So I witnessed this happen twice last weekend, and was unsure about the legality or correct thing to do in this situation. Basically the first game was between DA and DE. The DE player did a REALLY great first turn, and basically won close to max points, the second player had a lot of his stuff in reserve, and dropped in in on his turn, mostly inceptors and Assault Marines. He did a lot of strong work, and got most of his points for that round, only losing points in objectives and killing the warlord. On the second turn, the DA player does the hand shake and says I quit, thus "ending the game". The DE player asks if they can keep playing it out because he needs the points for his standings. The DA player had already picked up some of his guys, and apologized, but said he didn't want to waste the time. This effectively killed the DE player's chances and cut him off at around 25% of his possible points.
The second game was Ad Mech vs Ultra Marines, and basically the same thing happened, except it was Admech instead of DE, and the Marines player cut him off at the knees on the 2nd turn.
Is this allowable? What is the recourse for a player who gets cut off before the end of the game, and is unable to score more points? Are they just screwed for the rest of the tournament? It feels like there has to be more of a fix out there for this, otherwise we'd see it a lot more in an attempt to fix the brackets.
Yep. Seen it done, often enough to consider it being a regular thing. It is like your trainer ask you to hurt a guy from another school, when they know you will not rank anyway. Some people don't like it, but playing the rules is as important as playing the game.
If it's a tournament or league of some kind there should be rules for concessions. The reason is precisely because of situations like this, where a player concedes and denies their opponent the opportunity to score points that count towards their overall standings.
If it's just a pick-up game it's not great to just concede so quickly. I can understand it if the game has gone in such a way that there's no way to win and one player doesn't want to waste their time playing a lost game. If it's a pick-up game and it's that soon I'd probably just restart.
Karol wrote: Yep. Seen it done, often enough to consider it being a regular thing. It is like your trainer ask you to hurt a guy from another school, when they know you will not rank anyway. Some people don't like it, but playing the rules is as important as playing the game.
Its not playing the rules, its being a dick.
you gain nothing from preventing others from achieving better results.
Imagine thinking that voluntarily hurting someone should be normal, absolutely flying rodent gak insane opinion.
Karol wrote: Yep. Seen it done, often enough to consider it being a regular thing. It is like your trainer ask you to hurt a guy from another school, when they know you will not rank anyway. Some people don't like it, but playing the rules is as important as playing the game.
Firstly, deliberately hurting someone else just makes you a terrible person. Secondly, we're talking about 40k here, not life and death. Having fun is why people do it and looking to game the rules specifically so your opponent doesn't get an advantage is the sort of behaviour that has no place in any hobby. That said, a good tournament pack should cover this situation so I think the problem here lies with the TO as much as it does the players.
The_Real_Chris wrote: Don't they normally have rules giving bonuses to people whose opponents drop out?
In my local tournaments, if someone surrenders, the other player gets to speedrun their turns to see how many points they can get. (Of course its not optimal but its better than getting gimped of pts)
From 'Ending the Battle Early or Conceding', page 282 of the Core Rulebook:
If only one player wants to end the battle early then that player must concede and remove all their models from the battlefield. A player who concedes scores 0 victory points for that battle and their opponent is automatically the victor (even if they scored 0 victory points during the battle). The other player may continue to play out their turns until the battle ends if they wish, perhaps to accrue a few more victory points, or they can choose to end the battle now.
Of course Tournament and League Organizers may use their own house rules to cover this situation.
Even if the opponent picks up his pieces the player can still claim all his primary objective points and claim any secondary points that he has coming to him. The rationale is simple. All he has to do is move his pieces into the proper position(s) and claim the points for that turn. He then gives his, now gone, opponent a chance to respond. The opponent. obviously, doesn't respond so the player then takes his next turn. Repeat until all turns are complete. In terms of removal of enemy pieces he can claim them all since none are on the table at the end of the game. So, while this looks like a dick move it really enables the player to claim max or near max points.
Honestly they should go to the TO and ask how many points they're entitled to gain. My guess will be just what I said above.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: Even if the opponent picks up his pieces the player can still claim all his primary objective points and claim any secondary points that he has coming to him. The rationale is simple. All he has to do is move his pieces into the proper position(s) and claim the points for that turn. He then gives his, now gone, opponent a chance to respond. The opponent. obviously, doesn't respond so the player then takes his next turn. Repeat until all turns are complete. In terms of removal of enemy pieces he can claim them all since none are on the table at the end of the game. So, while this looks like a dick move it really enables the player to claim max or near max points.
Honestly they should go to the TO and ask how many points they're entitled to gain. My guess will be just what I said above.
Only issue is for "kill" secondaries, but i'd rule it that removed models count as killed
Karol wrote: Yep. Seen it done, often enough to consider it being a regular thing. It is like your trainer ask you to hurt a guy from another school, when they know you will not rank anyway. Some people don't like it, but playing the rules is as important as playing the game.
Its not playing the rules, its being a dick.
you gain nothing from preventing others from achieving better results.
Imagine thinking that voluntarily hurting someone should be normal, absolutely flying rodent gak insane opinion.
Ah, Karol with his warped views of the world. Never change...
So now that I know there is an actual RULE in the BRB to avoid this, how do you actually score points for "slay the warlord" or what ever, if the other player has taken their minis off the table. Nothing in a book is going to keep minis on a table if the player learns their partner is in the ER and needs to leave ASAP. Or, as a worse situation, if the other player is a dick, and just removes the models from the board and says F off.
That rule doesn't give any sort of bonus or actual help to the player who just got screwed over.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So now that I know there is an actual RULE in the BRB to avoid this, how do you actually score points for "slay the warlord" or what ever, if the other player has taken their minis off the table. Nothing in a book is going to keep minis on a table if the player learns their partner is in the ER and needs to leave ASAP. Or, as a worse situation, if the other player is a dick, and just removes the models from the board and says F off.
That rule doesn't give any sort of bonus or actual help to the player who just got screwed over.
Just count your opponent as being tabled.
If reserves past turn 3 count as being slain, surely models "removed from the game" also count.
Karol wrote: Yep. Seen it done, often enough to consider it being a regular thing. It is like your trainer ask you to hurt a guy from another school, when they know you will not rank anyway. Some people don't like it, but playing the rules is as important as playing the game.
Its not playing the rules, its being a dick.
you gain nothing from preventing others from achieving better results.
Imagine thinking that voluntarily hurting someone should be normal, absolutely flying rodent gak insane opinion.
I think, the english language is full of terms of describing it. Take the knee, play the clock. For football fans there is the good old Italian cantenacio. It is a normal thing to do in sports, And you gain everything. First you make their chance to win lower. Second it maybe part of a bigger team tactic, if you came with other people from your area. It maybe part of trying to pre build opponent to specific people.
Ask someone playing american football or regular football, or basketball etc what a tactical foul is. And that is before any scholar ships, sponsorships etc get involved. If someone being out of the team means you get a good life as a professional and get scouted you definitly will think about it. And when the sport is big and involved milions, and on top of that betting, then sky is the limit to what people are willing to do.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So now that I know there is an actual RULE in the BRB to avoid this, how do you actually score points for "slay the warlord" or what ever, if the other player has taken their minis off the table. Nothing in a book is going to keep minis on a table if the player learns their partner is in the ER and needs to leave ASAP. Or, as a worse situation, if the other player is a dick, and just removes the models from the board and says F off.
That rule doesn't give any sort of bonus or actual help to the player who just got screwed over.
If it's a tournament of league game you ask the TO or a judge to decide assuming there's nothing in the tournament rules to cover it (there usually is). If it's a pick-up game who cares?
Karol wrote: Yep. Seen it done, often enough to consider it being a regular thing. It is like your trainer ask you to hurt a guy from another school, when they know you will not rank anyway. Some people don't like it, but playing the rules is as important as playing the game.
Its not playing the rules, its being a dick.
you gain nothing from preventing others from achieving better results.
Imagine thinking that voluntarily hurting someone should be normal, absolutely flying rodent gak insane opinion.
I think, the english language is full of terms of describing it. Take the knee, play the clock. For football fans there is the good old Italian cantenacio. It is a normal thing to do in sports, And you gain everything. First you make their chance to win lower. Second it maybe part of a bigger team tactic, if you came with other people from your area. It maybe part of trying to pre build opponent to specific people.
Ask someone playing american football or regular football, or basketball etc what a tactical foul is. And that is before any scholar ships, sponsorships etc get involved. If someone being out of the team means you get a good life as a professional and get scouted you definitly will think about it. And when the sport is big and involved milions, and on top of that betting, then sky is the limit to what people are willing to do.
It still makes you an donkey-cave/insane person if you do it.
And again, why are you inserting your insane worldviews in 40k? 40k isn't the playoffs for the superbowl, its a fething boardgame.
In Warmachine tournament play if you scoop your opponent automatically scores maximum points. I presume if this phenomenon becomes common 40kTOs will get wise to it and introduce a similar rule.
AnomanderRake wrote: In Warmachine tournament play if you scoop your opponent automatically scores maximum points. I presume if this phenomenon becomes common 40kTOs will get wise to it and introduce a similar rule.
IIRC This used to be a thing, but then you had players intentionally conceding to their buddies to propel them up the ladder.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So now that I know there is an actual RULE in the BRB to avoid this, how do you actually score points for "slay the warlord" or what ever, if the other player has taken their minis off the table. Nothing in a book is going to keep minis on a table if the player learns their partner is in the ER and needs to leave ASAP. Or, as a worse situation, if the other player is a dick, and just removes the models from the board and says F off.
That rule doesn't give any sort of bonus or actual help to the player who just got screwed over.
I would think it's fairly obvious... that model is considered destroyed.
It's the same as if you held a unit in reserve but forgot to deploy it at the end of the game. The rule does say it's considered destroyed (don't have the book with me to cite).
Given the wording around standings in the OP, I'm assuming this was happening in a tournament or event of some kind?
This is absolutely a "call a judge/TO" situation, assuming there isn't clear guidance given in the tournament pack as to what happens as a result of a concession.
Off the top of my head? I'd be saying max primary, potentially max secondary (I haven't got them all memorised, so can't say for sure), along with the painting VPs if applicable. Note that this might not be 100VPs, depending on secondaries and opponent.
I'd say stick with the BRB for the person conceding, so 0VPs.
H.B.M.C. wrote: This is that 'submarining' thing that's getting talked about in the Tournament sub-forum, isn't it? It's cropped up on a few 40k websites as well.
It should be an easy fix. If you walk away from a game, you are conceding. If you are conceding, you net 0 points.
No, submarining is purposefully underscoring to game the standings, this is more like torpedoing someone elses VP by being a donk
AnomanderRake wrote: In Warmachine tournament play if you scoop your opponent automatically scores maximum points. I presume if this phenomenon becomes common 40kTOs will get wise to it and introduce a similar rule.
IIRC This used to be a thing, but then you had players intentionally conceding to their buddies to propel them up the ladder.
Yep. Common sense solutions are unfortunately often ruined by bad actors.
This all comes down to the problem of using battle points as a determining factor. It's just a bad system, in all sorts of ways, and other competitive games use much better ones. Someone put a good post on 40k competitive reddit a while ago on a better way to do things, basically what they do in magic where tiebreakers isn't battle points but instead based on how your opponents did in the their other games (i.e. if you two players go 4-0, the winner is determined not by battle points but by whose opponents had better records). It sounds unintuitive initially, but it really works. It addresses most of the bad behavior you see in 40k tournaments - submarining, conceding to deny your opponent points, seal clubbing, etc. There are still areas for exploitation, but they are much, much smaller.
