I'm curious how many tournament games in 2.0 are going to end in the total elimination of one side and how many come down to a comparison of objectives.

Given the rules, it is possible to eliminate your opponent and lose on tiebreakers because you fail to gain objectives (you control no objectives and eliminate your opponent with your last available action that turn). However, I think that's going to be very, very rare. Edit: Ignore this section, as pointed out below.

So, at your next tournament using 2.0 rules and the standard time limit, note whether the player won because he eliminated his opponent, if he didn't and controlled more objectives and those few that are something else (like the situation mentioned above where you eliminate your opponent and lose).

Please give facts. I'd like to try to stay away from anecdotal evidence ("Well, I think most games I've played ended in....."). I'd like to know specifics.

I'm sure there is a good chance this will change once everyone becomes more familiar with the rules. I'm curious about the information now, though.

I understood the following:

Player A eliminates all of player B's figures. Player A then gets three objective tokens.

There should not be any situations in which a player wins but has no objectives...right?

I'm referring to page 19 of the rule book. The section ttitled "Eliminating a Player."

Silly me. I missed the very last sentence is that section (that the player automatically gains all objectives). So, we'll ignore that little section and go to the thrust of my post anyway :)

It's still possible, but even rarer because it requires that you lose your figure before the next end phase. Presumbably because in eliminating your opponent you pushed to death (barring some really odd relics that let you return a figure back to the game after all your warriors have been eliminated).

November 5th - Battle of Fort Wyndham:
2 games observed, 2 games won by Elimination.

November 6th - Battle of Fort Wyndham:
1 game played, won by Elimination.

November 9th - Sealed Booster Draft:
16 games I asked this exact question (2 of them I played personally), all 16 games were won by Elimination (note: we only played a 1 pack draft tournament, so elimination was easier than spreading 4 figures to cover objective tokens).

Will post more after this Sunday based on this week's results.

In our tournement this weekend I observed two main styles.

Attempting to wipe the opponent (my preferred style), thereby obtaining the objectives by default.

Engaging slowly and then whatever the middle game, aiming to keep a few figures alive and dash for the objectives at the end.

Since it's my thread, I really oughta answer the question ;)

I've only played in one tournament so far that was fully 2.0 rules.

Played two rounds.

The first round I lost because my opponent had more objectives. This time the time limit was very important. If I had 30 more seconds I would have gotten another turn and would have doubletimed my figures to the objective tokens to contest them, winning the game. My opponent wouldn't have been able to counter this and I had one objective firmly in hand.

The second round I also lost because I faced my brother and that incredibly annoying Revenant ability. If anything's worse than having a figure die, it's having it returned from the dead and smacking you around for another round. Elimination ended the game.

the games that i have played in and have watched have been won by elimination

I ran one event this past weekend and saw all 3 rounds determined by objectives. Everyone played that night by the MK quickstart rules, and the battles were all simply controlled by the objective idea.

All 4 games last night decided by objectives.

Mostly because of the constant rule questions (especially bombardment) making the games slower.

I expect more games decided by elimination in the future.

I have played in one sealed booster tournament and one constructed tournament where we used 2.0 rules with a mix of 1.0 and 2.0 figures.

In both cases we played elimination rather than capture the objective tokens.

The players at my venue are not fond of the objective idea and would rather play elimination.

I think that objectives are good for specific scenarios, but not for general gameplay.

Xanathon

I played like 6 games and in 2 sealed booster events since MK 2.0 came out and noticed that only 50-60% of the games are won by elimination....

When I ran the 2.0 tourney last Saturday, most of the matches ended by elimination and not objectives. And the one and only person to own a Veratrix dominated the tourney :rolleyes: .

I won my tourney last night by doing neither. I was the only one who showed up. :(

Least I still got the prize. :)

Why not just kill all but one of your opponents figures, claim the objectives, and then finish him off?

Does the game end as soon as you controll all the objectives?

As much as the game could use a different mode of victory other then total annhilation, killing your opponents will always be the prime way to win games. There is just no way around it.

Maybe they could make objectives more enticing - like if you claim a particular objective, your entire army gets toughness. Or another objective would be +1 to all damage dealt by your enitre army.

Or make it like an RTS game - at the beginning of every turn that you have an objective, you get 10 points put into your personal pool, which you can save up to bring into the game your own personal side-board of creatures. So if you control 2 objectives, you got 20 points coming to you every turn. Could be interesting! Would force your opponent to knock you off your objective so he could stop your from pulling in creatures and he could pull in some of his own.

Stuff like that...