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'd have to fall back on my 40+ years of gaming experience with other systems and say "Draw." There are games out there with different victory conditions for both sides. In some cases they state which side wins if both fulfill their VC, While in others they state that this is a draw. Some, like 40k, don't mention this eventuality. In no case have I ever seen a game that awards a win to both (most game designers seem to realize we have this burning NEED to win. Something about "closure" I guess.)
As to a tournament setting, do you think it'd be fair to award these two players the same tournament points as the guy at the next table who wiped out his opponent and still had a portion of his army left?
Two wrongs don't make a right, but two wins do make a draw.

I would say that they both get the score indicated by the results.

The WIPEOUT! results apply if your opponent has no models left at the end of game -- it never specifies that you must have models remaining for this to occur.

That is another reason why secondary and tertiary objectives are important.

/shrug

Not sure why draw gets thrown around.

RAW - Reduce your enemy to zero models = win.

Nothing in the rule book says Win + Win = Draw.

There is such a win/win situation. Say for example you dropped your chocolate into my peanut butter. We both win with Reeses.

And from the IG point of view...if all of the enemy are dead its a win, then if they dont have to arrange transport for any surviving IG its a bonus! No need to see if the troops were corrupted by contact with the unclean enemy as well....maybe that last blast was a selfdestruct device on the commissar.


Sliggoth

Elitest Jerk wrote:Nothing in the rule book says Win + Win = Draw.

The rulebook doesn't need to define every single common english word. Whenever two sides get the same result, the outcome is a draw, by very definition of the term.

If the end result is the same for both players it is a DRAW!!!

Come on guys common sense please..

look at it this way - going by the rule book if you wipeout the enemy you WIN

therefore with the magical powers of deduction - if you are wiped out you LOSE

0(draw)+1(win)-1(loss)=0(draw)

Dont attempt to apply real world solutions to the 40k rules...many many things in 40k are NOT the same as the real world because the rules tell us otherwise.

There is nothing at all in the rules that says that if you are wiped out you lose. Its possible to come up with a scenario where your army is wiped put and yet you still meet your objectives (Ive run events where one side was attempting to destroy an objective, as long as the objective was destroyed it didnt matter if the resulting explosion killed the last of your units, you won).

So we really do have to judge the results by what the rules say. In a general scenario, wiping out your opponent is a win. Being wiped out is NOT a loss, if you achieve a win by being wiped out. Using common sense, the two players did indeed score the same value from the game, but the rules tell us that value is a win.

If the two people had tied, they would each get the same value/ point score for the game, yes?

So if the two people both win, they would get the same value/ point score...just in this case it would be a win so they would each get credit for a win. This would only matter when comparing their score to other players, either way the two players have the same score no matter if you rank them as each winning, tieing or losing. The double win only matters when other people's score is considered.

As far as it being a deciding game between the two top players in the tourney, well then it doesnt matter at all how you score it. Any method used, the two players scored the same.


Now if a TO wants to create a house rule before the game is done, that would certainly be reasonable and fair. A TO can create any special house rules that one wishes for his tourney. But if the game has ended and the results need to be used to determine in what order a couple of dozen players have finished one does need to follow what is clearly laid out in the rules.

There really isnt a loophole as its written, especially since its very easy to imagine that destroying the attacking force is all thats needed by the overall army command-- the enemy is dead and cant harm the rest of the army.

Sliggoth

if you wipe out you opponents army you win - what does that make you opponent??


Automatically Appended Next Post:
this is RAW getting out of hand

how is both people winning not the same result/value??

it is a draw

I still do not see why this is confusing.

A draw means you don't lose or win.

How in any way, shape or form can I win but draw. I can't.

*************************
Ok you are Red, Orange or Yellow.

If both people are Yellow then they are Orange.

Is this your bases for a discussion?

I would say that given the rules both players win. Nothing in the victory conditions say wipe out the enemy and survive, it just says wipe out the enemy.

I don't think I would run a tourney with that victory condition but given the victory conditions stated I would give both players a win.

Elitest Jerk wrote:I still do not see why this is confusing.

A draw means you don't lose or win.

How in any way, shape or form can I win but draw. I can't.

*************************
Ok you are Red, Orange or Yellow.

If both people are Yellow then they are Orange.

Is this your bases for a discussion?

Oh dear I hear the dog isnt a dog argument coming from the depths.


I think if having a victor is absolutely crucial then Id say read the VICTORY POINTS section on pg 108 (small rule book) Thats what I was talking about earlier. But if it wasnt the last match in a tourny or something similar, Id just say ok the battle is a draw.

Elitest Jerk wrote:I still do not see why this is confusing.

A draw means you don't lose or win.

How in any way, shape or form can I win but draw. I can't.

A draw is when the result is undecided due to both players having the same result.

If the rules say that both players win, the result is undecided... there is no single, clear winner. That's the very definition of a draw.

No. If I win, I win. If I draw, I draw.

Nothing is undecided.

If Enemy Units = 0 you win.

Pretty straight forward.

Just to be clear...I'm talking RAW. And RAW says win. So it's a win. GW made a mistake and that is nothing new.

Elitest Jerk wrote:No. If I win, I win. If I draw, I draw.

Nothing is undecided.

...unless the other player also wins.


If both players win, there is no clear winner... because there are two winners.

KingCracker wrote:

Elitest Jerk wrote:I still do not see why this is confusing.

A draw means you don't lose or win.

How in any way, shape or form can I win but draw. I can't.

*************************
Ok you are Red, Orange or Yellow.

If both people are Yellow then they are Orange.

Is this your bases for a discussion?

Oh dear I hear the dog isnt a dog argument coming from the depths.


I think if having a victor is absolutely crucial then Id say read the VICTORY POINTS section on pg 108 (small rule book) Thats what I was talking about earlier. But if it wasnt the last match in a tourny or something similar, Id just say ok the battle is a draw.

they are trying to negate the VP's as they are claiming that it is not a draw - "as the BRB says i win - but he wins too"


Automatically Appended Next Post:
in a contest if 2 people get the same result they both win??

no wait don't they call that something else

There is no rule that I can find that says there can not be two winners.

Lose + Lose = Lose

Draw + Draw = Draw

Win + Win = Win

Now lets do this with math.

1=Lose
2=Draw
3=Win

If I win I get 3 points. If you win you get 3 points. So as you can see getting 3 points = win. It doesn't = 2 points which is a draw.

The same can be said if both players lose.

Two Necron players knock each other below 25%. Who loses?

Elitest Jerk wrote:There is no rule that I can find that says there can not be two winners.

There is also no rule I can find that says I cannot hit you in the face with a poodle.

The rules say what you can do, not what you can't.

"It doesn't say I can't" is not a valid argument.

But the rules do quite clearly say that wiping out the opponent is a win. So the rules do say that by meeting the victory conditions you win...and your opponent can win as well.

Being wiped out is NOT a loss however. Why? Because the rules dont say so. Now its quite likely that GW being GW they didnt think about it being possible, but then again its possible that they did. They may have even thought it funny. But the only thing that we know for dead certain is that the rules dont address it as a loss.

Now for a pickup game or any standard single game a win-win means indeed that the players tied. They received the same score and there isnt any tie breaking procedure listed. We can come up with some possible house rules, but if its just a single game why bother? It was obviously a very close game.



Now for a league or a tourney things are a bit different.

If the format is to use the standard victory conditions, then both players have scored a win. They have met the objective needed in order to win the game. Yes, they both won, but thats because the rules were written that way. Its quite possible to write scenarios where more than one person can win. In games with multiple players its fairly common. Even in special scenarios for tournement play its quite possible to screw up and write the victory conditions so that both players can win.

There is a tiny chance that both players can wipe each other out, but if for some reason it worries the TO then it would be quite simple to add a house rule with some form of tiebreaker. Anything at all can be used.

But it does work perfectly fine to just ignore it and give each player a win as well and not have a wipe out tie breaker.

Because it is always going to be possible to have ties, at least in any easily used system. People can end up with a tie in a final decisive (not so decisive in that case) game. So this is nothing new, it just means that the players tied with a win each, instead of with a drawn match.


Sliggoth

It's a draw (hells yeah i just added my own stuff in)

If I was a game designer and I was writing a rule book that explained how you go about wining I would feel it necessary to include a statement such as, if you have wiped out your opponent you automatically win. This would be for situations where you can accumulate mission points over time and such, and I wouldn't want a wiped out played attempting to claim victory because he still had more points, despite being dead.

However, if someone then came up to me and said, well in such a situation they actually both win, because the defeated played wins as stated in the scenario rules, and the other player wins because he wiped out his opponent. And you never said that both players can't lose! I would look at this person, and then punch them in the face for being an idiot. Game designers assume a certain level of common sense from their audience. It shouldn't be necessary to include a rule that says, if you are wiped out, you automatically lose. Because players with half a mind would think, well thats a pointlessly repetitive thing to place in the rule book, since he already said I win if I wipe out my opponent.

Just take a few seconds to really think about how annoying a rule book would be to read if the authors explicitly addressed every issue that should be common sense based off of the rules already stated. Rules aren't meant to lawyered, they are meant to show a logically thinking person how to play a game that the author assumes they are playing for fun, and not so they can be a dick about what the rules actually say down to the letter, as apposed to what the rules are obviously meant to mean.

But for all you lawyers out there:

Deffenition of win: a: to gain in or as if in battle or contest <won the championship>

ie: to gain in battle, to gain in contest, to gain as if in battle, to gain as if in contest.

In other words to win, you have to have gained something. If neither side is left alive, neither can gain from the situation, and therefore it is a draw.

I think this is hilarious and also think that both players win.
The rules quite clearly state that you win. It does not say that they lose, nor does it state that there can only be one winner.

From dictionary.reference.com (i know, no definitions, but I feel this discussion hinges around the English language use and meaning of a word):
" to leave (a contest) undecided; finish with neither side winning, as in a tie".
Well... both sides won , so it can't possibly be a draw.


@K-Hop. The issue is, who decides what is 'obvious'? It may be plainly obvious to the person writing the rules, but not to the person who receives the rulebook... see half of the discussions in this forum where some claim the intent is obvious. And even if they did additionally state 'and if you are tabled, you lose' what then? Both players simultaneously win AND lose?
In a tournament, a result like this could quite well mean the two players coming 1st/2nd or 4th/5th, missing out on significant monetary prizes, if high numbers of points are awarded for a Win.

People seem to be interpreting this wrong. Both players winning is not the same as a 'normal' draw where both players score the same.
And once again. The rules say you win. In a forum where supposedly RAW reigns supreme, this one should be fairly obvious.

K-Hop wrote:If neither side is left alive, neither can gain from the situation, and therefore it is a draw.

I wouldn't try that argument with Tzeentch!

Seriously though, I'd have to say that both players would have met the conditions for winning. As mentioned by others, there are a myriad of scenarios other than the basic ones in the BRB that are dependent on taking out an objective or destroying something. In many of those types of scenarios it is possible that both sides can meet their objectives and both be able to claim victory.

The idea of making it so it's a draw seems off to me. If both players meet the criteria which is written as a win, they should both get a win for a tourny. Yes, it is techinically a tie or draw, but both players have won. People are penalizing players for drawing here.

If two athletes in Olympics tie for gold they do not get downgraded for it. They both receive a gold medal.

Bottom line for me, is both players have concluded the game in a manner in which the rules say that they have won. They should both be awarded full points. Call it what you want, they both WON via rulebook.

Actually when two people tie it is the people below who get penalised, i.e. a tie for first place in gold would result in them sharing 1st and 2nd prize, with the next lowest score getting 3rd.

In this case both players HAVE drawn as they have achieved the same result.

In a perfect world, both players win because they had fun.

Now, the result of the game is a different matter

nosferatu1001 wrote:Actually when two people tie it is the people below who get penalised, i.e. a tie for first place in gold would result in them sharing 1st and 2nd prize, with the next lowest score getting 3rd.

In this case both players HAVE drawn as they have achieved the same result.

The point I was trying to make is both players "Draw" at this winning level, both recieving top honors. People here are saying that by both winning they should only get the points of a draw. It would be like tieing for a Gold and people saying "There was no clear winner so you both get silver."

Here is how I look at it. Most missions give you object X to complete. This is usually a scenerio where both players can not succeed. For example, have more points or control more objectives. Both players can not have the most.

With this rule we are looking at X is, is the other army gone. Both players can answer yes to it. No need to give them fewer points becuase they both met the criteria.

the result is a draw and then you refer to the VP section of your BRB to determine the winner

on a Morale Victory basis

Yes, VPs are a good way of solving the dispute.

they will have the same amount which is a Draw according to the VP chart.

Okay, so both players have automatically won the game. Coincidentally, they've also tied, as they've achieved the same result. Yay, they played a game and nobody lost.

Can we motion to have this thread moved into the tournament discussion forum, since it's not actually a rules question? Or do we need another two pages of arguing over the effective definition of tie vs. draw?

Grey Templar wrote:Yes, VPs are a good way of solving the dispute.

they will have the same amount which is a Draw according to the VP chart.

i believe the BRB (dont have it here) suggust you count back on KP first - if they are equal then VP's are used

as i have stated earlier it is common in a 2000pt battle that the players points don't match

ie 1997pts vs 1999pts