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.

Is it ever acceptable to give up on a game? What about in a tournament?

If you know you're going to lose, or it's going to be a long and ultimately painful wind down to putting your gear away, do you carry on?

Have you ever quit? Had someone leave on you?

I ask because whilst I'd never quit due to being frustrated, but I have friends who have.

Depends how bad it is... I once played against a mate who almost tabled me turn one, there was no way of coming back so I dropped out.

But then in a tourney my battle company had a rough start vs eldar I thought about throwing in the towel but then I came back to win on objectives, I dunno when you are losing hard why see it to the end? When its just kinda bad but not stupid id probably see it through... at the end of the day why play a game you aren't enjoying when you could start again and have a good one? my 2p

If the game is effectively over and it is just going to turn into going through the motions then sure its ok to concede (just be a good sport about it). Not sure about tournament play because some use the game score to determine points so it might not be acceptable there but instead let the game play out.

I have conceded a few games but half of those where from having really bad migraines. In non migraine cases I tend to concede when there is basically zero chance to make anything happen and a turn away from getting tabled. Generally the idea is if I concede then there is time to play another game instead of waste time on a 99% lost cause. As I have gotten more experienced in the game I don't find myself in a situation so dire that I need to throw in the towel anymore.

Yes, of course it's ok to concede a game when the outcome is inevitable. Just don't ragequit. Ragequitting is TFG behavior.

I did once have three of my team mates leave me standing alone during a 4v4 due to how disgusted they were by the opponents. That was super embarrassing, because whilst we were facing pure cheddar, throwing the toys from the pram was no better.
In that case a formal "sorry, we're stopping" would have saved a lot of bad feelings.

If someone is being a total dick and annihilation is inevitable, and victory points are not needed, I'll admit I'm not going to sit through three hours of their company. I will give them the win and go and watch my friends play. It's not happened in 40K, but it will some day.

"Being a total dick" =/= beating me, or army choices. I play IG, death is inevitable. Right now it's all learning.
Gloating, patronising me and repeatedly telling me how quickly you tabled the last opponent would qualify.

I generally play it out. In fact, since starting 40K, I think I've only called one game early, and that was a 'friendly' game where TFG waited till he saw what I was fielding to pull a hard counter list out - there are times when that 'play-what-you-want-each-round' in our casual tournaments backfires.

In general I don't believe in conceding. I've managed to pull off some amazing victories out of the fires of defeat. That being said, I have conceded before when the game is clearly lopsided from the beginning. For example, at the last tournament I attended at my FLGS. It was supposed to be a fun 2 vs 2 tournament, where each team shares a single CAD. I bring Guard and my buddy brings BA. First round and my first opponent(s) brought an utterly nasty Daemonkin/Eldar list with lots of dogs, hornets, jetbikes, a wraithknight, and a void shield. They pretty much had us by the throat by the end of turn 2. We conceded shortly after that.

I have given up the bottom of turn 2 because of really bad dice rolls (Ie, my entire SM force failed their pinning checks so I couldn't use their heavy weapons effectively)

Tournament? No. Even if you can't win, yo can mitigate your loss, or torpedo your opponent's degree of victory.

Friendly game? I ask my opponent if there's any way he can see for me to win. If he also agrees it's hopeless, I'll pack it in.

If there is no fun left to be had, absolutely concede. Or in some cases, if the store is closing and it will take a miracle just you don't hold everyone up when they want to go home.

I've conceded Turn 1, and I've also kept playing when I had three models left on Turn 3. All depends on what's left and if I can conceivable get points again.

My friend conceded defeat against a Supremacy Armor I proxied into the game on turn 3. That game was just for fun though and was simply an exhibition match.

 Jimsolo wrote:
Tournament? No. Even if you can't win, yo can mitigate your loss, or torpedo your opponent's degree of victory.

Friendly game? I ask my opponent if there's any way he can see for me to win. If he also agrees it's hopeless, I'll pack it in.

^ This

You have an obligation in a tournament not to concede prematurely, because points are at stake, and conceding gives your opponent max points. I've seen lots of tourneys where the margin between best overall is down to a matter of a few points. Play it out until the game is over or time's up.

In a friendly game, I have no problems conceding when there is no possible way of even ekeing out a draw. Look your opponent in the eye, tell them "good game," and give them a handshake: no shame, no awkwardness.

What about paid entrance tournaments? Does that make a difference?

It is perfectly acceptable to concede defeat. The downside of doing so in a tournament setting is giving your opponent full points for the win and you able to salvage nothing. If you even have one unit left and have done well by the objectives you can still pull out a few points towards your final standing.

Personally, I play things out unless it is very obvious that I have no chance and/or there is a possibility of getting a second game in. As for my opponents, I go until they decide they are done. I will never force anyone to play until the bitter end if they are ready to back out.

I feel that if handled politely conceding a game is perfectly fine.

I have conceded games that I have lost, but only after all of my options for winning had been completely eliminated. I may get frustrated with my performance and how the dice are going, but if there is a chance that I can turn the game around and salvage an advantage I will keep going on. I did concede once at the bottom of turn two, but that was after I got wiped out by War Convocation with Blood Angel taxi service. As a rule, unless I do get tabled, I try to make it to at least turn four before reaching across the table for a handshake and saying "Good game".

I have conceded at local tournaments before, but only under conditions where I had been effectively tabled, and only after my opponent and I had met the required number of turns for the game to be counted as legitimate. Otherwise, I play to score points until time is called.

 Buttery Commissar wrote:
What about paid entrance tournaments? Does that make a difference?

Conceding should be fine at any point, since there's no reason to play a game you don't enjoy. It's better to concede and get some fresh air or food and return reenergized for the next round, rather than play on tilt for that round and most likely next.

You have an obligation in a tournament not to concede prematurely, because points are at stake, and conceding gives your opponent max points. I've seen lots of tourneys where the margin between best overall is down to a matter of a few points. Play it out until the game is over or time's up.

But this is done in almost every event. People drop out turn 1 or 2, so their friends have a higher over all score. If you didn't win first two rounds with a good score you won't win the tournament anyway. So it is a good thing for your friend to have a higher chance to win and no friends to not.

There should be no stigma in conceding defeat in a tournament. An concession often means maximum points for your opponent, who should be all too happy for you to concede to them. However, it would generally be inadvisable, as many tournaments have scores based on things other than pure win-loss ratio. As such, playing to maximize these scores is an important part of tournament play. Continuing on in order to minimize your opponent's score too can be worth it if enough other people start going 2-1 without breaking into 3-0 or better territory, as then your own secondary points will also be worth more.

Now, in casual games, I don't like it when someone rage-quits. Generally, I find that people rage-quit when a crucial and unplanned imbalance takes place. For example, when someone goes in with their average Chaos Space Marine force, expecting a casual game, but then faces off against a 4-Flyrant tourney-style list, then loses half their force turn 1. That's not fun, and also not what the Chaos player signed on for. It is entirely within their right to concede in order to get out of that game early.

Otherwise, you keep playing so long as playing is fun, and should not feel obliged to play a moment longer. I just had a fantastic game with my Harlequins against some Raven Guard on the weekend. We both dealt a lot of damage to each other, but by the end of the 4th turn I had a single Troupe Master left. Yes, it was my Warlord, but I was seriously behind on points with no support against a very mobile opponent. My goose was well and thoroughly cooked. We could both see exactly what the next string of events would be, and there was no need to play it out. All the fun in that game had already happened, and calling it at that moment was the correct thing to do. I graciously offered the concession, congratulating my opponent on a very enjoyable game well played, and he proudly accepted it.

I have, yes. I played a game using 5th edition Necrons vs. 6th edition Tau (using 7th rules). My overlord failed 95% of all of his saves, dying in CC turn 1 to Stealth suits. First Blood and Slay the Warlord. Then all of my vehicles were immobilized turn 2, Deathmarks mishapped, Immortals came out of a Night Scythe and failed to even roll a 6 to glance his Falcon (Forgot to mention he had a few Eldar as allies), 2 turns of an annihilation barge shooting at Rangers in the open failed to kill them, and overall just not rolling well. I ended up conceding by the end of turn 2 because I hadn't even put a dent in his army whereas mine was almost dead.

Also had a game of 7th edition Necrons vs. 7th edition Eldar, Footcrons vs. Footdar. All of my shooting failed to kill even Dire Avengers, or a single Jetbike. All the while my Warlord (Anrakyr) failed his morale twice and ran off the board, and Trazyn and his Lychstar failed combat by 1 against an Avatar of Khaine and were swept. I quickly conceded, as the game was over at that point (wasn't even the end of turn 3, I don't think).

So, sometimes I feel it's okay to concede, especially if you know how the game is going to end up very early on. The game takes hours to play, and it's better to clean up and get another game in than drag one out where we know who's going to win.

I conceded to Tau once on turn 1, because I just didn't feel like target practice that day.

 Yarium wrote:

Now, in casual games, I don't like it when someone rage-quits. Generally, I find that people rage-quit when a crucial and unplanned imbalance takes place. For example, when someone goes in with their average Chaos Space Marine force, expecting a casual game, but then faces off against a 4-Flyrant tourney-style list, then loses half their force turn 1. That's not fun, and also not what the Chaos player signed on for. It is entirely within their right to concede in order to get out of that game early.

I agree with your sentiment in all regards, but I think the use of rage quit might be a bit... Heavy handed?

I'd personally associate rage quitting with the manner in which someone concedes / gives up / quits, rather than why they do it. Personal preference I suppose and purely semantics, but I feel that the aforementioned Chaos player conceding in a graceful (if extraordinarily quick) manner under those circumstances wouldn't be a rage quit so much as him realizing that each person is after a different type of game.

The Tau guy and I got beers afterwards. It was exhaustion quit, not rage quit.

Absolutely. Some games are just unwinnable, despite being the best general there is. If there's a chance for me to win or at least make it out with a draw, then I'll play to the bitter end.

If 90% of my forces are dead at the end of Turn 2, yeah, let's call it. We can set up for a rematch or just shoot the gak.

In a tournament, I'd try and make my opponent's win as hard as possible. The only time I'd quit in a tourney would be if he was TFG.

I really don't mean to keep harping on MTG, but it's actually encouraged in MTG. Matches in MTG are timed. You have 50 minutes to complete a best of three games. If you honestly know for a fact that you cannot win, it's best to concede so that you and the other player can move on to the next game to be able to complete the match within 50 minutes.

It also helps in overall time for the tournament (though many of you already know my feelings on playing Warhammer competitively). I have played MTG matches where the other player and myself finished within 20 minutes. While the 50 minutes is an absolute restriction, if a match hits the 50 minute mark, it goes to turns where there are a total of five turns remaining. In other words, it can easily go to 60 minutes. If you know for a fact that you're going to lose, then conceding the game and moving could very easily mean the difference between the next match starting early rather than people standing around waiting to play.

So, if you honestly just know you're going to lose, then I don't see anything wrong with conceding. That said, if you honestly know that you have plenty of time between now and the next match and you just want to go through the motions to see how things will turn out regardless, that can be fun, too.

Also, I make special exceptions for new players. Not all the time, but most of the time, when it comes to MTG, I can beat them in a few turns. But, I'll choose not to attack at all just so that I can see more of their deck to help give them advice as the game is going on and at the end of the game.

My $0.02

SG

Makumba wrote:

You have an obligation in a tournament not to concede prematurely, because points are at stake, and conceding gives your opponent max points. I've seen lots of tourneys where the margin between best overall is down to a matter of a few points. Play it out until the game is over or time's up.

But this is done in almost every event. People drop out turn 1 or 2, so their friends have a higher over all score. If you didn't win first two rounds with a good score you won't win the tournament anyway. So it is a good thing for your friend to have a higher chance to win and no friends to not.

How about my friends try and win on their own merits?

Now not about winning or losing, but what if you know you cannot keep up to speed, and this would penalise your opponent as well as yourself?

New players, tired players, and if we're being very cynical ...stalling players?

I'm not looking for validation, but I'll give an example - on Saturday I was taking part in a three game tourney, and started projectile vomiting midway through game 2 (not at the table). Having cleared my system, I was absolutely fine. Fit to play. But I was very tired, slow, and I'd cost my opponent at least 20mins of game time with no explanation bar running away with hands over my mouth.
Utter gent, he insisted that he was okay with playing on if I was happy to, and went on to beat me due to skill rather than me being spaced.
Looking back, it would have benefitted him if I conceded, as he was hampered severely by my speed.

 Peregrine wrote:
Yes, of course it's ok to concede a game when the outcome is inevitable. Just don't ragequit. Ragequitting is TFG behavior.

Sorry if this is a silly question, but what counts as a 'ragequit'?

There is nothing wrong with conceding, but some people have bad spirit and concede from games that they still have hope of victory.

I will not concede unless i have been destroyed to the point that it's 5 to 1 points and I am also behind on vp.

I've seen people throw fits if they got tabled early, like start throwing models and cursing loudly

 vipoid wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Yes, of course it's ok to concede a game when the outcome is inevitable. Just don't ragequit. Ragequitting is TFG behavior.

Sorry if this is a silly question, but what counts as a 'ragequit'?

Things just aren't going your way so you leave in frustration.

That said, I've never seen rage quits in 40k. Something about still being in their physical presence diminishes the effect.

Now flipping the table, that's something else