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!

Postby Papa_Nurgle » Sun Oct 04, 2009 9:03 am

One last thought.

Why does getting wiped out mean that you automatically lose all points and the objectives?

History is filled with stories about people getting wiped out, and it being a victory.

Horrible movie, but watch 300. The Spartans held off the Persian advance long enough for the armies of Athens to assemble and come to the pass in order to defeat the Persians. Spartans wiped out, victory for the greeks.

Alamo. Small group of men held off a Santa Anna for days, giving Sam Houston time to gather an army. And a lot of national heroes died in that one, crockett, Bowie etc...

Those two are just examples from the top of my head - I'm sure there are others. Of course, there are many more examples of forces being wiped out in a loss, but usually, if you eliminate your opponent, you have the capability to seize objectives. If not, you're really not that good of a general, are you.


So, depending on the objectives, I can see a scenario where someone gets wiped out, and still gets points while denying them to an opponent.

I guess, in the end, I'm of the school that scoring units are scoring units for a purpose, and play a purpose in helping to craft army building to be a balance between offensive capability and mission fulfillment.
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

Postby Inquisitor_Malice » Mon Oct 05, 2009 8:11 pm

Papa_Nurgle wrote: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.


I personally am an advocate of the above with the following points of note:

Kill Point Mission Objective - Wipeout equals max points.

Battlefield Objective - Wipeout only means one army continues with the moving, shooting and assault phases until the game ends, which essentially means units moving to certain areas of the board. Having scoring units in the appropriate locations is still required to achieve objectives.

We played this way at DaBoyz GT this past weekend. Everyone was made aware of it right from the get go. I can not tell you how many wipeouts there were, but I do know that there was no issue with it.
- Greg
User avatar
Inquisitor_Malice
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2007 8:58 pm

Postby WhiteRaven » Tue Oct 06, 2009 2:51 pm

I was also at the Da Boyz GT this weekend and found that the Wipe Out Rules weren't sufficient. Some armies (especially well themed ones) don't always have durable troops that can avoid focused killing, even if the rest of the list managed to wipe out their opponent. Since if I recognize a bad matchup in an objective based game and I realize I'm only going to inflict X amount of damage...I'm going to inflict it on their troops to ensure I get a draw.

There is currently a very wide gap between the best armies capabilities to minimize Kill Points and maximize durable objective taking units and the weaker armies.

While I agree the wipe-out rule does seem like it would encourage more power destruction builds. Trying for a wipe-out against a good opponent is a large risk in itself, dice play a huge role in making sure you succeed. The role of cover and lack of combat to combat consolidation typically means large #s of models don't really leave the table quickly.

A compromised system, would be to allow for Wipe-outs would be to award only a portion of non-Kill point mission points. Since you didn't actually secure them, but your army is very clearly the winner. Thus you maximally award a player for playing the Scenario as intended, and only partially award a player for winning but not as intended.

I totally agree with Inquisitor Malice, many very good armies and generals who challenge themselves tend to take tactical forces that aren't really in control of the game until turn 5 or 6. I know as an Eldar player I've lost a WHOLE ton of tournament games to needing 1 more turn to finish my opponent off cause I just don't have the Math in my force to backup smashing an opponent to death...it has to be done a little at a time.
Regards,
WR
WhiteRaven
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:15 am
Location: Kitchener, ON, CA

Postby Green Blow Fly » Mon Dec 21, 2009 10:21 pm

I agree completely, if player A tables player B then player A should be allowed to finish the rest of the game to grab objectives. The only reason I can see the potential player B not wanting to allow player A to do is simply to deny him the additional points as a means of exacting some revenge due to being tabled.

G
Death is a door to a new beginning - take my hand and I will lead you there...
http://greenblowfly.blogspot.com
User avatar
Green Blow Fly
 
Posts: 107
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 9:43 pm
Location: Terminus Est

Postby Elthniar » Mon Dec 21, 2009 11:30 pm

I have always been a proponent of NOT awarding full points for a wipeout, but letting the player finish his remaining turns to secure objectives. As far as kill points go, I do think that you should be rewarded full points for that if you get a wipeout, but if you have no troops left at the end of the game, you should not be earning points for objectives.

In a tournament as large as the Adepticon tournaments, there is inevitably more than one player at the end who won all their games.

Imagine this: Player A gets full points on all his missions by wiping out his opponent and having only an immobilized transport left on the table.

Player B never wipes out an opponent, but plays all his games with the mission objectives in mind, beating all his opponents solidly with plenty of his own models left alive at the end, and also earns full points.

Is it fair for both of these players to have earned the same amount of points? In my opinion, player B did a much better job as a general and deserves the full points over player A, who still did a nice job but at the cost of losing nearly all his army. How can you capture all the objectives on the table with an immobilized rhino?

I know there are people out there who disagree with me, but by giving a wipeout full points, I feel you lose a very crucial aspect of the game: adapting to the task at hand. It is not adapting if I am only trying to secure a wipeout every single round.
Elthniar
 
Posts: 422
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 3:59 pm
Location: Mt. Prospect, IL

Postby jon.wolf » Tue Dec 22, 2009 10:59 am

I'm opposed to changing the basic victory conditions such that killing every enemy model is insufficient to win games at maximum points. If such a change is implemented, I would certainly like to have advance notice of the modifications for practice purposes.

I am almost entirely in disagreement with Elthniar. A player who kills every opposing model, regardless of his casualties, has 100% guaranteed victory under the basic 40K rules. Adding an additional "preserve your own forces" condition is antithetical to the nature of many armies in the 40K Universe and goes directly against mixing things up and playing the game, and towards hiding and avoiding battle. If we were playing a campaign, force preservation would be a great and logical addition. In stand alone games, force preservation as an added condition is a significant change to the balance of armies and unfairly rewards armies with fast transports and long-range weapons, and penalizes armies focused on the close combat phase.

For instance, its ridiculous to ask an Ork player to preserve his forces when faced with an Imperial gunline. If the Ork player wins, he'll have lost most of his force (barring statistical anomolies) and killed everything on the other side. Yet he has played the army correctly and should enjoy the same fruits of victory as the Eldar player who used his mobility and high unit quality to achieve the goals of the mission. In the rules as written, he does. In the Elthniar version, he's a worse general and scores more poorly.
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 Redbeard » Tue Dec 22, 2009 11:54 am

jon.wolf wrote:I'm opposed to changing the basic victory conditions such that killing every enemy model is insufficient to win games at maximum points. If such a change is implemented, I would certainly like to have advance notice of the modifications for practice purposes.


I am in wholehearted agreement that whatever is decided, it needs to be announced well in advance, so that people can plan accordingly.

A player who kills every opposing model, regardless of his casualties, has 100% guaranteed victory under the basic 40K rules.


This much is true, but it isn't the whole truth. More on this follows...

Adding an additional "preserve your own forces" condition is antithetical to the nature of many armies in the 40K Universe and goes directly against mixing things up and playing the game, and towards hiding and avoiding battle.


I disagree here. I don't find it antithetical to any force that, if you are sent to recover a vital canister of information, or secure a position, that if you run forwards and kill your foes at the expense of securing the position or recovering the information, you have failed you mission.

Furthermore, you claim that this change would encourage hiding? I disagree. If you're legitimately wiping your opponent off the table, then you have no need to hide - they have nothing to hit you with. On the other hand, if an opponent can deny you a victory by hiding one last model that you didn't manage to kill, that definitely does encourage them to hide that model...

In stand alone games, force preservation as an added condition is a significant change to the balance of armies and unfairly rewards armies with fast transports and long-range weapons, and penalizes armies focused on the close combat phase.


I disagree with this assumption as well. I don't see why this is any more unfair to CC armies than long-range armies. If you have to get to an objective, then a CC army that wipes out its opponent (without being tabled themselves) is in just the same position as a shooty army that wiped out its opponent without being tabled. Both armies then have the remaining turns to take whatever is left of their army and get to the objectives.

For instance, its ridiculous to ask an Ork player to preserve his forces when faced with an Imperial gunline. If the Ork player wins, he'll have lost most of his force (barring statistical anomolies) and killed everything on the other side. Yet he has played the army correctly and should enjoy the same fruits of victory as the Eldar player who used his mobility and high unit quality to achieve the goals of the mission.


Well, that's the essence of the question, isn't it. If the ork player lost nearly all of their force, (But, not all of their force...) then they should be able to secure the requisite objectives and get the same fruits of victory as the eldar player.


In the rules as written, he does. In the Elthniar version, he's a worse general and scores more poorly.


Not at all. The basic missions are clearly not written in the same way as most tournament missions. The rules-as-written provide for one single goal, which is either kill points, or objective holding. Sure, they provide that if you destroy your opponent, you 'win' - but they don't distinguish any sort of margin of victory parameters, nor do they account for multiple possible objectives.

By establishing a margin of victory system at all, the tournaments have already gone away from the rules-as-written. There is nothing specifically more rules-as-written to awarding a player who massacres their opponents forces, while failing to complete the actual mission objectives, a very minor win (11 points, to their opponent's 9, for example), than there is in awarding them a massacre to their opponent's 0.

I think that this is a good solution, actually. If you table your opponent, you get however many turns are left to continue to move your forces. At the end of the game, if your opponent is tabled, but you have failed to complete further objectives, you get 11, they get 9 (if it's out of 20). You got 'the win', but it's a Pyrrhic victory, in that you failed to complete the actual mission set out before you. That satisfies the Rules-as-Written concept that you won by eliminating your opponent, but rewards a general who can still complete their assigned task more - which is an entirely valid distinction when you're trying to determine who the better general is based on four whole games.


As an aside, while you claim that doing this would encourage 'hiding', awarding massacres for tabling would encourage min-maxed armies that focus on nothing more than killing power, don't even bother to field more than the bare minimum troops, and play every game the same way. I think that's a far less enjoyable gaming environment than having to bring an army that can complete a wide variety of tasks, and in different ways.
"All very successful commanders are prima donnas and must be so treated."

George S. Patton
User avatar
Redbeard
 
Posts: 1228
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 5:55 am
Location: Homewood, IL

Postby Elthniar » Tue Dec 22, 2009 12:32 pm

Redbeard,

I couldn't have put it any more eloquently than you just did. Thanks for the backup!

jon.wolf,

I respect and understand all your arguments, and certainly any time you achieve a wipeout you have done a good job as a general. As Redbeard points out, tournament missions are, in essence, quite different from the simple ones provided in the rulebook. There are usually 3 objectives to obtain, along with a few bonus points. I just personally think that you do a better job as a general if you play to complete those objectives, not to simply massacre your opponent. Again, as Redbeard says, allowing full points promotes min/maxing and unbalanced lists which are designed to do nothing but kill.

As the Gladiator rules state:
A word of warning: Gladiator scenarios are among the most complicated scenarios on the tournament scene. Only a skilled General using a well-balanced force will have the resources available to accomplish all of their objectives and claim the title of Gladiator Champion.


This is simply untrue if they decide to award full points for wiping an opponent out. What is the point in these complicated, fun, and challenging scenarios if your army is designed for the sole purpose of achieving wipeout every game?

Again, people will disagree with this but I hope we can all agree on one thing: however this is going to be ruled, it should be announced as far in advance as possible.
Elthniar
 
Posts: 422
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 3:59 pm
Location: Mt. Prospect, IL

Postby jon.wolf » Tue Dec 22, 2009 2:26 pm

The Gladiator had a game with 100% night fighting to start.

And then a mission where any unit could teleport around the battlefield.

And then a mission with modified Dawn of War.

And then a mission with no Reserves allowed AND some objective added after 45 minutes.


I'm 100% in favor of the Galdiator requiring a well-balanced force to win, but that is frankly unrelated to what actually is going to happen as long as things like Titans and Gargantuan Creatures are included. I'm going to try to use a balanced force this year; I like my odds of being in the top third, but winning will be essentially impossible (especially if Hierophants have a 3++ as is the rumor I'm hearing). The fact is that D weapons and 10 wounds of T9 can't be dealt with by a balanced force before the balanced force is turned into sushi.
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 Redbeard » Tue Dec 22, 2009 2:37 pm

jon.wolf wrote:I'm 100% in favor of the Galdiator requiring a well-balanced force to win, but that is frankly unrelated to what actually is going to happen as long as things like Titans and Gargantuan Creatures are included.


If you have to hold objectives and accomplish other tasks, then the impact of big models is lessened.

Last year, when you ran the reaver+flyer combination, if you had actually had to do more than simply wipe out your opponent to get full points, would you have been able to? I'm not trying to be snide here, I'm actually curious. How many troops did you run who could hold objectives? Would they have been able to get there?

I know the last mission of the 40k championship had a mission where you scored 5 points per objective held, with four objectives. Would you have been able to pull max points on that one?

