Hey folks! You can find my battle reports for the other games in the GT here:
Game One
Game Two
Game Three
Game Four: You're reading it!
Game Five

This weekend I made the eight hour drive to San Antonio, TX for the Alamo GT. I had originally planned on taking my Necron Wraith Wing, but my wife does the painting around here, and she was under the weather for the last two weeks and didn't get a lot of painting done, so we didn't get the Monoliths done. I don't mind going to RTTs or FLGS tournaments with unpainted models, but not traveling long distances for a Grand Tournament. Worse...I sent in the wrong Dark Eldar list! I wych cult and my kabal are both labeled "2,000 DE.xls" in different places on my desktop, and I didn't realize until I printed out my lists Friday when I was leaving work that I had sent in my Kabal "Darklight Storm." And what I had sent was a modified version of my usual Darklight Storm that I had never actually used before; I made it to playtest a slight tweak in wargear for units.

Darklight Storm
HQ: Baron Sathonyx
HQ: Haemonculi with Shattershard, Crucible of Malediction, and Animus Vitae

Troop1: 5x Warriors with 1x Blaster // Venom with Dual Splinter Cannons
Troop2: 5x Warriors with 1x Blaster // Venom with Dual Splinter Cannons
Troop3: 5x Warriors with 1x Blaster // Venom with Dual Splinter Cannons
Troop4: 5x Warriors with 1x Blaster // Venom with Dual Splinter Cannons
Troop5: 5x Warriors with 1x Blaster // Venom with Dual Splinter Cannons
Troop6: 9x Wyches with Haywire Grenades // Raider with Flickerfield and Torment Grenade Launcher

Elite1: 4x Trueborn with 4x Blasters // Venom with Dual Splinter Cannons
Elite2: 4x Trueborn with 4x Blasters // Venom with Dual Splinter Cannons
Elite3: 3x Trueborn with 3x Blasters // Venom with Dual Splinter Cannons

Fast Attack1: 3x Beastmasters, 4x Razorwing Flocks, 5x Khymerae

Heavy Support1: Ravager with 3x Dark Lances and Flickerfield
Heavy Support2: Ravager with 3x Dark Lances and Flickerfield
Heavy Support3: Ravager with 3x Dark Lances and Flickerfield

1,996 points

List Analysis
-Baron Sathonyx is actually the core of this army for his +1 to go first ability. Dark Eldar are most potent during an alpha-strike, and anything they can do to help get that alpha-strike is worth doing.
-The beast unit itself is a decent unit, but primarily exists to give the Baron a unit to hang with. The Baron is jump infantry, so can't embark on a raider or venom, and I don't want him floating around by himself getting sniped down. It works out rather well since beasts don't have grenades and couldn't use their nifty I6 and I5 if they had to assault through cover. The only decent saves in the unit are the 4++ on the Khymerae, but those are important to save for close combat power weapons. That makes the Baron's +1 cover save a perfect match for beasts! The only downside to the unit combination is their mismatched movement and assault speeds. The Baron can move 12" and assault 6", and the beasts can move 6" and assault 12". They're both fleet, but together they can only move 6" and assault 6". I've found after practice and testing that I can pretty accurately judge when to leave the Baron attached, and when to separate him so that I can get a 12" charge on the beasts.
-Each warrior venom has dual purposes. The venoms are potent anti-infantry, while the unit inside can add its own potent anti-infantry with 8 poison shots rapid-firing at 12" with a STR8 AP2 shot getting a terminator killer shot in there, or serving as a potential anti-tank addition.
-Flickerfields on Everything! Nightshields are pretty useless against almost everything that shoots at tanks, but a 5+ invulnerable save works in both close combat and ranged combat; and theoretically giving me 1/3 more vehicles! Every melta against a ravager that pings off my flickerfield is a little personal victory.
-The wyches in this army primarily exist to make this a TAC army. Lances don't work against Monoliths or Blessed Hull, so haywire grenades fill the gap against things which I don't have the ability to kill. They're a decent assault unit, but have no Agonizer. My opponents keep being surprised at that fact - but at the end of the day, I don't have 25 points to spare for it.
-The Haemonculi is there to pass a pain token on to the wyches unless the wyches get a for their drug and start with one - in which case he couldn't pass the pain token over, so he instead starts with a Trueborn unit. Don't ask about the Animus Vitae; it doesn't do anything to help him, and is only there because this wasn't a tested variant of my Darklight Storm.
Game Four Opponent: Chris Carlile's Dark Eldar
HQ: Asdrubael Vect
HQ: Lelith Hesperax

Troop1: 9x Wyches with Haywire Grenades and a Razorflail, one being a Hekatrix with an Agonizer, in a Raider with Grisly Trophies and Flickerfield
Troop2: 9x Wyches with Haywire Grenades and a Razorflail, one being a Hekatrix with an Agonizer, in a Raider with Grisly Trophies and Flickerfield
Troop3: 9x Wyches with Haywire Grenades and a Razorflail, one being a Hekatrix with an Agonizer, in a Raider with Grisly Trophies and Flickerfield
Troop4: 5x Warriors with 1x Blaster in a Venom with Dual Splinter Cannons
Troop5: 5x Warriors with 1x Blaster in a Venom with Dual Splinter Cannons

Fast Attack1: 6x Reaver Jetbikes with Bladevanes and 2x Heat Lances

Elite1: 9x Hekatrix Bloodbrides with haywire grenades and 3x Razorflails, one being a Syren with an Agonizer in a Raider with Grisly Trophies and a Flickerfield


Heavy Support1: Ravager with 3x Dark Lances and Flickerfield
Heavy Support2: Ravager with 3x Dark Lances and Flickerfield



Blitzkrieg!!: Your forces inflicted massive casualties in the previous engagement, the enemy's main column is shattered. Your orders are to race forward and sieze as much ground as possible before the enemy can bring reserves to bear. Alamo Prime is nearly ours!
Objective: Capture and Control
Deployment: Pitched Battle
Special Rules: Rulebook Default
Duration: Random Game Length
Secondary Objective: Pay for ground with your blood! The player with the most scoring units in the enemy deployment zone achieves the secondary objective. In the event of a tie, neither player achieves the objective.

"You tell the general I'm willing to discuss the terms of surrender. You tell him; if he'll order his men to put down their weapons and line up, I'll take them to Sam Houston and I'll try my best to save most of them. That said; Sam's a mite twitchy, so no promises" Davy Crockett just before being executed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-Game Tactical Assessment:
Coming into game #4, I'm now leading the pack on battle points. Chris didn't get a flawless victory in his last game, and there were a *lot* of ties the last game. This mission actually knocked quite a few folks out of the running too because it is capture and control - something a lot of players don't play aggressively enough to win. This is our second DE matchup for the tournament - we both faced Dark Eldar in the first game. I notice that he only has two ravagers, which inspires confidence. I also note that he has Reaver Jetbikes - which means that I don't need to open any vehicles before my splinter cannons get a chance to go to work. We're on the top table.

Here's a picture of the table.


Chris has since registered on Dakka as Caldera02, and I wanted to address a few points he made in another thread.

Caldera02 wrote:
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.

The first thing we do is settle in to talk about terrain. I make the following suggestions:
1. Lets count the buildings as 4+ area terrain, two stories with 3" between levels and TLOS for vehicles where applicable.
2. The trench system - lets call it 4+ for infantry and difficult terrain, with the flat area that the trenches are running through as open ground.
3. That building thiny on the far left in the picture....was halfway between our table and the next one, so we moved it over onto their table.
4. Lets call the fence/barricade thingies 5+ cover for infantry behind it.
5. The two hills - lets call them TLOS terrain and difficult to go up or down the steppes of.

As noted in Chris' post above, he didn't agree with me about the hills. To me, I see barren hills. No grass on them, no bushes, trees, shrubberies, nada. If an infantry unit is on the steppes or behind it, then they get cover as applicable, and vehicles using the hills to try screening themselves from certain angles would get cover if they are 50% obscured from line of sight, but I don't see any reason that an infantry unit on top of the hill, standing out in the open with not a blade of grass to deflect an orbital bombardment should be in cover. He was VEHEMENTLY opposed to them not being 4+ area terrain completely - so I amicably note that if its really an issue, then we can call it 4+ area terrain. I don't understand what advantage he thought I was looking for by not having it be area terrain, I just prefer for stuff on the table to *be* what it looks like.

We roll off to go first and he wins! That saves me the trouble of trying to decide what to do about Vect as he elects to deploy and go first.

On the right side of the board (from my perspective) He puts his six reaver jetbikes into the trench system, a ravager, two raiders, and two venoms behind the building - you can't see his objective, but its behind the building on the corner there.


On the left side of the board goes his other ravager, the raider that has the bloodbrides, vect, and Lelith in it, and his other wych raider.


Here's a picture of his board-wide deployment.



For my deployment, I choose to reserve everything.

Enemy Turn One:
On the right side of the board, his reaver jetbikes move 12" up the trench system - with skilled rider he doesn't fail any Dangerous Terrain tests. I ask him if he should be taking two dangerous terrain tests - one for starting in and moving from dangerous terrain and once for ending in dangerous terrain since it says "begin or end" in the rules, but he's adamant that its only one test, so I roll with it. I've always taken two tests if I start in dangerous terrain, and end my movement in more dangerous terrain. I made a THREAD about it over in YMDC just now, so we'll see what people say. Meanwhile, his venom moves from behind the building to the front of it, inside the footprint. He didn't take dangerous terrain on that roll either...but I think to myself that since we didn't talk about building "footprints" and cover, that I suppose he'd have an argument for it not being terrain where he's standing - so I didn't mention anything. The ravager and raider hang out behind the building.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/370010.page#2824537

On the left side of the board, his ravager and raiders move up to the edge of the building, while one pokes its nose through a blown out window. To pre-empt comments on this, since skimmers *do* have bases, I've always considered them to need DT if their base lands in terrain; I've seen it played both ways, and I don't care either way as long as it is consistent.


Dashofpepper Turn One:
I roll for reserves and my Battle Barge enters the fray, leveling the table.

Post-Game Tactical Assessment:
I think that my opponent under-estimated the capability of my Battle Barge.

Just kidding.

Enemy Turn Two:
His Reaver Jetbikes move further up the trench system on my right flank and the rest of his army sits tight behind cover.

Dashofpepper Turn Two:
I roll for reserves! I get two ravagers, Baron Sathonyx and the beast unit, two trueborn venoms, and three of my five warrior venoms. 8/13 rolls, not bad! I move onto the board centrally and to the right; my ravagers are lining up to shoot at raiders, and I want all my splinter cannons either shooting at his reaver jetbikes, or at the unit(s) that get out of any transports that I wreck/explode. I'd prefer to shoot at ravagers, but they're either not in LOS or have solid cover. My beast unit moves onto the table in the trench system - I actually took one of my models and surfed it up the trench network to make sure that I could actually move up the trenches. I couldn't fit them all in the trench based on how many models I have, so I put as many as I could in one trench, scattered models across the space between the trenches in 2" coherency (including the Baron to keep him from having to roll DT), and put the rest in another trench.


That's my objective there - an imperial guard slave. I fight for slaves to torture!

I snapped some shots of perspective to show what I was shooting at. One of my ravagers has a clear shot at one of his raiders. From a tournament perspective, if there is *any* question about LOS or cover saves, I always ask my opponent during the shooting phase. "Hey, if I shoot this ravager at that raider, I'm pretty sure that I can see more than 50% of its front facing. What do you think?" It avoids cover save arguments during shooting; if I think I have a clear shot at something, and my opponent disagrees, rather than argue about it, I'll pick a different target. My shooting is unfortunately legendary for how crappy it is, so I cringe while I open up with my dark lances. Two penetrates and a glance! Holy smokes. Chris begins what will turn into an unbelievable shooting phase of dice rolling with triple 5+ flickerfield saves.


My other ravager has a clear shot at the wych raider sitting on his objective, and there's a venom with dual splinter cannons hoping for a wrecked vehicle to disgorge some tasty infantry to shoot at.


Two pens and a glance again! *cheers* His flickerfield flicks away one glance and one penetrate....and I immobilize the raider. Arg.


My two trueborn and warrior venom on the right are lining up to deal with his reaver jetbikes. The trueborn might be in range of the venom, so I take a stab at it and disembark them - they are predictably out of range; I'm decent, but not a whiz with eyeballing distance.


Since I didn't manage to wreck anything with my anti-tank the three venoms on the right and the one in the center right that was hoping to get some wyches all turn their guns onto the reaver jetbikes. 36 shots should cause 12 wounds, enough to cause 6 failed saves. Instead, it takes 48 (or 60, I can't remember if the middle venom had range or not) and *barely* enough even at that. Damn his dice!


My beasts run forward a couple inches, and my turn ends having inflicted a pretty sad first blood.

Enemy Turn Three:
Chris hangs back in cover and doesn't go for the charge, choosing to do a bit of maneuvering around to get optimal firing angles on me for a turn instead.

One of his ravagers opens up on my ravagers, getting a glance and a penetrate. I fail both flickerfield saves and get shaken and immobilized.


The wych raider on the left that my other ravager whiffed against returns a single dark lance shot, and I fail another flickerfield save to lose the ravager to a wrecked result.


The Bloodbride raider throws a dark lance at my leading troop venom and glances through another flickerfield failure to stun it.


On the right side of the board, his other ravager opens up on my closest troop venom and punches through another flickerfield failure to explode it. He gets one wound, and I fail that too. The explosion tags three of my beasts, and I fail three 3+ cover saves on razorwing flocks. *sigh* His midfield venom opens up on my disembarked trueborn but is out of range, while the venom on the right opens up on them - they go to ground for 3+ cover and lose two out of three saves. Hooray! My first save of the game!


I roll leadership on my trueborn and to add insult to injury they fail and fall back 10". And fail to regroup a second time at the start of my turn and run off the board.


Dashofpepper Turn Three:
That was a rough turn two. I lost a ravager, the functionality of a second ravager...I can't flat out because I'm immobilized, so I'm probably going to lose my other ravager, and I've lost a trueborn squad - putting a *HEFTY* dent in my anti-tank; and I'm down a venom and the functionality of a venom.

I roll for reserves and get my last trueborn venom and two warrior venoms. No wyches, no ravager. Damn.

His bloodbrides and the wych raider on my left flank are closest to my board edge since they moved around cover to fire across at my other units, so my last trueborn venom moves on the left flank and drops trueborn behind the venom. I put my venom flush with the board edge to protect the trueborn from assault; I thought it was rather clever.


My other two venoms move in to support them. Hoping to open up one of those raiders so I can splinter cannon what falls out.


My warriors get out of their stunned venom in midfield and move up into blaster range.


On my right flank, my venoms move up a couple inches to make sure that I'm in blaster range - the warriors in the crater nudge the blaster out to be safe for range, and my beasts 2d6 forward.


On to shooting! My trueborn on the left are all in range of his bloodbrides, so I open up. Three hits out of four...three penetrates! Three penetrates that I shake my head at in amazement as his flickerfields continue to perform overzealously.


On the right flank, I stun his venom, and his ravager's flickerfield shrugs off my blasters. That was incredibly ineffective, and my splinter cannons continue to have nothing to do.

Enemy Turn Four:
Chris makes his move!!

Vect and the Bloodbrides move up 12", disembark and glare at me. He's got a ravager and two raider dark lances over there - I'm expecting him to blow up my venom so that he can assault the trueborn.


His other wych raider on the left flank moves up and disgorges wyches to set up a multi-assault.


The warriors from the stunned venom get out and move back towards the building (and during the shooting phase run 5" and get up to the second level).


He commences shooting!

His ravager on the left opens up on my immobilized, no longer shaken ravager for a glance and a penetrate; and I finally make a flickerfield save! The glance gets through for a weapon destroyed.


He swivels one of the two raiders over there to fire at my ravager and my flickerfield stubbornly holds. The third one swings over and shoots at it as well and I lose my second ravager. On the flip side - he's not shooting at the venom screening the trueborn anymore, which should leave me safe from assault. o.O

The venom that isn't stunned opens up on the warriors in midfield and does five wounds. I go to ground. The white dice is the blaster warrior. I thought it was worth a picture.


On to assaults!

The regular wych squad fleets towards my ravager and multi-assaults my ravager and the venom closest to it. The assault raised my eyebrows - from where the wyches were, enough should have been able to get into base with the ravager to prevent coherency shenanigans to wander over to the venom too...but I'm *really* trying to get a good game vote.

The immobilized ravager gets wrecked, and the venom gets stunned, immobilized, and weapon destroyed.


Asdrubael Vect moves under the venom to assault the trueborn and the blood brides hit the venom. We pause for a rules dispute. Chris argues that he can get to the trueborn underneath the venom. I argue that you can't move through enemy models to assault a unit on the other side. He says that he can fit his base under my venom and doesn't need to move through it. I say that you enemy models are treated as impassable terrain - and that you can't take up the same footprint as them. He says fine - he'll go around because he didn't move their full distance for his run move, so he'll just move their full distance so that he can assault around the venom. Uh...I object to this - I didn't see his run roll, so I don't know whether he's run his full distance or not, and given that we're in the assault phase, I don't agree with going back to his shooting phase so that he could run further. With the way we've both been rolling, a single lance probably would have wrecked/exploded it. He says that he was planning on shooting it, but needed the lances for my ravager.

At this point, we call a judge over, who grabs a second judge and we present our two cases. There are two issues they need to decide:

1. Can he assault through/under my venom - which is flush with the board edge to get to my trueborn?
2. Can he go back to shooting to take extra run inches?

The judges debate, do some measuring...and rule against #1 - no, he cannot share a footprint with my Venom. They tell us to D6 the second issue - Chris rolls, and I win. Then he brings up my venoms being too long, and he should be able to get around anyway if they were appropriately sized. The judges note that there is no model for them yet - I tell him that I vetted my conversions through the TO beforehand and got them approved - and that it still wouldn't have helped him - out of the three venoms over there, I just would have stacked two of them end to end and the result would have been the same anyway.

Chris accuses me of cheating - I tell him that none of this would have been an issue if he had shot the venom in the first place - I have no idea why he thought he could assault through a venom to get to a unit on the other side - which is why I announce my intentions before I do it so that I don't run into surprises.

*sigh* We move on, and I do my best to move past it and have a good rest of the game. For those who wish I would write analytical battle reports, rules issues happen, affect the outcome of the game, and in this case affected the tournament. I'm going to write about it.

His haywire grenades need to hit, and he immobilized my venom.

Dashofpepper Turn Four:
I get my wyches, last warrior venom and my last ravager out. I've been taking a beating so far and Chris is virtually untouched.

My wych raider moves onto the table and drops down on the other side of his wyches. The wyches get out the back end to line up an assault against his wyches, and the haemonculi gets out the front end to shattershard Vect+Bloodbrides.


Here's a shot of my haemonculi lining up for a shattershard shot at the bloodbrides and his HQs. I line him up so that I can skim the side of my raider without touching it and snag both HQs.


On the right side of the board, Baron Sathonyx separates from the beasts so that they can get a 12" charge - the Baron moves up towards assault range of the empty Venom and my beasts move up. My thus-far ineffective trueborn and warrior blasters skip forward another couple inches - for the love of Baby Gandalf, that ravager needs to die.


My haemonculi lays down the shattershard! 4+ removes a model from play. Vect lives. Lelith dies. Two of his three razorflails die. One bloodbride dies. 4 out of 10...better than I've done thus far. Splinter cannons and rapid fire warriors take down the rest of the bloodbrides but leaves Vect untouched. My blaster trueborn smack him for four wounds and he rolls two ones and loses Vect. I immobilize the other raider.


My wych raider dark lances the raider that vect came out of and wrecks it. Dice are starting to balance themselves out finally. My beasts roll their run move and get 6" - enough to put them into easy charge range of both the previously stunned venom and the ravager over there that's been griefing me. The ravager to the rear goes in a fiery explosion to the ravager that just came in from reserves.


The splinter cannons on the left ate up Vect's squad, the splinter cannons on the right go after the warriors in the building and melt them.


