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.

Ban these players would halt this tactic.

If the player quits the game then the TO should consider the same player to have quit the event.

I know that when I go to an event I expect to play X amount of complete games. The only way I'm leaving a game early is if I have to leave the event. I expect the same from my opponents.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
If the player quits the game then the TO should consider the same player to have quit the event.

I know that when I go to an event I expect to play X amount of complete games. The only way I'm leaving a game early is if I have to leave the event. I expect the same from my opponents.

I like this answer. Simple and probably effective, without damaging the TO's bottom line. Bravo.

To answer the OP?

There’s a very, very simple answer.

You quit? You concede. Doesn’t matter if you were ahead on points when you walked - you walked. Full points to your opponent in an organised event.

As others have said, the GT21 rules spell out what to do. You play out your turns counting the opponent as destroyed. So your points total should be intact if your opponent throws in the towel on Turn 2. No need for drama. There might be some Secondaries where something has to killed by something specific, but these will be edge cases.

I've had games where my opponent or I have called it on Turn 4 - its a mutual agreement as per the rulebook. Let's say it is clear that one of you is going to tabled on the next turn. You honestly work out the points as if the turn played out, elbow bump and get an early lunch or just shoot the breeze and preserve brain cells. You need to be careful that the points are being done correctly to avoid disadvantaging other players in the standings, but that is true anyway. I recall a tourney in 8th edition where my Ork opponent on his Turn 1 mobbed up something like 25 Lootas and wiped out my Ravenwing Black Knights and Hellblasters, while a Da Jumped mob of 30 boyz crashed into my screen. My opponent mercifully suggested that we call it a day, I chuckled and agreed that perhaps we would get an early lunch. He got full points, and I got whatever the minimum was for that mission (they were custom missions by the TO).

I have found that tourneys are fun. They are also not for everyone! Additionally, sometimes people get cranky or have a bad moment. We all have bad days. There should be forgiveness for temporary losses of manners or mistakes. With the magic of the Internet, people who do not attend tournies get to read about or see a clip of something and get all outraged about something they really have no stake in.

This seems reasonable, to play out and score as if opponent were destroyed.

Perhaps additionally the player who walks should go no further in the tourney.

That said, my last GT was in 1995. My last indy tourney, I took best painted. I might consider another big event if sportsmanship is a deciding factor.

At most tournaments i have been to, the rule is that if your opponent concedes, you score max points on primary and on secondaries you can actually score (i.e. if you only have 2 units left you cannot score engage on all fronts).

At this point I'm sure most tournaments have rules in place, and players that abuse this sort of thing are likely encouraged to not return to that tournament.

There are also leagues, cliques, and groups at tournament scenes that try to game the game, including gimping potential tough opponents by playing in such a way not to maximize their own points, but simply to deny their opponent points so that other players within their group can get further in the standings.

A simple solution to all of these issues is to simply not play in tournaments! If you're not having fun in a hobby that you're spending thousands of dollars to participate in, you might be doing it wrong!

As others have mentioned, the GT pack has rules that cover this. This sounds like ignorance of the DE player. Plus it sounds like they didn't bother asking the TO. There's not much you can do about structuring rules to help someone who is ignorant and doesn't ask.

The bigger issue is when TOs use Battle Points as being the primary tiebreaker. An event that I'm looking at going to (lockdowns permitting) is using pure Battle Points to determine victor - so you could conceivably lose all of your games, and come first over all if you score well enough on BP. Ultimately, whatever you are looking at using for a tie breaker is a poor substitute for the tied players actually playing. But with time constraints, etc, this is often not feasible.

Racerguy180 wrote:
As long as there is dice involved, it can never be an actual sport. The entire game is built around randomness.

Karol is the polish equivalent of Tonya Harding and feel bad for anyone that has the unfortunate luck to face them.

Good luck with that attitude in the real world......

