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.

Dash, you are blowing some of the details up. I'm not mad anymore but I don't like how you are distorting some of the things that happened.

Couple of things. kingsley did come over and talk to me about the game with you. He said, "Wow that was the most bs army I've ever seen." I asked what the guy brought. He told me about the list and I said, "Oh ok. Well I know how to fight that." But at no point did we "scheme" or anything to fight you. I have been playing DE since november so I did not need a tactics discussion or anything.

David is right, we are not friends but aquintences. he lives in Houston, and me in Austin and we hangout a few times a year. When I talked to him during your guys game, it was about wishing him luck and such.

And I would like to point out, I did make a scene at your game 5 but only cause you were pulling some crap with david and it made me angry that you were trying to cheat him to. That was the only reason I spoke up. Other than that I stayed quiet and I think you can attest to that.

Your getting new venoms which is cool. They didn't bother me so much in our game until the denied charge. As I stated during the game, with a normal model I would have been able to assault around it but since it was so long I couldn't and that's what the judges had us dice off on. I still think I should have been able to assault your trueborn the other way cause I could touch your base without touching the venom.

For instance, a good friend of mine once told me, "Your too good to use that tactic, don't resort to it." This was referencing the pivot-vehicle move to gain extra inches. And I hold to that, I don't use it because it's cheesy and not fun for your opponnent. Regardless of the disadvantages of having the longer frame for your venoms it's still kinda cheesy gaining appox. 4-5 inches total for your dismounted blasters and splinter cannons. It does add up like has been stated already. Your bit about not being able to hide, sure it's harder but let's be honest, there was no real hiding vehicles on that board we played on.

But anyways, it's behind us now. I should be in dallas for akon and will def be at wargamescon. I hope you can take some of these criticisms and try not to use these little things that have been discussed in all these threads to try and win.

Edit: I will also say this about the pivot thing....Dash measured very accurately when doing it....haha

If you measure fire from the tip of the hull then it's a pretty big advantage since you gain range by this pivot crap and then again by the large size of the vehcile. It gives a short/medium range weapon a much greater threat range.

At tournaments like this vehicles don't often gain cover saves from terrain (since the premium terrain is spread out over many tables), they gain it from hiding behind other vehicles or moving flat out.

Continuing to harp on the fact that 'the giant vemons are a disad' isn't going to fly.

Let's be clear though - dash had this dude out listed from the jump. There were very few possible futures where this dude was going to win. Further proving the point that these 'tactics' aren't required.

blood angel wrote:If you measure fire from the tip of the hull then it's a pretty big advantage since you gain range by this pivot crap and then again by the large size of the vehcile. It gives a short/medium range weapon a much greater threat range.

I hear what you're saying - and I'm telling you that it was irrelevant. I understand the hypothetical advantages of a longer venom. I do.

blood angel wrote:
At tournaments like this vehicles don't often gain cover saves from terrain (since the premium terrain is spread out over many tables), they gain it from hiding behind other vehicles or moving flat out.

And again - I understand what you're saying, and am saying that it isn't relevant. Not once in five games at the Alamo did one of my vehicles take a cover save from being behind another vehicle. While a larger venom could hypothetically give cover where it shouldn't....it didn't.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Caldera02 wrote:Dash, you are blowing some of the details up. I'm not mad anymore but I don't like how you are distorting some of the things that happened.

Couple of things. kingsley did come over and talk to me about the game with you. He said, "Wow that was the most bs army I've ever seen." I asked what the guy brought. He told me about the list and I said, "Oh ok. Well I know how to fight that." But at no point did we "scheme" or anything to fight you. I have been playing DE since november so I did not need a tactics discussion or anything.

I didn't say that you were scheming, and wouldn't care if you did. I said that he briefed you on how I play and what to prioritize for targets - which is precisely what you told me he did.

wrong, again strecthing what happened to try and put yourself in a favorable light. When Kingsley and I spoke, it was what was in your list. that was it. So when I got to our table I mentioned Yea a friend of mine mentioned whats in your list. How in the world is that remotely, he told me how to beat you?

Caldera02 wrote:wrong, again strecthing what happened to try and put yourself in a favorable light. When Kingsley and I spoke, it was what was in your list. that was it. So when I got to our table I mentioned Yea a friend of mine mentioned whats in your list. How in the world is that remotely, he told me how to beat you?

I'm not sure that you and I even speak the same version of English.

This is the exact kind of thing I was talking about in the Alamo thread. You could cut out the drama by using my stock reply.

Dashofpepper should have wrote:
Caldera02, thank you for our game at the Alamo GT. In the interest of a civil dialogue, I will post how I remember the game in the "Dashofpepper's Darklight Storm at the Alamo GT: Game Four" Battle Report Thread. I apologize if there were any misunderstandings which reduced your enjoyment of our game and would be happy to discuss any specific points in person when next we are at a GT together.

I like the Dark Eldar list, it is very effective. I do not like the choice of models, though. You should be able to win your games without cheap tricks such as those 'venoms', and the thread has certainly noted that.

Moving sideways and then pivoting, having larger vehicles than the official model, and mounting all the vehicle weapons on the prow, if you only did one of those things, it is quite excusable. All three, though, and one can only assume that you know what you're doing is subject to controversy.

Great battle reports, though, the pictures of each turn are very thorough. I would prefer a more objective approach to the reports for games 4 and 5, though. You drop subtle statements that force your opponents to defend themselves, and it's unnecessary and confrontational.

Caldera02 wrote:wrong, again strecthing what happened to try and put yourself in a favorable light. When Kingsley and I spoke, it was what was in your list. that was it. So when I got to our table I mentioned Yea a friend of mine mentioned whats in your list. How in the world is that remotely, he told me how to beat you?

What are you trying to defend yourself against? No one in this thread has insinuated any unacceptable tournament behavior on that front.

Sucks your game 3 opponent was a sore loser :(

Oaka wrote:I like the Dark Eldar list, it is very effective. I do not like the choice of models, though. You should be able to win your games without cheap tricks such as those 'venoms', and the thread has certainly noted that.

Moving sideways and then pivoting, having larger vehicles than the official model, and mounting all the vehicle weapons on the prow, if you only did one of those things, it is quite excusable. All three, though, and one can only assume that you know what you're doing is subject to controversy.

Great battle reports, though, the pictures of each turn are very thorough. I would prefer a more objective approach to the reports for games 4 and 5, though. You drop subtle statements that force your opponents to defend themselves, and it's unnecessary and confrontational.

My battle reports have always been a running dialogue of what I'm thinking as the game goes by - often times noting that I'm not sure if something was legal or not as an invitation for someone reading to pipe in. I will say this: The venoms were approved conversions. Get over it. Four pages on this thread, four separate topics, three of them in battle reports (soon to be five) and its getting tiresome to see ALL of them focusing on whether or not random people who didn't attend approve of my venoms. Until I have my pre-ordered venoms, these are it. Another 5 pages worth of "I don't approve of your venoms" is quite redundant and unnecessary.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Oaka wrote:
Moving sideways and then pivoting,

Is quite legal. Whether you move forward and pivot at the end, pivot halfway through, spin a 360 and pivot some more is irrelevant. Both of us did it - because it is legal. There's even a linked thread in YMDC for you to go talk about it in.

Oaka wrote:
having larger vehicles than the official model

In quite a disadvantage in this situation, as has been outlined in depth.

Oaka wrote:
and mounting all the vehicle weapons on the prow

Guess where weaponry goes on Dark Eldar vehicles? Yes, this is starting to sound hostile - because I consider your post hostile.

Oaka wrote:
if you only did one of those things, it is quite excusable.

Actually, all three is quite excusable. #1 is the rules, plain and simple. #2 is more disadvantageous than not, and an approved conversion. #3 is following the convention of weaponry on DE vehicles.

Hostile and redundant.

Dashofpepper wrote:
Hostile and redundant.

Believe me I'm not trying to be hostile, I'm just echoing the majority, hence the redundancy. What you seem to crave is a tournament where every participant is like you, with a full grasp of the rules and an army build to suit. That tournament does not exist. You will find that person in the last round of every major tournament, someone who has decimated their opponents just like you have.

Since I joined Dakka, I have read posts from players intent on winning. Mauleed, then Stelek, and now Dash. You were all amazing generals, and never lost a tournament. I look up to your advice when it comes to army builds, but I refuse to use rulebook tricks that the average gamer is not aware of.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dashofpepper wrote:

Oaka wrote:
and mounting all the vehicle weapons on the prow

Guess where weaponry goes on Dark Eldar vehicles? Yes, this is starting to sound hostile - because I consider your post hostile.

Official Model:


Your Model:


Both your splinter cannon mounts are a good 2-3" forward than the official model. Combine that with a longer model and the free pivot, and you get an extra 6" range with your models, easy.

That official model is not yet a model. It will be a model in the near future. I modeled those splinter cannons where the weapons go on every Dark Eldar vehicle as of NOW. When new vehicles come out that have a different representation of a Venom, I'll get them. I already have them ordered.

But in the meantime, the only egg that counts is the one where you get TO approval for conversions. Which I did. You're echoing the majority in *this* thread, which is not a majority - there's been plenty said in the Alamo GT thread in tournament discussion - pretty much along the same lines. No guidance provided, TO approval of conversions, both boxes checked.

Individuals voicing disapproval based around theoretical POTENTIAL advantages...I put no stock in. Mountains get made out of molehills all the time.

I don't know if this will make it through the sea of hate but here goes...

Hey dash, first off I want to thank you for resuming your battle reports as they always give me insight on how to handle the tougher lists (or in this case, how not to)

In saying that, I'm thinking of starting a DE army soon and am wondering how useful the flickerfields are to your vehicles survivability? I ask this because I'm wondering if it is worth it compared to getting some more infantry on the board.

Thank you in advance and I hope to meet you at NOVA

mythological wrote:I don't know if this will make it through the sea of hate but here goes...

Hey dash, first off I want to thank you for resuming your battle reports as they always give me insight on how to handle the tougher lists (or in this case, how not to)

In saying that, I'm thinking of starting a DE army soon and am wondering how useful the flickerfields are to your vehicles survivability? I ask this because I'm wondering if it is worth it compared to getting some more infantry on the board.

Thank you in advance and I hope to meet you at NOVA

If you roll statistically accurate, having flickerfields means that you have 33% more vehicles than you actually do. I think its definitely worth it! The first time that a dreadnought deep-strikes next to a ravager and drops a melta-gun into your rear armour and you make a 5+ invulnerable save, you'll never leave home without them again. Or when you move 12" and get assaulted by a unit with a powerfist - and after 6+ to hit, he gets one hit...and one penetrate...and you make your flickerfield save.

Its a 33% chance shot, it costs 10 points, and I look at it like this - 3-4 flickerfields is worth a new vehicle and cheaper.

You make some good points and I think that I will put them on my Ravagers, but I don't think that they are worth in on raiders (won't really have them in my list, running a lot of venoms) as IMHO you should be moving those raiders flat out (with wyches) until disembarking

Oaka wrote:
Both your splinter cannon mounts are a good 2-3" forward than the official model. Combine that with a longer model and the free pivot, and you get an extra 6" range with your models, easy.

Vypers are only 3.5 inches long, so that's an exaggeration.

Ans also, they were approved for use. What more do you want? To go back in time and make them not approved? Good luck with that.

Dash, I really enjoyed the report, but I wish you would leave out all the comments of "this tree had no leaves but I let him have cover anyway" or "he had to have moved too far but I let him have it anyway" ad nauseum.

Just report the game, don't nitpick in hindsight every move of your opponent's and none of your own.

Other than that, I really enjoyed the report, especially all the pics. However, the comments you're making make me wonder if I'd be comfortable having you take pics / write a report of my playing a game against you...

Unrelated to that, I like your list and army, and am actually considering Dark Eldar... so I look forward to your reports for the final 2 games, and will go back and read the first 2. The in-game parts only, that is...

As everyone is defending Dash's models as being within the rules of the tournament, I'd like to point out Kings' bad game vote was completely within the rules and not an example of being a sore loser. This is from the Alamo website (emphasis mine):

"Sportsmanship is about having a good game. There are a thousand things that can make a game good or bad, and no one can list them all. It is very hard to determine how good or how bad a game was. It's very subjective and different to everyone. However, it is easy to tell if a game was good or bad and pretty much everyone can agree on it, so for the Alamo GT, sportsmanship will focus on if the game was good or bad."

He can do it for whatever reason he wants, and he didn't do it simply to hurt Dashs chances (which is what chipmunking is).

RiTides wrote:Dash, I really enjoyed the report, but I wish you would leave out all the comments of "this tree had no leaves but I let him have cover anyway" or "he had to have moved too far but I let him have it anyway" ad nauseum.

Just report the game, don't nitpick in hindsight every move of your opponent's and none of your own.

Other than that, I really enjoyed the report, especially all the pics. However, the comments you're making make me wonder if I'd be comfortable having you take pics / write a report of my playing a game against you...

Unrelated to that, I like your list and army, and am actually considering Dark Eldar... so I look forward to your reports for the final 2 games, and will go back and read the first 2. The in-game parts only, that is...

I *write* those comments because they are relevant - to the scoring of the GT. They were rules/cover/talks/discussions that we *HAD* during the game, and I believe it relevant to bring up that I gave him the advantage in every instance. I *will* write about it, because it is directly relevant to the game, the decisions that I made and where I chose to shoot based on those conversations, and the extraneous conversations that happen where people postulate that I must get bad sportsmanship scores because I am a jerk to my opponents.

I will *continue* to write about them for *THIS* GT because it is extremely relevant. I've never written about them before because I've never had sportsmanship issues before.

So... How long will it be before you start to regret writting bat reps again because of the drama they cause?

Also, your DE battle Reports are not visible in your signature. You need to remove a line somewhere.



On your list:


While DE are tough and your list is good, It is not really the worst cheese fest net list I have ever seen.

Were there no Space Wolves with 15+ ML?
Were there no Mech Vet/Leaf Blower lists?
Were there no BA lists with a ton of Razorbacks?

svendrex wrote:So... How long will it be before you start to regret writting bat reps again because of the drama they cause?

Maybe he can just get the thread's locked right away or something. There's half a dozen people who put up really useful battle reports, and he's one of em.

I know. I really like his Battle Reports. They were some of the first things I read on this site, and were part of the reason I joined in the first place.

I for one am highly amused by the comments. I've never seen so many people who weren't present at an event freaking out to defend their net heroes. Y'all need to turn this into a regular column.

Looking forward to seeing how the next battle rep comes out.

Dash wrote: I've never written about them before...

And I enjoyed those more :-/

However, as I said, the pics and tactics are fantastic... so I will definitely read your first two games. Not so sure I want to wade through all of the chaff in the last two, though... you still have the choice to leave out the off-the-field (or board, in this case) issues, and stick to the events of the game on the tabletop.

RiTides wrote:

Dash wrote: I've never written about them before...

And I enjoyed those more :-/

However, as I said, the pics and tactics are fantastic... so I will definitely read your first two games. Not so sure I want to wade through all of the chaff in the last two, though... you still have the choice to leave out the off-the-field (or board, in this case) issues, and stick to the events of the game on the tabletop.

I understand - I'm taking a lot of flak from a lot of angles - all of it repetitive, most of it irrelevant - and I'm putting out fires.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Krisken wrote:I for one am highly amused by the comments. I've never seen so many people who weren't present at an event freaking out to defend their net heroes. Y'all need to turn this into a regular column.

Looking forward to seeing how the next battle rep comes out.

Presumably you also haven't seen so many people who weren't present at an event feel the need to override TO rulings to weigh in with their opinions either?

Dashofpepper wrote:

Krisken wrote:I for one am highly amused by the comments. I've never seen so many people who weren't present at an event freaking out to defend their net heroes. Y'all need to turn this into a regular column.

Looking forward to seeing how the next battle rep comes out.

Presumably you also haven't seen so many people who weren't present at an event feel the need to override TO rulings to weigh in with their opinions either?

What can I say? If I had read those posts most recent, I would have laughed at them first. As it stands we have two sets of points of view and then a whole slew of peanut gallery experts making assumptions they couldn't possibly back up.

Like all things, I tend to find the truth is somewhere in the middle.

I like peanuts!

Dashofpepper wrote:I like peanuts!

The only peanut I want to see talking is Mr. Peanut.

I am enjoying the battle reports, by the way!

Krisken wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:I like peanuts!

The only peanut I want to see talking is Mr. Peanut.

I am enjoying the battle reports, by the way!

And interestingly, my wife and I have been having a House marathon while I've been writing them. o.O Coincidence? Government plot?

Dashofpepper wrote:

RiTides wrote:

Dash wrote: I've never written about them before...

And I enjoyed those more :-/

However, as I said, the pics and tactics are fantastic... so I will definitely read your first two games. Not so sure I want to wade through all of the chaff in the last two, though... you still have the choice to leave out the off-the-field (or board, in this case) issues, and stick to the events of the game on the tabletop.

I understand - I'm taking a lot of flak from a lot of angles - all of it repetitive, most of it irrelevant - and I'm putting out fires.

Here's the problem Dash... Myself and others have given you advice on how to avoid the e-drama and you continue to do the same things you've always done... Fan the flames. I love your BRs, but all the other gak is really unnecessary. Just this last page of this thread really puts into the question your statement that you have internet drama. It looks more like you thrive on it.

You still can be the better man, walk away from e-drama and build your reputation on your skill and battle reports. Alternatively, you can continue to fan the flames and cultivate your celebrity through drama and scandal. Choice is yours.