Tabling Debate

The place to discuss all that was! Visit the AdeptiCon website ( for past coverage, event results and photos!

Should a player get all the points from a mission if they tabled their opponent

Yes, I think when you table someone you get full points
No, Players should only get the points when they have satisfied the mission requirements
Total votes : 55

Tabling Debate

Postby 00Enron » Fri Jan 30, 2009 10:36 pm

Simple question. At a tournament should a player automatically get every point for wiping out the opposing player? or should players only get the points they are eligable for in the missions?

Lets hear your thoughts people!
Adepticon 2008-Best Appearance
G.R.A.M.P.A member
Posts: 187
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 2:37 am

Postby rosco » Sat Jan 31, 2009 12:41 am

i'd have to go with no. the only mission that would really get you full points is something that deals with victory points, and even then only if you slaughtered the guy. if you remember some of the missions now a days are multi-objectives and some of those only 1 of the players can get.

enron where do you stand on your own poll? i'm also suprised nobody else put down their thoughts on why voting yes. last i checked the game is over when all turns are expired or there is no more opposing force. so if there's no more force at the end of turn 5, but at the end of it you have 0 units grabbing objectives why should you have full points?
good bad i'm the guy with the gun
Posts: 251
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 5:47 pm
Location: westmont

Postby Generalissimo_Fred » Sat Jan 31, 2009 8:28 am

I'd vote yes. For some army lists in certain missions, tabling is the only chnace they have. In the main book, tabling is an automatic win. It is only our 3 tiered objective system that questions if full 'points' should be awarded or not when the rulebook never talks about battle points only wins.
Posts: 1248
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 12:31 am
Location: Elgin, IL

Postby 00Enron » Sat Jan 31, 2009 9:37 am

Personally I voted for no. GW has stated in the past they dont care about tournaments. They dont write their rules with tournaments in mind. The rules are there for friendly games. Tabling someone in particular is a major issue in tournement play. Like some rules that GW has this too needs to be modified to be more valid in a competitive setting. I voted for no for the following reasons.

1. I think it sets a dangerous precedence for an auto-win senario

2. Tabling one or two people puts someone so far ahead in points they dont even need to contiune to play and they might still win.

3. The ruling on tabling I dont think was ever intended to be used in a practical tourney setting.

4. Even though you tabled someone your not accomplished the specific mission parameters (unless it specifically states you get full points for tableing your opponent)

These are just my .02. I like to see tourneys competitive. With an automatic full points I think people can get so far ahead of everyone else it makes the rest of the games seem pointless.
Adepticon 2008-Best Appearance
G.R.A.M.P.A member
Posts: 187
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 2:37 am

Postby tear of the angel » Sat Jan 31, 2009 10:31 am

I'd say yes, except when both players accomplished the same objective such as.
1. Killing the most expensive unit.

2. Killing the enemies HQ.

3. Killing all scoring units etc.
User avatar
tear of the angel
Posts: 192
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2008 11:36 am
Location: quincy, IL

Postby Green Blow Fly » Sat Jan 31, 2009 7:05 pm

I am cool with whatever the council decrees.

User avatar
Green Blow Fly
Posts: 107
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 9:43 pm
Location: Terminus Est

Postby cycleboy » Mon Feb 02, 2009 11:15 am

No on auto-pointing.

Removing all models counts for kill points, commander gone, etc.

Things like holding objectives or being in enemy deployment zone, no. But if you table on turn 4, you get 1 movement phase, plus die roll if using extended game, to get units where they need to be to claim objective/quarter/etc. You get the 'game time' same as if they had one scrubby Orc making his "All on Own" test hiding in the corner.
Posts: 55
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:50 am
Location: Kenosha, WI

Postby icenutz » Mon Feb 02, 2009 11:34 am

I say No as well to all points. Actually I completely agree with cycleboy. If you table someone in just 4 turns and you have the ability to still take counters and capture the center of the board sure get all the points by all means. If this were to happen it would be like a victorious slaughter. I think the real scenario were this question become an issue is when someone gets tabled and the “winner” only has a squad of terminators and a rhino. Or they simply lack the objective requirements; therefore they should not automatically get the full win because they didn’t earn it. Another great issue is knowing that I can through my entire army and play kamikaze against any Necron army and I will be fairly confident that when the dust settles I will still have something at least one guy and their army will be reduced to lower than 25%. So do I get all the points now? Well does that make any sense if I do? And the final issue I can see becoming a problem was also stated by Enron when he said what is if the team gets tabled but they killed more units and it was a kill point game. There should be no argument they completed their objective and killed the most units… Just because there is a rule that if you get tabled you auto lose then shouldn’t every mission have a primary objective of “Don’t get tabled” since this takes precedence over all other objectives. Or better yet hey kids forget the mission don’t even bother reading it just through everything you have and table him you only need to table two opponents and you probably won’t even need to play the last game. Now that’s a fun mission with tons of imagination!
Posts: 27
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 11:19 pm

Postby BostonNazgul » Mon Feb 02, 2009 12:22 pm

not to pretend to know 40k, but in LOTR thats part of how you play the game. Some of the best players in the country have lost games due to killing the enemy too fast and not securing objectives. sounds like game by game basis when considering the specific winning conditions.
User avatar
Posts: 2432
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 8:18 pm
Location: Chicago

Postby Brian » Mon Feb 02, 2009 1:11 pm

Don't forget that with regard to actual mission design the "tabling" debate opens up a whole bunch of potential inconsistencies and technicalities.

