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.

Hi people ! I playef a game yesterday and I wiped my opponents army off the table. Sadly, I lost the game 38 to 31 VP based on objectives alone. Is there any impact to wiping out your opponent army outside of your opponent having no units for the rest of the turn ? Thanks for your answers.

The game continues and you can still play until the game ends, otherwise nothing else happens. Unless the mission rules say otherwise.

Well thank you for your answer

In the grim darkness of the far future, getting exterminated is fine as long as you're ahead on points!

The Imperium should just die while it is ahead; it's held Terra for 10,000 years now; surely it's got enough points that it can safely expire now and still win.

“In the grim darkness of the far future, goals are more important than lives.”

 alextroy wrote:
“In the grim darkness of the far future, goals are more important than lives.”

"In the grim darkness of the far future, the goal is somehow other than preserving lives, even for dying races, races being genocided, etc."

If you are looking for a reference, page 7 of the Chapter Approved 2020 Grand Tournament booklet or page 283 of the MRB tell you what to do if one player has no models remaining in their army before the game ends on Battle Round 5. The player with models left plays out their turns, scoring VPs as appropriate. Tabling your opponent is not, however, an autowin.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
“In the grim darkness of the far future, goals are more important than lives.”

"In the grim darkness of the far future, the goal is somehow other than preserving lives, even for dying races, races being genocided, etc."

I dont really understand what your point is... its pretty easy with only a tiny amount of imagination to conceive of all manner of scenarios where an objective can be achieved that saves more lives for the faction in the big picture even if the small force you were leading was wiped out.

Mostly jesting about the wider narrative implications.

"Alright guys, retreat from the planet. We've lost."
"But sir, we have slain them to a man in every battle to date, zero of them are left on the planet, and the nearest enemy force is right light-years away!"
"Nope, sorry, over the course of the last five battles, they stood on more points for longer. We have to leave, them's the rules."
^ the result of our weekly narrative campaign so far after five games if we ended it now.

Well, there might be some scenarios were the main objective of a faction is more than territorial conquest. Assassination, info retrieval, sabotage, slowing the enemy, etc. Can be achieved without necessary any soldier making it back home. It might even more be the case in W40k, a setting were the lives of soldiers are like bullets.

I mostly asked the question because in another game that I play, wiping out your opponent gives you a bonus in VP at the end of the game. I just wanted to make sure I didn't skipped over anything while reading the rules.

All those things you listed except "slowing the enemy" are killteam style things. One does not send a company of Leman Russ tanks to assassinate a guy, or sabotage a factory, or retrieve information.

Black Library says otherwise.

 Khornate25 wrote:
Black Library says otherwise.

Too bad they're not running my local narrative campaign.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
All those things you listed except "slowing the enemy" are killteam style things. One does not send a company of Leman Russ tanks to assassinate a guy, or sabotage a factory, or retrieve information.

Absolutely an Imperium general would. Depends how important the factory is, or the guy. A company of Russes is a speck of dust in the context of the Astra Millitarum, and absolutely worth sacrificing if you can take down a Daemon Prince for example.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
“In the grim darkness of the far future, goals are more important than lives.”

"In the grim darkness of the far future, the goal is somehow other than preserving lives, even for dying races, races being genocided, etc."

In the grim darkness of the far future, you are still playing a tabletop miniatures game trying to abstract fictional warfare between space elves, roided up 12th century Catholics in space, sentient space fungus, and other random bits of others imagination.

It's amusing that objective points are the hang up here.

 Stux wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
All those things you listed except "slowing the enemy" are killteam style things. One does not send a company of Leman Russ tanks to assassinate a guy, or sabotage a factory, or retrieve information.

Absolutely an Imperium general would. Depends how important the factory is, or the guy. A company of Russes is a speck of dust in the context of the Astra Millitarum, and absolutely worth sacrificing if you can take down a Daemon Prince for example.

It ceases to be an "assassination" or "sabotage" mission if you are sending a company of tanks to a pitched battle

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
All those things you listed except "slowing the enemy" are killteam style things. One does not send a company of Leman Russ tanks to assassinate a guy, or sabotage a factory, or retrieve information.

Absolutely an Imperium general would. Depends how important the factory is, or the guy. A company of Russes is a speck of dust in the context of the Astra Millitarum, and absolutely worth sacrificing if you can take down a Daemon Prince for example.

It ceases to be an "assassination" or "sabotage" mission if you are sending a company of tanks to a pitched battle

Just a matter of perspective really. Nothing about the definition of assassination requires it to be covert or controlled. Its simply the act of killing a targeted individual. No reason at all you couldn't send a company of tanks to do that, especially in this setting when the individual might be extremely powerful.

The fact its always a pitched battle too is really more of a limitation of wargaming systems in general.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
It ceases to be an "assassination" or "sabotage" mission if you are sending a company of tanks to a pitched battle

Nuke them from orbit is still can be an "assassination" or "sabotage" mission...

Since Assassination means the action of assassinating someone, and Sabotage means to deliberately destroy, damage, or obstruct (something), especially for political or military advantage.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

It ceases to be an "assassination" or "sabotage" mission if you are sending a company of tanks to a pitched battle

The US used 18 (16) P-38 Lightnings to assassinate Yamamoto.

Reconnaissance in force is still a thing as well.

DeathReaper wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
It ceases to be an "assassination" or "sabotage" mission if you are sending a company of tanks to a pitched battle

Nuke them from orbit is still can be an "assassination" or "sabotage" mission...

Since Assassination means the action of assassinating someone, and Sabotage means to deliberately destroy, damage, or obstruct (something), especially for political or military advantage.

At this point we are stretching the definition of sabotage or assassinate to absurdity. If someone says 'the U.S. assassinated [leader]' the implication is not that an ICBM (or a tank company) was used. Similarly, a factory that is levelled by a bulldozer (or orbital strike) isn't 'sabotaged' so much as 'attacked'. It would be strange wording indeed for a newscaster to claim that e.g. the Volga Tractor Factory in Stalingrad was 'sabotaged' by the Germans

Kayback wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

It ceases to be an "assassination" or "sabotage" mission if you are sending a company of tanks to a pitched battle

The US used 18 (16) P-38 Lightnings to assassinate Yamamoto.
Reconnaissance in force is still a thing as well.

I could believe it once or twice, but not every single game.

Plus, it wasn't the P-38s that got 'tabled' in that battle...

This isnt the US though, this is the Imperium...

I think we have to agree to disagree at this point though, especially as we're in YMDC rather than General.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
At this point we are stretching the definition of sabotage or assassinate to absurdity. If someone says 'the U.S. assassinated [leader]' the implication is not that an ICBM (or a tank company) was used.

Then you clearly have not heard of the Assassination of Qasem Soleimani...

This thread went weird places, lets try to not repeat it next time please.