40K: It’s OK To Quit After Turn 1

Some games just ain’t worth playing out.

Since the release of 8th Edition we’ve seen a number of different trends pop up at major events around the country. One of these that’s shown up a couple times is players, sometimes at top tables, quitting after turn one. On rare occasions they may even quit after the roll to go first. Lets take a look at why players do this and if it’s OK.

Whats the Tipping Point?

The truth is that most experienced competitive players can look at a game at a certain point and have a good idea of the likely outcome. There is a certain feeling you can get looking at a game that just tells you who will win. The point you can tell this varies from game to game and some games it never shows up. However in a lot of cases, especially with a couple of optimized lists, there will almost certainly come a point were one list pulls ahead. At this point a good player can say how the rest of the game will play and have a pretty good chance of being right. It’s at this point that a lot of players may considering calling it especially if they are losing. Why spend time and effort playing out a game you know you’ve lost?

Games With Trick Lists Are Clear A Lot Faster

The point when you can tell who will win comes a lot faster with gimmick lists. If a list relies on a gimmick or trick to win it will , most of the time, be clear as soon as that gimmick is either successful or fails who will win. The same is true of lists built around a handful of powerful units. If your list is built around getting Mortarion into combat and he dies before getting there you’ve most likely lost at that point. A lot of the best lists have depth to them that allows them to have things go wrong and still be a threat. Lists that don’t can fold quickly.

Points Matter Less Towards the End of A Tournament

Due to the natures of tournaments you are more likely to see people calling games early in the last round of an event. In earlier rounds playing out a loss to get as many points as possible is an important step. Since most events allow for variable scoring, a minor loss can keep a player in the running. However at the end of a event most top players know where they stand and how many points they need to get to win or place. Once the chance of doing that is gone there is little incentive to fight tooth and nail for ever point.

So Why Quit A Game?

So once a game is clearly decided, or seems to be, why do people quit? After all aren’t players at events to play? Well there are a number of reason to quit early in a game. No one really likes to lose and for some a quick loss is better than spending a couple of turns getting tabled. I also think for many sheer exhaustion plays a parts. Two day events which might have 5-7 rounds sometimes (like a lot of big events) are exhausting and down right draining. After you’ve played your heart out over the course of a couple days quitting can be appealing. This is another reason you see this more towards the end of events. A tried player, who’s played their fill over the weekend and can’t win has little incentive to keep playing. In addition some people have long drives home, or flights to catch and leaving early can be a boon.

So Is It OK?

So we can see why a player might quit after or before turn one, but is it OK? A fair number of people on the internet seem to think its not OK. I’ve seen insults thrown at people who give up early, calling them cry babies, and all kinds of things. There seems to a significant number of people who think you should play out a game no matter what.

At the end of the day I can’t agree with that way of thinking: this is game. A player doesn’t owe his time to the tournament. If you’re not having fun, or don’t want to play a game, don’t. That is your right. If you can tell how a game is going to go and want to skip it, do it. Unless you are purposely throwing a game to let someone win (i.e. cheating) I have no problem with a player giving up once they think they’ve lost. Myself? I wouldn’t do it simply after the roll off for first turn. And yes, while it might be clear who will win, the enemy could always flub his first turn. But if that first turn makes what will happen clear then I might call it.

Ultimately I don’t see any way to force a player to play a game they don’t want to. Not only would it be impractical it would border on being immoral. A player has the right to play or not play as they will it. Nor do I think it’s being a coward, crybaby, or “whatever” to quit after the first turn. There are a lot of reason you might want to stop playing. I don’t know and won’t judge you. Even if it’s as simple as not wanting to sit there and get tabled. That’s fine – I also don’t want to get tabled. And hey, if you want to stay and fight it out to the last roll, that’s also fine. It’s your game, you have to right to play or not to play and no one should judge you for that.

Let us know what you think about quitting after the first turn, down in the comments!

  • Txabi Etxebarrieta

    “At the end of the day I can’t agree with that way of thinking: this is game. A player doesn’t owe his time to the tournament.”

    I’m of two minds here. On the one hand, yes I agree with the principles. When something stops being fun, life’s too short to keep doing it. And there are definitely times where it makes sense to quit.

    On the other, it does kind of suck for your opponent who is (or may be) enjoying themselves to have a possibly fun gaming experience taken from them. Especially if both players paid an entree fee and traveled far.

    I guess that it’s good to have the option and sometimes exercise it, but I hope any player who is considering quitting does at least put some consideration for their opponent and their experience. Maybe try to convince yourself to play that second turn just in case something unexpected happens, or a funny story comes out of it, and give your opponent some level of satisfaction. It is a social game, and a little thoughtfulness goes a long way towards making things better for everyone.

    • EmperorOfMankind

      nope. I think once the idea that you want to quit comes up, it’s best to just quit right then and there. I’ve never played a game where I wanted to quit and it somehow magically became fun at the end.

      If both players paid a fee why do I owe the other person anymore than they owe me?

      • Txabi Etxebarrieta

        I think there is a certain, minimal level of participation expected. For instance, if I signed up for a tournament and paid my entree fee and then quit every single game as soon as the models were set up, people would be upset with me for wasting their time. If I did this multiple times, I think the TO likely just wouldn’t allow me to sign up going forward, and that’d be correct.

        Is that an extreme case? Certainly. But taking it a step further, assume I only built a list designed to stomp one specific kind of army, like a horde army, and then opted to quit any time someone had anything other than a swarm army. At which point I’m picking and choosing what armies I am statistically most likely to table, so the only games I do play are those where I am at a distinct advantage. And that’s also an unpleasant experience.

        This is also somewhat of an extreme case, but it does suggest a gradient of expectation and social nicety involved with the game. Which is the point I’m trying to make here more than anything. Does anyone *technically* owe you anything? No, of course not. But if we take that mentality to its furthest conclusions, then what does that do for the quality of the tournament experience? If the quality degrades so much that people pick and choose what games to play based on army lists, what exactly are we paying entree fees for? Why not stay home and play Star Craft with the cheat codes on?

        At that point, it isn’t much of a game or social experience, is it?

        How much participation is up for debate, of course. It’s not something I particularly care to theorize or discuss, because we clearly have divergent views on that and I fully acknowledge it’s a multivariable, grey area.

        I am, however, saying that if we stop thinking of our opponents as people and pretend that the social aspect of gaming dies once we pay an entree fee, then you’re doing more harm for the game than good.

        And if I needed any more evidence of that

        “I’ve never played a game where I wanted to quit and it somehow magically became fun at the end.”

        I can say right now I’ve had plenty of incredibly entertaining gaming experiences that had more to do with talking/having fun/bantering with my opponent than it did with what was happening at the table, including at tournaments. Ones where I’ve lost and knew I was going to lose long before we called it. And I sincerely doubt that’s something I’d get from someone like you, no offense.

        • stinkoman

          I only read half of that, ill be honest. but it sounds like you are describing the worst kinds of players. i would enjoy not playing against them.

          • Txabi Etxebarrieta

            Agreed. Which is why I think it’s good to always have the social aspect of gaming in mind, even at a tournament.

        • EmperorOfMankind

          Sorry I just think that the fun of a game is the fact that outcome is unknown.

          “And I sincerely doubt that’s something I’d get from someone like you, no offense.”
          Same, I doubt you are anywhere near as fun play against as you claim, just based on that comment alone.

          • Txabi Etxebarrieta

            I haven’t made any claims about how fun I am to play against. I’m only here to make a point about consideration going both ways.

          • Carney3

            Yes the suspense is fun, but that’s not everything. A big part of the fun of the game is the social aspect. Seeing the other guy’s reactions, enjoying the models he has, imagining the clash and roar of the battle — the “pew pew pew” that makes the little boy in us grin. It can even be fun to role play a little bit, to roar as you throw a monster into a charge, even or especially when you know it’s doomed.

        • Nyyppä

          As a related question: You end up with a game you can not win. You know this beforehand. This is a one off game, no narrative or other continuity. What exactly is the incentive to play the match?

          • Txabi Etxebarrieta

            I mean, it depends? Maybe I’m trying to get better, and this is a practice run? Maybe I like my opponent as a person and any social interaction I have with them is fun? Maybe my opponent is teaching me some tricks? Maybe I’m helping my superior opponent try a new combination or tactic for a tournament?

            Why are you stripping all context from a social experience? What, exactly, are you trying to get at with this question?

          • Brettila

            The OP specifies a tournament.

          • Txabi Etxebarrieta

            And the question I was asked by Nyyppa specified it was a one-off game with no narrative or other continuity.

            I don’t fundamentally disagree with your point, and elsewhere said that context is important because this article discussed tournaments in particular. But that is not what Nyyppa was asking me.

          • Nyyppä

            What can you learn about a game in which nothing you did or could have done would have made no difference?

            It’s a competitive game. You are there to win, not to chat.

            What is there to teach when nothing you do can make a difference?

            You don’t test things against other things that are not going to “push back” at all.

            The context is that you are in a game you want to win no matter what but within what the rules allow. It’s a tournament or otherwise competitive environment. That is all it is. It’s not social, it’s do or die.
            I’m questioning the current mantra of “you have to go through the whole thing regardless of how bad it is because if you don’t the other person might be offended”. He or she being offended is not worse that you suffering hours for nothing.

          • Txabi Etxebarrieta

            Oh. My. God.

            I realize this is the internet and no one on here can read, but seriously

            “I’m questioning the current mantra of “you have to go through the whole thing regardless of how bad it is because if you don’t the other person might be offended””

            LITERALLY NEVER SAID THIS. I SAID THE OPPOSITE. MY OPENING POST LITERALLY SAYS IT IS OKAY TO CONCEDE.

            But yes. Congrats. You win. Your ridiculous scenario that posits near omniscience to the point where you know 100% that you will lose on turn one, yet can’t do anything to change the outcome, and your opponent has the personality of a dried sock full of mealworms who provides no social value whatsoever in terms of interaction, then yes. You did it. You figured it out. The one scenario I never could have foreseen where conceding before you even play the game is acceptable.

            Congratulations, you absolute hero of the internet. You intellectual love-god of titanic proportions. I am bested.

            But, here’s some additional advice. If your omniscience tells you flat out you will lose and yet somehow prevent you from doing better or writing better lists, if you only care about winning or losing, and if there is zero social value in social interaction with another human being who shares your hobby, then do me a favor.

            1. Go home.
            2. Never come back.
            3. Shelve your minis.
            4. Play Star Craft.

            Thanks.

          • Txabi Etxebarrieta

            More to the point, since this mostly deals with tournament scenarios anyways…why are you signing up for events where this is likely in the first place and complaining about the outcome?

            If you know the conditions are certain defeat and you choose to participate anyways, there is no incentive to play I guess, but there’s also no basis for complaining about the outcome.

          • Eric Buchanan

            I’m with you. Even if I get hammered by an alpha strike first turn. I still want to see how many of the Heretics/Corpse Worshippers I can take with me.

            Dealing with adverse conditions has helped me better understand how my units work what they are capable of.

          • Nyyppä

            To play in the mid tables? That’s actually a very common reason to participate. Also who said that there was any complaining. One merely quits the match he/she can not win and saves the trouble for both players. During the next round both can then be doing what they want where they want to do it.

          • Apocryphus

            Challenge yourself, see if you can pilot your army to victory against a superior enemy, learn the capabilities of your force. When you lose, you get a better idea of what isn’t performing well or where your strategy fell apart. I retune every list after crushing defeats to try and shore up the weaknesses in my army. If I never lose because I choose not to play a losing game, I can never improve as a player.

          • Nyyppä

            It’s already established that in the current context that can not be done. If you don’t know what your stuff does you should not be playing anyway.

            You will not improve as a player anyway if you had no chance to begin with. Improvement follows understanding your mistakes and in this context you have done none.

          • SYSTem050

            Fun?
            Or
            To enter into a social contract.
            Or
            To see how your army fares against overwhelming odds.
            Or
            For the giggles.
            Or
            To see how an opposing army operates

            We have though established previously you and I play 40k for very different reasons.

          • Nyyppä

            How is an automatic loss fun? What kind of social contract is there? Why would you waste 3 hours to see how your army gets beaten no matter what? How is an automatic loss that you know of before deployment funny in a competitive environment? To see how an opposing army operates because you can’t read or otherwise acquire that info?

            Different reasons or not, if you get trashed every single time do you think that it’s fun?

          • LankTank

            If you quit every game is that fun? Somehow I imagine you would quit every game, then complain more about alpha strike despite not seeing the game out too see if its true. If you have first turn/alpha strike, then the opponent has last turn objective grab which can sometimes turn the tide.

          • Alexander Barahona

            If I ever play a random one-off, it’s generally because I’m playing with my friends. My incentive therefore is hanging out with a mate and having fun, losing can also be fun if it’s with the right people and not competitive… in fact it can be downright hilarious at times.

          • Nyyppä

            Congratulations. You are one of the naybe ten people who thinks like GW.

          • Ben Smith

            A tourney will have it’s format set out before you even pay to enter. If you put your name down to participate in a 6 game tournament it’s fair of you to expect to be offered 6 full games. The same goes that if your agreeing ahead of time to participate a 6 game tournament then you have committed to offer 6 full games to other players.

            I’ll ask an opponent if they are happy to finish early but if they want to play it out, then I’ll play it out. Integrity > fun.

          • Nyyppä

            3h pain > rationality. Roger that.

          • Carney3

            I wouldn’t even say that it’s not fun to play out a doomed game.

          • LankTank

            To try achieve the impossible and to truly test your skills/army. To sharpen your skills so next time you win

      • aylwong

        Because you both came to play. You’re under the idea that there is no social contract, and you guys didn’t come to play. We both know that’s not true. It’s not just about what is ‘owed’ monetarily, it’s about being a good guy.

        If both of you don’t want to play, sure, fine do whatever. But if one wants to play and one doesn’t, you’re ignoring the other player’s fun in favour of your own.

        Sometimes this is okay, and if you play with a bunch of cool dudes, they’ll let you get away with only concentrating on your own fun. People have bad days, we get it.

        But if you ALWAYS ignore the other player’s concerns and fun in favour of your own, you’re kind of being selfish, and you might be in danger of becoming ‘that guy’.

        • Txabi Etxebarrieta

          THANK YOU. That gets lost so much in the what-I-owe-you what-you-owe-me mentality. It’s hard to take complaints about these experiences seriously if people don’t put any effort into it.

          Honestly, just stay at home and play video games.

          • LankTank

            Yiur bang on. I mean at the end of 2nd turn which is bSically half the game then yes, maybe call it if it has become incredibly lopsided. But anyone quitting after the first turn die needs EVERY opponent to do that to them. So they can win every tournament but in the end they would have just spent money and 2 days on nothing

        • Karru

          So I should then keep ignoring my own fun completely, instead just do the complete opposite which is just watch as my army gets removed from the table and there is absolutely nothing I can do and as such, make sure that my opponent has a fun time?

          At that point, I will say that you can go ahead and call me a selfish brick. I honestly can’t be bothered to sit there for the next 2 hours just watching as my opponent rolls over me without me even having a shot at anything. I don’t care about winning, I care about having fun and interesting time during a match, seeing two armies clash and see who pulls of a victory. A close game where both sides are constantly asking themselves which one will win. If I can clearly see that one side has won the game, I see no reason to keep going really.

          • Txabi Etxebarrieta

            So then why are you at a setting that caters to people who enjoy gaming at its most competitive?

            If this were a physical, violent sport no one would think twice about how absurd this complaint is. Do you frequently participate in competitive martial arts and complain to refs about getting your teeth literally kicked in? Of course not.

            So why then enter a space where people are expected to play to the most of their abilities and deliberately waste their time while visibly not having fun? Why are you punishing them for enjoying the game the way they want because you can’t compete on that level?

            Hence, consideration. It isn’t their fault the game is in the state it’s in. They’re doing what is expected of them at the event. If you’re going to show up in places where this is expected and then immediately fold every single time things don’t go your way, I don’t understand why you would keep going back.

            I understand it may not be fun. I understand sometimes the unfun is so great that quitting is justifiable. But, again, be considerate. Past a certain point you need to accept responsibility for the decisions you took that brought you there and remember that it isn’t your opponent’s fault that you were unprepared. That’s where your consideration begins.

          • Txabi Etxebarrieta

            The flipside being if someone brings a WAAC list to a friendly event, everyone would rightfully think that guy is a jerk. They aren’t playing to expectation and they aren’t being considerate. So they have no room to complain if people don’t want to play them.

            Again, is anyone “owed” anything? No. But actions have consequences. Attitudes are set. Communities adopt character. You reap what you sow.

          • Karru

            Ah, I forgot to mention that I don’t participate in tournaments. I am talking in general sense if quitting is acceptable in 40k, no matter what the scene is. I am fully casual player who enjoys seeing two fully painted armies go at each other in a close match. I enjoy bringing more thematic lists myself, which most of the time ends up me getting my *ss handed to me in no time flat, which then leads to me forfeiting because I see no point in continuing.

            The thing I hate the most is hypocrisy when it comes to playing the game. I will tell you my favourite story about this.

            I played with a friend of mine who had just gotten back to 40k. We played of 7 games, out of which I won twice. First few games we played was me showing him the ropes and teaching him about the game so that was understandable I would lose because I was going extremely easy on him, letting him take back on his mistakes and giving him that extra inch here and there. After he got a solid grasp on the game, we upped the ante a bit and started playing 2000pts games.

            We did this over Tabletop Simulator, so I decided to go nuts. I just tried different armies for fun, tried different themes just to see how it works. Only my Tyranid list managed to beat his optimised Tau list. After forfeiting against him second time in a row on the first turn because he alpha striked me mostly off the table and he going “Come on, don’t be like that, if you tried you could still pull off a victory”, knowing full well I couldn’t do a thing at that point.

            So, I then decided to take off the kid gloves and showed him that so far I actually haven’t been playing at my fullest and that I had been going extremely easy on him on multiple fronts, because he was making a lot of mistakes, out of order stuff and things of that nature, so I decided to show him how different the game was when I actually “try”.

            End of the third turn, he quits, calls me a passive-aggressively a powergamer, says I “bend the rules against him” and overall was being a bad sportsman. In reality, all I did was no longer pointing out his mistakes, told him about my tactics and brought a standard list (read, not ultra optimised min-max, but a standard list instead of themed) and crushed him with skill. That was the last game we played.

          • Txabi Etxebarrieta

            Agreed. That all makes sense, and the context of a tournament versus a friendly game changes a lot. Possibly more nuanced in some respects, and maybe more expectation management on all parties.

            But that’s another discussion for another time.

          • Scott Lindsay

            This whole thread reminds me why I stopped playing in tournaments. Although maybe it’s because with three young kids I have to be very selective to get the most out of what little hobby time I have. (Note for you guys who aren’t fathers yet, invest in a table and some terrain for your home play, trust me).

            For me there is no worse gaming experience than being logically eliminated but forced (for any reason) to continue playing. I prefer to be strictly eliminated and start a new game.

            The problems I have with tournaments are myriad, and they are all related to my personal hang-ups around logical elimination:
            1. There is a social contract of sorts to play in every game.
            2. The outcome of the game could affect other players ratings in the overall tournament.
            3. Tournaments bring out bad behaviour from the ultra-competitive types. You know, slow play, surfing, silly lists they think are “clever”, bad sportsmanship e.g. your stuff in that bush isn’t in cover even though my stuff was two turns ago, etc.
            4. It is rare but the player might already be known to me and I actively dislike them i.e. don’t want to talk to them let alone waste my precious hobby time on them.

            At the end of the day, when I play at home I work on the maxim that two fast games teach more than a single slow one, regardless of the quality of play in either game.

            And avoiding tournaments has really helped me build up my terrain catalogue!

          • aylwong

            I didn’t say you always need to give up your own happiness for others – giving and caring is not some weird ‘I have to be either jesus or the devil’ choice. It’s also not zero-sum. If you are playing with cool dudes, and everyone cares about each other’s happiness, they will try to accommodate you if you’re having a bad time. It’s only an issue if you are consistently giving up other people’s happiness for your own – there is likely an issue.

            That said, I think you may be suffering from some trauma from playing a bad game.
            😛 If it takes 2 hours to finish a game that is basically already won,
            you’re playing a badly designed game, or you’re playing it wrong. Judging from this article, it may very well be the former rather than the latter. I don’t know, 40k is not my main competitive game.

          • Karru

            Your average 40k game these days takes around 2-3 hours to play, depending on the armies, the skill level of both players and the size of the game. Alpha Strike is the main mechanic in 40k 8th edition, as can be seen with the multitude of rules that are meant to support it.

            An effective Alpha Strike can easily take out a third to over half of your army before you can even act. After that, it is just a slow slog for you to take out the enemy hard hitters and then it is reduced to you slowly losing the war of attrition because you now have only 1-2 units available. You can’t even win through objectives at that point because the opponent has triple the amount of models all across the table.

        • EmperorOfMankind

          Who cares if I am having fun, right?

          So I should just be their punching bag for a few hours then?

        • Alexander Barahona

          Social contract goes both ways. If you don’t want to play then the other person should respect that and allow you to quit without pressure… You are a worse person for pressuring someone to do something they don’t want to, than for not doing something you don’t want to even if it upsets someone.

    • stinkoman

      On the other hand, i don’t want to play against someone who has given up halfway through the game. Mind as well play against my wife (someone who has no interest in the game at all).

      The remedy? Maybe don’t play lists with gimmicks and maybe there will be a more exciting game throughout. We were toying with a tourney that limited power level/unit so that nothing was really powerful. played a few games where we limited unit power to no more than 5 for infantry and 10 for armor. Maybe it was our collections, but the games were actually undetermined till last turn.

      • Txabi Etxebarrieta

        If someone has visibly given up and is just playing it through, I think it’s perfectly acceptable as the leading player to offer an out and ask them if they want to surrender.

        It’s the same principle, just expressed differently. I’m not trying to flowchart every possible outcome. I’m just saying it’s good to have basic consideration for your opponent and remember they are people looking to have fun too. You don’t owe them “fun” but you can definitely help, or at least make a good faith effort to meet them half way.

        • stinkoman

          I also think, in the reference of tourney play, there are usually points you earn each round. even if you lose, you gain points, so i rarely see may people quit first turn.

      • Heinz Fiction

        Yeah. It’s not fun to play against someone who has given up already and is in a bad mood. However if someone can’t stand playing at a disadvantage, he probably shouldn’t play games like 40k to begin with…

        • JPMcMillen

          I agree, but sometimes a player just has an epicly bad first turn that really hampers their armies abilities. Like their Farseer rolls a Perils of the Warp that takes out him and half the armies Warlocks as well.

    • Koonitz

      Personally, the way I see events (especially those with an entry fee) is that you are owed only one thing “have fun at the event”. You are owed nothing else.

      If you are not having fun, why is that? Because the game isn’t fun and you don’t want to play it anymore? Then concede the game and spend that time elsewhere having fun. If you didn’t have fun at the event as a whole, don’t go back. That’s on the TO.