Back on the left flank, I drop one unit into his wyches to thin them down for my assault.


Baron Sathonyx assaults into the venom while my beasts multi-assault the venom and the ravager. I immobilize the ravager and explode the venom.


My wyches assault his wyches - I think he had +1 STR, I don't remember what I had, but I've got FNP from the haemy's ex-pain token and wipe them casualty free.


Thus ends my turn with a bit of a comeback - his dice lost their fire after the judge intervention. I took a beating in the first three turns in exchange for inflicting nothing, and in the fourth turn killed a venom, a ravager, a raider, both HQs, the bloodbrides, a wych squad and a warrior squad.

Enemy Turn Five:
Chris moves his last wych unit 12" up on my left flank and disembarks - those wyches are his only shot at getting to my objective.


On the right flank, he moves his last venom flat out onto his objective and gets the wyches+Lelith out of his raider to come threaten my beasts.


His ravager whiffs against my ravager, and his immobilized raider misses my raider at point blank range. To his rear right the immobilized raider takes a potshot at one of my raiders and I make a flickerfield save.

His wyches run...2". Not enough to put him in assault range of my own wyches to potentially contest my objective.


On the right, he multi-assaults the Baron and the beasts with Lelith and her wyches. 4 wyches go into Baron Sathonyx, while Lelith and the other wyches go into my beasts. He rolls poorly and I roll about average - I win combat, and he fails leadership. He fails his rerolled leadership from Grisly Trophies, and I catch him...wiping the unit. We both stare blankly at the table for a minute.


Dashofpepper Turn Five:
My pinned unit midfield jump back into their no longer stunned venom and move up 12". On the left, my wyches move up to threaten his wyches while one of my warrior venoms jumps over to the objective to hold it.

I open fire on the left and take down the the last two raiders over there.


My trueborn on the right move up, disembark, and penetrate past his flat out save to explode his last venom. Four of the warriors inside are wounded, and all four fail their armour saves. The Baron reattached to the beasts, and they 2d6 onto his objective to set up a multi-assault against his lone warrior and the empty immobilized wych raider.


My wyches vs. his wyches...with me on the charge, there's a slightly better than 50% chance of me winning, but dice are fickle - it isn't a killpoint game, so the Haemonculi moves into assault range; one of my warrior units also disembarks and prepares to assault into his wyches. While my wyches have 4++ and 4+ FNP that could probably shrug off most of his attacks (except the agonizer), I want to throw as many attacks in there as I can to prevent any chance of him getting to my objective. With the agonizer tied up with my wyches, at least he can't power weapon my warriors.


I assault in and win combat - the wyches flee; letting me consolidate to within 6" to keep them running.


I assault into the lone warrior and empty raider and kill them both.


Chris concedes - he's got one unit left on the table and they're fleeing. I D6 for another turn and it would continue to let me put the midfield warriors into his deployment zone.

Post Game Assessment:
I was tempted not to write this battle report - I expect this thread to descend out of control, but have committed myself to writing them. Chris' die were absolutely on fire while mine were in the pits for the first three turns. He literally made every one of his saves and I failed every one of mine. It was obscene. The game turned ugly after the judge intervention - I tried keeping a light face on it, but as his die rolls worsened he got uglier; calling me a cheater - at the end of the game, he told me that I only won because I cheated. He went on to tell anyone who would listen that I cheated...including hostile spectating in my last game to shout that I was cheating (which was ridiculous, and I'll cover later) - up to booing me at the award ceremony. I didn't give him a bad game vote...although I really should have. Judges make rulings; I've been ruled against - but I've never started screaming about it, and it was very unpleasant.

Every story has two sides; Chris registered for Dakka to tell his.

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.

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.

My response:

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 #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.

Hopefully with those things already addressed and answed...and with three other battle reports and a Tournament Discussion thread overloaded with much discussion about the same things...perhaps we can just talk about the tactics? And some Q&A about tactics? I would be most appreciative.

In the grand scheme of things, this battle report reflects how a game between people trying to play said game can degenerate.

It looked like it was a good battle. I'm not too hesitant to say that the opponent was overeager to end the game on turn 3-4 and got beat that way. Pounding your units from afar would of probably been his best chance before going in for the kill.

In the end, a good battle report despite the negativity the battle generated.

Ignoring the drama (as I am), this was a great game! It was all or nothing for both you guys in turn 4 and with two DE armies it had to be a tabling/concede one way or the other time permitting. Thanks for the reports Dash bring on the final game!

I appreciate you guys ignoring the drama; I really do. There's already four too many threads about it.

Dashofpepper wrote:I appreciate you guys ignoring the drama; I really do. There's already four too many threads about it.

Isnt he a poster on BOLS as well?

Either way, great game Dash! Once again pwning face

Dashofpepper wrote:I appreciate you guys ignoring the drama; I really do. There's already four too many threads about it.

The big thing is that this was a really good battle regardless. There is no shame in staking an all or nothing bet. Sometimes it doesn't pan out.

Looks like a great battle. Too bad about the rules dispute ending things on a sour note.

Your multi-assault with the beasts against his venom and raider seems to have the same issues you raised against his multi-assault.

Those beasts had a 12" move, I'm not sure how you didn't end up surrounding only one of the vehicles.

Are you going to get the new Venom models now that they're out?

BTW, I love your paint scheme, but I can't stand those old raiders - euuuugh

As much as I love 40k and its kookyness the over the top builds HAVE to be adressed if next edition is going to be any good. While I love troop heavy lists and they fit well, nobody I have talked to at my local club enjoys chimera/razorback/vendetta/venom/long fangs/other over the top spam lists. And while it would be hypocritical to call you out specifically when thats probably the only kinds of lists you saw all day at the GT, I do feel its worth it to say I wish there was some set in stone rule about spamming, possibly limiting quantities of things, OR what would be nice is adding to the cost past a point per spammed item. So say unit 1 and 2 would be normal points value, unit 3 would be 50 precent more expensive, then if possible to do so unit 4 would be 75 precent more, with a cap of 100 precent more after that for however many more. And no way to avoid this cost by say arming them all different. If its a razorback its a razorback, a drop pod a drop pod. A chimera a chimera.

I really think someting like this would go along way in the next edition to end mech spam utter dominance in virtually every competative level.

and this sounds more like a rule suggestion post then a comment on your game. I like your color scheme, waaay back in 3rd dark eldar and orks were my first armies, everyone wanted marines and just GAVE me their dark eldar, the good ol days. Mine were purple with pink highlights, which sounds terrible but fit very well, and looked very much like your army. also how much did your dice run you, they seem expensive, but would be nice to get away from the 1 rolling machines I have now.

@DarknessEternal: Uh...I'm not sure what you're saying. Beasts have a 12" assault, not a 12" move. I declare the ravager to be my primary target, and move the closest model into base contact. That move puts me in base contact with the ravager, and about 1" away from the venom. My next model has 12" to assault move - it needs to get into base contact with something and its assault needs to be in coherency with another model that has assaulted in. The first two models hit two different targets while following the assault rules. There wasn't any need to try stringing out to get coherency. Not every model is required to assault one unit if another is within multi-assault range - which this one clearly was. My concern about his wyches doing the multi-assault into my ravager and venom was that based on the positioning of his wyches prior to assault - the wyches stringing out for coherency probably could have gotten into base contact with the ravager. Or in base contact with the venom - but then would have been out of 2" coherency and made it an illegal assault move. It was too late to have anything to say about it after he started moving them in...because they'd already moved and there were no markers to their original placement. Its one of those things that you do right or don't, but can't really be taken back to be fixed.

Warmastersolon: I've got 9 venoms on order - they won't be ready for the Railhead Rumble GT, but they will be for Wargamescon and beyond.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orock wrote:As much as I love 40k and its kookyness the over the top builds HAVE to be adressed if next edition is going to be any good. While I love troop heavy lists and they fit well, nobody I have talked to at my local club enjoys chimera/razorback/vendetta/venom/long fangs/other over the top spam lists. And while it would be hypocritical to call you out specifically when thats probably the only kinds of lists you saw all day at the GT, I do feel its worth it to say I wish there was some set in stone rule about spamming, possibly limiting quantities of things, OR what would be nice is adding to the cost past a point per spammed item. So say unit 1 and 2 would be normal points value, unit 3 would be 50 precent more expensive, then if possible to do so unit 4 would be 75 precent more, with a cap of 100 precent more after that for however many more. And no way to avoid this cost by say arming them all different. If its a razorback its a razorback, a drop pod a drop pod. A chimera a chimera.

I really think someting like this would go along way in the next edition to end mech spam utter dominance in virtually every competative level.

and this sounds more like a rule suggestion post then a comment on your game. I like your color scheme, waaay back in 3rd dark eldar and orks were my first armies, everyone wanted marines and just GAVE me their dark eldar, the good ol days. Mine were purple with pink highlights, which sounds terrible but fit very well, and looked very much like your army. also how much did your dice run you, they seem expensive, but would be nice to get away from the 1 rolling machines I have now.

Those are Koplow dice; it was $7.50 for a block of 36. There's a thread in Dakka discussion about me needing new dice; give it a read - I linked it in there.

In terms of limiting what you can take - that's what the Force Org is for. Various events try composition scoring; everything from subjective scoring to kooky rules about being penalized for taking duplicate units - which all ultimately ends up being gamed by people with powerful codexes, and hurting people without them.

Generalship has much more to do with winning than your list does, spam or not. My Necrons don't own face because I've got a spam list or some super secret formula; I've posted a mostly finished guide in the tactica section about my Necrons and how I use them. They win because I'm a competent general. Same crappy codex that lots of other people use and lose with.

In short, don't buck the system, beat it.

Another great Battle Rep Dash. Been reading a lot of your posts on here lately and love it. I'm a fellow Necron player as well (though been playing Blood Angels mostly as of late), and overall have been impressed with your tactics, as well as your sportsmanship from what I see online. (It helps that you type clearly and use proper grammar and punctuation).

I'm working on painting up a tournament army with Blood Angels, and hope to maybe play against you some day. Keep up the great work!

Awesome game dash, but I think there is a bit of a discrepancy in your report.

