores... then that might be a problem.

Paint scores and requirements always have a place. Looks like a well run event excluding the god-awful terrain. But they are fixing that so I'm thinking a trip to San Antonio might be in order next year. I hear it's a nice place. Way better than Dallas but not as cool as Austin (FIGHT!!!!)

San Antonio is a wonderful town. Lots and lots to do, especially if you like the world's best waterpark.

(Disclaimer: I spent three years growing up there. Loved it.)

Also there is enough to do there that you can bring your SO and they wont be incredibly board the entire time.

Using the pivot to gain extra moment is one of the most flagrant abuses of the rules. It certainly is not sporting and would be grounds to dock someone sportsmanship. (I also consider it illegal and a grey area that people have been allowed to exploit because it is on the pyre with 100 other things that GW refuses to clarify)

With that said, I am NOT a fan of sportsmanship being judged by the person you just tabled. It should not be the deciding factor in who wins the over all pageant.. err tournament.

Terrain in a 40k game is a pretty big deal. This game completely revolves around blocking line of sight and cover saves.

IG dominated for so long because terrain took months/a year to catch up with 5th edition. Shooting armies have a significant advantage in games where there are no LOS blocking features.

With three bad game votes, I had 16 points subtracted from my score. 16 points was also the number of points you got for winning a game. If you achieved the secondary bonus objectives, you got 20 points.

At the end of the tournament, John told me that I won Best Overall by one point. My paint scores were probably 60-70%, I had some pretty decent conversions, but I'm not a whiz with them.

Darkwynn, congrats on 4-0-1 - that early tie of yours let you dodge the bullet. =D

The first game tie is sometimes not a bad thing. Especially if you have really good sports and painting scores. Makes your later games easier.

I personally also didn't like the raider conversions. I've seen good conversions, and I've seen bad ones. Cutting a WHFB base in half and sticking it on the front of a stormbolter as a storm shield, for instance - a case of what I consider lazy and bad-looking and takes away from the experience. Dark lances on the front of an otherwise fairly untouched raider that could easily have been sawed in half and then had the engine stuck onto the shortened front is the same. Especially if you're using the 2" extra via pivoting trick.

Which I see as blatant cheating. Pivoting doesn't take away your movement. But able to move 12" means able to move 12". If via some sort of turning/pivoting shenanigans you have moved MORE THAN 12", PERIOD, then you have cheated. Part of your vehicle has gone FURTHER than your MAXIMUM movement. It can't be done legally.

That said I don't think of Dash as a bad player. We all do stuff like that. I've fudged the 1" rule. I've moved 6.2 inches. I try to catch it, and I try to be fair. In measuring 6" for an assault I nudge a figure and now it's too far away. I don't throw up an argument, I just sigh and realize I should have been more careful with my measuring, and now it cost me.

What I really hate you for Dash is not having a picture of my Slaanesh army up there. Just because I was almost late doesn't mean you can ignore THE prettiest pink army there. Especially since your orks weren't there to represent the color.

My problem was game 3, where a BOLS guy complained about me having 18 meltaguns, 7 of which were 1-shot and which I only got to use like....once, and then we were in assault the rest of the game. And obviously he's never played space wolves, sisters, IG, or BA which can take more, and he's playing regular codex marines, which can take almost as many and make them all twin-linked. He rolled HORRIBLY on saves for his terminator unit though, and we've all been there. I honestly would have probably been in a pretty sour mood if my power unit got wiped as quickly as his did as well. Heck I WAS in as sour of a mood game one when my entire army failed to kill more than seven space wolves, or game 4 when the whole army again failed to get 2 wave serpents.

Overall had a blast. I need to revamp my army. I really wanted to play you Dash, but it's going to be a real uphill battle to do it with CSM in this day and age, facing off against SW, BA, DE and GK. Ugh.

Now I'm mad that he didn't take pictures of your army too. I always like to see a good Emperor's Children force.

Spellbound wrote:What I really hate you for Dash is not having a picture of my Slaanesh army up there. Just because I was almost late doesn't mean you can ignore THE prettiest pink army there. Especially since your orks weren't there to represent the color.

Forgive the quality as these were taken with my camera phone:









This is Kevin, obviously. Good seeing you guys there!

blood angel wrote:Using the pivot to gain extra moment is one of the most flagrant abuses of the rules. It certainly is not sporting and would be grounds to dock someone sportsmanship. (I also consider it illegal and a grey area that people have been allowed to exploit because it is on the pyre with 100 other things that GW refuses to clarify)

I felt the same way but then I read Yakface's argument for it (and he has a sterling track record for good rules interpretations), and he changed my opinion. While I think it is not in the spirit of the rule to gain movement by pivoting, it is (IMO) in accordance with the letter of the rule.

Dash- at the time it appeared that you had won by a point, but there was a cell formula error such that paint scores were not being properly accounted for, it wasn't immediately obvious, i found it when cleaning up the scoresheet for public consumption. The final scores will be up on the website as soon as my web guy gets them up today.

As for terrain, those planning to attend next year will be glad to know that I am placing a large terrain order with BOLS' supplier, so the tables will be much denser next year, and for the Fall WFB event.

As for sportsmanship, I always listen to all feedback on my event, positive or negative. That said, having used the system for six years and tweaking it occasionally, if not each year, I can guarantee that there is not an argument or opinion for or against sportsmanship scoring in general, or for or against any particular system, that I have not already heard. I long ago swore off debating any topic relating to either flavor of warhammer on the interwebs, but would be more than happy to debate that or any topic in person over a beer with anyone and everyone. I'll be at the BOLS event in July ready to hang out, drink a beer and shoot the bull. The first beer is on me.

