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

I don't agree with that, Ave... if I'm going to get tabled at a tourney (and it's happened ) it doesn't really matter to me if it gets dragged out for more turns. In fact, I'd usually rather it not... i.e. get the pain over and done with, take my lumps and move on.

I've had fantastically fun games where I get massacred... but not all of the time. If you're not having a great time, I don't necessarily think more turns changes that...

It's also really unfair to expect your opponent to "go easy" on you to make a game last longer in a tournament. I really don't think most people would expect that in this situation.

Ave wrote:

dayve110 wrote:
sportmanship =/= playing a sub-par game so the opponent gets free kills.

If your opponent made an effort to intereact, make you laugh, helped you out, followed the rules according and was generally a pleasure to be around (or at least, not a chore to be around) then they have been a good sportman. How bad they crush your army should have no impact on this.

I would generally agree with this, but not in this situation. In game 3 they were playing kill points, and the tournaments scoring was such that you only had to win by one kill point, and reduce enemy units to 50% or less to get max points. If Dash supposedly had such a superior list, then surely it would have been easy to allow this game to last longer than two turns and still gain max points, with little risk, right? The way the tournament rules were written seems to discourage just wiping your opponent away, and not allowing them to really interact with the game, besides with saving throws. So in this situation, I would call it poor sportsmanship.

It was also Dawn of War. We didn't really *start* the fight until turn two, and it *took* the whole game to kill him.

Dashofpepper wrote:

Ave wrote:

dayve110 wrote:
sportmanship =/= playing a sub-par game so the opponent gets free kills.

If your opponent made an effort to intereact, make you laugh, helped you out, followed the rules according and was generally a pleasure to be around (or at least, not a chore to be around) then they have been a good sportman. How bad they crush your army should have no impact on this.

I would generally agree with this, but not in this situation. In game 3 they were playing kill points, and the tournaments scoring was such that you only had to win by one kill point, and reduce enemy units to 50% or less to get max points. If Dash supposedly had such a superior list, then surely it would have been easy to allow this game to last longer than two turns and still gain max points, with little risk, right? The way the tournament rules were written seems to discourage just wiping your opponent away, and not allowing them to really interact with the game, besides with saving throws. So in this situation, I would call it poor sportsmanship.

It was also Dawn of War. We didn't really *start* the fight until turn two, and it *took* the whole game to kill him.

Sorry, I suppose I misspoke in terms of DoW. I should have said two turns of effective game play.

I think most tournament players are comfortable saying that good sportsmanship does not require pulling punches. Good sportsmanship is mostly about honesty, clear communication, and a respectful attitude, IMO.

While a close game may be more enjoyable on the losing side, I don't think it's my opponent's responsibility to only beat me by a little, if he's capable of beating me by a lot.

RiTides wrote:I don't agree with that, Ave... if I'm going to get tabled at a tourney (and it's happened ) it doesn't really matter to me if it gets dragged out for more turns. In fact, I'd usually rather it not... i.e. get the pain over and done with, take my lumps and move on.

I've had fantastically fun games where I get massacred... but not all of the time. If you're not having a great time, I don't necessarily think more turns changes that...

It's also really unfair to expect your opponent to "go easy" on you to make a game last longer in a tournament. I really don't think most people would expect that in this situation.

But the thing is, he didn't have to table him at all to gain full points. That is true of lots of tournaments, but not this one. Have you never taken your foot off the pedal in a game you knew without a doubt you would win? I have had a lot of easy tournament wins over the years, that were never in doubt, but I've never gotten a bad game. It doesn't take a genius to realize how to easily win a game but still have it be actually be engaging for their opponent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:I think most tournament players are comfortable saying that good sportsmanship does not require pulling punches. Good sportsmanship is mostly about honesty, clear communication, and a respectful attitude, IMO.

While a close game may be more enjoyable on the losing side, I don't think it's my opponent's responsibility to only beat me by a little, if he's capable of beating me by a lot.

Everyone is replying in generalities when I am talking about a specific situation. I'll even phrase it as a first person situation (remember the mission, you only have to win by a single KP, and reduce the enemy units below 50%):

You arrive at your table for a mid-tournament game and exchange army lists with your opponent. After a quick glance you realize the game is in the bag, their army is a very poor match-up to yours. You can completely wipe the floor with them. Do you do it? Or do you play a more conservative game that might be entertaining for your opponent?

I know Dashs answer. In his words after we spoke at the tournament, "Of course it wasn't fun, he was losing. Only one of the people at the table has fun at a tournament game."

Dash why you chosen your first 5ed list over wych cult?)

I wasn't there and don't have a lot to add about the specifics of the game, but I will say that I consider the Venom conversions shown to be tantamount to cheating if used with the rotation trick. The fact that Venoms are smaller than Raiders and on par sizewize with Vypers is very clear from the Dark Eldar Codex, despite the lack of an official model.

I don't see any cheating in using the big venom conversions. GW had given us no actual guidance as to size.

There are advantages to be gained from longer vehicles (like gaining distance from rotation), but they tend to be more useful in an assaulty list (which he wasn't running), and the disadvantage of big fragile vehicles in terms of being unable to hide is a significant one.

Mannahnin wrote:I don't see any cheating in using the big venom conversions. GW had given us no actual guidance as to size.

GW wrote:...craft no larger than the Vypers of the Eldar Craftworlds...

Ave wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:I think most tournament players are comfortable saying that good sportsmanship does not require pulling punches. Good sportsmanship is mostly about honesty, clear communication, and a respectful attitude, IMO.

While a close game may be more enjoyable on the losing side, I don't think it's my opponent's responsibility to only beat me by a little, if he's capable of beating me by a lot.

Everyone is replying in generalities when I am talking about a specific situation. I'll even phrase it as a first person situation (remember the mission, you only have to win by a single KP, and reduce the enemy units below 50%):

You arrive at your table for a mid-tournament game and exchange army lists with your opponent. After a quick glance you realize the game is in the bag, their army is a very poor match-up to yours. You can completely wipe the floor with them. Do you do it? Or do you play a more conservative game that might be entertaining for your opponent?

I don't believe in assuming that I will wipe the floor with anyone. Especially if my own army is fragile. For DE, the best (and really their only) defense is a good offense. If I whiff on a round of shooting, it's entirely possible that a big chunk of my skimmers will die as a consequence.

If the matchup is really as bad as you say, then most likely my opponent knows it too. If I choose to pull punches by choosing bad shooting targets, or not firing as much as I can, I run the risk of looking like I hold him/his army in contempt. That I don't think he deserves my best effort. I have an old gaming buddy who lost a good amount, but who got infuriated when he got the idea that someone was taking it easy on him.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fetterkey wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:I don't see any cheating in using the big venom conversions. GW had given us no actual guidance as to size.

GW wrote:...craft no larger than the Vypers of the Eldar Craftworlds...

Good catch!

It's still hard to call it cheating if the organizers approve it.

There are advantages to be gained from longer vehicles (like gaining distance from rotation), but they tend to be more useful in an assaulty list (which he wasn't running), and the disadvantage of big fragile vehicles in terms of being unable to hide is a significant one.

However when you Castle in game play, All bets are off.

Larger vehicles = TLOS issues.

However if the TO allowed this to happen then whose fault is it after all?

heh soft scores are so subjective and very opinionated sometime... I dont like soft scores and I prefer tournaments that doesnt include it.

No GW description on the size of vypers? Did dash not read the entry about venoms specifically? Where it goes on the say "no larger than craftworld eldar vypers".

Soft scores being subjective, I can agree to that. however, is it coincidence that more than just me gave him a bad game?

It's still a tournament. You are still there, effectively, for one main reason.

To win it.

If you read an opponents army list. It's inferior.. no.. it's terrible! The game is in the bag.. better pull some punches so that he has a good time...

And then he just turns out to be one of those cracked-out generals that runs some off the wall list with meltabombs on the devastator sergeant and what have you..

Then you'll feel dumb. Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeel dumb.

Or you pull some punches early.. and then the dice pull some more on you late.. and then his dice throw a few punches.... and we're right back to feeling dumb again.

Caldera02 wrote:Soft scores being subjective, I can agree to that. however, is it coincidence that more than just me gave him a bad game?

Whatever the case, logging in specifically to flame him doesn't really help to support your stance.

Why not write up a battle report of the incident in question, while trying to be objective, and let everyone see for themselves what happened? It would actually be quite interesting to read two separate accounts of the same battle, particularly one that seems to have such a controversial outcome.

Caldera02 wrote:No GW description on the size of vypers? Did dash not read the entry about venoms specifically? Where it goes on the say "no larger than craftworld eldar vypers".

Soft scores being subjective, I can agree to that. however, is it coincidence that more than just me gave him a bad game?

That was quite explained. You should read what I wrote.

In regard to the venoms...terrain was sparse. Hiding MY venoms behind terrain was nigh impossible. Hiding YOURS was not. While I've got a bunch of Venoms on pre-order....that's a matter for the future. In the meantime, I discuss my conversions with TOs before I attend events. I always have. You didn't start fussing about them because of pivoting tricks, or TLOS, or vehicles granting cover....you started fussing because if my venom was shorter, and I replicated my exact moves, you may have been able to get around my venom to assault my trueborn. And as I explained to you in person...you *still* wouldn't have gotten the assault. I WOULDN'T have replicated the exact same move, I would have stacked the venom right next door end to end to create the same wall of impassable "Haha, you still don't get to assault me" that you ran into.

You should stop. You disgraced yourself with your behavior at the event, have crossed a line by calling a judge's ruling in favor of the ACTUAL rules to be cheating, making an issue of a TO approved conversion for the event, been extremely clear on how much you dislike me, went completely berzerk as a spectator during my last game....you even booed me when I went up to get my plaque and prizes. And not finished yet, you've registered for Dakka to try causing more trouble here. I was hoping at the end of the event that you were just going through a bitter phase and you'd sleep it off. Dakka isn't the appropriate place for personal vendettas, and on that vein I can't tell you what I really think....but I'll make sure that we have a lively chat about civility and appropriate behavior when we next meet.

I was following this discussion on Blood of Kittens. To be honest I initially was interested in the results and how the BoLS players did. When I read the scathing article on BoK I wanted to know why Dash was given such harsh criticism. Call me a lurker, troll, whatever but I followed the link here to see what all the flaming was about. After reading through this thread here is my impression:

1) Dash used every fair and some unfair tactics to secure a victory. It is evident that he is someone who provides an unenjoyable gaming experience. Why would I say this, it's quite simple. He bent the rules to his advantage in modeling his Venoms ( seriously they are no where's near scale as described in the fluff! ) then with his "sideways shuffle / pivot" move to gain added movement ( at no point should any part of the vehicle move more that the maximum distance allotted for movement ). One bad sportsmanship score in a 5 round event happens but multiple bad scores indicate a trend that cannot be overlooked. He knows what he did but you will never get him to admit that he did anything wrong or unfair. In his mind the end justified the means.

2) The Alamo TO have to share some blame. Running a successful event is hard work. It also is hard work to attract players. Bad publicity, either real or perceived, drives players away. From reading the website detailing the Alamo, it is supposed to be a casual event that promotes fellowship among players not a WAAC event. I wish a detailed breakdown of the results were posted but it is hard for me to image how someone with multiple bad sportsmanship scores still can win an event that is geared at being fun not WAAC. This is a problem with your matrix and it needs to be corrected.

3) Rules discussions need to be resolved in a timely manner. When 5 minutes can make the difference between 5 rounds or 6 rounds, 25 minutes or more to discuss a ruling is way out of line. The TO should have handed down a decision within 5 minutes of the question being posed. Wasting gaming time did influence the final outcome.

4) Lastly its just a game of toy soldiers and none of this really matters. Yeah we all have had to play "that guy" at a tourney and it sucks but usually a bad game of 40K beats a good day at work.

Just my opinion...

Ooh...and I'm getting flamed over at Blood of Kittens. =p
http://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2011/05/16/indy-gt-circuit-alamo-40k-gt-results-with-a-dash-of-drama/



And my first batrep is up!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MajorSoB wrote:

2) The Alamo TO have to share some blame. Running a successful event is hard work. It also is hard work to attract players. Bad publicity, either real or perceived, drives players away. From reading the website detailing the Alamo, it is supposed to be a casual event that promotes fellowship among players not a WAAC event. I wish a detailed breakdown of the results were posted but it is hard for me to image how someone with multiple bad sportsmanship scores still can win an event that is geared at being fun not WAAC. This is a problem with your matrix and it needs to be corrected.

Yeah...I don't think you know what WAAC means.

The main thing I disagree with is them casting aspersions on the fine DCM program.

Well of the 3 people that gave dash negative scores only 1 guy is vehemently accusing him of cheating. The others including yourself all posted reasons for the negative scores, and yes they all seemed subjective and doesnt mean crap...

Now about those raider-venoms, although in the DE codex fluff it says venoms are small and that it can only fit 5. However the fluff section is not "law" and doesnt override GK's rules about non-existing models. But yes those are way too big and can leave a bad taste on the opponent. I'd probably give Dash a negative sportsmanship score just based on those venoms... that is if I lose to him. Now the bad thing about bigger vehicles is that they are hard to hide and can be hit easier by blasts and etc, if I beat dash based on that, I will give him a positive score for giving me such a advantage for my mech IG gun line.

You see what I mean about soft-scores? Everyone has their opinions and usually when you lose, especially at a major event you will feel frustrated and irritated.

I'm not sure that Dash and his Sports record at the Alamo GT is that much of an indictment on Sportsmanship scoring.

That's rather off topic and should just be left alone, as there have been about 6,000 too many of those threads already.

MajorSoB wrote:
1) Dash used every fair and some unfair tactics to secure a victory. It is evident that he is someone who provides an unenjoyable gaming experience. Why would I say this, it's quite simple. He bent the rules to his advantage in modeling his Venoms ( seriously they are no where's near scale as described in the fluff! ) then with his "sideways shuffle / pivot" move to gain added movement ( at no point should any part of the vehicle move more that the maximum distance allotted for movement ).

Ah, and I must also encourage you to visit this thread to gain a fundamental understanding of how movement works. http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/369233.page

You seem to be confusing "bending rules" with "following rules."

You know dash you are some fine piece of work. you were losing and had to pull that gak on me to eek out the win. So whatever, this is just he said she said and doesn't change anything. I just wonder if you can sleep at night, I know I can. I don't have to cheat to win.

TO's just want to sell tickets to their events so they will approve almost anything that you put before them.

They also don't want to take a stand on rules judging, and most of the time when they are not using the INAT they will have 2 players "dice off" so there is no hard feeling toward the tournament.

Caldera02 wrote:No GW description on the size of vypers? Did dash not read the entry about venoms specifically? Where it goes on the say "no larger than craftworld eldar vypers".

Soft scores being subjective, I can agree to that. however, is it coincidence that more than just me gave him a bad game?

GW also describes Kaldor Draigo as being the next Space jesus, with the ability to wipe out powerful beings and armies singlehandedly
Should his model rules reflect that?

At the end of the day the models weren't available, the TO allowed it and it gave you a significant advantage to shoot at bigger targets, this should not be an issue.
The problem is you, your coming off as being sour about losing and your claims of cheating, when apparentlly the TO ruled in his favour on your issues is coming off really badly

Take some time to either compose yourself and come up with actual rational reasons as to why you think he cheated, rather than grasping at straws

Truth is dash is the type of player that will use all the tools available to win his games. This does include taking advantage of the rules in his favor but within legality. He did get approval of his venom conversions but it is a case of he should have known better. Let us also acknowledge his skills in winning with dark eldar.

I will say dash congratulations with your win but be mindful that a negative reputation can go a long way and you have seen it first hand at jacksonville. I do not think that you do this intentionally but I feel you play at 100% and with an intensity that most other players are not accustomed to. In the end of this, a win is a win.

I watched Dashs games and never saw him cheat. He was fair and respectful and overall a nice guy.

The de player that lost to dash round 4 heckled dash the rest of the day. When dash won his award chris from round 4 yelled "boo, cheater". I thought that was in poor taste. Its a game.

Overall I respect both sides and liked the event. The TOs did a great job and dragging them into this is just sad.

thread locked for now, pending some tinkering.

I've opened the thread back up. Let's keep this calm, polite and about the tournament, please. I'm sure that there's much more news about the tournament than just DoP's games.

They ran out of Mississippi Mud on Sunday. :( I had a single beer on Saturday (one of the muds) and was going to indulge for another one on Sunday, but none were to be found!! It was horrifying. And the Captain was not in attendance.