The 40k competitive scene really needs to just open its eyes and realize it doesn't need to try to reinvent the wheel. Other games have this figured out, and it's just better.
There's box on page 6 of the grand tourney book that addresses concessions. It doesn't address what to do about secondary requiring destruction of enemy models but I would think that most TOs would rule that the enemy model would be "destroyed" the same turn as the concession took place. (For example, If your opponent quit at the end of turn 2 then that is when the model is detroyed).
I saw it happening on some tournaments as well, not 40k related, and also on some online platforms to avoid adding the loss to personal records. Serious organizers should simply give max points to the other player and a penalty on the guy that quit, if he some does that.
If resigning to screw other players out of points is legal then people should abuse it until GW changes the rule. On a slightly different twist, collusion playing for points is as old as chess. Playing competitive 40K by bringing a Team to support the group's top player then profit sharing prize winnings is a great strategy for tournaments (especially if you are a Russian chess player in the 1970's). I would be shocked if this is not happening somewhere in the current 40k tournament scene.
We are not talking friendly, casual play; tournaments are arenas for cut-throat competition. Honestly, I think if more gamers played sports there would not be so much whining about players going to great lengths to maintain competitive edge. Just wait until someone calls a time-out after you line up to kick a field goal...
H.B.M.C. wrote: This is that 'submarining' thing that's getting talked about in the Tournament sub-forum, isn't it? It's cropped up on a few 40k websites as well.
It should be an easy fix. If you walk away from a game, you are conceding. If you are conceding, you net 0 points.
If this was a small tournament the DE player could benefit by being placed against a weaker opponent. If it is big enough to have multiple people with no losses then the score will matter.
Yeah, the issue with awarding max points to the player who has been on the end of this, is this can then be used as another tactic, and game fixing can become a problem, not that prize money is high enough for someone to pay to fix but hell, weird stuff happens.
The person who concedes needs to have a harsh punishment. 0 points, and potentially a deduction in points also. I'd go as far as disqualifying maybe though, purely because some people who already know they aren't going to place may not care about getting zero points any more (e.g. a person who is their to win/place, not participate, so once they know they have no chance of achieving their goals, they may throw the towel in). Future bans from events also is a possibility, some may argue this is too far though...
There's loads of ways you can go about it anyway, but mainly you need to find the right way to totally discourage people doing it basically, and awarding the other player max points is not it due to the above where that can be open to abuse also.
If you concede without your opponents consent or don't consent to your opponent conceding in the event of an emergency you should be banned from the current and any future local events. You cannot tell me that the only flaw these people have is that they will tactically concede to ruin the standing of their opponent.
If you don't want to play against Drukhari or AdMech meanies don't play competitive 40k.
Some things GW cannot prepare for and TOs should implement house rules to ensure their tournaments don't just become a popularity contest by way of concession to give max points to the winner or invalid data next week after Space Wolves lose ObSec on everything except Troops or 25 point Land Raider Redeemers get spammed.
As long as you use battle points, you'll have problems. Nipping one in the bud opens up another one. It's just a terrible way to determine standings. There's a reason more serious competitive games don't use it, and a reason why they have mostly transitioned to opponent win % as their tiebreaker. It's just better - less prone to manipulation, and the best thing of all about it is that it fosters a cooperative rather than cutthroat approach. In an opponent wins % tournament, instead of being encouraged to seal-club newer players, top tournament players are instead encouraged to use the game as a teaching experience, because doing so will help their opponent do better in their future games, which will help the top player's tiebreaker. It cannot be overstated how much this changes the competitive dynamic. In a OW% tournament, you can literally just call the game on T2-3 when it's clear who is going to win, and then use the remainder of your time to go back and replay the first couple turns, showing your opponent what they could have done to make things a better game. Or you can just start playing casually once you've got the victory, giving them a fun time for the rest of the game. It's all up to you, because the system doesn't force you to do anything, and the only thing it encourages you to do is teach your opponent to play better. It's night and day. I don't understand why 40k players are so resistant. Ok, I do understand - people don't want to try something new. But this is one of those cases where almost everyone enjoys the OW% system better if they give it a chance.
Nurglitch wrote: I thought the opponents of resigning players scored maximum points or something.
Yeah. This is the normal solution this problem?
It does potentially result in abuse the other way - but its been the standard at most tournaments I've been to. With significant moral pressure to not just quit - or if you must, coming up with some "quick turn" calculation for how the points would have gone for the winning player.
Karol wrote: Yep. Seen it done, often enough to consider it being a regular thing. It is like your trainer ask you to hurt a guy from another school, when they know you will not rank anyway. Some people don't like it, but playing the rules is as important as playing the game.
Its not playing the rules, its being a dick.
you gain nothing from preventing others from achieving better results.
Imagine thinking that voluntarily hurting someone should be normal, absolutely flying rodent gak insane opinion.
I think, the english language is full of terms of describing it. Take the knee, play the clock. For football fans there is the good old Italian cantenacio. It is a normal thing to do in sports, And you gain everything. First you make their chance to win lower. Second it maybe part of a bigger team tactic, if you came with other people from your area. It maybe part of trying to pre build opponent to specific people.
Ask someone playing american football or regular football, or basketball etc what a tactical foul is. And that is before any scholar ships, sponsorships etc get involved. If someone being out of the team means you get a good life as a professional and get scouted you definitly will think about it. And when the sport is big and involved milions, and on top of that betting, then sky is the limit to what people are willing to do.
yeah and the principal english word for describing it is Being an donkey-cave. don't try to justify your sociopathy kid
I've been to only a handful of tournaments, as I'm not big on that sort of environment in general, I prefer 'competitive' games at home/local...
But every one I've got to, when there's been a concession on one side, the other person either helps me work out the max possible points to get after conceding, and I've done the same in return. I suppose I'm glad that my exposure to that caliber of competition has been so limited, since it comes across as very unsportsmanlike to use it to deny points.
However. There's rules in the core rules for how to deal with it. This was a case of a person conceeding, refusing to help, and the 'winner' not knowing their rules.
yukishiro1 wrote: As long as you use battle points, you'll have problems. Nipping one in the bud opens up another one. It's just a terrible way to determine standings. There's a reason more serious competitive games don't use it, and a reason why they have mostly transitioned to opponent win % as their tiebreaker. It's just better - less prone to manipulation, and the best thing of all about it is that it fosters a cooperative rather than cutthroat approach. In an opponent wins % tournament, instead of being encouraged to seal-club newer players, top tournament players are instead encouraged to use the game as a teaching experience, because doing so will help their opponent do better in their future games, which will help the top player's tiebreaker. It cannot be overstated how much this changes the competitive dynamic. In a OW% tournament, you can literally just call the game on T2-3 when it's clear who is going to win, and then use the remainder of your time to go back and replay the first couple turns, showing your opponent what they could have done to make things a better game. Or you can just start playing casually once you've got the victory, giving them a fun time for the rest of the game. It's all up to you, because the system doesn't force you to do anything, and the only thing it encourages you to do is teach your opponent to play better. It's night and day. I don't understand why 40k players are so resistant. Ok, I do understand - people don't want to try something new. But this is one of those cases where almost everyone enjoys the OW% system better if they give it a chance.
The current set up was to allow better players to get matched together letting the more casual players have a better experience on bottom tables I thought?
Your thing doesn't sound bad, but I can see some competitive types getting aggravated.
yukishiro1 wrote: As long as you use battle points, you'll have problems. Nipping one in the bud opens up another one. It's just a terrible way to determine standings. There's a reason more serious competitive games don't use it, and a reason why they have mostly transitioned to opponent win % as their tiebreaker. It's just better - less prone to manipulation, and the best thing of all about it is that it fosters a cooperative rather than cutthroat approach. In an opponent wins % tournament, instead of being encouraged to seal-club newer players, top tournament players are instead encouraged to use the game as a teaching experience, because doing so will help their opponent do better in their future games, which will help the top player's tiebreaker. It cannot be overstated how much this changes the competitive dynamic. In a OW% tournament, you can literally just call the game on T2-3 when it's clear who is going to win, and then use the remainder of your time to go back and replay the first couple turns, showing your opponent what they could have done to make things a better game. Or you can just start playing casually once you've got the victory, giving them a fun time for the rest of the game. It's all up to you, because the system doesn't force you to do anything, and the only thing it encourages you to do is teach your opponent to play better. It's night and day. I don't understand why 40k players are so resistant. Ok, I do understand - people don't want to try something new. But this is one of those cases where almost everyone enjoys the OW% system better if they give it a chance.
The current set up was to allow better players to get matched together letting the more casual players have a better experience on bottom tables I thought?
Your thing doesn't sound bad, but I can see some competitive types getting aggravated.
You don't have to use the same metric for ranking and match making.
yeah and the principal english word for describing it is Being an donkey-cave. don't try to justify your sociopathy kid
It is a regular behaviour durning sports. It is a sociopathic as breathing. Go ask someone who played professional or semi professional sports or even played at school or any trainer. It is not being an donkey-cave. Being an donkey-cave in sports is something like. You win or are winning 5 to 1, and then just before the match ends you kick the other dude in the throat. Because you really don't like him, for what ever reason. And guess what happens then? The KO does with the damage throat becomes the olympic champion and the guy with the more points gets disqualified. And now has problem with any organisation that does beting .
yukishiro1 wrote: As long as you use battle points, you'll have problems. Nipping one in the bud opens up another one. It's just a terrible way to determine standings. There's a reason more serious competitive games don't use it, and a reason why they have mostly transitioned to opponent win % as their tiebreaker. It's just better - less prone to manipulation, and the best thing of all about it is that it fosters a cooperative rather than cutthroat approach. In an opponent wins % tournament, instead of being encouraged to seal-club newer players, top tournament players are instead encouraged to use the game as a teaching experience, because doing so will help their opponent do better in their future games, which will help the top player's tiebreaker. It cannot be overstated how much this changes the competitive dynamic. In a OW% tournament, you can literally just call the game on T2-3 when it's clear who is going to win, and then use the remainder of your time to go back and replay the first couple turns, showing your opponent what they could have done to make things a better game. Or you can just start playing casually once you've got the victory, giving them a fun time for the rest of the game. It's all up to you, because the system doesn't force you to do anything, and the only thing it encourages you to do is teach your opponent to play better. It's night and day. I don't understand why 40k players are so resistant. Ok, I do understand - people don't want to try something new. But this is one of those cases where almost everyone enjoys the OW% system better if they give it a chance.
The current set up was to allow better players to get matched together letting the more casual players have a better experience on bottom tables I thought?
Your thing doesn't sound bad, but I can see some competitive types getting aggravated.
You don't have to use the same metric for ranking and match making.
Yep, you can still use swiss pairings to determine matches if you want to - I'm not convinced it's the best, but that's not the problem we're discussing here. We're discussing what tiebreaker mechanism to use when people finish with an identical W-L-T record. I mean yes, it wouldn't make sense to use battle points to determine swiss pairings - but that is a terrible thing to do, even if you are using battle points for tiebreakers. You should never, ever be using battle points to determine swiss pairings, it should be just wins all go into a pool and losses all go into a pool. Using battle points is an absolute disaster in terms of what sort of behavior it rewards.
OW% doesn't work great for 3-game tournaments because there isn't enough time to develop meaningful OW% stats, but at anything 5 games or larger, it is simply objectively better than battle points. It isn't perfect, but it's much better. I am sure that the vast majority of 40k tournament players would embrace the system if they gave it a try even once, it is so obviously better a system.
Karol wrote: It is a regular behaviour durning sports. It is a sociopathic as breathing. Go ask someone who played professional or semi professional sports or even played at school or any trainer. It is not being an donkey-cave. Being an donkey-cave in sports is something like. You win or are winning 5 to 1, and then just before the match ends you kick the other dude in the throat. Because you really don't like him, for what ever reason. And guess what happens then? The KO does with the damage throat becomes the olympic champion and the guy with the more points gets disqualified. And now has problem with any organisation that does beting .
You just described assault/battery, which is a crime. Not only would say player be sent off for that game but they would likely be disqualified from that and probably future tournaments, their team might be disqualified, the team might get fined and criminal proceedings would be opened against the player for committing a serious crime.
Your earlier example of getting your coach to hurt another player to help you win is also a crime. All you are describing is crimes.
yeah and the principal english word for describing it is Being an donkey-cave. don't try to justify your sociopathy kid
It is a regular behaviour durning sports. It is a sociopathic as breathing. Go ask someone who played professional or semi professional sports or even played at school or any trainer. It is not being an donkey-cave. Being an donkey-cave in sports is something like. You win or are winning 5 to 1, and then just before the match ends you kick the other dude in the throat. Because you really don't like him, for what ever reason. And guess what happens then? The KO does with the damage throat becomes the olympic champion and the guy with the more points gets disqualified. And now has problem with any organisation that does beting .
Karol you understand that 40k is not a professional sport or the Olimpycs where national honor is at the stake (even in those cases this sort of "conceding in bad faith" attitude is unethical) its just a naive game play for the entertainment of gentlemen/women?
Are you troling or are you really a sociopath?
PD: Sorry, I see you are Polish... You are not troling... Why is that so many Polish guys just dont understand how to play wargames and treat their fellowgamers as if the were the enemy during WWII?
Strength of schedule tiebreakers are really common in the sports world. They don't completely fix the issue of fraud teams coasting through on easy schedules but it does mitigate it, and it's definitely better than basing tiebreakers on scoring.
As for Karol's insanity, I don't know what sort of feth gak is happening over in Europe but here in America the idea of deliberately injuring an opponent is tied to Bountygate, which everyone agrees was a very bad thing that people rightfully lose their jobs for.
Although I am always amused reading about these ridiculous wrestling and cutt throat competetiveness analogies, a scottish teammate of mine (I play rugby in germany) once told me, that you wouldnt dare to tape your knee in scotland because the other guys would then know what to target
I honestly can't think of a single competitive sporting event that isn't ROCKED by at least one major cheating scandle per year, and that includes E-sports and non athletic games like MTG or 40k.
Just this month there was an article in Auspex Tactics about how intentionally scoring low or in the 80s-90s just to get a weaker pairing in the next round. MTG is constantly banning their top players for deck manipulation or flagrant violations. It's the nature of the game. There is zero way to fix this.
Well, as previously mentioned, the GT Mission book detailing how to play tourneys explicitly covers this. If tourney organizers are not using it, then ask the tourney organizer how to handle.
This is a defeatist attitude. There is zero way to come up with a scoring system that it is impossible to manipulate, that's true. However, there are many easy ways to come up with a system a lot better than the one 40k uses. It's not a coincidence that strength of schedule is used in almost all competitive games now aside from GW games. It's simply better.
When your system is as bad as the one competitive 40k uses, it is actually an opportunity, because there are a ton of easy gains you can make before you start getting to having to make hard choices.
Not sure exactly what a "technical document" means. The post I linked is a very thorough and balanced explanation of why it works better, while acknowledging its limitations. Magic went through this years ago, there might be some stuff out there from their experience I guess.
40k's just behind the times here, there's not a whole lot more to it. The fact that pretty much everyone uses SoS now isn't some big conspiracy where everyone except GW is doing it wrong, it's that GW is still stuck in the stone age and TOs have been reluctant to strike out on their own, especially with GW having reasserted control over the competitive game with the release of 9th.
I cannot believe Brandt hasn't already been bombarded with SoS-based proposals. That GW hasn't yet embraced it is presumably due to resistance from within the company; I have no idea whether that resistance is Brandt himself, or someone higher up the chain.
Daedalus81 wrote: Is there like a technical document that exists out there that one could use to explain and convince TOs?
The Strength of Schedule system is already in use in lots of other games, specifically to avoid these sort of problems. It's not really a case of needing a technical document, it's more about getting 40kTOs to change and that seems to be a difficult thing for them to do.
yukishiro1 wrote: Not sure exactly what a "technical document" means. The post I linked is a very thorough and balanced explanation of why it works better, while acknowledging its limitations. Magic went through this years ago, there might be some stuff out there from their experience I guess.
40k's just behind the times here, there's not a whole lot more to it. The fact that pretty much everyone uses SoS now isn't some big conspiracy where everyone except GW is doing it wrong, it's that GW is still stuck in the stone age and TOs have been reluctant to strike out on their own, especially with GW having reasserted control over the competitive game with the release of 9th.
I cannot believe Brandt hasn't already been bombarded with SoS-based proposals. That GW hasn't yet embraced it is presumably due to resistance from within the company; I have no idea whether that resistance is Brandt himself, or someone higher up the chain.
Ok so to be sure I have everything right - it would be a swiss style tournament, but the pairings would be based on the win percentages of your opponent. So, how do you pair in rounds 1 and 2?
Sorry for my ignorance. I've read lots of posts in passing talking about all this, but never really committed any brain cells to it.
Vatsetis wrote: Ohh the delights of "competitive" 40k... They never get old
Same thought crossed my mind.
Solution: DON'T visit tournaments, goddamit!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Arachnofiend wrote: Strength of schedule tiebreakers are really common in the sports world. They don't completely fix the issue of fraud teams coasting through on easy schedules but it does mitigate it, and it's definitely better than basing tiebreakers on scoring.
As for Karol's insanity, I don't know what sort of feth gak is happening over in Europe but here in America the idea of deliberately injuring an opponent is tied to Bountygate, which everyone agrees was a very bad thing that people rightfully lose their jobs for.
Bountygate?! Was that the incident where an American Football defensive coach would hand out bounties of opposing players to be crippled? Lol, this should be the norm in Blood Bowl.
Ok so to be sure I have everything right - it would be a swiss style tournament, but the pairings would be based on the win percentages of your opponent. So, how do you pair in rounds 1 and 2?
Sorry for my ignorance. I've read lots of posts in passing talking about all this, but never really committed any brain cells to it.
You could do it different ways, but no, my suggestion would be:
1. Pairings are swiss based solely on win/loss. I.e. if you have a 32 person tournament, round 1 the pairings are completely random (just like they are now). From then on you pair solely based on W-L ratios, with random selection for everyone in the same bracket. I.e. after 3 rounds you pair the 3-0s off against each other, the 2-1s against each other, the 1-2s against each other, and the 0-3s against each other. If ties or drops or anything else causes weirdness you just randomly select who gets bumped up or down a bracket.
2. Tiebreakers for tournament rankings are based on opponent win % to break ties among people with identical W-L ratios. So if one player goes 5-0, and then three players go 4-1, the 5-0 player wins the tournament, and places 2 through 4 are determined through opponent win %.
If you wanted to, you could incorporate OW% into the pairings too from round 3, but I don't think there's any real advantage or reason to do so personally. I don't see any reason to differentiate among people with identical W-L ratios until you get to the final rankings.
The fundamental insight here is that your margin of victory doesn't mean your win is worth more; instead, a hard-fought victory over a better opponent is worth more than a 100-0 blowout against a noob if it comes to picking between the two for otherwise identical W-L records. This system doesn't give the #2 slot to the guy who won 100-0 in all his games aside from his loss over the guy who won 55-54 in all his games aside from his loss. Instead, it looks at the strength of each guy's opponents, and gives the #2 slot to the guy who played opponents who did better in the tournament. This has a wide range of implications for how people approach their games, and they're nearly all positive when compared to using battle points. The post I linked on reddit is worth reading on this, it explains it better than I have and in much more detail.
I'm just throwing this out here without much forethought. Wouldn't it be interesting to use opponents total battle score as the tie breaker?That would mean that the person whose opponents had the highest scores would win the tie.
For example A & B went 3-0. Player A's opponents had 25, 50 and 50 battle points so his total would be 125. Player B's opponents scored 45, 0 (he conceded the game) and 60 points so his total would be 105. Player A wins the tie due to higher opponent score. You could be more complex by making it their opponent's total scores but that might lead to too much paperwork.
The problem with "Scores" is they can be HEAVILY manipulated. The video I mentioned literally talked about how a tournament player basically STOPPED playing after the 3rd turn, because he knew he had won, but wanted to stay under 80 points. (Ended up getting 79). Therefor he advanced, but was paired with the weakest of the other winners, thus basically giving him a much stronger advantage in making it to finals.
This happens in professional sports a lot. The best way I have seen it is the NFL playoff method. Strongest team faces weakest teams, until the two strongest are paired, and that's the final game, or Superbowl.
You can't do that in 40k as there is no set "player ranking" system in existence. The individual events use scores, and that, as I have said, causes issues. What would fix this is a player data base, like how the FGC goes about it. Each players wins, loses, and matchups are tracked, and put into an algorithm that determines their "ranking". Granted that is a multi-million dollar industry in just ad revenue alone, and 40k tournaments rarely crack of 1000 people.
Just for clarification, in the last EVO tournament (2019) the matches alone cracked over 5 million hours of watched content.
yeah. why finish at the top of your group, when then it means you end up in a death group with four other top basket picks, suddenly getting to enjoy a premature final in round two. People don't want to see top contenders get kicked out before the semi finals. So you play in a such a way to enter from spot 2, and get opponents from the weaker baskets. Unless you are some kazakh mad man, who just manhandles people in their own class. Probably by using shamanic magic to cancel a second set of arms
As soon as w40k gets players or teams people are a fan of, they will have to do something about it. Because no one wants to see 3-4 best teams play round one against each other and give people a premature championship fight. Because this means people aren't watching the rest of the games and sponsors don't like that.
Sponsors??? So the possibility someone in the future might turn 40K into a"ESport"(Tsport?) somehow justify beingva jerk today in a friendly enviroment.
This is a pathological level of insanity.
BTW is hard for 40k turn into a TSPORT because its very boring to watch... To much down time between actions.
How is having sponsors bad? People make a good living and are able to help their families, finish school etc because sponsors and scholarship programs exist. Why shouldn't there be one for w40k. If starcraft can have them and a big industry related to them, why not w40k?
And if it is insanity, well then you have to explain it not to me but to organisations like FIFA or IOC or any sports league. Go tell all people who went to collage thanks to companies sponsoring sports teams, that what they and the companies did was insanity. Or that it was somehow pathological.
Karol wrote: How is having sponsors bad? People make a good living and are able to help their families, finish school etc because sponsors and scholarship programs exist. Why shouldn't there be one for w40k. If starcraft can have them and a big industry related to them, why not w40k?
And if it is insanity, well then you have to explain it not to me but to organisations like FIFA or IOC or any sports league. Go tell all people who went to collage thanks to companies sponsoring sports teams, that what they and the companies did was insanity. Or that it was somehow pathological.
40k isn't some big sports event (thanks fething god) and it never will be, despite all the compeitive try-hards who think it could be.... yeah no it won't ever be.
But it could be. There is a large market for it, ton of people playing it. Why shouldn't it have teams, media coverage and sponsors. It would only help everyone. The rules would have to be updated faster, there could be more sesons and sesonal tournament packs. Just because there are sponors it wouldn't mean it is illegal to play w40k without out.
From what I understand in the US the ITC format is very popular, and a lot of rules implemented for events there made it in to 8th and 9th ed. Plus people who play in the ITC events and win a lot, also managed to get in to playtesters teams. Of course a professional league at the time of covid is not going to happen. Establish events were called off because of it. It would be beneficial for GW too. They need material for their little media empire, and streaming know and liked players in big events could be a part ot it. And if there is a strong median presence there is always people willing to sponsor stuff.
It costs next to nothing for people durning an event to drink only G-Fuel.
Karol wrote: But it could be. There is a large market for it, ton of people playing it. Why shouldn't it have teams, media coverage and sponsors. It would only help everyone. The rules would have to be updated faster, there could be more sesons and sesonal tournament packs. Just because there are sponors it wouldn't mean it is illegal to play w40k without out.
From what I understand in the US the ITC format is very popular, and a lot of rules implemented for events there made it in to 8th and 9th ed. Plus people who play in the ITC events and win a lot, also managed to get in to playtesters teams. Of course a professional league at the time of covid is not going to happen. Establish events were called off because of it. It would be beneficial for GW too. They need material for their little media empire, and streaming know and liked players in big events could be a part ot it. And if there is a strong median presence there is always people willing to sponsor stuff.
It costs next to nothing for people durning an event to drink only G-Fuel.
You do not understand actually how expensive it is to run events that are recorded/streamed for every game which would be required at the E-sport side. The only way to make it cost viable is if a tourney had their own video production company (which is an outlay of capital in itself). You need to have a massive fan base paying to make it worthwhile. Then in addition to this, whilst the hobby is large, and the viewership is high, the appetite for such rigid competitive play is only a niche within that. I watch loads of batrep videos, but I'd never watch a tournament. I've stated this before and I'll state it again, the channels that do well with bat rep videos, it's just as much the player personality/charisma that is the draw for watching - this is crucial as there is a lot of down time and inactivity in games, whereas personality of players is fairly irrelevant in video games/actual sports during competition as they are usually bar the most niche sports (bowls etc) quite fast or constant in terms of action. Cagey tournament players, not saying a lot other than declaring actions is not going to be good viewership, not to mention how long the games are.
If 40k ever becomes an E-Sport, it won't last long as operators will realise the profitability for effort is far too low, if it is profitable at that and they will channel their efforts into other areas.
Karol wrote: How is having sponsors bad? People make a good living and are able to help their families, finish school etc because sponsors and scholarship programs exist. Why shouldn't there be one for w40k. If starcraft can have them and a big industry related to them, why not w40k?
And if it is insanity, well then you have to explain it not to me but to organisations like FIFA or IOC or any sports league. Go tell all people who went to collage thanks to companies sponsoring sports teams, that what they and the companies did was insanity. Or that it was somehow pathological.
40k isn't some big sports event (thanks fething god) and it never will be, despite all the compeitive try-hards who think it could be.... yeah no it won't ever be.
However, you might get women to watch those matches, if you tell them that Ronaldo plays 40K and that he takes off his shirt after round one...
As long as nasty neckbeards are on camera no one will want to watch this mess.
The most competitive thing I've done with 40k is local GW tournaments where people competed for a GW voucher. Top notch competitive lists like all tank Guard with a random Tyranid Prime. Legit the only people who tryharded were a rich kid who actively cheated and then lost anyway and a kid who tried to cheat, then lost all their games and chucked their dice at the wall. Cheaters never prosper kids.
yukishiro1 wrote: Not sure exactly what a "technical document" means. The post I linked is a very thorough and balanced explanation of why it works better, while acknowledging its limitations. Magic went through this years ago, there might be some stuff out there from their experience I guess.
40k's just behind the times here, there's not a whole lot more to it. The fact that pretty much everyone uses SoS now isn't some big conspiracy where everyone except GW is doing it wrong, it's that GW is still stuck in the stone age and TOs have been reluctant to strike out on their own, especially with GW having reasserted control over the competitive game with the release of 9th.
I cannot believe Brandt hasn't already been bombarded with SoS-based proposals. That GW hasn't yet embraced it is presumably due to resistance from within the company; I have no idea whether that resistance is Brandt himself, or someone higher up the chain.
Actually, TOs don't have that excuse here. VPs decide the winner of that match and only that. Nowhere in the rules does it say that they are to be used as a tiebreaker. Events that use them as tiebreakers are just applying an house rule, and they are doing it out of habit since it was the way that ITC did things in 8th. The Orlando Open which was an official GW event, didn't use it as first tiebreaker. The first tiebreaker was the W/L score of the first 2 days. The player that arrived 4th, had lower total VPs than the one that arrived 5th.
Cyel wrote: 40k is too random, imprecise, unbalanced and boring to become a sport.
To be fair, people make a lot of money playing Hearthstone.
Fair point. Blizzard put up a lot of the money for that. Also, Hearthstone games are quick, it's relatively easy to understand the rules and follow what's happening.
yeah and the principal english word for describing it is Being an donkey-cave. don't try to justify your sociopathy kid
It is a regular behaviour durning sports. It is a sociopathic as breathing. Go ask someone who played professional or semi professional sports or even played at school or any trainer. It is not being an donkey-cave. Being an donkey-cave in sports is something like. You win or are winning 5 to 1, and then just before the match ends you kick the other dude in the throat. Because you really don't like him, for what ever reason. And guess what happens then? The KO does with the damage throat becomes the olympic champion and the guy with the more points gets disqualified. And now has problem with any organisation that does beting .
No, it's not, we're talking about abandoning a game as a tactic. In a sport a team/athelte who walks aways auto loses with a high result (0-3 in football for example) and in many cases also gets a penalty to deduct from the upcoming game or the points which have already been scored from previous games.
Stuff like that is typical for toxic competitiveness.
Back in the day, it was expected that you give a sportsmanship score to your opponent and it was to encourage everyone to be nice. Well,plenty competitives would simply give a sportsmanship of 0 to their opponents and missing the point of the endeavour. Gw changed it in the end.
Also running the clock in a way to deny the other player the use of their turn was another doozy.
Also pro circuit 40k is a pipe dream. There's not the money, fan base or interest for this.
Cyel wrote: 40k is too random, imprecise, unbalanced and boring to become a sport.
To be fair, people make a lot of money playing Hearthstone.
I have no first hand experience with Heartstone but my guess is it isn't:
-imprecise -no physical components that are placed precariously on other physical components and can be accidentally dropped, bumped, shoved etc
-boring- the subjective opinion on the game itself notwithstanding, games are quick with instantaneous resolution, direct opposite to 40k. A streamer may play dozens a day and choose the best ones for their viewers
You don't need some really complicated set of rules with thousands of definitions of every possible infraction - you just need to let event judges use their judgement and kick people out. If that works for events with serious money on the line like professional football, it'll work for some games of toy soldiers.
As for the original problem, reminds me of Ayrton Senna running Alain Prost off the track at turn 1 of the 1990 Japanese Grand Prix. It worked, but that's something that sticks; Senna's one of the best drivers in the world, but there's that one time ...
As for the original problem, reminds me of Ayrton Senna running Alain Prost off the track at turn 1 of the 1990 Japanese Grand Prix. It worked, but that's something that sticks; Senna's one of the best drivers in the world, but there's that one time ...
It's definitely not the same. For a fair comparison imagine a Champions league game between Real Madrid and Manchester City, last game of the group stage. Real Madrid is already qualified to next stage, Manchester City needs to win with 4-0 or a better result otherwise it's eliminated. At halftime City leads 3-0, two spanish players have been sent off with a red card in the first half, but then Real Madrid players say: "Ok, we quit and you won, we can't win the game at this point or even get a draw. We have another important game soon and we don't want to waste time and energy playing a game that is lost already". Final result is 3-0 for City which is eliminated, not being able to score the 4th goal.
As for the original problem, reminds me of Ayrton Senna running Alain Prost off the track at turn 1 of the 1990 Japanese Grand Prix. It worked, but that's something that sticks; Senna's one of the best drivers in the world, but there's that one time ...
It's definitely not the same. For a fair comparison imagine a Champions league game between Real Madrid and Manchester City, last game of the group stage. Real Madrid is already qualified to next stage, Manchester City needs to win with 4-0 or a better result otherwise it's eliminated. At halftime City leads 3-0, two spanish players have been sent off with a red card in the first half, but then Real Madrid players say: "Ok, we quit and you won, we can't win the game at this point or even get a draw. We have another important game soon and we don't want to waste time and energy playing a game that is lost already". Final result is 3-0 for City which is eliminated, not being able to score the 4th goal.
That's not what would happen in that scenario. The footballing authorities have wide-ranging powers to protect the integrity of their competition. That would almost certainly be deemed a match-fixing/manipulation offence which would likely get Real Madrid ejected from the competition for failing to respect the integrity of said competition.
For 40k, this comes back to what AndrewGPaul said. For concessions some sort of pre-planned resolution would be good as they're a common enough occurrence. For the vast majority of other attempts at manipulation, bending the rules, cheating etc not already covered you just need a wide-ranging clause that allows the TO to decide suitable punishments for things they deem to be against the spirit or intent of the competition. You don't need to codify every last possible scenario to empower TOs.
Karol wrote: Yep. Seen it done, often enough to consider it being a regular thing. It is like your trainer ask you to hurt a guy from another school, when they know you will not rank anyway. Some people don't like it, but playing the rules is as important as playing the game.
Its not playing the rules, its being a dick.
you gain nothing from preventing others from achieving better results.
Imagine thinking that voluntarily hurting someone should be normal, absolutely flying rodent gak insane opinion.
I think, the english language is full of terms of describing it. Take the knee, play the clock. For football fans there is the good old Italian cantenacio. It is a normal thing to do in sports, And you gain everything. First you make their chance to win lower. Second it maybe part of a bigger team tactic, if you came with other people from your area. It maybe part of trying to pre build opponent to specific people.
Ask someone playing american football or regular football, or basketball etc what a tactical foul is. And that is before any scholar ships, sponsorships etc get involved. If someone being out of the team means you get a good life as a professional and get scouted you definitly will think about it. And when the sport is big and involved milions, and on top of that betting, then sky is the limit to what people are willing to do.
If you think a gamey maneuver that wins the game by manipulating clock time is the moral equivalent of a gamey maneuver that injures an opposing sportsman potentially permanently destroying their ability to play, then I pity you and don't look forward to the consequences you'll face in life for being taught that.
No human pulls a punch less than one thrown in retribution.
Gert wrote: The most competitive thing I've done with 40k is local GW tournaments where people competed for a GW voucher. Top notch competitive lists like all tank Guard with a random Tyranid Prime. Legit the only people who tryharded were a rich kid who actively cheated and then lost anyway and a kid who tried to cheat, then lost all their games and chucked their dice at the wall. Cheaters never prosper kids.
I don't know, a couple of the names from a recent Goonhammer article have been caught cheating on camera before now, and yet seem to keep drifting back.
In response to the argument that 40k will never have E-sports levels of televised matches:
What is GW trying to do then with 40kTV? Or their 40k Brackets league? Or any of their investment in the world of competitive 40k? Because it's easy to shove chibi SM commercials at the crowds in this type of instance. GW wants into the competitive gaming scene.
If MTG tournaments draw 5k-10k viewers on twitch every time they run, do you really think GW is sitting back and saying, we don't want that money. We just want to sell comics and chibis?
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So I witnessed this happen twice last weekend, and was unsure about the legality or correct thing to do in this situation. Basically the first game was between DA and DE. The DE player did a REALLY great first turn, and basically won close to max points, the second player had a lot of his stuff in reserve, and dropped in in on his turn, mostly inceptors and Assault Marines. He did a lot of strong work, and got most of his points for that round, only losing points in objectives and killing the warlord. On the second turn, the DA player does the hand shake and says I quit, thus "ending the game". The DE player asks if they can keep playing it out because he needs the points for his standings. The DA player had already picked up some of his guys, and apologized, but said he didn't want to waste the time. This effectively killed the DE player's chances and cut him off at around 25% of his possible points.
The second game was Ad Mech vs Ultra Marines, and basically the same thing happened, except it was Admech instead of DE, and the Marines player cut him off at the knees on the 2nd turn.
Is this allowable? What is the recourse for a player who gets cut off before the end of the game, and is unable to score more points? Are they just screwed for the rest of the tournament? It feels like there has to be more of a fix out there for this, otherwise we'd see it a lot more in an attempt to fix the brackets.
Normally, a concession awards max points for the opponent, or permits the opponent to play out the remaining turns as if all enemy models had been destroyed.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: In response to the argument that 40k will never have E-sports levels of televised matches:
What is GW trying to do then with 40kTV? Or their 40k Brackets league? Or any of their investment in the world of competitive 40k? Because it's easy to shove chibi SM commercials at the crowds in this type of instance. GW wants into the competitive gaming scene.
If MTG tournaments draw 5k-10k viewers on twitch every time they run, do you really think GW is sitting back and saying, we don't want that money. We just want to sell comics and chibis?
They can try whatever they want but they're not likely to succeed. MTG is vastly more popular than 40k, which gives it a big leg up in the streaming and competition stakes. Even if that weren't the case MTG lends itself better to streaming. You can see how slick the streaming is for MTG with the card overlays and knowledgeable commentators, which make it easier to follow the game.
40k has some huge barriers to becoming a successful streaming event. The main problem is it takes far too long. You're talking 3-4 hours for a single game. And during that time it's really difficult to follow what's happening because you either have a whole-board view that is too zoomed-out to be of any use, or a close-up that gives no context. Things like LoS and range are really important factors in 40k and you don't get to see any of that on stream. 40k is massively unbalanced as well, which leads to less interest in the ling run. It has far too many dice rolls to follow, which robs it of any drama. In a game like X-Wing or MTG you can see a single high-impact dice roll or play have an immediate effect but 40k doesn't really have that. Even if you get lucky in with one particular unit's shooting the process is so drawn out you don't get the same impact from it.
As for the original problem, reminds me of Ayrton Senna running Alain Prost off the track at turn 1 of the 1990 Japanese Grand Prix. It worked, but that's something that sticks; Senna's one of the best drivers in the world, but there's that one time ...
It's definitely not the same. For a fair comparison imagine a Champions league game between Real Madrid and Manchester City, last game of the group stage. Real Madrid is already qualified to next stage, Manchester City needs to win with 4-0 or a better result otherwise it's eliminated. At halftime City leads 3-0, two spanish players have been sent off with a red card in the first half, but then Real Madrid players say: "Ok, we quit and you won, we can't win the game at this point or even get a draw. We have another important game soon and we don't want to waste time and energy playing a game that is lost already". Final result is 3-0 for City which is eliminated, not being able to score the 4th goal.
That's not what would happen in that scenario. The footballing authorities have wide-ranging powers to protect the integrity of their competition. That would almost certainly be deemed a match-fixing/manipulation offence which would likely get Real Madrid ejected from the competition for failing to respect the integrity of said competition.
For 40k, this comes back to what AndrewGPaul said. For concessions some sort of pre-planned resolution would be good as they're a common enough occurrence. For the vast majority of other attempts at manipulation, bending the rules, cheating etc not already covered you just need a wide-ranging clause that allows the TO to decide suitable punishments for things they deem to be against the spirit or intent of the competition. You don't need to codify every last possible scenario to empower TOs.
That's exactly what would happen IF UEFA didn't have the rules to prevent situations like this. In real life Real Madrid would be forced to play or gets disqualified from the competition, possibly from the next one as well and/or forced to pay a fine. Situations like the one described by the OP happen because the TOs haven't figured that scenario out and there is no rule that describes how to proceed if that happens.
Put a penalty on those who quit, even a monetary fine if necessary, and it won't happen. And if it does happen anyway, the other player would be refunded somehow. Monetary fine is actually quite easy as a solution: increase entering fees to partecipate the competition and give the players back the additional amount of money they paid at the end of the competition, like some sort of deposit. Unless situations like this one happens, in that case nothing is returned to that player.
If the player quits the game then the TO should consider the same player to have quit the event.
I know that when I go to an event I expect to play X amount of complete games. The only way I'm leaving a game early is if I have to leave the event. I expect the same from my opponents.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: If the player quits the game then the TO should consider the same player to have quit the event.
I know that when I go to an event I expect to play X amount of complete games. The only way I'm leaving a game early is if I have to leave the event. I expect the same from my opponents.
I like this answer. Simple and probably effective, without damaging the TO's bottom line. Bravo.
As others have said, the GT21 rules spell out what to do. You play out your turns counting the opponent as destroyed. So your points total should be intact if your opponent throws in the towel on Turn 2. No need for drama. There might be some Secondaries where something has to killed by something specific, but these will be edge cases.
I've had games where my opponent or I have called it on Turn 4 - its a mutual agreement as per the rulebook. Let's say it is clear that one of you is going to tabled on the next turn. You honestly work out the points as if the turn played out, elbow bump and get an early lunch or just shoot the breeze and preserve brain cells. You need to be careful that the points are being done correctly to avoid disadvantaging other players in the standings, but that is true anyway. I recall a tourney in 8th edition where my Ork opponent on his Turn 1 mobbed up something like 25 Lootas and wiped out my Ravenwing Black Knights and Hellblasters, while a Da Jumped mob of 30 boyz crashed into my screen. My opponent mercifully suggested that we call it a day, I chuckled and agreed that perhaps we would get an early lunch. He got full points, and I got whatever the minimum was for that mission (they were custom missions by the TO).
I have found that tourneys are fun. They are also not for everyone! Additionally, sometimes people get cranky or have a bad moment. We all have bad days. There should be forgiveness for temporary losses of manners or mistakes. With the magic of the Internet, people who do not attend tournies get to read about or see a clip of something and get all outraged about something they really have no stake in.
This seems reasonable, to play out and score as if opponent were destroyed.
Perhaps additionally the player who walks should go no further in the tourney.
That said, my last GT was in 1995. My last indy tourney, I took best painted. I might consider another big event if sportsmanship is a deciding factor.
At most tournaments i have been to, the rule is that if your opponent concedes, you score max points on primary and on secondaries you can actually score (i.e. if you only have 2 units left you cannot score engage on all fronts).
At this point I'm sure most tournaments have rules in place, and players that abuse this sort of thing are likely encouraged to not return to that tournament.
There are also leagues, cliques, and groups at tournament scenes that try to game the game, including gimping potential tough opponents by playing in such a way not to maximize their own points, but simply to deny their opponent points so that other players within their group can get further in the standings.
A simple solution to all of these issues is to simply not play in tournaments! If you're not having fun in a hobby that you're spending thousands of dollars to participate in, you might be doing it wrong!
As others have mentioned, the GT pack has rules that cover this. This sounds like ignorance of the DE player. Plus it sounds like they didn't bother asking the TO. There's not much you can do about structuring rules to help someone who is ignorant and doesn't ask.
The bigger issue is when TOs use Battle Points as being the primary tiebreaker. An event that I'm looking at going to (lockdowns permitting) is using pure Battle Points to determine victor - so you could conceivably lose all of your games, and come first over all if you score well enough on BP. Ultimately, whatever you are looking at using for a tie breaker is a poor substitute for the tied players actually playing. But with time constraints, etc, this is often not feasible.
Racerguy180 wrote: As long as there is dice involved, it can never be an actual sport. The entire game is built around randomness.
Karol is the polish equivalent of Tonya Harding and feel bad for anyone that has the unfortunate luck to face them.
Good luck with that attitude in the real world......
Maybe I can sense the cultural values of removing elements in a sport to dumb it down to the maximum level, kind of like NASCAR where having zomg, like two directions to turn is just too much mental load
Yeah, well, you know that’s just like, uh, your opinion, man..
Racerguy180 wrote: As long as there is dice involved, it can never be an actual sport. The entire game is built around randomness.
Karol is the polish equivalent of Tonya Harding and feel bad for anyone that has the unfortunate luck to face them.
Good luck with that attitude in the real world......
Maybe I can sense the cultural values of removing elements in a sport to dumb it down to the maximum level, kind of like NASCAR where having zomg, like two directions to turn is just too much mental load
Yeah, well, you know that’s just like, uh, your opinion, man..
.
Yeah, I'm glad that games with large random components like Poker don't have competitive environments built around them. Oh wait...
You play out your turns counting the opponent as destroyed. So your points total should be intact if your opponent throws in the towel on Turn 2. No need for drama. There might be some Secondaries where something has to killed by something specific, but these will be edge cases.
I think the problem is what we call the small points. If there are two people who went 4:1, then to check who is higher you check the quality of the opponents they beat. If one person won vs 4 people who later on won 3-4 games, they will have more small points, then a person who has one or two people who droped out after round 2-3, and only had 2-3 games played in the event. So it is not just trying to get an easier opponent while still maximazing number of big points earned.
Racerguy180 wrote: As long as there is dice involved, it can never be an actual sport. The entire game is built around randomness.
Karol is the polish equivalent of Tonya Harding and feel bad for anyone that has the unfortunate luck to face them.
Good luck with that attitude in the real world......
Maybe I can sense the cultural values of removing elements in a sport to dumb it down to the maximum level, kind of like NASCAR where having zomg, like two directions to turn is just too much mental load
Yeah, well, you know that’s just like, uh, your opinion, man..
.
Yeah, I'm glad that games with large random components like Poker don't have competitive environments built around them. Oh wait...
The randomness in poker is spread around more than 2 players, is and always has been gambling with money to lose.
Maybe tournaments should require a buy in & started making you put your army in the pot. You win, keep your army, lose and bye bye minis. You might see a change in how people play it huh????. Then you could make a poker comparison.
I'm only used to the competitive scene in Ireland, which is so small that if you got a name for doing stuff like that then no one would ever buy you a pint again, and that's a fate worse than death.
I still don't get if OP was a t a tourney or if this was a random game at a store..
If i wasnt having fun and there was no way for me to win, id happily concede after T2.
