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.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So now that I know there is an actual RULE in the BRB to avoid this, how do you actually score points for "slay the warlord" or what ever, if the other player has taken their minis off the table. Nothing in a book is going to keep minis on a table if the player learns their partner is in the ER and needs to leave ASAP. Or, as a worse situation, if the other player is a dick, and just removes the models from the board and says F off.

That rule doesn't give any sort of bonus or actual help to the player who just got screwed over.

Models not on the table after turn 3 count as destroyed, don't they?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jeff white wrote:

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.

Most of the time sportsmanship scores are even easier to exploit to screw people over than battlepoints.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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..

.

It's one of the single dumbest sentiments I've ever seen, and it's Racerguy so there's a MASSIVE list of dumb things to beat already.

What do you mean 'games revolving around randomness can never be sports (paraphrased)?' Sports in the real world are inherently based on randomness simply because they exist in reality rather than in an abstracted play space. The RULES of sports don't have random elements because existing in liminal space provides randomness aplenty.

That's actually WHY games like 40k and guild ball and etc have random elements in the rules. So that they can more accurately reflect just how chaotic and nonsensical doing anything, anywhere in real life actually is.

One way to prevent dodgy matchups affecting scores would be to only score the middle scores for tie breaks (so in a 5 round tournament you wouldn't count the lowest and highest of the player's scores).

ERJAK 800448 11204583 wrote:What do you mean 'games revolving around randomness can never be sports (paraphrased)?' Sports in the real world are inherently based on randomness simply because they exist in reality rather than in an abstracted play space. The RULES of sports don't have random elements because existing in liminal space provides randomness aplenty.
.

Picking buckets for football is half random, half made in a such a way to not create too many death groups. Penality shots after over time is more or less a roulett, on who ever wins or doesn't.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 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.

Can we agree on "If not specified in the tournament pack, call a judge (or the TO, depending on size of event) over if this occurs so they can confirm for you how to resolve the situation." ?

Whatever their approach is, you implicitly agree with it when you agreed to play in the event. It might not be the "best" solution, but it's the solution for that day/weekend.

 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.

Unless I am misunderstanding what speed-run means, it is actually in line with the Grand Tournament 2021 Mission Pack: "If only one player wants to end the battle early then that player must concede and remove all their models from the battlefield. A player who concedes scores 0 victory points and their opponent is automatically the the victor (even if they scored 0 victory points during the battle). The other player can continue to play out their turns until the battle ends if they wish, perhaps to accrue a few more victory points, or they can choose to end the battle now."

 Dysartes wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 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.

Can we agree on "If not specified in the tournament pack, call a judge (or the TO, depending on size of event) over if this occurs so they can confirm for you how to resolve the situation." ?

Whatever their approach is, you implicitly agree with it when you agreed to play in the event. It might not be the "best" solution, but it's the solution for that day/weekend.

I disagree with the outcome, but I think leaving it up to the TO is the best and most honest thing to do. Unless the TO is personal friends with one party, aka how Reece owns FLG and runs a GT that he still plays in?

That has issue of a) not knowing how things are　handled in advance b) opens up same situation handled differently. Possibly even in same tournament...

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Karol wrote:
Yep. Seen it done, often enough to consider it being a regular thing. It is like your trainer ask you to hurt a guy from another school, when they know you will not rank anyway. Some people don't like it, but playing the rules is as important as playing the game.

Its not playing the rules, its being a dick.

you gain nothing from preventing others from achieving better results.

Imagine thinking that voluntarily hurting someone should be normal, absolutely flying rodent gak insane opinion.

I will agree that this is a dick move, but this happens on more than a few occasion in organized sports. I would hope that as a Canadian, you know what an enforcer does on a hockey team. Likewise you may have seen baseball players get hit at the plate in the MLB. No pitcher stays that long at that level by throwing wild pitches and hitting players by accident. Add injuries in Football from things like late hits, and violations of fair catches, etc. and I can see plenty of times where players and athletes would eliminate the competition. Of course how could anyone miss this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kr24G8jQpM

Are these all dick moves? Totally. Do they happen in real life? You bet. Illegal moves and plays? It really depends on the rules. Do people care some times? Sometimes they don't. Are they practicing good sportsmanship? Not likely, but in situations where it comes up, I always ask for more context.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 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.

No - it is the only solution that works. Is there any way you can say that the player who was getting cheated - wouldn't have been able to acquire 100 points if not for the other players quitting? No - you can't say that because the game has random variables. You punish the leaver - not the person playing by the rules.

Sure I could see this has potential for abuse if players try to help their team mates get 100 points for quitting but a team mate could easily throw a game without quitting to. What you do in this case is you give TO leeway to issue penalties for questionable "team" behavior.

The rules should be simple - play to the best of your ability or receive 0 points. Repeated offenders are banned for increasing amounts of time for repeat offenses.

Obviously a rule like this is quite subjective this whole game is subjective and requires a social contract to play by the rules.

 IanMalcolmAbs wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 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.

No - it is the only solution that works. Is there any way you can say that the player who was getting cheated - wouldn't have been able to acquire 100 points if not for the other players quitting? No - you can't say that because the game has random variables. You punish the leaver - not the person playing by the rules.

Sure I could see this has potential for abuse if players try to help their team mates get 100 points for quitting but a team mate could easily throw a game without quitting to. What you do in this case is you give TO leeway to issue penalties for questionable "team" behavior.

The rules should be simple - play to the best of your ability or receive 0 points. Repeated offenders are banned for increasing amounts of time for repeat offenses.

Obviously a rule like this is quite subjective this whole game is subjective and requires a social contract to play by the rules.

But that is exactly NOT what is happening. If player one never had the slightest possible chance of winning 100 points, why should they be gifted 100 points simply because the other player didn't want to enact the labor of finishing the game? If player 1 only scored 10 out of 20 points in the first turn, you are retroactively giving them 10 points they didn't earn.

The best possible scenario is that we make an enforceable rule against rage quitting. If you quit 1 game, you essentially quit all games. Target the offense, don't reward the offended. You RQ a game, you are out of the tournament, end of story. Your team is docked all the points you may have amassed, and you are issued a tournament warning. 3 warnings in a year and you are banned from competitive play for a period of time to be decided.

As some others have pointed out, what to do when someone concedes is defined in the GT pack, which almost all tournaments use, so a player "torpedoing" anothers score in spite is just bad TO'ing. The player still at the table plays out the rest of their turns and scores what's possible to score. The immediate max score is a terrible idea in systems that use points for pairings

Gores wrote:
As some others have pointed out, what to do when someone concedes is defined in the GT pack, which almost all tournaments use, so a player "torpedoing" anothers score in spite is just bad TO'ing. The player still at the table plays out the rest of their turns and scores what's possible to score. The immediate max score is a terrible idea in systems that use points for pairings

Some objectives require enemy units - are you saying they should count every kill objective as max possible points? but for example a kill the warlord objective on turn 1 is 13 points - so that should not be counted as 15? Sure. I agree with that but....When I said 100 points I meant "max possible points".

You also bring another point to mind. Every objective that does not yield a max of 15 points possible should be immediately redesigned to allow a max 15 point score - indeed it is another issue but I believe it is at the core of your objection here. Not all objectives can score max points - there is 0 reason for this other than the (un)intended consequence of making it easier to game the system with a list that is "hard to score against"...I can assure you - this is not something the game designers had in mind at all when they made this setup. Though I believe it likely is something that "game testers" / "pro players" want - because it makes easier for them to stroke Epeen by making it easier for them to consistently win.

 IanMalcolmAbs wrote:

No - it is the only solution that works. Is there any way you can say that the player who was getting cheated - wouldn't have been able to acquire 100 points if not for the other players quitting? No - you can't say that because the game has random variables. You punish the leaver - not the person playing by the rules.

You don't have fully painted army, 10 points you can't score.

You　took deploy scramblers, that's max 12 pts you score.

Keep 3 most expensive units alive 5vp each and already lost 1? 5 vp can't score.

Have engage on all fronts and only got to 3 quarters first 3 turns, 3 vp you can't score.

Lots of ways you end up quaranteed les than 100 vp. Several secondaries already locks you away. So you are warping tournament by giving them vp's they never were able to score no matter how dice rolls up

Your idea proven faulty in practice in real life tournaments for years

Just ask the TO what his/her rule is concerning concessions. If you don't like it then don't enter the event. Otherwise, just live with it as they call it.

The most logical way is to just not stop the game. The conceding player removes their models from the board (counting as destroyed) and the remaining player plays out the remainder of their turns until the game ends.

I don't see why it should be any different to simply tabling the opponent

 kirotheavenger wrote:
The most logical way is to just not stop the game. The conceding player removes their models from the board (counting as destroyed) and the remaining player plays out the remainder of their turns until the game ends.

I don't see why it should be any different to simply tabling the opponent

This I think is the best way, most games I have play has treat concession as a respectful thing to not waste time and drag it out.
If you punish a player to the point that continuing playing at all, it can muck up entire tournaments as well if players are needed to play multiple games.

Same with rewarding a player for winining so much the opponent is left having to suffer more so to not muck up your tournament or leave.

Apple fox wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
The most logical way is to just not stop the game. The conceding player removes their models from the board (counting as destroyed) and the remaining player plays out the remainder of their turns until the game ends.

I don't see why it should be any different to simply tabling the opponent

This I think is the best way, most games I have play has treat concession as a respectful thing to not waste time and drag it out.
If you punish a player to the point that continuing playing at all, it can muck up entire tournaments as well if players are needed to play multiple games.

Same with rewarding a player for winining so much the opponent is left having to suffer more so to not muck up your tournament or leave.

This topic is about people conceding to try and game the system. No one here is talking about someone conceding when the writing is on the wall and the game is already effectively over and decided.

This would also prevent someone gaming the system since you wouldn't be denying your opponent anything.

 Ordana wrote:
This topic is about people conceding to try and game the system. No one here is talking about someone conceding when the writing is on the wall and the game is already effectively over and decided.

This is something that needs to be addressed though. I remember reading a discussion where one player was intentionally trash talking, being toxic and the like to increase the chances of his opponent not wanting to finish the game, as a conceding opponent was better four your tournament results than one who fought till the end.

As long as a concessions can affect the tie breaker of a tournament in any way, it can be gamed and will cause problems.

I agree there will always be some problems. Even if you continue the game without your opponent you'll score more points in those turns than if they were resisting.
Although that applies even if you force people to keep playing without conceding; if they don't want to keep playing they're unlikely to be trying their hardest.

The only solution to this problem would be changing the system such that it only matters who wins, the amount by which they win being irrelevant.

However, that plays into the wider problem of judging 40k tournaments, in which you need to declare the "best" player based on just a handful of games, often only 3-6.
Video game tournaments will often use that amount of games for the grand finale between the top two, let alone the entire tournament.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
The most logical way is to just not stop the game. The conceding player removes their models from the board (counting as destroyed) and the remaining player plays out the remainder of their turns until the game ends.

I don't see why it should be any different to simply tabling the opponent

This is what the GT 2021 Mission Packs offers on page 6.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
The only solution to this problem would be changing the system such that it only matters who wins, the amount by which they win being irrelevant.

However, that plays into the wider problem of judging 40k tournaments, in which you need to declare the "best" player based on just a handful of games, often only 3-6.
Video game tournaments will often use that amount of games for the grand finale between the top two, let alone the entire tournament.

There are solutions to that though, MtG events also tend to run for just a few rounds and you can usually quickly find a winner.

An example that was given is opponent score.

For example if us two entered a tournament and both won 5 games and lost 0, the tie breaker would who had the better opponents.
Our five opponents play a total of 25 games in the meantime, and all of mine combined win 7, because I managed to hit some weaker players and hard countered a skew list. My opponent score is 28%.
Your opponents include the current champion and some ITC pro who you just barely managed to beat, as well as some other decent players so your opponents won a total of 18 games. Your opponent score is 72%.

Usually you support this system by swiss pairing variant to reduce the chances of having ties by matching people having the same opponent score.

Again, if one model pulls their warlord an all their Characters off the table, how does one score for killing characters or the warlord?

You simply count all of them as destroyed?

Also, Fezzik, you still haven't said whether the game in question was a tournament game, a league game, a pick-up game or completely hypothetical. The short answer to your original question depends on that. The longer answer is probably worth discussing further but it's not exactly a subject that TOs haven't given quite a lot of thought to already.

Slipspace wrote:
Also, Fezzik, you still haven't said whether the game in question was a tournament game, a league game, a pick-up game or completely hypothetical. The short answer to your original question depends on that. The longer answer is probably worth discussing further but it's not exactly a subject that TOs haven't given quite a lot of thought to already.

Well this was based on real game as per 1st post so not hypothetical. Not random pick up either as standings was involved. So either tournament or league.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Again, if one model pulls their warlord an all their Characters off the table, how does one score for killing characters or the warlord?

The rules definitely state any model not on the board at the end of the game counts as destroyed. So all those models are destroyed.

Under the GT2020 rules, you would have a question as what turn the Warlord as destroyed. That is irrelevant in the GT2021 rules.

The biggest issue then is a matter is when destroying a unit in a certain way or at a certain time is important to scoring the secondary. That's something to discuss with the TO.

 alextroy wrote:
The biggest issue then is a matter is when destroying a unit in a certain way or at a certain time is important to scoring the secondary. That's something to discuss with the TO.

I don't have any of my books to hand, but which ones have "a certain way" as part of the criteria?

 Dysartes wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
The biggest issue then is a matter is when destroying a unit in a certain way or at a certain time is important to scoring the secondary. That's something to discuss with the TO.

I don't have any of my books to hand, but which ones have "a certain way" as part of the criteria?

Oath of Moment, for example, has VPs for destroying a Character or Monster each round.

Death on the Wind requires units to be destroyed by melee or by a unit that has moved more than 12".

Edge cases, and I am fairly sure that a TO could work out a reasonable solution.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
The biggest issue then is a matter is when destroying a unit in a certain way or at a certain time is important to scoring the secondary. That's something to discuss with the TO.

I don't have any of my books to hand, but which ones have "a certain way" as part of the criteria?

Oath of Moment, for example, has VPs for destroying a Character or Monster each round.

Death on the Wind requires units to be destroyed by melee or by a unit that has moved more than 12".

Edge cases, and I am fairly sure that a TO could work out a reasonable solution.

I think it goes way beyond edge cases. Many faction specific secondaries require special timing and/or circumstances to be scored.

2 of the 4 Adepta Sorortitas secondaries require enemy interaction and timing:

A Leap of Faith: Use Acts of Faith during both your and your opponent's turn, which is hard to do with no targets or units to kill each turn

Slay the Heretic: Destory enemy units during your shooting phase with specific weapons, again hard to do with no targets