When you know you're going to lose, but there is still a large chunk of game left do you choose to concede, not concede or run your units into suicidal charges?
Just interested after reading a BoLS post about it :3
I usually concede. When I know I'm defeated I don't really enjoy postponing the inevitable. Unless I can pull off something funny before going down, so every now and then I do something silly before being destroyed
I play until the game is finished. I get annoyed when i'm winning and someone just throws in the towel. For one, it robs me of actually winning the game - i didn't win, you just quit.
Secondly, it reeks of sour grapes. Yeah yeah, I get the whole "i play to have fun and getting beaten isn't fun" - i call shenanigans. Some of the most fun games i've had i've gotten my butt handed to me. It's also good sportsmanship.
So yeah, i'll carry on. The only way i'll walk from a game is if i'm playing someone new and they are a mega donkey-cave. I've done it all of one time in my life.
More often than not, i'll concede as I don't find it fun wasting my time, or my opponents. The only exception is if i'm playing my main 40k buddy and he fields his riptide.
In that case I throw all da dakka and work towards an assault on that sob!
I usually know when I'm losing horribly, Let my opponent know that he won, but usually stay for a turn or 2 to let him get his kicks(kills, ect) then hand shake, and move on. If he is killing me, I will at least let him enjoy winning.
I really should have said other, usually discuss it with opponent, and if it is clear I'm stuffed and they want to get another game in on the night, I'll concede
Sometimes I concede and then we just roll important or fun units...usually it's a combat that we just go back and forth on...even if it goes to "turn 9" and we've stopped moving everything else.
I don't concede. Conceding is giving up. Only the faithless give up. True heroines find another way to victory instead.
To be blunt, I have conceded one game in my entire life (Admittedly, I don't count "I have to go in five minutes, call it here?" that's finishing the game early and using the conditions on the board to determine the winner). That was last week. I said, "You know what? You have one noise marine left against basically my entire army... if you survive this, you win. Tank shock!" (he promptly blew up my Immolator with a krak grenade).
1.) Am I playing a buddy for fun and we can get in another game if we wrap it up? If so concede.
2.) Is there anything meaningful I can still do? Can I still fight it out claim some objectives or contest (this matters in a tournament certainly) if so I soldier on. If I have say 3 weapon destroyed drop pods left and nothing else....concede. It is an extreme example but if my opponent has most of his army and I have basically nothing left, why go through the motions of rolling saves and dying, or hiding. More true in KP missions when you are also hoplessly down on the mission objective.
3.)Is my opponent a Jerk? If so conceed, even if I am losing if I am having a good time hanging out and joking with my opponent...no problem...if I am getting blasted and every other minute there is a rules argument....concede.
4.) Play to a random roll wher eif the game goes on it is obvious who has won (i.e. the next turn will be rolling dice and last few models dying) So we play to the end of 5 and I have 2 models left that will die on top of 6...We roll game goes on and we just call it a win for you.
I think people need to realize the difference between conceding when you are throughly beaten and conceding when your opponent is winning. In the first your opponent has beaten you already and the rest of the game is a formality (you have a miniscule amount of models facing a full army), in the second your opponent is likely going to win the mission and you just want to call it.
Never concede. I know it sounds a little odd, but when you concede early, you tend to get angry at yourself, your army, the other player, etc, etc. You admit to the world and yourself that you just didn't have what it took. I've had some bad matches. I've been very nearly tabled before, but I stuck it out. 1 Termagant survived out of my entire army that game. And you know what? In the bottom of the 6th turn, I found absolution. I walked out with my head high. Stick it out, and get some pride. Go all out, or go for the preservationist. See how much you can save.
Unyielding Hunger wrote: Never concede. I know it sounds a little odd, but when you concede early, you tend to get angry at yourself, your army, the other player, etc, etc. You admit to the world and yourself that you just didn't have what it took. I've had some bad matches. I've been very nearly tabled before, but I stuck it out. 1 Termagant survived out of my entire army that game. And you know what? In the bottom of the 6th turn, I found absolution. I walked out with my head high. Stick it out, and get some pride. Go all out, or go for the preservationist. See how much you can save.
And just know that that one termagant has the potential to turn into more tyranids and start another war.
90% of the time I concede is because my opponent, or myself have somewhere else to be, or because the store is closing lol. The other 10% I'll throw in the towel is because it is painfully clear that there is nothing I can possibly do. Having fun? Sure, why not charge a few bolter marines at the enemy's death star?
Haight wrote:I get annoyed when i'm winning and someone just throws in the towel - i didn't win, you just quit.
This.
The game is supposed to be a good game, not just a game that you play until the first person gets their first advantage, or just because one person doesn't think they can win anymore. Giving up when you're behind is WAAC behavior in its purest form, no matter how polite you are about how you give up. If you emotionally can't stand losing, then don't play in the first place.
Now, that's not to say that I've NEVER conceded a game. I certainly have. Usually, though, it's after my army has been completely, brutally massacred down to just a few models (so my opponent can already get the satisfaction of wiping my army off the table), and then there's usually some other factor involved, like a time constraint, or other people need a table to play on, or whatever.
I've certainly pulled out hopeless results (the rare win, but usually forcing a draw at the last moment in terrible situations), but it really is much more than that. Honestly, for me at least, it's almost cathartic to play an actually doomed game all the way through. My little toy soldiers did so badly that game, they deserve a gristly death, which I will gladly watch if for no other reason that vindictive wrath...
I honestly at least make the offer whenever it looks like I'm not going to be able to pull it out. I figure there's no point in playing any longer if the outcome is already pretty clear.
That said, I also make the offer to just remove my squad from the table when they get charged in close combat (I play Tau, the outcome wouldn't really be affected too much either way).
I'm not sure conceding has anything to do with being emotionally able to deal with defeat (by conceding you admit defeat), it has more to do with having other things to do with your time. I could turn it around to say if you feel everyone needs to keep playing so you can kill every last model...that is very WAAC.
Depends how the game is going. If there is still something in the works that ought to make the game fun (i.e., an important assault, close combat between two major characters, etc.) then by all means keep rolling! However, a shooting slugfest that will require weight of dice to resolve, and not really offer very much fun to either player, is really an exercise in mental masturbation.
The flip side of this is that I expect my opponent to concede in similar circumstances. A buddy of mine plays Dark Eldar. Our armies are horrible matchups for one another. On one occasion, due to some incredibly poor luck for my friend, I've nearly tabled him in a single turn due to seizing the initiative, Manticores and other IG firepower vs. AV10 paper airplanes. I wouldn't expect him to play out another 4+ turns with ~400 pts of DE on the table vs. 1,500 points of IG. That wouldn't be fun for either of us...we'd rather pack up and go get a beer.
Unyielding Hunger wrote: Never concede. I know it sounds a little odd, but when you concede early, you tend to get angry at yourself, your army, the other player, etc, etc. You admit to the world and yourself that you just didn't have what it took. I've had some bad matches. I've been very nearly tabled before, but I stuck it out. 1 Termagant survived out of my entire army that game. And you know what? In the bottom of the 6th turn, I found absolution. I walked out with my head high. Stick it out, and get some pride. Go all out, or go for the preservationist. See how much you can save.
And just know that that one termagant has the potential to turn into more tyranids and start another war.
He turned into 28 more Termagants, 28 Hormagaunts, 40 Genestealers, 2 Broodlords, 3 Warriors, and something in excess of 9 Ripper Swarms. I called that pretty good at the time.
I'll generally play to the end if at all possible, for the following reasons:
1) I myself would feel cheated and annoyed if my opponent called the game just because I've got an early lead. I've seen plenty of games where people have pulled it back from a bad position on turn 2-3, so I'm not happy if my opponent just takes a defeatist attitude. I'm playing to have fun, not to win, so if the opponent was going to quit, or was losing really badly, I'd even be happy to take out a few unints or let them bring a few back if it means I get more of a game. As such, I won't concede myself as that would be equally unfair to the opponent. They come expecting a full game, I come expecting a full game. We play a full game if possible.
2) To me, winning or losing is a long way down the list of priorities. Thinking narratively, some of the best stories are ones where the protagonists lose, so there's just as much (if not more) fun in 30 SM hopelessly facing down 100 guardsmen rushing at them as there is in crushing my opponent. You can still enjoy a game even if you're not winning, because cool stuff is bound to happen between now and then.
The only time I'll let a game go is if it's possible to get another game in if we call it a turn or two early and one side is clearly going to win. For example, if we have an hour left at the club, it's turn 4 and my opponent is winning 7-1 on kill points, then we'll generally come to the mutual decision to call it and cram a 750 point game into the last hour.
It depends on what's going on and who is playing. When one side is down to a single unit or a few chewed-up squads that obviously can't turn it into a win (or even a draw) anymore it's pointless to go on. Especially if we have time for another game, maybe even with a less lopsided match-up.
Depends on how fun the game has been to that point. If it's just been a situation where the dice are just not on my side that day, or if the army I'm playing just has nothing to counter the army I'm playing against, then, yeah, best to call it early and pack it in.
But, if it's been a fun battle? Let's fight it out to the bitter end! Miracles might happen.
In a game that is basically down to ransom dice rolls, you can't quit because you're losing, because there's still a chance that you'll win by a huge margin.
Sir Samuel Buca wrote: In a game that is basically down to ransom dice rolls, you can't quit because you're losing, because there's still a chance that you'll win by a huge margin.
This is why I never just pull a unit from an assault or shooting he should obviously die to.
I'm with Breng77 on a lot of this. I've experienced the whole spectrum:
Opponent quits on Turn 1, as I bagged (bragging ) his Land Raider, HQ & Cmd Squad, with First Blood and Warlord. On the Kill Point mission. It was a Drop pod, meltagun, and PlasCan Long Fang combination of pwnage. At a GT.
At a RTT, *I* have conceded when the lunch clock was ticking away, but I was losing. It was Turn 4. I sometimes ask if the opponent would like to play through, sometimes I'm losing, sometimes he is.
I have played through getting tabled. Opponents have played through getting tabled (even when the out come was obvious by, say Turn 3).
I would say it is a situation by situation call.
I was bummed about the Turn 1 quit, as I'd driven 300 miles for a GT, and was looking forward to more gaming, but I didn't give my opponent a hard time out of politeness, but I think he ought to have given a chance for Turn 2.
I wouldn't quit earlier than turn 4. Sometimes things miraculously turn around in your favour, but mainly I just don't want to be a rage quitter. I play for the sake of playing and not to grind my opponent into the ground.
ductvader wrote:This is why I never just pull a unit from an assault or shooting he should obviously die to.
And it's furthermore bad form for the game itself. After all, if you're a tau player, you WANT the squad to die horribly so that you can shoot at whatever assaulted them the next turn. In this case, it's borderline cheating.
Breng77 wrote:I'm not sure conceding has anything to do with being emotionally able to deal with defeat (by conceding you admit defeat), it has more to do with having other things to do with your time.
But still, you're saying you only have time to win. Once you can't win, you don't play. That's only focusing on winning. That's WAAC behavior, pretty much by definition.
Breng77 wrote:I could turn it around to say if you feel everyone needs to keep playing so you can kill every last model...that is very WAAC.
If you keep on playing after you've won, then it's not, strictly, WAAC. You've already won the game. Now you're playing it for some other reason.
That other reason might not be a good one (like, you're being vindictive, or like to watch other suffer, or want to rub it in your opponent's face, or whatever), but they're still outside of the scope of winning.
NuggzTheNinja wrote:A buddy of mine plays Dark Eldar. Our armies are horrible matchups for one another. On one occasion, due to some incredibly poor luck for my friend, I've nearly tabled him in a single turn due to seizing the initiative, Manticores and other IG firepower vs. AV10 paper airplanes. I wouldn't expect him to play out another 4+ turns with ~400 pts of DE on the table vs. 1,500 points of IG. That wouldn't be fun for either of us...we'd rather pack up and go get a beer.
Actually, this is a great example of what I'm talking about.
You're bringing a list that you know is going to give you an easy win. You're expecting your opponent to give up when they don't think they can win. Because not being able to win isn't fun. It's still all about the win.
If winning wasn't what it was all about, then you could always play your army NOT in such a way where winning is so easy (like not bringing manticores or hydras against DE, but instead playing foot guard, or whatever). If winning wasn't what it was all about, you wouldn't expect your opponent to give up when they couldn't pull it off anymore. If losing is boring, and you're just making your opponent lose, you're consciously providing a boring experience to your opponent.
It would be better to just skip the game of 40k in the first place and just head straight to the beer, unless you need that gratification of winning first...
I have never asked an opponent to concede and I have no problem at all finishing a game no matter what's going on. BUT, frankly, I think it is far more polite to call a game if, come turn 3 or 4, it is 100% clear who is going to win. This will be different for everybody, but the time I spend gaming is both precious and scarce. Rather than spend another 45 minutes rolling dice for a game who's outcome is determined, I'd prefer to start a new game, play some Magic, paint a mini, or just relax with friends. If I was still in my 20s, maybe I'd feel differently, but at this point in my life, I prefer the politeness of just graciously ending it and moving towards the next entertainment.
Edit: I'll add that in Magic, a game that I have far more experience with in both tournament and casual settings, a clearly losing player conceding is not only customary, but the concession is called a "courtesy scoop," which of goes along with my idea of conceding being the more polite action.
This reminds me of my last game vs RavenWing. Turn 4 my lone Guardian (my last 9 points out of 1600) charges Chapter Master (allied from SM) equipped with everything you could imagine.
He has 2 wounds left. While charging I say with a Poker face "There is still chance to kill that ".
“Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.”
― Winston Churchill
I will play until I have no models left on the table, or the game ends. Every time. Quitting just feels wrong to me.
I've only conceded once. I had a single warlock facing his entire army (the dice were not on my side that day). I asked him if there was any point continuing.
I chose "other". Against one of my friends, I'm pretty much always tactically fethed, so when I get to the point where most of my army is gone, and the only thing left to do is die in a depressing manner, I'll just concede.
But, one other friend, who pretty much never wins against me, is the guy I'll play until turn 1 billion regardless of the gameplay. It always goes on until one guy gets tabled, and even then we may just have that guy "respawn" most of his army, just to see how long the other can continue.
When it makes no sense to play it is just one manupship . 3 helldrakes come in turn 2 . blown up 2 chimeras I lose 59 out of 60 troop models and his biker unit with 3 lords is on the relic and out of LoS. He just got firstblood and slayer the warlord . What for am I suppse to play for now . To move my stuff around and that he tables me in 2-3 turns anyway . Waste of time . Better for him and me to find a different opponent and have another game then me stand around and look how he is rolling dice.
“Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.”
― Winston Churchill
Big words from a dude who pulled had beaten by Turks.
ductvader wrote:This is why I never just pull a unit from an assault or shooting he should obviously die to.
And it's furthermore bad form for the game itself. After all, if you're a tau player, you WANT the squad to die horribly so that you can shoot at whatever assaulted them the next turn. In this case, it's borderline cheating.
Breng77 wrote:I'm not sure conceding has anything to do with being emotionally able to deal with defeat (by conceding you admit defeat), it has more to do with having other things to do with your time.
But still, you're saying you only have time to win. Once you can't win, you don't play. That's only focusing on winning. That's WAAC behavior, pretty much by definition.
Breng77 wrote:I could turn it around to say if you feel everyone needs to keep playing so you can kill every last model...that is very WAAC.
If you keep on playing after you've won, then it's not, strictly, WAAC. You've already won the game. Now you're playing it for some other reason.
That other reason might not be a good one (like, you're being vindictive, or like to watch other suffer, or want to rub it in your opponent's face, or whatever), but they're still outside of the scope of winning.
NuggzTheNinja wrote:A buddy of mine plays Dark Eldar. Our armies are horrible matchups for one another. On one occasion, due to some incredibly poor luck for my friend, I've nearly tabled him in a single turn due to seizing the initiative, Manticores and other IG firepower vs. AV10 paper airplanes. I wouldn't expect him to play out another 4+ turns with ~400 pts of DE on the table vs. 1,500 points of IG. That wouldn't be fun for either of us...we'd rather pack up and go get a beer.
Actually, this is a great example of what I'm talking about.
You're bringing a list that you know is going to give you an easy win. You're expecting your opponent to give up when they don't think they can win. Because not being able to win isn't fun. It's still all about the win.
If winning wasn't what it was all about, then you could always play your army NOT in such a way where winning is so easy (like not bringing manticores or hydras against DE, but instead playing foot guard, or whatever). If winning wasn't what it was all about, you wouldn't expect your opponent to give up when they couldn't pull it off anymore. If losing is boring, and you're just making your opponent lose, you're consciously providing a boring experience to your opponent.
It would be better to just skip the game of 40k in the first place and just head straight to the beer, unless you need that gratification of winning first...
I'm saying that I only want to take time to continue games where both players are having a good time/want to continue. Again if on turn 2 I have nothing but re put drop pods left should I keep playing even though you have obviously already won? I would not expect my opponent to do so (not that I'd be pissed if he wanted to, but if he wanted to stop I'd be fine with it.)
I'm saying that once a player has no ability to realistically win then forcing them to play on is Waac because the only motive is to want to table them.
Essentially to say there is never a good time to resign is plain false. I'm not saying it should be done quickly or frequently but there are plenty of good reasons to do it.
I'll concede when the game stops being fun. I don't see the point in letting your army get blasted off the table, just so your opponent can say they tabled you.
That being said, I'll always wait until the bottom of my turn 3 before deciding, and if it's a game with friends we'll often play out a few of the units actions anyway for fun (eg. seeing how many boyz that immolater is about to kill)
I rarely rarely have every conceded. Only once in tournament play and that was the last game this past Sunday. My fiance who was amazing and chose to go with me for three days was exhausted and ready for the four hour drive home. I offered to take they bye they were offering, but due to my record and it increasing my payout was not allowed to. Dice really turned his way especially with an insane courage on a critical broken scoring unit while the dice had turned against me. After Turn 3, I shook his hand, apologized for conceding, and packed my minis to hit the road as early as possible.
I still had reasonable chance of pulling the game out, but was mentally drained, exhausted, and had to be up at 6am.
NuggzTheNinja wrote:A buddy of mine plays Dark Eldar. Our armies are horrible matchups for one another. On one occasion, due to some incredibly poor luck for my friend, I've nearly tabled him in a single turn due to seizing the initiative, Manticores and other IG firepower vs. AV10 paper airplanes. I wouldn't expect him to play out another 4+ turns with ~400 pts of DE on the table vs. 1,500 points of IG. That wouldn't be fun for either of us...we'd rather pack up and go get a beer.
Actually, this is a great example of what I'm talking about.
You're bringing a list that you know is going to give you an easy win. You're expecting your opponent to give up when they don't think they can win. Because not being able to win isn't fun. It's still all about the win.
If winning wasn't what it was all about, then you could always play your army NOT in such a way where winning is so easy (like not bringing manticores or hydras against DE, but instead playing foot guard, or whatever). If winning wasn't what it was all about, you wouldn't expect your opponent to give up when they couldn't pull it off anymore. If losing is boring, and you're just making your opponent lose, you're consciously providing a boring experience to your opponent.
It would be better to just skip the game of 40k in the first place and just head straight to the beer, unless you need that gratification of winning first...
Actually, I'm bringing a list that is Take-All-Comers because I despise list tailoring. I never tailor to my opponent.
If you read my post carefully, I specifically outline certain situations in which it's impossible for my opponent to win. If we always knew the outcome of the game at the beginning, the entire venture would be mental masturbation. As it is, sometimes tactics and dice actually do play a role in the game.
Finally, my gaming group and I generally fall on the competitive end of the spectrum in terms of list building. That's part of the fun for some people. Why would I waste time building a foot guard army to intentionally handicap myself? It would require a better reason than that people on the internet can't tell the difference between competitive play and WAAC attitudes.
Play until the game is finished, I've seen too many players want to give up half way through a game only to reluctanly keep playing and end up winning. I once saw a Grey knight player against a Tau player call a game lost but wanted to play until the end. In the last three turns he managed claw back 7 kill points using his last unit winning the game.
I feel that the vast majority of players I've seen don't have the knowledge or experience to accurately judge when a game is unwinable.
I'll concede when the game is not going to be any fun at all for me.
For example, under the previous codex, when my GK opponent managed to Dick Quake the entire table, I simply just snapped my case closed against and told them "you win" because there's no way I could even realistically deploy more than a single unit of my Daemons at that point. What's point in wasting my time with such non-sense?
Granted I don't think it's fair to concede a game, especially early on just because you had a bad turn/your opponent's dice were on fire for a shooting phase... but when the result is 100% never in doubt about what the outcome is going to be, AND, one or both parties aren't having much fun, why continue? (outside of a tournament)
While it's true that some of my best gaming experiences have been where I've gotten absolutely thrashed senseless, such as those games were I tabled myself by rolling 1's with plasma weapons, or my quite literally trolled me the entire game, I was also playing against a fun opponent who was laughing along with me about how abysmally awful my luck was.
One the other hand, I'd rather be hanging upside down by my toenails, while having my eyeballs stapled to my arse than spend another minute playing a pointless game vs. an opponent who's being a complete donkeycave while ruthlessly crushing my army within 2-3 turns just to stroke their ego at exploiting a game of toy soldiers.
1.) Am I playing a buddy for fun and we can get in another game if we wrap it up? If so concede.
2.) Is there anything meaningful I can still do? Can I still fight it out claim some objectives or contest (this matters in a tournament certainly) if so I soldier on. If I have say 3 weapon destroyed drop pods left and nothing else....concede. It is an extreme example but if my opponent has most of his army and I have basically nothing left, why go through the motions of rolling saves and dying, or hiding. More true in KP missions when you are also hoplessly down on the mission objective.
3.)Is my opponent a Jerk? If so conceed, even if I am losing if I am having a good time hanging out and joking with my opponent...no problem...if I am getting blasted and every other minute there is a rules argument....concede.
4.) Play to a random roll wher eif the game goes on it is obvious who has won (i.e. the next turn will be rolling dice and last few models dying) So we play to the end of 5 and I have 2 models left that will die on top of 6...We roll game goes on and we just call it a win for you.
I think people need to realize the difference between conceding when you are throughly beaten and conceding when your opponent is winning. In the first your opponent has beaten you already and the rest of the game is a formality (you have a miniscule amount of models facing a full army), in the second your opponent is likely going to win the mission and you just want to call it.
I've been against a tyranid player who conceded because I killed his only synapse creature with a wraith cannon (hive tyrant) and he then threw my wraithknight into a bush lucky he wasn't painted. The player wasn't invited back to the club
hiveof_chimera wrote: I've been against a tyranid player who conceded because I killed his only synapse creature with a wraith cannon (hive tyrant) and he then threw my wraithknight into a bush lucky he wasn't painted. The player wasn't invited back to the club
hiveof_chimera wrote: I've been against a tyranid player who conceded because I killed his only synapse creature with a wraith cannon (hive tyrant) and he then threw my wraithknight into a bush lucky he wasn't painted. The player wasn't invited back to the club
That sucks dude.
It was especially annoying since it was first turn and I just got 1500 pts out and set up terrain etc
yeah wraithknight is now painted and if he came back we throw him over the fence
hiveof_chimera wrote: I've been against a tyranid player who conceded because I killed his only synapse creature with a wraith cannon (hive tyrant) and he then threw my wraithknight into a bush lucky he wasn't painted. The player wasn't invited back to the club
He wasn't a true Tyranid player then. A true Tyranid player goes till the last model dies. Other than that, how old was the person? They should know better than to rage with a synaptic army centered on one model if they are an adult.
hiveof_chimera wrote: I've been against a tyranid player who conceded because I killed his only synapse creature with a wraith cannon (hive tyrant) and he then threw my wraithknight into a bush lucky he wasn't painted. The player wasn't invited back to the club
He wasn't a true Tyranid player then. A true Tyranid player goes till the last model dies. Other than that, how old was the person? They should know better than to rage with a synaptic army centered on one model if they are an adult.
That's like building an Imperial Guard army with Conscripts in it...
hiveof_chimera wrote: I've been against a tyranid player who conceded because I killed his only synapse creature with a wraith cannon (hive tyrant) and he then threw my wraithknight into a bush lucky he wasn't painted. The player wasn't invited back to the club
He wasn't a true Tyranid player then. A true Tyranid player goes till the last model dies. Other than that, how old was the person? They should know better than to rage with a synaptic army centered on one model if they are an adult.
Sadly some 15 year olds are more immature then others like my friends are all mature and responsible compared to him having a tantrum at the age of 15. And I played tyranids once oh how much I loved that never ending tervigon
hiveof_chimera wrote: I've been against a tyranid player who conceded because I killed his only synapse creature with a wraith cannon (hive tyrant) and he then threw my wraithknight into a bush lucky he wasn't painted. The player wasn't invited back to the club
He wasn't a true Tyranid player then. A true Tyranid player goes till the last model dies. Other than that, how old was the person? They should know better than to rage with a synaptic army centered on one model if they are an adult.
Sadly some 15 year olds are more immature then others like my friends are all mature and responsible compared to him having a tantrum at the age of 15. And I played tyranids once oh how much I loved that never ending tervigon
My friend usually plays a list with 2 Tervigon troops, a Flying HT, 3 Zoans, about 40 Terms, 40 Horms and the Swarmy with a Venomthrope backing him up..
I play gunline guard with as many plasma guns as I can fit behind my little ADL ;n;
I was considering conceding once when I played a 1250 points game against an Ork friend of mine, and his Lootas (They sure are dangerous, them Lootas...) proceeded to blow up a lot of my precious stuff. (RIP Clawy the Defiler)
And then my semi-cheap 10-man MoKCSMCC squad led by my counts-as-Khârn proceeded to hack their way through the majority of his army, including almost 60 boyz and Grotsnik. The charging Khorne Marines hit so hard against the poor Orks so it almost made me giggle. Ever since, the idea of conceding just does not sit right with me. The best part of that battle, though, was when my Aspiring Champion chopped down a Nob in a challenge, rolling Dark Apotheosis and promptly killing himself as I had no DP model! They really should change that to 're-roll this result if you have no DP model available' or something, but I digress.
BrotherHaraldus wrote: I was considering conceding once when I played a 1250 points game against an Ork friend of mine, and his Lootas (They sure are dangerous, them Lootas...) proceeded to blow up a lot of my precious stuff. (RIP Clawy the Defiler)
And then my semi-cheap 10-man MoKCSMCC squad led by my counts-as-Khârn proceeded to hack their way through the majority of his army, including almost 60 boyz and Grotsnik. The charging Khorne Marines hit so hard against the poor Orks so it almost made me giggle. Ever since, the idea of conceding just does not sit right with me. The best part of that battle, though, was when my Aspiring Champion chopped down a Nob in a challenge, rolling Dark Apotheosis and promptly killing himself as I had no DP model! They really should change that to 're-roll this result if you have no DP model available' or something, but I digress.
No surrender!
My friend conceded when I blew up his Soul Grinder with 1 lascannon shot from a dread in turn 1, then proceeded mow down his entire squad of Seekers with boltgun fire ;P
I don't enjoy playing when it's painfully obvious I can't possibly win.
I don't enjoy playing when it's painfully obvious my opponent can't possibly win.
It's just wasting time (and at the expense of someone's enjoyment!) and anyone who's such a WAAC that they can not accept someone's surrender is not worth playing. Ever.
I don't expect you to play when you are not having fun, so you shouldn't expect me to play when I'm not having fun. That's the contract between gamers and anyone who adhere to that contract can not be a WAAC, by definition.
Ephemeral Moment wrote: I really should have said other, usually discuss it with opponent, and if it is clear I'm stuffed and they want to get another game in on the night, I'll concede
This is a fair point. If the game is *truly* a forgone conclusion, and throwing in the towel will let us get another game in the same night, okay, i'm cool with that.
I tend to not concede. I prefer to play it out. However. I have conceded 3 times. Once to my son, who at 11, had me close enough to beaten that conceding to him so he could hit the sack at 1045 wasnt that big of a deal. Once to a random pick up game I have 5 scouts left and had to head out anyway, the 1 hour drive home was calling my name :( . The last time was 2 sundays ago. 1250 Chaos versus my Loyalist Marines. Turn 4 I conceded. I had 7 scoring troops left, and 1/2 of my non scoring units. I was boxed in, unable to get to any of the objectives. He had mentioned he wanted to go play some MTG with a buddy of his at the game store we were in, so I conceded to allow him to go play before his ride showed up. I even voluntered to clean up the table as "punishment" for conceding.
Generaly I would have just started trying to force a tie. Kill off his troop chooices, stuff like that. However, he relies on his mom for transport and as a father myself, waiting for my kids AFTER the time they said they would be done is no fun, so I thought I would help him win good will.
if i have a chance, no matter how slim (unless im requiring a crazy streak of snake eye rolls) i will try to finish. ive pulled crazy wins out of my ass before i didnt think i was going to win. But when its turn 3 and i have 2 units left and he has most of his army, i just concede lol.
I play on for the sake of more gameplay. Also, like previously mentioned, I'd hate to miss out on any of the suicidal shenanigans when you're just that desperate.
Example: In a relic mission, one of my last 2 surviving guardsmen squad was 8 inches away from my board edge with relic in hand, but there would be no cover saves from some flanking immortals. What do I do? I take a snapshot with a melta at the flyer that deposited said immortals, get 6 to hit, pen, jink save fails, EXPLODES. When they died to gauss fire next turn, I still didn't concede because my other squad was literally two helpless guardsmen within charge range of the immortals. I was officially tabled in overwatch.
Point is, at those points I don't care as much about winning so much as taking enemy and friendly models alike off the table through rash heroism.
Silverthorne wrote: People admitting to loosing on the internet? I have to get a screencap of this.
You kidding me, I'm horrible at this game. I play Tau against Tyranids and Blood Angels and I'm pretty sure I have a below 50% history of winning.
Of course the guys in question have been playing since at least 3rd edition and get in ~3 games per week (having a big group of brothers who all play is a great help) and regularly place 1-3rd in local tournaments with tyranids (genestealer tyranids no less) and Blood Angels...
Yes, I am bragging about how good at losing I am. That's kinda hilarious now I think about it.
I used to concede in situations like those. However, I've also played games where I thought I was going to lose, but then I turn the game around and end up either getting a draw or winning.
Also, I eventually reasoned how annoying it must be to deny an opponent the satisfaction of actually winning a game and just tell them, "You win."
I will not concede a game, even when it is technically impossible for me to win/draw. What I usually end up doing is setting a short term goal so I can feel like I accomplished something. Usually the goal is to go after a valuable unit or a rather well painted one. Gives me a little satisfaction and allows my opponent to enjoy a full game.
Depends on a wide variety of factors. If I know for a fact I'm going to lose, I will probably ask my opponent if they're ready to call it a day. If they still want to whomp on me they usually say something along the lines of how I'm not in that bad of shape, and I will give it another turn or two before going back to the 'packing it in' issue.
I generally don't concede unless there's good reason - time's running out, a new game is waiting to be played, etc. Of course if the opponent doesn't want to finish the match for whatever reason - like he considers it too boring due to the obvious outcome - it's not like I force them to play til the end, though.
If I'm obviously about to lose, I quit. There's really not much of a point in prolonging the inevitable. I prefer it when my opponent has the same sense of honor to lose gracefully
When I'm pretty sure its over, I'll concede... but offer to play it out if they want to. In a tourney, I never concede. I'm gonna give them the most pyrrhic victory, worth the fewest points possible.
Usually if one of us is not having fun we'll concede and either pack up, set up for a new game, or we'll purposefully do something stupid (make it easy for the assault army to attack or charge your guardsman at chaos daemons). We really only play among friends so if one of us is not having fun its not really worth dragging out the process.
I don't mind when people concede to me in a tournament, it usually means I can have a longer lunch. That being said I had a guy bug me for a game at the local store(I usually just play at my house) so I packed up all of my stuff went down there unloaded everything, picked the senario, he rolls to go first, moves everything up in front of my marine gunline realizes he can't make a charge concedes turn 1. I literally spent more time getting there and unpacking my army then we did playing. That really pissed me off. It is not like a game of Mtg where you just scoop and re-shuffle. My point being that if it is a friendly game play it out. Phew feels good to get that off of my chest.
As long as I'm having fun. I'll carry on, and you never know when your opponent will run into a series of bad rolls.
But on the other hand, there are times when I know I won't be able to win. Like when my last troop choice dies in an objectives game on turn 5, that I let it end there and conceded.
There's always something left to do. Suicide-charge the Trygon that just erupted from the ground and ate half a squad, lay down one final defiant wave of lasfire before you're utterly overrun, cover the officer's retreat back into a badly battered Valkyrie which then zooms off the table on the final turn...
Even if you can't win, it can be fun fighting a retreating action or making a desperate assassination attempt.
Spinner wrote: There's always something left to do. Suicide-charge the Trygon that just erupted from the ground and ate half a squad, lay down one final defiant wave of lasfire before you're utterly overrun, cover the officer's retreat back into a badly battered Valkyrie which then zooms off the table on the final turn...
Even if you can't win, it can be fun fighting a retreating action or making a desperate assassination attempt.
Keep in mind some people might not think that is fun to do. Just because something can be done doesn not mean it should be done.
BTW wouldn't the Commissar execute the officer for cowardice for that action?
Well when I m playing with friends, we will end a game before its time if we run out of time for some reason. Apart from time we play games till the end. In other games at the LGS, I think that same thing happens mostly. Concede a game for a serious reason apart from loosing or no point on continuing the game.
I have found that too many players give up way to soon.
Yeah, I know, they will say '....I know my army..." or "Dude, it was over..." or "I had no chance...".
You have no idea how many players I have beat MERELY because they have given up, or how many games I have won because I did not give up.
I have seen players say "thats game...." after just turn one, and they were right....because they quit mentally.
I had a game a while ago (against the new tau) where I literally had lost 2/3 of my army by the end of turn two. I was about to give up....(I had one scoring unit left, and a handful of other models....it was bad).
I remembered my own advice...never give up.
I focused on things like line breaker, killing troops distracting my opponent etc.
I pulled out a tie, and almost got a win.
I have had terrible first turns in tournaments and almost pulled out wins (or had on several occasions).
Even better, a player who thinks they have beat you will become over confident and sloppy - allowing you to have even more opportunities.
One of the MOST important lessons I have learned in decades of competitive gaming - rarely do you have to beat the other army/side/models/units - you just have to defeat the other player.
Once, I eked out a win with only a Scout Sniper and Celestine left against 2 small units of Lootas, a Big Mek with Shokk Attack Gun, a Killa Kan or two, and a decent-size mob of Boyz.
I had my Scout in the enemy deployment zone, holding the objective worth 4 points and continually going to ground behind a defence line while firing snap shots against the Lootas. Celestine tried to assault the Boyz mob that was holding two objectives (though I was later informed that a single unit can only hold one objective in the current edition when I relayed this story earlier). She used her sword to roast a few Boyz in her shooting phase, only to lose her last wound to the Nob's slugga during Overwatch.
You would not believe how many 2+ cover saves that Scout made against.... is it Dakkaguns or Deffgunz that Lootas have? ...and the SAG, and the Killa Kanz' rokkitz and grotzookaz over 3 turns of constantly being shot at.
Last week I played a friend educational game vs a friend from the army who i ve put into the game. He decided to play csm so he wanted to play with his only 1500 which includes a nurgle DP, typhus, cultists, a couple plague marine/rhinos + some nurgle oblits. I knew that I didn't want to break my list, mount drakes and chaos daemons. So I made a fluffy zerkers/land raider/ kharn/juggerlord and khorne bikers list. The conclusion is that I lost juggerlord and bikes in turn 3. Kharn lost from typhus cause his saves went good. He claimed even it was one of his first games that I had lost. Game ended turn 5, I won 9-5 due to objectives. Nothing is over till its over.
i have Space wolves so:
-By fluff: till the man alive stand againts the enemy, till then the last man died then that its the moment that hoep died, not before.
-By sportmanship: like a good little champion, play till the last moment, enjoy the bitter defeat, accept yours mistakes and give a good handshake at the end of the game, then keep on, like a good wolf lord, being stubborn but no reckless...
-By mood and ****bageri of the other player: definetly no, dont let him have the satisfaction of make you left a imcomplete game, just keep calm, lose like a true hero, make new objetives, like kill his warlord or just detroy his death star if you can, finish, show your maturity give him a sportmanship handshake and never play him again, ever -By fun factor: if the wining side is an old friend, just remain him "how fat yo mamma is", cheers with beers and lol the hole game making voices of his afeminated chaos lord or how one ork just forget to throw da stikky bomb instead the safe
Haight wrote: I play until the game is finished. I get annoyed when i'm winning and someone just throws in the towel. For one, it robs me of actually winning the game - i didn't win, you just quit.
Secondly, it reeks of sour grapes. Yeah yeah, I get the whole "i play to have fun and getting beaten isn't fun" - i call shenanigans. Some of the most fun games i've had i've gotten my butt handed to me. It's also good sportsmanship.
So yeah, i'll carry on. The only way i'll walk from a game is if i'm playing someone new and they are a mega donkey-cave. I've done it all of one time in my life.
"For one, it robs me of actually winning the game - i didn't win, you just quit. " Really? You crushed me so solidly that I had no more options. You won.
I don't understand people that has the need to crush you down to your last man to feel like they won. I conceded, you won.
I'll keep playing so long as I have a chance if I roll 7 sixes in a row. But when I'm sitting there with 3 repentias left and a rhino on the other end of the table from the fighting, and my enemy still has 2 riptides and 3 units of firewarriors, I just don't see the point of us continuing.
Haight wrote: I play until the game is finished. I get annoyed when i'm winning and someone just throws in the towel. For one, it robs me of actually winning the game - i didn't win, you just quit.
Secondly, it reeks of sour grapes. Yeah yeah, I get the whole "i play to have fun and getting beaten isn't fun" - i call shenanigans. Some of the most fun games i've had i've gotten my butt handed to me. It's also good sportsmanship.
So yeah, i'll carry on. The only way i'll walk from a game is if i'm playing someone new and they are a mega donkey-cave. I've done it all of one time in my life.
"For one, it robs me of actually winning the game - i didn't win, you just quit. " Really? You crushed me so solidly that I had no more options. You won.
I don't understand people that has the need to crush you down to your last man to feel like they won. I conceded, you won.
I'll keep playing so long as I have a chance if I roll 7 sixes in a row. But when I'm sitting there with 3 repentias left and a rhino on the other end of the table from the fighting, and my enemy still has 2 riptides and 3 units of firewarriors, I just don't see the point of us continuing.
Really? You'd deny your Repentia the chance to reclaim their... what exactly do Repentia try to reclaim through suicidal charges with melee weapons? ...through death in battle, just because it's pointless?
Haight wrote: I play until the game is finished. I get annoyed when i'm winning and someone just throws in the towel. For one, it robs me of actually winning the game - i didn't win, you just quit.
Secondly, it reeks of sour grapes. Yeah yeah, I get the whole "i play to have fun and getting beaten isn't fun" - i call shenanigans. Some of the most fun games i've had i've gotten my butt handed to me. It's also good sportsmanship.
So yeah, i'll carry on. The only way i'll walk from a game is if i'm playing someone new and they are a mega donkey-cave. I've done it all of one time in my life.
"For one, it robs me of actually winning the game - i didn't win, you just quit. " Really? You crushed me so solidly that I had no more options. You won.
I don't understand people that has the need to crush you down to your last man to feel like they won. I conceded, you won.
I'll keep playing so long as I have a chance if I roll 7 sixes in a row. But when I'm sitting there with 3 repentias left and a rhino on the other end of the table from the fighting, and my enemy still has 2 riptides and 3 units of firewarriors, I just don't see the point of us continuing.
Really? You'd deny your Repentia the chance to reclaim their... what exactly do Repentia try to reclaim through suicidal charges with melee weapons? ...through death in battle, just because it's pointless?
Haight wrote: I play until the game is finished. I get annoyed when i'm winning and someone just throws in the towel. For one, it robs me of actually winning the game - i didn't win, you just quit.
Secondly, it reeks of sour grapes. Yeah yeah, I get the whole "i play to have fun and getting beaten isn't fun" - i call shenanigans. Some of the most fun games i've had i've gotten my butt handed to me. It's also good sportsmanship.
So yeah, i'll carry on. The only way i'll walk from a game is if i'm playing someone new and they are a mega donkey-cave. I've done it all of one time in my life.
"For one, it robs me of actually winning the game - i didn't win, you just quit. " Really? You crushed me so solidly that I had no more options. You won.
I don't understand people that has the need to crush you down to your last man to feel like they won. I conceded, you won.
I'll keep playing so long as I have a chance if I roll 7 sixes in a row. But when I'm sitting there with 3 repentias left and a rhino on the other end of the table from the fighting, and my enemy still has 2 riptides and 3 units of firewarriors, I just don't see the point of us continuing.
Really? You'd deny your Repentia the chance to reclaim their... what exactly do Repentia try to reclaim through suicidal charges with melee weapons? ...through death in battle, just because it's pointless?
Makumba wrote: But repentia have no honor . They are resin or metal models . Or am I missing some rule here you get VP if they die or something?
No, it was a comment on their fluff. Repentias have messed up, and the stupid kind of suicidal warfare they wage is to make up for it. And they're metal only.
Makumba wrote: But repentia have no honor . They are resin or metal models . Or am I missing some rule here you get VP if they die or something?
It's a fluff thing. Repentia are dishonored Sisters of Battle who try to reclaim their honor through glorious battle with no armor and giant chainswords that can cut a Land Raider to shreds. Usually they end up dead, but rarely they return to the regular ranks of Battle Sisters without having died.
A)We've run out of time and I need to go.
B)I'm losing horribly and there is enough time for another full game left if we start now.
I'll ask opponants if they'd like to concede if they are clearly not having fun.
I'll concede if I'm playing a game against a kid and I've just realised he's about to get splatted.
I'll concede if I'm playing a stroppy opponant - the game is about fun for me. I don't want to feel bad for rolling fluke dice.
I'll go play somebody else.
I won't ever force anyone to play to the end - if my opponant isn't having fun, then I'm not going to make them continue.
I'd rather go back to the pub at that point
Makumba wrote: But repentia have no honor . They are resin or metal models . Or am I missing some rule here you get VP if they die or something?
It's a fluff thing. Repentia are dishonored Sisters of Battle who try to reclaim their honor through glorious battle with no armor and giant chainswords that can cut a Land Raider to shreds. Usually they end up dead, but rarely they return to the regular ranks of Battle Sisters without having died.
E.E
A human with a chainsaw (A big chainsaw, but still a chainsaw) can cut a 10-meter-long tank with 95 mm thick armour 'to shreds'? An umodified human, without even the physical advantages of power armour?
In the fluff, Repentia can kill titans with their eviscerators. Well, actually, they can do it in game too, it just takes a little longer.
See, the Eviscerator works exactly like a chainfist - double user strength, AP1, unwieldy, 2d6 armour penetration. So, with Repentia, it's only S6 (instead of S8 on a marine), but it can still do it.
Makumba wrote: But repentia have no honor . They are resin or metal models . Or am I missing some rule here you get VP if they die or something?
It's a fluff thing. Repentia are dishonored Sisters of Battle who try to reclaim their honor through glorious battle with no armor and giant chainswords that can cut a Land Raider to shreds. Usually they end up dead, but rarely they return to the regular ranks of Battle Sisters without having died.
E.E
A human with a chainsaw (A big chainsaw, but still a chainsaw) can cut a 10-meter-long tank with 95 mm thick armour 'to shreds'? An umodified human, without even the physical advantages of power armour?
Seems 100% legit.
Game mechanics =/= fluff.
On the other hand, crazier things have happened.
Meh.
(Sorry for the slight derail.)
I don't think anything in the fluff ever talks about how fast the chainswords/eviscerators turn, nor what the teeth are made out of.
Since a normal chainsaw wouldn't even be worth anything in current day warfare, I've always assumed that the chain-weapons of 40k move at a speed that simply melt right through armour. Hold it against anything for long enough and it chews its way through. Also explains the I1. Not so much that they stumble around trying to flurish them like swords, just that standing there holding it against someone for a long enough period of time isn't something people just let you do, so the unweildyness comes from finding the opening to do so.
In the fluff, Repentia can kill titans with their eviscerators. Well, actually, they can do it in game too, it just takes a little longer.
See, the Eviscerator works exactly like a chainfist - double user strength, AP1, unwieldy, 2d6 armour penetration. So, with Repentia, it's only S6 (instead of S8 on a marine), but it can still do it.
Can't two inq join them and cast hammer hand twice ? hammer hand stacks too , unlike other buffing psychic powers .
How could they even reach higher than their toes?
well if they are humanoid build like a warlord , then I expect they foot to work like a human one . destroy the talus and the foot doesn't work , even without the big toe it is drasticly hard for a humanoid to walk and impossible to run .
In the fluff, Repentia can kill titans with their eviscerators. Well, actually, they can do it in game too, it just takes a little longer.
See, the Eviscerator works exactly like a chainfist - double user strength, AP1, unwieldy, 2d6 armour penetration. So, with Repentia, it's only S6 (instead of S8 on a marine), but it can still do it.
Can't two inq join them and cast hammer hand twice ? hammer hand stacks too , unlike other buffing psychic powers .
Sisters don't have inquisitors. I don't know about how codex:inq works, but Hammerhand is supposed to be a GK spell, so there is no reason why codex:inq would have that.
I don't think anything in the fluff ever talks about how fast the chainswords/eviscerators turn, nor what the teeth are made out of.
Since a normal chainsaw wouldn't even be worth anything in current day warfare, I've always assumed that the chain-weapons of 40k move at a speed that simply melt right through armour. Hold it against anything for long enough and it chews its way through. Also explains the I1. Not so much that they stumble around trying to flurish them like swords, just that standing there holding it against someone for a long enough period of time isn't something people just let you do, so the unweildyness comes from finding the opening to do so.
The material argument is easily countered by the fact that we don't know how hard the tank armour is, either. Likely pretty hard. Besides, if we assume that the materials are somewhat equal, then the chainsword breaks down as well, or is at the very least dulled. So you would never penetrate a superthick tank with it.
And yes, game mechanics. Otherwise, why is this true?
Normal chainsaw: As effective as your fists.
Bigger chainsaw: As effective as a massive armoured gauntlet sheathed in a lethal energy field and outfitted with an additional chainblade.
And again, sorry for derailing. Should probably make a new topic on this.
Unless there's a pressing reason why I ought to concede, such as a time constraint, I carry on, partly because I like to make my foes pay dearly for their victories and partly because I think it would be unfair to deny my opponent the pleasure of a full victory that they've earned.
I don't think anything in the fluff ever talks about how fast the chainswords/eviscerators turn, nor what the teeth are made out of.
Since a normal chainsaw wouldn't even be worth anything in current day warfare, I've always assumed that the chain-weapons of 40k move at a speed that simply melt right through armour. Hold it against anything for long enough and it chews its way through. Also explains the I1. Not so much that they stumble around trying to flurish them like swords, just that standing there holding it against someone for a long enough period of time isn't something people just let you do, so the unweildyness comes from finding the opening to do so.
The material argument is easily countered by the fact that we don't know how hard the tank armour is, either. Likely pretty hard. Besides, if we assume that the materials are somewhat equal, then the chainsword breaks down as well, or is at the very least dulled. So you would never penetrate a superthick tank with it.
And yes, game mechanics. Otherwise, why is this true?
Normal chainsaw: As effective as your fists.
Bigger chainsaw: As effective as a massive armoured gauntlet sheathed in a lethal energy field and outfitted with an additional chainblade.
And again, sorry for derailing. Should probably make a new topic on this.
The only difference between a power fist and a chainfist is the addition of a short chainsword attachment that magically gives it additional capabilities against armored vehicles.
The only difference between a power sword and relic blade is the length of the sword and how many hands are used for wielding it, yet it goes from wounding humans to insta-gibbing them.
The only difference between a power sword and relic blade is the length of the sword and how many hands are used for wielding it, yet it goes from wounding humans to insta-gibbing them.
Actually, that one has a basis in fact. Really big swords are supposed to cut enemies in half, or in the case of one guy, behead several in a single swing:
I don't think anything in the fluff ever talks about how fast the chainswords/eviscerators turn, nor what the teeth are made out of.
Since a normal chainsaw wouldn't even be worth anything in current day warfare, I've always assumed that the chain-weapons of 40k move at a speed that simply melt right through armour. Hold it against anything for long enough and it chews its way through. Also explains the I1. Not so much that they stumble around trying to flurish them like swords, just that standing there holding it against someone for a long enough period of time isn't something people just let you do, so the unweildyness comes from finding the opening to do so.
The material argument is easily countered by the fact that we don't know how hard the tank armour is, either. Likely pretty hard. Besides, if we assume that the materials are somewhat equal, then the chainsword breaks down as well, or is at the very least dulled. So you would never penetrate a superthick tank with it.
And yes, game mechanics. Otherwise, why is this true?
Normal chainsaw: As effective as your fists.
Bigger chainsaw: As effective as a massive armoured gauntlet sheathed in a lethal energy field and outfitted with an additional chainblade.
And again, sorry for derailing. Should probably make a new topic on this.
The only difference between a power fist and a chainfist is the addition of a short chainsword attachment that magically gives it additional capabilities against armored vehicles.
The only difference between a power sword and relic blade is the length of the sword and how many hands are used for wielding it, yet it goes from wounding humans to insta-gibbing them.
The only difference between a lasgun and a lascannon is the size, yet it goes from a fancy flashlight to one of the deadliest long range weapons in the galaxy.
In my group, one usually concedes when two conditions are met: 1. it is apparent that side is going to lose and 2) time is running our or we have been playing for hours. The time factor is what usually drives it. When we play big multiplayer games, we usually put a time limit on the game, say " the game ends at 10 pm and the side that is winning at that moment wins."
The only difference between a lasgun and a lascannon is the size, yet it goes from a fancy flashlight to one of the deadliest long range weapons in the galaxy.
That is not exactly the truth . the lasgun and lascannon are identical . One can shot the lasgun with the power of a lascannon , only the lascannon has batteries that can let it shot a few times and a lasgun that shots like a lascannon uses up its power cell in one go and has a good chance to explode while firing .
The only difference between a lasgun and a lascannon is the size, yet it goes from a fancy flashlight to one of the deadliest long range weapons in the galaxy.
That is not exactly the truth . the lasgun and lascannon are identical . One can shot the lasgun with the power of a lascannon , only the lascannon has batteries that can let it shot a few times and a lasgun that shots like a lascannon uses up its power cell in one go and has a good chance to explode while firing .
The LC has a bigger/longer barrel to allow a better focus and longer range than the lasgun, but the rest is accurate as far as I know.
Spinner wrote: There's always something left to do. Suicide-charge the Trygon that just erupted from the ground and ate half a squad, lay down one final defiant wave of lasfire before you're utterly overrun, cover the officer's retreat back into a badly battered Valkyrie which then zooms off the table on the final turn...
Even if you can't win, it can be fun fighting a retreating action or making a desperate assassination attempt.
Keep in mind some people might not think that is fun to do. Just because something can be done doesn not mean it should be done.
BTW wouldn't the Commissar execute the officer for cowardice for that action?
I mean, yeah, some people are going to disagree. That's my opinion on the whole "concede" issue, is all. If you've gotten too badly stomped to attempt to win the game, might as well come up with a different goal!
And the Commissar had ended up on the wrong end of a spore mine the game I tried that...
Till the bitter end. His proud sons never yield.
I've managed to turn the losing match into a tie for a few times - just because I kept struggling and giving every ounce of tricks and best moves I've still got. I've won twice because of this attitude - and both were against Grey Knights: another match included the infamous Dreadknight, BA allies with Death Company, and other nasty stuff my opponent just threw at me.
I could say that "from despair rises hope".
To the last man and the last round!
Only in death does duty end.
Unless the enemies of mankind need to leave for tea or something.
I do hate it when I seem to be winning and my opponent just concedes. Takes away the joy of having a proper complete battle. If I seem to be crushing your forces, I at least want to be allowed to actually crush your forces.
And anyways, it would match the lore for my legion-strength Chapter; Heroic last stands against overwhelming enemy forces in order to defend Mankind from the horrors of the galaxy, or utter annihilation of the enemies of Mankind in order to defend Mankind from the horrors of the galaxy.
Sisters don't have inquisitors. I don't know about how codex:inq works, but Hammerhand is supposed to be a GK spell, so there is no reason why codex:inq would have that.
Considering Inquisitors were previously - well, and still are - in C:GK, why wouldn't they have them in the separate Codex? The units are practically identical between the two. So yes, C:I gets Hammerhand. And can thus be used to give it to Sisters, after a fashion.
Sisters don't have inquisitors. I don't know about how codex:inq works, but Hammerhand is supposed to be a GK spell, so there is no reason why codex:inq would have that.
Considering Inquisitors were previously - well, and still are - in C:GK, why wouldn't they have them in the separate Codex? The units are practically identical between the two. So yes, C:I gets Hammerhand. And can thus be used to give it to Sisters, after a fashion.
However, any true[ Sisters player will discount it on a 5+ Deny the Witch. (I'm joking, I'm not that uptight)
The thing about chianfists that always amuses me is that they just look like the chainblade is an extended pinkie finger.
Fluff for the Eviscerator occasionally mentions an energy field, anyway. Do they're not just 'giant chainswords', they're giant power chainswords'. For the in game effect of a regular giant chainsword without a power field, reference Codex: Blood Angels (Gabriel Seth has one).
tvih wrote: why wouldn't they have them in the separate Codex?
Because the fact that the GK codex contains Inquisitors doesn't make them GK, and Hammerhand is described as a power for Grey Knights.
I fail to see the importance of what codex they used to share, any more than why the fact that sisters and Grey Knights used to share a codex should allow Sisters to take anything Grey Knighty.
Maybe I can buy that the Inquisitors that favour the Grey Knights as their instrument of pain have taken to liking using the power that the Grey Knights themselves use, but that doesn't have any bearing on what they have in their own codex.
It is, in fact, a codex of its own. It has a lot of special rules of its own, and even some weaknesses that the GK does not.
If you want to look at something that is weirdly different, look at the plasma syphon. That's the exact same piece of gear, but while the GK one affects Tau weaponry, the codex:inq one specifically only affects those weapons that are described as plasma by the BRB
tvih wrote: why wouldn't they have them in the separate Codex?
Because the fact that the GK codex contains Inquisitors doesn't make them GK, and Hammerhand is described as a power for Grey Knights.
I fail to see the importance of what codex they used to share, any more than why the fact that sisters and Grey Knights used to share a codex should allow Sisters to take anything Grey Knighty.
Maybe I can buy that the Inquisitors that favour the Grey Knights as their instrument of pain have taken to liking using the power that the Grey Knights themselves use, but that doesn't have any bearing on what they have in their own codex.
It is, in fact, a codex of its own. It has a lot of special rules of its own, and even some weaknesses that the GK does not.
If you want to look at something that is weirdly different, look at the plasma syphon. That's the exact same piece of gear, but while the GK one affects Tau weaponry, the codex:inq one specifically only affects those weapons that are described as plasma by the BRB
The units are basically copy-paste from C:GK. That's one of the most common complaints about the whole C:I. Yes, there are minor differences, like I said, but mostly it's the same. May I also remind you that Grey Knights are, in fact, a part of the Inquisition? So what they used to share makes sense that they still, to a point, do. C:I is basically the C:GK Inquisition minus the GK units, because, well, Inquisition is Inquisition and having them separately from C:GK doesn't mean they're suddenly entirely different. Plus if you don't know how C:I works, how do you know about the Syphon difference, and yet apparently - based on the wording of what you said about it - didn't know about them still having Hammerhand?
tvih wrote: why wouldn't they have them in the separate Codex?
Because the fact that the GK codex contains Inquisitors doesn't make them GK, and Hammerhand is described as a power for Grey Knights.
I fail to see the importance of what codex they used to share, any more than why the fact that sisters and Grey Knights used to share a codex should allow Sisters to take anything Grey Knighty.
Maybe I can buy that the Inquisitors that favour the Grey Knights as their instrument of pain have taken to liking using the power that the Grey Knights themselves use, but that doesn't have any bearing on what they have in their own codex.
It is, in fact, a codex of its own. It has a lot of special rules of its own, and even some weaknesses that the GK does not.
If you want to look at something that is weirdly different, look at the plasma syphon. That's the exact same piece of gear, but while the GK one affects Tau weaponry, the codex:inq one specifically only affects those weapons that are described as plasma by the BRB
The units are basically copy-paste from C:GK. That's one of the most common complaints about the whole C:I. Yes, there are minor differences, like I said, but mostly it's the same. May I also remind you that Grey Knights are, in fact, a part of the Inquisition? So what they used to share makes sense that they still, to a point, do. C:I is basically the C:GK Inquisition minus the GK units, because, well, Inquisition is Inquisition and having them separately from C:GK doesn't mean they're suddenly entirely different. Plus if you don't know how C:I works, how do you know about the Syphon difference, and yet apparently - based on the wording of what you said about it - didn't know about them still having Hammerhand?
Still, all this is entirely off-topic.
GK are not entirely a part of the inquisition. They are the military arm of one of the Inquisition Ordos (Malleus.) They're not inquisitive at all. They just kill when an inquisitor points his finger.
Technically, all of the Space Marines are under Inquisition jurisdiction, so they're pretty much all "part of the inquisition." GK are just favoured by a part of the Inquisition.
Not being able to use a GK specific power is hardly "entirely different."
The reason I know some things very specifically and others not at all is because I've read threads citing those specific paragraphs from the codex, but I have not read the full thing.
The only difference between a lasgun and a lascannon is the size, yet it goes from a fancy flashlight to one of the deadliest long range weapons in the galaxy.
That is not exactly the truth . the lasgun and lascannon are identical . One can shot the lasgun with the power of a lascannon , only the lascannon has batteries that can let it shot a few times and a lasgun that shots like a lascannon uses up its power cell in one go and has a good chance to explode while firing .
Why is this not a special rule??
FIRE LASGUNS AS LASCANNONS
ON A ROLL OF 1-5 THE LASGUN EXPLODES >
I would like to have that rule and exploding yourself with your enemy using a krak . I would take waves of IG with commisars that would explode themself when reaching melee , supported by " sniper" squads of IG man who try to shot like lascannons , but most of the time explode themselfs . No tanks , no nothing. Just waves of dudes.
Makumba wrote: I would like to have that rule and exploding yourself with your enemy using a krak . I would take waves of IG with commisars that would explode themself when reaching melee , supported by " sniper" squads of IG man who try to shot like lascannons , but most of the time explode themselfs . No tanks , no nothing. Just waves of dudes.
My god...
IG platoons with full conscripts and IG squads, with Chenkov...
really, it depends more on how we both feel, are we tired, in a rush to get back home, want to start another game?
sure call it when you think you have no hope,
sometimes its nice to finish the game anyways just to see what would happen... plenty of times I have snatched victory from the jaws of defeat last turn or vise versa.
quitting before turn 5 is generally not fun, win or lose, again, unless we are both in a rush or something
Makumba wrote: I would like to have that rule and exploding yourself with your enemy using a krak . I would take waves of IG with commisars that would explode themself when reaching melee , supported by " sniper" squads of IG man who try to shot like lascannons , but most of the time explode themselfs . No tanks , no nothing. Just waves of dudes.
My god...
IG platoons with full conscripts and IG squads, with Chenkov...
I'll concede if I know I'm beat without a hope in hell of pulling a draw.
As long as there is a chance I can drag the fight to a stalemate, I'll take it. But if I can look at the table and know that a stalemate isn't going to happen no matter how well I play or how well I roll, then I'll tell my opponent he won.
I've only had to do this twice, but both times were under the same circumstances. Back in 2nd edition, I put together an assault-based SM army. Everybody had jump packs and those who didn't were in vehicles. Everybody was armed to stab dudes in the face. I didn't bring heavy weapons except on my speeders, because heavy weapons slow you down and if I need to kill your tank I will stab it in the @$$ with a krak grenade.
If I got the first turn against anybody except Tyranids; I won (nobody out-assaults Genestealers in 2nd Ed).
If I got second turn against anybody, I could usually pull a draw (especially if I got the right mission card).
Both games,my opponents drew the"Surprise Assault" strategy card. Strategy Cards, for those who've never played 2nd Ed, is a usually worthless random "boon" your army got to use during the game, which could (rarely, but it happened) completely break the game before the game begins. Case in point: Virus Outbreak.
Anywho... "Surprise Assault" means that your opponent cannot charge any units or accelerate any vehicles on the first turn of the game.
Which meant I was unable to charge my assault troops into hand to hand, or even drive my vehicles to any kind of cover. My assault troops were stuck out in the open waiting to get gunned down, and the guys in the vehicles couldn't even get behind cover. If I disembarked them, they'd spend two turns getting shot at while trying to get into assault range (and in 2nd Ed, Marines were nowhere near as tough as they are today) and chewed up. My vehicles that were *in* cover couldn't move out of cover to shoot their heavy weapons.
This still wasn't an insurmountable problem, as long as I got first turn. It would just mean that I spent my first turn doing nothing, as if I hadn't gone first at all. Essentially, it would be like having 3 turns while my opponent got 4. (1st turn: I do nothing, 2nd thru 4th: I do stuff/ my opponents do stuff 1st turn thru 4th)
Not ideal, but a draw was still feasible.
Then my opponents went and won the roll-off to see who got first turn. Now I was looking at only getting 2 turns while my opponents were getting 4. That meant I was going to get shot at for the top of turn 1, then on the bottom of turn one I would be stuck in place unable to move. For the top of turn 2, I would be shot at again, while still being stuck out in the open. Two uninterrupted turns of shooting before I could actually move a model? No thanks. That's not a situation you turn into a stalemate. I thanked my opponents and congratulated them on their victory before any more dice were rolled.
That was 18 years ago and I haven't had to do that since.
What I'm trying to say is, I'm really really happy they got rid of Strategy Cards.
KommissarKiln wrote: I play on for the sake of more gameplay. Also, like previously mentioned, I'd hate to miss out on any of the suicidal shenanigans when you're just that desperate.
Example: In a relic mission, one of my last 2 surviving guardsmen squad was 8 inches away from my board edge with relic in hand, but there would be no cover saves from some flanking immortals. What do I do? I take a snapshot with a melta at the flyer that deposited said immortals, get 6 to hit, pen, jink save fails, EXPLODES. When they died to gauss fire next turn, I still didn't concede because my other squad was literally two helpless guardsmen within charge range of the immortals. I was officially tabled in overwatch.
Point is, at those points I don't care as much about winning so much as taking enemy and friendly models alike off the table through rash heroism.
I also forgot to mention that those 6 guardsmen killed a 2+ Necron overlord with ---> 2 <--- wounds left with 6 generic attacks in the previous Necron turn. I was motivated to see what else I could do, and was pleasantly surprised when 40 points of guardsmen killed about 180 points of giant evil undead robot plus undead robot plane. Despite being tabled, my opponent and I agreed I scored the moral victory.
for me it depends on the situation. if it's a "he has me surrounded and I have a single hammernator left" I'll conceed.
if it's gonna be close eneugh I can do something and it's not just meaningless dice rolls, I'll certinly play on. but I'm also newish to 40k so every chance to learn is good
slk28850 wrote: I don't mind when people concede to me in a tournament, it usually means I can have a longer lunch. That being said I had a guy bug me for a game at the local store(I usually just play at my house) so I packed up all of my stuff went down there unloaded everything, picked the senario, he rolls to go first, moves everything up in front of my marine gunline realizes he can't make a charge concedes turn 1. I literally spent more time getting there and unpacking my army then we did playing. That really pissed me off. It is not like a game of Mtg where you just scoop and re-shuffle. My point being that if it is a friendly game play it out. Phew feels good to get that off of my chest.
...um why not reset the game and play again with a new mission, deployment, etc?
slk28850 wrote: I don't mind when people concede to me in a tournament, it usually means I can have a longer lunch. That being said I had a guy bug me for a game at the local store(I usually just play at my house) so I packed up all of my stuff went down there unloaded everything, picked the senario, he rolls to go first, moves everything up in front of my marine gunline realizes he can't make a charge concedes turn 1. I literally spent more time getting there and unpacking my army then we did playing. That really pissed me off. It is not like a game of Mtg where you just scoop and re-shuffle. My point being that if it is a friendly game play it out. Phew feels good to get that off of my chest.
...um why not reset the game and play again with a new mission, deployment, etc?
I drove 40 miles to go play against a friend - he quit on turn two.
I didn't want to ask him for another game as he ended the first by jumping up and down on his vindicator.
Asking for another game isn't always the best idea.
slk28850 wrote: I don't mind when people concede to me in a tournament, it usually means I can have a longer lunch. That being said I had a guy bug me for a game at the local store(I usually just play at my house) so I packed up all of my stuff went down there unloaded everything, picked the senario, he rolls to go first, moves everything up in front of my marine gunline realizes he can't make a charge concedes turn 1. I literally spent more time getting there and unpacking my army then we did playing. That really pissed me off. It is not like a game of Mtg where you just scoop and re-shuffle. My point being that if it is a friendly game play it out. Phew feels good to get that off of my chest.
...um why not reset the game and play again with a new mission, deployment, etc?
I drove 40 miles to go play against a friend - he quit on turn two.
I didn't want to ask him for another game as he ended the first by jumping up and down on his vindicator.
Asking for another game isn't always the best idea.
We went to the pub
Not exactly a good loser... You probably knew this and should not expect too much from those games.
I'll concede, but I'll happily roll another objective and play again.
slk28850 wrote: I don't mind when people concede to me in a tournament, it usually means I can have a longer lunch. That being said I had a guy bug me for a game at the local store(I usually just play at my house) so I packed up all of my stuff went down there unloaded everything, picked the senario, he rolls to go first, moves everything up in front of my marine gunline realizes he can't make a charge concedes turn 1. I literally spent more time getting there and unpacking my army then we did playing. That really pissed me off. It is not like a game of Mtg where you just scoop and re-shuffle. My point being that if it is a friendly game play it out. Phew feels good to get that off of my chest.
...um why not reset the game and play again with a new mission, deployment, etc?
I drove 40 miles to go play against a friend - he quit on turn two.
I didn't want to ask him for another game as he ended the first by jumping up and down on his vindicator.
Asking for another game isn't always the best idea.
We went to the pub
Not exactly a good loser... You probably knew this and should not expect too much from those games.
I'll concede, but I'll happily roll another objective and play again.
That was the last time I played him. He sold his army not long after - everyone is happier
1.) Am I playing a buddy for fun and we can get in another game if we wrap it up? If so concede.
2.) Is there anything meaningful I can still do? Can I still fight it out claim some objectives or contest (this matters in a tournament certainly) if so I soldier on. If I have say 3 weapon destroyed drop pods left and nothing else....concede. It is an extreme example but if my opponent has most of his army and I have basically nothing left, why go through the motions of rolling saves and dying, or hiding. More true in KP missions when you are also hoplessly down on the mission objective.
3.)Is my opponent a Jerk? If so conceed, even if I am losing if I am having a good time hanging out and joking with my opponent...no problem...if I am getting blasted and every other minute there is a rules argument....concede.
4.) Play to a random roll wher eif the game goes on it is obvious who has won (i.e. the next turn will be rolling dice and last few models dying) So we play to the end of 5 and I have 2 models left that will die on top of 6...We roll game goes on and we just call it a win for you.
I think people need to realize the difference between conceding when you are throughly beaten and conceding when your opponent is winning. In the first your opponent has beaten you already and the rest of the game is a formality (you have a miniscule amount of models facing a full army), in the second your opponent is likely going to win the mission and you just want to call it.
I would carry on normally because (a) the game itself is fun and it's not all about winning and losing. And (b) it would feel unfair to my opponent to cheat them of a game or deny them the chance for a resounding victory over me.
Of course if this were a tournament it would depend on whether my opponent and I wanted to save time or if there were tournament rules where how much you beat your opponent by / number of victory points made a difference.
If I was having fun playing the game, sure I'll fight to the last man.
But if I had no chance in hell of winning or drawing and it's only turn 2-3, and this is not because I made some really stupid glaring mistake, then I'll concede. It's all about fun here folks, unless you're in a tournament or you're getting payed to play, that should be the core of it all. Having fun.
For some people, having fun is winning games. Okay, then that person would concede because it's not fun for them. For some people like me, having fun is the joking about during games and the casualness that my group likes to play under.
Concede and keep it moving. Heck, maybe even fit in another game and the army that got destroyed can adapt. Competitive environment, play until the end of course. Either trying to deny additional victory points for my opponent or maximizing mine.
washout77 wrote: For some people, having fun is winning games. Okay, then that person would concede because it's not fun for them.
I like winning, but it's not the only thing. And if I concede I'm being selfish in stopping my opponent enjoying winning. You have to carry on if your opponent is enjoying themself, really.
Exceptions made for if the opponent is really, really objectionable about things.
My army either comes home with their heads held high in victory or in body bags for defeat as there is no “Yeah you got this. Let’s put down our guns and call it a day.” There have been times where as soon as my opponent pulls out his list that I realize things are going to go downhill for me as soon as the first dice is rolled, but I will just make some personal goals to keep it fun.
If someone needs to run off because of time constraints then there is nothing we can do about that but I will never drop out as long as there are models on the table.
had something similar happen to me, iyanden list featuring 2 wraithknights going really well against various opponnents unitl someone pulls out the damn dark eldar
I'll concede if its turn 4+ and I'm down to less than 25% of my starting force with no VPs and my opponent is still going strong with 75%+ of his army and multiple VPs scored. At that point, there really is no point in pushing forward unless you and a buddy are just goofing.
That being said, I will concede ONLY if I'm in that situation. If I've still got a sizable portion of my army left but the battle is clearly lost, I'll at least try to steal some VPs to make it a little less of a beat down.
I rarely concede unless it's well into the game and there are no options left,
Generally when I'm on the back foot and going to lose I give myself a personal goal, take out the HQ or a particular unit. Something to give me a reason to keep playing.
For me, I will never concede. I've put too much money into the hobby and have precious little time for games to pull out just because I'm getting stomped. I agree with all the posts that say go for personal victories at that point to make it fun for yourself.
I never play in gaming stores, just with friends in garages or basements, and I would love it if they extended the same courtesy to me, but it's not always the case and for the most part that is fine. If it's end of turn 3 or beginning of turn 4 and it is clear they are losing and cannot come back I will be ok with them conceding defeat.
I have another friend however who consistently will quit on turn 2 or 3 just because he lost 1 unit. I no longer schedule games with him. It's not worth my time.
". 
you get 
