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.

Hello folks!

In tourneys where there are secondary and tertiary objectives, how are these (typically) scored when your opponent concedes before Turn 5?

Do ya get all the points? Maybe it's a Table Quarters land-grab or having units in the enemy's Deployment Zone, even though you *don't* have units there? Or perhaps it's a "Destroy all Elites" but you've killed off everything else and he says, "Let's call it and go to lunch. I can't win."

I could see a sore loser abusing this to deny his Winning Opponent the extra points by throwing in the towel early. Or do TOs award the full points upon concession?

How're things done in your tourneys?

IF your opponent concedes its a massacre and you get full battle points.

Him conceding is basically him telling his forces to retreate and fall back, giving you the entire board, thus all the objectives.

It doesnt matter if its kill points, victory points, hq points, quarters or whatever, if you get a massacre you get everything.

That is not true for all events. The book describes that if you table the opponent, for all "standard missions" it is counted as a win. Tournaments normally use non-standard missions.

Therefore it is up to the Tournament to declare what happens when an opponent concedes or has all their units destroyed prior to the game actually ending naturally.

edit: For example, at astronomi-con, if you table your opponent but do not complete the mission primary objective, it would be a draw. You have to actually complete objectives of the missions to earn the points at that event.

One of the 'Ard Boyz missions last year also had a scenario where tabling explicitly did not count as a massacre unless you met the other conditions, if I recall correctly.

Smitty0305 wrote:IF your opponent concedes its a massacre and you get full battle points.

Him conceding is basically him telling his forces to retreate and fall back, giving you the entire board, thus all the objectives.

It doesnt matter if its kill points, victory points, hq points, quarters or whatever, if you get a massacre you get everything.

I agree with this.

Even if the mission had stipulations about tabling not causing an automatic win I would still expect to either get or be conceding full points. Calling the game early when you haven't ACTUALLY lost yet isn't the same as being tabled. You are giving up, throwing in the towel, cutting and run; this means you lose and your opponent wins. In my book, and in any leagues/events I have run or written rules for, concessions are handled this way. Even in missions/league I have written where tabling doesn't grant you all the objectives automatically, your opponent conceding does.

Why?

Simple. If I wanted to keep you from moving up the ladder in a league, and passing me by, I could concede early and keep you from getting the bonus points that could potentially move you past me on the leader board. In a tournament if I didn't particularly like you or felt you were a poor sport I could potentially concede early, denying you important battle points that would be necessary for you to take the top spot; thus denying you the championship spot even though I didn't actually beat you.

Conceding a match should not be considered "tabling" for these reasons. It would add another layer of potential grey area for players to manipulate. The winners and losers of tournaments, and single games, should always be decided upon win/loss records. By allowing people to concede and deny their opponent the full win you create situations where players can "lose" but keep their opponent from "winning". That isn't playing the game.

OverwatchCNC wrote:

Smitty0305 wrote:IF your opponent concedes its a massacre and you get full battle points.

Him conceding is basically him telling his forces to retreate and fall back, giving you the entire board, thus all the objectives.

It doesnt matter if its kill points, victory points, hq points, quarters or whatever, if you get a massacre you get everything.

I agree with this.

Even if the mission had stipulations about tabling not causing an automatic win I would still expect to either get or be conceding full points. Calling the game early when you haven't ACTUALLY lost yet isn't the same as being tabled. You are giving up, throwing in the towel, cutting and run; this means you lose and your opponent wins. In my book, and in any leagues/events I have run or written rules for, concessions are handled this way. Even in missions/league I have written where tabling doesn't grant you all the objectives automatically, your opponent conceding does.

Why?

Simple. If I wanted to keep you from moving up the ladder in a league, and passing me by, I could concede early and keep you from getting the bonus points that could potentially move you past me on the leader board. In a tournament if I didn't particularly like you or felt you were a poor sport I could potentially concede early, denying you important battle points that would be necessary for you to take the top spot; thus denying you the championship spot even though I didn't actually beat you.

Conceding a match should not be considered "tabling" for these reasons. It would add another layer of potential grey area for players to manipulate. The winners and losers of tournaments, and single games, should always be decided upon win/loss records. By allowing people to concede and deny their opponent the full win you create situations where players can "lose" but keep their opponent from "winning". That isn't playing the game.

+1

OverwatchCNC wrote:

Smitty0305 wrote:IF your opponent concedes its a massacre and you get full battle points.

Him conceding is basically him telling his forces to retreate and fall back, giving you the entire board, thus all the objectives.

It doesnt matter if its kill points, victory points, hq points, quarters or whatever, if you get a massacre you get everything.

I agree with this.

Even if the mission had stipulations about tabling not causing an automatic win I would still expect to either get or be conceding full points. Calling the game early when you haven't ACTUALLY lost yet isn't the same as being tabled. You are giving up, throwing in the towel, cutting and run; this means you lose and your opponent wins. In my book, and in any leagues/events I have run or written rules for, concessions are handled this way. Even in missions/league I have written where tabling doesn't grant you all the objectives automatically, your opponent conceding does.

Why?

Simple. If I wanted to keep you from moving up the ladder in a league, and passing me by, I could concede early and keep you from getting the bonus points that could potentially move you past me on the leader board. In a tournament if I didn't particularly like you or felt you were a poor sport I could potentially concede early, denying you important battle points that would be necessary for you to take the top spot; thus denying you the championship spot even though I didn't actually beat you.

Conceding a match should not be considered "tabling" for these reasons. It would add another layer of potential grey area for players to manipulate. The winners and losers of tournaments, and single games, should always be decided upon win/loss records. By allowing people to concede and deny their opponent the full win you create situations where players can "lose" but keep their opponent from "winning". That isn't playing the game.

I concur

Yes, I guess there should be a distinction made between conceding and tabling, which I wasn't really thinking of above. I definitely agree that if someone concedes, you win everything. The value of tabling though depends on mission objectives; I think there's a lot to be said for victor conditions that don't necessarily reward full points just for killing everything. I.e., I kill all your dudes, but I don't have enough dudes left to actually hold enough objectives for full points.

@OW, is this how Dis runs things in our neck-of-the-woods?

I ask, 'cause, I think I might just be getting good enough to pull off a 'Tabling' .

@the rest:
I'm interested in how things are played in your-neck-of-the-woods. How do your TOs call this?

I have seen both "full points" and "finish the game out". I have RARELY seen "call it and count it at the point of concession", because, as noted, that's punishing the winner and not letting him get the rest of the points he may be capable of.

As a TO and a player I prefer the "finish the game out" method. Even if the loser doesn't want to play anymore, it hardly takes any time to figure out which bonus objectives the winner still needs, and whether he has enough movement left to get them. Probably in the 1-3 min range.

I am not a fan of the "auto full points" idea. I have seen friends/clubmates who see they have lost and concede to give their buddy full points to advance beyond those who actually had to play their games legitimately. It's dirty.

I have faced people who have given up before and this is how I handle it. For table quarters and objectives I measure to see if I can achieve the mission in the amount of turns left. For KPs and "destroy the Elites" type things I see if him quitting makes a difference at that point. If it does I would insist on finishing the game or getting full points.

I do not agree that an objective that you couldn't achieve without any enemy units left on-table should be counted as achieved though.

One local venue had so much trouble with people conceding and actually leaving the tourney before the last round that they banned players for dropping out for no reason.

Honestly, I think that if someone decides to concede you can basically figure that you move your units into range of all the objectives and/or complete the objectives because all the opponent does is say that s/he is giving up the rest of the turns the game may have. That doesn't mean you lose your turns as you are still playing and objective.

If they want to concede, make their units move off the table in orderly fashion and not just 'teleport out'. Being punished because someone got frustrated is silly, any TO that did that would get some serious s**t from me and I'm sure plenty more people.

Now if you table someone thats a different story, if you're holding objectives when you table someone then good on you. If you're shooting from some obscure place and wrecking them half a table away from objectives then you don't deserve the points for the objectives.

In soccer, even if you injure the entire other team out of the game, they don't give you 20 points. You just get a win.

I'm surprised it has not been opined, but do you all agree that the above argues against anybody conceding a game, and playing the lose out till the time runs out? I don't think there is much of an excuse to concede a tournament game unless you start suffering dysentery or your wife makes you leave the event!

Around here we play it like this (most of the time):

If I concede: Automatic massacre for my opponent, full battlepoints. The reason is stated above: if I concede early I get an advantage in a mismatch (if I concede straight after turn 1 started I lose by the closest difference possible, if I dont, I will lose worse)

If I am tabled: the game can be finished by my opponent in order to achieve as many missions as possible. But the mission standing does not change.
If I have 10 units, my opponent has 15, he tables me and I score 11 points, I win the Killpoint mission. If my opponent does not have scoring units left on the board (or not able to reach any objectives with them) and tables me, we tie on objectives.

But there are also tournaments where tabling also results in an automatic massacre. (A rule I do not support)

Just to clarify my statement: I was not saying that a concession ends the game immediately. As Mannahnin pointed out, its the remaining player gets to finish the game normally to try and complete the objectives with the conceding player removing his/her models from the board.

TBH I think its poor sportsmanship to concede anyways. Play the game out IMO.

Brothererekose wrote:@OW, is this how Dis runs things in our neck-of-the-woods?

I ask, 'cause, I think I might just be getting good enough to pull off a 'Tabling' .

@the rest:
I'm interested in how things are played in your-neck-of-the-woods. How do your TOs call this?

It depends. If the mission states tabling does not automatically grant you all objectives you don't get them all for tabling but you do for concessions. Usually this is during league play, for tournaments run by Dis a concession is treated as a win with all primary, secondary, and tertiary objectives being earned.

Dracos wrote:
TBH I think its poor sportsmanship to concede anyways. Play the game out IMO.

I'd like to know what your reasons for this are, since I've always seen it as poor sportsmanship to remain in the game when you've clearly lost and it's a tournament situation. People might be waiting for you to finish, and if nothing else you're just forcing your opponent to go through the mop-up and spend more time/effort on a foregone conclusion. In some of the other games I've played, not conceding can even be seen as implying you think your opponent will make such a terrible mistake that you can recover.

As a TO I strongly advise players not to concede the game because its unfair to the rest of the tournament. Before anyone concedes I require the players to call me over so I can look over the battle and judge if it is a legit concession. Giving someone full points when it is *not* deserved is silly and should be discouraged heavily (Also it can be collusion)

I am also against giving full battle points if the opponent cannot achieve such a feat. If there are 5 objectives and you have 1 scoring unit, and a massacre requires all 5 then you cant actually score that. In those circumstances I wont even allow a concession. Of course I can't really force anyone to play, but like I said I very heavily discourage concession on both sides

Basically I make everyone aware that you shouldn't *Accept* concessions except if the outcome of the game is a forgone conclusion and playing it out is a waste of time. This generally requires a judge to look over the battle and rule in that favor. This is a competitive event, you arent supposed to concede if you can score points.

Someone who makes a habit of quitting early in games will not be invited back. Again, its a competition and conceding hurts the other players so finish your games imo

GreyHamster wrote:

Dracos wrote:
TBH I think its poor sportsmanship to concede anyways. Play the game out IMO.

I'd like to know what your reasons for this are, since I've always seen it as poor sportsmanship to remain in the game when you've clearly lost and it's a tournament situation. People might be waiting for you to finish, and if nothing else you're just forcing your opponent to go through the mop-up and spend more time/effort on a foregone conclusion. In some of the other games I've played, not conceding can even be seen as implying you think your opponent will make such a terrible mistake that you can recover.

The reason it is poor sportsmanship is as described by Kirasu, you may be giving your opponent more points than he deserves which will have an impact on the rest of the event. It is much more sporting to try and deny your opponent as many points as you can while grabbing as many points as you can than simply giving up. Giving up is not sporting behaviour.

Dracos wrote:

GreyHamster wrote:

Dracos wrote:
TBH I think its poor sportsmanship to concede anyways. Play the game out IMO.

I'd like to know what your reasons for this are, since I've always seen it as poor sportsmanship to remain in the game when you've clearly lost and it's a tournament situation. People might be waiting for you to finish, and if nothing else you're just forcing your opponent to go through the mop-up and spend more time/effort on a foregone conclusion. In some of the other games I've played, not conceding can even be seen as implying you think your opponent will make such a terrible mistake that you can recover.

The reason it is poor sportsmanship is as described by Kirasu, you may be giving your opponent more points than he deserves which will have an impact on the rest of the event. It is much more sporting to try and deny your opponent as many points as you can while grabbing as many points as you can than simply giving up. Giving up is not sporting behaviour.

I couldn't agree more. I would also like to add that while my posts have been strongly worded I am definitely a major proponent of finishing the game no matter what, especially in a tournament. I didn't address that because it wasn't really part of the original post but Kirasu outlines very accurately why concessions should be strongly discouraged. Collusion/hamstringing is more than possible in either circumstance and for that reason concessions should be a rarity not the norm.

That seems reasonable, I come from a background of games that are very binary in win/loss, like Magic, a win is the same point no matter how overwhelming or narrow it is. If your opponent has 20 life, and four creatures on the board, and you're stuck at 3 land on turn 8, with nothing useful in hand, it's considered more sporting to just concede there than force him to spend the time to finish you off. I was thinking more about wasting people's time than I was defining the margin of victory.

Getting wiped out on any particular turn doesn't really mean the game ends unless it's only kill/victory points or specified in the mission. You still get to finish out all your turns and see what other objectives you can pull off.

Pulling your models off the table is the same in my book as getting wiped out.

Mannahnin wrote:I have seen both "full points" and "finish the game out". I have RARELY seen "call it and count it at the point of concession", because, as noted, that's punishing the winner and not letting him get the rest of the points he may be capable of.

As a TO and a player I prefer the "finish the game out" method. Even if the loser doesn't want to play anymore, it hardly takes any time to figure out which bonus objectives the winner still needs, and whether he has enough movement left to get them. Probably in the 1-3 min range.

