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:Outliers happen. If I start developing a trend of bad sportsmanship, I'll have to think about it...

I think it's time to think about it.

You know this isn't the first bout of drama involving you. Whether they're right or wrong, why not try to avoid this sort of thing?

You had me worried there, Dash. Good to see you pull out the win. From what i've read in these battle reports, not only were you a good sport in terms of trying to be amicable to your opponents but you were also fairly permissive with discrepancies in the rules. I can say, I have only read one battle report in which you have lost, and that was due to your permitting an opponent to go back a phase. I personally think it would be an honor to play you, that I would get my keister whooped, and we could go for a beer afterwards. Sounds like a good day to me, keep doing what you're doing, my friend.

Wow, why are all the terrain boards so bad looking? Looks like you guys are battling in an avalanche.

Dashofpepper wrote:

Sarigar wrote:Unless I've missed a rule, the big Stormraven headache could have easily been resolved.

You stated you got a wrecked result (with some help from him going Flat Out) on the Stromraven. The picture shows the model was removed and just the base remained. Why was the model not placed where it had been wrecked, like any other vehicle? If that had been done, it would have take small amount of time to line up where your wyches would have been, but due to the size of the Stormraven, he would have easily been able to place the models down as per the rules.

The storm raven entry explicitly requires the owning player to disembark using the base of the model, not the Hull. The Valkyrie / Vendetta requires the same now per the FAQ I think.

Interesting. Skimmers are removed from their bases if possible (assuming they are not glued to the stand) and placed on the table when wrecked or immobilized per the basic rule book. From your interpretation (and possibly your opponents as well), the vehicle is wrecked, he has to measure from the base to see if he can get out. Then, once you decide which models can disembark do so and are placed. Then, you have to pretty much move every model around the base and place the Stormraven on the table. And under Emergency Disembarkation, it states the player can try to place the models anywhere within 2" of the hull of the vehicle. It can be argued that 'Emergency Disembarkation' is not the same thing as 'Disembarking' which is what is covered in the Blood Angels codex, thus the opponent would be allowed to place the Stormraven on the table, then perform an 'Emergency Disembarkation' as per page 67 of the main rulebook.

He could have easily set the model on the table and models would have been reconfigured slightly to conform its larger size and it would have been pretty easy to put the models on the table and continue gaming. He could have easily claimed that 'Disembarking' and 'Emergency Disembarkation' are two separate rules. There have been challenges with the Valkerie/Stormraven flight stands and just having a small amount of flexilibility in gray areas of the rules would go a long way.

After viewing your reports in full, there appears to be a lot of gray areas of the rules that you seemed insistent going your way and having little to no flexibility. From what I can pull from your reporting on this tourney:

-Garnering the approval of proxied vehicles, however, I completely conceed that the TOs made the absolute wrong call in this case. But, you gamed the game, so to speak.
-Taking advantage in game of said modelling for advantage which could have had a huge impact on 1st turn shooting in Night Fight where every inch can matter. With the tables as such, size for gaining cover appeared to not be an issue at all. When your guns are 36" range, getting extra inches can become critical.
-Using blocking maneuvers to where parts of your vehicle is sticking off the table to try and ensure models can't get past (the weapons sticking from the prow appear to be off the table) . It's pretty clear these days any part of models can't hang off of the table
-Putting part of a base of a model that falls underneath a vehicle, then claiming your oppoent's base can't share space with your own vehicle, yet, your model did.
-Debating disembarking and emergency disembarkation as one in the same to your benefit
-Having an illegal army list apparently (man, folks ripped into the 16 y.o. for being 3 points over, but your illegal list gets glossed over; you write these massive tacticas yet bring an illegal list stating is was a simple error; c'mon man!)
-Being called out for using equipment/models that were not on your list
-Rolling dice issues (that was called out on another thread, not your battle reports specifically, but I've experienced it first hand from you and this would not surprise me)
-Possibly firing units more than once. An easy fix is to simply place a marker next to units that have fired, especially MSU armies at this kind of points value. (again, this was not you reporting, but your opponent doing so within your battle report)

This has been quite a list of things that really pile up in one tournament. While going through the reports, there was nothing really new tactically offered; it really was a demonstration on how a min/max list can fare against non min/max lists. It's mainly an attitude that you will push and push to get your way on any ruling possible and pull as much shenanigans as possible unless caught. That is simply not fun to play against; and I had hoped you would have mellowed out since the time we played a couple of years back. The reason you didn't get low Sportsmanship scores was b/c it was Ard Boys and there is nothing to score. You having 'sportsmanship' issues is absolutely nothing new and claiming this event was a fluke is very, very misleading.

You will definitely get at least one win at the NOVA. After playing against you as well as seeing all this kind of stuff in you own reporting, I'll absolutely conceed the game if I get paired up against you. It's just not worth my time or effort to try and dodge this many landmines in a game.

Sarigar, I will let someone else respond specifically to your points but just about every one has no merit w.r.t. the rules overall. For example, he only needs to be 1/2 " from the board edge to block him which is obviously allowed. His opponent simply did not understand the rules if he really thought he could assault.

If you do not know the rules, then do not go to a GT. People need to spend more time in YMDC just reading.

calypso2ts wrote:Sarigar, I will let someone else respond specifically to your points but just about every one has no merit w.r.t. the rules overall. For example, he only needs to be 1/2 " from the board edge to block him which is obviously allowed. His opponent simply did not understand the rules if he really thought he could assault.

If you do not know the rules, then do not go to a GT. People need to spend more time in YMDC just reading.

Not everyone goes to a GT to be a throat slitting power gamer with a tricked out MSU army. Some people go just to play some games and meet people. Local differences in play style and rule interpretations combined with personal experiences in gaming lead to people having different views of the game and rules. A lot of players don't have experience against every army so cannot be expected to know all their rules, let alone some random FaQ ruling.

Example. 2 of Dash's games in this very tourny, in 1 game (against DE I think) he used the venom's hull to stop an enemy assaulting one of his units, and in the next game they use the Storm Raven's base for determining assault ranges and disembarking. By the rules, sure, but you don't see how that could be confusing to someone? It's not exactly spelled out that skimmers = use vehicle hull, and "flyers" = use flying base.

Now hold up a second. Weren't there extra Objective points given to those who managed to kill specific enemy units? And Didn't your opponent manage to kill, what, 2 or three of those? Wouldn't that have given him 2 or 3 extra objectives at the end of the game?

Carnage43 wrote:
Not everyone goes to a GT to be a throat slitting power gamer with a tricked out MSU army. Some people go just to play some games and meet people. Local differences in play style and rule interpretations combined with personal experiences in gaming lead to people having different views of the game and rules. A lot of players don't have experience against every army so cannot be expected to know all their rules, let alone some random FaQ ruling.

Yeah but it was still a GT. That's like saying not everyone competes in sports to be the best some just want to hang out and drink Gatorade.

Theduke07 wrote:

Carnage43 wrote:
Not everyone goes to a GT to be a throat slitting power gamer with a tricked out MSU army. Some people go just to play some games and meet people. Local differences in play style and rule interpretations combined with personal experiences in gaming lead to people having different views of the game and rules. A lot of players don't have experience against every army so cannot be expected to know all their rules, let alone some random FaQ ruling.

Yeah but it was still a GT. That's like saying not everyone competes in sports to be the best some just want to hang out and drink Gatorade.

I could argue about "beer league" baseball and hockey, but I don't wanna get into an argument in relation to metaphors.

GT participation isn't regulated, so "soft" armies and rules disputes will happen and you just need to deal with these players as they come. Even Dash is wrong occasionally (As you will see him mention in the odd battle report) and there's few people with more and more varied tournament experience then him. Calypso2ts' insisting that you shouldn't show up to a GT "If you do not know the rules" is unrealistic, as there's so many random loopholes and so much 'stupid' in the rules that it's virtually impossible to know the proper resolution to every possible rules dispute. Even if you do know everything, well, you still have to convince your opponent you are right. As you often see in Dash's reports it's often better to just play it wrong to avoid a dispute and move the game to resolution. Otherwise arguing every single rule every time gets you situations like this game, a 40 minute waste of time. If that happens often, you will never finish a game and never place well in a tournament.

My point is, you have to know the rules of course, but can't expect that everyone knows everything. It's a fact of tournament life.

Monster Rain: Drama involving me is pretty much always tied to the internet. People that are not willing to be douchebags in person to me will gladly do so online. NC and FL drama long ago - completely online.


No matter what, it will happen.

@Foreigner: The judge didn't rule that you could have your dreadnought; he was ok with you getting out your 4 guys. After the tournament, John said that he NEVER would have allowed you to place your dreadnought, he thought all parties had agreed that it was destroyed. I was ok with you getting your full unit out instead of just four via emergency disembark. You never got to hear my side - because you never let me say the whole thing, which was that the gap between my wyches should allow you to move models out between them, to the other side of my wyches - getting the whole thing out technically within 2" of the hull, but not straight out. I don't know if its legal or not, but I thought it would be nicer than just four guys. However, your dreadnought could DEFINITELY not fit out. You were right about the partial unit being able to disembark - once we went through the rulebook and looked at (with the judge there too - we got that out) - the whole unit vs. partial unit getting out is where communication broke down. When I finally threw my hands up in the air because you were shouting down any attempt to get in a word edgewise and said "Alright, lets do it your way" it was to you getting out your unit - NOT your dreadnought. John didn't know you were keeping your dreadnought out; he wouldn't have allowed it - and said so afterwards. *shrug* It is what it is. You got it out, it pwned my face.

Every time I think I know the rules pretty dang well, I find something else I didn't know. I learned at least two things at the Alamo GT that I didn't know before:
1. Skimmers and jump infantry don't have to take multiple dangerous terrain tests when they enter and leave multiple terrain features. I've always done this, and thought you were required to. Since I play a skimmer heavy army, this will be HIGHLY advantageous to me in the future.
2. Partial units can disembark from transports that are wrecked. Again; I've always killed my entire unit. The only time I've run into this before with an opponent was with my orks - when I am surrounding the ENTIRE transport, usually 2-3 ranks deep, so the entire embarked unit is destroyed without question. This was actually my first time running into this situation in a game.

I *haven't* been playing this game for years and years; I didn't start until after fifth edition; I'm much better equipped with rules knowledge now than I was a year ago; and a year ago was much better than I was a year before that when I got my first models. Heh. It wasn't too long ago that I discovered the brilliance of using cookie trays / moving trays to move models between tables. The Alamo GT was the first one where I came equipped with wreck markers for other peoples' vehicles. The idea of using markers to show what has fired where is also smart; I'm going to poach it. I *do* have a system for firing; I outlined it in my OP I believe. I *do* wish we had gotten to six turns. Taking pictures eats into game time. Not writing battle reports is a lot easier than writing them. I write them as a community service - for the same reason that I take the time to write extensive tactical articles, and strategy guides, and critique army lists, and meticulously respond to the barrage of PMs that I'm always getting asking for advice, army critiques, opinions, etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sarigar - your post is hostile. It also extrapolates far more than it has a right to. Some of what you wrote is an actual lie. I had hoped you were a long-dead ghost, but since you've chosen to poke your face into this thread and puke a smelly mess, you deserve serious consideration and response in your attempt to sully my name.

I'm not going to go through your list of issues point by point - in pretty much every case, it was addressed and answered very well in the battle report or thread where it was addressed. Clever of you to list what you did how you did. Instead, I have this to say:

I have virtually infinite patience, and an EXTREMELY high tolerance for bulldookie. These battle reports and others that I have written show that in ample quantity. I'm not sure what it takes to get me to dock someone in sportsmanship - someone screaming that I'm cheating despite a judge ruling against them on the very issue they're fussing about...then heckling me during another round and booing me later - that's not enough to push my buttons enough to merit a bad game vote. I fight my way through far more internet drama that I deserve; because I'm stubborn, and optimistically believe that people are mistaken or misinformed instead of petty and malicious. I *should* just ignore it. I *SHOULD* avoid trying to help people. I *DEFINITELY SHOULD* go quietly about my business. I've always been optimistic about my ability to influence the world in little ways - doing something to make the world a better place to live in (which explains my military service), or raising the collective ability of 40k gamers (thus all the tactical guides and battle reports).

I can put up with a lot. I don't think anyone would say anything differently. In the entire history of my 40k career (as short as it has been), there has only been one game - EVER - in which I picked up my models and refused to play my opponent because they were simply intolerable. That opponent...was you. As new as I was to 40k, before I even KNEW what a GT was, or that there was organized 40k outside of FLGS tournaments or 'Ard Boyz...I had the misfortune of being paired up against you in the first round of 'Ard Boyz semi-finals.

You just wrote that you've experienced dice-rolling issues against me first-hand. That's a flat lie. I conceded my game to you on turn two. Before firing a shot. Before making an assault. There was nothing that you could have done to win that game - if I had stuck through your ridiculous shenanigans - you taking an extra movement phase during MY assault phase, I still would have won. I packed up my models because the insult of having to deal with you was more than even my immense tolerance for the ridiculous could bear. Need a refresher? I was playing Orks. You were playing Eldrad's Seer Council. Eldrad and your Seer Council boost behind the battlewagon that Ghazghkull and his nobs are in. You fail your roll for fortune. You fail your reroll. Ghazghkull disembarks with a hungry look on his face.

The straw that broke the camel's back was the burna wagon in midfield. My burnas all disembark. I declare a Waaaugh! (Still no dice to roll). My burnas disembark 2" and get an auto-six to run. I move them. You pitch a fit because you think I've moved too far - your wave serpents and disembarkations were attempted to cleverly block me from getting to assault all those tasty fire dragons. I would have made it anyway. You went berzerk. I picked up my burna models, put them off to the side of the table, and asked YOU to disembark them for me, then run them 6" in the direction I wanted to go. I asked you to do this because I KNEW that you would arrive at the same place I did. And that the burnas were going to pick up a massive multi-assault and between them and Ghazghkull literally end the game on turn two.

Instead...you picked up your models and started moving them around on the board. And you said, "No - fine, you can move them there. And so I'm going to move *these* guys over *here.* And *these guys are moving here. Now go ahead."

Dude, we weren't even playing 40k anymore, we were so far off into Sarigar fantasy land that a return to the game wasn't even plausible. You were right - I wasn't crystal clear on the rules at the time. I didn't know that passengers couldn't fire out of an open-topped fast transport that moved 12". I knew that everything for them got bumped up one iteration. Believe it or not, that's a pretty common noobie mistake. I run into pretty often against newer players. I don't pitch a fit and accuse them of cheating, I get out my rulebook and show them the entry for it. I appreciate when people teach me the rules - games where I learn something new - especially at this point in my career where I know enough to think I know it all, and occasionally am surprised by a rule (like I pointed out above about dangerous terrain tests and disembarkation from wrecked vehicles) are especially valuable to me.

For the ridiculous amount of cheating that you were engaged in couple with your hostile attitude - it was simply the worst 40k engagement I had ever been involved in. Like I said; I would have won anyway. I was hoping that you getting a full point massacre from me would speed you on your way to at least win the tournament, but your other opponents apparently had more stomach for you than I could muster.

Think on that. For all the drama I deal with on the internet, I don't have an ignore list. For all the crap I occasionally run into at tournaments, I let it ride. I give the opponent the benefit of the doubt, I let things slide, I let opponents go back to previous turns to do stuff they forgot, pick up assaults that they forgot to do, make illegal assaults....I let a *LOT* go. And only once...once EVER...have I run into such bad sportsmanship and such horrendous cheating that I decided I would rather pack up my models and drive two hours home from a regional tournament than have to put up with any more shenanigans. And that was you.

Sarigar wrote:You will definitely get at least one win at the NOVA. After playing against you as well as seeing all this kind of stuff in you own reporting, I'll absolutely conceed the game if I get paired up against you. It's just not worth my time or effort to try and dodge this many landmines in a game.

In short: Don't worry about it. I'll get more than one win at the NOVA. Hopefully I'll get all wins. You and I won't play against each other, because I'll be at the top tables, and despite the shenanigans that you're willing to engage in to try winning a game, you're still not good enough to win. Unless you've drastically changed...and your post here is indicative that you have not...you won't get bracketed against me.

'Ard Boyz doesn't have sportsmanship, but most events that I attend do. And I have *NEVER* had a sportsmanship issue at a single one of them. I wish you luck with your gaming; I'm glad that we roll in different circles. I had to face a lot of prejudice in the Southeast when I moved, and I have you to thank for that with your unwelcome introductions to the folks living where I had just moved to on their forums and yahoo groups that a cheater named Dashofpepper had just moved to the area. I had the misfortune of moving to an area where many of the players knew and liked you, and you poisoned the waters for me when I moved there. Strangely, since moving to a place where no one has ever heard of you, I've had no issues. In the GTs I've been to, I've had no issues. Outside of your personal influence, the Alamo is the first time I've had sportsmanship issues.

And given the circumstances behind it, I'm not worried about a greater significance.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Anvildude wrote:Now hold up a second. Weren't there extra Objective points given to those who managed to kill specific enemy units? And Didn't your opponent manage to kill, what, 2 or three of those? Wouldn't that have given him 2 or 3 extra objectives at the end of the game?

Nay.

The killing specific enemy units was related to gaining the bonus objective - which was for points. Getting a win is worth 16 points, accomplishing the bonus objective is worth four more additional points for a possible of 20 points in a game. THe "objective" isn't the kind of objective on the table-top, in which you have to claim an objective to win - just an objective "marker" for additional points.

So the bonus objective for this mission was to kill the targeted enemy units. He killed...all four of mine? So got the four bonus points associated with doing so - one point per. I killed two of his, and got the two points associated with doing so.

Oooohh, now we're heating up! I knew I wouldn't be disappointed!

I think we all just need to let things settle.

All in all, people, it's a game. We need to learn to live and let live. This is also a game that has a bunch of areas in which the rules are unclear (Go look at the many thread in You make da call if you need proof).

Dash played an excellent game, in all of the games presented, coming back even with horrible dice rolls. That should be applauded, not booed.

As for the cheating on both parts... Who cares? It's over, what happened happened, leave it at that. Those who really did cheat, know who they are. Those who didn't know they didn't.

For those who did, take what you learned. Figure out tactics, and move on. If you have to cheat at a game to win, it's not the game for you in the first place.

Those that didn't, stop feeding the trolls. It's not worth it.

In regards for past grudges, you should really just avoid each others threads. It's not worth anyone's time to deal with the crap being flung around by people with grudges. Live by the old saying "If you don't have anything nice to say, then don't say anything at all"

Again, great come back Dash, I look forward to seeing more bat raps (especially in regards to your crons) soon.

Krisken wrote:Oooohh, now we're heating up! I knew I wouldn't be disappointed!

Nah - not heating up. That was a pretty dispassionate reply that I made. The facts are what they are; "It is what it is" is the applicable phrase. Getting angry at someone for having it in for you doesn't help anything; although I'm not infallible. Stack enough of it on top of itself and I'll make an angry post here and there.

Agreed with Dash. I comment on what I see.

No anger involved.

Amanax wrote:

Again, great come back Dash, I look forward to seeing more bat raps (especially in regards to your crons) soon.

My Wraith Wing went undefeated again today at a tournament! I took pictures and plan to write battle reports....soon. I wrote a battle report every day Monday-Friday to cover the Alamo GT, and need a break. I didn't win best overall - I didn't get max points during one of my games (against a pretty standard Razor/longfang spam SW army), and ended up in second. We only got through four turns, and I couldn't kill the last two grey hunters on an objective - the only objective that counted in the game - to win the game. Arg.

I faced an Ork Kan-Wall, Razorfang SW, and Eldrad Mechdar.

My statement was probably too harsh with respect to the rules. I did a lot of research before my first GT. When you move outside a comfortable group where everyone agreed on an interpretation it can be different.

Maybe a better statement is at a GT one should be aware of these differences and willing to lay out to judges a rule in less than 30 seconds (this game isnt THAT complex) and then move on accepting their decision.

Dashofpepper wrote:

Krisken wrote:Oooohh, now we're heating up! I knew I wouldn't be disappointed!

Nah - not heating up. That was a pretty dispassionate reply that I made. The facts are what they are; "It is what it is" is the applicable phrase. Getting angry at someone for having it in for you doesn't help anything; although I'm not infallible. Stack enough of it on top of itself and I'll make an angry post here and there.

You spend a lot more time on dispassionate posts than I do! That's all drama under the bridge, I suppose. Either way, quite amusing.

I've been enjoying this battle report and the counter viewpoint of your opponent from the game. It might be a nice feature to include opposing viewpoints from these games whenever possible, even when they disagree with your own analysis of what happened, for your readers. As i have stated previously, I often find the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Good luck at your next tourney and I look forward to seeing how you do with Necrons.

Dashofpepper wrote:I didn't know that passengers couldn't fire out of an open-topped fast transport that moved 12". I knew that everything for them got bumped up one iteration. Believe it or not, that's a pretty common noobie mistake. I run into pretty often against newer players. I don't pitch a fit and accuse them of cheating, I get out my rulebook and show them the entry for it. I appreciate when people teach me the rules - games where I learn something new - especially at this point in my career where I know enough to think I know it all, and occasionally am surprised by a rule (like I pointed out above about dangerous terrain tests and disembarkation from wrecked vehicles) are especially valuable to me.

Could you point out that page to me, I believe my friend and I are making said noobie mistake (pretty possible, since hes only recently gotten into an army with open topped transports).

I'll cover that one. From pg 70 of the BRB for open topped transports it says

Open-topped vehicles do not have specific fire points. Instead, all passengers in an open-topped vehicle may fire, measuring range and line of sight from the hull of the vehicle.

So it's treated like fire points, without limit to how many can fire, which takes us to pg 66 under "fire points" which says at the bottom of the section

Models firing from a vehicle count as moving if the vehicle moves, and may not fire at all if the vehicle moved at Cruising speed that turn.

Tada.

Beautiful, will have to review this with my buddy, thanks Amanax

Great come back Dash, real shame about the 'drama' that happened, congrats on winning.
And well done with the Wraith Wing! I eagerly await further Bat Reps (but totally understand you needing a break)

nice rep, and I enjoyed the "thoughts behind the moves" so to speak.

I skipped to the end to comment so I don't know if this has been covered, but you don't have to be able to disembark the whole unit when the vehicle is wrecked and partially surrounded. Just that the models that can't disembark are destroyed.

And a side note:

The internet didn't freak out over Tony having 3 extra points in his army list for the Nova Open. A certain internet douche did, and a few folks jumped on it. But by and large, no one cared.

My list wasn't over in points - it was under. And the illegality was adding a useless piece of wargear (one too many) onto a character that pretty much can't use it. I added it trying to get my army UP to the point requirement. There's nothing to freak out about. Take it out of my army and I've got 1,991 points, and nothing changes. If my haemonculi had one too many pieces of wargear and it was USED in a game...that would be different.

If someone dedicates 5-10 points to buying a searchlight for a tactical marine squad that can't use it - its illegal. Also never used and a worthless expenditure of points.

No one is freaking out about it for the same reasons that *most* people don't freak out. Its irrelevant. I put myself at a disdvantage, got no benefit from it, and didn't have a full 2,000 point army - and some of that not full 2,000 points was useless. Yeah! Lets make some internet dramas!

@ Everybody in general, isn't this wrong?

Dashofpepper wrote:

The skimmer's model doesn't get removed, and the base left, but the other way 'round. The StormRaven itself needs to get set down, and the based pulled off the table. Is there something, someplace about StormRavens that by-passes the usual practice of placing the wrecked skimmer model on the table?

I'll just start a YMDC thread, too.

Dashofpepper wrote:And a side note:

The internet didn't freak out over Tony having 3 extra points in his army list for the Nova Open. A certain internet douche did, and a few folks jumped on it. But by and large, no one cared.

Yeah, they kinda did. Spend some time listening to the podcasts from around that time and you'll get a pretty good idea on how bad people ripped on him for it.

----------------------------------------------
Oh, sorry, Dash. Thanks for the Batreps. They're gonna help my DE games improve. Have been helping. I did rather well my last two games. I'm back up to a DE 50/50% Win/Loss ratio!

Do the Batrep pix really slow down the games? And how're you keeping track of what happened? Do ya have a good memory or are you taking notes? I'd love to be able to do this and some decent players at the FLGS do a few, but found the games really stretch out in length. Any tips?

Brothererekose wrote:
----------------------------------------------
Oh, sorry, Dash. Thanks for the Batreps. They're gonna help my DE games improve. Have been helping. I did rather well my last two games. I'm back up to a DE 50/50% Win/Loss ratio!

Do the Batrep pix really slow down the games? And how're you keeping track of what happened? Do ya have a good memory or are you taking notes? I'd love to be able to do this and some decent players at the FLGS do a few, but found the games really stretch out in length. Any tips?

No, its all from memory with pictures to help - no time to take notes, so I do my best recalling what shot where, what happened...its not 100% accurate, but close.

And yet again, a comment that conclusively proves the poster did not read any of the prior posts. Bravo!

Pyriel- wrote:

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

Your list is illegal!!!

HQ: Haemonculi with Shattershard, Crucible of Malediction, and Animus Vitae

A haemonculi can only have two of the above wargear, not three!

I bet that if I took an SM librarian HQ with 3 powers people would declare my list null and void so what gives?

Seriously, have you even read any of this thread up until now?

"GUYS OMG, WE LANDED ON THE MOON!!"