Competitive Event Game Concessions

[Deadkitten]

What do people thing about conceding games at a competitive event?  I got mauled by an alpha strike army and conceded bc I just didn't see any possible way to a Victory Point victory.  Maybe I could have played to table him but that seriously wasn't realistic either.  Should I have just played it out?  Is it ok to bail on an un-fun play experience?

 

[Waiyuren]

The first tournament I went to gave full kill points to the winner in the event of a player conceding, which was fine with me as it allowed the losing player to save face, while not costing the winner anything.

The second tournament I went to didn't however... The whole idea of being forced to play out a game that is obviously over just for kill points seems a little pointless and sadistic to me, but be prepared to lose sportsmanship points for "being a sore loser" if the event doesn't allow you to keep it friendly and fun... 😒

[SolomonHelsing]

If someone wants to bail on a game mid-way then it's up to them. I'd like to see all tournaments give a ruling for what happens when they do however.

Personally I go to tournaments to play 3/5/6 games and I see all of mine through to the end, even when I've definitely lost on victory points, kill points are still a big enough thing that I want to try and secure more of them. Plus at that point it gets to the part of warhammer that my lists are better for due to not fielding mass skinks but the rather hardier and far better in melee Saurus Guard. 

If it's a game that I've been totally killed on objective points on, I see it as a good  chance to bring something back from it for myself, and I'm pretty sure i've had some opponents even say they were happy I kept it going despite the fact I'd already lost.

 

[svnvaldez]

I prefer an early concession by my opponent. It leaves them no opportunity to come back in the game... this is assuming the player pack is written well and I will be awarded full side mission points and such.

[The Jabber Tzeentch]

5 hours ago, Deadkitten said:

What do people thing about conceding games at a competitive event?  I got mauled by an alpha strike army and conceded bc I just didn't see any possible way to a Victory Point victory.  Maybe I could have played to table him but that seriously wasn't realistic either.  Should I have just played it out?  Is it ok to bail on an un-fun play experience?

 

I think if you’re conceding at a competitive event, why are you playing?

Firstly you should be able to enjoy a game even if you’re losing  

Secondly it’s a competitive event. You should be fighting for every last kill point and every victory point to get a higher placement. 

Personal experience: game I played recently I had the second turn and took off all my opponents offensive units and had a solid place on the objectives to win, I could tell he’d mentally quit on winning but with a few pointers by turn 5 he managed to win by one VP. 

Its not over, until it’s over.

 

[Eevika]

22 minutes ago, The Jabber Tzeentch said:

I think if you’re conceding at a competitive event, why are you playing?

Firstly you should be able to enjoy a game even if you’re losing  

Secondly it’s a competitive event. You should be fighting for every last kill point and every victory point to get a higher placement. 

Personal experience: game I played recently I had the second turn and took off all my opponents offensive units and had a solid place on the objectives to win, I could tell he’d mentally quit on winning but with a few pointers by turn 5 he managed to win by one VP. 

Its not over, until it’s over.

 

But sometimes you have 3 models in the end of the third battleround and your enemy has respawned 70% his army. Thats where I usually call it.

[RuneBrush]

My own view is it depends entirely on the tournament and the way scoring works.  If you conceding isn't going to effect rankings, then I see no reason why you shouldn't concede and congratulate your opponent on gaining such a decisive victory.  I do think you should always speak to your opponent first a simple "I'm thinking of calling it" and see what they say - it should allow you to gauge if anything is salvageable or if there's a reason your opponent wishes to continue.

If however continuing to play will effect the ranking in some way then you really should play it out.  So let's say a tournament is using Kill Points as a decider and continuing to play will result in you possibly gaining some and preventing your opponent getting a full 2000, then play to the end.  If you know you're going to be tabled next turn then I don't see an issue (the end result is the same).

I also think another thing to bear in mind is enjoyment - if you've been battered by an unforgiving opponent and they're making no effort to give you a good game (or simply rubbing your nose in it), then conceding is a perfectly valid way of getting out of that unpleasant situation.

[AaronWilson]

I personally wouldn't concede, I might as well roll some dice and have a laugh with my opponent (as long as they're nice a guy to play) until I mathematically can't win.

If a opponent wants to concede I'll never force them to play, I just want both of us to have a fun game and a laugh. If my opponent isn't having fun then fair enough. 

[BobbyB]

I've  lost on multiple occasions after my opponent tried to concede and I talked them out of it 😎

[Melcavuk]

I think even if the game has become unwinnable you can bring it down to the base level of enjoying moving miniatures against an opponent. Yes there are moment you can likely never come back from but then setting yourself a mental objective just to kill X wizard with your last three dudes for a heroic last stand. Or tanking it own on your own objective on the off chance your opponent might get over cocky and abandon their own. Whilst I do get that the competitive mindset might occasionally go to win/lose its also a game that we're meant to have fun playing, so if you're down to lose then you still have fun left.

[Eevika]

10 minutes ago, Melcavuk said:

I think even if the game has become unwinnable you can bring it down to the base level of enjoying moving miniatures against an opponent. Yes there are moment you can likely never come back from but then setting yourself a mental objective just to kill X wizard with your last three dudes for a heroic last stand. Or tanking it own on your own objective on the off chance your opponent might get over cocky and abandon their own. Whilst I do get that the competitive mindset might occasionally go to win/lose its also a game that we're meant to have fun playing, so if you're down to lose then you still have fun left.

I'm down to lose and love playing but when your opponent is getting double turns and taking extremely long to just butcher you it gets boring not doing anything and just watching him destroy you. If the game is nice and even I will play a lost game with no problem but if its a slaughter it just gets boring. 

[JackStreicher]

I think it‘s fine.

If in our tournaments s.o. Gives up the other player continues as if his enemy vanished: if 3 turns are left he moves and scores 3 more times.

[Dead Scribe]

I'm fine with it so long as I get max points.  There's no point in wasting our time if you already know who is going to win.  Same as I'm ok with leaving a tournament after day 1 if I can't win the tournament at all, no point in wasting time.

[Deadkitten]

It was game 5 of a 5 round event.  No kill points involved and he mathematically had me on VPs.  He got a double turn on me which was the nail in the coffin.  We chatted about it a bit and I asked if he seriously thought his Deathstar wouldn't finish off another key block of my army.  He agreed it would.  I found out it was his first event and told him I'd play it out since I didn't want him to not get a game in but he said he was happy to stop early since he had a long drive back.  It was all very friendly and we had a nice discussion about the game and what I did wrong.

[Vanger]

I've been on both sides personally. Tabling my opponent and me being tabled early on.  Conceding is a desperate feeling, that often misleads you and robs you of a potential victory.

Last week I played in a small point 40K tournament. On my 2nd game I came upon situation, where I thought that it's impossible to solve. I wanted to give up, but then I grit my teeth, and looked at the situation again. In the end I had 2 models on the table (a primaris bolter marine and a character) left, but I won. Came up tied for 3rd in the end.

So what I want to say with this, I personally am of the opinion that at a competitive event you shouldn't concede. Victory points are important in rankings. On the other side, except if you are wiped off the table hard, there is always an opportunity to win or at least a draw. Or even that is not in the realm of possibility. It's a learning opportunity. To see what works and what not (I mean if you are already loosing, then why not try out a crazy combo? Like charging the enemies big monster with your battleline troops and see what happens? Fortune is a fickle mistress, a gryph hound once stopped my maw-krusha :D), how you should've build your list .

There is one exception to this. If your opponent is an assh*le or plays too slowly and even if he is clearly wining, he agonizes minutes about the smallest detail. That's not only painful, but masochistic to stand there and suffer. Then it's perfectly ok, to quit.
Because honestly if you are wiping someone, at least have the decency to do it fast and don't rub it in.

[gjnoronh]

I've gone back to old fashioned 0-20 scoring for my event (Da Boyz  GT in the NE US) to try and give even the losing player something to play for in every round of the game.    I didn't think it appeared people were having a fun time when a table handing in their score sheet 20 minutes into the round.  People seem to have enjoyed the chance to fight for some points even in a loss.   

2018 scenario pool 'draft' here

https://docs.google.com/document/d/18-y0A9e_FinflP-jjvCddQfY_K6U2zOT_9MM9TaIXrQ/edit?usp=sharing

 

[Forrix]

I generally don't concede because then you're standing around for the rest of the round waiting for other games to finish and there's usually kill points or secondaries you can go for. That said, I'm fine with conceding as long as the winning player doesn't get inadvertently penalized via secondary objectives or kill points.

As long as the conceding player isn't rude about it I don't think there's a sportsmanship issue with conceding a game. If anything taking an absolute ****** kicker of a list or all-in alpha strike list and criticizing your opponent for conceding after they've decisively lost the game is the poor sportsmanship element.

Edit: I feel the profanity filter is a little overzealous...

[stato]

44 minutes ago, Vanger said:

I've been on both sides personally. Tabling my opponent and me being tabled early on.  Conceding is a desperate feeling, that often misleads you and robs you of a potential victory.

Last week I played in a small point 40K tournament. On my 2nd game I came upon situation, where I thought that it's impossible to solve. I wanted to give up, but then I grit my teeth, and looked at the situation again. In the end I had 2 models on the table (a primaris bolter marine and a character) left, but I won. Came up tied for 3rd in the end.

So what I want to say with this, I personally am of the opinion that at a competitive event you shouldn't concede. Victory points are important in rankings. On the other side, except if you are wiped off the table hard, there is always an opportunity to win or at least a draw. Or even that is not in the realm of possibility. It's a learning opportunity. To see what works and what not (I mean if you are already loosing, then why not try out a crazy combo? Like charging the enemies big monster with your battleline troops and see what happens? Fortune is a fickle mistress, a gryph hound once stopped my maw-krusha :D), how you should've build your list .

There is one exception to this. If your opponent is an assh*le or plays too slowly and even if he is clearly wining, he agonizes minutes about the smallest detail. That's not only painful, but masochistic to stand there and suffer. Then it's perfectly ok, to quit.
Because honestly if you are wiping someone, at least have the decency to do it fast and don't rub it in.

The point with this is, you assume everyone there is only there to be competitive.  If people who just wanted to play for fun didnt go to these events you would have half the attendance and probabaly less events to play at as a result.

If im playing someone who's sole goal is to win, then i dont mind conceeding.  If im playing someone who wants to win and is also having fun with it/me, then ill keep playing.

Also, events that use Kill points as secondaries are rapidly vanishing (in the UK it seems anyway), they were never great and secondary objectives are generally the preferred approach now.

[SwampHeart]

So I've got two different view points on this one:

-I don't mind my opponent conceding, if he isn't having a good time or he's just out the game I don't want to force him to continue. The big caveat here is that the player pack is properly done and I get max points from a concession. Strategic concessions to sandbag your opponent are never acceptable (and tournament packs should be aware of this). 

-I will never concede a game. Even if I know I'm going to lose I'm just going to play to prevent my opponent from taking a podium spot. If I can sandbag him all game long and make the win worth as little as possible (from a tournament point point of view) then I consider my job done. I don't want the people who beat me to be able to use that win as a platform to take a spot - I want it to be worth as little as possible. I won't be a poor sport or malicious about it but I will absolutely attempt to prevent you from scoring any points I can if I'm going to lose a game. 

 

[Overread]

The downsides to conceding are :

1) You lose a chance at victory or at scoring some points even if only marginal. 

2) You can lose out on some valuable experience. Sometimes being nearly beaten makes you play far more effectively with what you've got; or you might take bigger risks. Both of which could show you that there are potentials for different tactics with your army than you otherwise might use. 

3) It can mean you and your opponent have nothing much to do until you wait for the other games to finish; esp if you've conceded very early into the game and/or you were both playing pretty quick compared to others/the time limit. Remember you both went there to game and now you're not gaming.

4) If you "ask for your opponents permission" to concede or suggest you're thinking of it be careful. The wrong phrasing or attitude could make them get a feeling that you lost the game because they pressured you into it. Personally I would say be firm. If you're going to concede its 100% your choice to make and should be made without asking your opponent. That way its 100% your choice and they have played no part in that choice.

 

Depending on the nature of the event it might be possible to concede, formally log the results of the game at that point and then offer to continue playing and, no matter the result, the earlier formal one stands. Even if you turn it around and win by a landslide. This can let you both keep playing whilst waiting for others to finish. Though this might only work at smaller events; bigger ones where there is more going on you might find TO's just don't let it happen to keep things simple for them; and also might not allow it due to past bad experience* or simply because you end up continuing on and everyone ends up waiting for you to finish (most not knowing you've finished and are waiting for the end of round). 

 

*Eg someone who concedes and then keeps going and wins and then wants to force a change of results.  

[Sarkazim]

No one should be forced to play a game where they aren’t having fun.  

Tournaments seem to have forgotten this, and as a few here have said, some have failed to include that in their scoring.  It seems like quite a few tournaments are still not treating wins the same.  Players are being rewarded for unfavorable matchups, while those who have difficult games are getting punished.  

Concession punishes the the winner in an unfavorable matchup, but also creates another monster, the ‘Going Easy’ guy.  I’ve been guilty of this.  It’s where you control the game so well, that you hold back to score more while dragging the game on.  While this might be acceptable when teaching the game, or trying to help someone out, it ruins the experience because you are not giving your opponent your best.

[NemoVonUtopia]

This is something that I have been wondering about. When I am playing for fun I usually won't concede because the point is to have fun. At tournaments, especially the last one I went to, I usually concede if the game gets to a point where I cannot catch up in points. In my mind, the main point of tournaments is winning (hopefully while having fun) so why drag things out and waste time. 

I usually tell my opponent that I'm thinking about conceding, explain why I think I've lost, and see if they want to continue even though they've already won. 

[Euphanism]

1 hour ago, SwampHeart said:

-I will never concede a game. Even if I know I'm going to lose I'm just going to play to prevent my opponent from taking a podium spot. If I can sandbag him all game long and make the win worth as little as possible (from a tournament point point of view) then I consider my job done. I don't want the people who beat me to be able to use that win as a platform to take a spot - I want it to be worth as little as possible. I won't be a poor sport or malicious about it but I will absolutely attempt to prevent you from scoring any points I can if I'm going to lose a game. 

 

I might be misinterpreting this, but isn't this kind of a negative attitude to have? It reads like 'my opponent beat me so I'm going to punish them as much as possible for winning' which just feels like being a poor sport. Personally if I get stomped so hard  in the first two turns that there's no way back to a win, and there's no secondary/points to score that would help my placing, I'm totally fine calling it. After all, if they beat my best list that badly, they deserve it in my mind (unless their list is just super cheese, I guess, but even then I'd probably call it just to avoid having to get tabled).

Not trying to call you out at all, that train of thought is just so different from mind I'm wondering if you could elaborate more on it.

[SwampHeart]

5 minutes ago, Euphanism said:

I might be misinterpreting this, but isn't this kind of a negative attitude to have? It reads like 'my opponent beat me so I'm going to punish them as much as possible for winning' which just feels like being a poor sport. Personally if I get stomped so hard  in the first two turns that there's no way back to a win, and there's no secondary/points to score that would help my placing, I'm totally fine calling it. After all, if they beat my best list that badly, they deserve it in my mind (unless their list is just super cheese, I guess, but even then I'd probably call it just to avoid having to get tabled).

Not trying to call you out at all, that train of thought is just so different from mind I'm wondering if you could elaborate more on it.

It basically is 'my opponent beat me so I'm going to punish them for winning' - I don't consider it poor sportsmanship and I've never received poor sportsmanship scores as a result of it. I'm still going to be the same generally nice and convivial guy that I always am, but I am going to attempt to block your efforts to take a podium spot. Just because you beat me doesn't mean you deserve a max points win - I'm not going to give it to you. You want the points for you have to earn them, no free rides. I generally hope you show up to a tournament wanting that kind of game - I'd hope your goal isn't to go on a bunny run and play 4 easy games and 1 tough to podium. 

[Euphanism]

22 minutes ago, SwampHeart said:

It basically is 'my opponent beat me so I'm going to punish them for winning' - I don't consider it poor sportsmanship and I've never received poor sportsmanship scores as a result of it. I'm still going to be the same generally nice and convivial guy that I always am, but I am going to attempt to block your efforts to take a podium spot. Just because you beat me doesn't mean you deserve a max points win - I'm not going to give it to you. You want the points for you have to earn them, no free rides. I generally hope you show up to a tournament wanting that kind of game - I'd hope your goal isn't to go on a bunny run and play 4 easy games and 1 tough to podium. 

I wasn't considering them gaining any more points off of me as part of it, I can see how that might change things. Most of the tournaments I've played in are 'victory or nothing' scores, so if I've got no way back (and I definitely make sure I'm not just getting demoralized), they've already got the check mark as far as I'm concerned and I might as well go get a snack. Of course, if it's a fun game or there are secondary objectives to go for that totally changes things.

Thanks for elaborating!