For example let's say a mission were written stating that the "winner must have a scoring unit alive at the end of the game to win the objective even if his opponent was wiped out." Now all of a sudden we have another problem. What if the opponent is wiped out in turn 5 and the scoring unit in question is 48" away from the nearest objective? Should the owning player still get the win? His only scoring unit cannot physically reach the objective if you were to play a turn 6 with no enemies on the table. The mission rules only specify that the scoring unit must be alive but someone WILL complain that it makes no sense to give someone a win for an objective that they still couldn't physically accomplish.

What about this: Let's say a player has a disastrous game. He gets tabled in turn 4. The guy on the other side of the table still has units in reserve. If the game ends when the wipeout occurs but the wipeout is not an auto-win then what happens to those units? Are they destroyed? After all, they're not on the table at the end of the game. If it's a kill point game does he still have to scatter them to see if they mishap? If he has a Chaos Dread does he still have to see if it fire frenzies and kills his own guys? I can think of other similar issues involving Tyranid Synapse and Weirdboy psychic powers. It's just a huge headache.

I think it's because of these "headache" issues that GW decided to just simplify it and say "if you kill all your opponent's models you win."
User avatar
Posts: 499
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 7:59 pm
Location: Chicago (Logan Square)

Postby Cptn_Snuggles » Mon Feb 02, 2009 1:31 pm

I've switched sides on this debate. I used to be all about tabling = full points.

Then I thought about the power builds and that's what they're designed to do... table an opponent.

You should be able to finish your turns if you have any left... ex: I table my opponent on turn 3. I get to play turn 4, 5, and roll for extras if the mission allows. Basically in my opponents phase he does nothing and it goes back to mine.

I just shouldn't get the win for having just one model left on the board... plus necrons in the mix really can work over the standings. (auto full point wins if phased out)

User avatar
Posts: 689
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:51 am
Location: Bartlett, IL

Postby Elthniar » Mon Feb 02, 2009 4:32 pm

I voted no to getting full points for tabling your opponent. I think it is pretty generally accepted that, aside from having fun and showing off your army, a tournament is all about finding the best player. In my opinion, a good player can table an opponent while a great one can both claim all the mission objectives and table his opponent. Should a player who ignores the goals of the mission and tables his opponent receive the same or more points than someone who is able to table his foe and meet the objectives? It doesn't seem to me that this should be the case. If you table your opponent during turn 4 should you be allowed to have your turn 5 and beyond? Absolutely. It would not be fair to be punished for killing your opponent so quickly.

Also, as Enron mentioned, the 40k rulebook is not very well designed for competitive tournaments, they intended it to be for friendly games. Particularly with 5th edition we saw Games Workshop moving away from different degrees of victory (ie solid victory v. victorious slaughter) and emphasis a simple win, loss or draw. In a tournament more is needed to achieve some separation between players. For example, kill points just don't make sense in a tournament setting. A 60 point squad of Imperial Guardsmen should not be the same as a 200+ point squad of terminators. I was personally very disappointed that GW got rid of victory points, but this is not really the place to go on about that. The main point is: the rulebook scenarios and victory conditions cannot be completely followed in a tournament setting. They are a good template to follow but need to be slightly expanded to make the tournament both more fair and more exciting. For example, the game should not just end if you table your opponent, and kill points should be avoided at all costs (I sincerely hope we don't see any kill point scenarios at Adepticon or any other tournament).
Posts: 422
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 3:59 pm
Location: Mt. Prospect, IL

Postby odinsspear45 » Mon Feb 02, 2009 6:40 pm

I believe if your going to leave KP as they stand. (which is a massive disadvantage to some armies and builds) then you NEED to leave Wipeout as another tactic one can utilize.

Think of the footslogging line guardsmen vs a fast moving CC army like Tryanids en mass.

the line guards only hope is to remove the incoming horde inbetween them taking down one or more squads at a time..

If they succeed it is garaunteed they will have few units left.

No i am not whining about KP.. i figure thats hopeless.. however i will actively complain about someone leaving one lopsided rule that favors specific types of builds while removing a rule i see as evening out the field a bit.

In a tournament environment you have people bringing their A-games in the first place. our last team tournament (local this past weekend) had 16 teams in the 24 team matches that ensued 2 total games had tabling results.

we are talking about an occurance that happens less then 10% of the time usually.

anyway i just feel wipeout is that glimmer of hope in a matchup that otherwise is going to be a game of trying to not let your opponet win instead of trying to win.

If your going to start removing rules from the game start with KP.

anyway thats my 2 cents.
A True Humanitarian Understands it is Sometimes Necessary to Cull the Herd.
User avatar
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 4:56 pm
Location: Alaska

Postby Generalissimo_Fred » Mon Feb 02, 2009 8:12 pm

I agree with Nanook of the North. Most people seem to fear someone else getting the Necron matchup. I think about the Nob biker matchup in a KP mission. It's pretty much an auto-win for the Bikers unless tabling gives you the win.
Posts: 1248
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 12:31 am
Location: Elgin, IL

Postby Inquisitor_Malice » Tue Feb 03, 2009 9:33 am

As far as tabling is concerned, people should still have to achieve the mission objectives during the game. One previous poster mentioned that the game continues until it officially ends via mission rules. The tabled opponent just wouldn't have any models to move and basically skip their turn. This way it forces people to actually account for the mission objectives while playing and in their army design.

Otherwise (again as someone mentioned above), some people would achieve objectives (ie: requiring scoring units to be alive) when they have none.
- Greg
User avatar
Posts: 187
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2007 8:58 pm


Return to AdeptiCon 2009

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest