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

I'm way more for name and shame however there is another side to this as well. Even if someone's "gaming" reputatiion is unfairly accused of being a douche, one shouldn't believe everything they read on the internets and take care to form their opinions on observed merits.

I don't think it's a big deal to use someone's name in this discussion. If you choose to attend a big event like this you should know that your actions will be scrutinized here and elsewhere.

Coming into a match pretending to be drunk in order to have some sort of mental effect on an opponent is pretty douche.... its one of those lame psych out techniques that dont really work against skilled players in any game/sport.

Back to the complaining about scenarios argument, why CAN'T the mission cause you to lose?

I mean... let's assume there's a basic level of challenge to the game. A challenge you, as a good player, are consistently up to. Able to out-play your opponent, stick to the mission objectives, and succeed. Sometimes, the mission makes that difficult - the opponent puts the objective in the farthest reaches of their corner of the board and you're playing spearhead for example.

Now it's harder. Plain and simple, the MISSION has made it HARDER to win. Can you still? Yes. But now, some lucky shot [first lascannon of the game on your landraider, 6 glancing hits from bolt pistols on your raider, etc] can make what in a normal game would have been a manageable challenge into an unmanageable one. The additional difficulty of the scenario, when coupled with bad luck that just happens sometimes [and happened to happen right now, in this mission, the one you hate and is now making it so you can't recover] can in fact CAUSE you to lose.

Put in other words, same bad luck on the same turn in a DIFFERENT mission, you could have easily handled it. But with THIS mission, it's just impossible. Case of a good player getting a horrible combination of bad luck [happens, learn to adapt] in a more difficult mission [bad luck has more of an effect].

Hence I think no tournament should ever, EVER, combine capture and control and spearhead. Jury's out on combining it with Dawn of War, but in either case if they're going to make you do it, bring the objective 12" from table edges. I mean really.

Or ensure you have multiple units that can reach a potentially far away objective in 5 turns. Redundancy has been shown to be an important part of your strategy elsewhere on these boards. If one lucky lascannon shot could potentially cripple your strategy in turn one, I think you need to rethink your strategy.

I agree however that some missions are tougher for certain armies. I accept that killpoint missions as a DE player can be tough for me, however, I have decided that I'd rather bleed killpoints and attempt to destroy my opponent utterly with an overall "better" list because of MSU rather than hinder myself witha less effective lower killpoint list. That is my choice though.

I personally enjoy the fact that certain mission/deployment combinations are harder for me to deal with so it is all the more satisfying when I come out on top of those engagements.

No one complained about the missions, the majority of the players enjoyed themselves. Some missions are going to be harder for your list, obviously!

There are people out there that hate certain Missions/Deployments mostly because their armies do poorly at them.

MSU armies hate Kill Points
Deathstar armies don’t like Seize Ground.
Armies that are not very mobile hate Capture and Control

Static shooting armies do not like Dawn of War
Assault and short ranged armies don’t like Spearhead

And this is the way that balance is achieved. If you take some of the elements out of it where your army does not perform very well, that will imbalance the game.

Also if a Lascannon takes out a Land Raider and ends your hope of winning a Capture and Control mission, that is your opponent playing well when they realize that you have a poorly thought out army build that they can capitalize on and end your hope of winning.

At Wargames Con (and Adepticon as well) had multiple objectives to achieve so if you had a weakness it could be overcome by doing well in the other objectives. I don’t know if that is good or bad because it lets armies like Dark Eldar who do poorly in Kill Point missions only lose a portion of their points instead of all of them in other formats. It will be interesting to see how they do in a couple of weeks when they have strait out-of-the-book missions at the Bay Area Open.

Spellbound wrote:Back to the complaining about scenarios argument, why CAN'T the mission cause you to lose?

I mean... let's assume there's a basic level of challenge to the game. A challenge you, as a good player, are consistently up to. Able to out-play your opponent, stick to the mission objectives, and succeed. Sometimes, the mission makes that difficult - the opponent puts the objective in the farthest reaches of their corner of the board and you're playing spearhead for example.

Because as Lunchmoney said, if that's one of the basic missions of the game, you know that this is a situation you can and will encounter, and thus you should be prepared for it. As a player you need to figure out how your army will reliably get to that objective at the far end (diagonally) of the table, in 5 turns. Most, if not all, armies are capable of doing this. Outflanking, Infiltrating, Deep Striking, or simply moving with 12"/turn move units. If you have not built your army to deal with this situation then this is the consequence you face. Some army books may have a harder time building for this than others, but that's down to GW needing to get their codices updated.

I remarked on this regarding the Conflict GT in January, where I placed rather low for me (26th or 28th or so?), in part (I felt) because I fielded a list which did not feature any backfield threats; like deep striking terminators or outflanking Chosen, as I usually do. Thus when I came up against Old Shatterhands' Tau in a Spearhead Annihilation mission on a pretty open table in round 3, I knew I had put myself in that hole by not giving myself an army list capable of getting into his backfield. I only won that game because I reserved and came in far down the long table edge with most of my stuff, shortening the distance, and because he made the mistake of moving too close to my long edge, and because I got a couple of good Lash rolls to help me make assaults to get extra movement.

As Blackmoor said, certain types of army builds will have an easier or tougher time in different missions. MSU armies are awesome in Seize Ground but vulnerable in Annihilation. This presents a design challenge in balancing your list to be reliably capable of winning in any of the nine standard combinations. People who build an army which is purely MSU-d out and fast and really rocks in both Seize Ground and Capture and Control, but has a tough time in Annihilation, have given themselves that weakness, and their complaints about kill points sucking often smack of not taking responsibility for their own choices. Some of these folks, IME, are the lazy types I mentioned earlier. Folks who made deadly MSU armies in 3rd or 4th edition when the game was about VPs and those armies were ALWAYS superior, and don't want to change their tactics and lists to fit the missions of the new edition.

Mannahnin wrote:

Chosen Praetorian wrote:

blood angel wrote:I have to agree with Shinkaze above.

Random game length ending on turn 5 is crap. It is an unfortunate rule that GW has saddled us with.

+1
I hate that Ive seen so many people pull out a draw/win from a game they got their handed to them in because of the game randomly ending at turn five

You can keep playing 4th edition if you can find people interested in it. If you are not playing for a possible turn 5 end, and your opponent wins because of it, he played better than you.

Don't complain about it; play better. It's like the folks who complain about Dawn of War and complain about Kill Points and complain about Capture & Control. Guess what? Those rules and missions are there to force you to be flexible and come up with tactics and army lists which aren't boned by them. If my tactics or army list are boned by those rules, then that's MY failure as a player.

I played against Grey knights in a tournament last month with DE and it was a table quarters game with only the one to the players rights that counted as scoring (making for two table quarters to hold). He kept two squads in reserve, he got one squad in on turn two and the other didnt come in till turn five due to bad rolls. I went first and by the middle of turn three he was tabled (due to him playing trashy paladin squads) except for that last unit in reserve. His turn five they auto come in. He deep strikes a termy squad of five guys onto my table quarter while im fanned out holding both his and mine (so at this point it's one to one). His squad is surrounded by three true born units in venoms with blasters, two ravengers, and two wych squads in raiders. We roll to see if the game ends and a 2 comes up causing a tie. I out played him at everry turn, I use target priority and good multi-assaults. Please oh wise one of the interwebs, i beg of you to explain how that was a tactical error on my part and what i shouldve done to win.
P.S. this is how Ive seen alot of scenarios go and is why random turn length is complete trash. And correct me if im wrong but didnt they do a fixed game length of six turns at Ard Boyz last year?

Chosen Praetorian wrote:

I played against Grey knights in a tournament last month with DE and it was a table quarters game with only the one to the players rights that counted as scoring (making for two table quarters to hold). He kept two squads in reserve, he got one squad in on turn two and the other didnt come in till turn five due to bad rolls. I went first and by the middle of turn three he was tabled (due to him playing trashy paladin squads) except for that last unit in reserve. His turn five they auto come in. He deep strikes a termy squad of five guys onto my table quarter while im fanned out holding both his and mine (so at this point it's one to one). His squad is surrounded by three true born units in venoms with blasters, two ravengers, and two wych squads in raiders. We roll to see if the game ends and a 2 comes up causing a tie. I out played him at everry turn, I use target priority and good multi-assaults. Please oh wise one of the interwebs, i beg of you to explain how that was a tactical error on my part and what i shouldve done to win.
P.S. this is how Ive seen alot of scenarios go and is why random turn length is complete trash. And correct me if im wrong but didnt they do a fixed game length of six turns at Ard Boyz last year?

