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.

If one of your objectives was to keep your HQs alive, and your opponent killed them, you have failed.

How is this hard to understand?

Mannahnin wrote:If one of your objectives was to keep your HQs alive, and your opponent killed them, you have failed.

How is this hard to understand?

lol wasnt talking about HQs, was talking about board control points

The point is the same either way. If the mission has multiple objectives, or secondary objectives/bones points for achieving secondary goals, why should anyone get those points if they haven’t achieved those secondary objectives?

As I explained in detail before, the purpose of those points is to create separation in the scoring, and to reward and recognize the players skilled enough to still win the game WHILE devoting resources/attention/thought to meeting those secondary missions. If you give those points to someone else, who FAILED to achieve multiple objectives, but instead only met ONE, then how is that fair or reasonable?

If your army has been tasked with holding four areas of ground, and your opponent killed enough of your army that you are unable to hold those four areas, then you are less successful, no?

Mannahnin wrote:

If your army has been tasked with holding four areas of ground, and your opponent killed enough of your army that you are unable to hold those four areas, then you are less successful, no?

exactly my point, if you blast your opponents army off the table, you essentially control the entire board..

TopC wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:

If your army has been tasked with holding four areas of ground, and your opponent killed enough of your army that you are unable to hold those four areas, then you are less successful, no?

exactly my point, if you blast your opponents army off the table, you essentially control the entire board..

No. M is saying:

- You kill 2500 pts of his army.
- He kills 2490 of your army.

Do you really control the field?

Under your theory, you tabled him, so you do... But effectively you don't hold any objectives and chances are you could _maybe_ hold one.

Now if you had played to the mission, could you have actually done it? Yeah probably.

pretre wrote:

TopC wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:

If your army has been tasked with holding four areas of ground, and your opponent killed enough of your army that you are unable to hold those four areas, then you are less successful, no?

exactly my point, if you blast your opponents army off the table, you essentially control the entire board..

No. M is saying:

- You kill 2500 pts of his army.
- He kills 2490 of your army.

Do you really control the field?

Under your theory, you tabled him, so you do... But effectively you don't hold any objectives and chances are you could _maybe_ hold one.

Now if you had played to the mission, could you have actually done it? Yeah probably.

hmm you make a good point...

how bout this, you table your opponent, but before you managed to kill everything he sniped off all your troop choices ? (this is just theoretical, didnt actually happen)

TopC wrote:

pretre wrote:

TopC wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:

If your army has been tasked with holding four areas of ground, and your opponent killed enough of your army that you are unable to hold those four areas, then you are less successful, no?

exactly my point, if you blast your opponents army off the table, you essentially control the entire board..

No. M is saying:

- You kill 2500 pts of his army.
- He kills 2490 of your army.

Do you really control the field?

Under your theory, you tabled him, so you do... But effectively you don't hold any objectives and chances are you could _maybe_ hold one.

Now if you had played to the mission, could you have actually done it? Yeah probably.

hmm you make a good point...

how bout this, you table your opponent, but before you managed to kill everything he sniped off all your troop choices ? (this is just theoretical, didnt actually happen)

It's the same situation. You still can't hold any objectives, even if you tabled him.

And can be a good way to cripple his standings, I might add - forcing a Draw at best in objective-based games. Some game plans are to go directly for the troops choices, especially in armies that only took a few.

TopC wrote:

pretre wrote:
No. M is saying:

- You kill 2500 pts of his army.
- He kills 2490 of your army.

Do you really control the field?

Under your theory, you tabled him, so you do... But effectively you don't hold any objectives and chances are you could _maybe_ hold one.

Now if you had played to the mission, could you have actually done it? Yeah probably.

hmm you make a good point...

how bout this, you table your opponent, but before you managed to kill everything he sniped off all your troop choices ? (this is just theoretical, didnt actually happen)

Exactly our point.

So Tabling does not equal total victory (except in Annihilation/VP) and certainly should not give full bonus points.

In the 2500 to 2490 scenario, your last model is a single Elite.

Using 'AB Scen 1, since you tabled should you get:
+1 for more scoring killed
+1 for more HQ's killed than opponent
+1 for killing highest point unit
+1 for having more scoring points in enemy deployment zone

automatically just for tabling? No. It should be based on what actually happenned.

I think in order:

More scoring - Maybe based on how many you had vs they had
HQ - Maybe based on how many you had vs they had
Highest Pt - Clearly you should.
Enemy Deploy - No.


Not to mention that in Scen 1, you don't actually hold any objectives due to no scoring.

pretre wrote:

TopC wrote:

pretre wrote:
No. M is saying:

- You kill 2500 pts of his army.
- He kills 2490 of your army.

Do you really control the field?

Under your theory, you tabled him, so you do... But effectively you don't hold any objectives and chances are you could _maybe_ hold one.

Now if you had played to the mission, could you have actually done it? Yeah probably.

hmm you make a good point...

how bout this, you table your opponent, but before you managed to kill everything he sniped off all your troop choices ? (this is just theoretical, didnt actually happen)

Exactly our point.

So Tabling does not equal total victory (except in Annihilation/VP) and certainly should not give full bonus points.

In the 2500 to 2490 scenario, your last model is a single Elite.

Using 'AB Scen 1, since you tabled should you get:
+1 for more scoring killed
+1 for more HQ's killed than opponent
+1 for killing highest point unit
+1 for having more scoring points in enemy deployment zone

automatically just for tabling? No. It should be based on what actually happenned.

I think in order:

More scoring - Maybe based on how many you had vs they had
HQ - Maybe based on how many you had vs they had
Highest Pt - Clearly you should.
Enemy Deploy - No.


Not to mention that in Scen 1, you don't actually hold any objectives due to no scoring.

While I agree with you - I think we were talking about simply Massacre points versus Major Victory points. We hadn't even gotten to the Bonus Points yet.

puma713 wrote:
While I agree with you - I think we were talking about simply Massacre points versus Major Victory points. We hadn't even gotten to the Bonus Points yet.

massacre is what i was tlakin about

puma713 wrote:
While I agree with you - I think we were talking about simply Massacre points versus Major Victory points. We hadn't even gotten to the Bonus Points yet.

Doh! I got ahead.

People who quit in the middle of a tournament game are lame. Tabling your opponent with no troop choices in an objective mission is a loss, or at best a tie in my opinion.

General - "Captain, I want you to control these objectives at exactly 18:00 when you'll launch the missiles."

Captain - "Sir, General, Sir. It's 18:00 and we do not control the objectives, but we went chasing the enemy all over hell and back and killed everyone we found. Do I get a promotion?"

General - "Can you launch the missiles Captain?"

Soldier - "No sir, we were too busy killing the enemy, and we lost the launch codes in the encounter."

General - "You shall be rewarded by the Emperor for your lack of discipline." <turns off screen> "Release the virus bombs, we have failed on this planet."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

Did they EARN their 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.

And if I play two of my friends and promise to split the loot if they concede to guarantee me full battle points?

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.

Did the other players get a chance to rest or see how your army played to gain an advantage?

Poor sportsmanship is whining about having to play the game and giving points which are not properly earned.

For all the people saying tabling in non-annihilation missions should be a loss or a tie, I'd like to quote a little something here.

"Regardless of the victory conditions, if at the end of any standard mission your enemy has no units left on the table, you win the game!"

One more just for fun,
"...there are no scoring units that can claim battlefield objectives...a player wielding such an army must remember the Wipeout! rule on page 90 of the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook - if the enemy has no units left on the table at the end of the game, you win regardless of victory conditions. "

Exactly. The base expectation, set by the book, is that you can win by tabling, even if you can't fulfill the primary mission.

I just don't think you should be given any secondary/bonus points, unless you actually fulfilled their conditions/requirements.

"Regardless of the victory conditions, if at the end of any standard mission your enemy has no units left on the table, you win the game!"

So if you table your opponent on turn 6, without holding an objective that would mean major victory.

If you table your opponent on turn 1-5 without having troops remaining that would mean major victory.

If you table your opponent on turn 1-5 and have troops, you have [6 - (that number)] rounds to move to the objectives.

Bonus points are earned by doing what is listed, no other way.

That said, these were not standard missions nor have standard missions tended to appear in tourneys I have played.

/shrug

Is there anything in the rulebook saying that the game ends as soon as you table them?

I was wondering because in the famous 'Ard Boyz senario #3 I tabled my opponent at the end of turn #5 and he said the game was over right away, and that I could not move my jetbikes into his deployment zone for the bonus point in turn #6. When I looked at that rule this morning, it just says that if you table some one you win, and there is nothing saying that the game is over right away.

There is not.

kirsanth wrote:There is not.

Second. But as with all potentially ambiguous rulings, check with your TO.

If I were running it, I'd rule that you get the remainder of your moves. While the main rulebook indicates a win for tabling your opponent, it isn't written with tournaments in mind.

wana10 wrote:For all the people saying tabling in non-annihilation missions should be a loss or a tie, I'd like to quote a little something here.

"Regardless of the victory conditions, if at the end of any standard mission your enemy has no units left on the table, you win the game!"

One more just for fun,
"...there are no scoring units that can claim battlefield objectives...a player wielding such an army must remember the Wipeout! rule on page 90 of the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook - if the enemy has no units left on the table at the end of the game, you win regardless of victory conditions. "

Right. And the Scenario at 'ard Boyz stated specifically otherwise.

Blackmoor wrote:Is there anything in the rulebook saying that the game ends as soon as you table them?

As noted above, there is not. My impression is most people assume the game ends right away, but most people are playing friendly or one-off games where it doesn't really matter like it does in a tournament (i.e., did I get those extra BP conditions or not?). I don't (yet) play hardly any "serious" tournaments, so I'm not sure what is generally done there. It came up a couple times in a Combat Patrol tournament I ran this winter, for which most of the scenarios required more than just killing things. It seemed like people went both ways on whether it ended right away or not. Didn't affect too much, but probably some battle points were lost here or there by people just taking the game as over without thinking about it (people scheduled their own matches over multiple weeks, so I wasn't always there to adjudicate questions). Notably, if you table someone then it shouldn't take much time to figure out if you can get the other criteria or not. If it's just grabbing objectives, then it's just a simple matter of measuring for a couple units and possibly rolling for difficult terrain a couple times.

Blackmoor wrote:
Is there anything in the rulebook saying that the game ends as soon as you table them?

...Wait...
Am I thinking that you are saying that somebody tried to argue that?
That someone at some point said 'That's not realistic, let's make it so that when you table your opponent you take D3 turns rolling dice and ambling around wondering where everyone went'?