Getting tabled... and Winning?

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

One of the changes with chapter approved 2020 was that you don't just lose the game when you don't have any models left. Basically your opponent has the option of playing out their remaining turns and scoring what ever points they can get. Which means its possible to win game after being tabled, though I think that is really unlikely. 

 

1) Do you think this good change?

 

2) have you won or lost a game because of it?

 

3) for people who live in an area with events how are they handling it?

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

My thoughts on the subject are:

 

1) I think its a good change, I've noticed with how lethal 9th is that isn't uncommon for one side to get tabled even in casual games. There is more emphasis on fighting for the middle of the table, and there is a sense of urgency because you can't fall to far behind on the primary and catch up. I also like that in a tournament you'd credit for putting up a fight in a game where you were tabled instead of just losing by max. 

 

2)  I haven't lost to an opponent that I tabled, or won after I was tabled by someone. I've only had one game in which I needed the fifth turn to score enough points to win. In that case I went second, and their army was well designed so it was pretty tough picking secondary's.

 

3) I haven't been able to go to any events, I'm fortunate that I have a couple of regular opponents but I'm curious to see how they're handling it.

[Grand Master Springemann]

My thoughts are 

1. It is a good change and requires players to play the missions and not table their opponents. 

2. I have not personally won against someone who tabled me or loss against someone I have tabled but I do have a friend of mine that have won two games after being tabled. 

3. The events I have been to have ruled that the players knew the mission objectives and chose not to play the mission so tough luck. 

[Magos Takatus]

Last game I played the only opposing model on the table was a lone Tyrannofex and I was severely beaten on points. I still don't know how to push back against Tyranids. I tried to prise a few objectives off my opponent only for my reserves to be wiped out. Anything I sent out to capture objectives was overrun. I am still a novice after getting back into the game but it's not great for morale to feel powerless to score objectives regardless of how hard I try to capture them. I'm not saying that a tabled opponent shouldn't be able to win, far from it, I just want to point out how throwing everything you have at an opponent to shift them off objectives only to lose anyway is unintuitive and disappointing to new/returning players.

 

It wouldn't be so bad but I've lost three games in a row with a similar outcome. My commander survived, the opponent's did not. That didn't appear to make any difference.

 

I'm sorry if this post sounds negative, as it's not my intention. So far despite losing I've enjoyed myself and losing everything to claim a hill in the name of your faction in 40k is very thematic (Just check out the opening cinematic from the first Dawn of War for inspiration). I do however feel I needed to play devil's advocate in here briefly.

[Vanger]

I'd like to point out, that this is a core change in 9th edition Matched Play rules, so not only GT missions or chapter approved.

 

1. This is an awesome change, because it forces people to actually play a tactical game and not only see who can roll more dice and kill more faster.

2. Ignoring some games at the start of the edition where my opponents had no clue how to play the new missions, I had exactly 1 game where I had no models on the table and still won.

3. I don't understand your question. This is part of the core rules of the missions that tournaments use. You win by scoring more VPs than your opponent. If it's a phyrric victory, then so be it.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

Vanger, some of the larger events traditionally have made their own missions and changed rules for their event. ITC became prominent because of how much it changed 7th for example.

[Vanger]

Vanger, some of the larger events traditionally have made their own missions and changed rules for their event. ITC became prominent because of how much it changed 7th for example.

GW hired Mike Brandt (NOVA) who is responsible now for tournaments and mission design. FLG was heavily involved in the testing of those. They also made very clear, that ITC is using the GT missions without changes. The ITC battle app, Down Under Pairings is using the new mission scorings. 40K stats center is using the same data, Goonhammer makes their articles based on those results, so I don't think that any major torunamant would tinker with how the mission rules work.

[N1SB]

Brother, I ask you, what is the joy of life?

 

To die, knowing our task is done.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

 

 

Vanger, some of the larger events traditionally have made their own missions and changed rules for their event. ITC became prominent because of how much it changed 7th for example.

GW hired Mike Brandt (NOVA) who is responsible now for tournaments and mission design. FLG was heavily involved in the testing of those. They also made very clear, that ITC is using the GT missions without changes. The ITC battle app, Down Under Pairings is using the new mission scorings. 40K stats center is using the same data, Goonhammer makes their articles based on those results, so I don't think that any major torunamant would tinker with how the mission rules work.

Yeah that is true, but we're seeing alot of other big tournaments show up. The Dallas open had around 170 players, and there have been a couple other big ones. Not sure if they'll try to make their experience more unique. Personally I think your right that most won't but I do think it's possible.

[Cornishman]

Personally, never having ITC-ed I was happy when the change came in during 8E through Chapter Approved.

 

Granted it may seem a bit odd to potentially be the one to both 1) win and 2) be the one who gets tabled, but to me this possibility does nicely emphasise the importance of playing to the mission.

Which when you look at the objectives makes perfect sense: You win by playing the mission, unless the mission is to table your opponent tabling is only a means to an end, not the end.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

It's a silly change.
One side wipes out the other side, they win the battle...that's literally how battles work.

Regardless of how rare it is, it's pretty stupid.

Edited May 18, 2021 by Xenith
exclusive language

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

Personally, never having ITC-ed I was happy when the change came in during 8E through Chapter Approved.

 

Granted it may seem a bit odd to potentially be the one to both 1) win and 2) be the one who gets tabled, but to me this possibility does nicely emphasise the importance of playing to the mission.

 

Which when you look at the objectives makes perfect sense: You win by playing the mission, unless the mission is to table your opponent tabling is only a means to an end, not the end.

no one is stopping you from 'playing the mission' if that's how you want to play, when tabling an opponent means a win.

 

To make it easier for you to play how you want to, you're telling other people they can't play the way they want to.

 

You play the mission and adapt your strategy to how your opponent plays, if their goal is to table you, adapt, if their goal is to play the mission adapt either way.

[Karhedron]

I like the change. The games of 40K we play are often supposed to represent crucial engagements of larger battles, rather than being the entire battle by themselves.

 

From that point of view, scoring a victory, even at the cost of your forces, makes sense. Your troops held out just long enough to transmit the Death Star plans before Darth Vader went super saiyan on them.

[Azekai]

It's a silly change.

One side wipes out the other side, they win the battle...that's literally how battles work.

Yeah, those 300 idiots at Thermopylae got totally owned. /s

 

Depending on your objective it is possible to be killed to a man and still ‘win.’ It does happen in real world situations. And, even if such things were totally impossible, last stands are a staple of the fiction; you might as well feature them on the tabletop.

 

That being said, in 40k, it seems fairly easy to rationalize situations where the side being wiped out can still claim victory; particularly zealous or alien factions likely would not care for casualties as long as their esoteric goals are met.

Edited May 18, 2021 by Xenith

[MARK0SIAN]

There’s plenty of examples in universe of forces winning despite being destroyed. The ultramarines first company, whilst wiped out, caused enough casualties among the Tyranids and held them up long enough to protect the rest of the planet.

 

The Templars and Eldar working together at the end of Gods of Mars are all killed but manage to achieve their objective and win the bigger picture.

 

In Saturnine, a large force dies to a man but it is the sacrifice needed to ensure the trap works (trying to avoid spoilers for people so I’m being deliberately vague)

 

The point is it’s perfectly in keeping for an army to be destroyed but still win. From a game design point of view it also means no side can just build a list around killing stuff and sit there shooting all game like happened in 8th. Several armies are much better at killing than others so if just killing was a way to victory they’d have a huge advantage. Now at least, every side has to put their list together with regards to more aspects of the game than just killing.

 

People can still play the gun line army or focus everything into killing power if they want but they need to accept that they will likely lose to an army that’s designed around taking and holding objectives.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

 

It's a silly change.

One side wipes out the other side, they win the battle...that's literally how battles work.

Yeah, those 300 idiots at Thermopylae got totally owed. /s

 

Depending on your objective it is possible to be killed to a man and still ‘win.’ It does happen in real world situations. And, even if such things were totally impossible, last stands are a staple of the fiction; you might as well feature them on the tabletop.

 

That being said, in 40k, it seems fairly easy to rationalize situations where the side being wiped out can still claim victory; particularly zealous or alien factions likely would not care for casualties as long as their esoteric goals are met.

last stands are part of the fiction, but they're not considered victories. Ya, those dudes at Thermopylae were owned. They lost the battle. Their objective was to hold the pass, and they failed.

Edited May 18, 2021 by Xenith

[MegaVolt87]

There’s plenty of examples in universe of forces winning despite being destroyed. The ultramarines first company, whilst wiped out, caused enough casualties among the Tyranids and held them up long enough to protect the rest of the planet.

 

The Templars and Eldar working together at the end of Gods of Mars are all killed but manage to achieve their objective and win the bigger picture.

 

In Saturnine, a large force dies to a man but it is the sacrifice needed to ensure the trap works (trying to avoid spoilers for people so I’m being deliberately vague)

 

The point is it’s perfectly in keeping for an army to be destroyed but still win. From a game design point of view it also means no side can just build a list around killing stuff and sit there shooting all game like happened in 8th. Several armies are much better at killing than others so if just killing was a way to victory they’d have a huge advantage. Now at least, every side has to put their list together with regards to more aspects of the game than just killing.

 

People can still play the gun line army or focus everything into killing power if they want but they need to accept that they will likely lose to an army that’s designed around taking and holding objectives.

 

Yeah this. If you think you won just because you wiped out some guys you must be an ork, khorne nutter or a hungry Tyranid. Doesn't matter if you lose a few battles if you end up winning the war as a result. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

There’s plenty of examples in universe of forces winning despite being destroyed. The ultramarines first company, whilst wiped out, caused enough casualties among the Tyranids and held them up long enough to protect the rest of the planet.

 

The Templars and Eldar working together at the end of Gods of Mars are all killed but manage to achieve their objective and win the bigger picture.

 

In Saturnine, a large force dies to a man but it is the sacrifice needed to ensure the trap works (trying to avoid spoilers for people so I’m being deliberately vague)

 

The point is it’s perfectly in keeping for an army to be destroyed but still win. From a game design point of view it also means no side can just build a list around killing stuff and sit there shooting all game like happened in 8th. Several armies are much better at killing than others so if just killing was a way to victory they’d have a huge advantage. Now at least, every side has to put their list together with regards to more aspects of the game than just killing.

 

People can still play the gun line army or focus everything into killing power if they want but they need to accept that they will likely lose to an army that’s designed around taking and holding objectives.

ya, so you're happy to tell people they can't have a hope to win, unless they play the way you want to play, as that's stupid.

 

It shouldn't be hard to collect VPs and keep one unit alive until turn 5 finishes. Just adapt. Imo and experience it's much harder to table someone in 5 turns than it is to keep just one unit alive until turn 5 with more VPs...particularly if your enemy isn't playing for objectives...they'll get what? 5? Maybe 10 VPs? The whole game, while you'll get significantly more and likely still have at least one multi model unit on the table.

 

Anyone who is getting tabled regularly needs to look at themselves rather than expect the rules to change to give them a chance to win still.

[Gederas]

It's a retarded change.

One side wipes out the other side, they win the battle...that's literally how battles work.

Yeah, those 300 idiots at Thermopylae got totally owed. /s

 

Depending on your objective it is possible to be killed to a man and still ‘win.’ It does happen in real world situations. And, even if such things were totally impossible, last stands are a staple of the fiction; you might as well feature them on the tabletop.

 

That being said, in 40k, it seems fairly easy to rationalize situations where the side being wiped out can still claim victory; particularly zealous or alien factions likely would not care for casualties as long as their esoteric goals are met.

last stands are part of the fiction, but they're not considered victories. Ya, those dudes at Thermopylae were owned. They lost the battle. Their objective was to hold the pass, and they failed.

Well... No. The objective was to DELAY the Persians.

 

They may have died, but they did slow the Persians down enough that the rest of the Greeks were able to collectively pull their heads out of their behinds, which helped the Greeks prepare a successful defense and ultimately win the war.

 

A last stand where everyone is wiped out, but their objective was unequivocally completed? The Stand of the Swiss Guard during the Sack of Rome (1527). The Swiss Guard were annihilated but their objective, allow Pope Clement VII to be removed safely out of the Vatican, was successful.

 

You can lose the battle, but win the war.

Edited May 17, 2021 by Gederas

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

 

 

 

It's a retarded change.

One side wipes out the other side, they win the battle...that's literally how battles work.

Yeah, those 300 idiots at Thermopylae got totally owed. /s

 

Depending on your objective it is possible to be killed to a man and still ‘win.’ It does happen in real world situations. And, even if such things were totally impossible, last stands are a staple of the fiction; you might as well feature them on the tabletop.

 

That being said, in 40k, it seems fairly easy to rationalize situations where the side being wiped out can still claim victory; particularly zealous or alien factions likely would not care for casualties as long as their esoteric goals are met.

last stands are part of the fiction, but they're not considered victories. Ya, those dudes at Thermopylae were owned. They lost the battle. Their objective was to hold the pass, and they failed.

Well... No. The objective was to DELAY the Persians.

 

They may have died, but they did slow the Persians down enough that the rest of the Greeks were able to collectively pull their heads out of their behinds, which helped the Greeks prepare a successful defense and ultimately win the war.

 

A last stand where everyone is wiped out, but their objective was unequivocally completed? The Stand of the Swiss Guard during the Sack of Rome (1527). The Swiss Guard were annihilated but their objective, allow Pope Clement VII to be removed safely out of the Vatican, was successful.

 

You can lose the battle, but win the war.

i understand you can lose a battle and win the war, but we're talking about winning a battle win you lose the battle.

 

And your example doesn't translate to any 40k missions, so that's an apples and oranges comparison. (Also a mission that could have been achieved by the pope simply leaving before invaders ever showed up in the first place...hard to say they achieved an objective in battle when that same objective could have been achieved without ever fighting. Also was it the objective of the invaders to kill the pope, or was it their objective to take/sack the Vatican? Again another difference. 40k missions your fighting over the same objectives to gain victory points.)

Edited May 18, 2021 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[MegaVolt87]

 

i understand you can lose a battle and win the war, but we're talking about winning a battle win you lose the battle.

 

And your example doesn't translate to any 40k missions, so that's an apples and oranges comparison. (Also a mission that could have been achieved by the pope simply leaving before invaders ever showed up in the first place...hard to say they achieved an objective in battle when that same objective could have been achieved without ever fighting. Also was it the objective of the invaders to kill the pope, or was it their objective to take/sack the Vatican? Again another difference. 40k missions your fighting over the same objectives to gain victory points.)

 

 

Bringing this back to 40k, you just said it then- 40k missions. Your opponent has achieved the MISSION, which is why they beat you. You won nothing if the enemy completed their mission objectives even if they are destroyed to a man. A non real world example- Lets say you are fighting chaos, sure you wipe them out, they got the demonic ritual off though. Multiply this over several instances, as a IRL 40k game is a section of an overall battle or an important one on its own. Have you really won if the planet morphs into a demon world etc and you need to glass it? What about the other planets in the system, can they survive without that world which could have been important for system defence/ logistics? I guess thats not important to you I suppose because you got to pile up some heretics in the process and you won some battles. 

[Metzombie]

It's a silly change.

One side wipes out the other side, they win the battle...that's literally how battles work.

 

Regardless of how rare it is, it's pretty stupid.

"We wiped the enemy army out. Victory! Well they manged to steal al lot of important information. And burned down our city. And killed a lot of civilians. But Victory, right?!"

Edited May 18, 2021 by Xenith

[MARK0SIAN]

 

There’s plenty of examples in universe of forces winning despite being destroyed. The ultramarines first company, whilst wiped out, caused enough casualties among the Tyranids and held them up long enough to protect the rest of the planet.

 

The Templars and Eldar working together at the end of Gods of Mars are all killed but manage to achieve their objective and win the bigger picture.

 

In Saturnine, a large force dies to a man but it is the sacrifice needed to ensure the trap works (trying to avoid spoilers for people so I’m being deliberately vague)

 

The point is it’s perfectly in keeping for an army to be destroyed but still win. From a game design point of view it also means no side can just build a list around killing stuff and sit there shooting all game like happened in 8th. Several armies are much better at killing than others so if just killing was a way to victory they’d have a huge advantage. Now at least, every side has to put their list together with regards to more aspects of the game than just killing.

 

People can still play the gun line army or focus everything into killing power if they want but they need to accept that they will likely lose to an army that’s designed around taking and holding objectives.

ya, so you're happy to tell people they can't have a hope to win, unless they play the way you want to play, as that's stupid.

 

It shouldn't be hard to collect VPs and keep one unit alive until turn 5 finishes. Just adapt. Imo and experience it's much harder to table someone in 5 turns than it is to keep just one unit alive until turn 5 with more VPs...particularly if your enemy isn't playing for objectives...they'll get what? 5? Maybe 10 VPs? The whole game, while you'll get significantly more and likely still have at least one multi model unit on the table.

 

Anyone who is getting tabled regularly needs to look at themselves rather than expect the rules to change to give them a chance to win still.

I’m not saying they’ve got to play the way I want them to play. They’ve got to play the way GW wants them to play if they want to win. That’s like literally the nature of the game. GW want you to play a game around objectives.

 

Think about the various lists that dominated 8th edition. Castellan & Smash Captain, Triptide and drone spam, Iron hands and to a lesser extent Imperial fists, Eldar flyer spam. They all specialised in raw killing power whilst being hard to kill (either in a gun line or in fast, surgical strike units) because that was the best way to win. They didn’t really need to care much about objectives.

 

Now at least, there is more of a variety in the factions and types of list represented. Well, until the recent introduction of Dark Eldar but they’ll get nerfed and brought in line soon enough.

[Xenith]

The side that completes its objectives wins the game. The victory conditions are to complete the objectives, not to wipe out the opposing army. 

 

If you table your opponent, play out your turns, and still lose, then you deserve that loss, as you got massively outplayed in the early game by a better general. 

 

Commenting on this:

 

It's a silly change.
One side wipes out the other side, they win the battle...that's literally how battles work.

Regardless of how rare it is, it's pretty stupid.

 

So in Return of the Jedi, despite the rebels completing the objective of destroying the Death Star, despite massive casualties and the rest failing their combat attrition rolls and fleeing after the battle, was a win for the Empire as they still had plenty of Star Destroyers around?

 

How about basically any 'rag tag gang' war film? Did the good guys lose in Saving Private Ryan?

 

Of course, if you declare the only mission is to table the opponent, then yes, whoever gets tabled loses. 

Edited May 18, 2021 by Xenith

[Karhedron]

In my experience, games whose only objective is to wipe out the enemy as quickly as possible tend to get boring and repetitive fairly quickly. The 9th edition missions look like they will be more interesting in the long run. That is a big plus for me.

 

And it is not like killing the enemy doesn't matter anymore. Dead enemies can't hold Objectives or prevent you from meeting yours so wiping out the enemy makes your job a lot easier. The point is that killing the enemy is not your ONLY job.