Sometimes its better to be lucky than to be good.

thehod wrote:

Chosen Praetorian wrote:

I played against Grey knights in a tournament last month with DE and it was a table quarters game with only the one to the players rights that counted as scoring (making for two table quarters to hold). He kept two squads in reserve, he got one squad in on turn two and the other didnt come in till turn five due to bad rolls. I went first and by the middle of turn three he was tabled (due to him playing trashy paladin squads) except for that last unit in reserve. His turn five they auto come in. He deep strikes a termy squad of five guys onto my table quarter while im fanned out holding both his and mine (so at this point it's one to one). His squad is surrounded by three true born units in venoms with blasters, two ravengers, and two wych squads in raiders. We roll to see if the game ends and a 2 comes up causing a tie. I out played him at everry turn, I use target priority and good multi-assaults. Please oh wise one of the interwebs, i beg of you to explain how that was a tactical error on my part and what i shouldve done to win.
P.S. this is how Ive seen alot of scenarios go and is why random turn length is complete trash. And correct me if im wrong but didnt they do a fixed game length of six turns at Ard Boyz last year?

Sometimes its better to be lucky than to be good.

Chosen still could've won.

How about moving those Wych boats flat out, one into each quarter, instead of trying to hold both quarters with a single squad? That way, he could've come down and contested one, but you still would've held the other.

Luck can play a huge role, but at the end of the day it's the tactics that matter most.

Unless of course he somehow straddled both table quarters with a single termie squad (despite your original post not stating this). If true, I agree, there really is nothing you can do about that. But you probably should've rolled to determine which one they were contesting...

Generally I go second in objective games - though I know DE can't always afford that luxury and if he won the roll he may have chosen you to go first.

But yup - it sucks. Game needs to be 6 turns, period.

Chosen Praetorian wrote:I played against Grey knights in a tournament last month with DE and it was a table quarters game with only the one to the players rights that counted as scoring (making for two table quarters to hold). He kept two squads in reserve, he got one squad in on turn two and the other didnt come in till turn five due to bad rolls. I went first and by the middle of turn three he was tabled (due to him playing trashy paladin squads) except for that last unit in reserve. His turn five they auto come in. He deep strikes a termy squad of five guys onto my table quarter while im fanned out holding both his and mine (so at this point it's one to one). His squad is surrounded by three true born units in venoms with blasters, two ravengers, and two wych squads in raiders. We roll to see if the game ends and a 2 comes up causing a tie. I out played him at everry turn, I use target priority and good multi-assaults. Please oh wise one of the interwebs, i beg of you to explain how that was a tactical error on my part and what i shouldve done to win.
P.S. this is how Ive seen alot of scenarios go and is why random turn length is complete trash. And correct me if im wrong but didnt they do a fixed game length of six turns at Ard Boyz last year?

So, you're playing a mission that isn't from the 5e rulebook, and is further customized even from the old "table quarters" missions of yore, and it didn't interact well with a 5e game mechanic?

And this is the fault of random game length how, again?

Janthkin wrote:So, you're playing a mission that isn't from the 5e rulebook, and is further customized even from the old "table quarters" missions of yore, and it didn't interact well with a 5e game mechanic?

And this is the fault of random game length how, again?

That is what I was going to say. You play some made up mission and it is random game lengths fault that you lost?

So if I get this right there are 2 table quarters that count for scoring? Doesn't that mean that you are contesting the one with his terminators, and you own the other giving you the win?

And here is some tactical advice for you: Paladins are not a trashy squad.

Dashofpepper wrote:

Actually, no - two events ago I got a low sportsmanship score - one of my detractors there was the same who "chipmunked" me here. The result of his action was me getting a middle of the road sportsmanship score - not a low one.

In terms of your other point...the name is part of the story, since this is the second time we've faced each other. This is the second time my sportsmanship has suffered at his hand, although this time he had a judge talk to him being unreasonable - since the judge was on our table and saw the game. The internet is a place for people to post anonymously. That doesn't extend to your real life actions not being posted on the internet. All of us have real names. Traveling to a public event to publicly participate in the event for which results will be publicly posted...tends to get your real name involved in a discussion about you. If the actions you take in real life aren't something you want reflected on the internet, then those actions should change. I doubt David cares; he made no secret about his feelings about us not getting a sixth turn, judge intervention to tell him how it was or not.