I'dd just talk it out with my opponent to calculate points and award them max points for stuff that would depend on rolls.
Recenlty played a game against and was happy to call it a day after T2 because It was clear to me I had zero chance. My oponent insisted we played it out "because you might still pull out a win".
I obliged but there was absolutely no point in continuing (one of those situations where literally every single dice would have to be a 6 for at least two turns).
I don't understand the attitude of forcing people to play if its an absolute annihilation.. If I thrash someone where its virtually impossible for them to win in like T2, I'm not going to make them play on so i can feel good about killing their models while they just sat around bored removing units with no chance to win.
Racerguy180 wrote: As long as there is dice involved, it can never be an actual sport. The entire game is built around randomness.
Karol is the polish equivalent of Tonya Harding and feel bad for anyone that has the unfortunate luck to face them.
Good luck with that attitude in the real world......
Maybe I can sense the cultural values of removing elements in a sport to dumb it down to the maximum level, kind of like NASCAR where having zomg, like two directions to turn is just too much mental load
Yeah, well, you know that’s just like, uh, your opinion, man..
.
Yeah, I'm glad that games with large random components like Poker don't have competitive environments built around them. Oh wait...
The randomness in poker is spread around more than 2 players, is and always has been gambling with money to lose.
Maybe tournaments should require a buy in & started making you put your army in the pot. You win, keep your army, lose and bye bye minis. You might see a change in how people play it huh????. Then you could make a poker comparison.
Yes and no. You often see poker players going head to head with each other after everyone else has run out of chips. It's about how the more skilled players deal with the randomness to come out victorious. Same about 40k, randomness isn't a barrier to it becoming a "sport" (as far as one could consider Poker a sport that is). With that said, 40k has problems in being entertaining for the masses spectating. Poker is relatively easy for someone to pick up on the action, where as 40k is not.
You quit? You concede. Doesn’t matter if you were ahead on points when you walked - you walked. Full points to your opponent in an organised event.
Great! Now you've made it possible for a handful of guys 'just visiting from out of town' (but actually colluding), if they get matched up, to concede to bolster the better player's scores. They can also act as spoilers against likely leaders.
I've actually seen a variation of this done at a Grand Tournament back in the 90s. Groups show up, and several players with armies built to play for solely draws (mostly Wood elves at the time, thanks to the ways the could force terrain and just run away from engaging, while easily killing small units/artillery/etc). This tanks other players points totals, and if they happen to get pair with their partners, suddenly they can lose to bolster scores for their 'real players.'
Having internal points from individual games contribute to standings creates a lot of problems that can be exploited. Full marks to opponents is easily manipulated, regardless of why you're doing it.
Even without collusion, its a crappy way to deal with situation. Bob suddenly gets 100/100 and downtime because his opponent bailed while everyone else has to fight for every inch? You've just irrevocably skewed the tournament results for every other person who weren't involved and a potential front runner that didn't even vaguely earn their standing.
You quit? You concede. Doesn’t matter if you were ahead on points when you walked - you walked. Full points to your opponent in an organised event.
Great! Now you've made it possible for a handful of guys 'just visiting from out of town' (but actually colluding), if they get matched up, to concede to bolster the better player's scores. They can also act as spoilers against likely leaders.
I've actually seen a variation of this done at a Grand Tournament back in the 90s. Groups show up, and several players with armies built to play for solely draws (mostly Wood elves at the time, thanks to the ways the could force terrain and just run away from engaging, while easily killing small units/artillery/etc). This tanks other players points totals, and if they happen to get pair with their partners, suddenly they can lose to bolster scores for their 'real players.'
Having internal points from individual games contribute to standings creates a lot of problems that can be exploited. Full marks to opponents is easily manipulated, regardless of why you're doing it.
Even without collusion, its a crappy way to deal with situation. Bob suddenly gets 100/100 and downtime because his opponent bailed while everyone else has to fight for every inch? You've just irrevocably skewed the tournament results for every other person who weren't involved and a potential front runner that didn't even vaguely earn their standing.
All allowing concensions does is make that take less time. Because you get the same result without it:
- Bob and five friends show up at a tournament.
- If Bob and one of the five play, then the friend plays deliberately weak so that Bob walk all over them (forgetting to run away, "misjudging" distances, etc.)
- As a result, Bob walks away with max points.
Your point about the issue being internal points being carried across still stands, but the ability to concede games doesn't.
Again, there's a better system that addresses most of these concerns, while also promoting ongoing positive interactions instead of seal clubbing, and it's a system most other competitive games use, because it is so clearly better that once a game moves to using it almost nobody wants to go back to the old system.
It won't solve someone deliberately throwing a game to help a friend, because nothing can solve that short of banning the colluding players. But it solves seal clubbing, it solves submarining, it solves players being overly generous talking through games because it's in both their interests to give each other points, it solves concessions, and while doing all that, it encourages more experienced players to teach less experienced ones instead of take maximum advantage of them. It's simply a better system, and it's way past time 40k got with the times. We don't need to continue to try to improve the hexagonal wheel, when the rest of the competitive world is already using round ones.
JohnnyHell wrote: Any event worth its salt has a “set score/max points awarded for a forfeit” rule. I don’t just mean in Warhammer, any tournament.
Which has it's own problems with "'i'll lose so i forfeit to give max points to my buddies"
Game continuing and enemy units counting as dead gives bit closer appropriation of "real" scores. Still not same result as playing out but closer so you don't score points you literally couldn't had game continued(you don't score units surviving to the end if you already lost it, no scoring table quarters if you have just 2 units or can't reach etc)
The_Real_Chris wrote: Don't they normally have rules giving bonuses to people whose opponents drop out?
In my local tournaments, if someone surrenders, the other player gets to speedrun their turns to see how many points they can get. (Of course its not optimal but its better than getting gimped of pts)
The_Real_Chris wrote: Don't they normally have rules giving bonuses to people whose opponents drop out?
In my local tournaments, if someone surrenders, the other player gets to speedrun their turns to see how many points they can get. (Of course its not optimal but its better than getting gimped of pts)
That is a really bad way to handle that.
So what's better way to get as close to what player would have scored? Hopefully you won't say max scores as that's very bad way. Not often player scores max naturally.
I'm not sure the best way to handle it, but from reading the above replies it seems that the biggest issue is how (if at all) the Victory points in a battle or the margin of the win interacts with the ranking system.
Not being super familiar with how these sort of things are calculated, would it be unreasonable to treat game where one player concedes early the same as for a forfeited game due to a no-show or a bye for a round? ( I assume there is such a thing for odd numbers of players or if a player has to pull out of a competition for some reason?)
Aash wrote: I'm not sure the best way to handle it, but from reading the above replies it seems that the biggest issue is how (if at all) the Victory points in a battle or the margin of the win interacts with the ranking system.
Not being super familiar with how these sort of things are calculated, would it be unreasonable to treat game where one player concedes early the same as for a forfeited game due to a no-show or a bye for a round? ( I assume there is such a thing for odd numbers of players or if a player has to pull out of a competition for some reason?)
As yukishiro1 explained, essentially any system where players can influence their or their opponent's tiebreaker are open for manipulation and reward toxic behavior. If concessions reward full points, you can concede to help a friend or you have people trying to make their opponents concede to get a better shot at winning the event.
On the other hand, if you do not reward full points for concessions, a player can hurt their opponent by conceding.
So the best course of action is to not allow players to directly influence their or other's tiebreaker score. The system yukishiro explained was known to me as "opponent score" when I was still playing MtG competitively. Essentially, the person winning against the strongest opponents was the best, which kind of makes sense, right? The better your opponents did during event, the higher your chances for prices were.
Especially during events with many inexperienced players like releases or pre-releases it was a regular way of improving your chances of winning by helping your opponent improve their deck, sideboard better or just play a few more games with them to get them used to the new cards.
IanMalcolmAbs wrote: LOL this is a simple fix - you call the TO - he will award you 100 point
I'm not saying you are wrong, but it strikes me you are making an argument with zero effort to read the ones before it. Literally 5 people have pointed out how that is a good solution for the person who wins, and a terrible solution for the tournament. Because then you have a group of people who can catapault each other into the finals based off points alone. Also, it seriously breaks the weighted value system currently in place for bracketing winners by points.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So now that I know there is an actual RULE in the BRB to avoid this, how do you actually score points for "slay the warlord" or what ever, if the other player has taken their minis off the table. Nothing in a book is going to keep minis on a table if the player learns their partner is in the ER and needs to leave ASAP. Or, as a worse situation, if the other player is a dick, and just removes the models from the board and says F off.
That rule doesn't give any sort of bonus or actual help to the player who just got screwed over.
Models not on the table after turn 3 count as destroyed, don't they?
This seems reasonable, to play out and score as if opponent were destroyed.
Perhaps additionally the player who walks should go no further in the tourney.
That said, my last GT was in 1995. My last indy tourney, I took best painted. I might consider another big event if sportsmanship is a deciding factor.
Most of the time sportsmanship scores are even easier to exploit to screw people over than battlepoints.
Racerguy180 wrote: As long as there is dice involved, it can never be an actual sport. The entire game is built around randomness.
Karol is the polish equivalent of Tonya Harding and feel bad for anyone that has the unfortunate luck to face them.
Good luck with that attitude in the real world......
Maybe I can sense the cultural values of removing elements in a sport to dumb it down to the maximum level, kind of like NASCAR where having zomg, like two directions to turn is just too much mental load
Yeah, well, you know that’s just like, uh, your opinion, man..
.
It's one of the single dumbest sentiments I've ever seen, and it's Racerguy so there's a MASSIVE list of dumb things to beat already.
What do you mean 'games revolving around randomness can never be sports (paraphrased)?' Sports in the real world are inherently based on randomness simply because they exist in reality rather than in an abstracted play space. The RULES of sports don't have random elements because existing in liminal space provides randomness aplenty.
That's actually WHY games like 40k and guild ball and etc have random elements in the rules. So that they can more accurately reflect just how chaotic and nonsensical doing anything, anywhere in real life actually is.
One way to prevent dodgy matchups affecting scores would be to only score the middle scores for tie breaks (so in a 5 round tournament you wouldn't count the lowest and highest of the player's scores).
ERJAK 800448 11204583 wrote:What do you mean 'games revolving around randomness can never be sports (paraphrased)?' Sports in the real world are inherently based on randomness simply because they exist in reality rather than in an abstracted play space. The RULES of sports don't have random elements because existing in liminal space provides randomness aplenty.
.
Picking buckets for football is half random, half made in a such a way to not create too many death groups. Penality shots after over time is more or less a roulett, on who ever wins or doesn't.
IanMalcolmAbs wrote: LOL this is a simple fix - you call the TO - he will award you 100 point
I'm not saying you are wrong, but it strikes me you are making an argument with zero effort to read the ones before it. Literally 5 people have pointed out how that is a good solution for the person who wins, and a terrible solution for the tournament. Because then you have a group of people who can catapault each other into the finals based off points alone. Also, it seriously breaks the weighted value system currently in place for bracketing winners by points.
Can we agree on "If not specified in the tournament pack, call a judge (or the TO, depending on size of event) over if this occurs so they can confirm for you how to resolve the situation." ?
Whatever their approach is, you implicitly agree with it when you agreed to play in the event. It might not be the "best" solution, but it's the solution for that day/weekend.
The_Real_Chris wrote: Don't they normally have rules giving bonuses to people whose opponents drop out?
