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.

The thread about sor loosers reminded me of something when I thought about the group I play with. Now not all of them but about 1/3 do this. By about turn 3 if they are not clearly winning they just call it quites. Which needless to say gets old fast and makes me just avoid playing them unless they are the only ones around. Is this a common practice as far as warhammer goes?

threw = through
sor = sore
quites = quits

Sorry. I've just seen too many crap spellings on the forums today, and way too many abused homophones.

And I bet that those folks would throw in the towel early in any game they play, not just Warhammer. I had a cousin who would never finish a game of checkers if you got ahead of him on captures.

By the way, if you aren't sure of a spelling, I recommend www.Dictionary.com.

I donts thinks you allowed to bag outz pplz grammaz on da forumz yo. Rulz n allz.

Many people play games to win. Win, win and win. Its what makes me paint rather then play as I cant put up with that attitude.

You will also find this in other things like computer games. My brother plays StarCraft2 and finds tons of people will just quit once they know they will loose, which can happen rather quickly (although a good player will know how to counter you and fight back).

Personally if you love to play 40k then get out there and find more people with your play style and attitude. Stop playing your annoying friend(s). They will eventually ask why you dont play with them and then you can tell them (in a nice way).

OoieGoie wrote:I donts thinks you allowed to bag outz pplz grammaz on da forumz yo. Rulz n allz.

Actually, that is not true.

Posters are required to be polite to other posters.

As such: TheOniTsuki - please post intelligibly. Take more time to write what you're trying to say so that you can do so in a manner that the rest of us can read. If someone can't construct a sentence, they probably should be back in elementary school, not posting on Dakka.


On Topic: Conceding a game depends on when you do it. I don't mind when people concede to me - it just lets us start a new game faster. Recently, I tabled someone on turn 2. In the rematch, he deployed differently and struggled through to turn 5, while the game was quite clearly over for him by turn 3. That's an extra 30 minutes that we didn't need to spend with me pounding his models into the ground. Personally, I also don't mind conceding - during the final game of 'Ard Boyz semi-finals, I was the top seed in the tournament, fighting on the top table. I conceded on turn 3 or 4....I was getting beaten so badly that there was simply no hope of turning the game around. I admitted defeat, congratulated him on a well-fought battle and got to pack up a bit early.

There's nothing wrong with conceding a game. If you're losing so badly that the rest of the game can teach you nothing, show you nothing, or be redeemed.....let it go. Learn from your mistake (if there was one) and do better next time.

I will concede a game if it's obvious that I have no chance of even getting a tie. Example, earlier tonight, I fielded my all-comers Ork list against a Fish of Fury/Jump-shoot-jump Tau army. The mission was annihilation, and by the end of turn three, it was clear to all that I was wasting my time. I wasn't pissy about it, I just stated the situation to my opponent, and he agreed so we shook hands and preceded to put away our armies, discussing what I should have done differently. Sometimes, that's just the way it goes. Nothing to get bent out of shape about.

It's Ok for someone to quit if they aren't having fun, because playing when it's not fun would kinda defeat the purpose.

It depends on who I'm playing if it's a my friend Cody I will fight to the last man because I know he likes it that way but if it is like say a pick up game or with my other friend Ryan I will say I'm getting whooped do you really want to continue? or vice versa Dude I'm just destroying you do you wanna call it game? but I won't quit without their consent.

warpcrafter wrote:I will concede a game if it's obvious that I have no chance of even getting a tie. Example, earlier tonight, I fielded my all-comers Ork list against a Fish of Fury/Jump-shoot-jump Tau army. The mission was annihilation, and by the end of turn three, it was clear to all that I was wasting my time. I wasn't pissy about it, I just stated the situation to my opponent, and he agreed so we shook hands and preceded to put away our armies, discussing what I should have done differently. Sometimes, that's just the way it goes. Nothing to get bent out of shape about.

Pretty much this. There's nothing wrong with extending your hand if you know you have no chance of pulling out even a tie. It means you can get onto the next game quicker, or if you're at a tournament, have a little downtime between rounds.

If more then a couple of people are quitting thier games with you, the issue is ..... You.

It's not normal to be dropping games like that. Are you being TFG with your opponent? Are you trying to cheese wins, or not playing, or any of those obvious reasons that someone would up and quit?

Such reasons and others are reasons that people use to stop, and either pack up or go find other opponents.

I don't know you from adam, so don't take my answer the wrong way.

I'm not trying to imply that you are a TFG, but sometimes people do things that MAKE them look like it, and don't even realize it.

Just a thought.

In my case, it wasn't my opponent, it was just that my army list was totally unsuited for Tau. I'd never played against them with Orks, and hadn't played against them at all in over a year, and had never been subjected to the Fish of Fury. However, the next time I hear somebody whine that Tau need a +1 to their BS, I just may have to be restrained and sat on.

Dashofpepper wrote:

OoieGoie wrote:I donts thinks you allowed to bag outz pplz grammaz on da forumz yo. Rulz n allz.

Actually, that is not true.

Posters are required to be polite to other posters.

Da Rulez wrote:Please remember that posting and reading online is a visual format and as such the spelling, grammar and look of your posts is the only way others understand what you are saying. Therefore, in order to be polite, all users are expected to make an effort to use proper spelling, grammar and punctuation and should refrain from using internet shorthand or other distracting methods of writing, such as writing a post completely bolded, with capital letters, in a strange color, etc.

Maybe he's trying. Maybe he needs to try a little harder. Either way, it's definitely encouraged!

I have no problem with either conceding, or conceding to, a game depending on how it is done. It's all in the tone. It's one thing to ragequit, and another to gracefully bow out and then play a fresh game.

If you're playing control points, and all your scoring units get wiped out by turn 2, for example, should you keep playing?

I played at a small in-store tournament a while ago where 2/3 of my army fled off the board first turn (Skaven spell making all cavalry units take a panic test, I play Brets, I roll badly, you get the picture). I could have tried and play with what I had left, but the writing was on the wall so I conceded and we played a second game. In the end we had more fun than if I had played the losing first game to completion and I think that's the main point: play to have fun. Sometimes that means conceding gracefully and playing a second game if time permits.

warpcrafter wrote:In my case, it wasn't my opponent, it was just that my army list was totally unsuited for Tau. I'd never played against them with Orks, and hadn't played against them at all in over a year, and had never been subjected to the Fish of Fury. However, the next time I hear somebody whine that Tau need a +1 to their BS, I just may have to be restrained and sat on.

In the universe I live in, there's not a Tau list in existence that can take down any of the top tournament lists. Perhaps your list just needs work? If you're an Ork player, note my occupation and visit the Army List forums!

I have quit several games. And I will do it again, if I see there is no way to get a draw. I will not quit because i can not win (ie lose all scoring units), as long as I have a chance to get the draw. Why should I have to stand around for the next 30 mins while you proceed to Monkey Stomp me just so you can get the satisfaction of tabling me?

I play chess and so I am always thinking 3 moves ahead. In Chess once a player realizes that Mate is in X moves and there is nothing you can do, etiquette is to concede. Why should 40k be any diffrent.

warpcrafter wrote:I will concede a game if it's obvious that I have no chance of even getting a tie. Example, earlier tonight, I fielded my all-comers Ork list against a Fish of Fury/Jump-shoot-jump Tau army. The mission was annihilation, and by the end of turn three, it was clear to all that I was wasting my time. I wasn't pissy about it, I just stated the situation to my opponent, and he agreed so we shook hands and preceded to put away our armies, discussing what I should have done differently. Sometimes, that's just the way it goes. Nothing to get bent out of shape about.

Which quite frankly, is a great way to end a game: on friendly terms, with discussions to help make everyone play better!

Ouze wrote:I have no problem with either conceding, or conceding to, a game depending on how it is done. It's all in the tone. It's one thing to ragequit, and another to gracefully bow out and then play a fresh game.

If you're playing control points, and all your scoring units get wiped out by turn 2, for example, should you keep playing?

Sure. Cause if you kill all his scoring units as well, it's going to be a draw.

With that said, yep, I have also conceded a game on occasion. And have had more than a few conceded by my opponents, even in GW US GTs. Heh, I had one guy at the Baltimore GT trying to concede before we rolled for deployment zones (4th ed) or anything. I think I scarred him for life by trouncing him earlier that year in Boston.......

sorry, double post.

Yeah certain sorts of people will do it... equally divided amidst those who throw a fit and those who calmly concede that they don't see the point in continuing.

My sister, for example, would become tense during games of Monopoly when someone landed on Mayfair. If they were able to purchase it and did, she would engage in frenzied 'negotiations' to purchase the property from its new ower. If these talks failed, she would ragequit.

I don't think a person conceding is really the issue; my understanding is that it is a recurrent problem with some of the people the OP plays with. And yes, some people are total <expletive deleted>'s. If the ycannot win, they quit, whine, pitch fits, accuse of cheating, whatever. I suggest the OP find more sporting opponents. Losing can be just as fun and educational as winning, if not more so. It's all about attitude.

-Dave

fellblade wrote:threw = through
sor = sore
quites = quits

Though I can understand your point, and even identify with it to some extent, there is something to be said for reading comprehension regardless of misspellings. It is quite obvious that "threw" is correct as it is the past tense of the verb "throw" referring to the idiomatic expression to "throw a game". In this instance, your correction is, well, not correct. That said, I believe the more correct idiom would have been "throw in the towel" as "throw a game" means to intentionally lose, usually through some sort of duplicity (i.e. His team lost because he threw the game by acting injured.)

As for the OP. I have called games for various reasons; I'm not that great at the game, my poor little Tau are notoriously unforgiving, poor dice rolling on turn 1 that presaged a complete route, etc. I'm proud of being gracious in defeat and I admit that I've had plenty of practice. I am also lucky in that my opponents are generally gracious in victory and if/when I capitulate, they usually offer some insights and usually ask if we can reset and play again. To me, quitting is not an issue as it saves time in some cases and allows you to play again within a relatively short period of time if it becomes painfully obvious that there is no hope.

It's a game; let's all just have fun.

@ agnosto: I hope you are kidding, because fellblade is obviously in the right.

loosers = losers

to add to the list.

Anyway on topic... conceding a game is never poor form, quitting in a rage is never acceptable.

Ouze wrote:I have no problem with either conceding, or conceding to, a game depending on how it is done. It's all in the tone. It's one thing to ragequit, and another to gracefully bow out and then play a fresh game.

If you're playing control points, and all your scoring units get wiped out by turn 2, for example, should you keep playing?

You can no longer win, but still have a chance to tie by denying your opponent control of the objective, or wiping his/her scoring units too!

agnosto wrote:

fellblade wrote:threw = through
sor = sore
quites = quits

Though I can understand your point, and even identify with it to some extent, there is something to be said for reading comprehension regardless of misspellings. It is quite obvious that "threw" is correct as it is the past tense of the verb "throw" referring to the idiomatic expression to "throw a game". In this instance, your correction is, well, not correct. That said, I believe the more correct idiom would have been "throw in the towel" as "throw a game" means to intentionally lose, usually through some sort of duplicity (i.e. His team lost because he threw the game by acting injured.)

To be fair, context states the original correction is, in fact correct. The phrase is not referring to throwing a game, rather, quitting while the game is still in progress (halfway through). The only way I would see you being correct is if this was two different ideas/phrases, which, if so, should be separated by a semicolon.

/end Grammar nazi.
-Dave

asmith wrote:@ agnosto: I hope you are kidding, because fellblade is obviously in the right.

loosers = losers

to add to the list.

Anyway on topic... conceding a game is never poor form, quitting in a rage is never acceptable.

And here I think noone ever gets my humor.


I have to disagree with you on conceding; if it is obvious that there is no point in continuing, I believe it's better to shake hands and possibly start over.

agnosto wrote:
And here I think noone ever gets my humor.

Oh, for a sarcasm font. It would make communication so much more clear

Someone, get on that.

Try [/sarcasm] at the end of the sarcastic part. Works wonders.

I only quit if I am pretty much guarenteed to lose. For example, if I just lost my HQ who is worth 3 kp in Cut and Run, and a bunch of my other guys are getting toasted, there is no way in feth I'll win. So I quit so I don't waste anyone's time.

I'll usually play until I have less than than two units left (out of maybe 7 or 8), like....I've got a rhino and some random unit of CSM, and I had 5 units at the start of the game.

I'll wait until it's like Turn 5 though...At least.

It all depends on how they're losing.

Getting shot to hell on Turn 2, well...what's the point?