      If you are not having fun because your opponent conceded to you on turn one, then don’t bring a super-competitive, alpha strike, cripple your opponent on turn one kind of list. That’s all on you. You brought a list designed to win, and you won. If you wanted to actually play every one of your 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 games, then bring a list designed to be fun, instead.

      Your opponent doesn’t owe you his loss of fun to ensure your fun was had. Having a game effectively end on turn one, but being forced to continue to play so your opponent could brow beat you into the ground for the next 4 turns (because he paid an entry fee to not-you) is like saying when that bully pushes you over, you need to suck it up and let him kick you while you’re on the ground for the next few minutes.

      • Karru

        This right here nails it in the head in my opinion. Even if you have someone give up after the first turn because you rolled like a god even with a list that wasn’t possibly designed to be that effective, at least you had fun rolling godly.

        • Lebowski1111111111

          i learned alot about myself in 7th playing a OP eldar faction, i would rather somebody quit on turn 1 if they have had 50% thier army blasted off the table than drag it out another hr in a clear loss. Resetup and play again. I dont want to waste my time winning or losing a game that is not competative in the least.

      • Txabi Etxebarrieta

        Right. That’s the other extreme I mentioned above, and why offering a surrender is the good thing to do if they clearly aren’t having fun.

        • Koonitz

          If you are nice enough, and he clearly looks like he’s not enjoying it, sure, ask. It’s the right thing to do, absolutely.

          But, to use a continuation of my own analogy, a victim should not have to wait for the bully to ask the victim if he wants the bully to stop kicking. You know full well there will be people who won’t be nice enough to ask for a surrender. Nor should the ‘victim’ of the particular game expect it. If he wants to concede, he should be ready and able to call it, himself.

          • Txabi Etxebarrieta

            Again, we’re talking about a mutual social arrangement, not violence. It’s a terrible analogy because no one arranges their own bullying with the expectation of having fun.

            More to the point, I said quitting was fine. And if someone’s being a jerk about it and has no consideration for your enjoyment, then you owe them no consideration. But you shouldn’t demand consideration if you are unwilling to give any in return. And if they aren’t being a jerk, just put a little thought into their experience as well.

            I’m not saying drag out your misery. I’m not saying martyr yourself for the entertainment of others. I’m saying be thoughtful. That’s all.

        • Randy Randalman

          Except in any tournament setting (including WarmaHordes, Magic: the Gathering, etc), if you ask your opponent if they want to concede, you can suffer a game loss of your own. It’s considered a form of cheating, believe it or not, because it could mean you are trying to convince them they can’t win so you can get an easy one.

          • Txabi Etxebarrieta

            Okay. It’s a minute detail that doesn’t actually deal with the principles at play. It also means nothing considering my argument is not “DO NOT EVER CONCEDE EVER” so much as it is “remember your opponent is there to play and have some fun, so consider that while deciding when to concede.”

            But sure. Don’t explicitly give them the offer to surrender.

          • Apocryphus

            I’ve never been to a WMH tournament where asking your opponent if they wish to concede is a punishable offence. :O

      • Txabi Etxebarrieta

        Also, I’m not sure the bully analogy has relevance considering I said from the get-go that quitting can be fine, and also we’re talking about a socially agreed upon gaming experience and not mercilessly beating someone.

        If we want to talk about the social arrangements wherein physical pain for one is a mutually agreed upon enjoyable experience for two or more people in a social setting including the recipient…well, there are other, less work-friendly forums for that.

        • Koonitz

          I admit, it may not seem like a perfect analogy, but in a tournament scenario, you don’t necessarily have control over who you play against. As such, you may be put in an unfavourable situation. In a game where you’ve been brow beat in the first turn into a no-win scenario, being forced to continue to play because your opponent is enjoying himself while he kicks your army repeatedly while it’s on the ground can ABSOLUTELY feel like being bullied.

          As a man who was bullied all throughout his childhood, I can assure you, it can absolutely feel like bullying when you’re at an event and you have no choice but to take it.

          I appreciate that you agree that quitting is okay. My disagreement comes with taking the opponent into consideration. If you want to concede, concede. To hell with what your opponent thinks.

          • Txabi Etxebarrieta

            1. I’m really sorry you were bullied. That’s horrible, and I’m sorry those feelings resurface in your hobby experience too.

            2. In your particular experience, I think the imperfect bully analogy once again proves its shortcomings. A tournament setting, to an extent, is about playing the best you can with what you have. That is the expectation, and you should understand the state of a game or at least your local meta if you want to participate in competitive tournaments.

            In your situation, if you are consistently feeling bullied and those feelings resurface if you are tabled on turn 1, and this is consistent enough of a problem that tournaments as a whole are an unfun experience and you find yourself constantly quitting, then there are other ways of handling this besides going to tournaments and insta-quitting turn one.

            For starters, go to less tournaments and practice tournament level play in more friendly settings. Or go to explicitly non-competitive tournaments or other friendly events. Figure out ways around it in less stressful or painful situations.

            Because the same way you don’t owe a player your time when they’re beating you senseless, you’re taking up their time by being insufficiently competitive and visibly not having fun about it. Neither of you “owe” each other anything, but you’re both making each other’s experience unpleasant.

            Your bullying analogy, to make it more accurate, isn’t actually a bullying scenario. It’s entering a boxing competition and complaining about bullying against people who expect everyone else to want to win as much as they do. But you’re in their space souring their experiences and complaining about your right to compete. Something has to give.

          • Koonitz

            1) I don’t go to tournaments (any more). For a great deal of reasons, of which that is but one.

            2) You may have misjudged my statements. I rarely concede games. The last one I remember was my Tau against an opposing Grey Knight player in 7th, where after 2 turns, I did 1 wound on a single Dreadknight, the second being his own perils, and 1 hull point on a Knight. I had lost well over 50% of my forces, including both a Riptide AND Ghostkeel that both fled off the board after losing combat to said Dreadknight. I have never, EVER, in 17 years playing, seen my dice abandon me that badly before.

            I will play a game that I’m losing, as I’ve seen enough games turn into victories from near sure defeats. But I shouldn’t be required to withhold my right to concede because I want my opponent to have fun at my expense. Just as, in boxing, the competitors have the right to throw in the towel if they’re being bloodied too much.

            Now, personally, I have social anxiety, so I will, often times, feel obligated because of that to continue playing a game, even if I don’t enjoy it (yet another reason I don’t go to tournaments anymore, because I want to avoid being put in such a situation where I have to, or risk, however unlikely, my opponent being angry at me).

          • Txabi Etxebarrieta

            “I will play a game that I’m losing, as I’ve seen enough games turn into victories from near sure defeats. But I shouldn’t be required to withhold my right to concede because I want my opponent to have fun at my expense. Just as, in boxing, the competitors have the right to throw in the towel if they’re being bloodied too much.”

            Then I don’t understand why we’re discussing this. To clarify

            -If I’ve said consistently that no one should withhold their right to concede

            -I’ve said consideration for your opponent’s fun is important

            -I’ve said that consideration goes both ways , and consideration doesn’t dictate you should ruin your day to ensure the other person has a good time or vice versa.

            If we agree on these points, then that’s that.

          • Txabi Etxebarrieta

            If this requires further, specific clarification.

            -Feel free to concede, but consider things like waiting until the second turn just in case, or in the case of quitting after “first turn” roll offs play through the first turn. CONSIDER. Not “DO IT.” Just consider.

            -Also consider offering a surrender to people on the receiving end of a crippling loss that isn’t having fun.

            -In both cases, if you offer consideration and get none back then the person is a jerk and do whatever. But don’t be the first jerk.

          • Koonitz

            I was about to mention something like this. You are correct and I feel my argument drifted and lost its way.

            What it boils down to is simply this:

            “Be nice and gracious enough to offer the opportunity for your opponent to surrender if it looks like he is losing badly enough and not having fun. If you are unwilling (or don’t notice to make the offer), then at least be gracious enough to accept his concession.”

    • Arcangelo Daniaux

      I’ve already done that at some tournament. There is a magic phrase that may make your opponent feel better about you quitting : “Want to go to the tornament bar and have some beer ?”

      • Txabi Etxebarrieta

        I definitely see that as being considerate.

        • Arcangelo Daniaux

          That may be a cultural thing as I’m from Belgium XD But clearly, when you lose 75% of your army turn 1, it may be better to quit, giving full point to your opponent and going to drink something and discuss about the game instead.

    • AkulaK

      This name, are you from Basque country ?

      • Txabi Etxebarrieta

        Of Basque decent (family from Pamplona) but don’t live there, no.

      • Txabi Etxebarrieta

        Half Andalus, half Basque.

        • AkulaK

          I see, i live nearby, really beautiful country and kind people 😀

  • sniperjack

    It depends on the enviroment:
    In a friendly game it shouldn’t happen. But if the army on the other side is only waac. You may think about punishment and quit. Or you talk about it.
    In a tournament you don’t talk about this. Because this is no friendly enviroment. See if you dont see light on the end of the tunnel, you may think about quit.
    i personally would think about not losing the game. A tie is a win too in this situatution. But sometimes the odds are totally against you: You have a fair army (not waac), the mission is a uphill fight (are you not prepared for all mission), the army agianst you is waac and the guy on the other side is an ***hole. Then you are allowed to quit. In all other cases rethink the situation, so both sides get the win (in game and experience).

  • Luca Lacchini

    Sorry, I’m an adult.

    • EmperorOfMankind

      So am I, which is why I think someone should take their win and not whine about how they got it. Why play a game when the outcome is obvious.

      • Fraser1191

        Two points, A: it’s a game and B: in history there’s moments like Vimey Ridge where there was a clear advantage for one side, but the side at the disadvantage won

        • ZeeLobby

          A is def true. As for B, you can’t really compare this game to history. Historically, generals rarely knew what the entire battlefield looked like, or what the strength, weakness, etc. of every unit was. Many times one-sided battles were turned because of single units showing heroic/idiotic levels of bravery (sometimes thinking that they’re already winning the overall battle) or stumbled into an amazing position/terrain.

          In tabletop wargames we have a much better determination of outcome, especially as a skilled player. Sure dice could skew completely in your favor to bring about the win, but, at least for me personally, that’s not as rewarding as outplaying my opponent. In some cases outplaying is just not going to work. And the sad case in 40K (mainly competitive) is that most games can be pretty well determined simply on army composition.

        • Karru

          Indeed, but here’s the thing. The issue with 40k for example comes from the fact that Objectives hardly matter and if you don’t have the models for it, you can’t win by that either when the game is about to end if it reaches that far.

          In my experience, in a case where one side is clearly at an advantage, the situation is usually around 20% – 30% of the original army remains for the underdog while the other army has easily over 75% of his army still at the table. The thing about this is that the bigger army will now keep hunting the other player until it comes down to the last turn, when he will just neatly place his units on the objectives and score a victory by a country mile.

        • EmperorOfMankind

          The difference is I am not going to die if I give up.

  • Lemonic_Tutor

    Maybe it’s okay at a tournament, I don’t really play in those so I can’t say. By all means quit before the game begins, if models haven’t been set up, I can see why the other player may be annoyed.

    I know this article is more about just tournaments but still want to throw in my two cents about quiting in general. At events it can be really insulting. Once played in an apocalypse event at GenCon and half the marine team quit after turn 1 because the other team did well, which left the remaining marine guy having to manage like 30,000 pts by himself. In casual or open play it’s a super rude move IMO. If someone quits after turn 1 it’s a huge pain considering how long it takes to set up all the models and it’s rather petty to quit just because the other person had a good turn. Plus both people had to take the time and effort to show up, which can mean travel time for some people (used to have to drive an hour to get to local store). I mean if you want to refuse to play a list because it’s cheesy or just because you don’t want to play it, that’s fine, but make that decision before the game begins, not after turn one.

  • Monkeybrains

    This article makes tournaments sound terrible, powergamers, people who don’t want to play the game only win, exhaustion while playing a recreational game…

    • stinkoman

      I used to play tournaments only because that was the only time i could get games in. Unfortunately, IME, it was the case. but really, i wouldn’t want to play against someone that i just going through the motions.

    • Drpx

      Doesn’t have to be at a tournament. Sometimes you just want to get back to painting or playing another game since there’s nothing to do now but keep picking models up.

      • ZeeLobby

        Def called games to go play other games at my friends house before, lol.

        • KingAceNumber1

          Ditto lol. Like I said up top, in casual formats IDGAF. A few days ago I had a very good T2 against my buddy and we called it to go play Mario Kart instead

  • Zedatkins Zed

    Seriously people who have 1 tactic “go first or loose” are doing it wrong. Anyone playing a wargame that can’t deal with spontaneous crap happening should stop playing.

    • Koonitz

      There’s a rather spirited discussion above about this very thing. No one should be forced to continue playing if they want to concede (at any point, period), just because their opponent is having fun.

      While I agree that “go first or concede” is a stupid way to go into the game, but just having such a bad first turn that you know the rest of the game is going to be pointless “being kicked while on the ground”, why should you be forced to let your opponent do so?

      At a tournament/event, you’re owed one thing and one thing only “have fun at the event”. You do not owe your opponent ANYTHING! If your opponent wants to play every game out, he should bring a fun list, not a super-tuned, alpha-strike, win on the first turn kind of list. That’s on him, and you don’t owe him the rest of the game.

      • CKyle80

        If you only have fun when you’re winning then you’re a poor sport and should be treated as such. The whole no obligation thing swings both ways. Your opponent at a tournament has no obligation to take it easy on you in order to make sure you’re having fun. If you’re at a tournament you should be aware of this and be prepared to lose, sometimes badly. If you can’t handle a game going poorly, which every player will experience at some point, then you’re not prepared to play in a tournament.

        • Koonitz

          Nor are you obligated to stay there to let the game go poorly. If it’s a loss, concede. If your opponent concedes, accept your victory with grace.

          “Your opponent at a tournament has no obligation to take it easy on you in order to make sure you’re having fun.”

          Nor do they have the right to demand you stay there and take it so THEY have fun.

          • CKyle80

            That’s fine, no one is arguing that they should be forced into it. But they should be aware that they’ve made a commitment to compete just as everyone else has who is at the tournament has. If you want to shirk that commitment because you’re worried about your own experience and not someone else’s, that’s fine, it’s a free country. But it makes you a poor sport and a selfish individual. The same can’t be said for someone who expects you to play and finish out your game because that’s what you signed up for when you signed up for the tournament. That’s the commitment you made to the TO’s and your opponents when you agreed of your own free will to be a participant. There’s an expectation that you will at least attempt to play the games because, again, you’re at a tournament and that’s what you do at a tournament. If not, then it reflects poorly on you and you should be prepared for such.

          • Wulfen73

            Concession has nothing to do with sportsmanship, a wise general knows when he is beaten, and gracefully accepting defeat is perfectly reasonable act. Unless of course you doing so robs points from your opponent.

            If it doesn’t than at a tournament level, it’s my business if I choose to concede a game. you get your points, and I get to move on to the next game.

            Conceding on turn 1 for a pick up game of course is a different animal, then you are wasting someone elses time which is rather rude

          • CKyle80

            Except that you have made a commitment to compete, and most tournaments give points based on the level of that competition. You’re giving points to the person you’re conceding to that they haven’t earned, which then falsely inflates their score. Maybe that’s good for that individual, but then that person might leapfrog a more deserving player who had an opponent who actually played out their game, or could even push someone out of the prize pool. Which means you’ve failed in your commitment to the tournament that you signed up for.

            And yes, concession does have to do with sportsmanship in this case. If you look at the table, decide you can’t win, and instead drop out of the game then you’ve wasted the time of your opponent regardless of the situation. They also paid and traveled and may want to actually play out a game. They may have a goal of playing X number of games this weekend regardless of whether or not their winning. It’s not their fault that your list isn’t competitive against them but you’re going to deny them the opportunity to even play because you’re more concerned with your own experience. You both committed to the game for the sake of determining the best player at the tournament and you’re not holding up your end of the bargain because you don’t think you can win (emphasis on think since you don’t actually know until you try). That’s being a poor sport.

          • Wulfen73

            I have completed, upon my concession the game is completed, that’s what a concession is, ceding the game.

            I have no commitment to play a game to when it runs out, that is not how tournaments have ever worked. You don’t go to tournaments to “Play games” you go to compete against other people, I’ve played miniatures games on the national level for 2 years, I am not spending 300 dollars for 6 games, I am paying to compete with the best in the nation

            It’s also not poor sportsmanship to recognize when you have lost, it is a poor sportsman to drag a game out unnecessarily, respect your opponent enough to understand he may see his situation more clearly than you do.

            You know who I loathe? the people who play so slow your game goes 3 turns in 2.5 hours. That was the people we had issues with, massive forces that take forever to take turns and really need a full 6 turn game to beat, that is a total robbery of someones points and ability to get anywhere in the tournament, it has cost me numerous tournaments until I got fed up and moved to Flames of War, which doesn’t have that issue, nor does it have turn 1 concessions

          • CKyle80

            Please don’t tell me that now you’re going to try to use petty semantics as if that somehow proves a point.

            And I’d like to point out that your whole comment is about you, not about the other people at the tournament. That’s fine, you’re more than welcome to take a view that only involves yourself, but then you don’t get to dictate to others what is and is not a good sport. And you say that you’re paying to compete, as are the other participants, but then you’re not competing by dropping out of a game. Which then gives an unfair advantage to your opponent by allowing them free points that they may not have earned without your concession.

            And yes, you do have a commitment. You have signed up to play a certain number of games to determine an overall winner. That is the agreement you made. The TO’s expect you to play those games in order to help determine a winner. The players expect you to play those games to determine a winner. Players want to be sure that the winners have earned their victories. This is a reasonable expectation people have when they play in a tournament because that’s how tournaments are supposed to work. You dropping a game because you feel like you can’t win is a selfish act based on you not wanting to continue a losing effort. That’s understandable but selfish nonetheless.

          • Wulfen73

            If I’m conceding then they are getting max points even if I don’t. If turn 1 I lose all my anti tank and my opponent is running guard tank company then I’ve lost. There is no magic that is going to change that.

            If they are running 5 knights same story.

            As for this line “you’re going to deny them the opportunity to even play because you’re more concerned with your own experience” the reverse is true as well, you are entirely concerned with your own. I have never met anyone who was upset with a win, or who begrudged the points from a concession. Because it’s petty

          • CKyle80

            Here’s what you keep missing: I’m not talking about the individual experience, I’m talking about the tournament. I’m sure your opponent would love free points, but that doesn’t make you generous for giving up on a game. If you want to make it all about yourself and how you feel you’re going to do, go for it, but thinking only of yourself and whether or not you’re affecting others is more or less the definition of being selfish. And this is still a dice game so there’s no guarantee that your opponent is going to win all the points even if they have a huge advantage.

  • piglette

    I think you should at least play through turn 3. I’ve had many games where turn 1 or 2 is seemed a certain side would win only to see things go south by the halfway mark.

  • benn grimm

    Why not unilaterally quit a game early if you are so super smart you can read the result of a game from turn 1?

    A) It’s bad manners.

    B) It displays a bad attitude; you’re only here to win at 40k, not have fun playing 40k. It also displays a lack of respect for your opponent and the social contract inherent in miniature wargaming.

    C) You are depriving a fellow gamer of a game they either invested time/money in or both. Not such a big deal between friends in a casual setting because you can just play again, pretty big deal at an event.

    D) It’s bad sportsmanship.

    E) You might well be wrong in your assessment.

    F) You might learn something.

    G) You may be able to teach your opponent something.

    • Txabi Etxebarrieta

      Agreed. I mentioned it below, but past a certain point you’re better served staying home and playing Star Craft with the cheat codes on if winning is literally the only thing that matters to you and everything else is a waste of time.

      • Drpx

        Cannon Rush 20 games in a row and you’ll know what 8th is like.

    • Drpx

      I let the other guy have an extra turn to destroy me then I quit. There’s usually not much left to destroy after that point anyway.

      • benn grimm

        If both players can see where the game is, generally that leads to an agreement that it’s best to just call it. For me, that distinction is important. If you have a handful of guys left, want to call it, check with your opponent that that’s ok and they refuse? Well that’s a different kettle of fish.

        • Commissar Molotov

          I rarely play tourneys, but in a friendly game if it’s going terribly and I’m curbstomping the other army I’ll ask if they want to just start over. If I’m the one getting curbstomped, though, I’ll play it out to the bitter end.

          • benn grimm

            Yeah, pretty much the boat I’m in also.

          • Nostok

            Normally being on the receiving end of such stompings from my regular gaming buddy, this attitude is appreciated.

    • stinkoman

      A) im in the other boat. i can tell when someone inst having a good time, which makes my game experience bad as well. so quit and lets play another game with less stress.
      B) That’s why you are in a tournament: to win. at least i think that’s what this article is addressing. Otherwise see A
      C) See A
      D) Depends on how you call it. The other guy is probably WAAC and a win is a win. More bragging rights for them.
      E) Very true
      F) True
      G) True

      Sorry i like responding to lists.

      • benn grimm

        If you are agreed on calling a game, it isn’t unilateral, it’s an agreement, which shows empathy and respect, I have no problem with this. As to the only going to win thing, everyone’s motivations are their own, but I think if winning is the only reason for attendance you’re (the universal you, not you personally per se) possibly missing out on a lot of the other positive aspects to be found at events.

    • EmperorOfMankind

      So who cares if I am having fun? Why?

      What’s the difference in just doing your best to lose like moving in range and not firing on your turn? At least I am playing the game right?

      • benn grimm

        I dunno, maybe the tournament organisers? Your Mum?

        What’s the difference between throwing the game and quitting the game? About 2 hours? Being a jerk over an extended period rather than a short concentrated burst?

        • EmperorOfMankind

          Why does your fun matter more than mine?

          • benn grimm

            Ummm, it doesn’t? Next pointless question?

          • EmperorOfMankind

            sure, ok.
            why care if the other player quits at all?

            Not everyone is you. I get enjoyment out of the game if I think there is a possibility I can win, once that isn’t the case the game is over for me.

          • benn grimm

            See my original post.

            Tbh guy, seems like you’re the one with the empathy problem and I’m amazed you get games at all with that attitude. Just for the record, I wouldn’t mind at all if you quit a game we were playing, in fact I’d be grateful.

          • Joshua Gregory

            Priceless

          • Koonitz

            In a tournament/event situation, the only thing you are owed is “have fun at the event”. That’s on the TO.

            You are not owed a game by your opponent just because you paid an entry fee to not-him. He does not owe you the loss of his fun just so you can have fun, yourself.

            If he wishes to concede, that’s entirely his decision, and you should graciously accept the victory. If you wanted to play every one of your 3, 4, 5, 6, however many games, then next time, bring a list designed to be fun, not an over-tuned, alpha-strike, cripple your opponent on the first turn list, then accept that, even in such a situation, you may not get a full game in if your opponent chooses to concede.

          • benn grimm

            It’s not about what I feel I am ‘owed’ it’s about what I feel is a good and proper way to treat other people, of course not everyone will feel the same, after all we’re all brought up differently/experience life differently and have different values imparted upon us.

          • Txabi Etxebarrieta

            “It’s not about what I feel I am ‘owed’ it’s about what I feel is a good and proper way to treat other people”

            The crux of it. If we only think about what we’re “owed” in a social setting, then we have no room to complain about the poor quality of our experiences in a social setting. You get what you put into it.

          • benn grimm

            Absolutely. It’s one of the things that sets wargaming apart from video gaming, that unwritten social contract between gamers.

          • EmperorOfMankind

            I probably wouldn’t bother asking to play you in the first place.

          • You honestly sound like someone I’d never want to game with

          • EmperorOfMankind

            Same to you. If you can’t respect what I want why should I respect what you want?

          • I genuinely hope you don’t bring your bad attitude to places where people who actually enjoy themselves congregate

    • Karru

      As some people have mentioned, you consider it bad manners to just tell your opponent “So, I just lost the game clearly because you managed to wipe out vast majority of my army thanks to rolling like a god and there is absolutely nothing I can do to win, so I think I am going to call it quits here, apologies.” instead of spending the next 2-3 hours just watching as your opponent throws dice with glee and you do nothing but remove model after model after model, then maybe roll less than 20 dice total during your turn, move one model somewhere and then go “okay, your turn”?

      I must say, to me that attitude sounds like bad manners to me. If you find it disrespectful that the other person quits because he clearly lost the game and it is now impossible for him to win without the intervention of god himself and as such “deny” you your 2 hours of complete wailing on him, I think you might be the bad sportsman here.

      Now, there are certain scenarios where I can see it as bad manners and sportsmanship. If you build your army with the “requirement” of the first turn in order to win or even have a chance at winning and you give up if you didn’t, then it is bad manners.

      I don’t consider it at all bad manners if my opponent decides to call it after I finish my turn and I have somehow managed to destroy over half of his army before he even could act. I am not looking for a game where either me or my opponent spend 2 hours just stomping and crushing the other player. Even if I am at that position where I can clearly see my opponent can’t do anything, I just ask them immediately “did not expect this, would you like to call it quits and possibly remake?” as I always feel bad if I totally crush my opponent because that isn’t fun for me either. I like to play close games where both players can do things on their turn, instead of having to wait for 30 minutes until they can do their turn in 5 and then back to waiting again.

      • benn grimm

        Looks like you missed the unilateral part. As I’ve said elsewhere in the thread an agreement to call a one sided game by both players is a different thing altogether, as is refusal of a call by an opponent.

        • Karru

          But what if your opponent goes “no no, you can still win if you try” while being fully aware that your only chance at victory is him either conceding or just letting you play by yourself for the next 2 turns? Am I still being a d*ck for saying “yeah, I’m just going to call it quits, I know I lost this one”?

          • benn grimm

            Again, like I already said, refusal to accept a call is a different thing to unilaterally quitting.

          • Karru

            I am clearly missing the core in your argument, could you explain to me what exactly do you mean by “unilaterally quitting”?

            From what I have gathered so far, not a native speaker so I actually had to go check the word out, “unilateral” means when the decision is fully one-sided.

            So if I say “I lost, so I think I am going to call it quits” and my opponent goes “No, you can still win this” and I stop anyway, it is “unilateral”, no?

            Disclaimer, this is an purely honest question as I am not sure what the word exactly means and is now causing me confusion in understanding your argument.

          • benn grimm

            I’m saying most of us can see if the other guy is not having fun and just say, yeah shall we call (an end to) this? I’m also saying that the distinction between an agreement to end a game early between two parties and just one of the players quitting a game early is an important one. I’ve played games where I could see the other guy wasn’t having fun and suggested an early end (and the other way round). Ive never had the experience you cite, where one player has had enough and the other guy forces them to continue. Which sounds just as bad tbh, but is kind of a different issue.

  • Drpx

    Next week: “It’s ok to quit if you don’t get to go first.”

    • memitchell

      But, ONLY if you are an “experienced competitive player.”

  • David

    If I’ve done hours of preparation months of painting and travelled half a day to play a tournament I’m going to be annoyed if my opponent rolls one dice and quits as I’ve come to play.

    You can’t force someone to play but if they quit that then denies someone else the opportunity to play. It also mucks up the score’s for others because giving someone a 20-0 win when they should have had a 17-3 can impact standings effecting others who might care about there position.

    If you can’t win or maximise a score if you lose turn 1 your not playing a fun list.

    And how would you feel in a casual game if your opponent kept conceding till he got to go first.

    I wouldn’t call it being a crybaby but I would say ithat shows a distinct lack of sportsmanship and says a lot about the player not caring about adversely impacting others experience.

    • EmperorOfMankind

      quitting after turn 1 is not rolling 1 dice is it?

      • ZeeLobby

        well, i mean one dude recently quit after not getting first turn. I think that says more about the game system then it does about the player though, as other top players at the event pretty much agreed with his move, lol.

        • EmperorOfMankind

          It’s a big problem and it seems worse in this edition.

          • ZeeLobby

            Yeah, I mean I can’t fault the guy really. Sometimes you just hit that Rock to your Scissors, and there’s no point wasting the time. You’ll occasionally see it in other systems as well, like in WMH when you’re attempting to dodge your counter in pairings, etc. The hope would be for it not to exist though.

          • EmperorOfMankind

            It seems like GW is listening a lot more than in the past.

          • ZeeLobby

            Yeah, I mean they’re definitely open to making changes now, which is good. I’m on a competitive game hiatus for at least another year probably though. I don’t think the game will be in any stable state until then really. It’s still pretty swiss cheesy at the moment.

          • CKyle80

            You can’t fault someone for quitting instead of going first? Really? Someone who decided “If I don’t have an advantage then I’m just going to quit instead of even trying” isn’t at fault in your opinion? You seriously don’t see the childish, selfish nature of such an act? It beggars disbelief that anyone would consider it ok to shaft another player, other tournament goers, and the TO’s themselves just because you feel it would be tougher to win without even testing the theory out. Anyone who does so is a child and a poor sport.

          • ZeeLobby

            You do recognize the other side of the coin right? It’s not always “If I don’t have the advantage”. It’s usually “There goes my only chance”. In tournaments I’ve attended not getting first against certain lists can doom you, while going first makes it a fair game. Leafblower was a great example back in the day. Going first gave you chance with some lists. Going second usually meant you lose. So yeah, I can get that. In WMH it happens occasionally but people don’t seem to get as butt-hurt about it.

            LOL. It’s never about “now the game might not be easy”. It’s pretty silly just to think that would be the reason.

          • CKyle80

            I recognize that if your whole strategy against any list revolves around going first (which is a random, uncontrollable event) and you will definitely lose without it, then you failed at the list building stage. That’s not your opponent’s fault, it’s not the TO’s fault, it’s your fault.

            Anyone attending a tournament should be prepared for that since it’s not a secret what type of lists are dominating the meta. If you aren’t prepared to face those lists and go second then you either shouldn’t be attending tournaments or ok with losing to those lists. At the very least you shouldn’t be hurting other players by conceding games and giving away free points to an opponent without even trying. It doesn’t matter if you think you’re going to lose, it’s poor sportsmanship.

          • ZeeLobby

            Again, it’s not about needing to go first to win. It’s about needing to go first not to lose. They’re two VERY different things. Sadly 40K is in a state where some matchups are actually decided by that roll. It’s sad, but true. Same in WMH. Some matchups are just decided. If you’re running storm division, and both your opponents lists ignore lightning attack, you can play it out for fun, but if your opponent doesn’t care if you do (he’d rather grab lunch) then why does that reflect poorly on you.

            And what? How is giving free points to your opponent “hurting” them? If it’s a tournament, and their competitively trying to win, the points will help them regardless if you play them.

            Again, this happens in other competitive events all the time, when a team/player decides to forfeit. In most other industries it’s not seen as “poor sportsmanship”, lol. People forfeit for many reasons. If my opponent isn’t having fun, or has had a rough day, I’m not going to force him to play me, or shame him for being a poor opponent.

          • CKyle80

            You can try to justify it all you want but quitting without even putting a model down because you lost a single dice roll is being a poor sport. It shows that winning, or “not losing” if you need it to be described as such, is so important to you that you’re not even willing to TRY when you don’t see a clear path to victory. That’s being a poor sport since you’re showing a disrespect for the game, your opponent, and the tournament. I’d also add that if it’s so important to you then you need to actually be prepared to face those types of lists instead of conceding when you don’t go first.

            And the hurt that you’re doing is to the other players at the tournament and the organizers. Is it ok that you’ve given a scoring advantage to someone who didn’t deserve it? What about that player who could have maybe won first but was pushed to second place because someone gave the winner free points in a concession? Or to the TO’s who have to deal with surly players who came away with a bad taste in their mouth at their event because someone was so scared of losing that they were unwilling to even put a model on the table. Quitting because you’re going second is a selfish act and not something a good sport does.

          • ZeeLobby

            It’s just a game man. You seem quit upset at this happening, but most players I’ve met from top tables are quite OK with this. If you’re more of a middle table player, I’m sure it’s something you’ll never run into, so you’ll be OK.

          • CKyle80

            I’m not upset, I’m just arguing my point. Seems pretty disingenuous of you to try and turn this into me being emotionally unbalanced because I happen to have a set of standards when I consider whether or not someone is being a poor sport. For someone preaching that I should see both sides, maybe try not to assign tone to someone’s typed words? Oh, and your “middle table” comment, that I’m sure you think makes you look clever, shows that you don’t really have an argument anymore so you’re reduced to trying to make subtle jabs at me personally. But really, it doesn’t matter what level I’m at in a tournament, it doesn’t affect or change my argument that a person who won’t play the first turn in a tournament for fear of losing is being selfish and childish.

            And btw, your anecdotal evidence is garbage and you should stop referencing it as if it’s proving some sort of point. I don’t know you, I don’t know the people you’re talking to or how your actual conversations went, I don’t know what top tables you’re referencing, and I’d wager that most other people on here don’t either. I could just as easily say that the top tables at my FLGS tournaments think I’m right and it would hold the exact same weight as your statement.

          • ZeeLobby

            Wasn’t trying to make you see emotionally imbalanced. Just stating that many people in top end tourneys aren’t hung up on a forfeit game.

            And I mean I can tell you. I played many times at Nova, Adepticon and Da Boyz GT. I mean sure it’s anecdotal, but you can take it as you will. Chose to think I’m lying. I don’t care.

            In the end, if your not having fun, and want to forfeit, or don’t see a victory after losing the roll to go first, I’m not going to force you to play the game, or shame you for being a poor sport. LoL

          • CKyle80

            Again, anecdotal evidence means nothing. If your whole argument boils down to “people I know don’t mind it” then your argument is weak. Who are these “many people” you speak of? Which “top end tournaments” are you talking about? Do you have any proof you actually know or spoke to these people? Who are you that you’re some repository of knowledge concerning top player’s feelings on this particular subject? Your words are hollow without anything to back them up.

            And on top of that, even if what you’re saying is true (which I have literally no reason to believe it is), so what? My argument isn’t whether or not those people care about the subject, it’s about what constitutes being a poor sport. If those players are ok with someone acting like a baby, good for them. It doesn’t change the fact that the person was acting like a baby.

        • Drpx

          Yeah, everyone I talk to about that is less, “what a waste” and more, “I would have done the same.”

    • ZeeLobby

      There’s definitely varying degrees depending on when they actually quit. Did you get first turn, and then remove half my army (which I’ve seen many times in competitive 40K)? I’d probably fold. Maybe play 2 turns, but not much after that. Moving things around to eek out a couple points isn’t necessarily fun for everyone.

  • the Bad thing about someone quitting early is that it effects not only their opponents standing but the standing of everyone around him!

    If I came second in a tournament because the winner essentially got a buy I’d be really pissed.

  • bobrunnicles

    “Why spend time and effort playing out a game you know you’ve lost?”

    Out of respect to your opponent? Because the fun should be in the whole experience of playing the game and not just WAAC? The fact that the author actually seems to think that quitting like a petulant child because things haven’t gone or aren’t going well is okay speaks volumes to me.

    • GravesDisease

      It is also possible to quit a game with decorum and class. The author is correct, this is a game and it fundamentally is your time. Of course there are bad ways to concede a match but it’s nonsense being forced to play an unwinable game for 2 hours when instead you could use that time for lunch or a pint.

      • bobrunnicles

        Agreed. Personally if things were going that badly for me I would say to my opponent that I don’t think I can come back from this but if you want to play it out then I’m happy to continue. Usually though I don’t quit games no matter how badly I’m doing unless it is mathematically impossible for me to win lol. Dice can always go south on your opponent and start to roll in your favor, after all 🙂

        • Karru

          I only quit when I know I have lost completely if I roll averagely. To explain it a bit better, I quit when I know I would need to roll something like 90+% successes and my opponent would have to roll less than 20% successes in order for me to pull a victory, I usually just say “Good game” and start the end game analysis.

          Unfortunately this has happened to me a lot in 8th edition, not as much as it did in 7th, but still.

    • memitchell

      Well to be fair, if you did bring a killer WAAC army that exploits a rules loophole, and your rules loophole gets closed, why continue to play? Or, if you somehow end up against the one army you did not plan to play against, It’s not your fault. You didn’t go there to have fun. Why should your opponent have fun?

  • disqus_yyglaTdo9o

    If my opponent is winning graciously, and still atleast TRY to give ME a good time as well, I’ll finish the game normally.

    However, you want WAAC? You got it. Congratulations with your victory after turn 1, I’ll enjoy the rest of my two hours the way I want to.

    If it ain’t fun for two, I’m not going to commit my precious time to endulge my opponent who is just being a dick.

    • EmperorOfMankind

      The problem is if you don’t waac at a tournament, you aren’t doing it right.

      • YetAnotherFacelessMan

        Tournaments are tournaments. Victory is all that matters there, so there’s no point in talking about fun.

        • ZeeLobby

          XD

        • KingAceNumber1

          I politely disagree. Some of the most fun games and most polite people I’ve ever met have been at tournaments. It saddens me that people sour on tournaments based on the lowest denominator, as they can be a great time and an amazing way to meet other hobbiers.

          • YetAnotherFacelessMan

            We went to very different tournaments. I’ve only been spoken to at a tournament with a sportsmanship score, and only ever by my current-round opponent…

            But setting that aside, I feel like you can have a great time and meet other hobbiers just hanging around a hobby store. A tournament is a good way to get hobbyists in the store, sure… but there is a big difference between a little fun tournament with nothing on the line (like my local store had for Shadespire recently), and the type of capital t Tournaments that the internet likes to talk about.

            When people talk about “competitive” vs “friendly”, that’s the distinction they are making. The sprinters at the Olympics don’t all decide to prance like majestic unicorns one race, even though it would be fun. They run with textbook perfect form, honed by practice and science. There are plenty of tournament players who sit in front of an excel sheet and figure out probabilities and points efficiency.

            I’m happy you had a good experience at a tournament. I’d hazard a guess that it wasn’t the LVO and you weren’t the champion. Whenever this site talks about the meta or the problems with the game, they always bring up those big tournaments filled with those hyper-competitive players.

            If you’re having local fun tournaments, PLEASE report on them, so that the BoLS writers can be confused on how to spin a fluffy winner list that beats other fluffy and fun lists. Until then, it’s whatever new WAAC nonsense is replacing Maleific Lords.

          • EmperorOfMankind

            I’ve played in 3 tournaments in my life and none of them were fun at all. People taking forever to deploy/move (probably to run down the clock). People arguing about the rules to the point that I just said “okay let’s do it your way” only to have them demand still wait for a judge.

            One game I only got to finish one turn while he got 2 before time was up. He was a really nice person but didn’t seem to notice that his slow play style screwed me. He even started giving me tips on how to win next time, even though it was him that caused me to get only 2 turns.

      • disqus_yyglaTdo9o

        You WAAC, Win At All Costs. The cost in This case, you got a first turn victory. You should be happy, why are you complaining?

    • ZeeLobby

      Agreed. It’s HIGHLY dependent on your opponent. If he’s a total jerk, you might not even want to keep playing him if your winning…

  • ZeeLobby

    I’m torn, but at the same time, I totally get it. While I do prefer it to be an agreement to end the game early, there’s no point in sitting through a thrashing. I mean if you’ve never seen a thrashing, you probably haven’t been to enough tournament games, but there’s no reason to keep playing if it’s a negative play experience.

    • EmperorOfMankind

      b-but my tyranny of fun..

      • ZeeLobby

        Haha. I mean I’ve seen a top tabler want to keep playing after removing more than half of his opponents army turn one, when the guy clearly didn’t want to, and I’m sorry, but I do not care if you get joy from beating me senseless, I don’t have to sit through it, hehe.

  • SacTownBrian

    At the end of the day this is a fun game. I certainly don’t want to play someone that isn’t having fun regardless of win or lose potential. I see this with my son all the time. However occasionally he’ll say he’s going to lose round one or two but not see the actual possibilities in front of him. If I can clearly see a path to victory for him I’ll talk him through it before we call it. You really need to know your opponent if you chose to go down this path. With a stranger/casual friend I always find it better to just shake hands, make the call, then talk about the game.

  • tau4eva

    the only winning move is not to play

  • Karru

    Here’s my take on the matter. In short, I always find it fully acceptable to give up in a case where you clearly know you have lost the game, no matter if it is the first turn or not.

    Then the longer answer. I have never seen the issue with quitting as soon as you know you lost. 40k is built around Alpha Strike these days, objectives hardly matters in most games. If I lose 66% of my army on the first turn to my opponent’s Alpha Strike either due to them getting shot off the table or charged and locked in combat, I really see absolutely no reason to keep playing at that point. I already know I have lost and there is nothing, absolutely nothing I can do in return. All I can do is play for the next 2-3 turns and watch as my opponent gleefully rolls dice and makes me remove model after model after model from my army while I take a few potshots here and there, killing maybe 1-2 regular guys.

    Why should I be penalised with a miserable game just so that my opponent can squeeze even more enjoyment out of his victory? He already won, his list beat mine, no need to p*ss on the grave by continuing the game “till the bitter end”.

    Now, I am against people that give up as soon as the dice is rolled for who gets to go first and they have to go second. If you build an army completely around the first turn alpha strike and don’t even have the decency to play the first turn no matter if you go first or second, then you might have to go take a look in the mirror and ask yourself “why am I playing this game again?”, because the problem isn’t your opponent at that point.

    I have played dozens of games where I have given up on the first turn, before it even got to my turn purely because I lost way too much on the first turn to enemy fire. We are talking easily around 40% – 60% losses on the first turn. Why should I keep going? The answer is, there is none. My opponent already got his enjoyment out of the game, he won, congratulations. If he starts going “Don’t give up now, you can still pull a victory” while being fully aware that in order to do that I would have to absolutely perfectly for the next 3 turns while he can’t get a single successful roll himself.

  • AdeptusAstartes

    My opponent in my last game started his final turn with Helbrecht and a Vindicare on the table. The Vindicare slunk away – very fluffy I thought, and Helbrecht charged Typhus. My opponent called it when Helbrecht failed to wound in combat (bad dice!).

    I’d much rather play that sort of opponent than a mid-game quitter!

    • ZeeLobby

      But he was still having fun right? What if he wasn’t?

      • AdeptusAstartes

        Then in my experience he wouldn’t be having fun because I’d been acting like a dick. In 30 years of gaming the only unenjoyable games I’ve played are against unenjoyable opponents. You can win and still hate the game, if your opponent sucks the fun out of it. It’s even better to lose but be able to laugh at your crap dice with your opponent – I’ve cheered opponents on in tournaments who’ve dismantled me – partly because it was great to watch, and partly because they were great people to play against.

        • ZeeLobby

          I mean I personally enjoy close fought games. I have folded against friends who are a joy to play when extremely down. People play these games for all kinds of reasons, and for some, regardless of how charming you are, pushing around several models to possibly do a single wound for several turns just isn’t enjoyable. If you’re that charming I’d rather set up another battle, play another game, or go get a beer, lol.

          • AdeptusAstartes

            As was said above by Grimm, if it’s an agreed course of action then fair enough, let’s get in the queue for the bar! I’m even happy to agree a result if my opponent wants to get home after a long day. But reasonable explanations aside, why call a game when there are hundreds of dice to rolled, giving dozens of possible outcomes, because you think you can’t win. That doesn’t register well with me.

          • ZeeLobby

            Because if you take out half my army turn one i’m not rolling a hundred dice, I’m rolling 50 while you roll 100. I mean I get we can all just throw our arms in the air and scream “LUCK”! But that isn’t always the enjoyable reason people play.

          • EmperorOfMankind

            “why call a game when there are hundreds of dice to rolled”

            simple, an obvious mismatch.

      • Apocryphus

        Quitting the game if you’re not having fun is one thing, quitting after turn 1 because you aren’t winning is different. I’ve won games that rightly I should have lost by virtue of objective snatching and distracting the opponent with chaff units. If it’s turn 3 and you have one unit left and you’ve dealt no casualties, by all means, quit there, but otherwise, roll it out and see what happens. I learned quickly in WMH to always roll the dice until the bitter end, because in a dice game, nothing is certain.

        • ZeeLobby

          I mean it’s all cost/benefit right. If I can quit this pretty well decided game, and get in another closer game, I’d rather do that. Having played WMH there’s times when I clearly make a mistake, and would rather reset, than spend an hour with a 5% chance to win. I don’t think anyone quits a game when they’re having fun, but I don’t think having fun is necessarily the same thing for everyone.

          • Apocryphus

            I think that’s valid, but there is a certain timing that makes a surrender graceful. I’ve personally never felt that a game was won or lost by turn 1 in 8th ed, so perhaps my insight is a bit skewed, and I feel like if someone quits immediately they are cheating themselves a bit too. Quitting mid game isn’t necessarily a bad thing, especially if both players know which way the wind is blowing, but at least give it a fair shake past the intial turn and try to push things in your favor.

          • ZeeLobby

            Yeah. I mean I think a lot of responses to this question hinge on personal experience. Having faced serpent spam in 6th with Dark Eldar, and D-Weapon spam in 7th with a highlander list, sometimes the end of turn 1 is easily enough to determine a winner. I just think it’s something you rarely see outside of top tables at tournaments (or tournaments in uber-competitive areas).

          • Karru

            Let me tell you of a lovely story I have when it comes to my 2 worst experiences in 40k 8th edition and quitting on the first turn.

            First time was when I was playing with Adeptus Mechanicus against Space Marines. I decided to go with a nice mix of units and tried to bring in as many different ones I could. I even brought a single Knight as a centre piece model and my opponent was kind enough to allow me to use my Canticles even though I had the Knight (This was during the Index version).

            He gets the first turn, we deploy our units, I fail to seize and the first turn begins. He drops 2 units of 5 Assault Terminators in front of my main line while doing minimal movement elsewhere. In the shooting phase he takes out the Knight and a handful of my models. Then, on the Assault Phase, he rolls 11 and 12 on his Charge rolls, I fail to roll a single hit in my Overwatch. Then comes the fight and he kills more of my stuff while I fail to do anything.

            At this point, I only had the following units:

            Cawl
            13 Rangers
            2 Kataphron Destroyers

            If I remember correctly, he fail to do something with 17 of his dice during that turn. Meanwhile, I succeeded with only 3, everything else failed for me. You think I should “keep going to maybe pull off a objective victory at that point?”

            The second game was against Necrons with Tau. To give you the short story, at the start of his 2nd turn, he had lost 3 models (this is after reanimation) and I had lost 33% of my army before he got into range with most of his heavy hitters.

          • Apocryphus

            I will quote myself “Quitting…isn’t necessarily a bad thing, especially if both players know which way the wind is blowing.” I think with less than 20 models on the table, both players know which way the wind is blowing.

            As for the game against Necrons, I absolutely would have played out a game having only lost 33% of my force. That may not have been a very even trade to start but it hardly pulls you out of the game. I have literally won games with a single model left on the table, so, again, my insight may be skewed, but come from behind victories can happen. I’m not saying surrender is bad, I’m saying premature surrender is.

          • Karru

            Well, here’s the thing about that particular game. It was a themed Tau Stealth Suit army. Next turn, he would have been in full rapid fire range with his entire army instead of only having 30 Warriors, 10 Immortals and 2 Stalkers in range with only 10 or so warriors being in Rapid Fire Range. This included 10 Deathmarks, 10 Warriors more and 6 Destroyers if I remember correctly.

            And when I quit, it was the start of his second turn. The only things I would have had left after that turn was 2 Devilfish with 10 Breachers each.

          • Apocryphus

            Well, possibly. I personally always wait until the dice are rolled. Shots can miss or fail to wound and saves can be made. It’s a fine balance between assuming you will lose and knowing for certain you will lose. When someone assumes they will lose and surrenders based on that assumption, that’s premature.

            I’m not judging based on your decision, I don’t think it’s rude to your opponent to surrender or that it’s cowardly or anything, I just think if games are played out a bit more things can swing differently. Quitting too early is equivalent to cheating yourself out of a possibly enjoyable experience.

  • Spade McTrowel

    Sportsmanship at its finest, BoLS.

    • CKyle80

      Don’t expect better, this particular author seems to have an axe to grind with competitive play. Would be nice if maybe he could report on an actual event he went to instead of theory crafting and mining for troll food with these articles. Reports from actual events I’ve read or heard really don’t jive with BoLS articles.

  • I_am_Alpharius

    No, its a extremely churlish action to take – moving on.

    • KingAceNumber1

      I rarely agree with you, but I agree with you.

      If you come to a national tournament and drop on a top table, you’re not only taking a game from your opponent, who traveled and spent money to be there, but you’re also insulting the players who lost to you to get you there.

      I basically see it as “this isn’t an easy win so I don’t want to play”

      Totally different story in friendly games or even mid tables at a tournament, where it doesn’t make a difference or impact the results of anything.

      • ZeeLobby

        So if the top player is a total jerk, and just wants to smash your toys into dust while laughing, you’d still play into it?

        • KingAceNumber1

          I would, because if I am at that top table I have an equally competitive list (probably) and would feel (again, personal opinion here) that it’d be poor form to drop at that point.

          If there’s an issue with the player being a jerk, that’s on the judge to deal with.

          • ZeeLobby

            Yeah, well having played into a top player who called a judge on every movement, slow played me, and basically talked to his bystanders like I was an idiot, I did not sit through that, even though I was winning (called the judge over but it didn’t change his behavior, and they knew him). So more power to you. But I think it’s foolish to expect everyone to be happy accepting that same punishment.

            I go to tournaments, sometimes with strong lists, to compete against fun players. Am I a churlish jerk for not wanting to play against a jerk?

          • KingAceNumber1

            > Am I a churlish jerk for not wanting to play against a jerk?

            Not at all. I don’t believe the situation can be taken all in black and white. This is all simply my opinion and the way that I personally play. What’s right for you is different =)

          • ZeeLobby

            Ah, OK, good, hehe. Cause I mean I_am_Alpharius’s original post seemed very black and white. Just think it’s dangerous to label this as good or bad, as it really depends on the situation. Sadly I’ve seen a player who wasn’t having fun playing into a jerk get shamed for quitting early. I’ve also played into an opponent where the game was decided turn 2 who tried to keep convincing me that I had a chance when we both clearly knew i didn’t. In the end if you personally are not enjoying a game like this, I would never expect you to keep playing for my enjoyment.

          • KingAceNumber1

            Right, because you’re not a jerk. I’m the same way; I’ll offer to call it if my opponent is clearly hating life.

            Social interaction is a weird thing and can never be taken on a whole, but in the -specific- instance of quitting because you don’t want to play due to a poor start or feel the game would be difficult, I feel it’s in poor taste.

          • ZeeLobby

            Yeah. I mean I dunno. If someone loved his knight that I killed turn one, and I could tell that they’d be moping about it for the rest of the game, I’d be fine if they quit, lol. I won’t say anything, but sometimes I don’t mind sneaking a few beers in just for myself. double day 6 game tournaments are exhausting.

          • YetAnotherFacelessMan

            See… this entire conversation confuses me.

            In a casual setting: If the game is going poorly and my opponent wants to quit, that’s fine. It’s a game. If we’re not having fun, we can play something else.

            In a competitive setting: If my opponent isn’t having fun and wants to quit, I’m fine with it so long as the points system won’t screw me because he forfeited before I had a chance to score anything.

            In either case, if I want to quit, my opponent has no ability to stop me. Fun fact: You can pack up your miniatures and drive of for literally any reason at any time. You aren’t a professional. You aren’t paid to be here. Go home if you want to.

          • ZeeLobby

            Exactly. Ugh. The comparisons to professional sports, or like poker tournaments with money on the line is just ridiculous. This is hobby we play to have fun. If I’m not having fun, why should I play? It’s really that simple.

          • I_am_Alpharius

            It is very black and white. You’d never get any professional or amature game or sports, where the sides turn up to play and then one side goes: “oh I have no chance of winning, because of XYZ, so I/we’re not playing”. It just does happen.

            100m Athletes don’t just walk away because their race involved Usain Bolt. A Chess player doesn’t rage quite because they didn’t get the White pieces. A football team doesn’t give up when the opposition score in the first 2min. Poker players don’t fold just because they have one bad hand or a poor run of hands. It is just not done.

          • KingAceNumber1

            Whoops, NOW I disagree with you lol. I don’t think it’s as black and white as you make it out to be.

          • ZeeLobby

            Uh. Your examples are horrible. Sport to Tabletop Gaming comparisons are always flawed. One’s a hobby, another is basically your life. So we’ll ignore that one.

            As for chess, there are instances where a misplay will see a player forfeit when they see the result 10 moves out. I think you’re applying best-in-world chess to chess in general. Those players are at such a high level that they the game is never decided early, which is completely different from 40K which can be.

            Your poker analogy is just a completely different scale. In a poker tournament you’re playing 100s of hands, the majority of which have minimal impact on the overall outcome. I have to assume you’re referencing money based events, I’ve seen people drop out of charity tournaments or for funsies tournaments all the time, lol.

          • Rob brown

            5 a side football tournament or tennis tournaments can still be a hobby and not a profession. You just don’t quit 10 mins in. You don’t do it because it’s bad sportsmanship. It stinks.

          • Chad Underdonk
      • EmperorOfMankind

        Is this game about fun or not? Does it matter if the other person is having fun at all?

        • KingAceNumber1

          Of course it does; but that social contract goes both ways. If you quit the instant the game starts to turn, your opponent may be pretty disheartened if they were looking forward to a good game.

          I’m not referencing games where 2/3 of your army dies to an alpha strike, that’s a bit different. I mean games where you look at the other person’s army and before dice are rolled decide you don’t want to play, as happened on the top tables at NOVA.

          • EmperorOfMankind

            wasn’t the original article about quitting after turn one though?

          • KingAceNumber1

            Eh, yeah, but not necessarily because you got alpha struck off the board. Literally losing on turn one is different than having your favorite unit destroyed and packing up or simply not wanting to play against your opponent’s build.

          • EmperorOfMankind

            Sometimes a mismatch is just as bad or worse than a costly alpha strike.

            I made the mistake of going to a tournament with the models I had, rather than trying to build a good list. It was a stompfest

  • vyrago

    I love how 40K alpha strike problem is so bad that games are basically determined by a coin toss/dice roll at the start.

    • CKyle80

      Simply not true. This whole “alpha strike problem” is way overblown by salty players. There is an inherent advantage to going first but you can still win going second if you’re good at using terrain and placing your units to deny alpha strike. All it takes is actual thought and strategy and not a defeatist “well I lost” attitude. If that’s your thinking every time you go second then it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

      • KingAceNumber1

        A lot of it comes down to list building. People assume alpha-ing is how you win, so they build lists to alpha instead of building a list to take it, and when they go second and lose it reaffirms that alpha-ing is how you win to them. If two people bring alpha lists, it IS generally a coin toss.

        If you build a list with going second in mind as a distinct possibility, it ends up more balanced and with a more resilient core.

  • The fact that the game is designed to encourage gak list building so that you can win in turn 1 is the root of the issue in the first place.

    • KingAceNumber1

      Agreed. Terrain rules need adjustment to prevent this sort of thing, I think.

    • ZeeLobby

      Totally agree. Changes to the system (all over) would help this from ever being a thing in the first place. I mean I keep harping on it, but reducing the ranges of most weapons would do just as much as adjusting terrain, and wouldn’t require massive investment by TOs.

      • KingAceNumber1

        I’d be very, very curious to see the game if all 48″ guns were dropped to 36″. As you and I have said before, WM/H avoids the problem neatly.

        • ZeeLobby

          I mean it’s really what we had back in the older editions. I remember the bolt guns range of 24″ being significant, while lascannons were like the rare exception. In the end it means your cover is not determined by the terrain in your deployment zone, but where you can position yourself by turn 2/3. The addition of Apocalypse level units has only exacerbated the issue.

          • KingAceNumber1

            If they’re going to keep gun ranges the way they are, I think terrain needs a rework. I still think -1 to hit is a better mechanic than +1 to saves, but I get that it screws things like Ork shooting too hard.

            To be honest I don’t really know how I’d fix terrain.

          • ZeeLobby

            I just think it needs more abstraction. If you’re farther back than 2″ in any ruin/forest, you can’t be seen. I mean I really liked the older forest rules. I mean you want trees you can move through, but they’re pretty insignificant if everyone can see through them. The game definitely had a different scale altogether during that era though.

          • Apocryphus

            I agree, I preferred the abstract LOS blocking terrain of old than terrain basically being decoration. Many people keep saying more LOS blocking terrain needs to be used but that’s basically just huge walls or giant objects. Ruins with holes blasted in them, forests that dont have trunk to trunk trees, any piece of area terrain, buildings with windows, non of it blocks LOS and that’s the majority of terrain made by players or produced by GW.

          • ZeeLobby

            EXACTLY. I think with some smart abstract terrain rules you could easily remove alpha strike, and make positioning and movement way more important in the game, even with ridiculous ranges.

        • Lebowski1111111111

          what 48 inch guns are tearing up the meta? its been things like conscript spam, smite spam, maelfic lords that have been tearing up the meta. not the lascannon.

          • KingAceNumber1

            It’s not really the antitank stuff, mainly things like mortar teams being cheap as chips and ridiculous when given orders.

            Ditto taurox primes with the dakka loadout.

            I know both of those are out of guard, but they were the first two I could think of offhand

  • eMtoN

    A good general knows that there is an opportunity to learn even in a losing situation.

  • I think a big aspect that’s being ignored here are the factors of mission design and dumb luck.

    1) If a mission is well-designed, and a player actually plays for their mission objectives, it’s possible to pull out a close win even after a bad first turn. This is especially true in games with asymmetric objectives, such as the Renegade Format. If you can manage to win your primary objective, or at least deny your opponent theirs, you can often win on secondary or tertiary objectives. That may not be clear until turns 3-4, though.

    2) This is a game with dice, and sometimes the dice do amazing things. I had two games at Renegade Open where I was facing down IG gunlines backed with artillery and/or tanks and didn’t go first. My first instinct was, “Well, that was fun. This should be painful, brutish, and short.” However, as the game went on, my units proved more resilient than their data sheets would imply, solely because I managed to make saves when I needed them. I ended up winning both games on secondary objectives through a combination of smart play and dumb luck.

  • Martin B

    I’d say it’s ok, I’ve done it before when it’s become obvious that I can’t pull a game back. I think coming back from a couple of bad turns against an opponent is all part of the fun. As said above no likes to lose and certainly not get table but it can make for very cinematic games (in a narrative way) that handful of surviving heroes determined to make the enemies path as costly (and blood soaked as possible). I don’t think quitting after the roll for first turn is very sportsman like though, if your plan relied so heavily on that one variable you probably should have come up with a better plan.

  • Andrew O’Brien

    I’ve had friends want to quit 1/2 way into turn 2 sure they will lose, only to come back and win. I believe it’s a players right to quit early, but at the same time it’s a players right to be upset if an opponent quits the moment that something big does not go in their favor.

    I won’t blame you for quitting, but you don’t blame me for being frustrated that you quit just because I’m doing well.

    That said, my friends and I don’t play these extreme all or nothing lists.

  • Pimpcron

    Couldn’t disagree more. That is a pansy, sore loser thing to do. Even if I get tabled, I will not quit a game. You can still learn from it as a player, and start going for moral victories versus actual victory. It is a two-player game and everyone I’ve ever played who quit because they were losing turned out to be @holes anyway.

    • denzark

      One of those rare times I agree with 100% of something Pimpcron wrote. My compliments good Sir.

    • Matthew Pomeroy

      and you just regenerate anyhow 😀

  • AkulaK

    It all depends of the army… If you’re like Nids or Primaris and every one of your units is a threat enough, you can win even after a bad turn 1… But if you are Eldar or Mechanicus and only few units are a threat to the ennemy, if you lose them you’re done.

  • Chad Underdonk

    It would be damn well nice however if someone with a predilection towards quitting would do so at the end of their previous round rather than 10 minutes into the next one.

    At a minimum asking their opponent if they would mind if they quit is the polite thing to do. Many players show up to play. They too payed good money to attend the tournament and should be treated with respect as well.

    Beyond that I’ve seen so many overly competitive types with a loser mentality that I just want to shake them. I can’t count how many times I’ve convinced someone to keep playing and they continue on to have an enjoyable and sometimes winning game. Those with negative quitting attitudes only wins the easy ones.

    • AkulaK

      Couldn’t agree more, leaving at the end of a turn is the basis. I just left a game few weeks ago against DG, but i had the decency to wait the end of the 3rd turn, the objectives to be counted and so on.

  • SilentPony

    Its a two-way street. Both players can read a game easy enough, and should be attuned to the other person’s feelings. I’ve asked if its okay to call a game, since its clear there is no chance to win. Likewise I’ve offered if they just want to call it here, and save the time me winning.
    Who here hasn’t had a match were turn 1 your opponent doesn’t miss or fail to wound a single shot, you fail every single armor save, and during your turn you don’t hit or wound a single time.
    Top of 2, you’re down 2 troops, an HQ, and all your fast attacks. You have 1 heavy support squad left, and 1 HQ out in the open.
    We know how this game goes. And a friendly opponent would ask if you’re willing to call it, and seeings how this only took a few minutes, rematch?

  • denzark

    I have only ever quit before the end of a game, in the final moments where it is literally impossible to win and playing on will detriment both players. In friendly games this is where we both feel stopping will give us time to do something else, such as start and finish a second game. In a tourney this would only be where it wouldn’t detriment my opponent and deny him TPs. If an opponent wanted to play to the end or I would get a 0 score I would fight on anyway. To fail a first turn role and then jack it in or to play 1 turn and do so is just weak and bad mannered. The idea of doing so is everything that is wrong with 40K and why tourneys get a bad name.

  • Ruud Reints

    You can still learn a lot from the game and from your army by playing when the odds are against your favor. Trying to maximise your game when things don’t go your way is part of the game for me. Learning from these situations will help at later battles.

    Must depend on the player. I like the game for the game and the setting where it plays out. Epic moments occur in such battles :).

  • Peripheral

    Concede if you must, but offer your opponent another game for fun while the time lasts.

    Or concede and play out the string by setting some achievable goal for your broken forces.

    Or don’t bring a one trick pony list that shatters if things don’t go perfectly.

  • Bootneck

    In the last tournament I played in, your final position wasn’t just determined by win, draw, or lose but also how many VPs you scored and how many points worth of models you killed.

    So even in a game you got smashed in it was still worth your time trying to accrue some extra points as this directly influenced your final standing overall.

  • Marco Marantz

    In a doubles tourney my partner and i let our opponents set up (7th ed) and then conceded. We might have had a small chance to win but the cheese was so strong we wanted to make a point and never went to that tourney again. Dont think they even have them anymore.

    • Michael Campbell

      A couple years back in an Apocalypse tourney I got matched against a guy whose army was just a cardboard Emperor Titan.
      I was like “really dude? Good game, I’m gonna go grab some lunch”.

  • David

    IMO, there is nothing worse than playing against a salty opponent that has given up on the game. They may be going through the motions, but in my experience, it’s more to prove their point as to why they are salty as opposed to keep the “social contract” going.

  • L0RDZ3R0

    I honestly think it depends on the situation (granted I’m a casual player and don’t really bother with tournaments so feel free to ignore me).

    I’ve played games where my army’s teeth were ripped out by a melta-vet alpha strike or a turn 1 zerker charge obliterated my gunline yet still managed to turn it around because as a glutton for punishment i refused to surrender. Just as often though my stubbornness remained unrewarded and my army was dismantled after being crippled.

    Other times after a particularly crippling opening turn (which is much more possible in 8th than in 7th) I just decided to surrender and start a new game.

    In every case I talked it over with my opponent to see if we could get another game in. What most people want is a good game where both sides fight hard and victory is well earned, and if we think we have time to start a new game we do that, if not then we keep going.

    The best thing I think is to talk it out with your opponent and come to an agreement.

  • Alexander Barahona

    If you don’t want to do something, you shouldn’t be made to do it. This is a general rule in society and it should apply here. I don’t even understand how this is a debate at all!

    • Apocryphus

      What if the opponent doesn’t want to be made to quit a game early? It’s not as simple as that, if both player’s feelings about the situation are to be taken into account, it’s not fair for one player to always be forced to capitulate to the other player’s decisions.

      • Alexander Barahona

        You can only control your own actions. The other person has to accept they don’t own the quitting opponent. Quitting is in the rules, they both agreed to the option you to by playing the game. If you don’t like that people are being allowed to quit don’t play… or make a no quitting rule for your tournament.

        TLDR; Quitting is in the rules. By signing up you agree to the rules. Don’t complain about rules you agreed to after the fact.

        • Apocryphus

          I have no qualms with people quitting games, it’s just important to consider the opponent’s feelings, regardless of which side of the table you’re on.

          • Alexander Barahona

            You’re obviously 100% correct. I’m not advocated a table flip. Quitting is conceding, it’s showing that you’re outclassed and can’t win and should be done with a handshake, sure even an apology if you feel then wish to.

          • Alexander Barahona

            I would ask though: you say it’s “important to consider the opponent’s feelings”, no one considers my feelings when they put up 50 mortars behind a bazillion conscripts. Why? It’s in the rules and I accept that. Why should quitting, which is also in the rules and also not facilitative of fun, be different.

          • Apocryphus

            I mean, yeah, there are terrible list, but I doubt they’ll still be conscripts after Chapter Approved. 😛 When you go to a store or event to play 40k, you are basically volunteering to play into whatever nonsense you come across. Sure you can dodge games you don’t want to play in a casual environment, but at an event it’s not possible.

            Both players need to respect the time investment put in by the other, and just quitting because you aren’t winning turn one (which is the most common issue I’m noticing) is disrespectful to the investment your opponent has put into this. Of course forcing an opponent to continue playing after reducing them to 5 models is also disrespectful of that person’s investment. It comes down to not wasting each other’s time. I personally play until my last model is dead, but if my opponent wants to call it quits after a few turns, I at least got to play. First turn quitting is robbing both players of an experience and common practice of it can cause a negative attitude towards the game in a community.

          • Alexander Barahona

            Yeah quitting in a fun game at your local store seems a little silly, you’re there to be social. I mean you can do it but I don’t see why you’d want to as it clearly indicates that you turned up to a causal environment with the aim of wanting to be competative and win.

            Competitively though you have zero obligation you play. You paid your entry like everyone else. Being forced to take the other persons enjoyment into account is not a factor in any other circumstance, no one considers enjoyment when making a list, they consider competative advantage. There is only competative disadvantage in playing a losing game as you tire yourself out even more.

            I think you’re applying double standards. You’re saying what you think is right even though philosophically the same principle doesn’t apply elsewhere. If it is your job to consider the enjoyment of your opponent, then I trust from now on you’ll visit tournaments with lists they’ll enjoy playing against even if it reduces your chance of winning?

          • Alexander Barahona

            Apparently my reply isn’t being allowed by BOLS, despite it not being inflammatory or rude and simply a philosophical rebuttal of your points… yay for censorship ruining a good debate!

          • Apocryphus

            Whaaaaat? Well I got a notification that had a preview of most of your reply, so based on that I will say this: I guess if you are comfortable quitting a game right away at an event you paid money to go to, that’s fine, I personally never would because I’d feel like I’m wasting my money. On the flip side, your opponent paid money to be there too, to play games and compete, so they could feel cheated out of an experience that wasn’t free. It’s tough to gauge, as a win is a win, but I’d rather earn that win then have my opponent throw in the towel early. I still feel it’s about the timing. If defeat is certain, surrender gracefully, otherwise I say play it out, what’s the worst that can happen? You did pay money to play the game after all, may as well play.

          • Apocryphus

            I guess my replies aren’t going through either! I think we both agree on a fundamental level though, it’s okay to quit if things are decisive, and don’t pressure players to play against their will. I would never play against someone who didn’t want to continue, but I would also never quit turn 1. I respect the desire to quit early, I just don’t agree with it, but would certainly never refuse a player’s right to.

  • Thomas Whitehouse

    Surely, to help get beyond this we should be allowed to retreat in some games.. or hold out?

    You should be able to pick and choose your battles in real life. Sometimes you get ambushed, and sometimes you may want to fight to the death or have to if you’re cornered, but I can imagine even the bravest of Space Marines won’t stand around and be killed if they can clearly see that their own deaths would not have any gain.

    A “quit” should be an absolute loss, but something like a retreat option (once declared) means you lose the battle, but you can leave it by meeting certain criteria… eg: on the edge of the board, hold out in a “landing zone” for a transport to come get you… etc. Make it fun to hold out.

  • AEZ

    Well.. Then tourney organisers.. Who have an interest in both players having fun should ban lists that quit if they loose the roll for first turn.

  • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

    there’s nothing wrong with giving up first turn, but there’s so much wrong with a game that makes players want to.

  • It’s honestly like the author is talking about a completely different game from the one I play lol