You wrote that the shattershard took out Lelith, but then later wrote that Lelith was in an assault that you wiped out from sweeping advance.

The only skimmer that you can run under is a vendetta/valk... lol its like asking if you can run under a vyper. How far were his vect squad from your trueborns? Do you think he can reach your trueborns if you had the actual size venoms?

This is what I think... even if he reach your trueborns and wipe them out I doubt it will change the outcome much(maybe he wont get tabled). Your list seems far superior than his, his superb dice rolling early on is the only thing that got him going.

SonsofVulkan wrote:The only skimmer that you can run under is a vendetta/valk...

And the Storm Raven.

yeah true...the crapraven

Skelly wrote:Awesome game dash, but I think there is a bit of a discrepancy in your report.

You wrote that the shattershard took out Lelith, but then later wrote that Lelith was in an assault that you wiped out from sweeping advance.

Yes, I noticed this too. Further, Vect and Lelith shouldn't have been able to fit in the same unit, as it was a unit of 9 Bloodbrides in a Raider.

415 points on two T3 models is a big no-no.

Fetterkey wrote:

Skelly wrote:Awesome game dash, but I think there is a bit of a discrepancy in your report.

You wrote that the shattershard took out Lelith, but then later wrote that Lelith was in an assault that you wiped out from sweeping advance.

Yes, I noticed this too. Further, Vect and Lelith shouldn't have been able to fit in the same unit, as it was a unit of 9 Bloodbrides in a Raider.

Good catch, and it makes sense now. I think when he wrote Lelith he meant a Syren. That fits.

It blows my mind how much beating your list took dash, and then literally came back in one turn to win the game.

you have a pretty insane DE list, I hope you enjoy playing it.

I think it's pathetic how your opponent tried to ruin your win at the award ceremoney REGARDLESS of who was in the right or the wrong during your game. Like you said, it just isn't respectable or credible behaviour for a public event like that.

Now to the battle report - thanks for posting all your games with great pics like this! I recently started checking out the battle report section over here and I like what I've found. The reports with high quality pics are always really appreciated so thanks for putting in that effort during your games! I hope to get into tournaments soon so hopefully I can return the favour with some reports of my own.

Thanks!

So this report is accurate for the most part.

I apparently had two lelith models! go me! It's a typo so no biggie, was kinda funny though. By the way, I put Vect and lelith in the same list cause why not, I thought it would be fun. Bad decision, yes but fun for me.

The venom I moved up into the terrain, I specifically remember you commenting and I made a roll for it and it was fine.

So the only thing that really was in contention in this whole match was the charge that got ruled in Dash's favor. I still contend that it was a legal charge. Reason being is that you can see in the picture, the trueborn are flush with the venom. So from my side of the table I could see that his base was sticking out underneath the nose of the model. I thought to myself, awesome I can touch the base and grab both the squad and the venom, with the intention of grabbing a pain token. When I moved the models, I could touch his base without touching the venom. So I still don't see how I could not get this charge. I understand you can't move through models, however that was not the case. A fraction of my base was under the nose but so was his model. Had it been slightly back further I would never had tried that charge. I only mentioned the going back and adjusting my models to move the full fleet run out of frustration. That coupled with not being able to go around this improperly modeled venom just infuriated me. If it was smaller like it should be, I would have enough room to go around the other side.

You say you would have moved another vehicle over to compensate, sure I understand that, but then I also would have done something different right? That is alot of what if's. Of course we would of played it differently.

had that charge gone off, here's what I think would of happened. that unit would have a pain token, shattershard would have done the same thing more or less, and the splinter cannon may or may not have finished off the unit like it did to get the blasters on vect. My point in what we talked about was without the pain token it just made getting rid of that unit very easy, whereas you would have had to devote much more shooting to get rid of them. So that ruling killed my momentum greatly. Also our dice switched sides after that as you've said. That happens though.

The hostile spectating...funny you should mention that without the details. So dash lights up some of David's guy's near the end of game 5, forces a moral check and ask's david to roll for it. he rolls, fails and moves his models backwards. Then goes to shoot at them again with another venom. David says hold the phone we're done with shooting, we just did morale. (not verbatim). Dash tries to say well let's go back to the shooting phase and finish. This is when I piped up and told Dash to stop trying to cheat again. The reason I said this was uncalled for but I was still hot from our game and it just sparked anger in me because it was almost the same exact thing he told me I could not do in our game.

As for booing you, yea that was me. I was appalled that you got 3 bad games votes and still won. In hind sight you ended up not winning because of those bad games but that doesn't change what happened. So I apologize, again I was very upset still. I get angey easy at competitive events because I am very competitive but I get over it.

So anyways, it was a good game. I felt I had the upper hand until the bad ruling, but it's over now. It's ok though, cause I'll win next time.

Dashofpepper Turn One:
I roll for reserves and my Battle Barge enters the fray, leveling the table.

Post-Game Tactical Assessment:
I think that my opponent under-estimated the capability of my Battle Barge.

Just kidding.

Nice report.

I recall you asking a while back would it be useful to post "1 player" batreps to show off tactics and such. Would it be an idea to repost these games in the tactics section with "you playing your opponents army" i.e. doing a breakdown of where they may have gone wrong, things that they did well, things that surprised you etc?
I acknowledge this may well cause more interwebz drama since some people may not be open to having their tactics analyised or flaws exposed but for the neutral I think it would be very helpful.

Finally some half decent terrain! That board could look quite decent when its finished

Great report again Dash, looking forward to the last one.

Caldera02 wrote:his base was sticking out underneath the nose of the model.

In that case Dash's model's werent placed legally. As you couldn't go under the footprint of the vehicle to get into assault, he shoudn't have been able to possition his transport so its footprint overhung his models base.
That being said, if anyone had mentioned this the venom could have been moved half an inch to the side and the whole thing could have been avoided with no butt-hurt. Then again, its easy to say this in retrospect.

Great report Dash!

Gorechild wrote:

Caldera02 wrote:his base was sticking out underneath the nose of the model.

In that case Dash's model's werent placed legally. As you couldn't go under the footprint of the vehicle to get into assault, he shoudn't have been able to possition his transport so its footprint overhung his models base.
That being said, if anyone had mentioned this the venom could have been moved half an inch to the side and the whole thing could have been avoided with no butt-hurt. Then again, its easy to say this in retrospect.

Agreed. Sometimes, something like this is easy to overlook, especially if you are not looking at it from a top-down perspective. Just like if I was to move my models and one of my model happened to end up partially on top of another of my models, but I didn't noticed. In that case, the right thing to do was to nudge his models back just slightly (or swivel the venom just slightly) so that one model clears the other. And this is not a do-over move. Rather, it is just an adjustment of the positioning of the models to make them legal (also like when you move them and then they end up slightly out of coherency...then you just adjust their positioning so that they are legally coherent).


@Caldera02:

It's good to see your attitude has changed from some of your original postings. Though you felt that you may have been wronged, expressing it as you did here in a more civilized tone will garner you more respect from the online community as well as a more willingness to listen to your case.

DE vs DE games seem like they are full of tension. I could sense it in the first few turns with all the posturing. It looked like it was going to shape up to a be a real nail biter, pity about how quickly it went downhill after the ruling issue.

It's very important to be familiar with how each player views those skimmers. Some players don't count the prow as the hull (on the new ones), some do. It's important to know for sure how it is to be played, because complex close combats involving those vehicles can quickly turn ugly if one player is expecting one thing and the other player something entirely different. How did each of you choose to play your vehicle footprints? In this picture:



It looks to me based on your wreck marker that you give your venoms that certain shape footprint, but the beasts look to actually be under it on the venom on the right. That is confusing to me, because I can't tell what counts as the venom for the space it takes up in a game.



I'm guessing here that your opponent measured 2" from the very tip of the vehicle prow for disembarking those Wyches?



The main disagreement in question- in the battle report you made it sound like you set this up expecting to prevent an assault, but you and your opponent never talked with each other about it until it was too late. It's as if you only thought to yourself "He'd better not think he can assault me" and he only thought to himself "He'd better not try and say that I can't assault him". During your movement phase, when you did this, why didn't you simply bring up with your opponent what you were hoping to achieve and come up with a solution that worked at that point? I think it is clear what you are trying to accomplish, and I don't personally think in this case that you can get into base contact with those trueborn with that vehicle there, but in the earlier picture where your beasts are under a vehicle, maybe your opponent thought that his models could be too?

One of the internet resin base companies should release 'raider-shaped' bases with a flying stand, it would look a bit odd, but would clear up all of this!

I think Dashofpepper assumed (as many people would -- and rightly) that assaulting 'through' a raider was obviously impossible and so his opponent would seek to destroy it first. I see what you mean about 'where does the footprint end' but as you say, it looks like the other chap was taking his own vehicle footprint to extend all the way to the prow. So why wouldn't one assume that he'd assume the same thing applied?

Dash - I've enjoyed reading all four reports so far. Thanks. it's such a shame about the 'sportsmanship' thing but I suppose folk being folk, these sorts of situations will always arise.

Hilarious how much you bought down in the last turns.

The tables didn't so much turn as flip over onto the toe's of your opponent.

Dashofpepper wrote:@DarknessEternal: Uh...I'm not sure what you're saying.

I rescind my objection. I thought you assaulted the venom first.

Also, I'm aware it's a 12" assault move, I just said move out of brevity since I was talking about the assault phase.

Good report overall, it looks like caldera got a bit overeager and let his force lose cohesiveness so it could be picked apart.

From the pictures in Oaka's post the first I would attirbuted to the trenches being there so it is a pain to angle all the bases so they fit. Based on the Wyches disembarking, it is clear the front is counted as part of the vehicle. Also, the edge of that warrior base is just barely grazing the venom, it could easily have rotated on its own a 16th of an inch and ended up like that.

There is no doubt in my mind the judges made the correct ruling on this one. The only mistake they made was trying to appease the lose by offering to let them dice it off to get around the venom with a run move. (Edit: I mean the losing side of the ruling, not that any person is a loser persay)

Dashofpepper wrote:@Dash
Warmastersolon: I've got 9 venoms on order - they won't be ready for the Railhead Rumble GT, but they will be for Wargamescon and beyond.

