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.

Man Dash, you keep running into arguments that end up degenerating fast. I hope you still like 40k after all that. It was exactly this kind of thing that frustrated me at Adepticon, it almost turned me off from the game entirely. Arguements are never fun no matter who is right. I hope your next GT is more enjoyable.

I'm reading somewhere that your list is illegal due to the gear on the haemy?

read the other battle reports for details. it wasn't a big deal imo

Illegal list in a tourney is still an illegal list in a tourney..

New user here. Dash, I greatly enjoyed reading the reports. Very well written with lots of nice pictures.

The drama was pretty amusing too. Especially all the complaints about your venoms. They were approved by the TO which really is the end of the story. What I find funny is that I proxied vypers as venoms when the book first came out and every opponent gave me MFA complaints and said that they were too small to carry 5 guys, so i built a couple of the half vyper + half raider things, which are now too big and I'll probably have to cut them down or I'll get MFA complaints again. Some people will complain about anything they can if they're on the losing end, long before they take an honest look at their own list, tactics, or even dice rolling (not that there's anything you can do about dice but occasionally they do decide that they don't want you to win, and laughing it off is about all you can do).

Anyway this caught my attention:

My beast unit moves onto the table in the trench system - I actually took one of my models and surfed it up the trench network to make sure that I could actually move up the trenches. I couldn't fit them all in the trench based on how many models I have, so I put as many as I could in one trench, scattered models across the space between the trenches in 2" coherency (including the Baron to keep him from having to roll DT), and put the rest in another trench.

It's my understanding that Jump Infantry can choose to move as regular infantry if they want to. So as long as the Baron is with your beasts he can hop off his skyboard and drag it behind him and not need to test for Dangerous Terrain. Also I think Baron's Master of the Skies still works for himself when he joins a non-Helion unit so he can re-roll dangerous terrain, and then he's got a shadow field so you'd need to roll Triple 1's for him to take a wound. Of course if you can avoid the risk you should, but it could be useful information in the future. Just my thoughts.

calypso2ts wrote:

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.

As an organizer and a player, I disagree. If your models provide you with disadvantageous over the GW model, it is your decision that has cost you and is kosher. If your model provides you with advantages over the GW model, that is advantageous modelling and unacceptable.

MVBrandt has it exactly right, and if Dash wants to do the same thing at Wargamescon in July, that will be acceptable - though I would prefer all the models being the correct size, as I'm an anti-drama junkie.

I was commenting on the idea of swapping models midgame for some actions and not others proposed by MVBrandt.

If my vehicle was in range to shoot in one phase by 1/2" but I am only allowed to disembark from a smaller footprint that is a bit bogus. By getting the advantages/disadvantage I mean if the TO clears it and you put it on the table, play with that model the whole time, don't swap them around for some actions and not others.

And I was saying as a TO, I would allow you to play with the big models with the understanding that you need smaller models to swap in when you are disembarking, being charged, or really at any point that your opponent wants the real model in play (and you as the player would have to inform your opponent of this). It's a compromise position that lets you use the models they have to the greatest degree possible without putting my event in the position of allowing advantageous modelling. The larger Venoms are clearly advantageous for good players; arguing otherwise is at best disingenuous.

Okay I think I understand you more clearly on this, I think selectively swapping them is bad form, but if it is going to be done for every relevant gaming action, then it makes sense. At least with flying bases the switch can be made with relative ease.

I'm really surprised that you were able to turn the battle around like that after getting so unlucky during the first few rounds - good job.

I look forward to seeing you using the new Venoms - I think that your paint scheme would look quite striking (with a bit more shading, anyway).