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.

Dashofpepper wrote:There was no Captain Morgan at the tournament, I had to drive myself, which means no irresponsible drinking and driving. That might have been what screwed me over.

I think you have your answer right there

Off-Topic: I will be getting my drunken crunk on at the Nova Open. See everyone there.

On-Topic: Question still stands: Do you have tournament outliers? Still looking for answers. =p

Polonius wrote:... I played mech IG at a tournament last weekend, and I faced a marine gunline that hung back, and i still got to him by turn three.

Oh how the times have changed

Lol. Yeah, it's great to be crashing into their lines for once.

It was actually smart counter-planning by the guy. Of ten armies, we had:
2 Mech IG
1 Mech DE
1 Mech eldar
1 Mech Tau
1 Nid
1 Mech Chaos
1 Mech Blood Angel
1 Semi-mech marines
and his gunline marines.

His idea was to hang back, blow up transports, and then counter charge. In our game, I got first turn, which helped, and then he kept his tactical squads blobbed up because it was a KP mission. I would have squadded anyway, so he could fire the lascannons to full effect while still shooting the melta and/or assaulting.

Yeah, people get spooked by KP, not realizing that if you've built an efficient army, every unit that is worth a KP should be quite capable of claiming a KP on its own as well.

I'm not sure that's always true, especially when you simply have more KPs. My SWS with flamers isn't going to score a KP off of a deathwing army.

I agree in general that you still need to sacrifice pawns for rooks to win, even in KP.

Good point. In a mechvet list, for example, the chimeras themselves probably won't score a KP by themselves, at least not against space marines. Whereas against a mechanized list a single meltagun in a combat squad has a fairly high chance to kill a chimera.

However, against a xenos player a single chimera heavy flamer has a decent chance to score a KP on its own.

They proberly looked at the pink waaagh, and thought sh*t thats dash off dakka dakka
I'm never going to win, I'd best play for a draw.







On a serious note,
You've posted on dakka so many times, people may have learnt how you play.

Strangest tourney experience.....

We had a Club Tourney about 4 years ago. 1500 points, Missions published well and truly before event....

Show up on Sunday . The TO and a few of the 'clique' are outside having a chat.

They all come inside, and start the day.

"OK everyone- set your Armies up- 1st mission!"

So we start deploying. I am playing against the Clubs TFG, a really clasy peice of work...As we are deploying he keeps asking"Can your Dev squad see my Dread there? Do I have cover? etc etc. He deploys his Chaplain with Jump Pack out in the open, on the other side of the field to the Assault squad he has(about 3 feet away). When I ask him why he states"this should be fun!".

After everyone in the room is deployed the TO states"OK everybody- switch table sides!!" Essentially- I had to play this guys army, and he mine.

Now it becomes clear why he has deployed the way he has...totally in the open, fragmented, and totally crap.

Sure enough, my 6 Tac squads with 1 LC each, and 2 Dev squads with 4 ML each- SMASH his(that I am playing) army off the board in 2 turns.

He then turns to the TO and says "that was a great Idea- I had fun".

I find out later, that they had decided 'in private' in a chat O'side how the first game was going to go.

Never played him again, as he is a total jerk- he is no longer in the Club. for the next 6 months, the TO apologised profusely.

I felt vindicated- but pissed at the way the guy played his deployment.

Se la Vie...

Playing to a draw sounds like good generalship to me, particularly if doing so helps you try and win a war.

Redbeard's analysis is spot-on

I once went to a WHFB tournament and went 1 win, 4 draws....strange indeed. I chose to focus on going unbeaten!

As a daemon player, I'd certainly have dropped the wrong half of my army far away from Mech Orks with Ghaz, particularly in a KP mission. Nothing else makes sense. Whether I ever advanced would have depended on the speed and scatter of subsequent reserves.

He had Skarbrand though. It's a pretty toxic matchup. Skarbrand increases the power of the guy with more attacks more. The only way he's a plus vs. Orks is if you are getting the assault. Daemons threat like 12 inches, Mech Orks with Ghaz like 20. It's not happening.

I'm impressed he got a draw. Surprised you didn't just drive over and start face smashing.

Orks are one of the biggest pains in my side. Doesn't matter if I play my Eldar or my Chaos Marines. I almost always end up with a tie game, or a very close win/loss.

Last game was against a balanced force, he wasn't even using any special characters. He had foot units, truck units, defcopters, a battle wagon, a cannon, some other stuff... I just couldn't kill his stuff fast enough. I owned 2 objectives he owned 1 objective... but the mission said you must control 2 or more than your opponent (of the 5 objectives total) to get a minor win. I think the mission wanted ties. But if we had gone another turn, I'd have lost another objective so... it'd have been a turn 6 tie, and a turn 7 tie.

All my games end up being extremely hard fought, its like I just don't have the resources to beat them.

Redbeard summed it up pretty well. One of the things you claim to do is try to table your opponent. Sounds like your opponents played the misisons and/or played for the tie. They likely realized they can't handle the Ork charge and found ways to counter/avoid it. There's always a lot of discussion about army lists, but very little discussion about what it takes to win a tourney. IE: Generalship typically takes a backseat to armylist creation on forums/blogs as it is easier for everyone to discuss.

Funny thing is, this sounds more like, "What?! I didn't win!?!" than, a "strange tournament experience."

Your record that you keep posted in your sig shows that it's not often that you lose and not often that you tie but much more often that you win. You said yourself that Orks either win massively or die horribly. Obviously, you don't do much of the latter, so instead of asking, "Any strange experiences anyone?" You could be asking, "How do you cope with not winning?"

This thread is like a karmic thread from the "What do I do with all my tournament winnings?" thread.

As for the actual topic, nah, I don't have too many "strange tournament experiences". Some tournaments I do really well in, some I don't. Some I tie, some I don't. That's how the game goes. The "strange tournament experiences" are not three ties. They are when one guardsman fends off 6 genestealers. Or when a Bloodthirster can't seem to kill a unit of warwalkers. Those are "strange tournament experiences." It's a roll of the dice and the wits to spring on your opponents when they make a mistake. It's not like you suddenly didn't win, so now the stars are aligned against you.

Just BBF. And a few others.

I didn't get that at all Puma. It generally is a very strange thing when an army geared to massacre ties 3 games. Orks in general are normally a win big/lose big type of army. And to top it off Dash has pushed it harder making the results normally more extreme. So it is kinda a strange experience.

I've never had an experience like that myself but my lists are based on winning and not massacres so I don't get the extreme variances and normally at worst pull a minor victory.

Hulksmash wrote:I didn't get that at all Puma. It generally is a very strange thing when an army geared to massacre ties 3 games. Orks in general are normally a win big/lose big type of army. And to top it off Dash has pushed it harder making the results normally more extreme. So it is kinda a strange experience.

That's where we're not agreeing, I suppose. For someone that's been playing the same army over and over and over, you don't suddenly look at the army and say, "Why didn't you perform?! You're geared to massacre!" First of all, in spite of this thread, I don't believe many people make "tie lists". Now, I could be wrong and I'm willing to learn, but when I'm putting together an army, I don't sit at my desk and say, "Okay, my objective here is a minor loss. Or maybe a tie. But hopefully I'll get lucky and get a massacre!" No, every army is "geared" for a massacre. Some generals simply can't pull it off or don't make "massacre-caliber" lists. Maybe that's what you're getting at - his list is "massacre-caliber". Because Orks aren't necessarily "geared to massacre". Sure, they can be. But they can also do a lot, lot worse.

Also, as for Dash's experience, I know that you're friends and that you're his hero, but he drives battlewagons up the field and unloads orks or lays 15 templates down across a unit of bunched-up terminators. It's not some ground-breaking strategy. Generally, it works. The only batrep in recent memory where he wasn't able to do this ('ard Boyz), he lost. How does Dash "push it harder"? Because he wants to win more than Timmy standing across the table from him? Does that make his Battlewagons move faster? Does that make Ghaz hit harder or his grots space out more than 2" away from each other?

What I'm getting at is this: ties happen. For someone to think "Oh my god! I tied three games in a row! Am I off my game?!" is silly to me. It's someone that is too used to winning. It's someone that has been conditioned to think, "I'm a winner. I sometimes lose, but I never ever tie!" in a game that supports ties. In fact (and agreeing with Redbeard here) someone can quite easily force a tie on you. Does that make you a worse player? No. Dash said himself he couldn't even get to the guy in the third round. How does that make him "off his game?"

I'm sorry for the rant. This thread just reminds me of his "I'm leaving Dakka" thread or "No More Batreps" or whatever it was, where he wants pats on the back telling him everything is okay and that he really is a great general. Well, for someone neutral who just reads the batreps (for the most part), it seems like a little bellyaching from someone who is used to winning and didn't get those wins this time.

Us being friends has nothing to do with it Puma. And I can personally attest to the fact that not all lists are "geared" to massacre. My SW's aren't. They can once in a while but what they do consistantly is win. The current format hasn't lost a game but I lost a local RTT last week (still got Best General but missed out on overall) because the only other undefeated guy managed to pull in 2 more BP's than I did since I didn't pull a single Massacre and he did.

