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 never quit myself but I have had opponents quit on me. It's quite disappointing.

I prefer it. There's nothing I like less than having to do all the dice rolling to table someone after they have lost all chance at victory.

It's just awkward and annoying and not fun to roll dice and pick off the last few models because someone won't concede and let e go to dinner.

Very good points about the money your opponent spent to come play in the GT. However, I would offer this counter point:

I spent the same amount of money that they did. So whose money do I care about more; mine or theirs?

It's not really a question of your money, you are entitled to quit but it's whether you thinks its fair on them considering they payed as well

Both payed equal $$$, the tipping point is whose money you care more about.

I think there is a middle ground here. I feel you owe your opponent a good game - which means giving them your best. Sometimes though there isn't much you can do to change the outcome of the game. Given that time is so pressed in most tournaments, a couple extra minutes between games by ending a game earlier than usual can be appreciated. I feel like there is nothing wrong with ending the game early, unless it's done in a sulky way, to ease the overall time pressure of the tournament for both players.

I have a question for everyone who says to play it out till the bitter end regardless.

Say that you lose pretty much almost all your units on the first two turns of shooting, and you have like... Half a squad of marines and a one-wound HQ left while their Tau force is still more or less intact. Would you concede or play out the 3+ turns remaining?

I'd ask "wanna call it there?" sometimes its nice to give them the satisfaction, but most just say yes and take the victory.

But i don't like having to table a crippled opponent who just won't give up til the last man even though theres no hope. Thats kind of rude itself.

DaddyWarcrimes wrote:
It's just awkward and annoying and not fun to roll dice and pick off the last few models because someone won't concede and let e go to dinner.

An odd attitude. Why not just not play at all, and then you can go to dinner whenever you like?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Enigwolf wrote:
I have a question for everyone who says to play it out till the bitter end regardless.

Say that you lose pretty much almost all your units on the first two turns of shooting, and you have like... Half a squad of marines and a one-wound HQ left while their Tau force is still more or less intact. Would you concede or play out the 3+ turns remaining?

I would play it out. As I said before, I've had games where that last, hopelessly outnumbered unit did unexpectedly incredible things. They may not win the game, but that rare moment of hilarity where an opponent keeps piling everything they have onto that one lonely little unit and keeps not wounding, or they keep rolling saves, or they get into combat and manage a lucky hit against something big and important, is worth taking extra 10 minutes to just finish the game for.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ajroo wrote:
But i don't like having to table a crippled opponent who just won't give up til the last man even though theres no hope. Thats kind of rude itself.

I thought something similar when I watch movies like '300', or 'Zulu Dawn' or 'Serenity'... half an hour from the end, they're clearly not going to win. Might as well just stop the movie there and go do something else. No?

 insaniak wrote:
I thought something similar when I watch movies like '300', or 'Zulu Dawn' or 'Serenity'... half an hour from the end, they're clearly not going to win. Might as well just stop the movie there and go do something else. No?

Sometimes its impossible to even snatch a draw but would never tell an opponent to concede. Thats actually the rudest thing imaginable in a game.

Even so, films aren't based on probabilites anyway so its a little different, as anything is possible, unlike 40k, which has a limit.

 insaniak wrote:
I thought something similar when I watch movies like '300', or 'Zulu Dawn' or 'Serenity'... half an hour from the end, they're clearly not going to win. Might as well just stop the movie there and go do something else. No?

The movie has the advantage of a script that is written specifically to keep the audience entertained. Even if you know the characters are all about to die you can be confident that somehow the movie will make their last stand interesting. A game, on the other hand, doesn't have that advantage. Sure, you might do something cool at the end, but it's more likely that you're just going to have another turn or two of tedious dice rolling where the outcome is inevitable but you have to keep rolling dice to find out exactly when it happens.

Quitting before the end of a match does break the social contract. You show up with your army, so do they, you play a game. That's the implicit agreement between members of the community.

HOWEVER, some agreements are made to be broken.

I learnt my lesson about this the other day. I was playing in a campaign match for our FLGS's campaign, my Orks against a Daemon Player.

By turn 4 it was looking pretty bad and I pretty much resigned myself to losing the match. I didn't quit, because I wouldn't have got another game in if I had, and I had nowhere better to be, so I carried on. The game ended on Turn 6 and all he had left on the board were six plaguebearers. Granted, I only had 5 Lootas, a lone Nob and a Battlewagon, but I'd left said Battlewagon on the other side of the board. I could have moved it over to deal with the plaguebearers and hence table my opponent. I did lose the game, but only 6-4. I was far closer than I thought I would end and if I hadn't have resigned myself to defeat, I may have been able to win.

So, I never give up, but I'm not too bothered if my opponent does.

 Peregrine wrote:
The movie has the advantage of a script that is written specifically to keep the audience entertained. Even if you know the characters are all about to die you can be confident that somehow the movie will make their last stand interesting.

Didn't work for 'Sunshine'...

Or '300', for that matter

A game, on the other hand, doesn't have that advantage. Sure, you might do something cool at the end, but it's more likely that you're just going to have another turn or two of tedious dice rolling where the outcome is inevitable but you have to keep rolling dice to find out exactly when it happens.

Sure... but it's that 'might' that keeps it interesting.

 insaniak wrote:
but it's that 'might' that keeps it interesting.

Yeah your right, while theres a "might" its worth continuing. If you do have any chance (small as it may be) of turning the game around at a tournament you'd be silly to just give up.
More importantly, even though it may be impossible to win, you should fight for the draw if you can.
If the guy who really deserved to win to tournament didn't because someone couldnt be arsed and gave a win away it would be a shame. [b]

When there is literally no chance of saving the game, an extra 15 minutes to de-warhammer yourself can be nice though.

I don't like it because sometimes someone is losing and forfeit full points, when the opponent could quite possibly have not gotten full points. This can upset the rankings quite a bit, I've seen cases where an opponent got credit for more objectives than he had scoring units due to concession. Theres no way he couldve gotten those points!

I have had opponents concede to me of coruse, and often I've felt they did so too early, but thats the game. I always love to play things out, for the "what ifs" that we've all seen go crazy sometimes. I've had situations where a sensible person would've conceded, that I played through and won. The best example I can think of is when I lost 810 points in an 1850 game, during the first turn. I won somehow, but boy did it hurt.

 jifel wrote:
I don't like it because sometimes someone is losing and forfeit full points, when the opponent could quite possibly have not gotten full points. This can upset the rankings quite a bit, I've seen cases where an opponent got credit for more objectives than he had scoring units due to concession. Theres no way he couldve gotten those points!

I have had opponents concede to me of coruse, and often I've felt they did so too early, but thats the game. I always love to play things out, for the "what ifs" that we've all seen go crazy sometimes. I've had situations where a sensible person would've conceded, that I played through and won. The best example I can think of is when I lost 810 points in an 1850 game, during the first turn. I won somehow, but boy did it hurt.

That is why I never count tabling/forfeit as full points for the winner. If the winner cannot hold max points worth of objectives they don't get credit for it.

I encounter this problem allot, Id say about 98% of my gaming experience comes from playing go, and some 90% of go games end with the loser conceeding the match.

In my head, its disrespectful to play out the result when a second game can fit in the remaining time.

In a friendly situation it should be a non-issue. Just make sure to politely tell your opponent he has won (and shake hands) before you walk away.

Things can come up. Short on time, etc.

Quitting because you are being a sore loser is another matter entirely.

In a casual game, I'll generally offer to concede if things have gone completely lopsided against my favor. I'll also offer to call it if I happen to be crushing my opponent (which doesn't happen often) if I can tell that he's pretty much checked out of the game at this point. If there's still a chance of pulling off a draw or even simply pulling off some stupid stunt I'll stick in the game and try for that.

In a tournament setting (which I don't get involved in terribly much) I'll generally just stick it out since the points matter. It can be pretty miserable to sit through though.

I don't consider myself a sore loser, but if after 3 rounds If I know I 'm not having fun and that the game is going badly, I will gracefully surrender the match and hand the game to my opponent. It's better than sitting at the table and getting more frustrated with the poor dice rolls. I see nothing wrong with shaking hands and congratulating your opponent for playing an excellent match. Especially if your opponent is a braggart that does not know that good sportsmanship also means knowing how to win without making your opponent feel lower than whale's poop in the Mariana's Trench.

It doesn't win Points Surrendering the match, but it's better than beating a dead horse, and you never know your opponent may put you down for best sportman.

No, in most cases, you are under no obligation to finish a game. If you are not having fun at all and your forfeiting won't screw up your opponents chances of winning/advancing in a tournament, then I actually feel it is better to concede and move on rather than to get increasingly frustrated and sour the mood for everyone. The game is played for the enjoyment of both parties. There is no need to stick around for your opponent's enjoyment at the expense of your own, especially if your concession won't affect your opponent's chances of doing well at a tournament. And if your opponent is a sporting fellow, there's no reason for him to be upset at your forfeiture. Forcing you to play when you are dejected and he is winning by such a large amount is a sign of poor taste and bad sportsmanship.

Coming from a Brood War background, I've never liked what is referred to there as Fantasy gg timing. Fantasy is a player renowned for fighting to the very last supply depot and marine, instead of conceding when defeat was inevitable. Especially when scoring doesn't involve margin of victory, and time is a factor, I think conceding is the appropriate thing to do to let everyone get on with things. If someone really needs to finish beating down a clearly defeated opponent that badly, well. . . jy2 already said it.

Depends on the environment and the time factors ..Tourney less likey to concede its 5 rounds anyway..(I have thou after asking if they wanted a beer before the next set since it was obvious how it was going to end) ..in freindly games if its obvious I ask if they want to reset and go another round..(so we can squeeze in the extra game or two on a satruday afternoon)

Depend on your background and upbringing.

For sport like Chess or Curling, it is impolite or even rude when the outcome is "determined". Surrender at that point is a gentlemen thing to do.

For sport like basketball or football, you play until the end even tho you are 40 points behind.

So for 40k is depend on which side of the social you are brought up in.

I say fight on as the spoiler. You may not have a chance of winning the game. But preventing your opponent from getting linebreaker, or killing their scoring units off to deny them a bonus point for a special objective may just change the overall standings at the end of the tournament. I come expecting my opponent to give me the best game they've got. Why would I willingly decide to give them less than my best?

To me throwing the game early is robbing you of the chance to learn something about your army, yourself.

Play it out to the end, esp in a tourney where it could change the results.

The only time I'd consider this is if your playing mates in a friendly game and you might be able to squeeze another game in if you finish up early.

Bear in mind, its not about "being unable to win"; its about not being able to fight the opponent at all.

Dark Eldar primarily have splinter weapons, which do NOT have a strength value. So even if you go all Rambo around to the rear of the tank, you still won't be able to do anything.

I still think that if it really is your opponent blasting you with total impunity, that the mature thing to do is to end the match.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I always find it a bit annoying when an opponent quits right before your big multi charge you spent the entire game setting up.

For me, this really says it all. How many of the "it's ok" crowd let the other guy off the hook when they are the ones enjoying a "turkey shoot"? If you outplay me, or out-list-build me, or I get screwed on terrain, or I play like crap, or the dice gods abandon me, or whatever, I'm not going to take it out on the other player. One guys waste of time game is another guys crowning glory, maybe his first big tournament win! It really is a passive-aggressive bullsh*t move IMHO.

If you have no means of winning and wish to concede, I think it's courteous to offer the decision to end the game to your opponent.

However incentives are nice. If I'm delivering a crushing defeat and you say "Hey, you want to call it and go grab a beer? My treat!" I can pretty much assure you I'll start packing up my stuff; unless you're a dirt bag opponent.