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.

Okay then, iI've finally read all 4 of the battle reports.

It took me long enough, because I ended up reading all of the flaming and general arguing for the last 2 games. Anyways , first let me say that you have had an excellent series of battle reports so far. They've all been well photographed and nicely detailed, and I appreciate you taking the time to do all this, albeit the opposition of some of your opponents.

1: First off this is a tournament. Naturally people should be using the best possible list to they're ability. Claiming that someones list wasn't fun to play is a stupid reason to give someone a bad game score. This isn't a friendly casual game where it doesn't matter who wins, this a tournament where people are competing. Don't go to a tournament, especially a gt, if you're going to complain about how someones army isn't fun to play.

2. Conversions. As of right now, it's unfair to complain about the size of the model when there isn't an official one that can be used. As long as it is approved by the TO, its just fine.

3. Just because he did something that might have been wrong, doesn't mean you can do something thats wrong, and them complain that its his fault when that comes back to bite you.

4. Although certain things are allowed by the rules, it doesn't mean they should be done. I'm a huge supporter as RAI, and although pivoting is a free movement as said multiple times in the rulebook, I don't feel the rule was intended to be used like that. I would never call you out on that or accuse anyone of cheating if they did something like that, it's just something that I wouldn't do. As cheesy as some people might think it is, it's definitely a legal move, that people shouldn't get upset at.

5. I have noticed an increase in politeness on everyone's part. This is good, as people are much more likely to agree with you, or at least understand your point of view if your calling someone names.

Dashofpepper wrote:

Grimgob wrote:
Free Pivots are fine, Its the driving sidways thats abusive. If you pivot to face the way ur moving first (wich is the spirit of the rule, then another pivot is to adjust your facing for armour at the end of the move) there isnt a problem.

So my raider moves on 7" forward to go cruising speed, then pivots sideways. No part of my vehicle is more than 5" onto the board.

You then assault my raider, which has moved a grand total of 5", although a certain facing puts it at 7" if you rotate it in that facing - which is not rotated into that facing.

Do you need 4+ to hit, or 6+ to hit? I don't advocate an interpretation of the movement rule which never lets you move as much distance as you're trying to.

No you still moved 7" your pivot just made the hull 2" further from ur opponant. The center still moved the same distance (if from off the board, it still stops 7" from where it started) ur arguing placement not movement.

Dracos wrote:
All models are considered impassible terrain, that much is certain. So while you can't move onto the base or the physical model of a model, there is nothing preventing you from moving under one. The only rule here is the 1" rule, which is measured from the base to the hull or base. According to my understanding, as long as the model is physically able to move there, and its base stays more than 1" from your skimmers hull and base, its a legal move.

But that's the crux of it - My vehicle is on the table, and no other model - mine or his - are allowed to share space with it. The 1" rule is ignored for assaults; you just can't get into base with models you aren't assaulting.

If he could freely move under my vehicles since it isn't impassable - that would make my venoms unassaultable. He's move his models up to mine, but since I'm hovering off the ground, he couldn't actually put his base into contact with my hull - and since my vehicle is wider than the vehicle base, he could never get into base contact with my skimmer.

Infantry assaults base to base. Vehicles get assaulted base to model - thus if you reach the edge of the model, you're assaulting it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grimgob wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:

Grimgob wrote:
Free Pivots are fine, Its the driving sidways thats abusive. If you pivot to face the way ur moving first (wich is the spirit of the rule, then another pivot is to adjust your facing for armour at the end of the move) there isnt a problem.

So my raider moves on 7" forward to go cruising speed, then pivots sideways. No part of my vehicle is more than 5" onto the board.

You then assault my raider, which has moved a grand total of 5", although a certain facing puts it at 7" if you rotate it in that facing - which is not rotated into that facing.

Do you need 4+ to hit, or 6+ to hit? I don't advocate an interpretation of the movement rule which never lets you move as much distance as you're trying to.

No you still moved 7" your pivot just made the hull 2" further from ur opponant. The center still moved the same distance (if from off the board, it still stops 7" from where it started) ur arguing placement not movement.

Ah...but the center of my vehicle only moved 5" in that scenario. So you're saying that a 5" movement is a 7" movement if facing forward, and a 5" movement if facing sideways? The center of the vehicle is at 5" either way. Like I said; I don't buy into rules interpretations where pivoting can change you from cruising speed to combat speed. Measure 12" onto the table. Place your vehicle there. Pivot freely. However you want. With the center of the vehicle at 12", and a sideways pivot putting the whole vehicle at 12", a forward pivot gives you extra inches, but is consistent.

but if you started off the table and ur measuring from the tip of the front and the middle is 2" from the front then the middle being 5" off the table edge has moved 7" (because it took 2" just to get the middle of the model onto the table) = no free or lost moevment from the pivot. If you measure from the front or the model during the game and from the center of the model when you come onto the table it is not consistant, your using two different measuring points to gain an advantage when coming onto the board. I get the starting sideways for the extra movement but moveing onto the board is not OK.

Dashofpepper wrote:But that's the crux of it - My vehicle is on the table, and no other model - mine or his - are allowed to share space with it. The 1" rule is ignored for assaults; you just can't get into base with models you aren't assaulting.

If he could freely move under my vehicles since it isn't impassable - that would make my venoms unassaultable. He's move his models up to mine, but since I'm hovering off the ground, he couldn't actually put his base into contact with my hull - and since my vehicle is wider than the vehicle base, he could never get into base contact with my skimmer.

Infantry assaults base to base. Vehicles get assaulted base to model - thus if you reach the edge of the model, you're assaulting it.

Except skimmers specifically states you can assault the base as well as the hull. The game makes no abstraction that the area under a skimmer is occupied by the skimmer. In fact, by stating that you can assault a skimmer by moving in base with the hull or the base, we can infer that it is possible to move under a skimmer.

Great bat reps dash. Good descriptions of whats going on and pictures to back them up.

The assualt issue in game 4 was never an issue, you can't occupy the same space as the venom, so the assault can't happen.
On the venoms, I find it amazing that they were not questioned until after the fact, if I had a problem with them I'd have asked the relevant questions at the start of the game. It's the time to do it, not when you percieve that they are having an adverse effect on the game.
A lot of people seem to be going on about moving sideways and pivoting to gain extra movement. This can only be of benefit the first time the vehicle is moved, and it is completely legal anyway.

Couple of general comments, the terrain on those boards is a disgrace for a "GT" level tournament, and these reports more than anything show why soft scores are a joke.

I joined Dakka to get more advice about using my DE list, so I'll be following your reports with interest

Kenny3760 wrote:
I joined Dakka to get more advice about using my DE list, so I'll be following your reports with interest

Welcome then!

I must strongly encourage you to check the link in my signature linking to my Advanced Tips on Beating Face With Dark Eldar. There are 2-3 links at the top of that post that have basic information (sample armies, what works together, why I've built things in certain ways) - you should read those too.

Dracos wrote:Yeah one thing that I find very hard to accept is the lack of terrain here. Such boards would be unacceptable to me for a tournament you had to travel and pay for. Although some sparse boards are okay, those should be a minority just like the boards with a little too much terrain.

Yeah, I have to agree with this. If you can't get the minimum 25% terrain on the board, you really don't have any business hosting a tournament, or you should reduce the tables until you have sufficient terrain for all the tables.

The first year Maul at the Mall existed, the lack of terrain was the single biggest complaint. Ever since then, they've done a great job of making sure there's enough terrain. I wish more tournaments tried that hard.

Saldiven wrote:

Yeah, I have to agree with this. If you can't get the minimum 25% terrain on the board, you really don't have any business hosting a tournament, or you should reduce the tables until you have sufficient terrain for all the tables.

And some LOS blocking pieces, at least one per table. .5" hills don't count. It is reasonable for a land raider to be able to 100% hide behind terrain unless you really want to shift the meta of the event to shooty gunlines...

Boxes with windows drawn on with a marker might have been better.

I feel one of the number one goals of a tourney should be good and fair terrain consistant via the whole event.

Here is an alternate explanation for moving 7" onto the board.

the raider is "placed" edge on just off the table.

the raider pivots to move forward onto the table. In the process of pivoting 1" of the vehicle is now over the table.

the vehicle moves 6" (measured from the center of the vehicle to the center of the vehicle).

the front of the vehicle in now 7" onto the board, even though the center of said vehicle moved 6"



Pivoting and "gaining" movement is only applicable when you have invisible lines you can not cross. By placing the vehicle sideways you can place the center of your vehicle closer to that line, allowing the center of the vehicle to be a bit farther forward after you move.

It may not be the best thing ever, but any other solution is way too complicated to use.

Dashofpepper wrote: Measure 12" onto the table. Place your vehicle there. Pivot freely. However you want. With the center of the vehicle at 12", and a sideways pivot putting the whole vehicle at 12", a forward pivot gives you extra inches, but is consistent.

I'm actually on board with the whole pivoting thing except in this case.

How do you know what point of your vehicle is where when it isn't even on the board? It can't already have an orientation, as it's not in play. FAQs have been driving home the "nothing off the board is in a determinable state" since there's been FAQs.

By moving like that, you'd be claiming it was necessarily sideways off the board. Of course, you couldn't also say it was pointing forwards. It's just a cat in a box at that point.

In this particular case, moving in from off-board, no amount of pivoting should have you end up with a any part of a vehicle more than X" onto the board, where X was your speed. Pivoting only works when you have a determinable starting state, and this would be the only way to ensure that movement distances were correct.

I never understand why GW releases rules for a model, but then doesn't have a model for it. If they did then you wouldn't have had such a rumble over something as petty as this.

I actually agree that your "venom" models should not have been allowed by the TO, but they did allow them so it should be a non issue.

I realize there is no model for them but your venoms are obviously raider sized, and the venom is mentioned as being smaller than a raider.

I know fluff doesn't interpret rules but technically there is no swarmlord model and if someone put a termagant on a MC base and gave it 4 swords it would be pretty lame. I realize its not quite that bad since a raider is closer to twice the size of a venom and a termagant is closer to 1/4th the size of swarmlord most likely but there is a size difference.

Considering most dark eldar vehicles are tissue the extra size kinda does hurt even though you gain extra 'pivot' movement and shooting distance. I think its only like 2" extra shooting distance however so was most likely a non factor the vast majority of the time.


In the end you are definitely not a cheater and the fact that TOs allowed to you use them is not your fault.

I really enjoy reading your battle reports, and overall as I am a non factor in this discussion/tournament I would like to state I think you handled your battle report well and it was written in an seemingly unbiased fashion

as soon as your 1" of nose is on the table you have entered play 1" as it is part of the hull. and I agree with darkness. the pivot works for an extra sumpin sumpin first turn ala rulesloophole but reserves coming onto the board it (through dashes example) does not. Sorry Dash not trying to get OT but they closed the other thread. Ill stop now . On the Venoms, the TO allowed them, thay were the same size the whole game, and his opponant should have adjusted his game play to them. Crying foul on that is being a sore looser. edited to add to topic of thread.

The problem with double long and extra wide venoms is that you can disembark off far more spots when wrecked, which can and will save you from follow-up charges on a more frequent basis. I don't think Dash was looking for any advantages necessarily, so much as chopping bits off his old raiders to more affordably field venoms. When Dash asked me about using them at the NOVA, my simple suggestion was to have at least a couple of built "actual" Venoms by that time; that way, when something wrecked or whatever, he could replace the model using the same stand/axis, and properly disembark, or check LOS, or whatever, but not have to buy 9 new models.

If anything, sharing just b/c for anyone doing counts-as, nothing is more helpful or easy-resolve in case of a competitive / close game than having the actual model in your bag/box somewhere, to sub in for all appropriate measurements on demand.

Yeah, great idea, MVBrandt.

Nah I think venom spam DE players needs to buy ALL their venoms for any major tournaments after its release. No proxying... even if it meant fully painting them 2-3 days before the event. If you dont wanna paint 8-9 venoms, then dont run venom spam, go with a mix venom/raider list that is just as competitive. WYSIWYG

Great report as always Dash.

MVBrandt wrote:...my simple suggestion was to have at least a couple of built "actual" Venoms by that time; that way, when something wrecked or whatever, he could replace the model using the same stand/axis, and properly disembark, or check LOS, or whatever, but not have to buy 9 new models

Of course this leads to the issue that a venom may not be in range of anti tank weapons but the original raider was...does this mean those shots were really out of range. how about cover? If he has the disadvantage of the raiders he should get the advantages.

SonsofVulkan wrote:Nah I think venom spam DE players needs to buy ALL their venoms for any major tournaments after its release. No proxying... even if it meant fully painting them 2-3 days before the event. If you dont wanna paint 8-9 venoms, then dont run venom spam, go with a mix venom/raider list that is just as competitive. WYSIWYG

So the venoms that I have converted from raiders by shortening them by about 2" and mounting the splinter cannons under the chassis should now be thrown in the bin and I need to shell out about £110 for new ones. They are suitably sized, easily identifiable as not being raiders, look the part and are not modelled for advantage. It's part of the hobby and completely allowable, I know I'll be continuing to use them.

Kenny3760 wrote: So the venoms that I have converted from raiders by shortening them by about 2" and mounting the splinter cannons under the chassis should now be thrown in the bin and I need to shell out about £110 for new ones. They are suitably sized, easily identifiable as not being raiders, look the part and are not modelled for advantage. It's part of the hobby and completely allowable, I know I'll be continuing to use them.

No one is stopping you from doing so at your FLGS or whatever. But if your going to a WYSIWYG tournament... you gonna have call the TO and maybe they will approve. If they dont approve, then I guess you wont be attending or have to switch to another army. You gotta understand that the GW made venoms are geometrically different from raiders, not only in terms of length but also height, width and etc which can all affect gameplay.

Why all the natter about the venoms? TO approved, game took place already.

Assuming it happens the way Dash reported it, I know see why his score was chipmonked in game 4, especially with the venom runn underneath to assualt and judges ruled against him....and then his opponent accused him of cheating.

DarknessEternal wrote:Why all the natter about the venoms? TO approved, game took place already.

I agree. There was no official models yet. If there wasn't a model for a rhino and I scratch built one, and it was approved by the TO, you could take your whining all the way out of the tournament, as far as I'm (and most of the other posters) are concerned.

While I'm not sure that the TOs made the right call there, once they made their decision it's a completely moot point.

Great reports as always. I've spent way too much time this weekend reading these Alamo reports.

I'm absolutely shocked that this crapfest is what passes for a GT. Never having been to a GT myself I would expect a tournament with enough good terrain, the sparse poorly constructed terrain here was a joke. I'd also expect the organizers to have their together, announcing winners and then going back afterward and announcing new winners is the height of amateurism.

I pray that if I ever make it to a GT that my experience will be far different than what I've read about and seen in pictures here.

It's also sad to see people QQing about facing a great list in a GT. This is a major tournament and the purpose of coming there and paying to play is to win. What the do you expect? Why didn't the TOs throw out the guys heckling and yelling "Cheater" at the final table? That shouldn't be allowed to happen and the hooligans who act that way should have been kicked out of the tourney for carrying on like that. I've never been to a GT but in the small tourneys I've played in, if somebody starts acting like that they get tossed.

Augustus; terrain is one of those things that you should go to an event expecting to be poor and be pleasantly surprised if it isn't.

Out of my three armies, necrons take mobile BLOS terrain with them, Orks take 4+ cover with them everywhere, and Dark Eldar have 5++ invulnerable saves on everything. I make it a point of making table terrain irrelevant to me.

I'm just a little surprised that weak terrain is something to expect. We don't have a really big 40k scene here in St. Louis, but the two shops I've played at both have a lot of tables and a lot of really nice terrain on hand. Of course other than playing in small-fry tourneys here and a couple of RTT's back when we had a GW store in town, I haven't been exposed to the greater tourney scene. I'm hoping to make it out to Adepticon next year, as it's not to far to drive.

Anyway cheers again on the win. I'm off to read part five.

augustus5 wrote:It's also sad to see people QQing about facing a great list in a GT. This is a major tournament and the purpose of coming there and paying to play is to win. What the do you expect? Why didn't the TOs throw out the guys heckling and yelling "Cheater" at the final table? That shouldn't be allowed to happen and the hooligans who act that way should have been kicked out of the tourney for carrying on like that. I've never been to a GT but in the small tourneys I've played in, if somebody starts acting like that they get tossed.

I couldn't have said this better myself. There were two or three players ejected from my club in Kansas City and perma-banned for behavior. More tourneys should take this stance.

Rum for the Rum God!

Dashofpepper wrote:Out of my three armies, necrons take mobile BLOS terrain with them, Orks take 4+ cover with them everywhere, and Dark Eldar have 5++ invulnerable saves on everything. I make it a point of making table terrain irrelevant to me.

This is very good advice.

I'd also say that having a lot of things in Drop Pods negate the issue of requiring a cover save/LOS blocking pretty well too.