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.

I saw people in some of the 'Ard Boyz threads talking about tabling opponents being worth full points. I'm not sure how much more those points continued in those threads, but I wanted to throw out there purely for discussion's sake that in general there's no reason to do that.

If you're designing your own tournament setup then I would agree that it's a perfectly reasonable rule. But, without explicit guidance to that effect for a tournament, it doesn't necessarily make sense. Note that for the 'Ard Boyz prelim rounds it indicates what results apply for tabling an opponent---for once an important rules question was well answered up front!---and whether to do that or not should not have been treated as the local TO's call (if that happened anywhere). In particular, Mission 1 tabling only produced a Major Victory unless you otherwise held most of the objectives.

This actually raises a small second issue, whether or not the game ends when someone's tabled. If the game ends right away, then you have a weird disincentive to leave one unit hanging until you can sweep up the bonus points, then finish them off. That would argue for tabling being worth max points except for the major caveat that even if you table your opponent, you definitely may not be able to take all the objectives or bonus point criteria in some scenarios.

Although I haven't been playing for that long, I assume the seemingly common default convention of tabling produces max points is a holdover from when games were generally more annihilation focused. With the increased attention on objectives in 5e, that assumption doesn't hold up as well so I think it's worth pushing back against.

Just some comments.

Thx

I think GW addressed this issue for the Ard Boyz with their clarifications.

mas·sa·cre
   /ˈmæsəkər/ Show Spelled [mas-uh-ker] Show IPA noun, verb,-cred, -cring.
–noun
1.
the unnecessary, indiscriminate killing of a large number of human beings or animals, as in barbarous warfare or persecution or for revenge or plunder.
2.
a general slaughter, as of persons or animals: the massacre of millions during the war.
3.
Informal. a crushing defeat, esp. in sports.


Seems to me that if the field is left with not an enemy soul surviving, you've massacred them. That's a general philosophy; in game1 it makes sense that the point of the game was to secure some important objectives, and winning the game revolves around securing those objectives - such that if the enemy is left on the field and you're incapable of capturing them....you still fail the mission. Makes sense to me.

@Sarigar, I agree. This isn't really about 'Ard Boyz except in the positive---it was handled well there---rather a more general comment. That's part of why I created a new topic, for people not interested in 'Ard Boyz.

Its really just a time saver. I have many opponents that will concede in turn 3 because they know how it will end.

They are trying to do the right thing by their opponent by giving them full battle points.

Some players refuse to do this, and try to hurt your overall score by forcing you to chase after empty rhinos for 2 turns when the battle has been over for a while. I personally find this to be poor sportmanship.

These tournaments often require you to stand for 10 to 12 hours a pop. Conceding early in a hopless battle gives both players a chance to A) rest, and B) look at whats happening at other tables to prepare for the next round.

I for one am glad that they clarified things. in game 3 I tabled my opponent who had 18 KP total. He took 19 KP off of me and half of my army was still alive. (ran jump pack BA)

I think it would be ridiculous for me to table my opponent and get a minor loss. I did not like scenario 3 but am happy that gw made sure that some folks at least had a chance.

This debate always mystifies me.

The point of having secondary objectives and bonus battle points is to create separation in the tournament scoring, rewarding the players who are capable of focusing on multiple objectives simultaneously. A player just has to be better than his opponent to win by achieving the primary objective; but he can distinguish himself as better than the other WINNERS by also maneuvering his force to fulfill other missions/objectives at the same time. Similarly, if a good player loses a game, he may be able to scrounge some points/separation from other losing players if he is still able to achieve some of the secondary/tertiary/battle point objectives.

With this in mind, to make wiping out an opponent automatically grant max points defeats the purpose of those secondary objectives. If you just focus on tabling, you are basically circumventing the normal victory conditions. You are creating an apples to oranges comparison regarding what you achieved in a given round vs. what another winner did. Now obviously wiping out your opponent is a desirable outcome, and the rulebook specifically states that it gives you a win regardless of the mission, but I don’t believe there’s a good argument for it to also automatically grant you any secondary objectives/bonus points.

