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.

 ImotekhTheStormlord wrote:
I have to ask, how did you manage to kill 10 warlocks in one phase of MS missiles? Isn't there a rule saying flyers can only fire 2 missiles per shooting phase?

You're right. I was not aware of that. First time I played the stormraven in 6th Ed.

My bad.

The 1st 2 volleys killed the majority of his warlocks due to them being so close together. He probably had 2-3 warlocks left by the time I fired my other 2 missiles.

Games like this happen. How a player responds to it can say a lot. Why didn't he split his bikes turn 5 to contest?

 hippesthippo wrote:
Games like this happen. How a player responds to it can say a lot. Why didn't he split his bikes turn 5 to contest?

He thought he had it. I don't think he had any idea that I was going to do what I was going to do.

Ahhh that's why you don't get greedy!

 Zagman wrote:

Shard is Rending and Flessbane and ID in challenges.

Celestial Lance(Iyanden) AP2, but Impact, so charge only.

SoulShrive(Iyanden) is AP2 and gains +1 Strength for every unsaved wound previously dealt starting at S3.

Looks to me like he is playing an Iyanden army, and then choosing from both lists for Remanents of Glory and Gifts of Asuryan, which is allowed(Although all following supplements have made them a replacement list). Iyanden doesn't affect his army at all, except for what Warlord Traits table he rolls upon and the Iyanden table is decidedly better.

One slight issue, using Iyanden also changes the Primaris power for Runes of Battle, which in this case is actually huge since Conceal is what gets you the 2+ cover save. As Iyanden aren't able to ally with standard Eldar the double FOC doesn't let you get around this either, so there is no way you can take all those weapons together.

Was surprising to see him roll on Divination so much/not roll on Telepathy at all. Rolling Invis would let the Council not have to worry about casting Conceal (and killing off Warlocks) and would mean the Paladins hit them on 5's. In a Deathstar vs Deathstar fight like this Halluncination or Dominate could easily turn the game, even Psychic Shriek is pretty scary when combined with Horrify from the Warlocks. I guess he was going for Misfortune, but I'm not sure it would have been any more game changing than some of the Telepathy powers, but there are way more useless powers for the Council on Divination. Foreboding/Perfect Timing are ok, but not great for the Council, Forewarning isn't much use, Precog is ok and Scriers Gaze is pointless for this army. Once he rolled Fortune early I would have probably gone for 1-2 rolls on Divination with the other two Seers, which gets you Prescience and a couple of chances to get Misfortune, then take Telepathy for the last one.

 jy2 wrote:

thanatos67 wrote:
Man i hope those GK make VENISON out of the deer council! GET IT? VENISON!...oh man.

I think the dreads could a a real pain for the eldar, this ones a tough call.

Oh, deer me.

That joke is just too fawny!

Here, let me give you a buck for your comedic skills.



I'm expecting a lot from my dreads, though those 4+ holo-fielded jink saves on his serpents are going to be darn tough to penetrate.

Looks like Grant caught YOU in the headlights this time JY .

Seriously though, rough dice game sir. Things coulda gone better for you is an understatement. I do like that grisley trophies reroll for warlocks, IMO makes them more reliable. I recently got a rematch of my ovesastar vs my friend and teammate Matt Defranza's seer council (basically the same as Grants) with double wraithknight. We played round 7 of NOVA and that was easily the toughest game I had all weekend.

Powerguy wrote:

 Zagman wrote:

Shard is Rending and Flessbane and ID in challenges.

Celestial Lance(Iyanden) AP2, but Impact, so charge only.

SoulShrive(Iyanden) is AP2 and gains +1 Strength for every unsaved wound previously dealt starting at S3.

Looks to me like he is playing an Iyanden army, and then choosing from both lists for Remanents of Glory and Gifts of Asuryan, which is allowed(Although all following supplements have made them a replacement list). Iyanden doesn't affect his army at all, except for what Warlord Traits table he rolls upon and the Iyanden table is decidedly better.

One slight issue, using Iyanden also changes the Primaris power for Runes of Battle, which in this case is actually huge since Conceal is what gets you the 2+ cover save. As Iyanden aren't able to ally with standard Eldar the double FOC doesn't let you get around this either, so there is no way you can take all those weapons together.

