Something I noticed about the tournament rules. When I played saturday at a dust tournament we played destruction. At the end of the game I failed to achieve victory but I tabled my opponent. I think it should be like all other tabletop war games if I table some one I should auto win no matter what the objective is. Because if I table you, you have nothing left to defend the objective and I can finish my goal after the game ends.

I'm going to start by guessing that by "table" you mean eliminate all the opponents units.

In many games this would lead to a victory, but in some it does not. I've played some games where eliminating the opponents units leads to a minor victory whereas achieving the game's objectives allows a major victory.

I like the idea that achieving the objectives are more important than "kill 'em all" - it requires more finesse and thinking rather than just bringing the biggest punch to the table.

No, definately not. Total wipeout should not mean you automatically win otherwise whats the point in having a scenario?

He prevented you from achieving the objective and gained a tactical advantage. He wins, regardless of how many troops he loses in the process. Watch saving prviate ryan, they are wiped out almost to a man at that final position, but because they hold that bridge long enough, reinforcements allow them to push the germans back. You didn't win "after the game ended", he did.

But if neither player achieved the Objective, then both players prevented their opponents from achieving the objective.

Even if all my forces were eliminated in the process, I still stopped you from achieving your goal. You did not accomplish what you wanted to accomplish (the objective).

there in lays the problem with some of the scenarios , with the tourny points system , the force sizes change up , and some scenarios give one side or the other a BIGGER advantage by simply requireing them to STOP their opponent from doing something such as reach X square or area on X turn . so if i flood the field with enough troops to tie you up , it doesnt matter if you killed them all off prior to the turn you needed to reach an objective , the game ends and you have not gotten to your objective .

thats one of the reasons the old points system works better , it keeps the sides more even numericaly

Ok so store wanted it to be only 8 turns the scenario says until either he tables me or I get to the objective. We determined that I should have won but the 8 turns if I table him in the 8 turns then it is an auto victory to me.

no , by your own description , you now have 8 turns or less to reach the objective , once you table him , the game ends once one side is tabled or you reach the objective . if you have not reached the objective , you have not won , BUT if he MUST table you to win , it would be a draw as he has not tabled you .

if the scenario does not say you must be ON the objective ON turn 8 , then you have a chance to win before turn 8 by reaching the objective .

to your opponents benifit though is that they can push for a draw by simply suicide running it if they dont think they can win . again a reason to flood the field with recon squads and maybe one walker because it gives you a numerical activation advantage , and if you face off against a foe you cant wipe out or out maneuver , you can always just suicide it and get the draw for scenarios that dont call for a total wipe out .

simply allowing players to win by tabling their opponents means you will see alot more armies that ONLY field walkers plus the mandatory hero , though the artillery isnt the best against walkers , its ability to wipe out infantry means there will be a prominant place in armies designed to table opponents , letting their other walkers deal with armor , while the artillery wipes out the specialty squads .

allowing you to win by TABLING your opponent OR reaching the objective by turn 8 means there was no point having a scenrio with the objective of reaching an objective , now ALL scenarios would simply be free for all killing , especially since mst dont make it to turn 6 let alone turn 8 . it handicaps your opponent since part of his goal was to prevent you from reaching the objective , and so he would waste time and actions to do so when his goal would really have JUST been total elemination .

no your wrong you are suppose to play the mission in the tournaments as they are written in the scenarios but we didn't want to make the tournament last forever due to he is open until 8pm so we made it 8 turns. The mission says it will last until I get to the objective it does not say anywhere that I have 8 turns. We came to the conclusion that since it does say that in this mission I would get victory. If it was any other mission where it does say 8 turns then I wouldnt get the victory. My TO thought it said until turn 8 not that he made the mission only last until turn 8. There for if I table him my men would have enough time to claim the objective. note if it does say I have to be on a square by turn 8 then if I dont get there I don't win. We came back later and cleared it up at our store and it would never be a draw he would win. besides the point we are making our own scenarios and I will have them posted on my blog soon more balanced scenarios for tournaments rather than the one side prevales over the other. That's not really tournament friendly.

ive done TOing , for mutiple different lines for a couple of companies as well as my FLGS when they have asked for help .

your above post says your store only wanted it to last until turn 8 , there for the description you gave was 8 turns or less . and it doesnt matter if it was a mistake or not , going back AFTER an event round cheats one player or the other if they were playing it based on the descrition or rules given at its start .

the game ends if one player is eliminated . simply tabling an opponent and being granted a win because you COULD do something AFTER he died means there is still no point in having scenarios because it doesnt matter if the scenario says turn 8 or not because it could ALWAYS be argued that by turn 8 i COULD do x , so why bother trying when i can just play for an all out assault and win without the extra effort ?

the biggest fault falls on the TO as it is up to them to read the scenarios and make sure to alot for time and make sure they KNOW as oposed to THINK they knew what the scenarios objective is , and that they stand firm on the rules as set down at the beginning of the event . granted there will from time to time be occassions where a rule is misinterpreted , or something of that nature MAY cause a game or player turn to be reconsidered , however the scenario is the scenario as set out by its description at the beginning of the event . it is all clearly stated in the tourny PDF :

" Event Parameters
The Tournament Organizer (The TO, or TOs) should always consider the best way to
run events for their players, given the resources they have available. These resources
include a place to run the event, the amount of time available, timers, etc. For example,
if you have limited time per day at the venue, you may want to consider running a larger
event over two days."

other wise , the TO should have chosen a dif. scenario

If you read the scenarios for operation blue thunder there is only one scenario that makes you be at an objective and has unlimited turns. MY TO said this specific scenario and if there are any future scenarios just like it and only these scenarios will be ruled as if the attacker tables the defender then the attacker auto wins due to the fact of time limits and it having unlimited turns. That might not be your ruling but that is my TOs ruling. The reason the scenario was picked is bc it was randomly done like the running a tournament says to do to the T. And for the time he is closed on Sundays and Mondays so we would have to stretch a 4 player tournament to 2 saturdays when he has like 50 different lines of games and runs tournaments for them all. Wasnt going to happen. Besides the fact this ruling will only take play in future events. Like we did for a Game League Night the following night. There is no right or wrong to this you just being one sided about it and due to it having custom rulings this can go either way depending on the person. It got brought up bc that following Game Night we played that scenario and read it fully and determined I should have won I didnt bring it up he read it and made the ruling. The tournament was already done with.

I would be happy just to have a tourny within several hours drive...

Hello out there, any one playing in central/nor cal?