PDA

View Full Version : Conceding- how Oddly Satisfying...



EvC
25-10-2008, 15:58
I went to have a random game with someone earlier, I saw he had Dwarfs so I thought it would probably be a good game since he had no Anvil, and so we started... when he'd finished deploying (6 deployments including warmachines), he had a nice row of stone throwers, cannon and organ gun nicely flanked by Thunderers and Quarrelers... one turn into the game he'd killed half my Knights, Grave Guard, while I was trying a fun list with little magic so no way I'd be doing any raising... he was kind enough to roll one misfire, but every machine seemed to have re-rolls and upgrades for as much as they could, so I just told him honestly I wasn't going to enjoy taking off handfuls of model every turn while he rolled his dice, conceded graciously, and that was that. I'm not posting this to say "Yeah, I showed HIM!" or anything silly, just to say how if you come up against an army that looks like it's not going to give you a fun game, don't feel obliged to actally carry on the game. It didn't make me a better player, and giving up like that teaches me nothing- but it sure feels good to just be able to shake someone's hand and leave it at that with no hard feelings. Far better to do that than play an awful game and have no fun!

And I'll give him a rematch some time when I'm more in the mood though ;)

So the main point of discussion... would you ever just give up that early, or be very offended if someone just gave up on turn one against you? Would it make you feel bad, or perhaps make you feel like you'd had an even greater achievement?

Arguleon-veq
25-10-2008, 16:14
I wouldn't give up like that no. I would take it as a challenge and try my best to pull out a win. Surely that is more fun than not playing at all?. A game is what YOU make of it. If you say 'Uggh, this is going to suck and be boring' it will suck and be boring. If you think 'Well, this is going to be a challenge, how do I solve it' It wont be boring.

I dont give up with my Orcs and Gobs as soon as my opponent puts down a 12+ Power Dice Ghoul Horde. I try my best to get the win. Even though I know I will have a very hard time in getting it.

I would be annoyed if my opponent just quit as soon as the game looked bad for them. Especially so early.

Shamfrit
25-10-2008, 16:16
I have to say, there are times when you KNOW you won't/can't win - those times I will concede. But otherwise, unless I've got Dice Rage, I'll fight until there's no hope left.

You did the right thing though...

Vile Druchii
25-10-2008, 16:17
I recently had a game against someone using High Elves, whilst I was using my Dark Elves. He turned up late and hadn't written his list up yet, but I gave him the benefit of the doubt. Eventually, he'd finished his list and we set up. On his first turn, he shuffled some of his units forward, and then miscast with one of his wizards, but didn't take a wound from the strength 4 hit. My turn, I killed a handful of his swordmasters with my crossbowmen, and moved my dark riders to either march block or redirect his Dragon Princes...after which he gave up!

There was really no reason for him to. I hadn't pulled any massively spectacular tactics out and it was looking fairly even, but because I'd stopped his unit of Dragon Princes, containing his Lord and a BSB with the banner that adds +D6 to combat res from steamrolling my army, he simply gave up. Which is a little strange!

But, I absolutely agree with EvC. Why play a game when you're not going to have any fun at all, and don't have any chance of winning? What's the point?

EvC
25-10-2008, 16:21
Of course any game is better than no game, but only if you wouldn't be doing anything else whilst playing the game. And there are better things for me to be doing- I do feel bad for letting my opponent down, don't get me wrong, but it's nice to just be able to walk away. I'd also deployed so badly that it was pretty much unsalvagable ;)

isidril93
25-10-2008, 16:24
i wont stop a game cos i have no chance of winning, but a gunline is pretty boring

you move 10"
you opponent shoot
you take of models
repeat 5 times

FurryMiguell
25-10-2008, 16:26
I have just told my opponent i give up a few times, but that is against a friend of mine. With the two of us, it seems we **** each other of extremely easy! Anything he does anoys me, and I tend to nag about it, which pisses him of, and he starts nagging about what im doing:p.

Hes' the only one I have that problem with, others i usually can play a fair and fun game with, if im brutally owned or not.

I guess I should tell him we have that problem, and that we should play a few games, try to sort it out;)

If its no fun for you, I would mind you giving in, but wouldnt nag about it. Id just have to find someone else to play. (I would never play a gunline tho, which it seems he did. Never EVER (unless you pay me;)))

Cheers:D

vampires are cool!
25-10-2008, 16:43
I had a similar game resently, with a similar outcome. I was against elves though. Against dwarfs , no force in heaven, hell or on any plane of existence you care to contrive will make me back down and not try to win.

When against friends and its obvious your going to loose like Billy-o i tend to see just how badly i'll be pummled. Against an opponant who delights in your pwn-age, who gleefully rubbs his greasy hands together in antisipation of your humiliating demise, i will stop playing as soon as he gets under my skin.

grabula
25-10-2008, 16:44
sounds like weak sauce to me no matter how 'good' a spin you put on it. A gun lines no reason to quit a game, boring maybe, but most armies won't spend more then two turns closing the gap AND most armies have answers to gunlines that should nearly be compulsory when facing those armies that can bring formidable gun lines like dwarves. Why wouldn't you be prepared to face a lot of guns?
Who says you both actually walked away happy? If I spent the time and effort to put an army together, make my way down to the store, set up my army and begin rolling dice, and then on turn 2 my opponent decided he didn't like my army and quit, at the very least I'd be annoyed.

It's bad form, if you dont who up to the tabel prepared to face an aspect of the army across the table from you you're best answer is to stick it to the guy by quitting because you don't feel like playing anymore? sad.....

vampires are cool!
25-10-2008, 16:53
Because kitting your army out to bullet bash isnt as fun as having a list you like. Warhammer is supposed to be fun, not Digimon.

Anton
25-10-2008, 17:09
It depends a lot on the circumstances. If it can be done in good faith, and both have things they can do instead (perhaps together), then there is no problem. However, the example that Vile Druchii gave is really bad form. Showing up late and then deciding that you don't want to play, that's not acceptable unless there is a good excuse.

Lordsaradain
25-10-2008, 17:58
Personally, if my opponent just gave up in the middle of the game, concluding that he could not possibly win so there would be no point continuing, it would make me feel abit bad.
I'd feel guilty for choosing a too good army/playing to well/rolling to lucky etc and the game would leave me, too, with a bad aftertaste.

Playing warhammer should be fun, even if you don't win.

gorenut
25-10-2008, 18:06
I don't think I ever conceded like that.. but there was this opponent who was by far the worst I ever played. This was back in 40k 3rd edition. He pretty much had an Eldar maxed Starcannon build and I was playing Tyranids. He did a lot of things like slant the rules to his advantage and just nitpick at EVERY little thing I did. Like.. when I hid my genestealers behind terrain.. he would literally take a good 10 minutes constantly eyeing.. and then finally saying.. "I can shoot it" - yet when it was the other way around... he'd argue to the ground how the terrain covers half of his model (which was arguable at best), etc. A few of these incidents were ok... but the whole game went on like that and it was dragging SOOOOO slowly. Thats when I said.. "hey, guess what? My tyranids decided they wanted to evolve in the middle of battle.. you see these genestealers here.. they now have wings, so do these warriors... even this carnifex"

Thats when he got all mad and packed up his stuff. Then I said, "good game"

I'd like to think I'm a good opponent because I actually play for fun. I seriously don't care that much about winning and I have been known on many occasions to let my opponents let some extremely bad die rolling pass if it happens in the very beginning of the game or if it was just becoming a very 1 sided game. I just can't stand opponents who nitpick and only care about winning (especially when their tactics include no moving and just die rolling all night).

Braad
25-10-2008, 18:06
Well, I don't usually concede. Maybe on one or two occasions, where I only had a loose-running warmachine crew or something trying to evade a charge from a bunch of cold-one riders or khorne knigths, and there was no other possible outcome than a massacre anyway.

I did have two games, that were just no fun, but I just played and told the other guy what I thought about it. Both were friends, so it was meant te be fun and stuff and they agreed with me.

On one occasion, 2000 points and the other chose a scenario, and I ended up in the middle of the field and had to escape, and he had to catch me and started on both sides. But he took a Croq'Gar list with several units of saurus cav and that sort of stuff. He rolled and got the first turn, charged on turn one, took out nearly everything in one go because everything was so cramped it caused several panics and succesful overruns, and only my trolls survived to see the next round. That was no fun, and I'm really gonna think about any scenario's in advance before approving to play. Shortest game ever (he 2 turns, me 1).

The other one, long time ago, was when I played (I think) 2000 points against dark elves (cult of slaanesh I think). My army was not super competitive, just a lot of orcs, gobbo's and suppert. He had a war hydra, black dragon with malekith and several sorceresses. He also had multiples of a spell that prevented my units from moving, so most of my army was just sitting still while the big beasties took out one after another.

DeathlessDraich
25-10-2008, 18:18
I went to have a random game with someone earlier, I saw he had Dwarfs so I thought it would probably be a good game since he had no Anvil, and so we started... when he'd finished deploying (6 deployments including warmachines), he had a nice row of stone throwers, cannon and organ gun nicely flanked by Thunderers and Quarrelers... one turn into the game he'd killed half my Knights, Grave Guard, while I was trying a fun list with little magic so no way I'd be doing any raising... he was kind enough to roll one misfire, but every machine seemed to have re-rolls and upgrades for as much as they could, so I just told him honestly I wasn't going to enjoy taking off handfuls of model every turn while he rolled his dice, conceded graciously, and that was that.

1) Yes, I've conceded a game in turn 1 and through shooting as well!

The terrain piece I thought was woods was difficult ground according to my opponent and he conveniently destroyed my Keeper, who I though was sheltered, in turn 1.

2) I offered him another game but he was far too happy with his win to oblige. :D

3) Didn't your opponent describe his army composition before deployment?
Were there no terrain to shelter your units?

txamil
25-10-2008, 18:23
I think you were a poor sport. That's kinda how dwarfs are supposed to be played. And to be fair, there are a lot of us that have similiar feelings when facing high magic Vamps- you roll dice and add a couple of models. 5 times a turn for 5 turns...

Sound familiar in any way? Vamps are gunlines in reverse.

I realize you said you didn't take a magic heavy list (I'm curious to know what that means exactly). And I should disclose that I did play CDs for a lot of years (never with 2 ESes or more than 2 boltT).

theunwantedbeing
25-10-2008, 19:14
I generally dont like it when my opponent conceeds.
Mainly as they're denying me a full game of warhammer and its rarely due to them not enjoying the game any considerable amount, more due to their chance of winning becomming slimmer than they would like it to be.

Although the worst way of conceeding I've come across is a player stating to his opponent "I am going to conceed after this turn is over".

I've only conceeded once (mainly as the game didnt go my way at all and I wasnt given a fair chance at a rules quip where the wrong ruling was then taken as correct and I never even got a chance to roll for it). Plus my opponent was not being overly considerate of the difference in luck (laughing stupidly at my misfortune despite being asked not to for example).
Although I'll always try and make a game of it and try to convince an opponent who wants to conceed that they do not infact need to adn that things can easily swing around in their favour (I'll even try and make things swing in their favour).

Not sure about when I conceeded it being satisfying though, although it was nice to feel that he didn't manage to completely crush my army through sheer dumb luck.

sulla
25-10-2008, 20:35
I always play the entire game.

I look at it like this; I've made the mistake of taking an army that's not competitive vs his build. A little communication could have probably solved the problem.

I let the guy have his moment in the sun and mark him and his army down for revenge in future. It's the Druchii way.

Jakk
25-10-2008, 21:11
I'll concede games against vampire counts and some demon lists, as fighting them makes the game more of a chore than fun.

MonkeyLord
25-10-2008, 21:26
Disclaimer: This is not an attack on EvC's character, and I certainly hope you don't take it as such. You're a contributing member of this community, and usually enjoy reading your posts, so take what I say with a grain of salt. :)

Personally, I would never, ever, *ever* concede a game. I play to have fun, and "fun" does not necessarily mean "win". Even if I'm getting my guts stomped out by two Stanks, I'll stay in the game to the very last model, because I want to show my opponent I have the character and the grace to take my whipping like a man. I lost because I didn't bring a competitive list, and I'm not going to deny my opponent a full game just because I'm making a poor showing.

As far as people conceding to me: Thankfully, most of the people I play with share my compulsion to sack-up and take an ass-whipping when it comes there way. But when someone concedes on turn 4 with only 3 models on the table, I certainly don't think anything of it, and I don't think anyone else really would, either.

I've only had a handful of people concede on turn 1 or 2. But I'll tell you this: It gave me a very poor impression of their sportsmanship, and I've actually turned down games with them since as a result. Who wants to commit to what's supposed to be a 2.5 to 3 hour game with someone who might pull up shop right in the middle because they aren't doing well, or don't like the composition of your list? F*&k that! I'll play against someone who *isn't* a mangina, thank you very much!

Believe me, I hate gun lines, twin stanks, and mixed daemon lists as much as the next guy. HATE them. But if I'm going to commit to a game with someone, I'm going to commit to the full 6 turns. It's the right thing to do.

"I play the game to have fun" only holds so much water, considering the fact that the key word there is "I". Having some consideration for your opponent is part of the game, too. While it's a *little* weak to turn down a game against someone who has a cheesy, but legal build, it's still acceptable, and FAR better than conceding. At least then your opponent has the opportunity to find another game for the evening.