For example, if one of the bonus points is for killing all your opponent’s HQs, and another is for keeping your HQs alive, this creates a challenge for the player. If his HQ is important and deadly, does he risk its life by using it aggressively, or play conservatively with it to keep it alive, possibly handicapping his ability to win the mission’s primary objective? If both players are targeting one another’s HQs (as the aforementioned two bonuses would have it), this becomes even more challenging. Now, if player A manages to win, say, a game of Secure & Control while meeting both of those objectives (keeping his own HQ alive, and killing his opponent’s), he has met the challenges put before him. If player B wipes out his opponent, but fails to keep his own HQ alive, he seems (to my mind, anyway), to have done an inferior job at balancing his multiple objectives, and does not deserve that last bonus point.

With the above in mind, I have always seen the answers to these questions as fairly obvious and easy. You get the points you earn. Tabling your opponent automatically wins you the primary. You get any secondary/supplementary points only if you actually earn them. If you table your opponent and still have turns left, you simply play out the remaining turns, and if you can fulfill those objectives, good for you! This takes 2-3 minutes, usually (maybe a little more if you’re moving/Running multiple large squads through terrain to get to objectives). So it’s not as if it’s a logistical hurdle or time issue.

That said, of course each tournament organizer is free to run it however they like. And I appreciate that Ard Boyz made a ruling on it. I just think there’s an easy and “best” answer to this question.

Mannahnin, what would make you think that tabling your opponent would grant you all the bonus conditions? Tabling was defined in 2/3 rounds as giving a massacre, which is 24 points. The bonus points are outside the parameters of the game winning conditions and you have to meet those separately; not automatically get +4 points for winning.

it seems to me that their kinda just following the rules in the BRB where clearing the enemy means you automatically win (its some where in the middle i'll cite later)

Dashofpepper wrote:Mannahnin, what would make you think that tabling your opponent would grant you all the bonus conditions?

I believe you'll find that he's speaking to the OP who was debating full 24, not the 'Ard Boyz practice of giving a
Major or Massacre with you winning bonus on their merits. There's a sly knuckle bump to 'AB at the end for going to one side of the debate. In this case, the right one.

gannam wrote:Its really just a time saver. I have many opponents that will concede in turn 3 because they know how it will end.

They are trying to do the right thing by their opponent by giving them full battle points.

Some players refuse to do this, and try to hurt your overall score by forcing you to chase after empty rhinos for 2 turns when the battle has been over for a while. I personally find this to be poor sportmanship.

I would never concede. Not even in the face of utter devastation. And that makes me a poor sport? I paid just as much as you did to play in the tournament. If you didn't earn full points, why should I give them to you when someone else across the table is sweating profusely trying to figure out how he is going to reach that 5th objective for full points? Just because you want them? Sorry - if you want full points, you shouldn't have thrown your fifth troops choice into assault with my Banshees (or what have you).

I think you've got it backwards. I think the person decimating his opponent expecting his opponent to forfeit is the poor sport. Not for destroying the opponent, but for having the "just get it over with" attitude. That attitude pervades the tournament scene and it's sickening. The other person came to play too. Just because they're losing badly doesn't mean you should sit there with a bored look on your face, yawning, waiting on them to roll their measly attacks against your uber Deathstar.

The Scenario 1 rule that tabling isn't a massacre was genius, in my mind. I agree with what Mann said above about it making it more about tactics than about slaughter. You weren't playing Annihilate. You were playing Seize Ground. If you played the game like you were playing Annihilate, you weren't following the mission and hence, didn't get full points for destroying your opponent a la Annihilation. I don't see anything wrong with that at all.

And as a side note: Empty rhinos can still contest objectives and turn a massacre/win into a minor/draw.