Was surprising to see him roll on Divination so much/not roll on Telepathy at all. Rolling Invis would let the Council not have to worry about casting Conceal (and killing off Warlocks) and would mean the Paladins hit them on 5's. In a Deathstar vs Deathstar fight like this Halluncination or Dominate could easily turn the game, even Psychic Shriek is pretty scary when combined with Horrify from the Warlocks. I guess he was going for Misfortune, but I'm not sure it would have been any more game changing than some of the Telepathy powers, but there are way more useless powers for the Council on Divination. Foreboding/Perfect Timing are ok, but not great for the Council, Forewarning isn't much use, Precog is ok and Scriers Gaze is pointless for this army. Once he rolled Fortune early I would have probably gone for 1-2 rolls on Divination with the other two Seers, which gets you Prescience and a couple of chances to get Misfortune, then take Telepathy for the last one.

Yeah, I was surprised as well. I guess he really wanted Misfortune. Invisibility is good, Psychic Shriek + Horrity would have been better, but the real winner would have been Hallucination. It was actually pretty exciting when he rolled. I believe he rolled on Rites of Fortune last. His first roll was Death Mission, which he swapped out for Guide. He then rolled for Death Mission again. I was pretty stoked because no Fortune. And then for his very last roll....Fortune.

thanatos67 wrote:

 jy2 wrote:

thanatos67 wrote:
Man i hope those GK make VENISON out of the deer council! GET IT? VENISON!...oh man.

I think the dreads could a a real pain for the eldar, this ones a tough call.

Oh, deer me.

That joke is just too fawny!

Here, let me give you a buck for your comedic skills.



I'm expecting a lot from my dreads, though those 4+ holo-fielded jink saves on his serpents are going to be darn tough to penetrate.

Looks like Grant caught YOU in the headlights this time JY .

Seriously though, rough dice game sir. Things coulda gone better for you is an understatement. I do like that grisley trophies reroll for warlocks, IMO makes them more reliable. I recently got a rematch of my ovesastar vs my friend and teammate Matt Defranza's seer council (basically the same as Grants) with double wraithknight. We played round 7 of NOVA and that was easily the toughest game I had all weekend.

More like I stumbled in the darkness and then ran straight into his headlights.

BTW, congrats at the Nova. Very impressive indeed. I'm planning on making it out to either Adepticon or Nova next year. Would love to play against some of the East Coast players out there.

Re-rollable 2+ armor/cover is just so broken. Such an awful mechanic in the game. I can see why most people just hate playing against the seer council or screamerstar. Grant's seer council is also one of the toughest armies that I've faced in 6E. It'll tear apart most of the top Tau/Eldar builds also unless you kit your Tau to play against it (i.e. lots of plasmas, which most Tau players don't really run anymore). However, I suspect that my wraithwing crons to be one of the very few armies that can still give it problems in objectives-based games (assuming I go 2nd). Still, Terrify + Horrify = dead wraiths. Also, thank goodness for marine drop pod alpha-strike armies. We need more of them to contain these types of armies in tournament play.

 jy2 wrote:

Re-rollable 2+ armor/cover is just so broken. Such an awful mechanic in the game. I can see why most people just hate playing against the seer council or screamerstar. Grant's seer council is also one of the toughest armies that I've faced in 6E. It'll tear apart most of the top Tau/Eldar builds also unless you kit your Tau to play against it (i.e. lots of plasmas, which most Tau players don't really run anymore). However, I suspect that my wraithwing crons to be one of the very few armies that can still give it problems in objectives-based games (assuming I go 2nd). Still, Terrify + Horrify = dead wraiths. Also, thank goodness for marine drop pod alpha-strike armies. We need more of them to contain these types of armies in tournament play.

I think my least favorite unit right now is the screamerstar, just because nothing can really negate a 2+ rerollable invuln right now in 40K. Tau shooting at least can negate a 2+ rerollable armor/cover, and most armies have some combat option that can hurt a seer council(though it sucks fighting that thing in CC). Against the screamerstar the best thing to do IMO is throw something into combat it cant reliably kill and tie it up for as long as possible since it cant get hit and run, but the list of things that can sit in CC with the screamerstar and not die is pretty small.

 jy2 wrote:


I was pretty stoked because no Fortune. And then for his very last roll....Fortune.

Funny thing about that. Grant seems to have a habit of getting fortune on his last roll. It happened to me twice, I saw it happen to trent and now you.

thanatos67 wrote:
I think my least favorite unit right now is the screamerstar, just because nothing can really negate a 2+ rerollable invuln right now in 40K. Tau shooting at least can negate a 2+ rerollable armor/cover, and most armies have some combat option that can hurt a seer council(though it sucks fighting that thing in CC). Against the screamerstar the best thing to do IMO is throw something into combat it cant reliably kill and tie it up for as long as possible since it cant get hit and run, but the list of things that can sit in CC with the screamerstar and not die is pretty small.

I honestly feel that the screamerstar isn't as bad. Yeah, re-rollable 2++ suck, but the screamerstar has more exploitable weaknesses than the seer council. Their points of failure include:

They actually need to get Forewarning first. Admittedly, they have a good chance to get it with 2-3 Heralds, but still, there is a chance they don't. I've actually had games where I didn't get a single Forewarning between my LoC and 2-3 Heralds (on foot, I don't run the screamerstar).

There is a 1 in 9 chance that the Grimoire doesn't go off (which becomes a 1 in 3 chance without Fateweaver).

You can take out Fateweaver and the screamerstar becomes much, much less invincible.

If you can somehow take out the Grimoire Herald (he doesn't benefit from his own Grimoire) either from directional fire or barrages, you can negate their effectiveness.

They can be tarpitted. Actually, most of my armies can tarpit them quite easily (if I can catch them).

Mainly, I look at it from the perspective of how my armies can deal with the 2 deathstars. IMO, my armies would have a slightly easier time dealing with the screamerstar than it would the seer council.

 ImotekhTheStormlord wrote:

 jy2 wrote:


I was pretty stoked because no Fortune. And then for his very last roll....Fortune.

Funny thing about that. Grant seems to have a habit of getting fortune on his last roll. It happened to me twice, I saw it happen to trent and now you.

Yeah, you bring 2 farseers and you have a decent chance to get Fortune. You bring 3 and it's almost a guarantee. My opponent told me that he usually gets Fortune. In our games together, there was actually only 1 time where he didn't get Fortune....and he still won!

I forget, is Grant color blind or is he going somewhere with that paint scheme?

Powerguy wrote:

 Zagman wrote:

Shard is Rending and Flessbane and ID in challenges.

Celestial Lance(Iyanden) AP2, but Impact, so charge only.

SoulShrive(Iyanden) is AP2 and gains +1 Strength for every unsaved wound previously dealt starting at S3.

Looks to me like he is playing an Iyanden army, and then choosing from both lists for Remanents of Glory and Gifts of Asuryan, which is allowed(Although all following supplements have made them a replacement list). Iyanden doesn't affect his army at all, except for what Warlord Traits table he rolls upon and the Iyanden table is decidedly better.

One slight issue, using Iyanden also changes the Primaris power for Runes of Battle, which in this case is actually huge since Conceal is what gets you the 2+ cover save. As Iyanden aren't able to ally with standard Eldar the double FOC doesn't let you get around this either, so there is no way you can take all those weapons together.

Please reread my post and the Iyanden supplement and you will find your mistakes. He did not ally Iyanden, he was running Iyanden.

Iyanden only changes the Primaris Power for Spiritseers. And could not change that for Warlocks as it is a Warp Charge 2 power.

He has access to both sets of special issue Wargear with Iyanden.

 jy2 wrote:

thanatos67 wrote:
I think my least favorite unit right now is the screamerstar, just because nothing can really negate a 2+ rerollable invuln right now in 40K. Tau shooting at least can negate a 2+ rerollable armor/cover, and most armies have some combat option that can hurt a seer council(though it sucks fighting that thing in CC). Against the screamerstar the best thing to do IMO is throw something into combat it cant reliably kill and tie it up for as long as possible since it cant get hit and run, but the list of things that can sit in CC with the screamerstar and not die is pretty small.

I honestly feel that the screamerstar isn't as bad. Yeah, re-rollable 2++ suck, but the screamerstar has more exploitable weaknesses than the seer council. Their points of failure include:

They actually need to get Forewarning first. Admittedly, they have a good chance to get it with 2-3 Heralds, but still, there is a chance they don't. I've actually had games where I didn't get a single Forewarning between my LoC and 2-3 Heralds (on foot, I don't run the screamerstar).

There is a 1 in 9 chance that the Grimoire doesn't go off (which becomes a 1 in 3 chance without Fateweaver).

You can take out Fateweaver and the screamerstar becomes much, much less invincible.

If you can somehow take out the Grimoire Herald (he doesn't benefit from his own Grimoire) either from directional fire or barrages, you can negate their effectiveness.

They can be tarpitted. Actually, most of my armies can tarpit them quite easily (if I can catch them).

Totally agree with your points. Deamons can be one of the most frustrating armies for both players because if they roll well they can be pretty much invincible or they roll poorly, even a few rolls, get rolled over like chumps. The only game I've played vs screamerstar (wasnt playing the ovesastar) my opponent didnt get forewarning on 10 dice rolls! With rerolls for duplicates it was more like 16 dice rolls without it coming up. It was so dumb, I still dislike that unit more than the seer council just because how randomly miraculous it can be, but theres decent ways of dealing with both.

 Zagman wrote:

Powerguy wrote:

 Zagman wrote:

Shard is Rending and Flessbane and ID in challenges.

Celestial Lance(Iyanden) AP2, but Impact, so charge only.

SoulShrive(Iyanden) is AP2 and gains +1 Strength for every unsaved wound previously dealt starting at S3.

Looks to me like he is playing an Iyanden army, and then choosing from both lists for Remanents of Glory and Gifts of Asuryan, which is allowed(Although all following supplements have made them a replacement list). Iyanden doesn't affect his army at all, except for what Warlord Traits table he rolls upon and the Iyanden table is decidedly better.

One slight issue, using Iyanden also changes the Primaris power for Runes of Battle, which in this case is actually huge since Conceal is what gets you the 2+ cover save. As Iyanden aren't able to ally with standard Eldar the double FOC doesn't let you get around this either, so there is no way you can take all those weapons together.

Please reread my post and the Iyanden supplement and you will find your mistakes. He did not ally Iyanden, he was running Iyanden.

Iyanden only changes the Primaris Power for Spiritseers. And could not change that for Warlocks as it is a Warp Charge 2 power.

He has access to both sets of special issue Wargear with Iyanden.

Wait what? I was sure that the Iyanden codex changed the Primaris for Runes of Battle in general, not just for Spiritseers. If that is the case then yeah there is no reason to ever run the base codex, you get all the wargear, all the same unit choices with a better Warlord table and a boost for Spiritseers/Wraithguard if you take them.

 Kimchi Gamer wrote:
I forget, is Grant color blind or is he going somewhere with that paint scheme?

Dunno. His army is ever-changing in its color scheme. Could this be the machinations of Tzeentch.

 Zagman wrote:
Please reread my post and the Iyanden supplement and you will find your mistakes. He did not ally Iyanden, he was running Iyanden.

Iyanden only changes the Primaris Power for Spiritseers. And could not change that for Warlocks as it is a Warp Charge 2 power.

He has access to both sets of special issue Wargear with Iyanden.

Wow....seems like a winner.

As if eldar needed any more help to be even more bad-ass....

thanatos67 wrote:
Totally agree with your points. Deamons can be one of the most frustrating armies for both players because if they roll well they can be pretty much invincible or they roll poorly, even a few rolls, get rolled over like chumps. The only game I've played vs screamerstar (wasnt playing the ovesastar) my opponent didnt get forewarning on 10 dice rolls! With rerolls for duplicates it was more like 16 dice rolls without it coming up. It was so dumb, I still dislike that unit more than the seer council just because how randomly miraculous it can be, but theres decent ways of dealing with both.

Yeah, totally agree.

Ironically, one of the appeals of daemons to me is its randomness in nature. In 1 game, they can become invincible and there is no army that they can't beat. Then the next game, they can lose to even the weakest army in the game. However, if I wanted reliability, I could just play my necrons, mechdar or even my grey knights. When I want a little more of a challenge (and to make things interesting), then I run my daemons or even my tyranids. Variety is the spice of (my gaming) life.

Powerguy wrote:

Wait what? I was sure that the Iyanden codex changed the Primaris for Runes of Battle in general, not just for Spiritseers. If that is the case then yeah there is no reason to ever run the base codex, you get all the wargear, all the same unit choices with a better Warlord table and a boost for Spiritseers/Wraithguard if you take them.

Apparently, GW subscribes to the philosophy that "the rich gets richer".

Tau and Eldar being able to ally with themselves and/or cherry-picking the best from their supplements just doesn't seem right. But I guess that is the trend going forwards and starting with these newer codices. Bah....I don't care. Bring it on. My necrons will take care of them.

 jy2 wrote:
Ironically, one of the appeals of daemons to me is its randomness in nature. In 1 game, they can become invincible and there is no army that they can't beat. Then the next game, they can lose to even the weakest army in the game. However, if I wanted reliability, I could just play my necrons, mechdar or even my grey knights. When I want a little more of a challenge (and to make things interesting), then I run my daemons or even my tyranids. Variety is the spice of (my gaming) life.

If you want challenge, try BA...

Naw wrote:

 jy2 wrote:
Ironically, one of the appeals of daemons to me is its randomness in nature. In 1 game, they can become invincible and there is no army that they can't beat. Then the next game, they can lose to even the weakest army in the game. However, if I wanted reliability, I could just play my necrons, mechdar or even my grey knights. When I want a little more of a challenge (and to make things interesting), then I run my daemons or even my tyranids. Variety is the spice of (my gaming) life.

If you want challenge, try BA...

Lol. I actually have a BA army, but currently, I'm just not interested in running "the good guys", with the only exception being my grey knights. Back in 5th, all I ran was mainly the good guys - Marines, Space Wolves, BA and IG - but for some inexplicable reason, in this edition, I prefer to run the "bad guys" - necrons, chaos, tyranids, orks. The Grey Knights, however, was my very 1st army and still one that I take out once in a while. I still like their elitist nature.

Although lately, I have been working on my space marine army.

 jy2 wrote:

thanatos67 wrote:
Totally agree with your points. Deamons can be one of the most frustrating armies for both players because if they roll well they can be pretty much invincible or they roll poorly, even a few rolls, get rolled over like chumps. The only game I've played vs screamerstar (wasnt playing the ovesastar) my opponent didnt get forewarning on 10 dice rolls! With rerolls for duplicates it was more like 16 dice rolls without it coming up. It was so dumb, I still dislike that unit more than the seer council just because how randomly miraculous it can be, but theres decent ways of dealing with both.

Yeah, totally agree.

Ironically, one of the appeals of daemons to me is its randomness in nature. In 1 game, they can become invincible and there is no army that they can't beat. Then the next game, they can lose to even the weakest army in the game. However, if I wanted reliability, I could just play my necrons, mechdar or even my grey knights. When I want a little more of a challenge (and to make things interesting), then I run my daemons or even my tyranids. Variety is the spice of (my gaming) life.

Oh I cant wait for tyranids to come out, they're the army i have by far the most experience with, and my personal favorite. I wish i had the time to play my other armies for fun, but anymore I just dont get the time to play anything outside of tournament/prep games.

Two deathstars crashing ! That was huge.
It's a pity to see so much bad luck on the Grey Knight side, it has decided the outcome prematurely.


I've spotted a mistake that could have pretty much returned the balance too.

Warlord traits:

Grey Knights: Useless (Coteaz)

Deldar: Uses Warlord's LD if within 12" of him.

This is huge! That means his warlocks will be casting their psychic powers on LD 10!!!

turn 2 :

The seer council prepares to assault.

Here is where my mistake comes back to bite me. Although Grant didn't mark down which warlock had which power, ultimately it is my mistake for not paying attention enough. I move into range of his Warlock with Jinx. He casts it on me and fails the 1st time. He then re-rolls and passes on the 2nd try (but only because he was able to use his Warlord's LD, otherwise, he would have failed again on his own LD) . Finally, with a 4+ chance to Deny, I fail to do so!

You are now looking at terminators with a 3+ save only.

The point is that p.67 of BRB explicitly prevents any Ld borrowing for psychic tests purpose. The psychic tests are always done using the leadership value of the psyker launching the power.
The warlord trait is of no use here.

It would be nice to see a revenge match on a more covered terrain also.

Exactly correct. Although to be fair, firing 4 Mindstrike Missiles kind of evened out the mistakes.

This is exactly why folks are running Grisly Trophies with Jetseers; the ability to reroll a LD8 psychic test.

However, these are always interesting reports to see how quickly extreme lists get played. For myself, I'm not in an area that is condusive to playing against these kinds of armies, so it's kinda neat to read about them.

While it isn't often that I change my reports and their results, I have done so before. When won't I change my reports?

The error(s) made in the game is not a game-changing mistake. In other words, the mistake made won't really affect the outcome of the game.

This is an official tournament game and the results are recorded. So even if a mistake is made that can affect the outcome of the game, I won't change the results in my battle reports unless the tournament itself changes the results.

Now, when will I make corrections to my reports or even to the results?

When a mistake is made that has a good chance to affect the outcome of the game.

Calculation mistakes like bad math or forgetting to add VP's. An example of this is in my last game with necrons vs Tau in Purge the Alien. Unofficially, it was a draw. However, the VP was wrong because the Ethereal I killed was worth 2 VP's instead of 1. So officially, my necrons won by 1 VP due to his Ethereal and I change the results to reflect as such.

So what mistake was made in this game that it could affect it's outcome?


It was the Warlord Trait where his units within 12" could use his Warlord's LD. Now in the game, we played it as his Warlocks could use their Warlord's (the Farseer's) LD for psychic tests as well. However, p.67 of BRB explicitly prevents any LD borrowing for the purposes of psychic tests. The psychic tests are always done using the leadership value of the psyker who is casting the power.

His Warlock only passed his re-rollable psychic power by using the LD of his Warlord. On his own, he failed the test to cast Jinx, even with the re-rolls (he would be casting on LD4 due to Reinforced Aegis from my dread). Thus, they would have failed to cast Jinx on my paladinstar, which would have totally changed the outcome of the game.


As it is my opponent's mistake, I will have to declare this game a No Contest (or Draw) and that a Rematch is in order.


Thanks to Ravajaxe for pointing this out.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ravajaxe wrote:
Two deathstars crashing ! That was huge.
It's a pity to see so much bad luck on the Grey Knight side, it has decided the outcome prematurely.


I've spotted a mistake that could have pretty much returned the balance too.

Warlord traits:

Grey Knights: Useless (Coteaz)

Deldar: Uses Warlord's LD if within 12" of him.

This is huge! That means his warlocks will be casting their psychic powers on LD 10!!!

turn 2 :

The seer council prepares to assault.

Here is where my mistake comes back to bite me. Although Grant didn't mark down which warlock had which power, ultimately it is my mistake for not paying attention enough. I move into range of his Warlock with Jinx. He casts it on me and fails the 1st time. He then re-rolls and passes on the 2nd try (but only because he was able to use his Warlord's LD, otherwise, he would have failed again on his own LD) . Finally, with a 4+ chance to Deny, I fail to do so!

You are now looking at terminators with a 3+ save only.

The point is that p.67 of BRB explicitly prevents any Ld borrowing for psychic tests purpose. The psychic tests are always done using the leadership value of the psyker launching the power.
The warlord trait is of no use here.

It would be nice to see a revenge match on a more covered terrain also.

Thanks for pointing that out.

That is a huge, game-changing mistake! As such, the results of the game have been changed to reflect that.

 Sarigar wrote:
Exactly correct. Although to be fair, firing 4 Mindstrike Missiles kind of evened out the mistakes.

This is exactly why folks are running Grisly Trophies with Jetseers; the ability to reroll a LD8 psychic test.

However, these are always interesting reports to see how quickly extreme lists get played. For myself, I'm not in an area that is condusive to playing against these kinds of armies, so it's kinda neat to read about them.

No, it doesn't. The game-changing mistake was already made. Everything else after that wouldn't have mattered because the outcome wouldn't have been the same, especially since he would have still been dealing with a full paladinstar.

The mistake has rendered the game a void. Because of Reinforced Aegis on my dread, it is actually a re-rollable LD4 psychic test for his warlocks, which he failed both times.

Yeah, if you want to read about competitive and/or extreme armies going against other competitive/extreme armies, then check out my reports. My reports tend to slant towards the more competitive side of gaming (though that is not always the case all the time).

Wait Jy2 you made a huge mistake shooting all four mind strike missles into me too, but it didn't change the end result for the game

I would've still charged you even without jinx going off just as a precaution to make sure I didn't get shot by mind strike missiles from the storm raven in your turn. And your dreadnaught was dead in the ensuing assault too, so it wouldn't have affected my powers the next turn.

How does that make everything in the end a draw?

Because he hates losing

*sarcasm*

Grant Theft Auto wrote:
Wait Jy2 you made a huge mistake shooting all four mind strike missles into me too, but it didn't change the end result for the game

I would've still charged you even without jinx going off just as a precaution to make sure I didn't get shot by mind strike missiles from the storm raven in your turn. And your dreadnaught was dead in the ensuing assault too, so it wouldn't have affected my powers the next turn.

How does that make everything in the end a draw?

Yes, I made a mistake with the mindstrikes. Had that affected the outcome (i.e. had I managed to get a draw because of it), then I would have gave myself the loss. Had I won with it, I would have down-graded it to a No Contest as well.

However, all that is rendered null and void because of the mistake with the LD tests. The outcome would have been much, much different if my paladins hadn't of gotten jinxed. With Draigo still alive, I could have manipulated my Reserves to have everything come in on a 2+ next turn. Now I could still have lost, but it would have been an entirely different battle.

And if you had killed my dread, I would have just outflanked the dreads within Reinforced Aegis range of my paladins. The only difference would be that, instead of trying to take out your serpent by shooting it in the rear, I would have tried to shoot down your venoms instead.

BTW, I've over-turned my battles before, but usually in favor of my opponents. This is actually the very 1st game where I over-turned the results in favor of me due to a mistake by my opponent.

I am not saying who messed the game up, but it's on both players to catch rules mistakes and I'll be honest it's one thing to state you messed up an important rule and add it in (which I am glad you did btw), but it is a bit ridiculous to go back and call it a no contest draw some time later.

Here's an example using your reports, go back to your Golden throne win where 6th is fresh out the box and your using your Doom Scythes for AA and also targeting units outside LOS for the models design and most of your games turn out very differently. It doesn't mean you couldn't win though right? You'd change your strategy to adapt. Either way GT didn't go back and change the results, and you haven't recognized these errors in your reports either. Should you? I don't think so, and that wasn't a friendly pick up game either.

Mistakes happen literally every game, some big, some small. Just play again, but I wouldn't pull a win from my opponent weeks later especially when you misplayed the mind strikes to similar results which definitely was as bad an error IMHO (also not noted in the report).

Just my 2 cents.

 Red Corsair wrote:
I am not saying who messed the game up, but it's on both players to catch rules mistakes and I'll be honest it's one thing to state you messed up an important rule and add it in (which I am glad you did btw), but it is a bit ridiculous to go back and call it a no contest draw some time later.

Here's an example using your reports, go back to your Golden throne win where 6th is fresh out the box and your using your Doom Scythes for AA and also targeting units outside LOS for the models design and most of your games turn out very differently. It doesn't mean you couldn't win though right? You'd change your strategy to adapt. Either way GT didn't go back and change the results, and you haven't recognized these errors in your reports either. Should you? I don't think so, and that wasn't a friendly pick up game either.

Mistakes happen literally every game, some big, some small. Just play again, but I wouldn't pull a win from my opponent weeks later especially when you misplayed the mind strikes to similar results which definitely was as bad an error IMHO (also not noted in the report).

Just my 2 cents.

I am only being consistent. I have over-turn my games before:

2K Competitive - Jy2's NEW Mechdar Eldar vs Wraithwing Tesla-cron Necrons

2000-pt Golden Throne Practice Game - GTKA666's Footdar vs Splinter Fleet Pandorzilla

Good Knight Bugs! Grey Knights vs Stealershock Tyranids - Rematch vs Janthkin 1850


Actually, I've even over-turned 1 game in my favor as well (just realized this after going through some of my past games):

1750 BAO Practice - Hive Fleet Pandora vs Yakface's Tau-Orks


As for my Golden Throne game:

1. I didn't agree with your intepretation at the time. The rule was somewhat ambiguous and can be intepreted either ways. I intepreted it as the way it was written in the codex. Your viewpoint would require doing a mountain of research, which is something we don't have time for in a tournament. Even my opponent agreed with me after I showed him the rules from my codex.

2. The official GW FAQ's did not come out until well after that tournament - both in regards to shooting at other flyers and the LOS. So at the time of the tournament, there were no FAQ's to clarify this.

3. Official tournament records stand, at least in my books. I don't over-turn them unless the tournament over-turns them.


As for the mindstrike mistake, had I done that first and it affected the outcome of the game, then I would have over-turned the results in favor of my opponent. Alas, the game-changing mistake that was made 1st was made by my opponent, and anything that happened afterwards would most likely have turned out very differently. Thus, my decision on this is final.

Ive noticed this in a few of your games where you do not try to sieze the initative and even hope your opponent does if you happen to have first turn. Is this because you want to have the last turn to contest objectives or some other reason?

 Billagio wrote:
Ive noticed this in a few of your games where you do not try to sieze the initative and even hope your opponent does if you happen to have first turn. Is this because you want to have the last turn to contest objectives or some other reason?

My armies are built to withstand most opponent's alpha-strikes. What I don't want is for them to have the last say on objectives, especially if they have fast troops such as eldar or necrons. In the case of my necrons, I want to have the last say on objectives. If I were playing a VP mission instead, then I would want to go 1st.

No offense but page 16 is hardly mountains of research. It was a basic change from 5th to 6th that was missed in haste and in a sloppy manner. I disagree that tournament standings are static where casual games are fluid. Boasting a GT win in your sig when a rule was fouled hard in your favor is much worse.

BUT I am not saying it matters, rules get fouled up ALL the time at events yet as you said titles stand. I am saying that I wouldn't overturn a casual game under the same pretenses if you aren't willing to acknowledge a mistake at the higher more important level. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. I also genuinely am curious if a tournament standing has ever been retroactively revoked for a rules blunder ever? C'est la Vis...

As to the mindstrikes, now where getting into if this then that arguments which are never worth pursuing and I am sorry if I started such a debate. I was simply illustrating further that mistakes WILL happen on both sides so condemning one side while ignoring the other hardly seems fair regardless of outcome.

Either way that was just my interweb 2 cents which are wort exactly 2 internet cents

 Red Corsair wrote:
No offense but page 16 is hardly mountains of research. It was a basic change from 5th to 6th that was missed in haste and in a sloppy manner. I disagree that tournament standings are static where casual games are fluid. Boasting a GT win in your sig when a rule was fouled hard in your favor is much worse.

BUT I am not saying it matters, rules get fouled up ALL the time at events yet as you said titles stand. I am saying that I wouldn't overturn a casual game under the same pretenses if you aren't willing to acknowledge a mistake at the higher more important level. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. I also genuinely am curious if a tournament standing has ever been retroactively revoked for a rules blunder ever? C'est la Vis...

As to the mindstrikes, now where getting into if this then that arguments which are never worth pursuing and I am sorry if I started such a debate. I was simply illustrating further that mistakes WILL happen on both sides so condemning one side while ignoring the other hardly seems fair regardless of outcome.

Either way that was just my interweb 2 cents which are wort exactly 2 internet cents

You are welcome to change the results on your reports.

But this is my report, my rules, and my decision stands. Yes, I am the TO of my own report. I don't normally change the results of my reports on rules mistakes except only if the mistake is a game-changer (and only if I agree with the person who pointed out the rules-foul). This game is a clear case of a game-changing rules mistake.

I also won't reverse any tournament results. It doesn't matter to the degree of the blunder, but I just won't do it unless the tournament itself does it. That is my personal philosophy and no amount of arguing/pleading is going to change that.

Sorry, but the only way to declare a victory against my Draigowing list is to beat them in a rematch.



To my knowledge, I've never heard of a tournament reversing its results due to a rules mistakes. What I have heard of is a tournament taking away wins because of an illegal list. The most well-known would probably be Tony Kopach having his title taken from him due to being 3-pts over at the first Nova.

As to my mistake with the mindstrikes, that is overshadowed by the mistake with the LD test. 1 possible result of the LD mistake is that my raven comes in, can't fire at his seer council because they are locked in combat, fires at another target and then get shot down my massed serpent shields before it can even fire a single mindstrike missile (and I would still be oblivious to the error-to-be). Another possible result is that my opponent keeps on doing Hit-&-Run and then going back into assault to ensure that I would never be able to fire my mindstrikes at his seer council. The point is, there is a million possible outcomes just from the 1st game-changing mistake that the 2nd mistake is really a moot point (it might not even happen). No, it definitely does not cancel out the 1st mistake.