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:@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