Walking away from a game on turn 2 to deny your opponent victory points?

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.

**FezzikDaBullgryn**

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?

**ccs**

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.

**TangoTwoBravo**

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.

**Dysartes**

ccs wrote:
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.

**ccs**

Dysartes wrote:
ccs wrote:
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....

**Apple fox**

Dysartes wrote:
ccs wrote:
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.

**Ordana**

Apple fox wrote:
Dysartes wrote:
ccs wrote:
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.

**tneva82**

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"

**Apple fox**

Ordana wrote:
Apple fox wrote:
Dysartes wrote:
ccs wrote:
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.

**kirotheavenger**

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).

**JakeSiren**

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.

**Karol**

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.

**Dysartes**

Apple fox wrote:
Dysartes wrote:
ccs wrote:
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.

**Apple fox**

Dysartes wrote:
Apple fox wrote:
Dysartes wrote:
ccs wrote:
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.

**MVBrandt**

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.

**Catulle**

MVBrandt wrote:
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?