Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I have decided to create a series of topics where I question the Dakka community about what they feel should be the standards of etiquette at the games table. I've become interested in this because of all my years playing the game I've never really had a discussion about this with any of my gaming groups, and I've found that proper etiquette varies both by individual groups, and, I believe, regionally. I'm also concerned as I feel that I come off as slightly antagonistic or humorless during my games, which is not something I feel or intend to project at all. I'm just not gregarious by nature, and I tend to be quiet and cool during a game, whether I'm winning or losing, or whether the game is friendly or "serious". This is just my personality.

For this first poll, I was inspired by a thread a couple months ago that was critical of players who got, for lack of a better term, whiny when they were losing, and wanted to give up. While I understand the feeling and have been frustrated myself with that very sort of player, I also wonder if in some cases there wasn't an issue of poor communication. Perhaps in some cases the opponent felt that conceding the game was the correct thing to do. By analogy, I've always been told that during a game of chess, if you know that you're not going to win, it is considered good sportsmanship to concede victory to the opponent to keep from prolonging the game uselessly and boringly. Of course, I realize to some extent I'm comparing apples and oranges. 40k is highly stochastic, unlike chess or checkers, so there is often a chance of victory when it looks like there shouldn't be. In other words I *have* seen a squad of IG destroy that genestealer brood in melee. Also, there is a roleplaying element to the game. Miniatures aren't abstract pieces of stone on a board, they're representations of warriors fighting on a battlefield. Therefore a last stand can be as entertaining ( or should be ) as a match where the outcome isn't known until the bitter end.

In all of these threads, I'm necessarily referring to friendly games or informal tournaments, because I haven't had a lot of experience with the tournament scene.

Never concede ( unless you have to go somewhere for emergency )

or else it makes you look like you only care about your wins.

The only time conceding is "good" sportsmanship is when you have to go to the hospital (or if your opponent is being a dick about beating on you so hard, in which case it is justified) mid game. In any other case, yeah, it is childish. It's telling your opponent 'Ya know what? Feth you, I'm gonna undermine the legitimacy of your "win" by quitting so I can then turn around and say "You only won because I gave up, you're actually crap at this game"'

If the game gets one-sided and boring, I have absolutely no problem with asking my opponent if he'd like to just take the win and start over.

There is a big difference between;
"Waagh! You killed my Big HQ Unit/Nobs/Monolith! I'm not playing any more!"
and
"Well done sir, you have defeated my forces on turn 3. I doubt my remaining units have a chance. Score one for you, lets have a re-match sometime"

In our gaming group, the usual response to the 1st is "Correct, you won't be playing us again, ever", and to the 2nd "Are you sure? Do you fancy playing one more turn, see if you can't pull a Magic-Dice-Roll out of the hat?".
We tend to have an after-fight discussion, comparing tactics, what we learnt, where we went wrong, most-useful-unit etc., so after a concede, there is a lot of "You should have done this ...", "Why did you do that on Turn 2?" etc.

(Edit for typos)

Commissar Molotov wrote:If the game gets one-sided and boring, I have absolutely no problem with asking my opponent if he'd like to just take the win and start over.

But that is unfair on the opponent. If he says yes, you undermine the legitimacy of his win. If he says no, I want to play, he instantly turns into TFG. It is a Lose Lose Situation for everyone involved.

Now of course, if you are in a situation where one player just cannot win or draw, as opposed to a stuation where it is very unlikely (for example, EVERY unit of his is falling back, cannot rally and it's T3, as opposed to it being the last assault of T5, and that lone Firewarrior must survive the charge by those genestealers to win the game) then yeah, feel free to say "Ok, Im gonna autolose in 2 Turns anyway, lets give this another crack

BlackSpike wrote:There is a big difference between;
"Waagh! You killed my Big HQ Unit/Nobs/Monolith! I'm not playing any more!"
and
"Well done sir, you have defeated my forces on turn 3. I doubt my remaining units have a chance. Score on for you, lets have a re-match sometime"

In our gaming group, the usual response to the 1st is "Correct, you won't be playing us again, ever", and to the 2nd "Are you sure? Do you fancy playing one more turn, see if you can't pull a Magic-Dice-Roll out of the hat?".
We tend to have an after-fight discussion, comparing tactics, what we learnt, where we went wrong, most-useful-unit etc., so after a concede, there is a lot of "You should have dome this ...", "Why did you do that on Turn 2?" etc.

I couldn't have put it better myself. Sadly with the shift in target demographic since 3rd down from "late teen/early adult wo will stick to the hbby for the next 10 or so years" to "any 11 year old with rich parents who will buy models then give up after 2 months", the former has become much more common.

There is nothing wrong with conceding a loss when it is inevitable, and it is sporting to do so in many cases.

It is not really sporting to demand a concession, even if you've got them on the ropes.

Besides, sometimes it's good to pull out a moral victory in the face of defeat!

Gwar! wrote:It's telling your opponent 'Ya know what? Feth you, I'm gonna undermine the legitimacy of your "win" by quitting so I can then turn around and say "You only won because I gave up, you're actually crap at this game"'

What?!? Who does that?

If you're down to a few ineffectual units, against an overwhelming opposing force, then how is that undermining anything?

BlackSpike wrote:There is a big difference between;
"Waagh! You killed my Big HQ Unit/Nobs/Monolith! I'm not playing any more!"
and
"Well done sir, you have defeated my forces on turn 3. I doubt my remaining units have a chance. Score one for you, lets have a re-match sometime"

This.

Quitting due to one unit dying is poor sportsmanship. However, when experienced players meet and both can see that a loss is inevitable, there is nothing wrong with a concession. Even Chess Grandmasters topple their king when appropriate.

The way I see it, if you've been beaten raw there is no point in hogging a table and an opponent by trying to pull back the win. I remember one gme where some kid was beaten in turn four, as he had three rhinos and a Terminator Squad to Deep Strike, but ended up playing till turn seven (the other guy had trouble with armour, and so it took him that long to kill the last Rhino). Had he conceded one of the other guys could have played, and since at the time the GW we were in only had space for 3 tables...

I agree with the sentiment expressed by most everyone else.

It should not be a concession so much as agreement between two players that the match is over.

Jack

I can remember once playing against IG AC (FW IA rules).

I was wraithguard heavy Eldar. I was going to go first until my opponent stole the initiative and proceeded to destroy two thirds of my army with pie plates.

With nothing left to trouble his tanks as I hadn't even time to get conceal or fortune up and running I conceeded before I even had turn 1.

Some may think that this was bad sportsmanship however the way I looked at it was I would much rather someone else have the time for a game that day than play a game that had no challenge in it for my opponent.

Conceeding is still a win for your opponent. He got to play another more challenging game that day.

JohnHwangDD wrote:There is nothing wrong with conceding a loss when it is inevitable, and it is sporting to do so in many cases.

It is not really sporting to demand a concession, even if you've got them on the ropes.

Besides, sometimes it's good to pull out a moral victory in the face of defeat!

This is sort of where I am coming from. I'd never demand a concession, but I feel that if, say, its a busy night and people are waiting for tables, I wouldn't feel like it would be poor sportsmanship to call it if I had no chance of a win or draw, for instance, if I had one scoring unit left on the last turn and my opponent had all the objectives. Normally though I think when defeat is imminent it is time for my guardians to charge those Khorne berzerkers and go out swinging. Plus, with the stochastic nature of the game, you really do never know.

Of the times I've ever conceeded, only once was to someone not a close friend, and that was because he was an absolute douche, so it was easier to conceed on turn 3 (3 hours in - don't ask) and let him gloat his win than tell him he was a massive flaming penis and pack up.

I've conceeded to close friends when it becomes apparent there's no hope (no scoring units left for example and very little to contest with), as that way we can go to the pub instead of dragging the game out. With close mates there's no "you didn't win, I quit" mentality, it's more "you won, just on turn 4"

I concede when i know that I lost but I have a unit left that wont ever be touched.

Example: I had a unit of chaos chosen at the very board edge (how the hell they ran away from zombies is another discussion) against a foot slogging vampire army 4 turns away. Obviously i have lost there is very little point in just waiting till turn six for the game to end.

Conceding is only to be done if there are either people waiting for the table or some unexpected thing comes up.
Most of the time my friends and I play to the bitter end one time my mate had a single vox-caster guardsman on his last objective and as my DE swarmed around him double tapped two down and forced a morale check which my guys failed running off the board. Since then my DE have had a reputation of being pansies. I still won but the memory of that last stand made the game for me.

I agree with Yani, although I wouldn't mind if someone conceded because they felt the win or draw was impossible. I had a game against a guy where I absolutely thrashed him. End game I had 3 objectives to his 0. I had practically eveything on the board and he had about 5 marines. I really wouldn't have minded if he had conceded early since by turn 6 it wasn't that much of a fun game for me either.

I really don't mind if other people concede whatever the reason, but I fight to the bitter end meself.

I agree that conceding because your best tank/hq/squad was taken out is pretty childish.

Conceding because there is no conceivable way to win or draw, on the other hand, is perfectly acceptable in my book.

Conceding due to an emergency is always a non-issue. I have kids and my wife is currently pregnant again, so things come up, and I understand that.

Furthermore, conceding due to time restraints is understandable as well. In some tournaments, you only get about 2 hours for a 1500 point game. If you are playing one of those fething ork horde players with 200 freaking models, and you have 7 space marines and a servitor left (I'm exaggerating the one-sidedness but you get the point), it is pretty much a foregone conclusion and you should concede so either somebody else can use the table or so you can prepare for the next game.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Gwar! wrote:It's telling your opponent 'Ya know what? Feth you, I'm gonna undermine the legitimacy of your "win" by quitting so I can then turn around and say "You only won because I gave up, you're actually crap at this game"'

What?!? Who does that?

If you're down to a few ineffectual units, against an overwhelming opposing force, then how is that undermining anything?

Actually i know exactly a person that does that at the shop i used to play at. he is the "power gamer / tfg" that i refer to in those threads.
Its true that 80% of the time i show up with an different army ( unless they request me to use a certain one they want to face ) and they love the variety.
But TFG made it a big deal that i used my favorite mechanized Eldar ( this was 4th edition he uses assault heavy chaos with lots of DP )
claiming that i brought it on purpose to mess with him. Needless to say after 1st round of shooting (and kiting ) , he has no ranged units left.
At start of my turn 2 he packed his bag and stormed out.

He was a regular and a HUGE spender at the LFGS , but after that incident apprantly he only gamed at the GW shops where he says
its professional gaming without bunch of casuals.

I personally consider it bad form to concede a match except in extreme circumstances. Funny stuff tends to happen anyway when you're on your way out. "I'll charge my rangers into your boyz" or "Wow, Prince Yriel just killed himself blowing up my rhino" (true story)
However, I do not expect that everyone will share this preference, so if someone is a good sport all along and wishes to concede when beaten, I will not take offense.
Obviously table limitations apply as well. Actually, not anymore. The Chicago Battle Bunker just bought the mattress store next door and became the 2nd largest GW in the world. Ha.

I don't have a problem with people conceding if they're utterly fethed.

For example, I once had a game where my opponent was Necrons. He had no CC units apart from his Lord, who was hiding amongst the Immortals. I charged his 40 Warriors with 60 Slugga boyz and massacred them, with no need for a sweeping advance. Simultaneously, my Looted Wagons blew up both of his Immortal squads, leaving him with 9 Scarab bases and 3 destroyers. He sighed, slumped, and conceded. I congratulated him on putting up a good fight and conceding in a sportsmanlike manner.

In the very next game (against Space Marines, hurr durr), my opponent was a 12-year-old kid. He thought that having lots of lascannons made his army invincible, even with a model count of about 35 models, and I promptly reduced his army to a three-man terminator squad on turn 3. Crying and yelling followed on his part, and he stormed out of the FLGS.

Of course, if you're fighting until all your models are dead, you're just making yourself look stupid for being too stubborn to concede to the better player and making people think you suck.

I think tournaments and shops with limited space and time for playing add another element. I will often concede or accept a concession once the outcome is certain. Especially if either the store is closing in a couple hours, so we can both get another game in, or in a tourney so we can both pack up our crap and get ready for the next game.

Conceding has nothing to do with sportsmanship. If one has good sportsmanship, giving up would still be done in that fashion. The opposite is also true.

Jihan wrote:Conceding has nothing to do with sportsmanship. If one has good sportsmanship, giving up would still be done in that fashion. The opposite is also true.

QFT. Sportsmanship has more to do with the attitude in which the player conducts his/her self.

You can concede defeat and still have good sportsmanship. Sometimes the game is over before the table is completely clear. For example in a game I played 1.5k SM vs SM I completely wiped out the opposing force save 1 unit in 3 turns, suffering only a couple casualties. Not accepting the concession honestly would have been rude..... no need to make the opponent move their one remaining unit which can not possibly hope to win against a mostly intact force. Why can they not order them to flee before they are slain as well?

On the other hand certainly there are times were conceding is rude. I don't think this particular issue is so black and white.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Gwar! wrote:It's telling your opponent 'Ya know what? Feth you, I'm gonna undermine the legitimacy of your "win" by quitting so I can then turn around and say "You only won because I gave up, you're actually crap at this game"'

What?!? Who does that?

If you're down to a few ineffectual units, against an overwhelming opposing force, then how is that undermining anything?

Nobody that I know...

Look, I concede. A lot. Just about every damn time I play actually since I'm fething horrible at this game. Anyway, once the outcome is determined and I know I can't win, I go ahead and say "I lost, there's no way I can turn this around, you want to play another game/it's getting late anyway and I need to head back home/etc." and I honestly don't see the harm. I don't do what you claim, I've never seen anyone older than the age of 6 do what you claim, and I'm honestly thinking you either made it up or play some really, really dickish people.

In my opinion, if you insist on drawing out the game just so you can rub my face into my models and scream "YEAH! How do you like that?! Get some, get some, eurrgh!", you're TFG. Losing is bad enough, but who the feth says "No! Sit there! You're going to keep taking models off the table and you're gonna fething like it!" I mean, really?

or else it makes you look like you only care about your wins.

*cough* bs. If I were ever in a position where I knew I would win (lolz) I'd offer to end the game just the same. Why not? If we do then that means we might actually have time to get another one in, or we can go do something else, instead of wasting time drawing out a game for no other reason than to make the loser even more miserable by having every last model removed.

If you think conceding is bad sporstmanship then you are the one who only cares about winning.

I really don't mind if other people concede whatever the reason, but I fight to the bitter end meself.

Well good for you, and if you're a Spess Mahreen player then that could even be considered staying in character.

And with that in mind, Tau aren't stupid and fight to the bitter end, when they get thrashed they run away and prevent further unnecessary losses. So by calling the game and making a "Tactical retreat!", I'm also acting in character. Suck on that, Gwar.

Furthermore, conceding due to time restraints is understandable as well.

Another good point, if it's 11pm and I have work the next day and a little bit of a drive ahead of me then by god I'm going home, I'm not gonna let the game go on just so someone else can take a couple more tanks off the table and give themselves a good ego stroking.

QFT. Sportsmanship has more to do with the attitude in which the player conducts his/her self.

Exactly!

Gwar! wrote:The only time conceding is "good" sportsmanship is when you have to go to the hospital (or if your opponent is being a dick about beating on you so hard, in which case it is justified) mid game. In any other case, yeah, it is childish. It's telling your opponent 'Ya know what? Feth you, I'm gonna undermine the legitimacy of your "win" by quitting so I can then turn around and say "You only won because I gave up, you're actually crap at this game"'

Very well said.

Why? So you honestly think the only reason I want to call a game is so I can say "Ha ha, that win doesn't count!"?

Wow.

Concessions are all about how and why you concede.

Bad: I don't want to play you anymore.
Good: This is probably unfun for both of us.