--
john

Let me break it down for you dense types.

The stated mission of the Alamo GT, as per the website, is:

"Sportsmanship is about having a good game."

A high score should reflect that you offered your opponents good games, which is something we all probably strive to do. However, the method to achieve this noble goal is flawed.

They simply ask a question to the effect of "Did your opponent's behavior and/or army selection honestly make this a bad game for you." Now the assumption ON THEIR WEBSITE, is that telling if a game was good or bad is OBJECTIVE and "something everyone can agree on." In fact, they state that there "are a thousand things that can make a game good or bad." So you're telling me that everyone can equally agree on thousands of different factors without involving personal emotion? If you've been around Dakka for more than 30 seconds you know that's simply not true.

The issue here is that they think they are using an objective system, when, in fact, it is totally subjective. The scorer is allowed to use his/her own interpretation of what makes a game "good." There is nothing within the good game/bad game question they asked that is not open to interpretation. They reference "sloppy movement" as one criterion. How sloppy? measuring .000001 inch too far is to be considered sloppy? .001? .01? .1? How many infractions are necessary to be considered sloppy? 1? 10? 20? These questions are influenced by person feelings; therefore, they are not objective.

Moreover, people can bring outside influences into their sports scoring. Take Dash as an example. He may play a perfectly gentleman-like game, but he has quite a controversial internet personality. Maybe the person he plays abhors his internet personality and grades him a bad game, despite perfect play, simply because they do not like his internet self. This system does not stop such moves.

Additionally, the Alamo GT website says that "No one should be worried about being dinged out of spite which is so prevalent in other systems because this system focuses on the consensus of all five of ones opponents. While one bad vote will cost you points it cannot not knock you out of the running because of its small worth."

This statement is completely false. If you look back at past GT records, the top 5 spots have been largely separated by 1-3 points in many places. 1 bad game is -4 points. Therefore, a SINGLE bad game vote, can significantly influence your standings. It may not have determined overall in every situation, that plenty of people still care about getting 2nd or 3rd or really any other position in the standings.

Thus, because even 1 bad vote can effect your chances of placing well, A SINGLE OPPONENT has the ability to hurt your standings. A conflict of interest is created. The opponent is supposed to score your game good / bad, but maybe he was bitter about losing and wants to hurt your overall chances. He has the ability to do that and it has happened plenty of times in many other GTs. Why knowingly use a system that allows an opponent to effect your future performance. It simply does not make logical sense. Pretty much no other competition on the planet allows the opponent to score the player, because there is no way to ENSURE they will be objective and stop emotion from effecting decisions. If you know that emotion cannot be eliminated and that the system significantly influences final rankings, than why use it?

People at final tables also have a huge conflict of interest. Say you are on table 1 for game 4. You beat your opponent, but know that the field is pretty tight, as people have not been maxing points. You know that if you give your opponent "good game" and he "bad games" you, you could be screwing yourself if you lose game 5 and he wins (you are both 4-1). It is a game theory situation. In many ways, giving "good game" to your opponent is actually handicapping yourself, so any player, acting in their own self interest, would be incentivized to "bad game" their game 4 opponent. If you don't think this thought process happens, then I am sorry for you naivety. Like it or not, people are going to act in their own self interest. We have judges and referees, because, ideally, they are not involved in the game / tournament and do not have a stake, or a self interest to promote.

Subjective sports scoring does NOT make a better event. People do not suddenly stop being aholes at events with sports scoring. People that constantly get multiple bad games don't really change. If they do, it's rare. So you're not positively influencing behavior, you're not providing an objective system, you're not creating a better tournament, so why harm your event with a system that allows the TRUE BAD SPORTS to chimpunk an opponent out of spite?

johnbailey wrote:Dash- at the time it appeared that you had won by a point, but there was a cell formula error such that paint scores were not being properly accounted for, it wasn't immediately obvious, i found it when cleaning up the scoresheet for public consumption. The final scores will be up on the website as soon as my web guy gets them up today.

As for terrain, those planning to attend next year will be glad to know that I am placing a large terrain order with BOLS' supplier, so the tables will be much denser next year, and for the Fall WFB event.

As for sportsmanship, I always listen to all feedback on my event, positive or negative. That said, having used the system for six years and tweaking it occasionally, if not each year, I can guarantee that there is not an argument or opinion for or against sportsmanship scoring in general, or for or against any particular system, that I have not already heard. I long ago swore off debating any topic relating to either flavor of warhammer on the interwebs, but would be more than happy to debate that or any topic in person over a beer with anyone and everyone. I'll be at the BOLS event in July ready to hang out, drink a beer and shoot the bull. The first beer is on me.

--
john

I don't mean to intrude but have you just considered a "terrain party?" We often did that before a tournament or campaign. Just some guys get together and make some terrain. Cheap and interesting (plus with the right rum quite fun).

Leenus wrote:Let me break it down for you dense types.

See, right here, at the very beginning, you failed to offer your readers a "good post." As such, all of your many words which follow have become void and without meaning.

If you can't have a discussion while offering respect to your adversary's position, then you aren't engaging in any sort of debate. You're just yelling.

As to the topic - it HAS been discussed, many times, and at exhaustive length. One short response to your argument - who says they want an objective measure? Maybe they want the subjective interpretation to come into play; maybe they want you to have some obligation to help make your opponent enjoy the game. And yes, maybe that will be impossible at times, depending on who you are matched up against.

40k tournaments are always matchup-dependent.

Spellbound wrote:I personally also didn't like the raider conversions. I've seen good conversions, and I've seen bad ones. Cutting a WHFB base in half and sticking it on the front of a stormbolter as a storm shield, for instance - a case of what I consider lazy and bad-looking and takes away from the experience. Dark lances on the front of an otherwise fairly untouched raider that could easily have been sawed in half and then had the engine stuck onto the shortened front is the same. Especially if you're using the 2" extra via pivoting trick.

Which I see as blatant cheating. Pivoting doesn't take away your movement. But able to move 12" means able to move 12". If via some sort of turning/pivoting shenanigans you have moved MORE THAN 12", PERIOD, then you have cheated. Part of your vehicle has gone FURTHER than your MAXIMUM movement. It can't be done legally.

I really don't think that conversion which is LARGER than what it is supposed to be, gives someone huge overall advantage. Quite the contrary if anything, don't people usually want their vehicles to be smaller (ie. old Trukks are considered better than new, much bigger ones...)? Especially in a shooty list.

Reecius wrote:

(and he has a sterling track record for good rules interpretations)

Except for being wrong about at least 75% of his tyranid rulings.

Bunker wrote:

Reecius wrote:

(and he has a sterling track record for good rules interpretations)

Except for being wrong about at least 75% of his tyranid rulings.

Or was he?

@Bunker
He uses logic and precedence to make his rules calls and is arbitrary. GW doesn't always agree with him in their FAQs, but that doe snot make his arguments invalid at the time he makes them.

The INAT FAQ gives us something to work with, and I both respect the rulings and the effort that goes into them.

Offer us something better if you don't like Yak's work. It is a lot harder to be a solution to a problem than to offer criticism, I know, but if you think you have a better solution, then let's hear it.

@Lennus and the thread

And this is why sportsmanship and soft scores need to get dumped from tournaments. Look how many problems it causes. For years and years, the number one complaint about tournaments is soft scores, always soft scores.

They don't help, they hurt. They make events less fun.

Keep playing and painting separate, and junk the rest. They are too subjective and open the door to much for abuse. They just don't work.

Frazzled wrote:
I don't mean to intrude but have you just considered a "terrain party?" We often did that before a tournament or campaign. Just some guys get together and make some terrain. Cheap and interesting (plus with the right rum quite fun).

Yup, that's exactly what I'll be doing with all the yummy terrain I'll be ordering with BOLS.

Leemus/Reecius, as I said, first beer's on me, look forward to meeting you and talking sports scoring.

--
john

SonsofVulkan wrote:If Alamo, wargamecon and all the other GTs got rid of sportsmanship scores do you think less people will come to tournaments? probably not...

But if they got rid of painting scores... then that might be a problem.

Wargamescon actually is not scoring anything except battle and paint towards overall this year. That said, exceptionally poor sportsmanship will gain the special "get off of my lawn" award to anyone exhibiting it from yours truly.

jwolf wrote:

SonsofVulkan wrote:If Alamo, wargamecon and all the other GTs got rid of sportsmanship scores do you think less people will come to tournaments? probably not...

But if they got rid of painting scores... then that might be a problem.

Wargamescon actually is not scoring anything except battle and paint towards overall this year. That said, exceptionally poor sportsmanship will gain the special "get off of my lawn" award to anyone exhibiting it from yours truly.

So, you are telling Chris Carlile that his services as a judge will no longer be needed?

::tosses a large bone to Dash as the Space Wolfs look on::
Sick him!!!!!!....hehehe....run daisy eater....

just foolin around thanks bro hope to see you in San Diego soon....keep woopin butt

pretre wrote:

Bunker wrote:

Reecius wrote:

(and he has a sterling track record for good rules interpretations)

Except for being wrong about at least 75% of his tyranid rulings.

Or was he?

Considering that the official FAQ contradicted him? Yeah, he was wrong

I can already tell Wargamescon is going to be a good event that is has no sportsmanship scores...

Janthkin wrote:One short response to your argument - who says they want an objective measure? Maybe they want the subjective interpretation to come into play; maybe they want you to have some obligation to help make your opponent enjoy the game.

From the Alamo GT website:

"It is very hard to determine how good or how bad a game was. It's very subjective and different to everyone. However, it is easy to tell if a game was good or bad and pretty much everyone can agree on it, so for the Alamo GT, sportsmanship will focus on if the game was good or bad."

They say on the website that HOW bad or good is what is subjective. However, they use good game / bad game (not how good / how bad), as it is something "pretty much everyone can agree on." A pretty strong logical step is that the system they are focusing on objectivity, if pretty much everyone reaches the same consensus.


Assuming that my response does not appease you, I'd point you to the second part of my long post (about the flawed system). My assumption is that a TO generally wants to improve his tournament to be as good as possible and appeal to as many people as possible, in order to maximize $ profit and participant satisfaction. Using a flawed system (I describe why it's flawed above) creates angry participants which undermines the goal of the TO to run a large, successful, profitable event. I can't stop a TO from wanting to run an average / flawed event and it's fine if a TO is OK with throwing a "pretty good" event. You can throw a "solid" event with the Alamo's sport scoring and there's nothing inherently wrong with that. However, coming from a business background, it doesn't make sense to me to include a system which creates ill will, conflicts of interest and heated debates about the event *IF* I am not getting some greater benefit in return. If the response from the TO was "I believe that absence of sports scoring would negatively impact attendance at my event, compared to WITH sports scoring," I would be open to that response and interested in debating it (as I believe it's false, but at least it's a decent argument). However, usually the argument is "it stops people from being douches" or "we think the system works really well."

People make the suboptimal choice all the time and things generally work out OK. That doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to improve. That doesn't mean we should continue to make or are justified in making flawed decisions.

ghazzy69 wrote:Hey guys this is Chris one of the Alamo Indy GT tournie runners.....You know....the extremely good looking model fine conan like sexy stripper wannabe running around like the mad hatter judging painting hahahah. Anyway I just joined this site right now after a ridiculous hour long read on the final Dash/David whatever game hahaha. What a novel. First of all I want to say even us organizers were astounded at how many people turned out and to tell the truth...for a jame crammed 70 person 40k tournie....with 5 hard games...really....there were not alot of serious issues. We enjoyed ourselves immensely and I really didnt meet anyone I didnt like. So we are looking forward to next years and we are also looking forward to the Fantasy Indy tournie we are really known for in November (this was only our 2nd year running the 40k tournie). I do want to say on as positive note as I can that for sure next year we will try to brush up on the rules enough to iron them out ASAP. I do want to thank whomever Smitty0305 is for defending us TOs and saying "dragging the TOs into the mix is sad" cause I was a little bummed about that having happened. But it happens. Just for the record though to whomever it was that said the rules debate went on for 25 plus minutes and then the TOs/judges voted on it....well frankly that is not true in the case of the judges. The argument might have gone on that long who knows....but I was the one called over to look at the ruling and i was literally on in the spot rulling for 3-5 minutes. Done. Period. It was heated before I...we...came over.....and really was hard to understand clearly what all had led up to the debated portion and make a fair ruling as the players and some spectators were heated and arguing. We tried to get kinda as clear a picture as we could with what we heard and make a calling to hopefully get the game back on track but I think at that point it was a bit beyond. Even ther judges were somehwhat being ignored at that point. So anyway .....I think next time what I have learned the problem is/was...is not even the rules question so much as that.....I should have very manlike stopped the argument with no ifs, ands, ors or buts, gotten the side of each with no talking over each other....discussed quickly with 1-2 other judges, made a call, and stopped it from continuing to go further and enforced a hug and kiss policy hahahahaha or crushed the skulls of the arguers between my massive bicep like thews and smiled for the camera!! WOOT! But anyway fellas it is a done deal....its over with...I know most everyone had fun.....we were very pleased with things, you guys will just have to rematch next year. To tell the truth in all honesty I am a big fantasy gamer and I know a lot more 40kers are hot headed and rules lawyerly and I thought it would be alot more discrepancies. I was quite please really and revamped my opinion that tru love CAN EXIST between 40kers hahahahaha.

Welcome to Dakka. In the future please try to break up massive walls of text into paragraphs. It makes them so much easier on the eyes.

Bunker wrote:

pretre wrote:

Bunker wrote:

Reecius wrote:

(and he has a sterling track record for good rules interpretations)

Except for being wrong about at least 75% of his tyranid rulings.

Or was he?

Considering that the official FAQ contradicted him? Yeah, he was wrong

Just for my knowledge, Isn't there like a 'ruling council' that makes up the INAT FAQ decisions?


On Topic: I know that this has been nit-picked to death (like everything else in our hobby) but aren't soft scores supposed to keep the game relaxed? I mean I'm sure some people look at soft scores as a way to just kick their opponent (whether they won or not) in a way to just get a better score? I mean aren't soft scores meant to kinda identify TFG, making sure everyone has fun as much as possible? I mean I've been roflstomped in tournaments before, but even my worst game was still a fun game to play against my opponent.

Alfndrate wrote:

Just for my knowledge, Isn't there like a 'ruling council' that makes up the INAT FAQ decisions?

Sorry, THEY were wrong. Which is even worse.

Sorry, THEY were wrong. Which is even worse.

Yep. We were wrong and we will be wrong again.

We were also right and will be right again. Sort of goes with the territory and is part of the process.


On topic .. Good tourney terrain takes time and considerable effort ... and with time .. I'm sure the Alamo crew will address it.

Dash - Darkwynn didn't win - if you read my name it is Goatboy. Come on I am not the "leaf blower" player I made people mad about counts as, as well as wolves hehe.

Yeah I was right around you most of the day - sorry we never got to get a game in. Either way - it is Goatboy .

Bunker wrote:

Alfndrate wrote:Just for my knowledge, Isn't there like a 'ruling council' that makes up the INAT FAQ decisions?

Sorry, THEY were wrong. Which is even worse.

Oh noes. Human beings made mistakes. Of course, the rulings GW made in that FAQ were totally predictable, and certainly what the rest of us were expecting.

GoatboyBBMA wrote:Dash - Darkwynn didn't win - if you read my name it is Goatboy. Come on I am not the "leaf blower" player I made people mad about counts as, as well as wolves hehe.

Yeah I was right around you most of the day - sorry we never got to get a game in. Either way - it is Goatboy .

I can never tell you two apart either.

ChainswordHeretic wrote:

jwolf wrote:

SonsofVulkan wrote:If Alamo, wargamecon and all the other GTs got rid of sportsmanship scores do you think less people will come to tournaments? probably not...

But if they got rid of painting scores... then that might be a problem.

Wargamescon actually is not scoring anything except battle and paint towards overall this year. That said, exceptionally poor sportsmanship will gain the special "get off of my lawn" award to anyone exhibiting it from yours truly.

So, you are telling Chris Carlile that his services as a judge will no longer be needed?

What does not having sportsmanship scores have to do with judging? Games will still need to be judged. However, we've talked it over and games will not be decided by a dice roll. I will say this though, if I am nearby a game with Dash, I will just go get another judge as my judgement would obviously be biased. And there will be a need for judges around Dash's games...

Ummm I won?......lol to be serious not I was not there Dash and Dakka bro's and sisters....Dash had to much rum again and will feel better in the morning...::stashing the winners trophy in my back pack:: nothing to see here folks just a drunk man that needs assistance.

Mannahnin wrote:

Bunker wrote:

Alfndrate wrote:Just for my knowledge, Isn't there like a 'ruling council' that makes up the INAT FAQ decisions?

Sorry, THEY were wrong. Which is even worse.

Oh noes. Human beings made mistakes. Of course, the rulings GW made in that FAQ were totally predictable, and certainly what the rest of us were expecting.

So true. If the Tyranid FAQ is 'right', then what the hell is 'wrong'? Psychic Hoods working against psychers in transports, that's what. Or any other host of Tyranid only screwings in that FAQ.

But again, people make mistakes, even the GW dev team.

Caldera02 wrote:

What does not having sportsmanship scores have to do with judging? Games will still need to be judged. However, we've talked it over and games will not be decided by a dice roll. I will say this though, if I am nearby a game with Dash, I will just go get another judge as my judgement would obviously be biased. And there will be a need for judges around Dash's games...

*bites his tongue*

reds8n wrote:

This is so totally trolling.

I'm going to alert a moderator that a moderator...just....trolled....yeah.

Well good for Dash for taking the high road. As I have stated before, everyone needs to move past this as best they could.

Dashofpepper wrote:

Caldera02 wrote:

What does not having sportsmanship scores have to do with judging? Games will still need to be judged. However, we've talked it over and games will not be decided by a dice roll. I will say this though, if I am nearby a game with Dash, I will just go get another judge as my judgement would obviously be biased. And there will be a need for judges around Dash's games...

*bites his tongue*

WarOne wrote:

reds8n wrote:

This is so totally trolling.

I'm going to alert a moderator that a moderator...just....trolled....yeah.

Well good for Dash for taking the high road. As I have stated before, everyone needs to move past this as best they could.

Typing *bites his tongue* is not "taking the high road. If he really wanted to simply take the high road, he wouldn't post to obvious troll and flame posts, he'd let it be.

whitedragon wrote:Typing *bites his tongue* is not "taking the high road. If he really wanted to simply take the high road, he wouldn't post to obvious troll and flame posts, he'd let it be.

And I think that this was him taking the high road relative to his other posts.

Why cant we all get along lol?

I have played in a lot of national and worlds tournaments for other games and the level of buttheadary and bickering is never as high as it is here.

Is it just the internet that makes everyone seem to be at each others throats? When the people in my state (WV) play it never ends with all this drama.

Dash thanks for all the pictures. Its obvious you have a love and dedication to this game.

Is it just the internet that makes everyone seem to be at each others throats?

Yes. The untold story for most events is that the vast majority of people have a great time, never played Dash, knew Dash was there or I'm guessing cared one way or another if he gain 2" of pivot movement, crushed face, went 5-0, cheated, or caught people cheating, got a penalty for subjective sportsmanship, had some gain from lack of soft scores, was drunk, sober, a raving madman or helped some little old lady across the street etc...

It is internet drama that unfortunately for those of us that are in the internet coverage realm seems at times overshadow the greater more important story. A large number of people gathering together and enjoying the hobby free of real life concerns and work. All those people are not going to login here and tell that story. What they will do, if the event was a great time, is tell their friends and return next year in greater numbers regardless of what is said on the internet.

Muhwe, if you don't run a tournament you should. Well said.

--
john

whitedragon wrote:
Typing *bites his tongue* is not "taking the high road. If he really wanted to simply take the high road, he wouldn't post to obvious troll and flame posts, he'd let it be.

Does not the Buddha teach us that it is the middle road that leads to enlightenment?

Mannahnin wrote:

Bunker wrote:

Alfndrate wrote:Just for my knowledge, Isn't there like a 'ruling council' that makes up the INAT FAQ decisions?

Sorry, THEY were wrong. Which is even worse.

Oh noes. Human beings made mistakes. Of course, the rulings GW made in that FAQ were totally predictable, and certainly what the rest of us were expecting.

M beat me to it. In this case, I think you'll find INAT made the more reasonable calls. It just so happen that GW wanted to crush the Tyranid codex.

johnbailey wrote:
Muhwe, if you don't run a tournament you should. Well said.
--
john

Oh, he runs this little tournament every year that my group travels to----it's Adepticon .


And kudos to the organizers coming on here, taking criticism with hat in hand and a smile----and stating how they plan to improve the event. I'm sure it was a great time for the vast, silent majority and welcome to Dakka.

AgeOfEgos wrote:

Oh, he runs this little tournament every year that my group travels to----it's Adepticon .

That explains the sage wisdom. LOL, sorry haven't been on Dakka enough to know people by their handles.

--
john

I wish internet drama would die in a fire.

Much of the reason I stopped writing battle reports for so long.

Dashofpepper wrote:I wish internet drama would die in a fire.

Much of the reason I stopped writing battle reports for so long.

Dash, I know we have not always agreed, but...

You have gained a reputation at this point, rightfully or not. If you are truly interested in avoiding Internet Drama, you are going to take some pretty big steps to avoid it going forward. I jokingly suggested a camera/tape recorder at games, but I'm not sure it isn't a bad idea. More importantly and realistically though, I would analyze the complaints that players have had from your games and take them very seriously. Whether they are right, wrong or false, they provide valuable insight into why people are coming at you.

- If people don't like your conversions/models, use different ones (you're already getting new venoms, so this is fixed).
- If people don't like the pivoting thing, ask before the game starts and if they aren't down, just don't do it. Yes, I know it is legal and such, but you very much have to be the bigger man.
- Learn to gauge your opponent better. Not everyone wants to know about how to up their game or why / how they aren't competitive. Although this may come from a good place, it can sound like you are talking down to them.
- I know trash talking is fun, but people take this wrong sometimes, gauge your audience. To some, this is a good time; to others, this is you being condescending or drunk.
- Stop letting things slide, but do it in a nice way. I know the intent of you allowing people to get away with things, to make for less friction. But it comes across really badly when you say 'Cheat all you want, I'll beat you anyway' (Not that you say this at the table, but it is implied when you don't call someone on something.) Instead, find a nice way to hold your opponent accountable for their actions. I'm sure we can open a discussion for this separately.
- Don't respond to internet drama. If someone calls you out for something that happened at a GT, respond with a canned response. i.e. "XXXX, thank you for your game at XXX GT. In the interest of a civil dialogue, I have posted how I remember the game in XXX Battle Report Thread. I apologize if there were any misunderstandings which reduced your enjoyment of our game and would be happy to discuss any specific points in person when next we are at a GT together."

TLDR: Learn from this if you really don't like Internet Drama. You may not be at fault in the individual circumstances, but it is at the point that if you do nothing to fix it, you are at fault for letting it continue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Forgot one:
- Keep your BR's neutral voiced. I would only discuss the actual moves, results, etc. If your opponent wanted a takeback, took extra movement, was a jerkface, set your list on fire and danced in the ashes, don't include that. It only causes problems later.

Dashofpepper wrote:I wish internet drama would die in a fire.

Much of the reason I stopped writing battle reports for so long.

Agree with pretre. Considering that your multiple episodes of internet drama only had two things in common (you and 40k... and I don't think the game system is the key link), you may want to tone it down a bit as people only seem to have two reactions to meeting you without much middle ground inbetween love and hate. I've met you in person and frankly you made a negative first impression (which changed my attitude here on dakka towards you). And, no, to all the naysayers, it wasn't because he kicked my butt in a game as we never played in that tourney; it was from simply chatting 20 minutes or so before/inbetween games. (The person who did actually kick my butt gave me fav opponent so I must not have taken it too badly.) Lol, within 30 seconds of meeting me you were asking me for my army list and starting commenting negatively on it. And this was at the relative start of your 40k period when you didn't have the wins to back something brash like that up.

Also, for almost a year, you had a link in your sig to your biggest internet drama where you where as a result of the drama you were told you weren't welcome in most stores in your area in Florida (and the same thing happened in the Carolinas from your own self reported stories). You recently deleted the direct links to the story from your sig but you placed it there (and put it up on a separate blog) after your clearly trolling thread about it was locked here on dakka. Those are *NOT* the actions of someone who abhores internet drama. I'm not telling you to throw games to gain people's favor but being a top gun 40k player means that people will come gunning aggressively for you. Add in a polarizing personality like yours that tends to escalate conflict instead of resolving it and a bit of booze and you've got drama.

Oh, I’m not sure about “Sage”.... I've been taken outside behind the internet woodshed a number of times now in 10 years or so of AdeptiCon...

I’ve heard outstanding things about the Alamo, and the Baileys from those that have attended over the years. It’s great to see your expanding and not only running a great WFB event but offering up some 40K as well. Not to mention saving my bacon a few years ago with the miniature. : )

It’s just disappointing, that typically what gets reported about events on the internet is a very small portion of the overall experience. It leaves a false impression on the unknowing about the tourney environment and events as a whole.

Thankfully, the things I remember about events and the friends I have made, are more lasting than any internet drama.

johnbailey wrote:

AgeOfEgos wrote:

Oh, he runs this little tournament every year that my group travels to----it's Adepticon .

That explains the sage wisdom. LOL, sorry haven't been on Dakka enough to know people by their handles.

--
john

We had at least one player from our group in Houston that went and enjoyed it thoroughly.

Just a thought, but does anyone want to talk about any other part of the amazingly fun tournament that took place this past weekend that was the Alamo GT?

I for one had a great time and played some amazing people. I really enjoyed the tourney that John and his crew put on and my group from Seattle will be looking forward to coming back next year. We are already in talks of comning to wargamescon this year, just trying to work out logistics.

I look forward to playing more people from the BOLS crew and possibly getting a crack at Goatboy next time. I hope you all had as much fun as I did, and I really do hope that this "internet drama" does not overshadow the event as a whole.

Again, thanks to John and his crew and we look forward to seeing you all again.

muwhe wrote:

I’ve heard outstanding things about the Alamo, and the Baileys from those that have attended over the years. It’s great to see your expanding and not only running a great WFB event but offering up some 40K as well. Not to mention saving my bacon a few years ago with the miniature. : )

I started doing 40K last year to try to grow a 40K GT community here in Texas, which is underserved. We had BOLSCon, now Wargamescon, and not much else, while on the WFB side there has been 5-6 70+ player GT's for years in each major city plus Lubbock. Adapting my processes to 40K has been a great learning experience, learned alot this year. Someday I will make it to Adepticon, I've heard great stories from Texas and Leadership2 players who have been.

...and anytime you want more Incursion minis, just drop me a line.

--
john

J_Dearth wrote:Just a thought, but does anyone want to talk about any other part of the amazingly fun tournament that took place this past weekend that was the Alamo GT?

I for one had a great time and played some amazing people. I really enjoyed the tourney that John and his crew put on and my group from Seattle will be looking forward to coming back next year. We are already in talks of comning to wargamescon this year, just trying to work out logistics.

I look forward to playing more people from the BOLS crew and possibly getting a crack at Goatboy next time. I hope you all had as much fun as I did, and I really do hope that this "internet drama" does not overshadow the event as a whole.

Again, thanks to John and his crew and we look forward to seeing you all again.

Well put! I had a great time and I intentionally brought a woefully underpowered army. I got to make new friends and play armies I don't see around home. Mission accomplished!

Yes please!

I actually had a great time! My wife and I got a free hotel stay out of the experience because the Marriott shafted us.

My favorite part of GTs is getting to put faces to names I recognize - which is why I wear my "Dashofpepper" shirt. John pointed us out to a great Mexican restaurant and some of us went there for dinner on Saturday night...I had...I guess I would call it a "Fancy" Enchilada.

I was trying to make up for lunch - I went to the "Hog Shack" with some other guys and had a mystery meat imitation of a Philly Cheese Steak.

Dashofpepper wrote:- I went to the "Hog Shack" with some other guys and had a mystery meat imitation of a Philly Cheese Steak.

That's pretty common in certain parts of San Antonio. It's when you ask for a sandwich and get it on a tortilla that you realize things may not be quite as you expected.

Traceoftoxin wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:- I went to the "Hog Shack" with some other guys and had a mystery meat imitation of a Philly Cheese Steak.

That's pretty common in certain parts of Texas. It's when you ask for a sandwich and get it on a tortilla that you realize things may not be quite as you expected.

fixed!

when are the GT results going to be posted?

Well I don't even know Dash - but he sure brings along a lot of internet drama - that's for sure!

I'd like to think all the contributors to this thread and the one about drinking at tourneys. It has really provided me with a LOT of entertainment this week!

Please - bring on more internet drama! WOOT!

Aldonis wrote:Well I don't even know Dash - but he sure brings along a lot of internet drama - that's for sure!

I'd like to think all the contributors to this thread and the one about drinking at tourneys. It has really provided me with a LOT of entertainment this week!

Please - bring on more internet drama! WOOT!

Dakka is completely full of internet drama right now, no room for more. Specifically, the CRASSUS ARMOURED TRANSPORT is all the rage!
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/369671.page

Its CRASSUS ARMORED ASSAULT TRANSPORT to you!

Dash should get a sponsor and change his name to something like: DashofpepperbroughttoyoubyDrPepper. Then at least he might get paid a bit for all the internet drama.

Smitty0305 wrote:when are the GT results going to be posted?

They are here, should be linked to the home page shortly:

http://www.alamogt40k.com/2011.php

--
john




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dashofpepper wrote:

I was trying to make up for lunch - I went to the "Hog Shack" with some other guys and had a mystery meat imitation of a Philly Cheese Steak.

Silly Dash asking for a Philly Cheeseteak south of the Mason Dixon line. Actually, if you want a cheesesteak in San Antonio or Austin, the place to go is Texadelphia Cafe, IMO...

--
john

Hells yeah. Good times whenever Tau can take second in a GT! I was wondering if the standings I saw previously were official or not. Tau FTW!

I would like to make something very clear in this thread for people. Just because a person is from Austin does not make them part of the bols website or group. The only people in the touranment from Bols and representing Bols were the following:
Jwolf
Thomas aka goatboy
Jay roy
Darkwynn Nick Rose


We have all said good luck and congrats on the win. What I do find and something that I think is very unprofesional for a person claiming to be professional is responding in a way to create more strife , create a negative perpection around someone or illicit a emotional response.

I would suggest thinking twice before saying certain things. Telling someone you dont how how they got this far with a crappy army does't do you any favors. Might help improve some of your perceptions people have about you unless you enjoy drama.

Darkwynn wrote:I would like to make something very clear in this thread for people. Just because a person is from Austin does not make them part of the bols website or group. The only people in the touranment from Bols and representing Bols were the following:
Jwolf
Thomas aka goatboy
Jay roy
Darkwynn Nick Rose


We have all said good luck and congrats on the win. What I do find and something that I think is very unprofesional for a person claiming to be professional is responding in a way to create more strife , create a negative perpection around someone or illicit a emotional response.

I would suggest thinking twice before saying certain things. Telling someone you dont how how they got this far with a crappy army does't do you any favors. Might help improve some of your perceptions people have about you unless you enjoy drama.

Then its a good thing that I DIDN'T say that, isn't it?

This thread has moved past drama. Don't try rekindling it.

Dash, you know what you said to wolf and myself. I would just suggest thinking twice before saying the things you did. You might have a reaction that might have been different if you carried yourself in a more professional manner that you are trying to state.

Unless like i said above you enjoy the drama keep at it but don't expect to get peaceful interactions with everyone you meet either.
Eiher way Wolf and i could care less we are too old for this crap. This is just words of wisdom that you can take or ignore your choice.

I might have to go to the Railhead Rumble just to get in one some of the drama.

I took the time to speak with Dash and David and they both seemed like great guys. I didn't have an opportunity to talk to Chris, but I can't imagine he's a bad guy either. It's a shame all this nonsense had to come out over a tabletop game.

Otherwise, I think everyone there had a good time!

I only played and met Jay Roy, but I'm looking forward to meeting the rest of the BOLS crew at Wargamescon. Hopefully Jay and I don't have a rematch.

Sounds like everyone had a good time at the GT and I for one LOVE the internet drama. I think if anything it makes people more interested in future touneys. Just my opinion. I hope Dash and the BOLS crew can hash out their differences and Dash attends BOLS...er....Wargamescon this year. I am really trying to work it out to make it down there this year as well.

Dash if you dont attend and I can, maybe Ill wear the Tshirt with that green head cat thing that is your Avatar and people will assume you attended. Ill run one of your armies..the whole shebang. Or maybe you could get a handful of people to wear these shirts and it will be a Spartacus type moment.

Either way -any talk Ive heard about the Alamo has been positive with the exception of the lack of LOS blocking terrain, but it sounds like the Austin folks were willing to help out for future GT's.

Love the drama, the rivalry, and as long as it stays civil...I say keep it up.

I say round 1 pairings at the Railhead Rumble be decided by grand melee fistfight. We all wear timers that go out when we're knocked unconscious. Those with knocked-out times closest to one another play each other round 1.

.....what? It's a great idea.

I was happy to see Wolf 11x and his dad - we all used to game together while I was at University, and to see them again really brought me back. A shame I couldn't play either of them though. Honestly Wolf's list probably would have sent me packing with all that S6.

What like 45+ S6 shots per turn? That's just ridiculous. Such a cheesy list, I can't believe it.

I'll be bringing a different army entirely to Wargamescon. Additionally, my Dad and I are doing the team tournament as well.

If you're there, we should all get a game in for old times' sake!

Also, I posted some pics of your army halfway down Page 5.

Norbu the Destroyer wrote:Sounds like everyone had a good time at the GT and I for one LOVE the internet drama. I think if anything it makes people more interested in future touneys. Just my opinion. I hope Dash and the BOLS crew can hash out their differences and Dash attends BOLS...er....Wargamescon this year. I am really trying to work it out to make it down there this year as well.

Dash if you dont attend and I can, maybe Ill wear the Tshirt with that green head cat thing that is your Avatar and people will assume you attended. Ill run one of your armies..the whole shebang. Or maybe you could get a handful of people to wear these shirts and it will be a Spartacus type moment.

Either way -any talk Ive heard about the Alamo has been positive with the exception of the lack of LOS blocking terrain, but it sounds like the Austin folks were willing to help out for future GT's.

Love the drama, the rivalry, and as long as it stays civil...I say keep it up.

That's pretty sweet. =D

I would totally send you a T-shirt too. Bring a bottle of Captain Morgan, wear the shirt, and a bunch of people are going to introduce themselves to you. I'll get PMs on Dakka "Grats on winning XXXX event!" I'll even make up some battle reports to go along with it.

Scores are up! I ended up 6th, right after Dash.

Separation from me and Dash [we both had same points, he got me on general though] to top score was only 7 points. Had I only managed a win instead of a baaaaaaaaarely tie on game 4 I'd have had it all! Damn you hard to kill wave serpents! Why can't 20 marines with meltas and grenades drop you over two turns of shooting and assault?!

Norbu the Destroyer wrote:Sounds like everyone had a good time at the GT and I for one LOVE the internet drama. I think if anything it makes people more interested in future touneys. Just my opinion. I hope Dash and the BOLS crew can hash out their differences and Dash attends BOLS...er....Wargamescon this year. I am really trying to work it out to make it down there this year as well.

Dash if you dont attend and I can, maybe Ill wear the Tshirt with that green head cat thing that is your Avatar and people will assume you attended. Ill run one of your armies..the whole shebang. Or maybe you could get a handful of people to wear these shirts and it will be a Spartacus type moment.

Either way -any talk Ive heard about the Alamo has been positive with the exception of the lack of LOS blocking terrain, but it sounds like the Austin folks were willing to help out for future GT's.

Love the drama, the rivalry, and as long as it stays civil...I say keep it up.

Damnit, there is no beef between Dash and the Bols Crew. There is beef between people from Austin and Dash stop bringing in Bols people's names in this when they are not part of BOLS! Bols has wished Dash the best of luck and congrats him on his win.

Darkwynn wrote: There is beef between people from Austin and Dash

Man, that guy must be awesome to make enemies with an entire major city.

Did that in D&D once. List of enemies: the entire sect of Incabulos and every city whose governments they had subverted.

Keep it on-topic, people.

pretre wrote:Dash should get a sponsor and change his name to something like: DashofpepperbroughttoyoubyDrPepper.

Since his wife does the painting, I'm looking forward to the "Mrs. Dash Painting Service"

I've heard nothing but good things about the Alamo. Unfortunately it always falls on the weekend of my daughter's birthday and I haven't been able to sneak away yet.

After reading the last several pages of drama I just have one thing to ask... Can someone from Austin/BoLS/Alamo pm me the source of your terrain of awesomeness so that I can get an order in for our upcoming mini GT at the end of the year? Or at least PM me the manufacturer?

derek wrote:After reading the last several pages of drama I just have one thing to ask... Can someone from Austin/BoLS/Alamo pm me the source of your terrain of awesomeness so that I can get an order in for our upcoming mini GT at the end of the year? Or at least PM me the manufacturer?

Reach out to me pease and i can help with that

Darkwynn, are you a Wynne family member from Texas or just a guy using the name. As I am a Wynne family member, no joke just asking? Dun mind Dashes Darkelves...(pushes them all in a box). My Chaos will eliminate them soon......::holding a bottle of Capt Morgan:: Its waiting and ready....

So everyone that was thinking about trying a tournament and then read this thread now isn't. Way to make the hobby awesome, guys.

*shakes head disappointedly*

Dashofpepper wrote:
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.

Am I the only one that noticed this? Models are not 1"
So if you leave a 3" gap, well then all 10 of his models can get out. Models only need to follow movement rules to emergency disembark and stay within 2" of the hull. 3" would mean there is plenty of room for them to all file out and stay withing 2" of the hull and outside of 1" from you.

25 millimeters = 0.984251969 inches

Seriously, you try and argue math and fail horribly.

(The rest of your stuff I have no problem with. Tilting opponents through aggressiveness isn't against the rules or anything. If you want to play at a high level competitively learn to deal with tilt.)

Timmah, he was arguing that there WAS room for his opponent's models to get out. His opponent was arguing that there wasn't room. You have it backwards.