2010 40k Team Tournament - The wipeout

[Green Blow Fly]

Rewriting the game you say...

THIS IS ADEPTICON f00!

[TheRagingRodian]

Not that there is anything wrong with correcting alot of things in 40k....but that is a slippery slope I'd admit. Once you start you'd probably end up chucking half of the game.

Regarding titans and superheavies.......you shouldn't even see any of these in tournament games of this size. Maybe in one off games at home or as part of a 4000+ point army but not for these sized skirmishes. They just throw the game off too much.

[Inquisitor_Malice]

Making a blanket rule that essentially removes wipeout is rewriting the game. Having objectives that are accomplished through the course of the game and are independent of wipeout are good. Just my opinion, of course.

Jon - this is the problem with that logic. Writing different missions is "rewriting the game". Using different deployment options beyond the book is "rewriting the game". Using different and unique scenario rules is "rewriting the game".

If you want a blatant deviation - go to the ENDING THE GAME rules in the main rule book. A large majority of event organizers that I know deviate from the 3+ to go to turn 6 and 4+ to go to turn 7. All tournament organizers do this and therefore "rewrite the game".

The missions, scenario rules, deployment and more are customized more for tournament play. Removal of the wipeout rule is also a customization that will actually put a general's skills as an army builder and a battle field tactician to the ultimate test in tournament play. It will make you focus on how you apply your entire force. It's a great enforcer of army balance beyond any mission special conditions that anyone can develop.

Side Note: I do agree that we should post this in advance if Wipeout conditions are changed.

[Elthniar]

The missions used at Adepticon, and most tournaments for that matter, already are "rewriting the game". Technically, the 40K rulebook gives three scenarios with three different setups. Tournament scenarios need to be more complex than these simple win, loss, draw missions in order to differentiate and have a clear-cut winner at the end. In the missions presented in the book, it is perfectly reasonable to say that if you wipeout your opponent, you win the game. But in a tournament, what exactly is a "win"? Scoring 28/30 points is still a win, but it is not the best win you could have gotten.

Is fixing the supposed "wipeout" rule rewriting the game? Perhaps it is, but we are already doing that with the scenarios we play at tournaments, and wipeout simply does not work for these more complex scenarios.

[jon.wolf]

Having scenarios that modify the rules for the scenario is different from saying "ignore this winning condition for all scenarios." I think the former is an indication of adding flavor to the tournament, whereas the latter is a decision that the basic winning conditions are flawed.

I agree with adding color, I disagree with the basic winning conditions being flawed.

It's not difficult to generate missions that are accomplished outside the scope of the wipeout rule. I already focus on destroying enemy scoring units, and if I can 100% guarantee my opponent cannot win, regardless of tabling me, by destroying his troops choices, the incentive to even more viciously target scoring units is greater. This in turn makes the already stronger codices of SM, CSM, IG, and Orks even better. All of these are characterized by cost-effective and plentiful troops units in tournament-style armies.

[Green Blow Fly]

Its a smart strategy to kill off all the enemy scoring units. I don't see any reason why doing so should be regarded as a bad thing or be dinged by mission rules. A smart player protects their scoring units.

G

[TheRagingRodian]

These of course being great examples of why rewriting 40k wouldn't be a bad thing.

Seriously there shouldn't even be such a thing as a "scoring unit".

[Green Blow Fly]

Anything is okay as long as everyone agrees. If you pay to register then that is a form of saying okay. Being able to work together takes time to understand where others are coming from. Being able to put a face to a name is very important, it always can make a difference.

G

[TheRagingRodian]

Anything is okay as long as everyone agrees. If you pay to register then that is a form of saying okay. Being able to work together takes time to understand where others are coming from. Being able to put a face to a name is very important, it always can make a difference.

G

....especially if the face belongs to one of the rare hotties that shows up at the con!