I was on the receiving end of having an opponent at a WFB event concede, then refuse to give me full points when it was agreed upon during said tabling. Basically on turn 3, my skaven was tabling a chaos mortals army in the land of 7th edition. The player offered to concede I accept indicating, "are you citing full points, as if not i would appreciate continuing to gain them." Later, surprise, the opponent told the judge I had not earned fully points. I lost the conversations, I will not call it and argument as the TO was neutral indicating did not see it, and 2 players expressing 2 opinions. TO's get caught in the middle and have to make a call.

My advise to folks~ if you opponent concedes, do the scoring, and leave your models on the table until scoring is done. Score the sheets immediately then, if the opponent declines full points, continue the game immediately not to waste time. If he refuses to continue, TO it. You have at that point attempted to resolve the situation yourself in a sportsmanship manner.

SlaveToDorkness wrote:I am not a fan of the "auto full points" idea. I have seen friends/clubmates who see they have lost and concede to give their buddy full points to advance beyond those who actually had to play their games legitimately. It's dirty.

One local venue had so much trouble with people conceding and actually leaving the tourney before the last round that they banned players for dropping out for no reason.

A very simple fix is to have a standing rule: Any player who concedes a game is banned from entering any events for a year.

njpc wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:I have seen both "full points" and "finish the game out". I have RARELY seen "call it and count it at the point of concession", because, as noted, that's punishing the winner and not letting him get the rest of the points he may be capable of.

As a TO and a player I prefer the "finish the game out" method. Even if the loser doesn't want to play anymore, it hardly takes any time to figure out which bonus objectives the winner still needs, and whether he has enough movement left to get them. Probably in the 1-3 min range.

I was on the receiving end of having an opponent at a WFB event concede, then refuse to give me full points when it was agreed upon during said tabling. Basically on turn 3, my skaven was tabling a chaos mortals army in the land of 7th edition. The player offered to concede I accept indicating, "are you citing full points, as if not i would appreciate continuing to gain them." Later, surprise, the opponent told the judge I had not earned fully points. I lost the conversations, I will not call it and argument as the TO was neutral indicating did not see it, and 2 players expressing 2 opinions. TO's get caught in the middle and have to make a call.

My advise to folks~ if you opponent concedes, do the scoring, and leave your models on the table until scoring is done. Score the sheets immediately then, if the opponent declines full points, continue the game immediately not to waste time. If he refuses to continue, TO it. You have at that point attempted to resolve the situation yourself in a sportsmanship manner.

Exactly, thats why I require people to call me over before I even allow a concession.. It causes a lot of problems and people need to stop QUITTING games unless its pointless to continue and you're already getting 0 points.

Dracos wrote:Just to clarify my statement: I was not saying that a concession ends the game immediately. As Mannahnin pointed out, its the remaining player gets to finish the game normally to try and complete the objectives with the conceding player removing his/her models from the board.

TBH I think its poor sportsmanship to concede anyways. Play the game out IMO.

I have conceded one game in a tournament before. And I was winning. The other player was making the game so unfun, and cheating that I decided it was better to lose the tournament than to deal with the A hole. It is not always the poor sport that quits the game.

How was he cheating?

Not moving models properly, He argued for 10 mins that 1) Power weapons don't get a bonus attack with a pistol, then once he lost that arguement 2) that the bonus attack was not a power weapon attack but a basic attack. I count that as cheating as he has been playing for years and even made it to 'Ard Boyzs finals last year.

Plus other things that I would consider stalling and poor sportsmanship. The TO sided with me on the Power Weapons right away but he still argued about it, even saying the TO was wrong. The biggest problem is the TO did not have the balls to throw him out. He even won the Tournament because of our game.

Hey I wrote an article on my blog about this subject, this thread was an inspiration for it and if you are reading this you're obviously interested in the subject matter. I think I did a fairly decent job of summing up what I, and many of us, feel about how to handle conceding matches. Check it out if you like.
Tournaments: Conceding a game, is it appropriate?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jbunny wrote:Not moving models properly, He argued for 10 mins that 1) Power weapons don't get a bonus attack with a pistol, then once he lost that arguement 2) that the bonus attack was not a power weapon attack but a basic attack. I count that as cheating as he has been playing for years and even made it to 'Ard Boyzs finals last year.

Plus other things that I would consider stalling and poor sportsmanship. The TO sided with me on the Power Weapons right away but he still argued about it, even saying the TO was wrong. The biggest problem is the TO did not have the balls to throw him out. He even won the Tournament because of our game.

Ok that is just poor Tournament Organization. That TO should have been all over that guy and any game he played and your conceding the match to him should have been a red flag that something was seriously wrong.

OverwacthCNC I like your blog. That is a great way to handle it.