LOL, who do you think you are fooling Dash, you are not taking Dark Eldar to WargamesCon. You will be taking I guess _ _ _ _, to catch the foolish by surprise.

No way you play the same list or varient three GT's in a row. Or you just might, hym

Dash's trick was perfectly fine but you executed it wrongly I can see a bit of the base under the model so personally I think your opponent should be allowed too charge, that and he makes a fair point about venoms being smaller.

Goodgame though, whats un-calles for is the booing and the accusing if your opponent does that after he's lost he DESERVED too be ruled against. Another point is I dont think that would have been Game changing Dash is a good player and would have thought of something. Anyways great game.

I can't figure out what's more amazing, that people let dash get away with this gak (perhaps that why he drives 8 hours) or that he posts about it--a naivete that's almost charming..

Great report, its a shame that the opposing side cannot accepts a judges ruling and must resort to calling you a cheater.

So his friend was the vanilla marines guy? Didnt the same thing happen where he wanted to go back to a previous phase to correct a mistake?

When I see the low level of rule knowledge in some of those tournaments, I guess it means I am ready for the official level...

Great games Dash, and even if rule understanding is different for all, it does appear like you are making everything you can to ensure your opponent is aware of your intention and that issues are proactively dealt with. I hope others can also take it professionally and clarify things up during games before getting to a situation where the conflict would actually require getting back a phase...

I want to see more batreps, keep them coming, cheers.

olympia wrote:I can't figure out what's more amazing, that people let dash get away with this gak (perhaps that why he drives 8 hours) or that he posts about it--a naivete that's almost charming..

I am sorry, in what way was positioning the Venom getting away with anything? The Venom was clearly there to block the path, if it had spun marginally on its base it might end up slightly over the warrior, which is irrelevant because he only had to make sure he was 1/2" from the board edge so rotating the vehicle slightly clockwise to it was not over his base would still preclude the assault.

I don't know why people go to these things. Trying to run a competition based upon such shoddy rules writing is a recipe for disaster. You can't expect two people that pay money and hope to win something to agree on the many gray areas in the game.

I'd be more frustrated with GW and their poor writing skills than my opponent taken advantage of said poorly written rules.

agnosto wrote:
I'd be more frustrated with GW and their poor writing skills than my opponent taken advantage of said poorly written rules.

This is a good point. The rules do leave room for open disagreements. After 5 editions, you would think these issues would be less of an issue.

Alright....answering them as they come!

@PxDnNinja: Thanks for the kind words! Enough people stirring the pot angrily can make me forget that 8 people making bad comments don't constitute 1600 views - when the silent majority take time to speak up, and doubly so with appreciation or topical relevance it is much appreciated. Blood Angels though. >< There are so many blood angels. I think that they might even be more popular than Space Wolves.

@Skelly: My recollections almost a week after the event get a bit hazy and I plug the gap the best that I can. As I was writing the batrep, I was confusing my first round opponent who had Malys with Vect in the same raider, and who was using Lelith as Malys....with this opponent who had Vect and Lelith in different raiders. When I got to the part about trying to Shattershard Vect, I remember failing abysmally and him rolling pretty much all 1-3, but then I didn't see Lelith in the picture - so I presumed that I must have killed her. I don't remember killing her there, but my memories were getting mixed up of game 1 and 3, so I figured I must have. Then I got to the later turn assaults on the right and remember that Lelith had assaulted into my beasts over there and not been with Vect (helps that the pictures show it too), so I went back and tried to fix any reference I had made to Lelith being in Vect's squad - apparently I missed a reference. Lelith wasn't with Vect, she was in the immobilized raider in the back right flank the entire time, hiding on an objective until the opportune time to get out and come try beating face on my beasts.

@SonsofVulkan: Vect's squad was 1" on the other side of the venom. NO, I don't think he could have gotten to my trueborn if I had an actual sized venom, because instead of making a single venom wall mostly perpendicular to the board edge - I would have tucked my trueborn inside an acute angle with the Vyper, such that an assault would have to move 90% past the length of the Vyper and double back on the inside to get the assault. That, or one of the other two vypers over there would have formed two halves of a rectangle, making a --| shape.

Smitty: Agreed. What's more though, I got mauled even WORSE in the last game and still won. =D More on that when I get around to writing the batrep.

Caldera02: Apology accepted. I don't hold grudges. I didn't even give you a vote for bad game. While I defend myself, I don't get angry - in the last two hours (this response as been on pause) I've been frantically trying to fend of an international incident that would occur if someone found out something if they inquired about certain paperwork which they probably should have by now. Conference call, followed by calls and frantic e-mails to relevant people in China, followed by long lines of frantic people starting with my boss' boss looking for updates....like 40k is going to stress me out. Next time we play, lets have a good game.

Specific to David's game - as I went through shooting (as I always go through shooting) I talk out loud. "Shot, shot, they fired there, they're going to need leadership..." since I have a lot of units, I need to make sure they all did their job. When I said that his tactical marines were going to need leadership - I know that leadership is done at the end of the shooting phase. He rolled leadership and failed - falling back - falling back before I was done shooting; I didn't say "STOP DON'T ROLL THOSE DICE" because space marines never fail leadership and its a formality. I continued on down the line checking my units till I got to what hadn't fired yet - and they were in LOS to fire at the marine that just fell back....if he hadn't fallen back yet.

Now....the reason you take LD at the end of the turn is so that someone can't say "Take LD, check to see if you fail or not, and if you pass leadership, then they keep shooting at you until your'e dead. IE, you don't get to conserve ammo to see if someone is going to fall back anyway.

This is the opposite of that. He didn't want me to shoot at his marines that were falling back out of order because his fall back made his lone survivor temporarily safe - out of LOS. Thus I said that from where he had been, I'd be able to shoot at him just fine. And he said, "But I already fell back." And I said, "Yes, but out of order - not till the end of the shooting phase." And he said, "YOu didn't stop me." And I said, "No, I didn't but its irrelevant, it was still out of order."

And you yelled at me to stop cheating. Trying to fix a BREAK of the rules isn't cheating. Him doing something out of turn was illegal and advantageous to him. He didn't do it on purpose - I was ok with him rolling leadership. By the same token, he should ALSO have been ok knowing that since I wasn't done with shooting, there's no issue with shooting at the falling back marine.

@Ratius: I generally don't comment on peoples' army, playstyle, or tactics anymore in person. Too many people are butthurt when the person who just shut you down tries to help you fix it. I would want to know *EVERYTHING* I did wrong in great detail. In fact, when I play certain people whose skills I admire, I regularly pause the game to ask them for feedback on things I've done, what they would have done differently and why, and how they intend to exploit certain openings.

@Gorechild: Indeed. The barest hint of my leading trueborn was underneath my venom. Laziness on my part. I never expected him to try assaulting through/under my Venom, so it should have been irrelevant. I had pointed that out too - that the only reason he could get into base contact under my venom was because I wasn't particularly careful about my trueborn placement.

@jy2: Indeed on the readjustment. And agreed with you on Caldera; he's actually a pretty nice dude - just not when his face is red with rage, spittle is frothing from his lips, and a daemon of chaos is trying to burst out of his chest. My biggest disappointment out of the affair was that I thought we were going to be good friends as a result of getting to compare DE tips; I liked him a lot before the midgame drama.

@Oaka: The beasts under the venom picture is misleading. Those beasts are 2" down in a trench, and this is an offset picture. If you were to move those beasts 2" straight up level with the board, they'd be next to that venom, not under it. Too bad that I don't have a direct crow's eye view of the shot.


@Olympia: Rather than responding to your trollbait, I've taken the liberty of reporting it as useless flamebait. *yawn* Nothing new from you there. Hopefully it gets deleted?

Great Batreps so far, I love playing vs another DE player, always comes down to whoever has the most recovery, and always a bit of a bloodbath!

Personally, I used the old raiders as my venoms for a long time, and I never had one person complain in a tournament or otherwise...So this hate is unfounded.

Great reports (other than the drama bits, of course). At the its very best it highlights some of the problem areas with 40k and what I hope gets fixed in the next edition.

5th is still a good version of the game, but they should never have allowed multiple free pivots on vehicles.

Dashofpepper wrote:@Gorechild: Indeed. The barest hint of my leading trueborn was underneath my venom. Laziness on my part. I never expected him to try assaulting through/under my Venom, so it should have been irrelevant. I had pointed that out too - that the only reason he could get into base contact under my venom was because I wasn't particularly careful about my trueborn placement.

Yeah, I wasn't suggesting he should have been able to assault you because of it, Just that if it had been noticed then there wouldn't have been a problem in the first place. It was obvious what you were doing and your opponent getting in such a big dispute over something that was just down to playing quickly (as you would at a GT) is silly.

Krisken wrote:Great reports (other than the drama bits, of course). At the its very best it highlights some of the problem areas with 40k and what I hope gets fixed in the next edition.

5th is still a good version of the game, but they should never have allowed multiple free pivots on vehicles.

Free Pivots are fine, Its the driving sidways thats abusive. If you pivot to face the way ur moving first (wich is the spirit of the rule, then another pivot is to adjust your facing for armour at the end of the move) there isnt a problem.

Grimgob wrote:
Free Pivots are fine, Its the driving sidways thats abusive. If you pivot to face the way ur moving first (wich is the spirit of the rule, then another pivot is to adjust your facing for armour at the end of the move) there isnt a problem.

Yeah but what else would you expect at a competitive event? People will use whatever tools are provided; in this case it's poorly worded movement rules that allow people to magically drive sideways thus allowing a couple of extra inches of weapon range/movement. I'm sure the rule writers at GW never intended to allow people to do something like that but then they're probably just a bunch of monkeys throwing pooh around the office and whatever lands on a page gets printed.

OK, Ill give you that but if your following the rule correctly and you pivot on center the only way you would gain distance is after you deploy sideways on the deplyment line(and you would only gain like an 1 1/2" once the whole game) which leads to its own problems (of side and rear arc shots).

@all: Please keep Rule Number One in mind. Let me remind you of the best practice in this regard: If you consider something to be trolling or flamebaiting, please ignore it completely (don't post anything at all about it, including quoting it) and report it using the modalert button.

Grimgob wrote:OK, Ill give you that but if your following the rule correctly and you pivot on center the only way you would gain distance is after you deploy sideways on the deplyment line(and you would only gain like an 1 1/2" once the whole game) which leads to its own problems (of side and rear arc shots).

True except for DE. AV10 all around and their skiffs are quite long. Landraiders also. So no disadvantage at all and 1-2" of extra move early game can be important (can be negated by opponent deployment though too). Its legal though and just one of those things.

Its a shame what looked like a pretty good game got ruined by a rules disagreement. That then carried over into the rest of the tournament. Glad to see parties have calmed down after the fact though, kudos to that.

winterman wrote:
True except for DE. AV10 all around and their skiffs are quite long. Landraiders also. So no disadvantage at all and 1-2" of extra move early game can be important (can be negated by opponent deployment though too). Its legal though and just one of those things.

As long as they're only rotating on center, as described in the book. I don't mind a vehicle that rotates as long as the center of the vehicle doesn't move more than the distance allowed. I did face an eldar player pivoting his wave serpents on one of the points of their wings though so he could swing his base around and end up with his vehicle facing the opposite direction, that was clearly abusive.

Been enjoying the reports so far, I look forward to seeing how it all pans out. Tempers can get hot during these things, no surprise. That's why I was surprised at the 'ard boyz finals that everyone was mostly chill.

Grimgob wrote:
Free Pivots are fine, Its the driving sidways thats abusive. If you pivot to face the way ur moving first (wich is the spirit of the rule, then another pivot is to adjust your facing for armour at the end of the move) there isnt a problem.

So my raider moves on 7" forward to go cruising speed, then pivots sideways. No part of my vehicle is more than 5" onto the board.

You then assault my raider, which has moved a grand total of 5", although a certain facing puts it at 7" if you rotate it in that facing - which is not rotated into that facing.

Do you need 4+ to hit, or 6+ to hit? I don't advocate an interpretation of the movement rule which never lets you move as much distance as you're trying to.

Free pivot first, then move. That is the direction you face. Anything else leads to confusion and rules disputes. (Not saying that is how it is, but how it should be)

You know in 3rd ed you dident have these problems. The only part of the vehicle that mattered for movement was the dreadnaught sized round base below, pivoting was unimportant, since firing and disembarking were measured from that. Also you could walk under as long as you stayed 1' away from the round base. No where in the game is this old way of thinking more evident then in the design of the original dark eldar vehicles. The problem everyone is having is they were designed to work a different way, and that design has not carried on well in future editions. Similar problems with land raiders, park av 14 side on edge of deployment, pivot toward enemy and disembark later and you have gained a few extra inches.

Dashofpepper wrote:

Grimgob wrote:
Free Pivots are fine, Its the driving sidways thats abusive. If you pivot to face the way ur moving first (wich is the spirit of the rule, then another pivot is to adjust your facing for armour at the end of the move) there isnt a problem.

So my raider moves on 7" forward to go cruising speed, then pivots sideways. No part of my vehicle is more than 5" onto the board.

You then assault my raider, which has moved a grand total of 5", although a certain facing puts it at 7" if you rotate it in that facing - which is not rotated into that facing.

Do you need 4+ to hit, or 6+ to hit? I don't advocate an interpretation of the movement rule which never lets you move as much distance as you're trying to.

The movement rules are vague on such issues because where one measures from makes a big difference in this case (the thread in TMDC touches on this).

Personally for assault purposes I prefer people make a check for distance moved from the center of the vehicle, since that is the most accurate way to determine the actual distance the vehicle moved, and not a distance relative to some part of the model (which can vary depending on pivots). The rules do not state this outright though, its just logical.

So in this case in my opinion the center of the model moved 7" regardless of whether you side stepped on or moved forward and pivoted. Again, the rules are vague on this issue all around though in my opinion, so it takes reasonableness on the part of your opponent.

I personally don't like the sideways moving, as if the front of the vehicle ends more than 12" away, assuming you are moving that distance, then it is an illegal move. Just my personal feelings... With regards to people having problems with your raiders as venoms, I enjoy that noone that has argued that point has pointed out the BENEFITS you've given your opponents by using a larger model... Yes when you wanted to assault and realized you miscalculated and the vehicle is too big to go around now... yeah, thats the model's fault(sarcasm)... Instead, hey hes using a larger model, that means they are harder to hide and easier to shoot at! Especially with soo many of these DE armies having such potent shooting and they are complaining about it being bigger and therefore easier to shoot?!

I is confused and giggling a bit...

Thanks for the Batreps there Dash, sounds like you had an interesting event anyways.

I'm curious about one of hte rules issues you encountered. You were saying that a model can't move under your venom due to the models "footprint". I've never heard that before, and certainly I dont think the rules support this notion.

All models are considered impassible terrain, that much is certain. So while you can't move onto the base or the physical model of a model, there is nothing preventing you from moving under one. The only rule here is the 1" rule, which is measured from the base to the hull or base. According to my understanding, as long as the model is physically able to move there, and its base stays more than 1" from your skimmers hull and base, its a legal move.

What am I missing that would support your argument that the skimmer has a "footprint" you can't move into?

edit: P.S: I dont want to make this off topic, so I'd encourage you to make a thread in YMDC about this issue so we can discuss it there, if such a discussion is of interest to you.

Good report, I would just like to say about some of those rules for the terrain, some groups play it different. I remember this happened in a tournament when another gaming group we went to called it was area terrain which doesn't make anysense as it does even have grass or a crater. We ruled it that you would get no cover ontop. I think this is really a differing of opinions; not much to do about it still a win and good game.

Great Reports Dash, I enjoyed them all! Sorry your opponents are not the greates with sportsmanship, has to take some of the fun out of it. Most of his demands were ludicris, like attempting to assault through your trasport!? what was he thinking? And claiminf cover from...well nothing on the hills? I do find your vehiocle movement trick shady at best, but that is a 7 page thread in another place. anyway, great report and a fun read!

Nice reports... I am floored by the apparent total lack of real terrain in all 4 battle reports.

That kinda sucks for some armies.

I would rather an event say 'please bring a piece of terrain with you' than have under terrained tables.

Are you going to be running DE at NOVA?

Yeah one thing that I find very hard to accept is the lack of terrain here. Such boards would be unacceptable to me for a tournament you had to travel and pay for. Although some sparse boards are okay, those should be a minority just like the boards with a little too much terrain.

Dashofpepper wrote:Alright....answering them as they come!

@PxDnNinja: Thanks for the kind words! Enough people stirring the pot angrily can make me forget that 8 people making bad comments don't constitute 1600 views - when the silent majority take time to speak up, and doubly so with appreciation or topical relevance it is much appreciated. Blood Angels though. >< There are so many blood angels. I think that they might even be more popular than Space Wolves.

Haha, I know. But to my defense I was getting into Blood Angels before their new codex came out. Prior to that I was purely a Necron player, and am looking forward to their new dex as well (btw, read your Necron tactica and loved it. I use many of the same techniques, but you brought to light a few things I never considered). Nonetheless, again gratz on the win, and look forward to seeing the next rep.

@Dash: Great reports =) I enjoy reading your writes up just to learn how others play Dark Eldar. I run foot slogging Kan wall, the the DE are my toughest fight. So all the knowledge about them I can learn is great.

@ Dash and Everyone else:

Page III of the BRB intoduction
"Warhammer 40,000 is far, far more than just a game. It is
an engrossing and fulfiling pastime that allows you to
collect and paint armies of Citadel miniatures and then use
them to fight tabletop battles."

Some of us are in this Hobby for the modeling, painting, or the gaming. We all play it for different reasons, some of us for all the reasons.

Some people that encounter an opponet that doesnt play the game for the same reason we do, get all fired up. Which I think is the case here.

The game four opponent had a nice DE army with converted Vypers as venoms.(Nicely painted too) When he sat down in front of Dash's army and saw the raider venom, perhaps he got upset that he took the time to really convert venoms and his opponent did not. (Your raider venoms are totally legal, not an attack at you Dash at all)

I know it used to bother me many years ago to face off against a bare plastic army with my fully painted one then loose. I got over it, now years later, I laugh as much over a loss as I do a win no mater what the armies look like.

Once again people need to learn this is not just a game to some people, its a hobby that goes beyond the battlefield.

Final note page 2 of the BRB

"THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE!
Warhammer 40,000 is an involving game, with
many different armies, weapons and possibilities. In
a game of this size and complexity there are bound
to be occasions where a particular situation lies
outside these rules, often when unusual models
interact. At other times you may know the rule is
covered but you just can’t seem to find the right
page. Then again you may know the rule, but the
reality of exactly where your models are on the table
may make it a really close call – measuring assault
moves and deciding if a key model is in cover are
classic examples.
All of these instances can lead to arguments, so it is
important to remember that the rules are just a
framework to create an enjoyable game. Winning at
any cost is less important than making sure both
players – not just the victor – have a good time. If a
dispute does crop up then work out the answer in a
gentlemanly manner. Many players simply like to rolloff
and let the dice decide who is right, allowing
them to get straight back to blasting each other to
pieces. After the game you can happily continue
your discussion of the finer points of the rules, or
agree how you will both interpret them should the
same situation happen again. You could even decide
to change the rules to suit you better (this is known
as a ‘house rule’).
The most important rule then is that the rules aren’t
all that important! So long as both players agree,
you can treat them as sacrosanct or mere guidelines
– the choice is entirely yours."

Happy Gaming Everyone =)

-Dakkafang

Okay then, iI've finally read all 4 of the battle reports.

It took me long enough, because I ended up reading all of the flaming and general arguing for the last 2 games. Anyways , first let me say that you have had an excellent series of battle reports so far. They've all been well photographed and nicely detailed, and I appreciate you taking the time to do all this, albeit the opposition of some of your opponents.

1: First off this is a tournament. Naturally people should be using the best possible list to they're ability. Claiming that someones list wasn't fun to play is a stupid reason to give someone a bad game score. This isn't a friendly casual game where it doesn't matter who wins, this a tournament where people are competing. Don't go to a tournament, especially a gt, if you're going to complain about how someones army isn't fun to play.

2. Conversions. As of right now, it's unfair to complain about the size of the model when there isn't an official one that can be used. As long as it is approved by the TO, its just fine.

3. Just because he did something that might have been wrong, doesn't mean you can do something thats wrong, and them complain that its his fault when that comes back to bite you.

4. Although certain things are allowed by the rules, it doesn't mean they should be done. I'm a huge supporter as RAI, and although pivoting is a free movement as said multiple times in the rulebook, I don't feel the rule was intended to be used like that. I would never call you out on that or accuse anyone of cheating if they did something like that, it's just something that I wouldn't do. As cheesy as some people might think it is, it's definitely a legal move, that people shouldn't get upset at.

5. I have noticed an increase in politeness on everyone's part. This is good, as people are much more likely to agree with you, or at least understand your point of view if your calling someone names.

Dashofpepper wrote:

Grimgob wrote:
Free Pivots are fine, Its the driving sidways thats abusive. If you pivot to face the way ur moving first (wich is the spirit of the rule, then another pivot is to adjust your facing for armour at the end of the move) there isnt a problem.

So my raider moves on 7" forward to go cruising speed, then pivots sideways. No part of my vehicle is more than 5" onto the board.

You then assault my raider, which has moved a grand total of 5", although a certain facing puts it at 7" if you rotate it in that facing - which is not rotated into that facing.

Do you need 4+ to hit, or 6+ to hit? I don't advocate an interpretation of the movement rule which never lets you move as much distance as you're trying to.

No you still moved 7" your pivot just made the hull 2" further from ur opponant. The center still moved the same distance (if from off the board, it still stops 7" from where it started) ur arguing placement not movement.

Dracos wrote:
All models are considered impassible terrain, that much is certain. So while you can't move onto the base or the physical model of a model, there is nothing preventing you from moving under one. The only rule here is the 1" rule, which is measured from the base to the hull or base. According to my understanding, as long as the model is physically able to move there, and its base stays more than 1" from your skimmers hull and base, its a legal move.

But that's the crux of it - My vehicle is on the table, and no other model - mine or his - are allowed to share space with it. The 1" rule is ignored for assaults; you just can't get into base with models you aren't assaulting.

If he could freely move under my vehicles since it isn't impassable - that would make my venoms unassaultable. He's move his models up to mine, but since I'm hovering off the ground, he couldn't actually put his base into contact with my hull - and since my vehicle is wider than the vehicle base, he could never get into base contact with my skimmer.

Infantry assaults base to base. Vehicles get assaulted base to model - thus if you reach the edge of the model, you're assaulting it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grimgob wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:

Grimgob wrote:
Free Pivots are fine, Its the driving sidways thats abusive. If you pivot to face the way ur moving first (wich is the spirit of the rule, then another pivot is to adjust your facing for armour at the end of the move) there isnt a problem.

So my raider moves on 7" forward to go cruising speed, then pivots sideways. No part of my vehicle is more than 5" onto the board.

You then assault my raider, which has moved a grand total of 5", although a certain facing puts it at 7" if you rotate it in that facing - which is not rotated into that facing.

Do you need 4+ to hit, or 6+ to hit? I don't advocate an interpretation of the movement rule which never lets you move as much distance as you're trying to.

No you still moved 7" your pivot just made the hull 2" further from ur opponant. The center still moved the same distance (if from off the board, it still stops 7" from where it started) ur arguing placement not movement.

Ah...but the center of my vehicle only moved 5" in that scenario. So you're saying that a 5" movement is a 7" movement if facing forward, and a 5" movement if facing sideways? The center of the vehicle is at 5" either way. Like I said; I don't buy into rules interpretations where pivoting can change you from cruising speed to combat speed. Measure 12" onto the table. Place your vehicle there. Pivot freely. However you want. With the center of the vehicle at 12", and a sideways pivot putting the whole vehicle at 12", a forward pivot gives you extra inches, but is consistent.

but if you started off the table and ur measuring from the tip of the front and the middle is 2" from the front then the middle being 5" off the table edge has moved 7" (because it took 2" just to get the middle of the model onto the table) = no free or lost moevment from the pivot. If you measure from the front or the model during the game and from the center of the model when you come onto the table it is not consistant, your using two different measuring points to gain an advantage when coming onto the board. I get the starting sideways for the extra movement but moveing onto the board is not OK.

Dashofpepper wrote:But that's the crux of it - My vehicle is on the table, and no other model - mine or his - are allowed to share space with it. The 1" rule is ignored for assaults; you just can't get into base with models you aren't assaulting.

If he could freely move under my vehicles since it isn't impassable - that would make my venoms unassaultable. He's move his models up to mine, but since I'm hovering off the ground, he couldn't actually put his base into contact with my hull - and since my vehicle is wider than the vehicle base, he could never get into base contact with my skimmer.

Infantry assaults base to base. Vehicles get assaulted base to model - thus if you reach the edge of the model, you're assaulting it.

Except skimmers specifically states you can assault the base as well as the hull. The game makes no abstraction that the area under a skimmer is occupied by the skimmer. In fact, by stating that you can assault a skimmer by moving in base with the hull or the base, we can infer that it is possible to move under a skimmer.

Great bat reps dash. Good descriptions of whats going on and pictures to back them up.

The assualt issue in game 4 was never an issue, you can't occupy the same space as the venom, so the assault can't happen.
On the venoms, I find it amazing that they were not questioned until after the fact, if I had a problem with them I'd have asked the relevant questions at the start of the game. It's the time to do it, not when you percieve that they are having an adverse effect on the game.
A lot of people seem to be going on about moving sideways and pivoting to gain extra movement. This can only be of benefit the first time the vehicle is moved, and it is completely legal anyway.

Couple of general comments, the terrain on those boards is a disgrace for a "GT" level tournament, and these reports more than anything show why soft scores are a joke.

I joined Dakka to get more advice about using my DE list, so I'll be following your reports with interest

Kenny3760 wrote:
I joined Dakka to get more advice about using my DE list, so I'll be following your reports with interest

Welcome then!

I must strongly encourage you to check the link in my signature linking to my Advanced Tips on Beating Face With Dark Eldar. There are 2-3 links at the top of that post that have basic information (sample armies, what works together, why I've built things in certain ways) - you should read those too.

Dracos wrote:Yeah one thing that I find very hard to accept is the lack of terrain here. Such boards would be unacceptable to me for a tournament you had to travel and pay for. Although some sparse boards are okay, those should be a minority just like the boards with a little too much terrain.

Yeah, I have to agree with this. If you can't get the minimum 25% terrain on the board, you really don't have any business hosting a tournament, or you should reduce the tables until you have sufficient terrain for all the tables.

The first year Maul at the Mall existed, the lack of terrain was the single biggest complaint. Ever since then, they've done a great job of making sure there's enough terrain. I wish more tournaments tried that hard.

Saldiven wrote:

Yeah, I have to agree with this. If you can't get the minimum 25% terrain on the board, you really don't have any business hosting a tournament, or you should reduce the tables until you have sufficient terrain for all the tables.

And some LOS blocking pieces, at least one per table. .5" hills don't count. It is reasonable for a land raider to be able to 100% hide behind terrain unless you really want to shift the meta of the event to shooty gunlines...

Boxes with windows drawn on with a marker might have been better.

I feel one of the number one goals of a tourney should be good and fair terrain consistant via the whole event.

Here is an alternate explanation for moving 7" onto the board.

the raider is "placed" edge on just off the table.

the raider pivots to move forward onto the table. In the process of pivoting 1" of the vehicle is now over the table.

the vehicle moves 6" (measured from the center of the vehicle to the center of the vehicle).

the front of the vehicle in now 7" onto the board, even though the center of said vehicle moved 6"



Pivoting and "gaining" movement is only applicable when you have invisible lines you can not cross. By placing the vehicle sideways you can place the center of your vehicle closer to that line, allowing the center of the vehicle to be a bit farther forward after you move.

It may not be the best thing ever, but any other solution is way too complicated to use.

Dashofpepper wrote: Measure 12" onto the table. Place your vehicle there. Pivot freely. However you want. With the center of the vehicle at 12", and a sideways pivot putting the whole vehicle at 12", a forward pivot gives you extra inches, but is consistent.

I'm actually on board with the whole pivoting thing except in this case.

How do you know what point of your vehicle is where when it isn't even on the board? It can't already have an orientation, as it's not in play. FAQs have been driving home the "nothing off the board is in a determinable state" since there's been FAQs.

By moving like that, you'd be claiming it was necessarily sideways off the board. Of course, you couldn't also say it was pointing forwards. It's just a cat in a box at that point.

In this particular case, moving in from off-board, no amount of pivoting should have you end up with a any part of a vehicle more than X" onto the board, where X was your speed. Pivoting only works when you have a determinable starting state, and this would be the only way to ensure that movement distances were correct.

I never understand why GW releases rules for a model, but then doesn't have a model for it. If they did then you wouldn't have had such a rumble over something as petty as this.

I actually agree that your "venom" models should not have been allowed by the TO, but they did allow them so it should be a non issue.

I realize there is no model for them but your venoms are obviously raider sized, and the venom is mentioned as being smaller than a raider.

I know fluff doesn't interpret rules but technically there is no swarmlord model and if someone put a termagant on a MC base and gave it 4 swords it would be pretty lame. I realize its not quite that bad since a raider is closer to twice the size of a venom and a termagant is closer to 1/4th the size of swarmlord most likely but there is a size difference.

Considering most dark eldar vehicles are tissue the extra size kinda does hurt even though you gain extra 'pivot' movement and shooting distance. I think its only like 2" extra shooting distance however so was most likely a non factor the vast majority of the time.


In the end you are definitely not a cheater and the fact that TOs allowed to you use them is not your fault.

I really enjoy reading your battle reports, and overall as I am a non factor in this discussion/tournament I would like to state I think you handled your battle report well and it was written in an seemingly unbiased fashion

as soon as your 1" of nose is on the table you have entered play 1" as it is part of the hull. and I agree with darkness. the pivot works for an extra sumpin sumpin first turn ala rulesloophole but reserves coming onto the board it (through dashes example) does not. Sorry Dash not trying to get OT but they closed the other thread. Ill stop now . On the Venoms, the TO allowed them, thay were the same size the whole game, and his opponant should have adjusted his game play to them. Crying foul on that is being a sore looser. edited to add to topic of thread.