My sportsmanship vote of bad at alamo was completely justified and has already been covered.

At WargamesCon I bad voted you for what I felt was slow play. Nick argued that a turn 6 would have seen me lose worse, which I fully agree with. I lost on turn 5, I would have lost worse on turn 6. But that does not change the fact that I feel you played overly slowly, and that it negatively affected the game.

I believe, and will stand by, the pace of play in our game was slower than it should have been and caused at least 2 things:

1) In order to insure we played at least the minimum required 5 turns(or more) I felt my turns were overly rushed from turn 3 on (as I had a eye on the clock and could see time slipping away) I feel this led to worse play from me than I am capable of as I panicked that the game would end short, preventing me from getting to objectives not next to my deployment (due to slower units than DEldar). And my bad play is on me, but is a result of the time limits on the game, and given a perfect world with unlimited time I think the game would be more even/fair.

2) I feel that the pace of play in our game was directly engineered by You to cause the game to go a certain number of turns and only a certain number of turns.

Random game length fails to punish a player for risks if the game must end due to time. Also, as an army with 13 skimmers, its not really hard to make sure you can get onto, and usually double cover, all the objectives on the board as the game ends since you know beforehand (and even at the start of the game) when the turn sequence will stop.

Did you beat me in 5 turns in that game? absolutely. Would it have been worse had it gone on? sure. But on the rules for the tournament slow play is listed as an offense, and in the rules for sportsmanship voting the question asks: "My opponent actively made the game unpleasant and I would prefer not to play them again, ever." Which I feel was true. You've played at least 40 games with your dark eldar list. The mission was straight forward, and my army not too complicated to determine target priority, yet I feel your turns took an overly long amount of time. And as to not wanting to play you again, thats true, I really dont want to.

If you still think my vote qualifies as chipmunking you, whatever.

And in regards to using my real name on the internet, I would prefer people not do that when its not directly relevant to topic at hand (ie. who placed where).

You can just as easily refer to me as your 5th round opponent, or by my internet handle.

Foreigner wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:

Actually, no - two events ago I got a low sportsmanship score - one of my detractors there was the same who "chipmunked" me here. The result of his action was me getting a middle of the road sportsmanship score - not a low one.

In terms of your other point...the name is part of the story, since this is the second time we've faced each other. This is the second time my sportsmanship has suffered at his hand, although this time he had a judge talk to him being unreasonable - since the judge was on our table and saw the game. The internet is a place for people to post anonymously. That doesn't extend to your real life actions not being posted on the internet. All of us have real names. Traveling to a public event to publicly participate in the event for which results will be publicly posted...tends to get your real name involved in a discussion about you. If the actions you take in real life aren't something you want reflected on the internet, then those actions should change. I doubt David cares; he made no secret about his feelings about us not getting a sixth turn, judge intervention to tell him how it was or not.

My sportsmanship vote of bad at alamo was completely justified and has already been covered.

At WargamesCon I bad voted you for what I felt was slow play. Nick argued that a turn 6 would have seen me lose worse, which I fully agree with. I lost on turn 5, I would have lost worse on turn 6. But that does not change the fact that I feel you played overly slowly, and that it negatively affected the game.

I believe, and will stand by, the pace of play in our game was slower than it should have been and caused at least 2 things:

1) In order to insure we played at least the minimum required 5 turns(or more) I felt my turns were overly rushed from turn 3 on (as I had a eye on the clock and could see time slipping away) I feel this led to worse play from me than I am capable of as I panicked that the game would end short, preventing me from getting to objectives not next to my deployment (due to slower units than DEldar). And my bad play is on me, but is a result of the time limits on the game, and given a perfect world with unlimited time I think the game would be more even/fair.

2) I feel that the pace of play in our game was directly engineered by You to cause the game to go a certain number of turns and only a certain number of turns.

Random game length fails to punish a player for risks if the game must end due to time. Also, as an army with 13 skimmers, its not really hard to make sure you can get onto, and usually double cover, all the objectives on the board as the game ends since you know beforehand (and even at the start of the game) when the turn sequence will stop.