Maybe I can sense the cultural values of removing elements in a sport to dumb it down to the maximum level, kind of like NASCAR where having zomg, like two directions to turn is just too much mental load

Yeah, well, you know that’s just like, uh, your opinion, man..

.

 GoldenHorde wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
As long as there is dice involved, it can never be an actual sport. The entire game is built around randomness.

Karol is the polish equivalent of Tonya Harding and feel bad for anyone that has the unfortunate luck to face them.

Good luck with that attitude in the real world......

Maybe I can sense the cultural values of removing elements in a sport to dumb it down to the maximum level, kind of like NASCAR where having zomg, like two directions to turn is just too much mental load

Yeah, well, you know that’s just like, uh, your opinion, man..

.

Yeah, I'm glad that games with large random components like Poker don't have competitive environments built around them. Oh wait...

You play out your turns counting the opponent as destroyed. So your points total should be intact if your opponent throws in the towel on Turn 2. No need for drama. There might be some Secondaries where something has to killed by something specific, but these will be edge cases.

I think the problem is what we call the small points. If there are two people who went 4:1, then to check who is higher you check the quality of the opponents they beat. If one person won vs 4 people who later on won 3-4 games, they will have more small points, then a person who has one or two people who droped out after round 2-3, and only had 2-3 games played in the event. So it is not just trying to get an easier opponent while still maximazing number of big points earned.

Vatsetis wrote:
Ohh the delights of "competitive" 40k... They never get old

Here’s me agreeing with, wtf! Didn’t see that coming.

JakeSiren wrote:

 GoldenHorde wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
As long as there is dice involved, it can never be an actual sport. The entire game is built around randomness.

Karol is the polish equivalent of Tonya Harding and feel bad for anyone that has the unfortunate luck to face them.

Good luck with that attitude in the real world......

Maybe I can sense the cultural values of removing elements in a sport to dumb it down to the maximum level, kind of like NASCAR where having zomg, like two directions to turn is just too much mental load

Yeah, well, you know that’s just like, uh, your opinion, man..

.

Yeah, I'm glad that games with large random components like Poker don't have competitive environments built around them. Oh wait...

The randomness in poker is spread around more than 2 players, is and always has been gambling with money to lose.
Maybe tournaments should require a buy in & started making you put your army in the pot. You win, keep your army, lose and bye bye minis. You might see a change in how people play it huh????. Then you could make a poker comparison.

I'm only used to the competitive scene in Ireland, which is so small that if you got a name for doing stuff like that then no one would ever buy you a pint again, and that's a fate worse than death.

Any event worth its salt has a “set score/max points awarded for a forfeit” rule. I don’t just mean in Warhammer, any tournament.

I still don't get if OP was a t a tourney or if this was a random game at a store..

If i wasnt having fun and there was no way for me to win, id happily concede after T2.

I'dd just talk it out with my opponent to calculate points and award them max points for stuff that would depend on rolls.

Recenlty played a game against and was happy to call it a day after T2 because It was clear to me I had zero chance. My oponent insisted we played it out "because you might still pull out a win".

I obliged but there was absolutely no point in continuing (one of those situations where literally every single dice would have to be a 6 for at least two turns).

I don't understand the attitude of forcing people to play if its an absolute annihilation.. If I thrash someone where its virtually impossible for them to win in like T2, I'm not going to make them play on so i can feel good about killing their models while they just sat around bored removing units with no chance to win.

Racerguy180 wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 GoldenHorde wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
As long as there is dice involved, it can never be an actual sport. The entire game is built around randomness.

Karol is the polish equivalent of Tonya Harding and feel bad for anyone that has the unfortunate luck to face them.

Good luck with that attitude in the real world......

Maybe I can sense the cultural values of removing elements in a sport to dumb it down to the maximum level, kind of like NASCAR where having zomg, like two directions to turn is just too much mental load

Yeah, well, you know that’s just like, uh, your opinion, man..

.

Yeah, I'm glad that games with large random components like Poker don't have competitive environments built around them. Oh wait...

The randomness in poker is spread around more than 2 players, is and always has been gambling with money to lose.
Maybe tournaments should require a buy in & started making you put your army in the pot. You win, keep your army, lose and bye bye minis. You might see a change in how people play it huh????. Then you could make a poker comparison.

Yes and no. You often see poker players going head to head with each other after everyone else has run out of chips. It's about how the more skilled players deal with the randomness to come out victorious. Same about 40k, randomness isn't a barrier to it becoming a "sport" (as far as one could consider Poker a sport that is). With that said, 40k has problems in being entertaining for the masses spectating. Poker is relatively easy for someone to pick up on the action, where as 40k is not.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
To answer the OP?

There’s a very, very simple answer.

You quit? You concede. Doesn’t matter if you were ahead on points when you walked - you walked. Full points to your opponent in an organised event.

Great! Now you've made it possible for a handful of guys 'just visiting from out of town' (but actually colluding), if they get matched up, to concede to bolster the better player's scores. They can also act as spoilers against likely leaders.

I've actually seen a variation of this done at a Grand Tournament back in the 90s. Groups show up, and several players with armies built to play for solely draws (mostly Wood elves at the time, thanks to the ways the could force terrain and just run away from engaging, while easily killing small units/artillery/etc). This tanks other players points totals, and if they happen to get pair with their partners, suddenly they can lose to bolster scores for their 'real players.'

Having internal points from individual games contribute to standings creates a lot of problems that can be exploited. Full marks to opponents is easily manipulated, regardless of why you're doing it.

Even without collusion, its a crappy way to deal with situation. Bob suddenly gets 100/100 and downtime because his opponent bailed while everyone else has to fight for every inch? You've just irrevocably skewed the tournament results for every other person who weren't involved and a potential front runner that didn't even vaguely earn their standing.

Voss wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
To answer the OP?

There’s a very, very simple answer.

You quit? You concede. Doesn’t matter if you were ahead on points when you walked - you walked. Full points to your opponent in an organised event.

Great! Now you've made it possible for a handful of guys 'just visiting from out of town' (but actually colluding), if they get matched up, to concede to bolster the better player's scores. They can also act as spoilers against likely leaders.

I've actually seen a variation of this done at a Grand Tournament back in the 90s. Groups show up, and several players with armies built to play for solely draws (mostly Wood elves at the time, thanks to the ways the could force terrain and just run away from engaging, while easily killing small units/artillery/etc). This tanks other players points totals, and if they happen to get pair with their partners, suddenly they can lose to bolster scores for their 'real players.'

Having internal points from individual games contribute to standings creates a lot of problems that can be exploited. Full marks to opponents is easily manipulated, regardless of why you're doing it.

Even without collusion, its a crappy way to deal with situation. Bob suddenly gets 100/100 and downtime because his opponent bailed while everyone else has to fight for every inch? You've just irrevocably skewed the tournament results for every other person who weren't involved and a potential front runner that didn't even vaguely earn their standing.

All allowing concensions does is make that take less time. Because you get the same result without it:

- Bob and five friends show up at a tournament.
- If Bob and one of the five play, then the friend plays deliberately weak so that Bob walk all over them (forgetting to run away, "misjudging" distances, etc.)
- As a result, Bob walks away with max points.

Your point about the issue being internal points being carried across still stands, but the ability to concede games doesn't.

Again, there's a better system that addresses most of these concerns, while also promoting ongoing positive interactions instead of seal clubbing, and it's a system most other competitive games use, because it is so clearly better that once a game moves to using it almost nobody wants to go back to the old system.

It won't solve someone deliberately throwing a game to help a friend, because nothing can solve that short of banning the colluding players. But it solves seal clubbing, it solves submarining, it solves players being overly generous talking through games because it's in both their interests to give each other points, it solves concessions, and while doing all that, it encourages more experienced players to teach less experienced ones instead of take maximum advantage of them. It's simply a better system, and it's way past time 40k got with the times. We don't need to continue to try to improve the hexagonal wheel, when the rest of the competitive world is already using round ones.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Any event worth its salt has a “set score/max points awarded for a forfeit” rule. I don’t just mean in Warhammer, any tournament.

Which has it's own problems with "'i'll lose so i forfeit to give max points to my buddies"

Game continuing and enemy units counting as dead gives bit closer appropriation of "real" scores. Still not same result as playing out but closer so you don't score points you literally couldn't had game continued(you don't score units surviving to the end if you already lost it, no scoring table quarters if you have just 2 units or can't reach etc)

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

The_Real_Chris wrote:
Don't they normally have rules giving bonuses to people whose opponents drop out?

In my local tournaments, if someone surrenders, the other player gets to speedrun their turns to see how many points they can get. (Of course its not optimal but its better than getting gimped of pts)

That is a really bad way to handle that.

 BlackoCatto wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

The_Real_Chris wrote:
Don't they normally have rules giving bonuses to people whose opponents drop out?

In my local tournaments, if someone surrenders, the other player gets to speedrun their turns to see how many points they can get. (Of course its not optimal but its better than getting gimped of pts)

That is a really bad way to handle that.

So what's better way to get as close to what player would have scored? Hopefully you won't say max scores as that's very bad way. Not often player scores max naturally.

I'm not sure the best way to handle it, but from reading the above replies it seems that the biggest issue is how (if at all) the Victory points in a battle or the margin of the win interacts with the ranking system.

Not being super familiar with how these sort of things are calculated, would it be unreasonable to treat game where one player concedes early the same as for a forfeited game due to a no-show or a bye for a round? ( I assume there is such a thing for odd numbers of players or if a player has to pull out of a competition for some reason?)

Aash wrote:
I'm not sure the best way to handle it, but from reading the above replies it seems that the biggest issue is how (if at all) the Victory points in a battle or the margin of the win interacts with the ranking system.

Not being super familiar with how these sort of things are calculated, would it be unreasonable to treat game where one player concedes early the same as for a forfeited game due to a no-show or a bye for a round? ( I assume there is such a thing for odd numbers of players or if a player has to pull out of a competition for some reason?)

As yukishiro1 explained, essentially any system where players can influence their or their opponent's tiebreaker are open for manipulation and reward toxic behavior. If concessions reward full points, you can concede to help a friend or you have people trying to make their opponents concede to get a better shot at winning the event.
On the other hand, if you do not reward full points for concessions, a player can hurt their opponent by conceding.

So the best course of action is to not allow players to directly influence their or other's tiebreaker score. The system yukishiro explained was known to me as "opponent score" when I was still playing MtG competitively. Essentially, the person winning against the strongest opponents was the best, which kind of makes sense, right? The better your opponents did during event, the higher your chances for prices were.
Especially during events with many inexperienced players like releases or pre-releases it was a regular way of improving your chances of winning by helping your opponent improve their deck, sideboard better or just play a few more games with them to get them used to the new cards.

It's funny because we actually have proof that this happens to big tournaments; the max scoring thing.

LOL this is a simple fix - you call the TO - he will award you 100 point.

 IanMalcolmAbs wrote:
LOL this is a simple fix - you call the TO - he will award you 100 point.

That's simple but still flawed solution.

 IanMalcolmAbs wrote:
LOL this is a simple fix - you call the TO - he will award you 100 point

I'm not saying you are wrong, but it strikes me you are making an argument with zero effort to read the ones before it. Literally 5 people have pointed out how that is a good solution for the person who wins, and a terrible solution for the tournament. Because then you have a group of people who can catapault each other into the finals based off points alone. Also, it seriously breaks the weighted value system currently in place for bracketing winners by points.