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.

Mondo you needed to scroll up a few posts. You would have found this one from me;

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.

I believe that fills the bill doesn't it?

I think tabling should be an automatic win, with max points too.

Otherwise you could get people playing metagames where they build two huge troops, and a single HQ, then all they have to do is pop three rhinos in a kill point mission and they can't lose no matter what. Their army could be wiped off the board in a turn two assault, but if they pop a few transports they won.

Boss GreenNutz wrote: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.

Which is what we do, and what I said....

Boss GreenNutz wrote: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.

Ah, insulting the poster! Well done, you get +1 internets for an amazing argument!

If you entirely destroy an opposing army, to the last grot, why shouldnt this give you all points?

Not only does it have to use non-standard scoring, it has to additionally specify that the wipe-out rule is NOT in effect. Two differing concepts there.

Boss GreenNutz wrote: But don't expect that to be the case everywhere.

It gets better - strawman arguments are a bonus +2 to your e-peen score!

[quote=Boss GreenNutz 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.

This might sound stupid, but what exactly does "tabling," mean? I tried google and couldn't really find a definition. From reading this thread, I can venture a guess that it means removing all enemy units from play. Am I right?

acekevin8412 wrote:This might sound stupid, but what exactly does "tabling," mean? I tried google and couldn't really find a definition. From reading this thread, I can venture a guess that it means removing all enemy units from play. Am I right?

Wping out the entire enemy army, everything.

And some folks don't think it should be. Who is to say which line of thinking is more correct?

Yes the army in your scenario may be better suited to a KP mission but it would be hurt in a mission requiring you to get into your opponents deployment zone or capturing multiple objectives/table quarters anything that requires movement. You may be able to string them out but if one end gets assaulted the others would get pulled off. If they get pinned or fail a break check it goes downhill from there.

If you entirely destroy an opposing army, to the last grot, why shouldnt this give you all points?

If you loose all of your scoring units doing so why should you? Last I checked only troops can hold objectives. Or did that requirement change recently?

Not only does it have to use non-standard scoring, it has to additionally specify that the wipe-out rule is NOT in effect. Two differing concepts there.

Odd I thought somewhere I did say that is briefed to all players. Yup there it is on page 1. Go figure.

So using the rulebook implies no thought was put into the scoring?

No but if you want to play missions out of a rulebook that is now several years old can you not stay home and do that? I guess originality and new challenges gets some folks out of their comfort zone and makes them think about what they are doing. Nothing wrong with that but if you prefer the status quo go for it.

Neither side is more correct - yet you were implying yours was.

Standard rulebook missions give a 2:3 advantage for spam armies. The absolutely only thing that even vaguely balances this are KP missions. Removing KPs as a mission even more encourages spam crap that is making the game so incredibly, soul shatteringly dull.

OOPs was in an edit. refer up one post.

Beause the rules say so, is the main reason.

Does staying at home let you play against people from all around the country? Not usually.

Le sigh... you win the internet is yours. I guess any tourney where the TO states that tabling is not an auto-win and spends hours developing and playtesting new scenarios rather than telling everyone to open their rulebooks and do scenario X with deployment zone Y isn't worth attending and a total waste of time..

Boss GreenNutz wrote:Le sigh... you win the internet is yours. I guess any tourney where the TO states that tabling is not an auto-win and spends hours developing and playtesting new scenarios rather than telling everyone to open their rulebooks and do scenario X with deployment zone Y isn't worth attending and a total waste of time..

Wow, [byet another[/b] strawman argument - thats another +2 to your score

Or, instead of making gak up you could, instead, actually listen to other posters. I assume you missed the "they are both equal" part? Possibly. maybe, when you have had the courtesy to actually read others postings before throwing a melodramatic strop you would see this.

Dude where did I ever state that palying a mission out of the rulebook and tabling your opponent is not a win?

Had you bothered to read you would have seen from my very first post in this thread that I offered alternatives to add a challenge.

I run most of the tourneys at m y LGS and tell everyone tabling does not automatically mean a win.

Again. You won the white flag is up whip out your e-penis and show it to the world.

Yeah, pretty much. If an army is wiped off the board, it counts as a win. So if you are winning and could wipe out an enemy, don't jump pack out of the woods.

VPs suck for determining winner

I have to say I agree with this wholeheartedly. Kill Points are an almost essential balancing mechanism to the game. Small armies bitch about multi-objectives, big armies about kill points. I don't mind scenarios that add extra things that can or need to be done, but switching KPs to VPs skews game balance very much in favour of low-cost mech MSU spam.

Blood and Slaughter wrote:

VPs suck for determining winner

I have to say I agree with this wholeheartedly. Kill Points are an almost essential balancing mechanism to the game. Small armies bitch about multi-objectives, big armies about kill points. I don't mind scenarios that add extra things that can or need to be done, but switching KPs to VPs skews game balance very much in favour of low-cost mech MSU spam.

+1. If it wasn't for these my army would be pretty much screwed in annihilation games (Maxed out sang guard, DC, Stormraven, Dread, Dante and 1 Assault squad...) Now I can actually win a game (eventually... such bad luck in the last turn...)

You don't find it a bit absurd that a 35 point rhino is the equivalent of a 500 point terminator unit in KP missions? I honestly think kill points were the absolute dumbest addition in 5th.

Kevlar wrote:You don't find it a bit absurd that a 35 point rhino is the equivalent of a 500 point terminator unit in KP missions? I honestly think kill points were the absolute dumbest addition in 5th.

It does, but it stops mech spam and MSU armies in their tracks...

BlapBlapBlap wrote:

Kevlar wrote:You don't find it a bit absurd that a 35 point rhino is the equivalent of a 500 point terminator unit in KP missions? I honestly think kill points were the absolute dumbest addition in 5th.

It does, but it stops mech spam and MSU armies in their tracks...

Not it does not. When was the last time you say someone not bring a MSU/ Mech Spam list because of Kill Points? It might make them harder to win that game, but they still bring them. And if you used VP then you would "stop Death Stars in their tracks"

Ovion wrote:If your entire arny is dead, then you lose.

It says that in the rulebook.

ummmmm.....this /thread

DPBellathrom wrote:

Ovion wrote:If your entire arny is dead, then you lose.

It says that in the rulebook.

ummmmm.....this /thread

No. It actually says that if your opponent's entire army is dead, you win. Automatic victory is the rule, not automatic defeat.

wipeout rule.... pretty much black and white says if you kill everything you auto win.

anything else tournament or elsewise is just plain ridonkulus. and if i happened to play in a tournament that rules against the above, allowing a win when you have no army, thats the last time i play in that guys tournament. i wont go into the whole KP vrs VP thing cause thats just a big ol internet can of hentai worms.

checked brb

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.

Kevlar wrote:You don't find it a bit absurd that a 35 point rhino is the equivalent of a 500 point terminator unit in KP missions? I honestly think kill points were the absolute dumbest addition in 5th.

No. Because Obj missions (2/3rd of all games) gives an advantage to lots and lots of Troops. KP turns the massive IWIN button that is troop choice and vehicle spam into something less of an auto advantage.

Boss - apparently you dont even see when you're constructing strawman arguments, i.e. making gak up that was never said, and have a hissy fit when called. Have fun

And yet I've asked you to show me what I've made up that wasn't said with no quote from you showing me what I made up. You are correct I made up a straw man.

Don't worry Darth I fill 32 tables with players at least once a quarter. You won't be missed.

"I guess any tourney where the TO states that tabling is not an auto-win and spends hours developing and playtesting new scenarios rather than telling everyone to open their rulebooks and do scenario X with deployment zone Y isn't worth attending and a total waste of time.."

That was made up, as I never said that. That was the second of your strawman arguments.

You also didnt actually ask me to quote you what you made up - not until now at least. You're 100% on making things up though, pretty good consistency.

DarthSpader wrote:wipeout rule.... pretty much black and white says if you kill everything you auto win.

anything else tournament or elsewise is just plain ridonkulus. and if i happened to play in a tournament that rules against the above, allowing a win when you have no army, thats the last time i play in that guys tournament. i wont go into the whole KP vrs VP thing cause thats just a big ol internet can of hentai worms.

checked brb

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.

Quoted for truth!!!!!

I posted in the wrong topic lol

but it does change the dynamics, if you're not allowed to tool your army to wipe out your opponent as the default win choice

Uhmmmwhere did I say you said that? Pretty high on yourself there aren't you. But hey if it feeds your ego to think the world revolves around you so be it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:"I guess any tourney where the TO states that tabling is not an auto-win and spends hours developing and playtesting new scenarios rather than telling everyone to open their rulebooks and do scenario X with deployment zone Y isn't worth attending and a total waste of time.."

That was made up, as I never said that. That was the second of your strawman arguments.

You also didnt actually ask me to quote you what you made up - not until now at least. You're 100% on making things up though, pretty good consistency.

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.

^ This.

yep boss.... and your tournaments are clearly one i have zero intention on actually wasting my money attending. if i make an army list that is designed to win by wiping my opponent, instead of securing KP etc, then i find out my build is no good?

not a worthwhile tournament. and im pretty sure youll get more then the odd person with a simaler argument. but dont worry... your attitutde makes it clear you have no intent on changing or adapting. and those that dont adapt... die out. so enjoy running your little world whilst you can

Guess that is why I run tourneys designed for folks to have fun playing in and get challenging games in by developing scenarios that require them to bring balanced rather than WAAC lists. In 3 years of running them at the LGS I have yet to have a single person tell me they don't like the missions. But hey if destroying the person across the table is the only way you get joy out of life then go for it.