This has varied a good bit inthe last 12 years, Tabling has almost always given you full battle points, but did not always give you the bonus points too. Sometimes this gives the cat playing with a mouse effect. I am intentionally not killing you so I don't screw myself. I liked mission one with one exception, I feel if you tabled your opponent and had 4 scoring units left you could have held all the objectives and so should have had full points.

This is the way that I like to see it played, if you have the potential to get all the other points when your opponent has no more units on the table you should get full points.

And yes, if one preson only has 300 points left on the table and the other player has 0 I feel a massacre/full battle point score is fully vindicated.

Mannahnin wrote:With the above in mind, I have always seen the answers to these questions as fairly obvious and easy. You get the points you earn. Tabling your opponent automatically wins you the primary. You get any secondary/supplementary points only if you actually earn them. If you table your opponent and still have turns left, you simply play out the remaining turns, and if you can fulfill those objectives, good for you!

This seems like the best way to handle things, provided that you are allowed to play out any remaining turns of the game.

Dashofpepper wrote:Mannahnin, what would make you think that tabling your opponent would grant you all the bonus conditions? Tabling was defined in 2/3 rounds as giving a massacre, which is 24 points. The bonus points are outside the parameters of the game winning conditions and you have to meet those separately; not automatically get +4 points for winning.

Dash, as tjkopena said, this thread is not just about ‘ard boys. He’s talking about the (somewhat commonplace) practice of automatically giving full points for tabling. 2/3 of the AB prelim scenarios this year did. And Adepticon (for one) does it. Both tjkopena and I disagree with this practice, and I was explaining why.

Orion_44 wrote:This has varied a good bit inthe last 12 years, Tabling has almost always given you full battle points, but did not always give you the bonus points too.

As you say, how it’s been done has varied from time to time and place to place. IIRC the 1999 Baltimore GT had an “army break point” rule, where if either army were reduced to under 20% of its starting model count, they automatically lost/the game automatically ended. Not the worst idea I’ve ever heard, but pretty close, and I never saw it used again.

Orion_44 wrote:Sometimes this gives the cat playing with a mouse effect. I am intentionally not killing you so I don't screw myself.

Only if your organizer makes the (IMO bad) ruling that the game automatically ends when one side is wiped out, without playing the rest of the turns. IMO this is a poor practice.

Orion_44 wrote: I liked mission one with one exception, I feel if you tabled your opponent and had 4 scoring units left you could have held all the objectives and so should have had full points.

As long as you had enough time for your units to get to those objectives in the turns/time remaining, you could!

Ah; my mistake.

Some players refuse to do this, and try to hurt your overall score by forcing you to chase after empty rhinos for 2 turns when the battle has been over for a while. I personally find this to be poor sportmanship.

So your saying they should just give up after paying or putting in effort so you can gain from it?
No, that would be selfish, which is also poor sportsmanship.

Best practice is to play it out. If the game's outcome seems a foregone conclusion, then focus on the secondary objectives so you can scrounge some points. This is part of why they exist; so a player who knows he's losing can mitigate the damage/has something to fight for.

I agree that it's bad sportsmanship to expect your opponent to concede and just give you points which you didn't earn/couldn't get. How is that fair if you get the same score as someone who legitimately earned it? Or more points than someone who succeeded just as well at the game as you actually did?

Mannahnin: 100% with you on this one.
You cant expect to go to a tournament and be given points for feth all.
The whole idea of a tournament is to not back down and fight for everything.

Ive had it numerous times where im pretty much gone, but still manage to drag back a draw, or in a few cases, a minor win.

If ive spent a few hours driving or had to pay for the event, why should i just hand someone points?
They want to prove themselves, then they can earn them like everyone else.

Which I think is a bit of a parallel to tabling: having your opponent quit when he determines he will lose. Guy quits and you get full points vs. guy who doesn't quit, but you still beat, but prevents you from getting full points. This can and does make a big deal in tourney standings.

Speaking as a TO, making Tabling an automatic 20 is detrimental for a couple of reasons.

First, as Mannahin pointed out, it hampers seperation. The TOs need some seperation, as it makes pairings and placings truely objective. If eveyone is sporting massacres, then at some point, the TOs are doing coin flips to determine pairings.

Second, it encourages FaceBeaterHammer. Specifically, armies (and player mentality) revolving around killing every single model in the other guys army, as opposed to more tactical oriented scenario goals. This is bad for a couple of reasons, mostly because it dilutes the effect of tactical play but also because it makes for some hard fealings in some people. A sporting victor should have the opportunity to let his opponent leave the table with some of his dignity intact and not have it hamper him in the tournament.

Finally, not all armies are created equal. Mechanized armies are virtually impossible to table, especially if one or both sides are playing the "reservehammer" game. Many Tau and Eldar builds simply do not have the offense to even consider tabling opposing armies and get their wins in the movement phase. An emphasis on tabling creates army favoritism.

Phazael wrote:Speaking as a TO, making Tabling an automatic 20 is detrimental for a couple of reasons.

First, as Mannahin pointed out, it hampers seperation. The TOs need some seperation, as it makes pairings and placings truely objective. If eveyone is sporting massacres, then at some point, the TOs are doing coin flips to determine pairings.

Second, it encourages FaceBeaterHammer. Specifically, armies (and player mentality) revolving around killing every single model in the other guys army, as opposed to more tactical oriented scenario goals. This is bad for a couple of reasons, mostly because it dilutes the effect of tactical play but also because it makes for some hard fealings in some people. A sporting victor should have the opportunity to let his opponent leave the table with some of his dignity intact and not have it hamper him in the tournament.

Finally, not all armies are created equal. Mechanized armies are virtually impossible to table, especially if one or both sides are playing the "reservehammer" game. Many Tau and Eldar builds simply do not have the offense to even consider tabling opposing armies and get their wins in the movement phase. An emphasis on tabling creates army favoritism.

Trying to table your opponent is a viable strategy. Yet at the same time your trying to table your opponent you need to place yourself into positions that are beneficial to you in the end game, especially if objectives are the key. I dont see how tabling creates favoritism, if anything NOT Table an opponent is favoritism to some armies.

Try this
Im holding 4 objectives (massacre victory)
opponent moves his last remaining model into contesting, omg i cant kill it because i wont get my points? if i dont kill it i wont get my points?

or this

Opponent holds 1 objective, i hold 3
i can easily blast him off his last rock and claim it for the massacre, but if i kill it he will be tabled...what do i do? oh my..

how is leaving an enemy model on the table intentionally any better than just killing it? well you have a heavy weaponst eam in the back, ill not shoot at you just so i dont table you.

..lol sorry this just makes me laugh that people argue against tabling an opponent in a war game, in a competitive setting.

Its the difference, metaphorically speaking, of people who prefer boxing matches that go the distance vs ones that end in an early KO. Personally, going in and getting full BPs by outmanuevering for objectives and achieving secondary goals is a lot more tactical than simply trying to blow the enemy army off of the table. And if you can't see how encouraging tabling favors MEQ ATSKNF armies over the more squishy ones, I really don't know what to tell you.

Phazael wrote:Its the difference, metaphorically speaking, of people who prefer boxing matches that go the distance vs ones that end in an early KO. Personally, going in and getting full BPs by outmanuevering for objectives and achieving secondary goals is a lot more tactical than simply trying to blow the enemy army off of the table. And if you can't see how encouraging tabling favors MEQ ATSKNF armies over the more squishy ones, I really don't know what to tell you.

I play tau, which was one of the armies you said had problems w/ tabling due to lack of firepower. I rarely have a game where an opponent wasnt tabled or blasted down to effectively nothing and would be killed w/ 1 more turns worth of shooting. If you cant kill marines en mass your doing something wrong, either volume your shots up, or just ignore their armor... block and pop their rides turn 1, turn 2 finish off mech and start the turkey shoot.. guess im just use to 80% of my matches being against marines, so i build accordingly..

TopC wrote:

Try this
Im holding 4 objectives (massacre victory)
opponent moves his last remaining model into contesting, omg i cant kill it because i wont get my points? if i dont kill it i wont get my points?

or this

Opponent holds 1 objective, i hold 3
i can easily blast him off his last rock and claim it for the massacre, but if i kill it he will be tabled...what do i do? oh my..

how is leaving an enemy model on the table intentionally any better than just killing it? well you have a heavy weaponst eam in the back, ill not shoot at you just so i dont table you.

..lol sorry this just makes me laugh that people argue against tabling an opponent in a war game, in a competitive setting.

I'm not sure that's the point. In the 'Ard Boyz scenario that we're referring to, if you had 4 objectives, tabling or not, you still got the massacre. However, if you have 1 troops unit left and you table your opponent, you couldn't get a massacre, only a Major Victory. It's not the same situation.

If you only had 1 troops unit, you could only score a Minor Victory, but if you tabled him, you got a Major - so there, it was worth blasting him off that last rock. However, if you had 5 troops and -none- of them were on objectives, it was a Draw unless you tabled him. The argument is that, if there is a chance to change the rankings in the tournament by your one lone rhino contesting an objective, why give up so someone else can have full points? I drove to the tournament, I paid my way in. I don't deserve to get 3 points instead of 0?

puma713 wrote:

TopC wrote:

Try this
Im holding 4 objectives (massacre victory)
opponent moves his last remaining model into contesting, omg i cant kill it because i wont get my points? if i dont kill it i wont get my points?

or this

Opponent holds 1 objective, i hold 3
i can easily blast him off his last rock and claim it for the massacre, but if i kill it he will be tabled...what do i do? oh my..

how is leaving an enemy model on the table intentionally any better than just killing it? well you have a heavy weaponst eam in the back, ill not shoot at you just so i dont table you.

..lol sorry this just makes me laugh that people argue against tabling an opponent in a war game, in a competitive setting.

I'm not sure that's the point. In the 'Ard Boyz scenario that we're referring to, if you had 4 objectives, tabling or not, you still got the massacre. However, if you have 1 troops unit left and you table your opponent, you couldn't get a massacre, only a Major Victory. It's not the same situation.

If you only had 1 troops unit, you could only score a Minor Victory, but if you tabled him, you got a Major - so there, it was worth blasting him off that last rock. However, if you had 5 troops and -none- of them were on objectives, it was a Draw unless you tabled him. The argument is that, if there is a chance to change the rankings in the tournament by your one lone rhino contesting an objective, why give up so someone else can have full points? I drove to the tournament, I paid my way in. I don't deserve to get 3 points instead of 0?

never quit

TopC wrote:

puma713 wrote:

TopC wrote:

Try this
Im holding 4 objectives (massacre victory)
opponent moves his last remaining model into contesting, omg i cant kill it because i wont get my points? if i dont kill it i wont get my points?

or this

Opponent holds 1 objective, i hold 3
i can easily blast him off his last rock and claim it for the massacre, but if i kill it he will be tabled...what do i do? oh my..

how is leaving an enemy model on the table intentionally any better than just killing it? well you have a heavy weaponst eam in the back, ill not shoot at you just so i dont table you.

..lol sorry this just makes me laugh that people argue against tabling an opponent in a war game, in a competitive setting.

I'm not sure that's the point. In the 'Ard Boyz scenario that we're referring to, if you had 4 objectives, tabling or not, you still got the massacre. However, if you have 1 troops unit left and you table your opponent, you couldn't get a massacre, only a Major Victory. It's not the same situation.

