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.

Yah, crazy 'Ard boyz...

Were there marine players with drop pod forces? How were those deployed? (IIRC its a similar structure now)

Mahu wrote:Congrats Gareth?

Are all your Blood Crushers still on the smaller bases?

This is just too damn funny. A deepstrike army using small bases...that's just too l33t for words. I'm glad the bases are all better now...

edit: technical question. At the time you were using them, by how much did the smaller bases reduce the unit's footprint?

Mannahnin wrote:I think the reasoning is questionable, given that Dawn of War (by the book) makes up 1/3 of all games played. It seems like strained reasoning to think that the codex’s unique deployment rule is meant to be overridden in a third of all standard missions.

I'm not sure I agree here. GW create a 5th edition ruleset, very clearly understanding that 1/3 of the missions are Dawn of War. Then they create a Daemon codex for 5th edition that says "this is how you deploy your army". It doesn't say, "this is how you deploy your army, except in Dawn of War." Why wouldn't they override one third of the standard missions for a 5th edition codex?

Seems pretty cut and dry to me. You deploy as your codex describes. I could imagine confusion if it was a 3rd edition codex or had something that was clearly contradictory. That would be like an IG player asking a judge at the beginning of the tournament whether his 5-man command squads each offered up two kill points in Kill Point games (hoping the judge says no, its one kill point - could happen - and if he said yes, no harm in trying), because, you know, 1/3 of all games are Kill Point games, and the IG codex's unique army structure wouldn't be a detriment to the army in 1/3 of the games played, would it?

olympia wrote:

This is just too damn funny. A deepstrike army using small bases...that's just too l33t for words. I'm glad the bases are all better now...

edit: technical question. At the time you were using them, by how much did the smaller bases reduce the unit's footprint?

The first bases were 40mm, because that's what the old crushers fit on. Upon seeing the new ones on 60mms I immediately got the new bases. I have had them with new bases for the last 3 tournaments I've been in, including this one.

Once again, I honestly did not see the rule as clear cut as some of you seem to think it is. Other people out there obviously feel the same way I do. That in itself proves it's NOT so clear cut. I asked a judge about it. What more do you want me to do? That's what the judges are there for. If he had ruled differently I would have played differently, I already explained that I didn't start my whole army on the board anyway (several times).

Great job G

Has everyone posting here played in the ard boys????

The missions are made and ruled on by the trade sales guys...think about that for a secound...

who remembers last years missions where your whole army had to start on the board? drop pods and all on turn one.

heres another example, you roll to choose sides and deploy your army and go first per the rulebook..right

wrong...they put another line on the missions where it says to then roll to go first and thats how the ard boy guys said to do it...

infiltrate, reserves, deep strike all in effect at all times per the rule book right? wrong ..only when the missions said they were..

the real confusion is that the missions for the ard boys need to be standardized with the rule book and the GT's.


A great weekend with two good tournaments

stormboy97 wrote:Great job G

Has everyone posting here played in the ard boys????

The missions are made and ruled on by the trade sales guys...think about that for a secound...

who remembers last years missions where your whole army had to start on the board? drop pods and all on turn one.

heres another example, you roll to choose sides and deploy your army and go first per the rulebook..right

wrong...they put another line on the missions where it says to then roll to go first and thats how the ard boy guys said to do it...

infiltrate, reserves, deep strike all in effect at all times per the rule book right? wrong ..only when the missions said they were..

the real confusion is that the missions for the ard boys need to be standardized with the rule book and the GT's.


A great weekend with two good tournaments

All examples where the mission takes priority. Which is what the judge ruled. There is still nothing underhanded here. Despite what some of these drama queens think...

Here's what your doing, courtesy of proximity:



Poor, poor, dead horse...

WhiteDevil wrote:

olympia wrote:

This is just too damn funny. A deepstrike army using small bases...that's just too l33t for words. I'm glad the bases are all better now...

edit: technical question. At the time you were using them, by how much did the smaller bases reduce the unit's footprint?

The first bases were 40mm, because that's what the old crushers fit on. Upon seeing the new ones on 60mms I immediately got the new bases. I have had them with new bases for the last 3 tournaments I've been in, including this one.

Once again, I honestly did not see the rule as clear cut as some of you seem to think it is. Other people out there obviously feel the same way I do. That in itself proves it's NOT so clear cut. I asked a judge about it. What more do you want me to do? That's what the judges are there for. If he had ruled differently I would have played differently, I already explained that I didn't start my whole army on the board anyway (several times).

I'm just glad you won and not Yen-te. At the semifinals in Wisconsin, Yen-te tied his third round opponent. Seeing that this would mean they both would be out of the hunt they agreed to dice off and the winner would get the massacre. Yen-te won the die roll and ended up finishing 1st. In the first round in Naperville Yen-te was playing with a relative each game. They both would consider moves and discuss strategy during the game. The GW staff said this was fine since Yen-te claimed he was there to just help his relative move the figs around. I never thought he would be able to get away with it all the way to 2nd place. Hearing that the rounds were shortened up, I'm sure he slow played his Orks to get the win or maybe make another deal to roll dice for the massacre.

Tournaments should be run by tournament people, exclusively. If you don't have that at GW with the high turnover rate or lack of experience among employees it should be brought in from experienced tournament people. I had a blast last year at the Ard Boyz. It seemed everyone kept an eye on everyone else. This year it doesn't sound the same. Of course the complainers will make the most noise so without being there first hand it is hard to tell.

Green Blow Fly wrote:He was checking since it came up before. That is smart since obviously it was not clear.

G

It's pretty clear if you, you know, read the codex, which is extremely explicit in how the army deploys. The ambiguity only resulted when someone tried to ignore the fact that codex rules > rulebook rules, and found a simpleton judge to agree.

I've seen this kind of stuff happen many, MANY times at tournaments. Usually it doesn't even come down to who is right, it comes down to either (a) who is more persuasive, or (b) who is more obstinate. At the very least it's possible to manipulate a judge (either by persuading him or refusing to back down) into offering a roll-off, even when one player is clearly wrong. This sounds eerily similar to that, which is unfortunate because it seems to have decided the outcome of the tournament.

This all seems pretty silly. Its been made pretty clear, despite a judge's ruling to the contrary that would have allowed him to do differently, WhiteDevil followed the rules. If anything I think WhiteDevil further followed the spirit of the rules by going with his codex despite what could have been a favorable advantage. I don't know if that was his intent but its commendable if it was.

If there was honestly something questionable occuring it should have been addressed before the end of the tournament not after it. This is not the time or place for this sort of rudeness. Don't be a sore loser.

Congrats WhiteDevil. Just take this as a challenge to prove them wrong the next time around.

What we know....

1. 2 different bases were/could of been used, depending on opponent preferences.

2. Idiot judge made favorable ruling for Daemons.

Can you blame WhiteDevil for any of this? Probably not!

but

You can call into question motive and the trying to "gain advantage". (I see this as general going to war and surveying battlefield before the war)

What all you need to ask yourselves is this. Would you have done the same thing? I would have, maybe not the bases trick, but certainly asking judge for clarifications.

This was the 'Ard Boyz.....it clearly states no crying, bring your 'ardest lists, and go for glory!

Congrats to winner. Let it be done.

Danny Internets wrote:This sounds eerily similar to that, which is unfortunate because it seems to have decided the outcome of the tournament.

It didn't decide the outcome of the tournament at all.

Which makes all this even more frustrating. It was the capture and control/kill points mission, round 2. None of my reserves (still almost half my army) came in on round 2 or 3 anyway. And my opponent still managed to contest the objectives, since I don't really have the means to kill all 14 skimmers (that can contest) with my list. Even so I killed off the army minus 3 skimmers by game end. He killed almost nothing completely, so regardless I won with kill points. Having 1 or 2 less units on the board would not have put much of a dent in the kill points I got off him.

What did I get from all this? A MINOR VICTORY.

If either of the guys on table 1 (in round 3) had gotten even a major win, I would not have won the tournament. As it turned out, neither did, so I won.

Old Man Ultramarine wrote:I would have, maybe not the bases trick, but certainly asking judge for clarifications.

Wasen't a bases "trick". It was just a slight conversion mistake that was quickly remedeed.

EDIT: Thanks again for the support people. Especially those I don't even know.

Congratulations. Nice to see Daemons win as a popular opinion on the boards is they are useless.

This is more of a "flame the winner" thread now then anything else. I don't see a point to it as it makes it a non-friendly community, cheater or not, the game was between him and his opponent and if both had fun, then that is the point of this hobby most people lose sight of.

I put in my vote to lock this no longer productive thread

Just to clarify for everyone who isn't already aware, there IS NO CONTRADICTION between the Dawn of War deployment rules and the Chaos Daemon's 'Daemonic Assault' rule.

'Dawn of War' (p93 of the rulebook) says:

"He can then deploy up to two units from his Troops selections and up to one unit from his HQ selections in his half of the table. . ."

and:

"All units that were not deployed, and were not declared to be in reserve during deployment, must enter the game in the Movement phase of their first player turn by moving in from their own table edge, just like units moving in from reserve."


'Daemonic Assault' (p27 of the Daemons codex) says:

"No model in this army is ever placed on the battlefield during deployment. Instead, all of the units in the army always start the game in reserve, even in missions that do not normally allow this rule to be used."


So, as you can see from the Dawn of War rules, the extra units you aren't able to deploy come onto the table on the first turn, but this is different from units you place into reserve, which come in using the normal rules for reserves (typically starting on turn 2).

The Daemon Codex forces the player to put everything he has into Reserves, which is actually something any army can choose to do if they want (in which case other armies start rolling for their Reserves on turn 2).

Of course the Daemons also have a special rule about how their Reserves arrive, which they naturally continue to follow.


In the end we simply have a case of a bad ruling on the part of the tournament judges, which is something that can and will always occur as judges are human and they make mistakes. This certainly can't be cheating unless their is some kind of strange collusion issue going on between the player and the judges and I don't think anyone is silly enough to try to throw out that implication.

I have to laugh when I see people trying to attack a college student because he converted his crushers rather buy the model at $50 apiece then when he found out the bases are 60 mm not 40 mm he bought them and magnetized the original bases he used. I would have never guessed the base is 60 mm without opening the box. I think some people like to jump on the band wagon and complain for the sake of complaining then wait for the next train wreck to come along.

G

The base thing is clearly a red herring.

The reserves thing? Well, if dude was really unclear and really thought that this would be only a small advantage, then a person who knows nearly nothing about 40K won the big prize. It's not about whether stuff was in reserve. Its about whether he split his force in half then rolled to see what half he got. If he did not do this, then he bypassed the main reason "people on the boards" thought the deamon codex would not win. In my mind though, Occams Razor says this was a pretty egregious case of "working the refs."

"I'm a glass half broken and shoved into someones face kinda guy..."

True dat.

yakface wrote:Just to clarify for everyone who isn't already aware, there IS NO CONTRADICTION between the Dawn of War deployment rules and the Chaos Daemon's 'Daemonic Assault' rule.

'Dawn of War' (p93 of the rulebook) says:

"He can then deploy up to two units from his Troops selections and up to one unit from his HQ selections in his half of the table. . ."

and:

"All units that were not deployed, and were not declared to be in reserve during deployment, must enter the game in the Movement phase of their first player turn by moving in from their own table edge, just like units moving in from reserve."


'Daemonic Assault' (p27 of the Daemons codex) says:

"No model in this army is ever placed on the battlefield during deployment. Instead, all of the units in the army always start the game in reserve, even in missions that do not normally allow this rule to be used."


So, as you can see from the Dawn of War rules, the extra units you aren't able to deploy come onto the table on the first turn, but this is different from units you place into reserve, which come in using the normal rules for reserves (typically starting on turn 2).

The Daemon Codex forces the player to put everything he has into Reserves, which is actually something any army can choose to do if they want (in which case other armies start rolling for their Reserves on turn 2).

Of course the Daemons also have a special rule about how their Reserves arrive, which they naturally continue to follow.


In the end we simply have a case of a bad ruling on the part of the tournament judges, which is something that can and will always occur as judges are human and they make mistakes. This certainly can't be cheating unless their is some kind of strange collusion issue going on between the player and the judges and I don't think anyone is silly enough to try to throw out that implication.

Um, I hate to disagree, but there is conflict between the rules. Just check the points that I made bold in your post. DoW deployment says that the player may place up to two troops and an HQ on their half of the table, while the Daemonic Assault rule states that "no model from the army is ever placed on the board during deployment."

The mission rules say you can deploy, the codex says you can't.

I am not saying this is what occurred here, but it would be a huge advantage to the Daemon player to have a well placed icon already on the board when the first units of the Daemonic Assault started coming in.

Saldiven wrote:

yakface wrote:Just to clarify for everyone who isn't already aware, there IS NO CONTRADICTION between the Dawn of War deployment rules and the Chaos Daemon's 'Daemonic Assault' rule.

'Dawn of War' (p93 of the rulebook) says:

"He can then deploy up to two units from his Troops selections and up to one unit from his HQ selections in his half of the table. . ."

and:

"All units that were not deployed, and were not declared to be in reserve during deployment, must enter the game in the Movement phase of their first player turn by moving in from their own table edge, just like units moving in from reserve."


'Daemonic Assault' (p27 of the Daemons codex) says:

"No model in this army is ever placed on the battlefield during deployment. Instead, all of the units in the army always start the game in reserve, even in missions that do not normally allow this rule to be used."


So, as you can see from the Dawn of War rules, the extra units you aren't able to deploy come onto the table on the first turn, but this is different from units you place into reserve, which come in using the normal rules for reserves (typically starting on turn 2).

The Daemon Codex forces the player to put everything he has into Reserves, which is actually something any army can choose to do if they want (in which case other armies start rolling for their Reserves on turn 2).

Of course the Daemons also have a special rule about how their Reserves arrive, which they naturally continue to follow.


In the end we simply have a case of a bad ruling on the part of the tournament judges, which is something that can and will always occur as judges are human and they make mistakes. This certainly can't be cheating unless their is some kind of strange collusion issue going on between the player and the judges and I don't think anyone is silly enough to try to throw out that implication.

Um, I hate to disagree, but there is conflict between the rules. Just check the points that I made bold in your post. DoW deployment says that the player may place up to two troops and an HQ on their half of the table, while the Daemonic Assault rule states that "no model from the army is ever placed on the board during deployment."

The mission rules say you can deploy, the codex says you can't.

I am not saying this is what occurred here, but it would be a huge advantage to the Daemon player to have a well placed icon already on the board when the first units of the Daemonic Assault started coming in.

That's a pretty big stretch. If you follow that to its logical conclusion, then the other missions that state 'He then deploys his force....' contradict the Demonic Assault special rule as well. Reserves is still an option in DOW, thus I don't see the issue.

If DOW had stated 'Reserves may not be used in this mission but instead...' then there might be room for an argument. However, even then the assault rules specify you use the demonic reserve even in missions that do not normally allow it (Which means they knew about the new scenario book when the demonic dex was hitting, as all current official missions allow reserves).

It isn't an issue of whether or not a player may place models in reserve.

It's an issue of whether a player may deploy models on the board.

The Daemon player is specifically prohibited from deploying models on the board at the start of the game. Period. No negotiation. If a Daemon player were allowed to place a few icons on the board during deployment, and then start their Daemonic Assault rolls, it would defeat the majority of the hazard of playing the army: the vaguaries of deep strike deviation.

Once again, I don't know if this is what happened in this game or not. I was merely pointing out that there is conflict between the DoW and Daemonic Assault rules, as one allows deployment of forces, and the other does not. Daemons have their own rules for how they enter play, and deploying models before turn 1 is not one of those rules.

Saldiven wrote:It isn't an issue of whether or not a player may place models in reserve.

It's an issue of whether a player may deploy models on the board.

The Daemon player is specifically prohibited from deploying models on the board at the start of the game. Period. No negotiation. If a Daemon player were allowed to place a few icons on the board during deployment, and then start their Daemonic Assault rolls, it would defeat the majority of the hazard of playing the army: the vaguaries of deep strike deviation.

Once again, I don't know if this is what happened in this game or not. I was merely pointing out that there is conflict between the DoW and Daemonic Assault rules, as one allows deployment of forces, and the other does not. Daemons have their own rules for how they enter play, and deploying models before turn 1 is not one of those rules.

Every scenario allows deployment of forces. I don't understand how this would effect the Demonic Assault rules.

Umm...here's Gareth - the winners post on this topic. What is the conflict - notice he says he kept half his force in reserve ANYWAY - regardless of how the judge ruled. Demon's always start their entire army in reserves - with 1/2 coming in at the start of the game. Biggest thing that may have been missed was the selection of force a or force b - and that is not going to sway the game one way or the other.

I suggest the community quit trying to ding the guy - who followed what the judges told him to do - and simply say "CONGRATULATIONS".




1. Thinking the issue would come up, I asked the judge whether or not my daemons could come in turn 1, as it was dawn of war. He said since dawn of war lets all my units come in except for the ones I choose to hold back in normal reserve. This was how it was ruled in the semi's as well. THIS WAS A JUDGE RULING. Right or wrong, this was how I was told to play it. Besides, I ended up keeping half my army in reserve anyway (almost all my troops and a horror unit that misshaped into reserve anyway).

2. I scattered every single unit that came in 1st turn. What are you talking about? Any units that I did not roll a scatter for came in on subsequent turns off of an icon.

3. I rolled for EVERY moral check EVERY time the fateweaver took a wound. I explained exactly how the fateweaver worked at the beginning of my game. I also insisted that if my opponent had any questions at all, at any time, to please ask me. I declared I was taking a morale check every time I suffered a wound. If he forgot my earlier explanation and thought I was taking a normal morale check for my fearless unit, then that is an unfortunate mistake on his part. I went to every length I could to make sure he understood my army.

4. My opponent came back after asking a DIFFERENT judge about the issue, who apparently ruled differently. Different GW judges offering different rulings seems to be an unfortunate occurrence at certain National events I'm told.

So please, before jumping on the bandwagon of "Gamer Gossip", or hoping on the forums looking to bad mouth me, please just address any concerns you have to me personally, and I'd gladly settle them for you.

Have a nice night.

Saldiven wrote:
Um, I hate to disagree, but there is conflict between the rules. Just check the points that I made bold in your post. DoW deployment says that the player may place up to two troops and an HQ on their half of the table, while the Daemonic Assault rule states that "no model from the army is ever placed on the board during deployment."

The mission rules say you can deploy, the codex says you can't.

I am not saying this is what occurred here, but it would be a huge advantage to the Daemon player to have a well placed icon already on the board when the first units of the Daemonic Assault started coming in.

That is not a conflict. The mission rules give you an option to deploy, and the army specific rules say you cannot deploy. Since you cannot break a rule, a Daemon player is not allowed to deploy his forces or he would be breaking his codex specific rules.

This is how all rules in the game work. You have rules that allow to do things and then you have rules which specifically restrict you from doing things. In such situations you are not allowed to do said thing.


Just an example to help you understand:

The basic rules could say: A model may move 'X' inches in the movement phase.

And then the rules for immobilized vehicles say: vehicles that have suffered an immobilized result cannot move in the movement phase.


So you have two rules here, one that allows you to do something and one that restricts you from doing something. Is this a conflict of rules?

Of course not, you're just not allowed to move the vehicle since you cannot willingly break a rule.



But regardless of whether the rule is clear or not, players in tournaments can often have questions about how things are supposed to be played and it is the job of the judge to tell them what to do in the case that he ask them.

In this case, the wrong ruling was rendered, but that is the nature of the beast. In no way can you blame the player for the judge's ruling.

I was one of the judges and I didn’t hear boo about this issue at all on Friday. That’s VERY, VERY… let me say that again… VERY unusual given how frequently we confer. We probably huddle up about 10 times per round over trivial matters. When controversial matters pop up, we tend to get multiple judges involved before a final ruling is even made.

I heard about this on Saturday from an Ard Boyz participant who was so sure that the winner cheated. I later told a friend and immediately caught myself and admitted that I was probably passing on fourth-hand information. The bottom line is that a lot of people are calling into question the character of a young man who probably doesn’t deserve it. You can all argue your points, but it will all come to no good.

The one true horror about the whole thing was that they didn’t have enough time to finish their third game. And you guys have to understand that we (GW) had NO control over that at all for reasons already discussed. GW paid very good money for both the hall and the shipping. We got screwed there, too. For what I recall Go-Go gave you as much notice as possible because while we were playing our games he was trying to get an extension on the hall. Given that extra time the top three could have come from different tables. (The rounds should be 3 hours long anyway IMO).

Prize Support: Those prizes were awesome. Was someone complaining about that?
Dudley: “36 presents? Last year I got 37.”
Aunt Petunia: “We’ll got out and buy you two more tomorrow.”

And finally, regarding the comments about the idiot judges; have you ever been an official for anything? It stings a bit to be called an idiot. We are volunteers. If I wasn’t an official at the GT, I would have been a player just like the rest of you. I saw lots of good players sorting through their codices and rulebooks. It happens. The vast majority of the time I was asked a question, I looked it up to be sure and I’ve been playing weekly since 5th came out. That being said, there were far fewer questions in 5th this year than in 4th which to me is evidence that rules are tighter. When I left on Sunday, I had the impression that this was the smoothest GT I’ve attended or officiated.

So, in conclusion:
This sounds like sour grapes.
Stop adding fuel to the fire.
I can’t think of any other good idioms.
Go-Go does and awesome job.
We all worked hard to make this a great tournament.
Congrats to the winners.

David Strimple

Congrats Gareth, good job on your win. Don't let anyone put an * next to your Ardboyz win!!

Ozymandias, King of Kings

So to paraphrase the thread so far:
Some wild accusations have been made, the winner has been robbed of any sense of achievement, and instead been left feeling a bit sh*t, and not only has the organiser, but also the volunteers been directly insulted, which they (rightly so) take offense to.

Pretty good string of achievements so far. Quick, lets go see if we can get Christmas canceled while we're at it!

****edited after reading some more responses****

Good job on winning!

Without knowing motive, we have no way to determine intent. Without intent, I have no desire to throw anyone under the bus.

I'm like Yak, I don't see where there's any confusion over deployment for DoW.

However, it seems there's a lot of things over the years that have been 'regional' in either being an issue or the 'answer' to an issue. That's to be expected. One or two people learn the rules really well and 'teach' everyone else how to play it. Including all their own errors - I remember this from Bloodbowl especially, but 40k too (drop pods on bases, terrain heights for hills adding with model height, etc.).

Congrats Gareth.

proximity wrote:So to paraphrase the thread so far:
Some wild accusations have been made, the winner has been robbed of any sense of achievement, and instead been left feeling a bit sh*t, and not only has the organiser, but also the volunteers been directly insulted, which they (rightly so) take offense to.

Pretty good string of achievements so far. Quick, lets go see if we can get Christmas canceled while we're at it!

/Santa

MERRY CHRISTMAS ONE AND ALL!!!

I know I few naughty little boys who are getting coal in their stockings!

HO! HO! HO!

/End_Santa

WhiteDevil wrote:Ah. I love Gamer gossip.

Please allow me to address your issues chiermd.

I'm Gareth, I won the Ard Boyz.

1. Thinking the issue would come up, I asked the judge whether or not my daemons could come in turn 1, as it was dawn of war. He said since dawn of war lets all my units come in except for the ones I choose to hold back in normal reserve. This was how it was ruled in the semi's as well. THIS WAS A JUDGE RULING. Right or wrong, this was how I was told to play it. Besides, I ended up keeping half my army in reserve anyway (almost all my troops and a horror unit that misshaped into reserve anyway).

2. I scattered every single unit that came in 1st turn. What are you talking about? Any units that I did not roll a scatter for came in on subsequent turns off of an icon.

3. I rolled for EVERY moral check EVERY time the fateweaver took a wound. I explained exactly how the fateweaver worked at the beginning of my game. I also insisted that if my opponent had any questions at all, at any time, to please ask me. I declared I was taking a morale check every time I suffered a wound. If he forgot my earlier explanation and thought I was taking a normal morale check for my fearless unit, then that is an unfortunate mistake on his part. I went to every length I could to make sure he understood my army.

4. My opponent came back after asking a DIFFERENT judge about the issue, who apparently ruled differently. Different GW judges offering different rulings seems to be an unfortunate occurrence at certain National events I'm told.

So please, before jumping on the bandwagon of "Gamer Gossip", or hoping on the forums looking to bad mouth me, please just address any concerns you have to me personally, and I'd gladly settle them for you.

Have a nice night.

-Gareth-

What army did you play against. How did the battles go down.............