Getting tabled... and Winning?

[Rik Lightstar]

To me it makes complete sense

 

From a background perspective:

 

40k battles aren't really intended to represent an entire engagement, the represent the "focal point" which might turn the tide. How that is accomplished is what the objectives are all about, if the goal is to hold ground until reinforced or to eliminate enemy leader(s) then those aren't dependent on the forces surviving their completion.

 

 

From a gameplay perspective:

 

If you've chosen to ignore your objectives or your opponent has prevented you from scoring them for the majority of the game then can you really say that you deserved to win? If your only "tactical accomplishment" was forcing them to fail a certain number saves then that's all you've done.

 

 

Rik

[Gederas]

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.

They also tend to cause rage quits more often than not.

[mughi3]

Ah one of the most idiotic design changes that came with 8th edition. many games have alternate win conditions rather it be a caster kill in warmachine or up until 8th tabling your opponent in 40K. 

 

I have had this debate with a player at our FLGS who still plays current 40K (i play with the group that has gone back to playing 5th so objective scoring objectives matters all the way up until the last turn is played) 

 

>his point....well you may have whipped out this force but i have a whole nother army waiting off table...

 

>my response...yeah so do i, except i currently control the field on this section of the battle front so i can go and take the objectives at my leisure 

 

An additional point, it also really depends on the army you are playing...whats the objectives of a tyranid swarm?

 

pretty much to eat everything on the table. 

 

Orks? if they is fightin they is winnin

 

And sometimes holding the line is the objective for some armies like guard......

 

so the idea of taking out the entire enemy force...and loosing the battle in front of you doesn't make  sense in universe. 

Edited May 18, 2021 by mughi3

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

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.

Yeah the missions are definitely quite a bit different so there is an adjustment period. In addition some armies are in rough shape because they don't have units that can take and hold those midfield objectives.

 

What army are you using, and what secondaries are you taking against the Nids?

Edited May 18, 2021 by Jorin Helm-splitter

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Killnammer is BESThammer .

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

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.

your logic is ridiculously faulty because the rebels weren't wiped out. They had several units combat ready after they wiped out the empire forces

[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.

Yeah the missions are definitely quite a bit different so there is an adjustment period. In addition some armies are in rough shape because they don't have units that can take and hold those midfield objectives.

 

What army are you using, and what secondaries are you taking against the Nids?

 

I am using Admech and my secondaries were Bring it down, First Strike and Abhor the Witch. I failed first strike because I unwisely poured just about all my firepower into his Haruspex, and I rolled terribly trying to harm it. I did have mobile elements to my army including some Serberys Raiders, Pteraxii Sterylyzors and some Sicarian Infiltrators. The Raiders got wiped out by a combination of Termagaunts, a Haruspex, a Lictor and a Mawloc (suffice to say, I relinquished that objective).

My Infiltrators wiped out the Ripper Swarms guarding his home objective, only to be wiped out by a ranged Carnifex and a Terrannofex, who consolidated on the point. My Pteraxii had to drop in by my firebase to prevent a unit of Genestealers sweeping though my Kataphrons. My opponent was orchestrating a Psychic ritual that I wasn't able to prevent. 

 

I was outplayed but I'm not sure what I could have done differently. If I had more Kataphrons and less small Skitarii units floating about I might have received charges better, but that would have made me even slower. I don't want to just use a gunline because it will eventually get boring for my friend but I haven't figured out how to push Tyranids back.

 

I can only imagine what it feels like to be playing as T'au right now. The lore states that they prefer to stay mobile and wear their opponents down rather than engaging in costly territory-holding actions so it must feel like the entire game is against them right now.

[Special Officer Doofy]

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?

1) I think it is a great change! 8th was very boring with all the shooting castle lists.

 

2) Has not came up yet.

 

3) It makes you play objectives and play different. I like it. Adds depth to the game.

 

I for one am glad it is the way it is now. Makes the game more challenging than "just kill your opponent". That's boring. If that's what you want to play though it shouldn't be too hard to find an opponent that wants to do the same. But that sounds like boring shooting castle list games to me. Not my cup of tea anymore. It's good for teaching people how to play, it's hard enough for new players to learn the phases, datasheets and rules, throwing missions and objectives and secondaries on top in their first few games can be a bit much.

 

I always saw objectives as a resource you're trying to extract. There's a finite amount (hence 5 turns). My faction/army values the resource (mineral/fuel/money/data etc) more than the 2000pts army sent. So if in that time period, if I extract more than my opponent, regardless of how much of my 2000pts I lose and how much my opponent retains, then I win the mission, the goal my army was sent out to do.

 

It's just a table top simulation game. Nothing in 40k makes alot of sense. It's over the top knights in space. The fact that there are "chain swords" when there are handheld guns that can melt right through armored tanks is ridiculous.

[Schlitzaf]

 

 

 

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.

Yeah the missions are definitely quite a bit different so there is an adjustment period. In addition some armies are in rough shape because they don't have units that can take and hold those midfield objectives.

 

What army are you using, and what secondaries are you taking against the Nids?

I am using Admech and my secondaries were Bring it down, First Strike and Abhor the Witch. I failed first strike because I unwisely poured just about all my firepower into his Haruspex, and I rolled terribly trying to harm it. I did have mobile elements to my army including some Serberys Raiders, Pteraxii Sterylyzors and some Sicarian Infiltrators. The Raiders got wiped out by a combination of Termagaunts, a Haruspex, a Lictor and a Mawloc (suffice to say, I relinquished that objective).

My Infiltrators wiped out the Ripper Swarms guarding his home objective, only to be wiped out by a ranged Carnifex and a Terrannofex, who consolidated on the point. My Pteraxii had to drop in by my firebase to prevent a unit of Genestealers sweeping though my Kataphrons. My opponent was orchestrating a Psychic ritual that I wasn't able to prevent.

 

I was outplayed but I'm not sure what I could have done differently. If I had more Kataphrons and less small Skitarii units floating about I might have received charges better, but that would have made me even slower. I don't want to just use a gunline because it will eventually get boring for my friend but I haven't figured out how to push Tyranids back.

 

I can only imagine what it feels like to be playing as T'au right now. The lore states that they prefer to stay mobile and wear their opponents down rather than engaging in costly territory-holding actions so it must feel like the entire game is against them right now.

Have you considered not MSU’ing. Most of the time I hear these stories is hecause folks are insistent on MSU’ing and from looks of your objectives you took all killy. And I assume your list is that so its a very stationary/nearly immobile lisf

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

@Magos Takatus - OK it looks like your using the secondary objectives from the core rulebook not the chapter approved. They are very similar and I wouldn't recommend picking up a chapter approved 2020 because we're probably pretty close to the next one. 

 

With secondary objectives my rule of thumb is to ignore any that have max score of less than ten unless I'm playing a smaller game (1000 pts or less). So I wouldn't pick First Strike, I would go with Attrition it's in the same category and if you have two turns where you kill more units than your opponent you've tied the best case scenario with First Strike. I definitely can understand why you picked it because you have better long range shooting, but it is risky. Your also about to get a new codex which will have some new secondary objectives, and provide a boost in general. I do think Schlitzaf has a point about the MSU, your list may be better with fewer units, they may be slower but they also will be harder to shift.

 

 

 

  

[MadGreek]

 

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.

your logic is ridiculously faulty because the rebels weren't wiped out. They had several units combat ready after they wiped out the empire forces

 

Full disclosure - I rarely (if ever) play, but perhaps I could provide a better, historical, scenario.

 

Thermopylae - the Spartans and their allies got "tabled." When the Persians surrounded the Spartans (after being shown the mountain pass) the Spartans held the line (because that's what they do), but it also gave the other Greeks time to retreat. The 3 days certainly were demoralizing to the Persian army and gave the Greeks a rallying event.

 

Similarly, the Texans and their allies got "tabled" at the Alamo, but provided time (13 days I think) for  Sam Houston to get the Texas Army organized and ready to defeat Santa Ana. "Remember the Alamo" became a powerful rallying cry.

 

Both armies tabled, but perhaps they achieved their objectives? - Rallying cry, time to gather, demoralizing the enemy. That could be seen as a victory.

 

Anyway, my $.02

[Captain Idaho]

I think the changes are great. The game is not fun if you just build the old "leaf blower" lists and whoever goes first wins. I've had it happen. Literally, an Adeptus Mechanicus player stole the initiative in 8th, wiped me from the board bar like 8 models turn 1. (Admitted there was also no obscuring terrain back then)

 

Having to win on points just means the players have to build lists that can score points and contend for opponents who try and score around the table, which ensures that the list can't always be optimised for purely killing and often includes (shock horror) troops.

 

It's an abstract game mechanic to balance the game a little.

[Magos Takatus]

 

Have you considered not MSU’ing. Most of the time I hear these stories is hecause folks are insistent on MSU’ing and from looks of your objectives you took all killy. And I assume your list is that so its a very stationary/nearly immobile lisf

 

I have indeed considered not taking the MSU approach. This was the first game I tried MSU on my Skitarii, and I wasn't terribly impressed. Having plenty of Radium Carbines helped fighting the smaller 'Nids off. My dice rolls aiming at my opponent's Swarmlord were so bad that my Vanguard's double wounds on sixes did better than some of my heavy artillery. I think I need to test a decent-sized unit of Fulgurite Electro Priests. I'm waiting for the codex to drop to see if they stay effective but I may get some anyway because I like the models.

 

Thanks for the advice on the secondaries, Jorin Helm-splitter. I'll keep an eye out for alternative objectives in future, I wasn't terribly impressed with First Strike and Thin Their Ranks sounded like too much book-keeping for someone that hasn't regularly played 40k since 2nd edition.

 

I'd best peel this subject off from the main topic and post a new one in the Admech forum. This is more troubleshooting than me discussing being tabled or tabling at this point. http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/index.php?app=forums&module=post&section=post&do=new_post&f=60

Edited May 19, 2021 by Magos Takatus

[Xenith]

 

so the idea of taking out the entire enemy force...and losing the battle in front of you doesn't make  sense in universe. 

 

It doesn't make sense if you only have a surface knowledge of the background, or use the made up examples you do. The 40k universe is full of examples of armies that get wiped out to a man/woman or otherwise suffer enormous casualties yet complete their objective(s) and thus 'win'.

 

Naturally, if you are of the opinion you can only win by killing all the opposing force, it won't seem like a win to you, but that's deliberately ignoring the win conditions in favour of your own arbitrary 'moral victory'. 

 

Letting yourself/your army get slaughtered by another who is ignoring the objectives to overall win the day is also in the background (Slaves to Darkness).

 

Overall, multiple ways to win is good. It penalises the boring static castles that have plagued the game since at least 3rd ed, and as I said before, if you table your opponent and still lose, then you got massively outplayed. If you manage to table someone by turn 2/3, there's absolutely no way you should be getting a score less than 85/100.

Edited May 19, 2021 by Xenith

[Schlitzaf]

Here is advice one of my best friends have given me and a regular on the circuit:

40k is made of 3 parts (competitively)

List Building:

1) List Building obviously

•WT

•Relics

2) Gameplan

•How to you win

3) Mission

•Secondaries (5th and onward)

 

A bad player only considers the first one and tbe raw math. A good player considers the first and the bullet points. A great player considers how to do 1 and how he ennacts 2. A veteran player also understand you need to know how to win not just play your plan.

 

A competitive player realizes he need to figured out how the gameplan wins a the mission. A tournament player know that building for secondaries or with secondaries, how to achieve and deny them is how you win.

 

Deployment:

1) What you deployed

•Whose holding Homeplat.

•Securing the Center

•What ISN’T Deployed

•How your opponent deployed

-What they didn’t Deployed

2) What you cannot deploy (location of objectives, terrain if predetermind)

•How that the modifies your gameplan

•A mission that restricts certain unit deployment or otherwise

3) What your goal is?

 

A bad player will play or deploy their army the same way every game. A good player will understand and take in consideration all these factors. A competitive player will understand how these factors affect their opponent.

 

The best player realizes that “deploying” the same is correct because the most important goal is achieving your win condition. The specifics of tour deployment will change and exact method. But you can lose in deployment. And an army without goal and a wau in mind to achieve that goal no matter the situation will lose. And understand that.

 

The Game:

1) Tactical Engagement

-Weighing Risks

2) Strategic Risks

-Responding to Opponent

3) Luck

4) Playing the Mission

-Playing the Map

 

Every player regardless of skill does the first two the degree of success or failure varies by player skill and initution. And most good players are recgonizable by how unaffected they are by lady luck whims. Simply as players how adaptable they and the armies they play are.

 

The fourth is why someone is competitve. They don’t play the “game”, they play the mission. They play to take their objectives. They play to achieve their objectives they don’t play to beat their opponent. And then they use the map and play to the map to facilitate this.

 

If you play tje game ie destroy the enemy army. You are failing to play to the map or to the mission itself. Whicj means against someone who is. You lose.

[Vermintide]

I like it from a tactical, strategic point of view. Makes for a more thoughtful game.

But honestly? 40K is the kind of game where both players can walk away knowing they won. You really don't even have to think particularly hard about it- Khorne cares not from whence the blood flows. If you want to just cause some death and destruction? That's fine. The mission is just a "serving suggestion" GW has put in place to make sure you have a structure to play around, but if you're a bloodthirsty Ork or a chaotic evil Drukhari raider, it's perfectly in character to just throw the mission out of the window and play for kills. Don't let a silly little thing like "the score" get in the way of a rightful victory.

 

Now, of course it matters more if you're at the tournament level, and playing to win. But if you're competitive enough to be seriously aiming for tournament wins? You should already be far above worrying what the victory conditions are, because to you, the thing that matters is how to achieve them. At that level, the game itself is just an abstraction. You should expect to have to adapt your strategy.

[tychobi]

This is a great change. More thinking and less killing for the win. It was too easy to ignore the game objectives and play to kill in 8th.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

You should be able to score the primaries at the end of your turn that would really help balance the game.

[jarms48]

I had a situation where I tabled my friend and they still won. 

 

I managed to kill their remaining units turn 5, but they had such an early gain on primary and secondaries that I couldn't come back from. Was pretty close in the end something like 70 - 75. 

[Lord Commander Scrymgeour]

In a previous edition, I used to have a regular opponent with my (underpowered) blood angels against his (very strong) necrons. I won almost every game we played despite him almost tabling me every time. 

I think it's a gret idea, as others have said, there are tonnes of real world, cultural and 40k lore examples. It also, as someone has mentioned, means that both players can walk away thinking "What a great game, I really feel like I won something." 

It only really matters if you need to declare a winner out loud in any case. 
Unless you're in a tournament, don't bother with "I'm the winner and you're a :cussing loser." YOur mum probably taught you better than that, you should have listened.

 

[Xenith]

You should be able to score the primaries at the end of your turn that would really help balance the game.

 

4th/5th was ike this as I recall, and it got largely dominated by fast moving things that can just jump onto an objective.

 

It's worth noting that the Primary is called "Take and Hold". If it was end of turn, it would just be called "Take".

[MARK0SIAN]

Yeah it definitely works better getting the points in your command phase as it means you’ve had to actually defend the point for a turn. Especially now they’ve changed it that the person who goes second does score at the end of their last turn.

[Schlitzaf]

They specifivslly got rid of end of turn scoring because chelder:

Turbo boosting onto Objectives in 5th edition

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

 

You should be able to score the primaries at the end of your turn that would really help balance the game.

 

4th/5th was ike this as I recall, and it got largely dominated by fast moving things that can just jump onto an objective.

 

It's worth noting that the Primary is called "Take and Hold". If it was end of turn, it would just be called "Take".

 

 

4/5 were like that, and they didn't have progressive objectives for the most part. It lead to games where the faster army waited for you to commit and then would knock you off of the objectives, or out of table quarters, and grab them at the end. I think people remember fifth more fondly because you needed to troops to score which just toned down the game in general and the slower army could go after the wave serpents/raiders to make things more interesting.

 

 

Yeah it definitely works better getting the points in your command phase as it means you’ve had to actually defend the point for a turn. Especially now they’ve changed it that the person who goes second does score at the end of their last turn.

 

I would be curious to see what would happen if the player who went second could pick one turn where they could score at the end of their turn or just have it work like ITC did where you both score at the end of each battle round. The last turn change really didn't affect the go first win rates much, so I'd be curious to see how those changes would effect it.

 

The first turn win rate is actually the biggest Issue I have with the concept of being tabled and still winning. I just think the player who went first has a much better chance of pulling it off. They only have one opposing movement phase and one shooting phase before they get to score for the first time. While their opponent has deal with two movement phases, one of which includes reserves, two shooting phases, and probably an assault phase before their first opportunity to score. Depending on the mission and the speed of their army they could be in really big hole early, fight their way out of it, and just not have enough time left to win. 

 

That said I like the rule, so hopefully GW looks at giving the second player some more advantages to get the win rate closer to even because I view that as the culprit.

[MARK0SIAN]

 

 

 

 

You should be able to score the primaries at the end of your turn that would really help balance the game.

4th/5th was ike this as I recall, and it got largely dominated by fast moving things that can just jump onto an objective.

 

It's worth noting that the Primary is called "Take and Hold". If it was end of turn, it would just be called "Take".

4/5 were like that, and they didn't have progressive objectives for the most part. It lead to games where the faster army waited for you to commit and then would knock you off of the objectives, or out of table quarters, and grab them at the end. I think people remember fifth more fondly because you needed to troops to score which just toned down the game in general and the slower army could go after the wave serpents/raiders to make things more interesting.

 

Yeah it definitely works better getting the points in your command phase as it means you’ve had to actually defend the point for a turn. Especially now they’ve changed it that the person who goes second does score at the end of their last turn.

I would be curious to see what would happen if the player who went second could pick one turn where they could score at the end of their turn or just have it work like ITC did where you both score at the end of each battle round. The last turn change really didn't affect the go first win rates much, so I'd be curious to see how those changes would effect it.

 

The first turn win rate is actually the biggest Issue I have with the concept of being tabled and still winning. I just think the player who went first has a much better chance of pulling it off. They only have one opposing movement phase and one shooting phase before they get to score for the first time. While their opponent has deal with two movement phases, one of which includes reserves, two shooting phases, and probably an assault phase before their first opportunity to score. Depending on the mission and the speed of their army they could be in really big hole early, fight their way out of it, and just not have enough time left to win.

 

That said I like the rule, so hopefully GW looks at giving the second player some more advantages to get the win rate closer to even because I view that as the culprit.

It would definitely be interesting to see those effects. For me the player who went second scoring at the end of their last turn was less about addressing the go first advantage and more about making it actually worthwhile for the 2nd player to actually play their last turn. Something else like you suggest might be needed to deal with the first turn advantage.

 

I wonder if it would make any difference if they split the take and hold element of the objectives. So you got so many points for taking an objective and more if you’re still holding it in your next command phase.