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.

Just a thought... Is it considered a moral victory to concede against a Khorne army?

I only ask because my buddy who plays a CSM berzerker army gets annoyed that he can't play out all the turns and collect his skulls...
He is a bit of a Role player though

Violent Purge wrote:Just a thought... Is it considered a moral victory to concede against a Khorne army?

I only ask because my buddy who plays a CSM berzerker army gets annoyed that he can't play out all the turns and collect his skulls...
He is a bit of a Role player though

What do you mean by "moral victory"?

Why do people concede against your buddy so much?

As stated previously, it is the method in which one concedes, as well as in the attitude used when conceding that determines whether its appropriate.

I dont believe I've ever met/played someone with the attitude of "feth you, conceding makes your victory ineffectual" (not that I have a desire to)

Usually conceding is just the way of saying that you have no options left, or you can do minimal damage to the opposing force at best and it would be rather pointless to continue as the end result is clear to all.

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.

Agreed. If possible, I'd rather play two games than one. I *would* only concede if it was a friendly game with a buddy. I would never concede a game to a stranger, even if said person was being a dick about it. Wouldn't play them again, mind you. I think you need to be a gracious winner and loser if you plan on playing any game with the same people again and again.

I agree with the view that the sportsmanship of conceding is based on the sportsmanship of the player conceding, and if victory is inevitable and both players can see it, much like chess, a graceful bow-out for the defeated is perfectly acceptable. I must be spoiled in that I've never even seen a scenario of some pre-teen spoiled kid yelling and quitting for having his favorite thing downed early. All of the folk I face off against at my FLGS are great folk, and up there a good-spirited concession is a statement of "Good game, let's get back into the fray against the next fellow" and not "I'll make your win illegitimate by giving up before you can escort my last troop choice off the board".

I don't believe that when someone concedes to you that it removes any legitimacy of the win.
If the Loser/Conceder does not feel that you have legitimately beaten him, then why is he not still fighting?
"You only won because I conceded, it doesn't really count" is the same as saying "You only won because you held more objectives that me/scored more KP. Its not a real victory!"

I have conceded before now while holding the most objectives - but we both could see that during the next two turns, I would get tabled, and without several miracles in a row, could not have held them. Fair Play, I was beaten.

Sometimes we can see a game-switching event, such as "I can only win if my dredd can pop your tank, and your defiler with its next two attacks. I need a 5+ to hit with both ... can I just roll them now? two hits and we'll play it all out, a miss and it's all over, ok?"
If my opponent says "Nah, roll 'em when its the right time" then we play on, or I concede there and then.

As always, the sportsmanship of the act is defined by the sportsmanship of the player.

Communication
co-operation
grace in defeat
humility in victory

I think that if you are most definately loosing you can concede. But if you dont want to, dont play and be sore about it the entire time.

I played a small home brew scenario this weekend of 1k of orks attacking a 750 + fortifications Marine base. Goal was to have the orks in control of the marine base by the end of the game.

On end of turn 2, two trukks were burning and the other two were stunned with only the loota battlewagon operation that turn vehicle wise. It was looking like the Orks weren't going to hit the 1/2 way mark of the table (we were going longways) and we were thinking about calling it there cause it was so onesided. Turn 3 saw the Marines lascannons go cold and turn 4 saw the Kommandos finally hit the table and the trukks hit charge range on the barracades. Long story short, the orks rolled up the base on the bottom of turn 5. Had turn 3 gone like the first two, yeah it probably would have been over but if the orks had tapped like they thought about, it never would have happened.

Nothing is wrong with conceding when all is lost. Strange and funny things can happen though when you stick it out.

12thRonin wrote:
Strange and funny things can happen though when you stick it out.

That's what she said.

I can see both sides of it, but that's mainly due to my competitive nature. I hate passivity, but totally understand that for some people, it is just a game. Much of my aggression gets channeled into little men spilling the guts of other little men, because it's fun. I guess in that regard I would play regardless of having rules for winning or not (and thus the Endless Slaughter scenario was conceived...).

I voted for #2, but it needs a clarification:

"Concede only when you KNOW you will lose."

Not "if it is likely."

I concede if I cannot win. It only makes sense to. Why continue something that the result is already known? Why not get this game done so we can move on and start another one?

If someone ever said my win doesn't mean anything because my opponent quit, that is ridiculous. He quits, I win. End of story. There is no middle ground. If the game was already decided, it isn't any different than playing out the last turn or two.

If the end result will be no different, there is no shame in conceding. There is also no argument saying it is less of a win because of a concession.

Mattlov wrote:I voted for #2, but it needs a clarification:

"Concede only when you KNOW you will lose."

The only time this can happen is on Turn 6/7 or if you are tabled.

Mattlov wrote:I concede if I cannot win.

So if you cannot win, but could draw, you concede? Sounds like childish Behaviour to be tbh.

Mattlov wrote:Why continue something that the result is already known?

Again, you can only know that really by turn 6/7 (you know you wont get units there in time to contest/mathematically cannot kill enough to get enough KP). I cannot see any real situation where you would be mathematically unable to draw a game before then, and if you are, its bad sportsmanship to deny your opponent his bit of fun (as he must have been rolling 6's like he was in vegas with 60 grand on boxcars)

I'll offer to concede if it's obvious I'm done for and there's a time constraint. Like, at a tournament my opponent and I could probably put the time spent mopping up my few remaining units to better use by having a pint and a chat, or grabbing something to eat.
I only offer for that reason, and if my opponent wants to play on I have no problem with that- it doesn't make you a TFG in my opinion. Sometimes squishing every last dude is fun, and I'm secure enough in myself that I can participate without getting all upset and ego bruised. (An example would be someone who hasn't had a lot of wins and would like to get a "proper" win. Nothing wrong with that!)

I don't mind, if they want to, that's fine with me. It's generally mutually said "Dude, you're screwed." before something happens. However, not conceding in suicide times can be interesting..

sA

A lot of it depends on the other guy. I'll play to the bitter end if It was just a bit of bad luck and try to pull some moral victory out (moral victory turned into a draw once and that game was epic), but if the other guy is gloating and just wants to see all of my models off of the table then I'll concede and let him have his victory so I can posibly get another game in (table space was never a problem, except at tournaments).

Conceding a game when you are way far behind (as in you need some miracles to happen just for a tie) is just fine. In fact I think it is sporting to ease off on your opponent when you have nothing left to do but trivial actions.

Also conceding is a sporting thing to do if it allows for one or both players to be able to fit a fresh game in (considering any time restrictions) right away after the current one.

Gwar! wrote:

Mattlov wrote:I voted for #2, but it needs a clarification:

"Concede only when you KNOW you will lose."

The only time this can happen is on Turn 6/7 or if you are tabled.

Mattlov wrote:I concede if I cannot win.

So if you cannot win, but could draw, you concede? Sounds like childish Behaviour to be tbh.

Mattlov wrote:Why continue something that the result is already known?

Again, you can only know that really by turn 6/7 (you know you wont get units there in time to contest/mathematically cannot kill enough to get enough KP). I cannot see any real situation where you would be mathematically unable to draw a game before then, and if you are, its bad sportsmanship to deny your opponent his bit of fun (as he must have been rolling 6's like he was in vegas with 60 grand on boxcars)

Completely untrue. The last game I played my opponent conceded at the end of Turn three, because he had no more troops to hold objectives, and knew his remaining few units could not beat my nearly undamaged force or contest enough objectives to even get a draw.

There are always situations where you can know how badly a game can turn, especially if it is objective based. Kill Point games as well. You don't have play out to the bitter end if that won't change anything. Here is a situation for you:

It is Turn 4 of an Objective game. You have an immobilized vehicle with only one weapon that cannot even point at the enemy. You also have 2 squads at about 25% strength. THe 2 squads are NOT scoring units. The game started as 1500 points, and if you are lucky you have about 300 left.

Your opponent is still sitting around you with 90% of his forces intact and capable of wiping you out, while already holding half of the objectives.

Why continue? You both know what will happen. You can't force a draw, let alone a win, so why not have the grace to say so, and move on to the next game? The INABILITY to know when to concede, or to think that concession is somehow a weakness and wrong, is a personal fault of yours at that point, not your opponent. Playing to the bitter end and hoping for the ULTIMATE MIRACLE just looks silly and childish, as though you can't grasp the reality of a situation.

concede only when the remainder of the game to come has no opportunity to go your way, or that it is so one sided it's boring. Either then that play it out. Who knows what might happen?

I will never ask someone to concede if i am winning it's their choice if they want to keep losing models. If i'm losing i will ask if they want to take the win because it's generally pretty busy where i play so i'd prefer someone use the table for a new game instead of spending time on a game i can't win and hogging a table. Then again if i am losing it goes downhill quickly as a dark eldar player.

I have played probably 20 games of 40K, I have won 1, drawn 1 and lost the rest. Not once have I conceded. I was halfway through a game with an alliance of Space marines and my Guard and he (the Space Marine player) had just lost all his men and was begging for me to concede. I was doomed, I was going to lose no matter what happened but I stuck to it, purely because I wanted to prove I wasn't a quitter. I suppose in extreme circumstances conceding is acceptable but in 99% of games, especially ones for fun - after all its a hobby, conceding is just bad sportsmanship.

The OC-D

As somebody who loses on a regular basis I feel that it is neither necessary, or a mark against your sportsmanship (unless you do it with 1/4 of your army left). A couple of months ago I was in a tournament and I was beaten to the man. I knew at the top of the fourth that I didn't have a prayer so I just tried to make every move worth it. I did this for two reasons: one, that I wanted to try and make it thru the game with at least one model alive, and two; the guy was a good sport and was fairly friendly (he was also from out of town). Had I conceded it would have been considered a massacre and I would have just got up and walked around the shop for half an hour. By playing it through I spent more time talking to him, and we had a fun game. I've been in a couple of games where I thought I was dead meat and then turn 5 and 6 just turned it around. I guess I'm stubborn too and don't want to quit (playing Dwarfs will do that to you).

From my experience (in tournaments) if you concede your opponent gets full scenario points. It's not that I want to deny him all of his points, but to get all points out of scenario from me I want you to earn them. The very few times I've had somebody concede against me I have offered them another game. If they accept then cool, if not then I'm not going to deduct their sportsmanship (unless they act like a jerk).

Conceding in a tournament drives me nuts! When every point coints to the victory I've seen players that could EASILY draw conceding and giving the other player full battle points. In one RTT the game on table 1 got Conceded on turn 3 after all of one player's heavy support choices got killed. Of course if that player had played towards a tie or minor loss someone else might have won the tournament, but because he couldn't win he conceded. Not ok in my book.

However, in a friendly enviroment (esp. if there are a lack of gaming tables) there is nothing wrong with saying "You've got it won." Of course, I always play out every turn, but thats just me.

Mattlov wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Mattlov wrote:I voted for #2, but it needs a clarification:

"Concede only when you KNOW you will lose."

The only time this can happen is on Turn 6/7 or if you are tabled.

Mattlov wrote:I concede if I cannot win.

So if you cannot win, but could draw, you concede? Sounds like childish Behaviour to be tbh.

Mattlov wrote:Why continue something that the result is already known?

Again, you can only know that really by turn 6/7 (you know you wont get units there in time to contest/mathematically cannot kill enough to get enough KP). I cannot see any real situation where you would be mathematically unable to draw a game before then, and if you are, its bad sportsmanship to deny your opponent his bit of fun (as he must have been rolling 6's like he was in vegas with 60 grand on boxcars)

Completely untrue. The last game I played my opponent conceded at the end of Turn three, because he had no more troops to hold objectives, and knew his remaining few units could not beat my nearly undamaged force or contest enough objectives to even get a draw.

There are always situations where you can know how badly a game can turn, especially if it is objective based. Kill Point games as well. You don't have play out to the bitter end if that won't change anything. Here is a situation for you:

It is Turn 4 of an Objective game. You have an immobilized vehicle with only one weapon that cannot even point at the enemy. You also have 2 squads at about 25% strength. THe 2 squads are NOT scoring units. The game started as 1500 points, and if you are lucky you have about 300 left.

Your opponent is still sitting around you with 90% of his forces intact and capable of wiping you out, while already holding half of the objectives.

Why continue? You both know what will happen. You can't force a draw, let alone a win, so why not have the grace to say so, and move on to the next game? The INABILITY to know when to concede, or to think that concession is somehow a weakness and wrong, is a personal fault of yours at that point, not your opponent. Playing to the bitter end and hoping for the ULTIMATE MIRACLE just looks silly and childish, as though you can't grasp the reality of a situation.

Gotta agree with Gwar on this one. 40k is a game of tactics but there is always that random chance. Truly anything is possible. Good rolls can see 4 grots charge and kill a unit of terminators. Not likely by any means, but I've seen someone roll a whole handful of ones and lose valuable squads when he should have lost one or two models at the most.
I don't see why you wouldn't at least fight it out. If it's as extreme as the example you stated, why not charge into the face of the enemy and give your squads a chance to win back their points value? If you really have so few models left, it'll go fast anyway. And you'll definitely have more fun. Those moments where the dice seem to ignore all laws of probability are hilarious for both players, unless your opponent is too obsessed with winning. And if he is, you probably shouldn't be playing someone who can't have a good time while they lose anyway.

You can never KNOW that you're going to lose a game. Nothing is certain, especially in a game that depends on low tech random number generators. I've played games where my best units all die in the first 2 turns and the filler squads end up winning the game for me. You deny yourself that chance to have fun if you concede early on.

asugradinwa raises a good point about tournaments. It probably shouldn't be allowed in tournaments if it will affect who ends up winning in a big way.

As always, I make a large exception for situations where table space is limited. If people are standing around waiting to play, don't make them wait for a match that OBVIOUSLY won't even be competitive.

When I concede a game, it's usually because I'm getting the tar beat out of me or my opponent got me into a corner I can't get out of. There's no point in suffering through the death throes of the game so I call it in his favor and move on to the next (re-)match.

If it's considered polite to let someone take three turns solidifying a game they've already all but won, I'd rather be considered an ass.

The only time I think you should never concede is in tournaments where victory points and such count towards the total. It is your duty to fellow players to play your best and to the end so that the numbers are not scewed by a total defeat with all points. Just my oppinion of course.

Heres two situations that I was either in or observed.

First (I was in this game): My IG effectively lost all scoring units on turn 3 in a seize ground objective game. However, marbo hadnt come in and I wanted to play on just for the heck of it. I conceded shortly after viewing the carnage that Marbo can produce, but I at least played one more turn rather than concede as soon as it was apparent that I couldnt wipe out his Troops to force a draw.

Second (Observed): Two IG players faced off against each other, one with 3 Griffons hiding out of LoS with another mortar squad hiding as well. The other player had 102 infantry and 1 LRBT with little else.
End of Turn 1 saw the second player (who went second) lose 82 out of 102 guardsmen. He conceded shortly into turn 2. He became rather angry, and told management that if he went second against any other Guard players in the league he would immediately forfeit. I can only hope he said this while angry and will instead continue to play out his games, but either way I did not condone this type of attitude.

So did he undermine his opponents victory? Did I undermine my opponents? I think not. While I did concede it was because my opponent had everything under wraps, with no chance of me being able to turn it around.
As for the observed match, I dont believe player 1s victory was undermined, although player 2s attitude was unpleasant.

In short, conceding is alright when you have no options left, however, sometimes its worth playing out the game just for kicks. And when you concede, dont be a dick about it

Played a game a few days with my nids against a combined force of tau and IG. Halfway through the game I was heavily considering calling it quits. It was a KP game and we (I had a teammate) we were losing like 12 to 10. My tyrant and 3 guard had just been annihilated just before hitting cc (damn those new guard orders) and all we had left was a brood of WoN gaunts, 1 brood of shooty warriors and 2 gunfexes. In a streak of good luck (and dare I say it...tactics) we managed to somehow beat down a unit of 50 guardsmen w/ lord commissar and our gaunts took out a 10 man squad of IG for the win at the end of turn 7...tough game, but goes to show that conceding should really be thought through before doing so.

If I'm playing against TFG (in a tourney or otherwise) and he's really being a tool, I'll concede and give him the win (if the win means that much to him, he can have it).

If I can't win and can't even draw, he's already got the win, so I don't see how me continuing to play will reduce that in any way.

eg. I have NO scoring units left. I have one other effective unit left, but it's under half strength and hoofing it off the table (or in the case of a vehicle, immobilised and weaponless and pretty much all-but-dead), then he already gets full battle points. Me playing on for the next turn or two to see my troops run off the table, or he finally succeeds in vapourising my tank serves no purpose to me bar "rubbing it in".

Redbeard wrote:

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.

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!

malfred wrote: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.

I agree with all of these but here are a few of my own particulars...

1.) Never concede in a tournament, it is dishonorable to you and your opponent unless the outcome is SO obvious that no other solution is possible (e.g. 14 Gretchin and one herder versus SM Tactical Squad in a Rhino, SM Scout Squad and SM Termie squad about to assault.) And even then, wait until the first turn of assaulting is over.

2.) When conceding against a douche', it's not because I want to invalidate his victory, it's because I want to end a nightmare and never speak of it again unless someone asks why I don't play the douche', in which case it's, "Well, y'know, he is a douche'."

3.) Never concede when you can learn something from an opponent. If you feel you can learn something from an army you are unfamiliar with or an individual that you will probably play again (especially in a tournament) that you may not know well, those end turns can be very telling about how they handle certain situations.

4.) I'm playing my older brother that tormented me for years growing up and now he runs Smurfs and he sucks at it so I am GOING TO MAKE HIM PAY!!!

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.

Agree with Malfred. I think there are points in the game where both players (and everyone watching) know the game is basically over and someone should concede them game.

I.e. Late in the game an Orc and Goblin player who only has 10 Night Goblins facing a 1000 pts of Bretonnians left on the board.

or

5 Gaunts facing down a Land Raider Crusader full of Terminators.

While yes we can say "Maybe they'll win?" I think everyone can assess that the game is over. While the example is a little extreme, I think we've all reached points where there is nothing left for a player to do except get wiped off the board.

Also, this IS a GAME. If someone doesn't want to play anymore, are you seriously going to FORCE them to play in the name of sportsmanship? While conceding a game early on because of some slight disadvantage seems weak (it wastes everyone's time), I don't think a person who knows for a fact that it is IMPOSSIBLE (I use this specific word deliberately!) to win should get any flak for deciding that the game is over and concedes (which is basically surrendering... a loss. you can't turn around and say "surrender" is not losing)

punkisntdeadyet wrote:5 Gaunts facing down a Land Raider Crusader full of Terminators.

Actually, this situation is Mathematically impossible for the Nid Player to come out on top, as the LRC cannot be hurt by the gaunts in any way.