Switch Theme:

Winning more VP but getting tabled?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in ph
Scouting Shadow Warrior




In my last game, we played the three places of power scenario. In this game only heroes can score VPs. I managed to score 2 VP and then kill off all of my opponent's heroes before he can score any VP. But, by turn 3 I am completely tabled.

This still means my opponent wins, right?
   
Made in es
Brutal Black Orc




Barcelona, Spain

aquietfrog wrote:
In my last game, we played the three places of power scenario. In this game only heroes can score VPs. I managed to score 2 VP and then kill off all of my opponent's heroes before he can score any VP. But, by turn 3 I am completely tabled.

This still means my opponent wins, right?


Yes, getting tabled is a minor victory (if I remember the scenario properly).
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






The 'getting tabled' rule is a 40k thing; you win because the scenario is based off victory points. Only if that is tied do you total up what's been slain.

Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page

I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.

I try to view Warhammer as more of a toolbox with examples than fully complete games. 
   
Made in us
Blood-Drenched Death Company Marine




Which is strange. The same thing happened to me. I won on vps but got tabled. We called it a draw.
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka




If you get tabled the opponent gets a major victory.

tremere47-fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate, leads to triple riptide spam  
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






pm713 wrote:
If you get tabled the opponent gets a major victory.
Where does it say that?

Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page

I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.

I try to view Warhammer as more of a toolbox with examples than fully complete games. 
   
Made in us
Lieutenant General





Florence, KY

'Glorious Victory', pg. 2. Searchable PDFs are nice.

'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents
cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable
defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'

- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty
Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






That's from the basic rules, the 'default' scenario per say. The discussion is in regards to the matched play scenarios. If the basic rule victory conditions aren't replaced then there is conflict between both the minor and major victory requirements.

[edit] It's also worth note that even rule interpretations aside, a major balancing factor of GHB points is that victory points override tabling. This is because on average more elite units (monsters particularly) tend to be more points-efficient, enough so that their primary drawback is difficulty in competing for objectives. By allowing the default rules to override the scenario rules it reduces this drawback since for many elite armies killing every opposing model is easier than actually playing the scenario.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/03 01:16:23


Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page

I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.

I try to view Warhammer as more of a toolbox with examples than fully complete games. 
   
Made in ph
Scouting Shadow Warrior




With the rather loose rules nature of AoS, I guess this is something that needs to be agreed upon by both players before starting the game.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/03 15:37:43


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




United Kingdom

If you play a scenario then the scenario should tell you how you win. It doesn't have to say that tabling = win. Scenarios in which you play a rear guard and expect to be tabled might be won because you held out for a certain length of time, or killed enough enemies first etc.

Understanding how you win and playing to the victory conditions is a good first step to winning any game.
   
Made in ca
Been Around the Block




in matched play its based off the scenario so you would go by those rules. If there is no info on tabling then it is strictly point based game.
   
Made in nl
Regular Dakkanaut




I actually tried to win a game by tabling my opponent when I took an elite 21 model 1000 points wanderer list (6 waywatchers, 10 brothers of the watch (I proxied with waywatchers since as a woodelf player I have 100 archers but don't own any sisters and I'll be spending my cash on sylvaneth and not more archers just because GW made the sisters the best archers in my army), orion and some hero's).... but now I'm reading the arguments I have to admit I think the victory conditions in each scenario override the basic rules victory conditions and they do not mention tabling at all.
But having all your hero's killed (I mean some armies just have a few 5 wound guys) and then loosing by default seems annoying if it happens to you, especially if you are tabling the opponent. This scenario would make shooty armies just target the hero's, strategy otherwise be damned, and then try to get a single point afterwards.
   
Made in ph
Scouting Shadow Warrior




In my case, I took a 1000-point 13 model Order Draconis Army. (1 Dragonlord, 2 dragon nobles with bows, 2x 5 Dragonblades, Dragonlord Host Battalion). I got first turn and noticed his heroes are rather exposed. I decided to use the battalion ability to set up a turn 1 charge with the dragonlord and dragonblades, targetting the khorne heroes (mighty lord of khorne, slaughterpriest, bloodsecrator, herald of khorne). Dragon Nobles moved up to two objectives and scored 1 VP each. The plan was to kill all his heroes, score some VPs and run away until turn 5 without getting tabled (got tabled anyway). As I was vastly outnumbered, (20 bloodletters, 10 blood warriors, 3 skullcrushers), it was pretty much an all or nothing plan.

Having come from WHFB 8th and some 9th Age, my gaming group is not yet too used to objective based battles.
   
Made in nl
Regular Dakkanaut




So is your army so much weaker than his then?
Because killing the Khorne buffing characters is kinda how you counter that army I'd say.. once you did that you should have the advantage.. at least in theory.
   
Made in ph
Scouting Shadow Warrior




Now that I think about it, I probably could have fared better if I instead charged his bigger blocks (bloodletters and/or bloodwarriors) instead of going for his heroes. I could have potentially wiped out the bloodletters before they even got a chance to attack. Instead I focused on the heroes and the dragon was overkill for a couple of heroes.

My army army isn't really weaker, but instead is a one trick pony in that all it can do is make a great alpha strike then hope for the best. I think I could have chosen better targets for my charge, though. BTW we were randomly rolling for battleplans so we were not tailor listing for the objectives, so I think I brought a heavily specialized army against a sort of combined arms army.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/03 16:38:47


 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






Matched Play is good about having a scenario lineup that doesn't favor a certain army build. The hero-objective and incremental reinforcement scenarios can particularly hit armies hard if they aren't somewhat rounded.

Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page

I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.

I try to view Warhammer as more of a toolbox with examples than fully complete games. 
   
Made in it
Scouting Shade






In a tournament we did the TO ruled that tabling the opponent, even if he/she has more VP than you, grants you a major victory. Had it going with the falling comets scenario. Couldn't grab any points but tabled him. We checked the rules (on my opponent's request. he wondered if he'd have the right to call a victory even if he was tabled) and the TO ruled that I won. Guess it depends on the tournament.

Note that I was moe keen on giving him the victory, but the players agreed I won.
   
Made in us
Superior Stormvermin




Manassas, VA

Gotta say, I'm all for players being able to table their opponents and yet still lose. You felt like ignoring the objective of the game? Tough toenails. Sure, play out the rest of the game one-sided, but if you botched the mission you deserve to fail. There's a reason those scenarios are varied in the way they are, and if the game were to just go to "kill the otha guyz ta winz" AoS would go from it's current tenuous "balance" to "just power game your army and charge across the table".

In short; the various objectives exist to encourage balanced armies. If you table your opponent but lose on VPs, you lost.

"I have concluded through careful empirical analysis and much thought that somebody is looking out for me, keeping track of what I think about things, forgiving me when I do less than I ought, giving me strength to shoot for more than I think I am capable of. I believe they know everything that I do and think, and they still love me. And I’ve concluded, after careful consideration, that this person keeping score is me." -Adam Savage 
   
Made in us
Stealthy Sanctus Slipping in His Blade






 Etna's Vassal wrote:
If you table your opponent but lose on VPs, you lost.


Agree completely. The scenario trumps basic rules.

40k would be better if they did the same as well.

A ton of armies and a terrain habit...


 
   
Made in us
Lieutenant General





Florence, KY

 dracpanzer wrote:
 Etna's Vassal wrote:
If you table your opponent but lose on VPs, you lost.


Agree completely. The scenario trumps basic rules.

40k would be better if they did the same as well.

I don't see anything in the scenario rules regarding tabling your opponent.

'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents
cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable
defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'

- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty
Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
 
   
Made in us
Superior Stormvermin




Manassas, VA

 Ghaz wrote:
 dracpanzer wrote:
 Etna's Vassal wrote:
If you table your opponent but lose on VPs, you lost.


Agree completely. The scenario trumps basic rules.

40k would be better if they did the same as well.

I don't see anything in the scenario rules regarding tabling your opponent.


The book also doesn't say anything about Sudden Death. If the case you are making is that because the book doesn't directly address the issue it is still in play, I'll go get some Tomb Kings swarms and basically auto-win by picking "Seize Ground" and tunneling them under the biggest objective on the field. Those behemoths they have eat up a lot of points, and are pretty good at pinning down enemies.

If I'm wrong, my apologies.

In my opinion, however, the scenario overrides the generic win conditions.

"I have concluded through careful empirical analysis and much thought that somebody is looking out for me, keeping track of what I think about things, forgiving me when I do less than I ought, giving me strength to shoot for more than I think I am capable of. I believe they know everything that I do and think, and they still love me. And I’ve concluded, after careful consideration, that this person keeping score is me." -Adam Savage 
   
Made in us
Clousseau




Yeah. The sudden death and all that other stuff only apply to the default scenario. If you aren't playing the default scenario, those conditions don't apply.
   
Made in us
Superior Stormvermin




Manassas, VA

Well, upon further reading (and much to my chagrin) I'm going to have to retract my previous arguments. Page 4 of the GHB actually says that all the normal rules apply unless stated otherwise. Since the normal rules have tabling your opponent as a victory condition, as well as Sudden Death, regardless of how ill thought out it may be they are valid victory conditions. I personally hope GW addresses this ASAP, but I doubt it.