If you only had 1 troops unit, you could only score a Minor Victory, but if you tabled him, you got a Major - so there, it was worth blasting him off that last rock. However, if you had 5 troops and -none- of them were on objectives, it was a Draw unless you tabled him. The argument is that, if there is a chance to change the rankings in the tournament by your one lone rhino contesting an objective, why give up so someone else can have full points? I drove to the tournament, I paid my way in. I don't deserve to get 3 points instead of 0?

never quit

I don't. I was rehashing the original argument.

And in regards to it making you laugh that people argue against tabling an opponent: it makes me laugh that people can't play the mission and would prefer to table the opponent for the default win. If you have all 5 objectives and then you table them, you deserve a massacre. Why? Because you were playing Seize Ground before Annihilation. If you had 0 objectives and you table them, you don't deserver a massacre. Why? Because you weren't playing Annihilation and you didn't keep your troops alive. Trying to table takes the tactics out of the missions and has one side playing Annihilation every round of every tournament.

You should always have to accomplish the mission in order to get a massacre win. A few lists exist where there are no scoring units... AT ALL. (the all death company dreadnought list posted on here a while back comes to mind) This list should NEVER get a massacre result in missions involving objectives, even if they table their opponent. They can't hold objectives, therefore they cannot complete the mission objective. At best, they should earn a draw. If you table your opponent turn 4, you have 2 turns left to move your troops into position to hold as many objectives as you can. If you can't do this, you don't win.

puma713 wrote:

TopC wrote:

puma713 wrote:

TopC wrote:

Try this
Im holding 4 objectives (massacre victory)
opponent moves his last remaining model into contesting, omg i cant kill it because i wont get my points? if i dont kill it i wont get my points?

or this

Opponent holds 1 objective, i hold 3
i can easily blast him off his last rock and claim it for the massacre, but if i kill it he will be tabled...what do i do? oh my..

how is leaving an enemy model on the table intentionally any better than just killing it? well you have a heavy weaponst eam in the back, ill not shoot at you just so i dont table you.

..lol sorry this just makes me laugh that people argue against tabling an opponent in a war game, in a competitive setting.

I'm not sure that's the point. In the 'Ard Boyz scenario that we're referring to, if you had 4 objectives, tabling or not, you still got the massacre. However, if you have 1 troops unit left and you table your opponent, you couldn't get a massacre, only a Major Victory. It's not the same situation.

If you only had 1 troops unit, you could only score a Minor Victory, but if you tabled him, you got a Major - so there, it was worth blasting him off that last rock. However, if you had 5 troops and -none- of them were on objectives, it was a Draw unless you tabled him. The argument is that, if there is a chance to change the rankings in the tournament by your one lone rhino contesting an objective, why give up so someone else can have full points? I drove to the tournament, I paid my way in. I don't deserve to get 3 points instead of 0?

never quit

I don't. I was rehashing the original argument.

And in regards to it making you laugh that people argue against tabling an opponent: it makes me laugh that people can't play the mission and would prefer to table the opponent for the default win. If you have all 5 objectives and then you table them, you deserve a massacre. Why? Because you were playing Seize Ground before Annihilation. If you had 0 objectives and you table them, you don't deserver a massacre. Why? Because you weren't playing Annihilation and you didn't keep your troops alive. Trying to table takes the tactics out of the missions and has one side playing Annihilation every round of every tournament.

im seeing it from the point of view of an army that doesnt take ground well, nor does it physically hold ground well (crap cc)
so if said crap cc army were to blast the enemy off their land, why should they be penalized for it?

Because their objective is to hold the ground, and they failed to do that. Just like if the secondary objective is to keep your HQs alive, and your opponent kills them, the fact that you tabled him doesn't magically make your HQs not dead. You failed to achieve your objectives.

Mannahnin wrote:Because their objective is to hold the ground, and they failed to do that. Just like if the secondary objective is to keep your HQs alive, and your opponent kills them, the fact that you tabled him doesn't magically make your HQs not dead. You failed to achieve your objectives.

i didnt fail the objectives, i just near tabled them before moving forward.