In my local tournaments, if someone surrenders, the other player gets to speedrun their turns to see how many points they can get. (Of course its not optimal but its better than getting gimped of pts)
That is a really bad way to handle that.
Unless I am misunderstanding what speed-run means, it is actually in line with the Grand Tournament 2021 Mission Pack: "If only one player wants to end the battle early then that player must concede and remove all their models from the battlefield. A player who concedes scores 0 victory points and their opponent is automatically the the victor (even if they scored 0 victory points during the battle). The other player can continue to play out their turns until the battle ends if they wish, perhaps to accrue a few more victory points, or they can choose to end the battle now."
IanMalcolmAbs wrote: LOL this is a simple fix - you call the TO - he will award you 100 point
I'm not saying you are wrong, but it strikes me you are making an argument with zero effort to read the ones before it. Literally 5 people have pointed out how that is a good solution for the person who wins, and a terrible solution for the tournament. Because then you have a group of people who can catapault each other into the finals based off points alone. Also, it seriously breaks the weighted value system currently in place for bracketing winners by points.
Can we agree on "If not specified in the tournament pack, call a judge (or the TO, depending on size of event) over if this occurs so they can confirm for you how to resolve the situation." ?
Whatever their approach is, you implicitly agree with it when you agreed to play in the event. It might not be the "best" solution, but it's the solution for that day/weekend.
I disagree with the outcome, but I think leaving it up to the TO is the best and most honest thing to do. Unless the TO is personal friends with one party, aka how Reece owns FLG and runs a GT that he still plays in?
Karol wrote: Yep. Seen it done, often enough to consider it being a regular thing. It is like your trainer ask you to hurt a guy from another school, when they know you will not rank anyway. Some people don't like it, but playing the rules is as important as playing the game.
Its not playing the rules, its being a dick.
you gain nothing from preventing others from achieving better results.
Imagine thinking that voluntarily hurting someone should be normal, absolutely flying rodent gak insane opinion.
I will agree that this is a dick move, but this happens on more than a few occasion in organized sports. I would hope that as a Canadian, you know what an enforcer does on a hockey team. Likewise you may have seen baseball players get hit at the plate in the MLB. No pitcher stays that long at that level by throwing wild pitches and hitting players by accident. Add injuries in Football from things like late hits, and violations of fair catches, etc. and I can see plenty of times where players and athletes would eliminate the competition. Of course how could anyone miss this:
Are these all dick moves? Totally. Do they happen in real life? You bet. Illegal moves and plays? It really depends on the rules. Do people care some times? Sometimes they don't. Are they practicing good sportsmanship? Not likely, but in situations where it comes up, I always ask for more context.
IanMalcolmAbs wrote: LOL this is a simple fix - you call the TO - he will award you 100 point
I'm not saying you are wrong, but it strikes me you are making an argument with zero effort to read the ones before it. Literally 5 people have pointed out how that is a good solution for the person who wins, and a terrible solution for the tournament. Because then you have a group of people who can catapault each other into the finals based off points alone. Also, it seriously breaks the weighted value system currently in place for bracketing winners by points.
No - it is the only solution that works. Is there any way you can say that the player who was getting cheated - wouldn't have been able to acquire 100 points if not for the other players quitting? No - you can't say that because the game has random variables. You punish the leaver - not the person playing by the rules.
Sure I could see this has potential for abuse if players try to help their team mates get 100 points for quitting but a team mate could easily throw a game without quitting to. What you do in this case is you give TO leeway to issue penalties for questionable "team" behavior.
The rules should be simple - play to the best of your ability or receive 0 points. Repeated offenders are banned for increasing amounts of time for repeat offenses.
Obviously a rule like this is quite subjective this whole game is subjective and requires a social contract to play by the rules.
IanMalcolmAbs wrote: LOL this is a simple fix - you call the TO - he will award you 100 point
I'm not saying you are wrong, but it strikes me you are making an argument with zero effort to read the ones before it. Literally 5 people have pointed out how that is a good solution for the person who wins, and a terrible solution for the tournament. Because then you have a group of people who can catapault each other into the finals based off points alone. Also, it seriously breaks the weighted value system currently in place for bracketing winners by points.
No - it is the only solution that works. Is there any way you can say that the player who was getting cheated - wouldn't have been able to acquire 100 points if not for the other players quitting? No - you can't say that because the game has random variables. You punish the leaver - not the person playing by the rules.
Sure I could see this has potential for abuse if players try to help their team mates get 100 points for quitting but a team mate could easily throw a game without quitting to. What you do in this case is you give TO leeway to issue penalties for questionable "team" behavior.
The rules should be simple - play to the best of your ability or receive 0 points. Repeated offenders are banned for increasing amounts of time for repeat offenses.
Obviously a rule like this is quite subjective this whole game is subjective and requires a social contract to play by the rules.
But that is exactly NOT what is happening. If player one never had the slightest possible chance of winning 100 points, why should they be gifted 100 points simply because the other player didn't want to enact the labor of finishing the game? If player 1 only scored 10 out of 20 points in the first turn, you are retroactively giving them 10 points they didn't earn.
The best possible scenario is that we make an enforceable rule against rage quitting. If you quit 1 game, you essentially quit all games. Target the offense, don't reward the offended. You RQ a game, you are out of the tournament, end of story. Your team is docked all the points you may have amassed, and you are issued a tournament warning. 3 warnings in a year and you are banned from competitive play for a period of time to be decided.
As some others have pointed out, what to do when someone concedes is defined in the GT pack, which almost all tournaments use, so a player "torpedoing" anothers score in spite is just bad TO'ing. The player still at the table plays out the rest of their turns and scores what's possible to score. The immediate max score is a terrible idea in systems that use points for pairings
Gores wrote: As some others have pointed out, what to do when someone concedes is defined in the GT pack, which almost all tournaments use, so a player "torpedoing" anothers score in spite is just bad TO'ing. The player still at the table plays out the rest of their turns and scores what's possible to score. The immediate max score is a terrible idea in systems that use points for pairings
Some objectives require enemy units - are you saying they should count every kill objective as max possible points? but for example a kill the warlord objective on turn 1 is 13 points - so that should not be counted as 15? Sure. I agree with that but....When I said 100 points I meant "max possible points".
You also bring another point to mind. Every objective that does not yield a max of 15 points possible should be immediately redesigned to allow a max 15 point score - indeed it is another issue but I believe it is at the core of your objection here. Not all objectives can score max points - there is 0 reason for this other than the (un)intended consequence of making it easier to game the system with a list that is "hard to score against"...I can assure you - this is not something the game designers had in mind at all when they made this setup. Though I believe it likely is something that "game testers" / "pro players" want - because it makes easier for them to stroke Epeen by making it easier for them to consistently win.
No - it is the only solution that works. Is there any way you can say that the player who was getting cheated - wouldn't have been able to acquire 100 points if not for the other players quitting? No - you can't say that because the game has random variables. You punish the leaver - not the person playing by the rules.
You don't have fully painted army, 10 points you can't score.
You took deploy scramblers, that's max 12 pts you score.
Keep 3 most expensive units alive 5vp each and already lost 1? 5 vp can't score.
Have engage on all fronts and only got to 3 quarters first 3 turns, 3 vp you can't score.
Lots of ways you end up quaranteed les than 100 vp. Several secondaries already locks you away. So you are warping tournament by giving them vp's they never were able to score no matter how dice rolls up
Your idea proven faulty in practice in real life tournaments for years
Just ask the TO what his/her rule is concerning concessions. If you don't like it then don't enter the event. Otherwise, just live with it as they call it.
The most logical way is to just not stop the game. The conceding player removes their models from the board (counting as destroyed) and the remaining player plays out the remainder of their turns until the game ends.
I don't see why it should be any different to simply tabling the opponent
kirotheavenger wrote: The most logical way is to just not stop the game. The conceding player removes their models from the board (counting as destroyed) and the remaining player plays out the remainder of their turns until the game ends.
I don't see why it should be any different to simply tabling the opponent
This I think is the best way, most games I have play has treat concession as a respectful thing to not waste time and drag it out.
If you punish a player to the point that continuing playing at all, it can muck up entire tournaments as well if players are needed to play multiple games.
Same with rewarding a player for winining so much the opponent is left having to suffer more so to not muck up your tournament or leave.
kirotheavenger wrote: The most logical way is to just not stop the game. The conceding player removes their models from the board (counting as destroyed) and the remaining player plays out the remainder of their turns until the game ends.
I don't see why it should be any different to simply tabling the opponent
This I think is the best way, most games I have play has treat concession as a respectful thing to not waste time and drag it out.
If you punish a player to the point that continuing playing at all, it can muck up entire tournaments as well if players are needed to play multiple games.
Same with rewarding a player for winining so much the opponent is left having to suffer more so to not muck up your tournament or leave.
This topic is about people conceding to try and game the system. No one here is talking about someone conceding when the writing is on the wall and the game is already effectively over and decided.
Ordana wrote: This topic is about people conceding to try and game the system. No one here is talking about someone conceding when the writing is on the wall and the game is already effectively over and decided.
This is something that needs to be addressed though. I remember reading a discussion where one player was intentionally trash talking, being toxic and the like to increase the chances of his opponent not wanting to finish the game, as a conceding opponent was better four your tournament results than one who fought till the end.
As long as a concessions can affect the tie breaker of a tournament in any way, it can be gamed and will cause problems.
I agree there will always be some problems. Even if you continue the game without your opponent you'll score more points in those turns than if they were resisting.
Although that applies even if you force people to keep playing without conceding; if they don't want to keep playing they're unlikely to be trying their hardest.
The only solution to this problem would be changing the system such that it only matters who wins, the amount by which they win being irrelevant.
However, that plays into the wider problem of judging 40k tournaments, in which you need to declare the "best" player based on just a handful of games, often only 3-6.
Video game tournaments will often use that amount of games for the grand finale between the top two, let alone the entire tournament.
kirotheavenger wrote: The most logical way is to just not stop the game. The conceding player removes their models from the board (counting as destroyed) and the remaining player plays out the remainder of their turns until the game ends.
I don't see why it should be any different to simply tabling the opponent
This is what the GT 2021 Mission Packs offers on page 6.
kirotheavenger wrote: The only solution to this problem would be changing the system such that it only matters who wins, the amount by which they win being irrelevant.
However, that plays into the wider problem of judging 40k tournaments, in which you need to declare the "best" player based on just a handful of games, often only 3-6.
Video game tournaments will often use that amount of games for the grand finale between the top two, let alone the entire tournament.
There are solutions to that though, MtG events also tend to run for just a few rounds and you can usually quickly find a winner.
An example that was given is opponent score.
For example if us two entered a tournament and both won 5 games and lost 0, the tie breaker would who had the better opponents.
Our five opponents play a total of 25 games in the meantime, and all of mine combined win 7, because I managed to hit some weaker players and hard countered a skew list. My opponent score is 28%.
Your opponents include the current champion and some ITC pro who you just barely managed to beat, as well as some other decent players so your opponents won a total of 18 games. Your opponent score is 72%.
Usually you support this system by swiss pairing variant to reduce the chances of having ties by matching people having the same opponent score.
Also, Fezzik, you still haven't said whether the game in question was a tournament game, a league game, a pick-up game or completely hypothetical. The short answer to your original question depends on that. The longer answer is probably worth discussing further but it's not exactly a subject that TOs haven't given quite a lot of thought to already.
Slipspace wrote: Also, Fezzik, you still haven't said whether the game in question was a tournament game, a league game, a pick-up game or completely hypothetical. The short answer to your original question depends on that. The longer answer is probably worth discussing further but it's not exactly a subject that TOs haven't given quite a lot of thought to already.
Well this was based on real game as per 1st post so not hypothetical. Not random pick up either as standings was involved. So either tournament or league.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Again, if one model pulls their warlord an all their Characters off the table, how does one score for killing characters or the warlord?
The rules definitely state any model not on the board at the end of the game counts as destroyed. So all those models are destroyed.
Under the GT2020 rules, you would have a question as what turn the Warlord as destroyed. That is irrelevant in the GT2021 rules.
The biggest issue then is a matter is when destroying a unit in a certain way or at a certain time is important to scoring the secondary. That's something to discuss with the TO.
alextroy wrote: The biggest issue then is a matter is when destroying a unit in a certain way or at a certain time is important to scoring the secondary. That's something to discuss with the TO.
I don't have any of my books to hand, but which ones have "a certain way" as part of the criteria?
alextroy wrote: The biggest issue then is a matter is when destroying a unit in a certain way or at a certain time is important to scoring the secondary. That's something to discuss with the TO.
I don't have any of my books to hand, but which ones have "a certain way" as part of the criteria?
Oath of Moment, for example, has VPs for destroying a Character or Monster each round.
Death on the Wind requires units to be destroyed by melee or by a unit that has moved more than 12".
Edge cases, and I am fairly sure that a TO could work out a reasonable solution.
alextroy wrote: The biggest issue then is a matter is when destroying a unit in a certain way or at a certain time is important to scoring the secondary. That's something to discuss with the TO.
I don't have any of my books to hand, but which ones have "a certain way" as part of the criteria?
Oath of Moment, for example, has VPs for destroying a Character or Monster each round.
Death on the Wind requires units to be destroyed by melee or by a unit that has moved more than 12".
Edge cases, and I am fairly sure that a TO could work out a reasonable solution.
I think it goes way beyond edge cases. Many faction specific secondaries require special timing and/or circumstances to be scored.
2 of the 4 Adepta Sorortitas secondaries require enemy interaction and timing:
A Leap of Faith: Use Acts of Faith during both your and your opponent's turn, which is hard to do with no targets or units to kill each turn
Slay the Heretic: Destory enemy units during your shooting phase with specific weapons, again hard to do with no targets
If play forfeits their match then, all units are counted as destroyed? When can the player that forfeited pick up their models without auto-awarding their opponent 100 points?
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: If play forfeits their match then, all units are counted as destroyed? When can the player that forfeited pick up their models without auto-awarding their opponent 100 points?
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: If play forfeits their match then, all units are counted as destroyed? When can the player that forfeited pick up their models without auto-awarding their opponent 100 points?
You don’t get 100 VPs for tabling your opponent. If your opponent wants to end the game early but you want to keep playing then he removes his army and you can then play out your remaining turns (GT2021 Mission Pack). You could get more Primary VPs, but it might not be the 45 point maximum. You would get Secondary VPs related to destroying enemy units as appropriate.
If you took Assassinate but your opponent only had 3 characters to begin with you would score the points for those 3 characters if he ends the game and you wanted to keep going - this would be less than the 15 point maximum.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: If play forfeits their match then, all units are counted as destroyed? When can the player that forfeited pick up their models without auto-awarding their opponent 100 points?
Once turn 5 has ended.
If you don't want to give your opponent the max VP they could score - which, allowing for secondaries and the tertiary, may not be 100 - play the damn game, in other words.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: If play forfeits their match then, all units are counted as destroyed? When can the player that forfeited pick up their models without auto-awarding their opponent 100 points?
Once turn 5 has ended.
If you don't want to give your opponent the max VP they could score - which, allowing for secondaries and the tertiary, may not be 100 - play the damn game, in other words.
At least then they have to earn the VPs.
Yeah, my last game my opponent conceded during the 3rd round after I'd virtually tabled him (he had 4 TS marines left total - stuck in combat with my Skorpehk Lord).
Two objectives were not yet under my control.
We know how fast + advance roll my units can move. 30 seconds or so to measure distances & determined that Unit A had to roll a 5+ on it's advance to score me one of them on turn 5. The other was simply out of range.
I rolled a 6.
Not that the score mattered at all at that point....
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: If play forfeits their match then, all units are counted as destroyed? When can the player that forfeited pick up their models without auto-awarding their opponent 100 points?
Once turn 5 has ended.
If you don't want to give your opponent the max VP they could score - which, allowing for secondaries and the tertiary, may not be 100 - play the damn game, in other words.
At least then they have to earn the VPs.
If your game requires the other player to be there after they have lost, then your game has failed. Players so disrespectful at this, concession is respectful of the game and the victor.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: If play forfeits their match then, all units are counted as destroyed? When can the player that forfeited pick up their models without auto-awarding their opponent 100 points?
Once turn 5 has ended.
If you don't want to give your opponent the max VP they could score - which, allowing for secondaries and the tertiary, may not be 100 - play the damn game, in other words.
At least then they have to earn the VPs.
If your game requires the other player to be there after they have lost, then your game has failed. Players so disrespectful at this, concession is respectful of the game and the victor.
again, this topic is not about conceding after a game has been lost. No one has a problem with their opponent conceding when the game is obviously over.
This was about an opponent conceding when ahead to prevent his opponent from coming back and entirely stems from the player and/or tournament failing to properly apply the rules as presented in both GW's own tournament rules and what tournaments all over the world have been doing since basically forever.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: If play forfeits their match then, all units are counted as destroyed? When can the player that forfeited pick up their models without auto-awarding their opponent 100 points?
Once turn 5 has ended.
If you don't want to give your opponent the max VP they could score - which, allowing for secondaries and the tertiary, may not be 100 - play the damn game, in other words.
At least then they have to earn the VPs.
If your game requires the other player to be there after they have lost, then your game has failed. Players so disrespectful at this, concession is respectful of the game and the victor.
again, this topic is not about conceding after a game has been lost. No one has a problem with their opponent conceding when the game is obviously over.
This was about an opponent conceding when ahead to prevent his opponent from coming back and entirely stems from the player and/or tournament failing to properly apply the rules as presented in both GW's own tournament rules and what tournaments all over the world have been doing since basically forever.
And you need to address both. I responded to a specific post both times. Again. If tournaments themselves are not using GW specific rules, then they need to address both issues that are presented.
I don't think the issue is conceding whilst you're ahead to technically win (otherwise everyone would be conceding after player turn 1).
The problem is conceding early to give a middle finger to your opponent by denying them victory points (victory points which are important to winning the overall tournament in some way).
Reading over the responses I think it's fair to say this problem only exists because events decide to use victory points as a meaningful metric outside of an individual game.
It seems that for most tie-breakers random chance is the greatest factor (for example: did you get strong opponents early on to get a good strength of schedule score?) Outside of a full swiss-pairing, we should do away with the pretense of being able to rank players fairly.
If you have an event where you can't determine the "best" player, then you should instead consider having a top tier of players, and providing prize support to the tier, rather than arbitrarily determining #1, #2, etc.
tneva82 wrote: Well conceding when ahead is really dump as as per rules you conceed, you lose.so game would be marked as loss for the "winner"
yes, but with minimal, if any points won. this way you can manipulate who gets in to top 8 and who gets, which opponent. This way you can removed a bad match up for one of your friends. This is crucial specially in rounds 2-3, when you know you are not going to make it to top 8 yourself. Or top 16 if the event is big.
If you have an event where you can't determine the "best" player, then you should instead consider having a top tier of players, and providing prize support to the tier, rather than arbitrarily determining #1, #2, etc.
Maybe having prize support for faction best could entice some people to play more then just the best meta armies. Getting the top 8 prizes is not easy, specially if there is a lot of good players in the area, but someone could decide that they want to be the best IG or best Knight player.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: If play forfeits their match then, all units are counted as destroyed? When can the player that forfeited pick up their models without auto-awarding their opponent 100 points?
Once turn 5 has ended.
If you don't want to give your opponent the max VP they could score - which, allowing for secondaries and the tertiary, may not be 100 - play the damn game, in other words.
At least then they have to earn the VPs.
If your game requires the other player to be there after they have lost, then your game has failed. Players so disrespectful at this, concession is respectful of the game and the victor.
I didn't say anything about being there after they'd lost, merely that walking away before the end of the game means that the opponent may end up scoring VPs that they might not have done had the game continued. Possibly not the full 100VP, depending on what was picked at the start of the game, though.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: If play forfeits their match then, all units are counted as destroyed? When can the player that forfeited pick up their models without auto-awarding their opponent 100 points?
Once turn 5 has ended.
If you don't want to give your opponent the max VP they could score - which, allowing for secondaries and the tertiary, may not be 100 - play the damn game, in other words.
At least then they have to earn the VPs.
If your game requires the other player to be there after they have lost, then your game has failed. Players so disrespectful at this, concession is respectful of the game and the victor.
I didn't say anything about being there after they'd lost, merely that walking away before the end of the game means that the opponent may end up scoring VPs that they might not have done had the game continued. Possibly not the full 100VP, depending on what was picked at the start of the game, though.
True true!
Still think it’s a bit of a issue, if the tournament could be potentially stuffed with a concession of a player. Ether boosting up a score or netting a loss of score to a winning player that can effect them in the future.
yukishiro1 wrote: Not sure exactly what a "technical document" means. The post I linked is a very thorough and balanced explanation of why it works better, while acknowledging its limitations. Magic went through this years ago, there might be some stuff out there from their experience I guess.
40k's just behind the times here, there's not a whole lot more to it. The fact that pretty much everyone uses SoS now isn't some big conspiracy where everyone except GW is doing it wrong, it's that GW is still stuck in the stone age and TOs have been reluctant to strike out on their own, especially with GW having reasserted control over the competitive game with the release of 9th.
I cannot believe Brandt hasn't already been bombarded with SoS-based proposals. That GW hasn't yet embraced it is presumably due to resistance from within the company; I have no idea whether that resistance is Brandt himself, or someone higher up the chain.
The Orlando event and GW official events are by and large never using VP/BP as a tiebreaker or matchmaker anymore. I don't need bombarding for that. It was simply immediately done.
yukishiro1 wrote: Not sure exactly what a "technical document" means. The post I linked is a very thorough and balanced explanation of why it works better, while acknowledging its limitations. Magic went through this years ago, there might be some stuff out there from their experience I guess.
40k's just behind the times here, there's not a whole lot more to it. The fact that pretty much everyone uses SoS now isn't some big conspiracy where everyone except GW is doing it wrong, it's that GW is still stuck in the stone age and TOs have been reluctant to strike out on their own, especially with GW having reasserted control over the competitive game with the release of 9th.
I cannot believe Brandt hasn't already been bombarded with SoS-based proposals. That GW hasn't yet embraced it is presumably due to resistance from within the company; I have no idea whether that resistance is Brandt himself, or someone higher up the chain.
The Orlando event and GW official events are by and large never using VP/BP as a tiebreaker or matchmaker anymore. I don't need bombarding for that. It was simply immediately done.
Out of interest, have they moved to a strength of schedule approach, something adjacent or A.N. Other?