"I have concluded through careful empirical analysis and much thought that somebody is looking out for me, keeping track of what I think about things, forgiving me when I do less than I ought, giving me strength to shoot for more than I think I am capable of. I believe they know everything that I do and think, and they still love me. And I’ve concluded, after careful consideration, that this person keeping score is me." -Adam Savage 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






I really doubt that line of reasoning would go very far with players, since it creates situations that don't make any sense. For example, the game ending when a player who has more victory points is tabled and the scenario says that when the game ends whichever player has more victory points is the winner. Are we to assume that general overrides specific? Because that opens up a huge number of conflicts. And that's not to even go into if a game is tied for victory points, no one is tabled, and they must count points slain to determine minor victory, but must also count models slain to determine minor victory. If I killed more models but my opponent killed more points where do we stand?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/05 02:03:57


Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page

I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.

I try to view Warhammer as more of a toolbox with examples than fully complete games. 
   
Made in us
Superior Stormvermin




Manassas, VA

The tabling and Sudden Death conditions kick in instantly once they occur, whereas the scenario conditions all have specific timing. The only Sudden Death condition that does not work is Endure, but that kicks in at the end of the 6th, so if you pick that one big oopsie to you. Since Seize Ground kicks in at the end of the 4th, and final victory is not calculated until the end of the 5th on most of the scenarios, there is no issue.

Take and Hold & Blood and Glory potentially cause issues, until you look at the composition of a round. Each round composes of two turns, and since the victory conditions are checked at the end of the turn, and Seize Ground happens at the end of the 4th round, the scenarios are checked before the Sudden Death condition.

Look, it's stupid to me too, and I want the scenario rules to override the generic ones as well, but RAW the system functions. I would just agree with your opponent beforehand that tabling and Sudden Death are off the table (pun intended) for your game, and if you put a tournament packet together simply state that the rules are void as well. For those that want those to be components of their games, they do function as presented.

"I have concluded through careful empirical analysis and much thought that somebody is looking out for me, keeping track of what I think about things, forgiving me when I do less than I ought, giving me strength to shoot for more than I think I am capable of. I believe they know everything that I do and think, and they still love me. And I’ve concluded, after careful consideration, that this person keeping score is me." -Adam Savage 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






Oh I wasn't addressing sudden death, just the victory conditions. They are separate sections of the rules and I haven't looked at how sudden death would interact. but honestly I have never seen it brought up in regards to matched play until now and several major tournaments have been played without any mention of it in their rules or on the table, so I think there's a pretty strong consensus there.

Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page

I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.

I try to view Warhammer as more of a toolbox with examples than fully complete games. 
   
Made in ph
Scouting Shadow Warrior




I think there should be some blurb that cancels out the sudden death stuff and replaces it with the pitched battle triumphs table.
   
Made in gb
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM





I guess if GW wanted to make it water tight, they should rename the "victory" section in each pitched battle scenario to "the glorious victory" to make it clear it overules the 4-page victory conditions (of which sudden death is a part of - again to make it even water tighter it should explicitly state so) - but I think it's pretty obvious RAI the Pitched Battle scenarios override the Set-Up, Triumph Table and all Victory Conditions from the 4page rules.

Bye bye Dakkadakka, happy hobbying! I really enjoyed my time on here. Opinions were always my own :-) 
   
Made in us
Lieutenant General





Florence, KY

40K has long had a rule saying that you won if you tabled your opponent, regardless of the victory conditions set forth by the scenario. I don't think its such a far-fetched idea that this has been adopted for Age of Sigmar and I don't see anything that overrides the first paragraph of 'Glorious Victory' in any of the Battleplans.

'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents
cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable
defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'

- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty
Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
 
   
Made in gb
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM





 Ghaz wrote:
40K has long had a rule saying that you won if you tabled your opponent, regardless of the victory conditions set forth by the scenario. I don't think its such a far-fetched idea that this has been adopted for Age of Sigmar and I don't see anything that overrides the first paragraph of 'Glorious Victory' in any of the Battleplans.


To me it looks like there is a section on victory conditions for each of the pitched battle scenarios and each of these overrides the basic victory conditions (I.e. It outlines what is a major victory and what is a minor victory in each scenario and this overrides what the default rules list as major and minor victory conditions). Tabling your opponent is covered in the sense that the VP tie breaker is the sum in points destroyed thus tabling your opponent grants you a minor victory if you are drawn on VPs (unless somehow every model has been killed on both sides).

If you have a set of victory conditions telling you tabling is a minor victory and another telling you it's a major victory, it suggests that there are two clashing sets of rules, and in the case of which sets precedent it's going to be the pitched battle scenario.

Bye bye Dakkadakka, happy hobbying! I really enjoyed my time on here. Opinions were always my own :-) 
   
 
Forum Index » Warhammer: Age of Sigmar
Go to: