2010 40k Team Tournament - The wipeout

AdeptiCon 2010 will be held March 26th-28th, 2010 at the Westin Lombard Yorktown Center in Lombard, IL. Visit the AdeptiCon website (www.adepticon.org) and start planning today!

2010 40k Team Tournament - The wipeout

Postby Brian » Wed Sep 23, 2009 4:53 pm

We're all aware, of course, that most tournament armies in 40k are designed to wipe an opponent off the table or, failing that, to wipe as much of it off the table as to make capturing objectives relatively easy.

Last year we ran a poll here on the forums:

forums/viewtopic.php?t=3297

with the final result being 5 votes off of an even split.

Now, I have no intention of repeating that debate in this thread. If it develops into that I'll probably ask the mods to lock the thread.

Instead I wanted to get opinions on this concept:

At the end of the scenario description there's a section that lists the number of battle points available for the mission objectives, like this:

+5 points for each objective (4 on the table) controlled at the end of the game
+5 points if your coalition scores more kill points than the enemy
+2 points if both coalitions score an equal number of kill points
+3 points for a bonus objective (doesn't matter what it is for this thread)
+2 points for some other bonus objective

Total of 30 battle points possible


After that section there is another section:

If the game ends in a Wipeout as defined by the rulebook then score the game as follows:

+30 points if the game ended in turn 4 or sooner
+25 points if the game ended in turn 5. The bonus objectives are scored as described above with regard to units' final positions when the game ended.

If the game ends by wipeout in turn 6 or 7 the winning coalition scores 5 points for the kill point objective automatically. Determine the scoring of the remaining objectives as described above based on units final positions when the game ended.


The reasoning being if you mop the floor with your opponents and table them in 4 turns you are rewarded with maximum points. If you take a little longer and do it in turn 5 you get a shot at max points but it's not a sure thing. If, however, you table your opponent in turn 6 or 7 you are expected to be in a position to control the objectives because 40k games typically end in turn 6 or later. Turn 6 traditionally represents the "time limit" for completing mission goals.

This is just a concept. It's not a reflection of how the actual missions are going to be.
User avatar
Brian
 
Posts: 499
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 7:59 pm
Location: Chicago (Logan Square)

Postby Turtle » Wed Sep 23, 2009 5:04 pm

im not sure if you want to encourage people to try and crush people as mercilessly and as quickly as possible. in plenty of games against people who aren't as skilled or are newer to the game, ive played to win of course, but i haven't tried to kill them to the man if I know I have the game won.

the game is about a fun time between two opponents and if you're not having fun then why play?

How fun will it be in round two when person A who is a very good tournament player happened to lose his game badly for whatever reason dice etc... winds up playing person B a newer player to the game there for his first tournament. If there are points awarded for killing all his guys as quickly as possible how fun will it be for person B? I mean you can win the game and not have to kill all of his dudes by turn four. but if you add in points for that happening i think it wouldn't be as fun for some of the less skilled players just there to have a good time. If points are awarded for tabling someone in round 4 then people will shoot for that even more so than they do now.

I think the concept works well in an event like the gladiator, but im not so sure about a standard tournament where you score painting, sportsman, and battle, i dont think you need that extra separation between the haves and have nots
"Here have a beer, Marines play better with beer: Rhysk
Turtle
 
Posts: 272
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 6:38 pm
Location: just outside of mil-town

Postby Depayen » Thu Sep 24, 2009 3:49 pm

Turtle, I understand what you are try to say but as we all know Adepticon is not for the faint of heart. By participating in this tournament you are saying I am ready for the next step. Also as in reality it sucks sometime you learn and move on. I will admit I am not a no mercy player for the most part either but you can help your opponent by giving advice of what he or she may to prevent it from happening again. Brian I like the thought.
Death comes at high Speed!
Here cometh the orangemen!

O'where O'where will I pop in. Go first I will let you shoot at nothing.
Depayen
 
Posts: 353
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 9:54 am
Location: Marengo IL.

Postby Generalissimo_Fred » Thu Sep 24, 2009 5:17 pm

I agree with Turtle. I don't like this for the Team event or the championships, but for the Gladiator it sounds like a fine idea.
Generalissimo_Fred
 
Posts: 1248
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 12:31 am
Location: Elgin, IL

Postby Brian » Thu Sep 24, 2009 5:31 pm

Yeah, the more I turn this over in my head the more it seems like there's no good solution. If you tell people that they're going to get fewer battle points by wiping out the enemy in turn 6 they're going to simply stop shooting while their scoring units run up to grab objectives.

And that makes no sense. Some armies in 40k would never, ever stop shooting for any reason.

The main objective is to put out 4 scenarios that don't feel stale or re-hashed from years past.
User avatar
Brian
 
Posts: 499
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 7:59 pm
Location: Chicago (Logan Square)

Postby Inquisitor_Malice » Thu Sep 24, 2009 6:40 pm

I personally think it is a bad move. Some armies simply don't start racking up kills until turn 4 and 5. For instance, it's one of the biggest challenges with the Iyanden list. It can destroy a lot of armies. However, it doesn't start ratcheting up until later in the game.

Plus - if someone is wiping out an opponent, it typically means that they either made significant errors or are a really bad player. Why provide the bonus points for this type of scenario?
- Greg
User avatar
Inquisitor_Malice
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2007 8:58 pm

Postby jon.wolf » Fri Sep 25, 2009 11:58 am

I agree that any wierd rules about wipeout just encourages gaming that system, and that bonus points for early wipeouts will unreasonably reward those who take Alpha Strike builds and draw unskilled opponents on round 1. With the number of rounds, this will encourage the better players to all take Alpha Strike builds, which will mean that the weaker players will all feel like that were in a Turkish prison at the end of round 1. I'd much rather see the first couple of rounds allow weaker players to gain objectives in a non-competitive fashion, so they aren't just resigned to the bottom tables 1 hour into the event (after getting their armies tabled on turn 3).
And I'm a huge fan of wipeout; it is the primary goal I play for in every single game.
I'm also not a fan of having the same sets of primary objectives for every game, as this lends itself to single superior builds for the event. I do not believe that being able to simultaneously destroy the most kill points and control 4 objectives generates a level playing field, as some armies are by nature just better at controlling 4 objectives than others.
Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless, and knowledge without integrity is dangerous and dreadful. - Nathanael Greene
jon.wolf
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 11:27 am

Postby Ed » Sat Sep 26, 2009 1:50 pm

I'm a fan of wiping out my opponent, but if all I have to show for it in the end is an immobilized Predator, why should I be able to get the points for claiming objectives?

I think the benefit to wiping your opponent is that they cannot hurt you any more. You then get the rest of the game turns, as normal, to try to complete the objectives of the game. The only odd issue is the kill point mission, where you wipe your opponent but lose because you're IG and they're Nob Bikers. But you can make that the one exception to this rule: if you wipe your opponent, you automatically get the KP mission points.

Just don't make missions where I can ignore the objectives in favor of just pie-plating my opponent, please.

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

Postby Jay_DaBoyz » Tue Sep 29, 2009 3:27 pm

I am not a fan of the wipe out rule. It feels dirty to me. On both sides of the table, everyone hates being beat to the last man.

I agree it lends it self to more power builds. If it is an objective mission and my opponent only has 3 troops and I have 6, then I going after the three troops and letting big stuff live. So he wipes me out and we both do not have any troops he will win and we out played the other team. That does not seam fair.

So with allowing the wipe out rule you are allowing power builds. Troops are base and should be large part of the army.
Jay_DaBoyz
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 12:21 pm
Location: Rochester NY

Postby jon.wolf » Tue Sep 29, 2009 11:31 pm

I wonder how you can claim to have outplayed the other team if he wipes you out? Of course, I like games that end with one model left, even if it's not my model. A well played contest between good competitors should end up with very few models left at the end.

The wipeout rule does no more to promote "power builds" than a tournament does by nature. CSM,SM, IG, and Orks don't suffer for taking Troops anyway; all of these tend to have a large amount of points in Troops and are pretty much the only armies that can table others (without phenomenal luck). I fail to see how wipeout encourages stronger army choices over and above the tournament setting.
Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless, and knowledge without integrity is dangerous and dreadful. - Nathanael Greene
jon.wolf
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 11:27 am

Postby TheRagingRodian » Thu Oct 01, 2009 8:26 pm

If you do this you should also work out rules for alternating unit activation rather than the current I go you go turn sequance.

40k has been in bad need of this for years and this is a good excuse to do up some house rules for it.
TheRagingRodian
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 6:53 pm

Postby Brian » Fri Oct 02, 2009 1:33 pm

TheRagingRodian wrote:If you do this you should also work out rules for alternating unit activation rather than the current I go you go turn sequance.

40k has been in bad need of this for years and this is a good excuse to do up some house rules for it.


It wouldn't be 40k anymore. It would be a different game using 40k minis.
User avatar
Brian
 
Posts: 499
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 7:59 pm
Location: Chicago (Logan Square)

Postby TheRagingRodian » Fri Oct 02, 2009 5:44 pm

Brian wrote:
TheRagingRodian wrote:If you do this you should also work out rules for alternating unit activation rather than the current I go you go turn sequance.

40k has been in bad need of this for years and this is a good excuse to do up some house rules for it.


It wouldn't be 40k anymore. It would be a different game using 40k minis.


Actually it would be 40k with house rules.
House rules have been used in 40k since the beginning, and if you want to be technical Adepticon's 40k tournaments have already been applying house rules for years.

40k has it's share of bad game mechanics. All I am saying is if you are going to do a game that stresses wiping out your opponent as quickly as possible you should even out the unbalance of letting one side attack with its whole army before the other side gets to do anything.
TheRagingRodian
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 6:53 pm

Postby jon.wolf » Fri Oct 02, 2009 6:21 pm

TheRagingRodian wrote:
Brian wrote:
TheRagingRodian wrote:If you do this you should also work out rules for alternating unit activation rather than the current I go you go turn sequance.

40k has been in bad need of this for years and this is a good excuse to do up some house rules for it.


It wouldn't be 40k anymore. It would be a different game using 40k minis.


Actually it would be 40k with house rules.
House rules have been used in 40k since the beginning, and if you want to be technical Adepticon's 40k tournaments have already been applying house rules for years.

40k has it's share of bad game mechanics. All I am saying is if you are going to do a game that stresses wiping out your opponent as quickly as possible you should even out the unbalance of letting one side attack with its whole army before the other side gets to do anything.


It would be a different game, completely. House Rules cover things like giving Dark Angels the same gear as Codex:Space Marine, but rewriting the turn sequence is another matter entirely.

As interesting ideas go, this is an interesting one, and might be very interesting to do in 400 point games. As good ideas go, I'm not inclined to think so.
Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless, and knowledge without integrity is dangerous and dreadful. - Nathanael Greene
jon.wolf
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 11:27 am

Postby Papa_Nurgle » Sun Oct 04, 2009 8:49 am

I know it's a debate, but one of the things that challenging scenarios do is force people to create more balanced armies to fulfill scenario conditions. If you allow full points for a wipeout, we regress to the 'old' style of play where the only goal was wiping out the opponent, regardless of the scenario.

Now, maybe I'm an old fogey, but I would go entirely the other direction and suggest that in your points scoring, you require a player to fulfill the conditions by the end of the game in order to earn the battle points. So, if I wipe out an opponent in turn 4, then I would have my movement and shooting phases in turns 5 (and 6 if applicable) to fulfill any objective related victory conditions. Anything else starts to regress to the older, more simple style of play.

With the suggestion above, I can see the game changing from a game of objectives to a game of mass destruction. Not sure that's what you want to happen.

Just my .02.

Regards,
Team TnA Founding Member.
WHABSAB!
Every Time you use the word "fluff," a kitten dies.

Purple ticket owner.
Papa_Nurgle
 
Posts: 205
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 7:38 am

Next

Return to AdeptiCon 2010

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron