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.

Even it's annihilation and you've scored more kill points than the enemy?

If your entire arny is dead, then you lose.

It says that in the rulebook.

But unless you table each other at the same time, the once you're dead, you're dead and kill points don't really matter.

It matters in tournaments that rule the game ends immediately when one army is destroyed. (Adepticon, I'm looking at you.) You can actually be worse off tabling your opponent than allowing them to keep a unit while you run around achieving mission objectives to maximize your score.

I run most of the tourneys at m y LGS and tell everyone tabling does not automatically mean a win. If you loose all your troops in doing so you have no units left to control an objective. Likewise if you table your opponent but don't have enough turns left to move/run to get an objective due to where they are located you may also end up with a draw.

Odd, I think if you table your enemy you should win with full points. You utterly crushed the enemy, there is no need to control the objectives since there is no one there to contest them.

ObliviousBlueCaboose wrote:Odd, I think if you table your enemy you should win with full points. You utterly crushed the enemy, there is no need to control the objectives since there is no one there to contest them.

I'm with this guy. Unfortunately, not all tournaments agree.

Then you've probably never played in a tourney that required this. I have yet to have anyone play in mine that disagrees with my requirement. Have had plenty of folks say they agree with it.

Boss GreenNutz wrote:Then you've probably never played in a tourney that required this. I have yet to have anyone play in mine that disagrees with my requirement. Have had plenty of folks say they agree with it.

Are the "plenty of folks" the ones who had their entire army wiped off of the table? lol I would have to agree that if their isn't a single enemy unit left on the table, or in reserve, then you have in fact won the game, even if all you have on the table is your HQ model. Annihilation means the total and utter destruction of the enemy forces.

Okay, now I'm confused, can someone direct me to the correct page number of the rulebook?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Never mind, found it.

Boss GreenNutz wrote:Then you've probably never played in a tourney that required this. I have yet to have anyone play in mine that disagrees with my requirement. Have had plenty of folks say they agree with it.

You're right, I haven't. That doesn't stop me from thinking its a bad call.

kmdl1066 wrote:It matters in tournaments that rule the game ends immediately when one army is destroyed. (Adepticon, I'm looking at you.)

What year was that? That wasn't any of the last six years, to my recollection. I only ever played in one tournament, back in 1999 or 2000 where the organizers ruled that the game ended and you couldn't finish out the remaining turns to grab objectives. Adepticon (again, to my recollection in the past, certainly now) says the surviving player can still play out any remaining turns.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

ObliviousBlueCaboose wrote:Odd, I think if you table your enemy you should win with full points. You utterly crushed the enemy, there is no need to control the objectives since there is no one there to contest them.

If your commanding general says "I need you to grab that hill" for X, Y or Z reason (take a recon position, put up a transmitter beacon, be in position to receive a timed LOS laser transmission, plant a demo charge or whatever), and you don't have your troops on that hill at the designated time, you've still failed your mission even if you killed a bunch of the enemy.

You can contrariwise rationalize that if all the enemy in the area are dead or fleeing you have all the time in the world to get in the designated position, but in war (as in life) it's often a matter of timing. If you're not in the right place at the right time you could be screwed.

All that being said, it's a game. The game has varying objectives. If you don't succeed at achieving those objectives, have you really played the best possible game/earned the maximum possible points? No argument that you've won; by the rules you have. But IMO if we're measuring degrees of victory, and one player has the tactical acumen and flexibility to achieve all the designated objectives in several different missions, and another player ignores those missions in favor of going for tablings, which one has displayed more skill?

Opinions may legimately vary, but I certainly don't think it's bad or unreasonable for any given tournament organizer to say it's the first guy.

A 'Wipeout!' in the Warhammer 40K Championships immediately occurs when one player has had all of his models destroyed and there is no chance that any of his models will return to play later. When this happens, the game ends immediately.
The player who achieves a 'Wipeout!' automatically wins the game. Mission objectives are awarded as normal to both players. Some mission objectives can only be scored if you still have the relevant units on the table that are normally required to achieve those mission objectives.
Example 1: Mission 2 (Cleansing Siege!) requires at least one Scoring Unit still alive to achieve Battlefield Control and one model from an HQ unit still alive to achieve Lead by Example.
Example 2: In Mission 2 (Of Iron and Blood!) a player that has suffered a ‘Wipeout!’ can still achieve 2 mission objectives (even though the game is considered a loss). The Sum of Parts and Marked for Termination can both be achieved before the ‘Wipeout!’ conditions are met.

• Game Results & Victory Conditions: W/L/D as determined by total mission objectives achieved and tiebreak. Up to 3 mission objectives per player can be achieved each round. • Sportsmanship Marks: Special (see below). Max 20 points. • Favorite Opponent: Voted on by players. Max 20 points • Player's Choice: Voted on by players. • Appearance: Judge scored (see below). Max 40 points.

• Players who win all 4 games on Friday automatically qualify for Sunday's finals. • All remaining wildcard qualification spots will then be awarded to the players with the strongest W/L/D record (total mission objectives achieved followed by Strength of Schedule followed by the Victory Points result of Game #4 will be used to break ties if necessary).

W/L/D is determined when tabling occurs, objective points are scored as normal. W/L/D, are all that matter, objectives basically determine Tiebreakers and overall standing.

If it is a one off. More or less. You can use up your remaining movements and runs to claim objectives but you'll win anyway.

It depends on the scenario. In the main riulebook, pretty Mich, because whether its kill points or objectives, if there are no enemy model on the board, either you outscored them or you can race to get the.objectives.

In alternative mission sets, like Battle Missions or some of the Ard Boyz scenarios, tabling may not guarantee a win.

In the main rulebook missions tabling an opponent is ALWAYS a win

Tournaments can change the rules ont his, of course.

I don't know of any tournaments which don't have tabling as a win. Some don't award automatic max points/secondary objectives for it.

We don't use W/L/D in tourneys. Each mission has 3 objectives; primary, secondary and tertiary that are worth points with additional modifiers. If the primary objective is to hold a piece of terrain and you lost all your troops tabling your opponent then you have nothing left to hold the objective with and would not be able to claim those points. If the teriary objective is to keep your highest point HQs unit alive and he dies tabling your opponent then you would not be able to claim those points as he is dead.

If you want to say you won the game by tabling your opponent then fine you won the game. Just don't claim points for objectives you weren't able to accomplish.

Mannahnin wrote:I don't know of any tournaments which don't have tabling as a win. Some don't award automatic max points/secondary objectives for it.

I just played in one this weekend. It was possible, but not likely to table an opponent and lose 15-20. I will say that out of 7 games per round, and 5 rounds it never happened.

Can someone give a detailed example of a scenario where the player that is "tabled" somehow ends up winning the game. I just don't see how thats even possible. Unless there is somekind of wierd game scenario in place by the TO, but in standard games like annihalation, capture and control, etc. "tabling" should grant the victory.

shouldn't the game end if your opponents be tabled? or do you just get a recurring turn up until the dice gods abide

Kill points. If your opponent is playing Draigo Wing GKs and only has 4 but you loose 7 KPs tabling him.

That is why I don't use KPs in scenarios. Rather I go with VPs.

The rulebook says that at the end of the game, you win if your opponent has no units left on the board (after removing any fleeing units).

If you table your opponent first turn, you still have turns 2-5/6/7 to do whatever you want.

If you table your opponent and they still have more KP, it doesn't matter, you still win.

And, if both opponents manage to table each other (say, your last unit is fleeing and it kills your last opponent's unit), both players win. (As per the rulebook, they don't draw. They both win.)

sub-zero wrote:Can someone give a detailed example of a scenario where the player that is "tabled" somehow ends up winning the game. I just don't see how thats even possible. Unless there is somekind of wierd game scenario in place by the TO, but in standard games like annihalation, capture and control, etc. "tabling" should grant the victory.

Every mission was the same.

You could score 10 Points for C&C
You could score 10 Points for 3 Objectives (It's the d3+2 Mission)
And you could score 10 points for Kill Points.

If you tie you get 5 points each and a loss is 0 for each mission.

So if I lose all of my Troops, and table my opponent then we get 5 points each for neither one of us scoring the 1st 2 missions. Then if he managed to get more kill points even though he lost all of his he would get 10 points. There was a rule that if you table your opponent you get 5 bonus points, but could not go above 30.

So in the scenerio above, Get player gets 10 for the tie missions, I get 0 for losing KP, and 5 for tabling, and my Opponent gets the 10 for the tie, and 10 for the KP. Grand total Me 15, Opponent 20 equals loss

Boss GreenNutz wrote:Kill points. If your opponent is playing Draigo Wing GKs and only has 4 but you loose 7 KPs tabling him.

That is why I don't use KPs in scenarios. Rather I go with VPs.

Wrong. As I said, in EVERY STANDARD rulebook mission tabling the enemy means you win. I would advise checking the rules this time

VPs suck for determining winner - 4KP GK are supposed to have an advantage in at least 1 of 3 mission types!

I would advise you take a second and reread my posts rather than seeing how large you can make your e-penis swell. You will oddly enough find that I am talking about RTT scenarios. The second sentence in the quote should have been what tipped that little fact off.

Ah right, so youre talking about made up scenarios which dont use the standard table = win rule?

Unless your Tourney consists of nothing more than the TO saying "for game one open your BRB to page 93. We will play Sieze Ground and Dawn of War for deployment" none of them use standard anything now do they?

Couple weeks ago another LGS on the other side of town tried that. To call it a fiasco was an understatement as they ended with 3 guys that had the same record and no way to break a tie.

Then you play enough games (find X such that 2^X > N where N is the number of players in th tournament) or you add additional points availability, such as points for having scoring units in the opponents deployment zone or similar. We've yet to have a tie on TPs, but break ties based on cumulative VP total.

Mostly we dont say the page number - C&C / PB is usually enough for people to know what's what.

Or you do what I do and have bonus poiont modifiers and a published criteria of what will be used to break it in the unlikely event of a tie. But that is getting OT.

As I've said if you are fine with Tabling an oppent as being good enough to garner someone all the battle points and modifiers in a game (guess I better specify Tournament that uses non-standard scoring as to not confuse you) then more power to you. But don't expect that to be the case everywhere. I know of one town just North of Atlanta where that isn't the case and a rather large city about 90 miles North of that, kind of famous for a train song, where tournaments actually get some thought put into them when scoring values and criteria are developed.

Boss GreenNutz wrote:Unless your Tourney consists of nothing more than the TO saying "for game one open your BRB to page 93. We will play Sieze Ground and Dawn of War for deployment" none of them use standard anything now do they?

Couple weeks ago another LGS on the other side of town tried that. To call it a fiasco was an understatement as they ended with 3 guys that had the same record and no way to break a tie.

Scenario is irrelevant. Unless the TO states that they are NOT using that rule (table = win), then it applies. After all, we don't expect them to spell out which movement, shooting, assault, etc rules are in effect, do we? Basically all they have to tell us is what is different, with all else being from the rulebook. So in the absence of a statement saying that tabling your opponent is not a win or a posted scoring method for the game based on whatever, then that rule is in effect. Because they did not say it isn't in effect.

And I've seen quite a few successful tournies that did use just the standard scenarios with no problem. And seen quite a few that used custom scenarios that failed big time. That comes down to the TO, not the scenario.