And, if not, isn't that a good thing? Apart from last year, generally the big ticket items are spoilers, not winners, in the gladiator. The two years I brought simple codex armies, I finished in the top ten, the year I took An'ggrath, not so much.

I'm going to try to use a balanced force this year; I like my odds of being in the top third, but winning will be essentially impossible (especially if Hierophants have a 3++ as is the rumor I'm hearing). The fact is that D weapons and 10 wounds of T9 can't be dealt with by a balanced force before the balanced force is turned into sushi.


There are only so many of these things there, and if the missions don't allow them to score full points just for wiping out opponents, then you may well be able to win with a balanced force. It's been done, many times, in the past.
"All very successful commanders are prima donnas and must be so treated."

George S. Patton
User avatar
Redbeard
 
Posts: 1228
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 5:55 am
Location: Homewood, IL

Postby jon.wolf » Tue Dec 22, 2009 3:13 pm

Yes, I could easily have accomplished all the mission objectives in every case for the Gladiator.

In the Championship I had 5 or 6 scoring units; I had 4 in the Gladiator. Holding 4 objectives was doable either way.

In the past you could hide behind things and not get wiped off the board by D weapons. Fifth edition removes that. In the past Skimmers moving fast downgraded to Glance only, making Skimmers capable of surviving D weapons; Fifth Edition removes that as well.

I agree that the Titans and Gargantuan Creatures have a lot more to do with their ability to stop an opponent from winning than from winning the game for you. That said, the odds that someone playing at top table will face one or more of these is pretty good - I faced a Titan every round last year. And one bad round of Titan shooting ruins the day for any balanced force.
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 Green Blow Fly » Tue Dec 22, 2009 4:59 pm

Could we stay on topic? I am in agreement with Etholnar.

G
Death is a door to a new beginning - take my hand and I will lead you there...
http://greenblowfly.blogspot.com
User avatar
Green Blow Fly
 
Posts: 107
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 9:43 pm
Location: Terminus Est

Postby brendan » Wed Dec 23, 2009 1:16 am

AS a point of constructive criticism that may solve the issue for everyone.

Most engagements have an acceptable threshold of losses. could the second or third objective be something as simple as don't give up more than half of your kill points rounding up. I.E. a list that has 9 kill points can't give up more than 4 kill points to get this objective.

Or maybe I've totally missed the debate here.

Brendan
brendan
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 9:02 am
Location: charm city

Postby Brian » Wed Dec 23, 2009 10:58 pm

brendan wrote:AS a point of constructive criticism that may solve the issue for everyone.

Most engagements have an acceptable threshold of losses. could the second or third objective be something as simple as don't give up more than half of your kill points rounding up. I.E. a list that has 9 kill points can't give up more than 4 kill points to get this objective.

Or maybe I've totally missed the debate here.

Brendan


That would work well for a tactical bonus but not an objective since it's supposed to be impossible for both sides to get the "win" points for an objective. In other words if neither side lost half their KP the objective would be a draw. Ditto if they both lost half. If it's a bonus then both teams could get the points (although not all bonuses are going to work that way in the TT.)

I do like that idea though. I might use it somehow.

To slightly skirt the wipeout issue I've written a few missions with what I'm calling a "turn 5 objective." Basically the objective resolves itself at the end of turn 5 and it's scored right then and there. I'm not going to give any examples here but with such an objective it's easily possible for a team to grab the objective, score 15 points after turn 5, random game length could then take the game to turn 7 where that team then gets wiped out in the bottom of 7. Now, they got wiped out but they still scored the 15 for winning the primary in turn 5. The other team would (usually) get the win on the secondary and tertiary for a total of 11. They would need all 5 points worth of tactical bonuses to "win" the game by a margin of 1. In a mission like that it's fully possible for a team to get wiped out and still win in the battle points column before commanders heads and command counters are counted.

That mission won't be in the primer and it may not be in the TT itself. If I play-test it and it sucks it won't make the cut. If such a mission does end up in the TT it will only be one mission out of the four.
User avatar
Brian
 
Posts: 499
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 7:59 pm
Location: Chicago (Logan Square)

Postby jon.wolf » Thu Dec 24, 2009 1:08 am

Some of the things we've played around with are cumulative, immediate, and time-limited objectives. All of these work great to counteract wipeout, and they are actual objectives instead of basic rules changes.

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.
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

PreviousNext

Return to AdeptiCon 2010

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron