Jidmah wrote:
Very well, if we must play the challenge/response game...

 DogOfWar wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
And I hope you don't stop reading all threads half way through

You posted a tactic that was completely in violation of the rules.

I did not. I posted a legit tactic that you thought was in violation of the rules. Big difference here. Your words, as written, violated both the rules of embarkation and disembarkation and the rules relating to the distance a vehicle can travel before disembarking

A few posts later you 'clarified'

I did not 'clarify', I clarified it. After reading both Fenris Frost and my post there should absolutely no doubt of how the tactic works. You could have taken the time to write what you meant correctly, but you were lazy. That's not a cardinal sin, but at least be honest about it. You could have written the description of the tactic correctly the first time, but you chose not to.

but, let's be fair, it's a bit rude to not only post inaccurate information in the first place, but also leave it up for others to read after several people commented on it (you did see the other person who responded favorably and may believe that your posted tactic is completely legal, right?).

It's also rude to accuse people of cheating despite: Please indicate where I accused you of cheating
1) At least one person perfectly understanding what was meant One person understanding does not a clear post make. It is much more important to note that at least one person (apart from me) still believed your tactic to be valid, further down the thread.
2) A poster pointing out that the post was unclear What you are looking for is "completely against the rules" not 'unclear.'
3) A more throrough clarification being given If you call a complete re-write of what you wrote that bears very little resemblance to the original a "clarification," then yes.
4) You already posting in-between Responding to a different comment, yes.

It was also so blatantly incorrect that I have a hard time believing you could possibly have posted it without being mistaken as to the rules... but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

The only thing blatantly incorrect was your assumption of me doing all that in a single turn, which would have been impossible for multiple reasons: the assault phase being after movement, not being able to disembark after embarking and not being able to disembark after moving flat-out. Instead of questioning your assumption, you decided to call me a cheater. Again, please let me know where and when I called you a cheater. In fact, you have literally just quoted me saying the opposite: "I have a hard time believing you could possibly have posted it without being mistaken as to the rules" (this means I think you were mistaken, though I gave you the benefit of the doubt because it was possible you were simply being lazy, not mistaken). For clarification, let me quote what you wrote:

You aren't missing anything. I utilize this quite often now, after a combat has ended, I move my boyz back into a wagon, move it 18" to anywhere and then charge out again with boarding plank bonus. Makes battlewagons super effective in malestrom games.
You cannot embark on a vehicle during the D6 consolidation move after a combat has ended. This is indicating you can.
You cannot embark and disembark on the same turn. This is indicating that you can.
You cannot move 18" and charge out of a vehicle. This is indicating that you can.

That's a LOT of clarification. More of that statement is incorrect than correct. If that's the sort of statement you would write in YMDC, I am very surprised indeed.

Anyway, it's usually considered good form to edit a blatantly misleading post so as to avoid spreading bad information.

Considering that my post was not actually wrong, but merely unclear, there is no reason to edit it. In addition, editing posts after people have responded to them is considered bad form all by itself and for that reason forbidden by many commenting and forum softwares.
Your post was absolutely wrong. You cannot say "Boltguns are S6 AP3" and then 'clarify' it to S4 AP5. You were incorrect and you corrected yourself. There's nothing wrong with that, but claiming you were right all along shows, in my opinion, a rather large lack of integrity.
Editing posts by placing "EDIT" and correcting yourself is absolutely good form. Editing secretively to change an argument (or deleting a comment) is not. You have 6000+ posts, you know this.

Also, considering that at least one other poster understood what I meant, you're the one to blame for not reading the entire thread, which would have contained not one but two clarification within the next four posts.
I agree that I was to blame for not reading the entire thread. In fact, I made that quite clear in my original response (the part you selectively did not quote, I might add). This does not absolve you from the responsibility of posting flagrantly misleading information.

I have to admit I'm amazed that you have almost 7000 posts under your belt and didn't take the time to properly share your tactic (so as not to confuse). Usually people with so many posts are the people to depend on for clear and helpful information.

I'm even more amazed that you concluded that someone with 7000 posts, with almost half of those in YMDC, must be, without doubt, cheating his opponent by ignoring almost half the relevant rules, rather than figuring out what he could have meant. I'm also amazed that someone with 1500 posts doesn't read threads till the end, but rather attacks people about things he reads halfway through, that are clarified twice only a couple of posts later. Again, please show me where I called you a cheater or that you were cheating. As I said before, you have quoted me saying the opposite. That's not a word or accusation to be thrown around lightly.

 koooaei wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Waaagh 18 wrote:
I used to automatically assume it was good, but when I thought about it a sudden insight came to me. If you hide the unit behind the transport, if you go second and your vehicle explodes than you don't lose all your guys... Does anyone see what I mean? Is it actually a good tactic?

Vehicle explosions rarely does decent damage, let alone significant damage.

Now your unit just getting shot at now that its out in the open is another story.

Loosing half the squad with an explosion is quite significant. And than you pass 2 ld checks at ld7. Not to flee and not to get pinned. Starting out of vehicle is quite advantageous in certain situations. Besides, on the 1-st turn there are not many anti-infantry weapons in range.

 CrownAxe wrote:

 koooaei wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Waaagh 18 wrote:
I used to automatically assume it was good, but when I thought about it a sudden insight came to me. If you hide the unit behind the transport, if you go second and your vehicle explodes than you don't lose all your guys... Does anyone see what I mean? Is it actually a good tactic?

Vehicle explosions rarely does decent damage, let alone significant damage.

Now your unit just getting shot at now that its out in the open is another story.

Loosing half the squad with an explosion is quite significant. And than you pass 2 ld checks at ld7. Not to flee and not to get pinned. Starting out of vehicle is quite advantageous in certain situations. Besides, on the 1-st turn there are not many anti-infantry weapons in range.

That's a problem with Orks and trukks specifically not transports in general

morgoth wrote:
Oh and btw, DoW, that guy you're arguing with is on my ignore list. Try it, it saves a lot of time arguing against a wall.