I don't think it's strange. I think it's something he was sharing as a kinda this is weird what's happened to you lately post. He readily admits that the first two missions both people played a solid game. Though the random objective on turn 4 thing did affect the outcome. His third game he screwed up and the guy played for a tie. I also think it's weird for him cause it's outside of his wheelhouse and style of play.

And as for lists I think you misunderstand what I mean when I say geared for a massacre. Some army books lend themselves better to massacres than major wins. Orks and Nids both fall into this category. They are less likely to pull draws and far more likely to win big/lose big due to the nature of the codexes. Meanwhile Eldar are an excellent example of an army designed for winning but not massacreing(sp?).

Hulkster I have to agree with Puma here. I've played you with my Orks and we tied. Your a great general and it was a hard fought game. I've had days where I have tied a few games. Dash frequently dismisses chance as a factor which also affects the game. He doesn't win sometimes, loose sometimes. He wins, he doesnt and now he's off his game and its wierd. I know he's your friend but its not impossible for him to be a nice guy and still have an unhealthy high opinon of himself (and IMO he's proved it on these forums again and again).

My strangest tournament experience was beating the guy that blesses the dice. He's not weird but we ask him to bless them when its tourny time. One of the coolest guys at the store. That combined with the overall shock of placing in the top 33% in my first tourny with an old dex against a place full of Nids, Guard, BA, and orks I also found to be a bit strange. Not that I'm complaining mind you.

At dash: you don't tie often? Everytime I've ever played orks its been a tie between us, neither can pull ahead of the other.

On the same note as Puma & Grimbob, try too hard is also part of this. It's not like dash would be trying to lose, he's trying to win - a draw is the 'next best' result.
It sounds like he's on his game - so much so that the ability to think around his list and the situation - he's become so practiced at throwing things at people in one fashion, hard and fast, that when the guy who hates a slowball steps up Dash could miss this fact.

Take the deaomons, Dash essentially castled in a corner it sounds like, he intended to spring out of it like a puma, his opponent knew this fact and exercised his 'good generalship' & ruined his plan. Dash could have castled in the center of the board - how would have the Chaos Gods have responded to this action something less tried and true for Dash - no one knows, but that's where the win could have been. By 'being your best' one can become a little mindless

Puma, you're quite out of line.

Jumping into a thread, announcing some negative personal assertions about the OP (me), claiming that I have a hidden agenda for a thread I make.....

The reason I stopped writing battle reports is because of folks like you. Its not worth the effort to try helping folks play better, or copy your own work when internet douchebaggery will jump in and apologetically rant about what a non-original thinker I am, how I'm a secret attention-whore, or a laundry list of other issues.

Be useful - take what I write at face value. Respond to it in kind. Don't make personal attacks, don't overanalyze and think I'm on a hidden agenda. Utilize neutral expressions of your personal feelings, or leave them off altogether.

In this case, as I've said and been repeated; the shocker is in pulling three ties, when my army is geared to win or lose and do so dramatically. I've never had a minor loss - if I'm losing by one killpoint, or one objective, I go all-in and go for the tabling one way or the other. Gretchin jumping off objectives and assaulting terminators. Boyz assaulting redeemer land raiders.

The point of this thread was "Do other people have unique, outlier situations?" I ran into one, and its either indicative of something that I need to pay attention to, or its a one-off situation that I can set aside.

Dashofpepper wrote:Puma, you're quite out of line.

Jumping into a thread, announcing some negative personal assertions about the OP (me), claiming that I have a hidden agenda for a thread I make.....

The reason I stopped writing battle reports is because of folks like you. Its not worth the effort to try helping folks play better, or copy your own work when internet douchebaggery will jump in and apologetically rant about what a non-original thinker I am, how I'm a secret attention-whore, or a laundry list of other issues.

No, it was your ego that did that. You just think that people just up and one day started hating you? They just decided, well, I really like Dash, but today I'm going to stop that nonsense! No, there are reasons that people do what they do. You're not some innocent victim of "internet douchebaggery". To think that you had nothing to do with people that change their minds in regard to their respect level or esteem of you is myopic at best. That's like hitting a cat with your car and saying, "Well, he shouldn't have jumped under my tire." You have everything to do with how people perceive you. People like me, who do so with a neutral, outside-the-circle take on things look inside the circle and call it like I see it. If that offends you or makes you defensive, then what? Should I sugar coat it so you'll do your batreps again? Should I just not post because it's a forum that you're choosing to be a part of? No.

I know people that hardly even post here that have changed their opinion of you. Did they just get up one day and say, "I'm gonna be mean to Dash!" No, something you did or said or a way you carried yourself changed their regard towards you. Maybe it's not what others are saying about you, but what you're saying about yourself.

