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.

If my opponent concedes (or gets tabled), would I get full points for all objectives or just the points for the final state of the table at time of concession?

Tabled would be full points. Conceding brings up alot of issues. It is best to ask TO about it.

It's entirely dependent on the event. I've seen some where you get full points, and others that force you to play on without your opponent to see how many you could have gotten.

Yea it is based on where you are playing, BRB wise you win so for normal games it doesnt matter what the score is/was. But for tournies it is down to the TO and again I have had some games/places where a tabling you only get the points you scored (annoyingly one particular game was the relic, I got the 3 secondaries but no primarys). At the next few upcoming ones tabling conceding is a full victory giving you all the points.

I'm personally a fan of the 'You only get the points you conceivably could get by the end of the game'... So you only score those objectives that your models could reach in the number of turns left in the game.

Most tournies that I have seen tend to go more for the 'tabled = full points' option... but as stated, you would need to check the event in question.

In casual play, it really doesn't matter... A tabled opponent is a win for you, and the actual victory points scored don't matter.

Every event I've been to(any wargame) has always treated a concession as the highest points possible.

Now I think there is also a difference between conceding and calling the game early.


You could be on turn 5 and call the game as if it ended right then and total up points. So conceivably it could be a Draw or a minor victory when you just call the game. This would also be what happens if time runs out.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Every event I've been to(any wargame) has always treated a concession as the highest points possible.

Now I think there is also a difference between conceding and calling the game early.


You could be on turn 5 and call the game as if it ended right then and total up points. So conceivably it could be a Draw or a minor victory when you just call the game. This would also be what happens if time runs out.

Calling the game early is where you should then look at what points you could/should get. If its a draw though tourny wise it should be played on to the death though as at the end of the day that is why we are turn, in your example there is a good chance it could carry on as well as end anyway.

I'm a TO, and I've debated this with myself hotly. Almost any way you go with it can be abused. One local TO says you only get what you've already scored, in which case vindictive jerks can use that rule to quit and deny their opponent victory points. In a tourney which uses accumulated VPs, this can torpedo their progression nicely, knocking their opponent out of the running for the prize even though they didn't win.

Alternatively, giving full points opens up the door for two friends to come up against one another and have one concede at the last minute, so that one of the players earns far more points than his progression in the game would have otherwise earned him. The two of them may even agree to split a prize if this behavior would swing the score enough. We actually have more than one group of people who occasionally travel down here that are willing to engage in this activity. (One a family of four who routinely does this.)

I find the best way is to give the number of points the opponent could have scored in the time they have left. It's the closest to a happy medium we can get.

 Jimsolo wrote:
I'm a TO, and I've debated this with myself hotly. Almost any way you go with it can be abused. One local TO says you only get what you've already scored, in which case vindictive jerks can use that rule to quit and deny their opponent victory points. In a tourney which uses accumulated VPs, this can torpedo their progression nicely, knocking their opponent out of the running for the prize even though they didn't win.

Alternatively, giving full points opens up the door for two friends to come up against one another and have one concede at the last minute, so that one of the players earns far more points than his progression in the game would have otherwise earned him. The two of them may even agree to split a prize if this behavior would swing the score enough. We actually have more than one group of people who occasionally travel down here that are willing to engage in this activity. (One a family of four who routinely does this.)

I find the best way is to give the number of points the opponent could have scored in the time they have left. It's the closest to a happy medium we can get.

This is where 'Sportsmanship' being graded by a 3rd party comes in. Along with properly selecting opponents.

The former can be done in large groups by having a TO covering multiple tables while also acting as a rules decision maker.

The latter, though, is a bit harder for brackets but still doable at the very beginning. That is, if you use that style of tournament. If you use the play X number of games, unless you run out of opponents, then it is all on the TO for putting family members at the same table. I would actually be mad, if that was the case. I do not want to drive to a tournament and pay an entry fee just to play someone I could have played at home for free.

Typically, we use random allocation to determine opponents across a set number of rounds, but if I feel a matchup would result in someone attempting to cheat in order to alter the composite scores in the tournament, I'll shuffle the lineup.

In MtG, if you concede or fluke a game on purpose in order to boost your opponent and even agree to share prices, both simply get removed from the tournament. This is obviously cheating and should be punished as such.

Outside of that, tabling your opponent or him conceding should either reward you maximum VP you could possibly still archive (so no VP for first blood if you didn't get it), or at the very least allow you to finish movement until the end of the game before counting up VP. I think it's silly and even unfair that some TOs deny players the VP for linebreaker, the relic or objectives after they blew their opponent off the table, while they have lots of troops available to capture all objectives unhindered.

Some places say to concede you have to call a ref over to check, as for friends conceding to spilt the winnings, wouldnt it be just as easy to play a dud game?