Tabling Debate

The place to discuss all that was! Visit the AdeptiCon website (www.adepticon.org) 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
25
45%
No, Players should only get the points when they have satisfied the mission requirements
30
55%
 
Total votes : 55

Postby Inquisitor_Malice » Tue Feb 03, 2009 9:37 am

Brian wrote: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."


It's actually fairly simple. Just continue to finish the game all the way through and determine what objectives were completed. In this scenario, the tabled opponent just skips their turn since they have no models to move.
- Greg
User avatar
Inquisitor_Malice
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2007 8:58 pm

Postby Ed » Tue Feb 03, 2009 3:13 pm

I voted "no".

I think the possible injustice of wiping a nob biker list but still losing the KP scoring criteria (and only that one) is far outweighed by the fact that whomever is lucky enough to play against Necrons will basically get top positioning in that round in battlepoints.

Ed
Ed
 
Posts: 221
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 9:08 am

Postby Generalissimo_Fred » Tue Feb 03, 2009 7:42 pm

Wow, no love for the Necrons. Maybe no one will bring them. Or maybe I'll bring them and laugh at everyone who worried they wouldn't get to play the Necrons. NOt to say I am all that, but I am. 8)
Generalissimo_Fred
 
Posts: 1248
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 12:31 am
Location: Elgin, IL

Postby Centurian99 » Wed Feb 04, 2009 2:39 am

Gotta go with Tabling = Auto-win, max battle. It's not like its actually easy to table an opponent.

Sure, it hurts necrons...but then again, necrons are generally screwed in V5 anyways.
Centurian99
 
Posts: 157
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 6:59 pm

Postby Inquisitor_Malice » Wed Feb 04, 2009 9:43 am

I could see a permutation:

1. Tabling opponents = max points for objectives that are kill point related.
2. For other objectives (quarters, objective markers, deployment zones, etc), play the game until it ends.

This way you eliminate:

1. An opponent tabling a low kill point army and still losing the game.
2. An opponent who has no units that can take objectives being able to win max points.

I understand that tabling an opponent is hard. However, it still seems very funny that for example, the only troops that could safely shut down the ticking time bomb of galatic doom were killed and yet a victory can be claimed because the enemy was destroyed.


Private - "But sir, we don't know how to safely shut off the device without a complete meltdown. Our capital planet for the system is going be destroyed in about 5 minutes with us on it."

Captain - "That's not the point private. We won by tabling our opponent. Don't you understand what a true victory is. Huzzah!!! Huzzah!!!"

Private - sigh.

<BOOM>

The End
- Greg
User avatar
Inquisitor_Malice
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2007 8:58 pm

Postby Shotgun » Wed Feb 04, 2009 10:33 am

Why not make an additional category of victory.

Pyrrhic victory = You table your opponent but cannot claim any of the other primary, secondary, or tertiary victory conditions. Complete victory points -1. You won, but at what price?

I would say that once you table your opponent, game over, no extended turns to capture objectives, etc.
Shotgun
 
Posts: 87
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 8:44 am
Location: Denver, CO

Postby icenutz » Wed Feb 04, 2009 10:38 am

Yea, that’s not a bad idea. I agree with Inquisitor Malice. So far I am reading that people want full points when tabling because that is the only way they can beat a low model count army in kill points. And this is the only justified argument against not getting full kill points after tabling someone. And I think that’s an easy fix. Kill points is all about killing what ever your opponent has on the board to get the maximum number of points. Well you can just say that if an opponent is wiped you automatically win kill points. Or because you wiped out your opponent you receive an additional 20 kill points. Because killing you’re opponent and kill points go hand and hand. If you table him you have obviously shown that you can kill off anything he has.

As for getting full points in recon missions, objective missions, shutting off the bomb that is going to destroy the planet missions… I also agree with Inquisitor Malice’s sarcasm.
icenutz
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 11:19 pm

Postby Shotgun » Wed Feb 04, 2009 12:51 pm

I always felt that kill points were one half step to being a good idea.

KP victories shouldn't be based on actual KPs but should rather be based on percentages of total.

Player A has 9 KP in his army.
Player B has 20 KP in his army.

End of the game, player A has killed 15 of his opponents KPs.
Player B has killed 8 of his oppenents KP.

Once Player A got past 9 KP, there was no way he could loose.

However, if you base it on %, player A killed 75% of his opponents KP and player B killed 89% of his opponents KP. Player B still has an opportunity to actually win the damn game past the 2nd turn if you base it on KP % and not just KP.
Shotgun
 
Posts: 87
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 8:44 am
Location: Denver, CO

Postby Elthniar » Wed Feb 04, 2009 2:02 pm

I don't have the rulebook with me at the moment, so I can't quote it exactly, but somewhere in the appendix it mentions victory points as being useful for more competitive games, ie tournaments. The whole kill points being unfair argument can be avoided by simply using victory points as mentioned in the back of the rulebook. In my opinion this is much easier than figuring out what percentage of kill points you got and basing it off of that, and is also more fair to all players instead of using the overly-simplified kill point method. I will have to check to see exactly what the rulebook says about using victory points but I am almost certain it mentions that it is acceptable to use them in a tournament setting.
Elthniar
 
Posts: 422
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 3:59 pm
Location: Mt. Prospect, IL

Postby Elthniar » Wed Feb 04, 2009 3:21 pm

Okay so here is what the rulebook says about victory points, this is all on page 300:

"[victory points] may also be useful in tournaments, where the organisers need a better spread of results among the players, so some finer degrees of victory may be useful..."

It then goes on explaining how to calculate victory points, which is essentially the same as it was in 4th edition.

I know this is a little off topic, but I thought I would mention it seeing as kill points are becoming an issue with regards to tabling. Witht he use of victory points, if you table your opponent you most likely will be receiving quite a few of those, and I feel they work out to be more fair than kill points are.

So, I agree with Inquisitor Malice in that tabling your opponent should yield all the points related to killing the enemy, but you would not get objective based points for free. I do think the person who wiped out his opponent should get the full amount of game turns, however, even if his opponent cannot move because he has nothing left.
Elthniar
 
Posts: 422
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 3:59 pm
Location: Mt. Prospect, IL

Postby Green Blow Fly » Wed Feb 04, 2009 10:33 pm

Certainly if a player tables his opponent before the end of the game he/she/it should be able to play all of the additional turns to grab objectives and what not. As far as I know there is no precedent for doing otherwise. Often the player who has been tabled wants the game to end immediately to prevent their opponent from scoring full points... It's a hate thing going on because they were totally crushed and they want some measure to extract a little revenge. That's how I see it.

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

Postby rosco » Wed Feb 04, 2009 11:28 pm

green i think that is some of the problem. at rtt's the game ends when 1 of 3 things happen:
1-- time is called
2-- last turn has been finished
3-- you tabled the opponent

i like the percentage thing when it comes to kill points but it's easier to just do standard victory points instead, maybe use the kill points left towards a mission bonus to try and reward the guy who had the huge army.
good bad i'm the guy with the gun
rosco
 
Posts: 251
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 5:47 pm
Location: westmont

Postby Huoshini » Wed Feb 04, 2009 11:55 pm

I'm just hoping there are no KP mission at this years adepticon! :P


Really, I haven't played alot of 5th ed around the country yet. I haven't been to many tourneys with the new edition like I had with 3rd and 4th ed.

So I haven't expierenced people playing KP denial armies for the sake of KP denial.


But from an Un-expierenced standpoint as far as KPs. I think that tabling an opponent should not award max points. If you table your opponent, You should be required to play out al of your moves and see if you can complete the objectives even though you killed all of your opponents stuff.

I like it Legit!
G.R.A.M.P.A
AdeptusBrewCityJoe wrote:Yeah I guess you are right.

"When you're in the garage, Bring out the damn dinosaurs!" -Phil Kelly

Lord Sportsman: Adepticon 2010
User avatar
Huoshini
 
Posts: 539
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 9:39 am
Location: HURRICANE SLAYER!

Postby incarna » Wed Feb 11, 2009 12:15 pm

Hello. My name is Mark and I’m new to Adepticon this year and I’m very much looking forward to it. I’ll add my input to the debate after having read through everyone’s position on the issue. I voted ‘no’.

I feel a full game should be played, even if every turn after one player has been tabled is completely one-sided. I paged through my rulebook and it certainly indicates that if you table your opponent, you are automatically victorious regardless of the scenario – but it DOES NOT indicate that a game immediately ends.

I believe objective-based missions exist for a reason and that reason is to make the game more about strategy and tactics than head-to-head dice-rolling slaughter. I think, if a player tables his opponent but does not satisfy his objectives, he should have until the game would normally end to do so.

The only question that remains is; is it possible for a kill-point scenario for one player to be tabled and to still earn a larger quantity of kill-points than the opponent who tabled him and actually improve his overall standing comparatively within the tournament despite having lost the match?

The answer is; after looking over the gladiator primer scenarios, no, this is not possible because no scenario has kill points as its primary objective. It would be certainly possible for a player who gets tabled to win the secondary objective in the first scenario in having scored more kill points than his opponent (a small chaos space marine army getting tabled by a huge un-mounted guard army for example) and earn for himself 10 match points but his opponent would still beat him through having achieved the primary and, potentially, tertiary objectives.

I think a rule that awards automatic victory through kill points does an injustice to the results of a potential game that stretches into turn 7 where both players fight tooth and claw, back and forth, for every inch of ground, where one opponent narrowly looses by being tabled despite leaving only a couple of his opponents models standing.

As long as kill points are not the primary objective of a scenario, I see no issue with leaving the rule as it stands. If you’re fighting a tiny army, you will simply have to adjust your strategy just as you would in any other game against any other opponent. Additionally, every turn within a game should be played even if one player is tabled giving the victor an opportunity to achieve his objectives.
incarna
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 11:47 am

Postby Janthkin » Wed Feb 11, 2009 1:24 pm

incarna wrote:The answer is; after looking over the gladiator primer scenarios, no, this is not possible because no scenario has kill points as its primary objective. It would be certainly possible for a player who gets tabled to win the secondary objective in the first scenario in having scored more kill points than his opponent (a small chaos space marine army getting tabled by a huge un-mounted guard army for example) and earn for himself 10 match points but his opponent would still beat him through having achieved the primary and, potentially, tertiary objectives.

Interestingly, it is ENTIRELY possible to win all three of Mission 1's objectives, while still getting tabled, provided your army is low on KPs.
Janthkin
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 12:14 pm

PreviousNext

Return to AdeptiCon 2009

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron