AoS Tabling your Opponent

So i was wondering if this is actually possible in Age of Sigmar to win, if you table someone? Cause i have never read something like this.

 

But i can't find a passage in the rulebook that says so. And in the scenarios too, no sentence about a total wipe out of the enemy. Otherwise in 40k there is an extra passage about it :/

 

But what if the score is like 20:0 for the enemy. There is no passage that i win this battle even if i wipe him out.

 

The way we play it in our group is you play the full 5 turns even if one player is wiped out. If the remaining player can't catch up on vp's then they lose as the mission requirements haven't been met by him

 

Well i asked the same question on facebook, looks like i am right and you cant win if you table someone and cant catch up in points till turn 5.

 

well that's kinda stupid... Most victory conditions should default to you win if you wipe out the enemy by simple logic..

• Enemy's channeling a big bad spell of doom? Wiping them out stops em, you win.
• You're channeling a big bad spell of doom? Wiping them out gives you all the time you need, you win.
• Any variation of king of the hill? Wiping them out means they can't hold the hill, provided you have 1 guy left you win as you're holding it by default, you win.
• Stealing the artifact? Wiping them out means they can't steal it, or that you can just walk away with it if you're stealing it. You win.

There's only 2 objectives that I can think of for which it'd make some sense, "gain X point/objective held/turn" and "get X models to Y before the end of the game", and both of those only work if the scenario gives a clear reason as to why victory points are limited or why the time limit exists beyond just "well the rules say it does". E.g. saying that holding the objective gives you 1 artifact/turn and whoever has the most wins doesn't really explain why wiping the enemy out doesn't mean you can just pick up their artifacts, or why you can't just stand around however long you need to get more artifacts/points... similarly, a breakthrough mission where you have to get X units to a certain zone doesn't really explain why that needs to be done in 6 turns other than that's just how long a game lasts... Plus, even in those cases there probably should be some intereaction with the victory conditions for entirely wiping out the enemy.

 

That battle, both in real life and in the comics, has a clearly stated reason as to why there is a time limit and why it was important that the persians got stuck for so long. This works cuz the battle isn't fought in a vacuum. There isn't just thermopylea, there's thermopylea while the city states are being organised. However, in most of the games there is just the one game in a vacuum, there isn't a "logical" reason for the time limit to exist other than "cuz the rules say so". In narrative-gameplay it would work better as you could give a reason for the time limit.

Also, minor sidenote, apart from narrative scenario's from tomes and starting boxes that literally state what to field, do these battleplans actually come with unequal forces like the persians and the spartans? Where one will inevitably destroy the other given enough time? Cuz I can't remember any of that sort, and the moment the forces are equal, which in matched play they tend to be, arbitrary time limits become even more arbitrary and illogical. A small force of spartans being annihilated by a massive force of persians but buying time for the main greek force to mobilize is a "major" victory for the spartans, on the other hand if there were just as many spartans as persians it'd be a very phyrric victory indeed...

 

The battle for Thermopylae was a tactical and strategic victory for the Persians but far from a decisive one. Under cover of the rearguard the Greeks withdrew, abandoning some of their cities to destruction, to avoid a more decisive defeat. The inability of the Persians to force a decisive battle was strategically disastrous for them. Had the Greeks held the mountain path (which they knew of and had sent a force to defend) they could possibly have forced a decisive defeat on the Persians by holding out until the food and water of the invading army was exhausted.

The battle was a propaganda victory for the Greeks which eventually enabled them to rally their forces, at which point they forced a decisive battle which they won. The film reflects the propaganda

In a narrative battle based based on this the result should probably be recorded as a marginal Persian victory. Due to the strategic considerations it was quite possible for the Greek forces on the ground to be wiped out while gaining a strategic victory. e.g Had they held out for a while longer the invading army would have been desperate for resupply - forcing their supporting fleet into a weak position where they could be trapped and destroyed in shallow waters by the Athenian fleet. So far as we can tell that was the Greek strategic plan and that could be represented in a narrative game by the Greek side winning if they hold out for a few more turns.

In a campaign game it should be a Persian victory that gains them little or nothing in later games.

 

Sorry I wasn't clear, I meant battleplans used in matched play, not just narrative play.

Lost the battle, but won the war essentially with the lost battle being one of the important bits that eventually won the war.

And yeah, games will Always be weird, but this might be one of the weirder victory conditions. I think it might just be the combination of tabling an opponent being nigh irrelevant with an arbitrary time limit. Had the time limit only existed with objectives where it makes sense then it'd not be so weird.