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.

RudeboyJefe wrote:

Hey first time poster. I've gone to the Alamo Fantasy tournament every year they've had it, and last years first 40k one. I've known the TO's for many many years. The way you score sportsmanship in their tournaments is not a good game vote or a bad game vote, you're given the option to give a bad game vote after the game and at the end of the tournament you then give out your best game vote. So just because he didn't get a bad game vote in the first 2 games doesn't mean he was given good sports scores.

That's not how sportsmanship scoring was done this year. Every game was voted "Good game" or "bad game." In addition, there were two extra checkboxes next to every player name on your scoresheet; one for "Fluffy" and one for "Best" where you cast one vote for the fluffiest army you played, and another for the "Best" game you had.

Dashofpepper wrote:

SonsofVulkan wrote:And its not like dash had a history of bad sportsmanship ratings. Kingsley your rating/reasonings(illogical it seems) had nothing to do with the next 2 guys Dash played. His game 4 opponent was friends with dash's final opponent, dash already got blackballed and had a target on his back and them sharing strats to beat dash. And to be honest, I'd probably do the samething, its just the nature of the beast.

And I dont like those raider-venoms either, hopefully dash use his necrons instead until the actual venoms are released.

Not quite - My game 4 opponent was actually buddies with Kingsley here, my game #3 opponent. Kingsley briefed my fourth round opponent on how I play, what to do, what to target, etc - should have been no surprises there.

Wow... and he has the audactiy to argue about your other negative game ratings. Then with the 4th opponent(his friend) being unrudely and calling you out in front of others during your final game?

daKing wrote:
Agreed, in this case I declared 'shooting phase' and the first thing I wanted to shoot was the passangers inside the storm. When he reminded me I couldn't I asked to disembark since I hadn't acturally done any shooting yet. He said no and I said okay. I don't even know why he mentioned it in his report besides to make me out to be a bad player...?

Not to go off topic and talk about strategy, but why did you not disembark the Scouts from the Speeder?

It looked like you were pretty close to that Ravager and you can assault effectively 9" out of the vehicle. Given it is an AV 10 open topped vehicle next to a pile of ravagers, you can assume it is dead next turn anyway. It seems like shooting and charging the ravager would have been a better strategy and if you just destroyed rather than exploded it you might have some cover to hide from splinter cannons...

Of course, you might have just forgot and meant to disembark, which happens!

pretre wrote:

realgenius wrote:

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

Typo? Aren't you only allowed two pieces of arcane wargear?

Umm. That's kind of important.

From the Alamo rules:

If illegal units or rules violations are found in a player's list, at a minimum, immediate correction of the Army List will be required. Tournament points may be deducted and award eligibility may be forfeited.

Of course, it doesn't really help that no one noticed it until after the fact.

RudeboyJefe wrote:
Hey first time poster. I've gone to the Alamo Fantasy tournament every year they've had it, and last years first 40k one. I've known the TO's for many many years. The way you score sportsmanship in their tournaments is not a good game vote or a bad game vote, you're given the option to give a bad game vote after the game and at the end of the tournament you then give out your best game vote. So just because he didn't get a bad game vote in the first 2 games doesn't mean he was given good sports scores.

Alamo IndyGT wrote:
After each game the players will have one question on the score sheet which asks, "Did your opponent's behavior and/or army selection honestly make this a bad game for you?" If someone receives a yes then they will have to give back some of those points given on credit.

At the end of the tournament everyone shall vote for their best opponent. The question will read, "I certify that ______ provided me with the best game of the weekend. His attitude and army selection were outstanding." As with bad game votes, the value of each best game vote goes up dramatically the more of them you get:

If thats the wording of the scoring, the thats terrible. That could mean ANYTHING from losing to an opponent to actual bad behavior. MAke a bad game for you? Really? Reminds me of the tournment of old, where my opponent hated my army, back in 3rd, because he didnt believe tyranids should concentrate that much on shooting ability.

These soft score tournies really need to start going away simply because you can lose a tourny on the whims of an opponent and not even know why. If lists were supposed to be fluffy the rules for list building would actually support that and not allow you to build a power list. Of course DE are known for being ruthless raiders so Dash's list would actually be perfectly fine in that respect.

canthatenuff wrote:

BIG POINT: I mentioned my disapproval for raiders as venoms, but this isn't necessarily advantageous to Dash. Venoms are smaller thus easier to hide, this is very important. He also would gain almost no movement from having a smaller model. If you disagree with this then your mind doesn't work correctly.

Untrue. Bigger venoms, being an open topped vehical, means he has more room to drop and assualt out of by a couple inches(ok maybe 1-2, not sure exactly the size difference). If for example he jetted everything folward and the marine player DS something behind him, he'd have a couple inches difference to move and assualt out of going back, or sideways.

Again, I understand the models arent out yet, but raider was a bad choice. But to say NO advantage is just, as you just said, your mind not working correctly.

blood angel wrote:
Gaining extra inches for assault armies is HUGE HUGE HUGE and if it appears that someone is going out of there way to abuse 'counts as rules' or taking what many consider as a liberal interpretation of how movement works then you, as a player, have to expect resentment.

There's a vast difference between hypothetical and actual. To start with, I wasn't playing an assault army. The list of disadvantages to larger venoms is longer than the list of advantages.

carmachu wrote:

canthatenuff wrote:

BIG POINT: I mentioned my disapproval for raiders as venoms, but this isn't necessarily advantageous to Dash. Venoms are smaller thus easier to hide, this is very important. He also would gain almost no movement from having a smaller model. If you disagree with this then your mind doesn't work correctly.

Untrue. Bigger venoms, being an open topped vehical, means he has more room to drop and assualt out of by a couple inches(ok maybe 1-2, not sure exactly the size difference). If for example he jetted everything folward and the marine player DS something behind him, he'd have a couple inches difference to move and assualt out of going back, or sideways.

Again, I understand the models arent out yet, but raider was a bad choice. But to say NO advantage is just, as you just said, your mind not working correctly.

Never said NO advantage, just said there is no movement advantage, which there really is not. He also doesn't assault with warrior or trueborn squads. Quit thinking in a vacuum and think about how the army works. Vyper models would have been more advantageous, it is that simple.

daKing wrote: (which was very frustrtating when he also blocked the path to get to his side of the table with his army tray).

My dice tray you mean - and its quite an easy thing to say, "Could you move that? I'd like to move over in that corner."

I do it all the time when people have a pile of dice or a codex, or odds and ends on the table where I'm about to move to.

C'mon.

Dashofpepper wrote:Kingsley briefed my fourth round opponent on how I play, what to do, what to target, etc - should have been no surprises there.

That's really no big deal. People talk about what should have/should be done all the time at tournaments. It's nature to do so to your friends first. I understand you didn't attach negative connotation to this action in your post, just using it as a talking point.

If this were being done during the actual game, well that's more an issue.

Also, am I the only one who still likes just battle report stuff in battle reports? Do sportsmanship scores at a local tournament really have anything to do with what went on during the battle?

Dashofpepper wrote:

daKing wrote: (which was very frustrtating when he also blocked the path to get to his side of the table with his army tray).

My dice tray you mean - and its quite an easy thing to say, "Could you move that? I'd like to move over in that corner."

I do it all the time when people have a pile of dice or a codex, or odds and ends on the table where I'm about to move to.

C'mon.

Were you playing some 12 kid who spent his parents money on the army or something? It just seems like these hysterics and lack of any attempt at understanding couldn't come from even a high schooler of any maturity.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DarknessEternal wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:Kingsley briefed my fourth round opponent on how I play, what to do, what to target, etc - should have been no surprises there.

That's really no big deal. People talk about what should have/should be done all the time at tournaments. It's nature to do so to your friends first. I understand you didn't attach negative connotation to this action in your post, just using it as a talking point.

If this were being done during the actual game, well that's more an issue.

Also, am I the only one who still likes just battle report stuff in battle reports? Do sportsmanship scores at a local tournament really have anything to do with what went on during the battle?

I'd say when you're doing a tournament report they do and when you see a player win all his battles and still lose it's better to know why.

Dashofpepper wrote:
There's a vast difference between hypothetical and actual. To start with, I wasn't playing an assault army. The list of disadvantages to larger venoms is longer than the list of advantages.

You know that. But the problem is you need to look at it from your opponents POV- he looks acorss the feild ata bunch of raiders and you've declared "they are all venoms" and might see it as something....funny business, desipte the fact the model is on prerelease at the moment.

You're not taking your opponent into account- a really cool conversion that might be slightly bigger then the model? People can take it as they see how much work you put into it. Venoms as raiders with the back pionty things ripped off? Looks bad.

SonsofVulkan wrote:And its not like dash had a history of bad sportsmanship ratings. Kingsley your rating/reasonings(illogical it seems) had nothing to do with the next 2 guys Dash played. His game 4 opponent was friends with the final opponent, dash already got blackballed and had a target on his back and them sharing strats to beat dash. And to be honest, I'd probably do the samething, its just the nature of the beast.

And I dont like those raider-venoms either, legal as they were but it really can leave a bad taste with your opponent. Hopefully dash use his necrons instead until the actual venoms are released.

I mean no disrespect to Chris here (game 4 opponent) but calling him and I friends would be like calling the backup catcher for the yankees and the best pinch hitter on the reds friends.

We know each other, we run into each other at events, and we get along just fine. If we saw each other more than 2-3 times a year we'd probably be friends. Otherwise, we're acquaintances.

We get along just fine, I've gone out to dinner after tournaments with him before and enjoyed it.


But in this particular tournament we didn't talk very much beyond the traditional hello's and good lucks.

Until after my 5th round game had started I didn't know who had played Dash in the 4th round (or even who I was playing in the 5th). My weekend had been a little more rough than most of the others.

I arrived to the tournament and immediately got a flat tire. I'm stuck 4 hours from home without a drivable vehicle, and only the hours of the tournament saturday to get it fixed (stores closed sunday).

After my fourth round game sunday morning (against a player from my local store who I am great friends with, and who's hotel room I crashed in for the weekend) and got exceptionally lucky to get the win (instead of draw), all I wanted to do was go eat lunch. For the first time that weekend things were getting calmed down and back to normal.

So the idea that I got together with my friends to discuss how to beat Dash, or that someone told me to dislike him or to blackball bad game vote him is both incorrect and disparaging towards me.

I'll ask people to not take guesses as to my actions or motivations. I'll wait for Dash to get to the game 5 battle rep and respond directly to it.

Foreigner wrote:<snip>

Sounds a lot like you had a bad few days, got beaten and QQ'ed so far, but we'll wait and see I suppose.

Ohh come on now, that was unecessaary Norade and requires a ton of speculation about a situation no one knows anything about!

That sucks about the tire, you didn't have a spare on hand? I always carry a pump that plugs into the cigarette lighter for that reason, you can often fill it up and drive a bit if you have to.

Norade wrote:

Foreigner wrote:<snip>

Sounds a lot like you had a bad few days, got beaten and QQ'ed so far, but we'll wait and see I suppose.

I was there and he was a good sport about the whole thing, given the extremity of the situation.

I just wish they (Dash / Foreigner) had been given time to complete the 5th game.

That was my bad, got the 4th guy mixed up with you, it should be with the 3rd guy.

And sharing tactics before the game is perfectly fine, no complain about that. The point was that kingsley is trying to say that he wasnt the only one giving Dash a bad score and thus Dash should be considered a bad sportsman...

Its like going to a randomn FLGS for a tournament, 2 of the players there absolutely hate my guts and the 5 other players present are good friends of theirs. And I know no one except those 2 guys that hates my guts, and I end the day beating all my opponents. But then I got horrendous sportsmanship scores... am I surprise? no....

Its just the nature of the beast. And isnt one of the guy that gave Dash a negative score a TO at wargamescon? Good thing there is no sportsmanship scores at warsgamecon....

daKing wrote:Mech guard are one of my armies but I don't play them anymore because everytime I took them to a tournament (win or lose) I knew my opponenet wasn't having any fun. REally took the taste of victory out of my mounth.

This mentality drives me insane. You assume that bringing a SOFT list makes for a fun game. Do you think your opponent, who brought an optimized list, had fun absolutely crushing your soft list where he really had no chance of losing? I doubt he'd look back and say that game was fun (other than getting max points and helping him in the tournament, so crushing a soft list has some level of "fun"). I personally find it a waste of my hundreds of dollars in travel money to play someone who brings a crap list to a tournament. I don't get upset, because I'm getting max points, but I definitely don't find the game fun, because the conclusion is fairly obvious, simply by virtue of the lists involved.

If you took your "hard" mech vet and meet up against another hard list, then the game should be pretty interesting, as you're both on a level playing field. So the question to ask yourself is "What am I more likely to see at a tournament? An optimized list or a soft list? If you can't answer this question, then really there's nothing more to say. If you're looking to make sure you have a satisfying victory and that your opponent had fun, a good start might be to take an army that gives him a relatively level game (e.g. a more optimized list, as people GENERALLY bring optimized lists to tournaments).

I agree with that. I would rather play a balanced list and win instead of a list that I see hit the table and immediately feel like im going to be fighting an uphill battle to make the game not a complete disaster for my opponent.

Blowing someone off the table is not fun for most people, because they are going to struggle to make the game enjoyable.

canthatenuff wrote: He also doesn't assault with warrior or trueborn squads. Quit thinking in a vacuum and think about how the army works. Vyper models would have been more advantageous, it is that simple.

I'm not taking sides on the overall issue here, but I will with this statement. An obvious tactical advantage to the longer Raider's pivot would be to allow the disembarking Trueborns a longer reach for their blasters. A tactic which has been used predominantly in the first 3 games as a sort of suicide squad. A shorter transport would offer a disadvantage to this tactic. The difference between clipping a tank at near maximum range with the Trueborn and allowing that tank to fire again on the next turn could have been huge, depending on the tank.

Foreigner wrote:

I mean no disrespect to Chris here (game 4 opponent) but calling him and I friends would be like calling the backup catcher for the yankees and the best pinch hitter on the reds friends.

Yeah...I've tried pointing out that I'm talking about #3 and #4, not #4 and #5.

*sigh*

Can we just get some Dash Battle reports without eRaging and QQ'ing? Seriously?

carmachu wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:
There's a vast difference between hypothetical and actual. To start with, I wasn't playing an assault army. The list of disadvantages to larger venoms is longer than the list of advantages.

You know that. But the problem is you need to look at it from your opponents POV- he looks acorss the feild ata bunch of raiders and you've declared "they are all venoms" and might see it as something....funny business, desipte the fact the model is on prerelease at the moment.

You're not taking your opponent into account- a really cool conversion that might be slightly bigger then the model? People can take it as they see how much work you put into it. Venoms as raiders with the back pionty things ripped off? Looks bad.

The thing is...no one had a problem with them or with me using them. Until they lost and were looking for a reason to gripe. None of my opponents said, "Those venoms are too big and Dash exploited that fact by....." It's just "Those are too big, and I consider it cheating." As I said - there are more disadvantages than advantages; mainly along the lines of not being able to get cover, hogging space behind terrain, taking up extra front row seats in my deployment zone, and being much easier to smack with templates.

There are two possible advantages: Move and pivot for extra inches to get units out front and into the action, and a wreck result from a unit at the head or tail or the transport, where the unit disembarks out of the opposite end. Those 3rd Edition raiders are longer than venoms, but venoms are just as wide or wider than third edition raiders due to the wings - and the only time it came up (Game 5) was a side-shot wreck that wouldn't have fit into that category.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

DarthDiggler wrote:

I'm not taking sides on the overall issue here, but I will with this statement. An obvious tactical advantage to the longer Raider's pivot would be to allow the disembarking Trueborns a longer reach for their blasters. A tactic which has been used predominantly in the first 3 games as a sort of suicide squad.

My trueborn are *never* suicide squads. However, if they fail to do their job, they deserve what happens to them.

Dashofpepper wrote:
The thing is...no one had a problem with them or with me using them. Until they lost and were looking for a reason to gripe. None of my opponents said, "Those venoms are too big and Dash exploited that fact by....." It's just "Those are too big, and I consider it cheating." As I said - there are more disadvantages than advantages; mainly along the lines of not being able to get cover, hogging space behind terrain, taking up extra front row seats in my deployment zone, and being much easier to smack with templates.

There are two possible advantages: Move and pivot for extra inches to get units out front and into the action, and a wreck result from a unit at the head or tail or the transport, where the unit disembarks out of the opposite end. Those 3rd Edition raiders are longer than venoms, but venoms are just as wide or wider than third edition raiders due to the wings - and the only time it came up (Game 5) was a side-shot wreck that wouldn't have fit into that category.

I'm not saying its a reason you should have gotten a poor sports. *I* were your opponent, just from reading report one where the list said venoms, and sawa whole bunch of raiders, it raises eyebrows. I had to go back and forth between pics and list to make sure I got it right.

Again, doesnt matter how many disadvantages you list, people will only see how little work done to them and a whole bunch of them. I wouldnt have a slight problem now with them. Bigger problems 6 months from now after the venoms were released and you still had the raiders. People generally dont see disadvantages.

Dashofpepper wrote:H
Dashofpepper Turn One:
All my vehicles roll onto the board 12" while the beasts move on 6". I've centered my movement onto the board around the middle of the board where he's deployed. All my vehicles have Night Vision, so I have a decent chance of getting some shots in, but I'm not expecting any particularly good results.


Much shooting later (and nightfight rerolls where needed) I've taken down six of ten tactical marines in the closest unit; he passes leadership; my beasts run forward a few inches.


Here's a shot of of the table as he's starting to deploy - I think my beasts ran 3-4".

Sarigar wrote:
Judging from the picture of your first movement phase, it seems clear you measured 12" from the edge of the board, place your 'Venom's sideways at the 12" mark, then pivot them at the end of their movement to face forward, gleaming an additional distance for weapon ranges and/or assault ranges. I won't get into a debate regarding the legality of it as I believe it to be a bit of a gray area; I can see it going both ways. However, when this tactic is compounded with having a larger model proxying and having both weapons at the very front of the model and it being night fight first turn, those extra inches could become important. By not firing one vehicle, that is 12 shots lost, which is not to be taken lightly.

Photoshop fun



I just cut out the lead "Raider/Venom" and place it behind itself twice to illustrate just how far it moved from the table edge to illustrate this better.

Dashofpepper wrote:
The thing is...no one had a problem with them or with me using them.

No one told you they had a problem with them.

Doesn't mean no one had a problem with them.

DarthDiggler wrote:

canthatenuff wrote: He also doesn't assault with warrior or trueborn squads. Quit thinking in a vacuum and think about how the army works. Vyper models would have been more advantageous, it is that simple.

I'm not taking sides on the overall issue here, but I will with this statement. An obvious tactical advantage to the longer Raider's pivot would be to allow the disembarking Trueborns a longer reach for their blasters. A tactic which has been used predominantly in the first 3 games as a sort of suicide squad. A shorter transport would offer a disadvantage to this tactic. The difference between clipping a tank at near maximum range with the Trueborn and allowing that tank to fire again on the next turn could have been huge, depending on the tank.

I'm sure dash could demonstrate in vassal the negligible difference in range that using a raider makes. If he really wanted to prove you wrong. At the most it gains him a few inches. Still doesn't make it more advantageous than having a vyper model.

As Dash said a vyper model grants him easier cover saves and has a smaller footprint. These are both important.

As far as this games goes, doesnt really matter if those venoms are raiders or converted vypers... that vanilla SM list was gonna go down hard regardless.

carmachu wrote:

Gorechild wrote:
To be fair to Dash, there is no way of him having the official Venom model yet, so people can't complain that he uses a "count's as". If he continued using the same models a few months after the Venom kit is on sale, then complaints about using an inappropriately sized model might be reasonable, but at the moment there isn't an official replacement.

While I wouldnt dock his sports score yet for having raiders as venoms(6 months after the release with the same models, yes), yes we can complain. Its not like he did a tone of work on them. From what I see, he ripped off the point stuff ion the back. Thats it. Thats not quite good enough.

And while there isnt an offical one, much like other folks that have to make do, there could have been more effort or if not, just play raiders fora while longer.

Again, wouldnt dock him for it yet, but no matter what claims of disadvanatage they might have, there will be clear advantages.

As has already been said, there are just as many drawbacks as there are advantages. Considering DoP wasn't using a combat based army, using his "venoms" rather than the yet-to-be-released venom or a vyper puts him at a disadvantage (as it is so much easier to draw LOS to). If he was using his wych cult army with these transports in 6 moths time, I believe you'd have reason to complain, but as it stands (in my view at least) he's done nothing wrong. If its okay with the TO then it shouldn't be disputed.

blood angel wrote:

Gorechild wrote:

blood angel wrote:Dash.. when you use shifty tactics like the modeling and the pivoting you are going to inspire harsh feelings.

Sad thing is that you are probably good enough to win without doing that crap but seem to prefer to continue to tarnish your rep.

This is nothing I haven't said to you face to face but when are you gonna get it, bro?

To be fair to Dash, there is no way of him having the official Venom model yet, so people can't complain that he uses a "count's as". If he continued using the same models a few months after the Venom kit is on sale, then complaints about using an inappropriately sized model might be reasonable, but at the moment there isn't an official replacement.

The whole pivot thing is perfectly legal, if people don't like it, it's not really his fault. If you didn't like the fact that beast can assault 12", it doesn't change the fact that it's allowed by the rules...this is exactly the same with pivoting a vehicle before or after you measure to move it, the rules say you can do it, so you can do it.

Your 'head in the sand mentality' is fine for one off games but it is NOT going to win a major tournament on a regular basis.

What you describe as 'perfectly legal' is a huge grey area that a lot of people do NOT consider perfectly legal.

As far as the 'counts as' argument goes there is a commonly accepted size for conversions out there and a full size raider is not one of them. Gaining extra inches for assault armies is HUGE HUGE HUGE and if it appears that someone is going out of there way to abuse 'counts as rules' or taking what many consider as a liberal interpretation of how movement works then you, as a player, have to expect resentment.

Again, if the TO accepted them as a reasonable "counts as" then there should be no disputing this. Gaining an inch or two with an assault army is an advantage (I wouldn't go as far as calling it HUGE HUGE HUGE though), but he wasn't using a close combat army, if you thing a unit of 5 warriors is good in assault then there is something wrong.

Warhammer 40,000 Rulebook: page 56 wrote:As vehicle models do not usually have a base, the normal rule for measuring distances to and from the base cannot be used. Instead, for distances involving vehicles, measure to or from their hull (ignore guns *snip* and other decorative elements). There is however a notable exception, a vehicles weaponry. When firing a vehicles weaponry ranges are measured from the muzzle of the firing weapon

Warhammer 40,000 Rulebook: page 57 wrote:Vehicles can turn any number of times as they move, just like any other model. Vehicles turn by pivoting on the spot about their centre-point, rather than "wheeling" round. Turning does not reduce the vehicles move

Warhammer 40,000 Rulebook: page 57 wrote:Pivoting on the spot alone does not count as moving

That is the sum total of what the rule book has to say on the matter, now (without wanting to derail this battle report into another one of the many YMDC style arguments on this exact matter) everything Dash does is permitted by these rules. Did he pivot about the centre of the model? Yes. did he measure from the hull? Yes.