Did you beat me in 5 turns in that game? absolutely. Would it have been worse had it gone on? sure. But on the rules for the tournament slow play is listed as an offense, and in the rules for sportsmanship voting the question asks: "My opponent actively made the game unpleasant and I would prefer not to play them again, ever." Which I feel was true. You've played at least 40 games with your dark eldar list. The mission was straight forward, and my army not too complicated to determine target priority, yet I feel your turns took an overly long amount of time. And as to not wanting to play you again, thats true, I really dont want to.

If you still think my vote qualifies as chipmunking you, whatever.

And in regards to using my real name on the internet, I would prefer people not do that when its not directly relevant to topic at hand (ie. who placed where).

You can just as easily refer to me as your 5th round opponent, or by my internet handle.

I don't see any faults in this logic.

You accuse him of engineering slow play, but then acknowledge that he would have won by even more if the game had gone on longer. And you say that you take responsibility for bad playing, but then blame him for making you play badly because you felt you had to rush. It sounds like you're trying really hard to rationalize the bad sportsmanship score.

Danny Internets wrote:You accuse him of engineering slow play, but then acknowledge that he would have won by even more if the game had gone on longer. And you say that you take responsibility for bad playing, but then blame him for making you play badly because you felt you had to rush. It sounds like you're trying really hard to rationalize the bad sportsmanship score.

Actually, I think it sounds like he's trying to temper his complaint enough with statements about how he takes responsibility for his loss, so he doesn't come off as just a sore loser. And I don't think it's necessary either, the criteria of the sportsmanship vote here, according to him, included:

1) Slow play is an offense, he felt his opponent slow played and used a majority of the game time. Slow play isn't only defined as how many turns the game goes, but how long things take for each respective person. It's subjective as well, so if he feels Dash slow played, then it's within his right (and actually his responsibility) to accurately answer on the sportsmanship card. If everyone plays nice on sports cards and never speaks up, the system has zero purpose

2) "My opponent actively made the game unpleasant and I would prefer not to play them again, ever." This is a question that he is also intended to honestly answer, and his answer shouldn't be nitpicked and judged, it feels more like it's a "blame the victim" scenario. No one can know this but him, and he needs to answer it. Is this the first opponent to find Dash unpleasant to play?

And using your opponents full first and last name is inappropriate. Dash could have done any number of things, such as: use an internet handle, use just first name, use first name and last initial. Instead he chose to go the "lets put this guy on blast and post his full name on the internet" route. His name is on the results sheet, it isn't posted all over a forum. If he wants it all over these forums, that's for him to post, not someone else. Anything legally wrong with it? No. Is it still rude? Yea.

The tournament took place in real life, not on the internet. If people aren't comfortable with their actions being made public they should consider whether or not they should be performing those actions in the first place.

Nothing David did was shameful unless he actually did chipmunk Justin's score, and similarly nothing Justin did was shameful unless he actually intended to slow play. As usual when it comes to accusations like this, it will not and cannot be proven one way or the other. But if someone is uncomfortable with being the center of controversy they should probably not behave in a controversial manner to begin with.

Danny Internets wrote:The tournament took place in real life, not on the internet. If people aren't comfortable with their actions being made public they should consider whether or not they should be performing those actions in the first place.

Nothing David did was shameful unless he actually did chipmunk Justin's score, and similarly nothing Justin did was shameful unless he actually intended to slow play. As usual when it comes to accusations like this, it will not and cannot be proven one way or the other. But if someone is uncomfortable with being the center of controversy they should probably not behave in a controversial manner to begin with.

Did David behave in a controversial manner? It seems like he just attended an event, and answered honestly on the score sheet about the game.

Look at it this way.

If I was a "WAAC" player with a fragile MSU army going second against a shooty army that scares me, I would realize that fewer shooting turns means more survival and objective contesting for me. If I was truly "WAAC", then slow play would be a viable tactic to win this match. It's possible that "engineered slow play" was the beginning tactic, but then the dice turned the tide and brute strength was able to win without the help of slow play. Am I saying this is what happened, NO. However, it was the perception of one party that slow play was intentional.

Is it also possible that scores were "chipmunked", yes. It's happened to me so I know it happens. It's the other party's side of the story.

It is odd to me that "pro's" that travel the competitive circuit playing 57 tournament games alone this year, suddenly can only play 3 turns in 90 minutes, 5 turns in overtime, yet had no problems the rest of the weekend. Is it coincidence that an opponent claimed intentional slow play and docked sportsmanship, or justified?