The problem with double long and extra wide venoms is that you can disembark off far more spots when wrecked, which can and will save you from follow-up charges on a more frequent basis. I don't think Dash was looking for any advantages necessarily, so much as chopping bits off his old raiders to more affordably field venoms. When Dash asked me about using them at the NOVA, my simple suggestion was to have at least a couple of built "actual" Venoms by that time; that way, when something wrecked or whatever, he could replace the model using the same stand/axis, and properly disembark, or check LOS, or whatever, but not have to buy 9 new models.

If anything, sharing just b/c for anyone doing counts-as, nothing is more helpful or easy-resolve in case of a competitive / close game than having the actual model in your bag/box somewhere, to sub in for all appropriate measurements on demand.

Yeah, great idea, MVBrandt.

Nah I think venom spam DE players needs to buy ALL their venoms for any major tournaments after its release. No proxying... even if it meant fully painting them 2-3 days before the event. If you dont wanna paint 8-9 venoms, then dont run venom spam, go with a mix venom/raider list that is just as competitive. WYSIWYG

Great report as always Dash.

MVBrandt wrote:...my simple suggestion was to have at least a couple of built "actual" Venoms by that time; that way, when something wrecked or whatever, he could replace the model using the same stand/axis, and properly disembark, or check LOS, or whatever, but not have to buy 9 new models

Of course this leads to the issue that a venom may not be in range of anti tank weapons but the original raider was...does this mean those shots were really out of range. how about cover? If he has the disadvantage of the raiders he should get the advantages.

SonsofVulkan wrote:Nah I think venom spam DE players needs to buy ALL their venoms for any major tournaments after its release. No proxying... even if it meant fully painting them 2-3 days before the event. If you dont wanna paint 8-9 venoms, then dont run venom spam, go with a mix venom/raider list that is just as competitive. WYSIWYG

So the venoms that I have converted from raiders by shortening them by about 2" and mounting the splinter cannons under the chassis should now be thrown in the bin and I need to shell out about £110 for new ones. They are suitably sized, easily identifiable as not being raiders, look the part and are not modelled for advantage. It's part of the hobby and completely allowable, I know I'll be continuing to use them.

Kenny3760 wrote: So the venoms that I have converted from raiders by shortening them by about 2" and mounting the splinter cannons under the chassis should now be thrown in the bin and I need to shell out about £110 for new ones. They are suitably sized, easily identifiable as not being raiders, look the part and are not modelled for advantage. It's part of the hobby and completely allowable, I know I'll be continuing to use them.

No one is stopping you from doing so at your FLGS or whatever. But if your going to a WYSIWYG tournament... you gonna have call the TO and maybe they will approve. If they dont approve, then I guess you wont be attending or have to switch to another army. You gotta understand that the GW made venoms are geometrically different from raiders, not only in terms of length but also height, width and etc which can all affect gameplay.

Why all the natter about the venoms? TO approved, game took place already.

Assuming it happens the way Dash reported it, I know see why his score was chipmonked in game 4, especially with the venom runn underneath to assualt and judges ruled against him....and then his opponent accused him of cheating.

DarknessEternal wrote:Why all the natter about the venoms? TO approved, game took place already.

I agree. There was no official models yet. If there wasn't a model for a rhino and I scratch built one, and it was approved by the TO, you could take your whining all the way out of the tournament, as far as I'm (and most of the other posters) are concerned.

While I'm not sure that the TOs made the right call there, once they made their decision it's a completely moot point.

Great reports as always. I've spent way too much time this weekend reading these Alamo reports.

I'm absolutely shocked that this crapfest is what passes for a GT. Never having been to a GT myself I would expect a tournament with enough good terrain, the sparse poorly constructed terrain here was a joke. I'd also expect the organizers to have their together, announcing winners and then going back afterward and announcing new winners is the height of amateurism.

I pray that if I ever make it to a GT that my experience will be far different than what I've read about and seen in pictures here.

It's also sad to see people QQing about facing a great list in a GT. This is a major tournament and the purpose of coming there and paying to play is to win. What the do you expect? Why didn't the TOs throw out the guys heckling and yelling "Cheater" at the final table? That shouldn't be allowed to happen and the hooligans who act that way should have been kicked out of the tourney for carrying on like that. I've never been to a GT but in the small tourneys I've played in, if somebody starts acting like that they get tossed.

Augustus; terrain is one of those things that you should go to an event expecting to be poor and be pleasantly surprised if it isn't.

Out of my three armies, necrons take mobile BLOS terrain with them, Orks take 4+ cover with them everywhere, and Dark Eldar have 5++ invulnerable saves on everything. I make it a point of making table terrain irrelevant to me.

I'm just a little surprised that weak terrain is something to expect. We don't have a really big 40k scene here in St. Louis, but the two shops I've played at both have a lot of tables and a lot of really nice terrain on hand. Of course other than playing in small-fry tourneys here and a couple of RTT's back when we had a GW store in town, I haven't been exposed to the greater tourney scene. I'm hoping to make it out to Adepticon next year, as it's not to far to drive.

Anyway cheers again on the win. I'm off to read part five.

augustus5 wrote:It's also sad to see people QQing about facing a great list in a GT. This is a major tournament and the purpose of coming there and paying to play is to win. What the do you expect? Why didn't the TOs throw out the guys heckling and yelling "Cheater" at the final table? That shouldn't be allowed to happen and the hooligans who act that way should have been kicked out of the tourney for carrying on like that. I've never been to a GT but in the small tourneys I've played in, if somebody starts acting like that they get tossed.

I couldn't have said this better myself. There were two or three players ejected from my club in Kansas City and perma-banned for behavior. More tourneys should take this stance.

Rum for the Rum God!

Dashofpepper wrote:Out of my three armies, necrons take mobile BLOS terrain with them, Orks take 4+ cover with them everywhere, and Dark Eldar have 5++ invulnerable saves on everything. I make it a point of making table terrain irrelevant to me.

This is very good advice.

I'd also say that having a lot of things in Drop Pods negate the issue of requiring a cover save/LOS blocking pretty well too.

Man Dash, you keep running into arguments that end up degenerating fast. I hope you still like 40k after all that. It was exactly this kind of thing that frustrated me at Adepticon, it almost turned me off from the game entirely. Arguements are never fun no matter who is right. I hope your next GT is more enjoyable.

I'm reading somewhere that your list is illegal due to the gear on the haemy?

read the other battle reports for details. it wasn't a big deal imo

Illegal list in a tourney is still an illegal list in a tourney..

New user here. Dash, I greatly enjoyed reading the reports. Very well written with lots of nice pictures.

The drama was pretty amusing too. Especially all the complaints about your venoms. They were approved by the TO which really is the end of the story. What I find funny is that I proxied vypers as venoms when the book first came out and every opponent gave me MFA complaints and said that they were too small to carry 5 guys, so i built a couple of the half vyper + half raider things, which are now too big and I'll probably have to cut them down or I'll get MFA complaints again. Some people will complain about anything they can if they're on the losing end, long before they take an honest look at their own list, tactics, or even dice rolling (not that there's anything you can do about dice but occasionally they do decide that they don't want you to win, and laughing it off is about all you can do).

Anyway this caught my attention:

My beast unit moves onto the table in the trench system - I actually took one of my models and surfed it up the trench network to make sure that I could actually move up the trenches. I couldn't fit them all in the trench based on how many models I have, so I put as many as I could in one trench, scattered models across the space between the trenches in 2" coherency (including the Baron to keep him from having to roll DT), and put the rest in another trench.

It's my understanding that Jump Infantry can choose to move as regular infantry if they want to. So as long as the Baron is with your beasts he can hop off his skyboard and drag it behind him and not need to test for Dangerous Terrain. Also I think Baron's Master of the Skies still works for himself when he joins a non-Helion unit so he can re-roll dangerous terrain, and then he's got a shadow field so you'd need to roll Triple 1's for him to take a wound. Of course if you can avoid the risk you should, but it could be useful information in the future. Just my thoughts.

calypso2ts wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:...my simple suggestion was to have at least a couple of built "actual" Venoms by that time; that way, when something wrecked or whatever, he could replace the model using the same stand/axis, and properly disembark, or check LOS, or whatever, but not have to buy 9 new models

Of course this leads to the issue that a venom may not be in range of anti tank weapons but the original raider was...does this mean those shots were really out of range. how about cover? If he has the disadvantage of the raiders he should get the advantages.

As an organizer and a player, I disagree. If your models provide you with disadvantageous over the GW model, it is your decision that has cost you and is kosher. If your model provides you with advantages over the GW model, that is advantageous modelling and unacceptable.

MVBrandt has it exactly right, and if Dash wants to do the same thing at Wargamescon in July, that will be acceptable - though I would prefer all the models being the correct size, as I'm an anti-drama junkie.

I was commenting on the idea of swapping models midgame for some actions and not others proposed by MVBrandt.

If my vehicle was in range to shoot in one phase by 1/2" but I am only allowed to disembark from a smaller footprint that is a bit bogus. By getting the advantages/disadvantage I mean if the TO clears it and you put it on the table, play with that model the whole time, don't swap them around for some actions and not others.

And I was saying as a TO, I would allow you to play with the big models with the understanding that you need smaller models to swap in when you are disembarking, being charged, or really at any point that your opponent wants the real model in play (and you as the player would have to inform your opponent of this). It's a compromise position that lets you use the models they have to the greatest degree possible without putting my event in the position of allowing advantageous modelling. The larger Venoms are clearly advantageous for good players; arguing otherwise is at best disingenuous.

Okay I think I understand you more clearly on this, I think selectively swapping them is bad form, but if it is going to be done for every relevant gaming action, then it makes sense. At least with flying bases the switch can be made with relative ease.

I'm really surprised that you were able to turn the battle around like that after getting so unlucky during the first few rounds - good job.

I look forward to seeing you using the new Venoms - I think that your paint scheme would look quite striking (with a bit more shading, anyway).