Dashofpepper wrote:Be useful - take what I write at face value. Respond to it in kind. Don't make personal attacks, don't overanalyze and think I'm on a hidden agenda. Utilize neutral expressions of your personal feelings, or leave them off altogether.

That's exactly what I did. I took your batreps, I took your "I'm leaving Dakka", your "How do I spend my winnings?" and all the other threads about how you're a great general and Hulksmash is the only person that reliably beats you and I responded. I had nothing to go on other than all your posts. I don't care what BBF or anyone else that posts against you says. Taken at face value, what I posted is what I saw.

Dashofpepper wrote:In this case, as I've said and been repeated; the shocker is in pulling three ties, when my army is geared to win or lose and do so dramatically. I've never had a minor loss - if I'm losing by one killpoint, or one objective, I go all-in and go for the tabling one way or the other. Gretchin jumping off objectives and assaulting terminators. Boyz assaulting redeemer land raiders.

The point of this thread was "Do other people have unique, outlier situations?" I ran into one, and its either indicative of something that I need to pay attention to, or its a one-off situation that I can set aside.

And what is that? What do you need to pay attention to? The fact that you can tie? It is in the rulebook, you know. It is possible. Whether your army is geared to do one thing or not, when it doesn't do that, you tie or lose. It's as simple as that. It was probably a "one-off situation" that you can set aside. Maybe instead of looking at yourself, you should think about the others that you played. Like ChrisCP posted - the other player recognized what you were doing and reacted. Instead of thinking, "Man, I'm off my game." You should be thinking, "That was a good strategy. He's on his game." Tieing is not the damnable offense you make it out to be. As it's been pointed out in this thread by Redbeard especially, sometimes you go for the tie. Because 3 or 6 points is better than 0.

Dashofpepper wrote:
In this case, as I've said and been repeated; the shocker is in pulling three ties, when my army is geared to win or lose and do so dramatically. I've never had a minor loss - if I'm losing by one killpoint, or one objective, I go all-in and go for the tabling one way or the other. Gretchin jumping off objectives and assaulting terminators. Boyz assaulting redeemer land raiders.

If you normally run grots into terminators and have boyz assaule redeemers, then perhaps The Captain is playing your games, and the outlier aspect of this one is that you played smarter due to his absence

Hey, speaking of The Captain, I got a bottle of a new spiced rum recently, Blackheart. They were doing sample shots in the grocery store. She's more attractive than the captain



And stronger too...

Redbeard wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:
In this case, as I've said and been repeated; the shocker is in pulling three ties, when my army is geared to win or lose and do so dramatically. I've never had a minor loss - if I'm losing by one killpoint, or one objective, I go all-in and go for the tabling one way or the other. Gretchin jumping off objectives and assaulting terminators. Boyz assaulting redeemer land raiders.

If you normally run grots into terminators and have boyz assaule redeemers, then perhaps The Captain is playing your games, and the outlier aspect of this one is that you played smarter due to his absence

Hey, speaking of The Captain, I got a bottle of a new spiced rum recently, Blackheart. They were doing sample shots in the grocery store recently. She's more attractive than the captain



And stronger too...

Oh? How does it taste? Are you a rum guy? Compared to Captain on the rocks....how does Blackheart on the rocks taste?

ftw

Mike, if you have some of that, bring it to the Nova; I wanna taste!

I was at a tournament at my local shop when a whole bunch of guys roleplaying D&D walked in dressed in robes and carrying plastic swords and "spell books" I laughed so loud that i lost my voice and couldnt talk for two days. That day also traumatized me, FOREVER

I'm not a huge rum drinker, I just wanted the bottle for the sexy pirate on the bottle, and after a rebate, it cost me $1.

It's not bad though, but I think we cook with rum more than drink it straight. I'm more of an ale guy.

Redbeard wrote:I'm more of an ale guy.

/swoon

I think to be fair here, Dash was playing some guys who I at least, consider to be fairly strong players. From what I understand, the first game could easily have been a 30 point loss for Dash. The 2nd game I haven't heard many details on, but it was a mobile Marine army who tried to slide around the table to get flank shots, and Dash played a bit cautious trying to keep his 14 av facing the enemy. Not a bad decision, but could lead to a tie.

The third game has already been discussed. The Daemon player did what he could to get points. He was facing an uphill battle from the beginning when he got the wrong half of his army in. Dash made a mistake with both his deployment, and choice to go first in my opinion. The Daemon player took the points and ran, nothing at all wrong with that, but a tie waiting to happen.


Knowing all of that, I wouldn't say it was a crazy result for an army "built" to massacre. I'd say based on the strong play, and choices by the players involved, this was a pretty typical result.




Clay