FWIW, I would prefer not to see rl names and drama on forums and in batreps. I write plenty of batreps and keep rules discussions and competitive drama out of them. Readers don't need to know these things. Putting a person's full name and "chipmunked" on a forum that see's thousands of readers a day is really immature in my book.

Danny Internets wrote:Nothing David did was shameful unless he actually did chipmunk Justin's score, and similarly nothing Justin did was shameful unless he actually intended to slow play. As usual when it comes to accusations like this, it will not and cannot be proven one way or the other. But if someone is uncomfortable with being the center of controversy they should probably not behave in a controversial manner to begin with.

Having read the thread it seems to me that the only thing that Foreigner did that was controversial was happen to be paired up against someone who is the center of a storm of internet drama after every GT that he attends. There's plenty of people that win events without generating this kind of anger and resentment.

Throwing his real name around when he doesn't want it to be is straight up not cool, and frankly seems like bullying. My two cents.

Wait...didn't this happen over a week ago? Why is everyone still holding on?

Something about this reminds me of the time I forgot to bring home cookie dough for my girlfriend and she ragged on me for months...

Unholy_Martyr wrote:Wait...didn't this happen over a week ago? Why is everyone still holding on?

The trick is to hold on loosely, but don't let go.

But you're right, of course.

Okay, just making sure.

I mean some discussion is worthwhile but this discourse is bordering on laborious and trivial, if not already there.

More than that, of the few responses I have actually bothered to look at, few if any at all bring any intelligent/beneficial discussion to the forum.

Just saying as an outsider looking in.

In an event where all reasonable observers agree that 2 hours is not enough time for a full game of 2000pts, and where two new armies GK and DE seem to have rule mechanics that take more time than other codexes to play... I am not sure how anyone should blame their opponent for that.

And not all games that are slow are necessarily slow play. I find slow play due to ignorance of the game much more of an issue opposed to someone who simply has a longer phase due to their armies rules. I don't like the idea people should build 'fast play' armies to make opponents happy or suffer bad sports scores. That is basically arbitrary army comp to force players to be punished for legal builds that happen to take a little longer to play, especially when the event's game times are too short.

If everyone plays nice on sports cards and never speaks up, the system has zero purpose

The system already serves no purpose. It doesn't do what people think it does and more often than not just causes problems and drama.

I am completely baffled that people can't finish a 2k game in 2 hours. We do it regularly in club play and that's with stopping to talk to people or go grab pizza next door. Any more time is insane. It makes for uber long days that are long enough already.

If anything, the points in tournaments shouldn't be above 1500. It'd change things dramatically.

Walls wrote:I am completely baffled that people can't finish a 2k game in 2 hours.

It completely baffles me that Dash could come close to finishing his games with his army at 2000 points in 2 hours.

Again this is why sports scoring is stupid and why no other sport / competitive game / anything let's your opponent score your "sportsmanship"

Blackmoor wrote:

Janthkin wrote:So, you're playing a mission that isn't from the 5e rulebook, and is further customized even from the old "table quarters" missions of yore, and it didn't interact well with a 5e game mechanic?

And this is the fault of random game length how, again?

That is what I was going to say. You play some made up mission and it is random game lengths fault that you lost?

So if I get this right there are 2 table quarters that count for scoring? Doesn't that mean that you are contesting the one with his terminators, and you own the other giving you the win?

And here is some tactical advice for you: Paladins are not a trashy squad.

I forgot to mention that when the general of your army was killed (one of your nominated HQs) then the generals from both sides were removed from the game (so the living general could question the captured one) and the side with the general that lived got 1 point. So at the end of the game I held one objective while he contested one and had the point for my HQ making it 1 to 1. And i didnt make it up. It was made by the tournament organizer. And really? An expensive as hell 2 wound model with a 5++ non-eternal warrior isnt trashy? Have you tried playing a good guard player with Paladins? Or a dark eldar player with blaster/ravenger spam? Oh wait, let me guess. "I played them and I winz cause Im awesome and power armor is the best!" I think Ill pass on your tactical advice. And no one has answered my question about whether or not Ard boyz was a fixed 6 turns.
P.S. @Boss Gutrip I had wych squads in both corners so i had both completely held. Till he deep struck that is