On the other hand, this is all premised on the idea of conceding because of the nature of the game or the army list. In the unwantedbeing's example, if someone is just being a poor sport (i.e. a d*ckhole, if you will), then I absolutely have no problems with conceding a game. For me, the fun in warhammer comes from the people I play against, not the dice I roll. If the guy on the other side of the table is being an *******, then I'll take my army elsewhere. But strong army builds do not constitute poor sportsmanship, in my opinion.

*pant, froth*

Ok, I'm done. :)

zak
25-10-2008, 21:39
I have never quit part way through a game and with my current group of opponents I don't think I ever will. If I know I'm going to get a hammering then I will carry on in with a morbid fascination to discover just how bad it will be and to see if I can limit it. I therefore expect the same curteousy from my opponents.

The Red Scourge
25-10-2008, 21:53
Once I wanted to concede before my first turn (and should have).

But it was an allied game of HE and DE vs Empire and WoC. And my ally wanted to carry on.

The first turn RBTs killed off a Hellcannon crew and sent the hellcannon through a greatcannon and further into disrupting our whole advance of cavalry, and disrupted everything to make the whole line sitting ducks for the RBTs.

Only thing memorable of the fight was a chaos sorceror chopping the head off the DE dragon rider (with the help of a steam tank) and seeing the dragon flee into impassable terrain.

The rest was just 4-5 boring seeing troops falling over each other while getting gunned down by RBTs due to poor deployment.

Had we conceded and started another game, we could have had fun and a challenge, but instead we just got shot to bits-

Gazak Blacktoof
25-10-2008, 22:41
I think do-overs are a good idea if something goes horribly horribly wrong in the first turn. Although if its the result of an eggs-in-one-basket trick gone wrong then encouraging your opponent to play on might show him the error of his ways. Moaning that your uber unit ran off the board with the general is no way to earn my sympathy or a repeat game.

If the game is a foregone conclusion we sometimes call a halt to the game if we've got time for something else or one player doesn't feel like continuing. In the end its much better to call a game and play another than drag it out for 45 minutes.


I've played against gun lines and don't relish repeat matches. The guys I game with don't bring armies like that these days so I no longer experience the same problem as outlined by EvC in the OP. When my friends did run gun lines I just shoved enough orcs at them to dissuade them from doing it again, they caught on quickly that it wasn't ever going to work very well and that they might end up with a draw at best.

Archaon
25-10-2008, 23:00
It would depend on my mood and the situation mostly.

If i'm not in a good mood (stressful day, sick, someone p...ed me off earlier) i'd just ask to postpone the game and ask him politely if he'd consider bringing a more balanced, i.e. fun army next time.

If i'm in a good mood i might actually take up the challenge and see how far i get.

However i frown upon people bringing a gun to a fistfight.. in Warhammer terms this means bring an ubermaximised and tooled out army vs. a nice list in friendly games.
If both agree to maximise their lists then ok.. fair game but if the odds are stacked so high against you where's the fun in that?

logan054
25-10-2008, 23:08
I went to have a random game with someone earlier, I saw he had Dwarfs so I thought it would probably be a good game since he had no Anvil, and so we started... when he'd finished deploying (6 deployments including warmachines), he had a nice row of stone throwers, cannon and organ gun nicely flanked by Thunderers and Quarrelers... one turn into the game he'd killed half my Knights, Grave Guard, while I was trying a fun list with little magic so no way I'd be doing any raising... he was kind enough to roll one misfire, but every machine seemed to have re-rolls and upgrades for as much as they could, so I just told him honestly I wasn't going to enjoy taking off handfuls of model every turn while he rolled his dice, conceded graciously, and that was that. I'm not posting this to say "Yeah, I showed HIM!" or anything silly, just to say how if you come up against an army that looks like it's not going to give you a fun game, don't feel obliged to actally carry on the game. It didn't make me a better player, and giving up like that teaches me nothing- but it sure feels good to just be able to shake someone's hand and leave it at that with no hard feelings. Far better to do that than play an awful game and have no fun!

And I'll give him a rematch some time when I'm more in the mood though ;)

So the main point of discussion... would you ever just give up that early, or be very offended if someone just gave up on turn one against you? Would it make you feel bad, or perhaps make you feel like you'd had an even greater achievement?

I've tried a few times and been told i couldnt, the one time i did actually get away with it was against a silly lizardmen TK alliance, i think by turn two it pointless to evem continue, the amount of magid just made the game pointless to even play. btw that wasnt mark was it, if it was i might have to come down london at some stage and give him a slap for that ;)

BloodiedSword
26-10-2008, 01:10
I dunno... I don't like unilaterally conceding because it might leave my opponent feeling like he won a game where he thought he hadn't completely deserved the win (because there was still a non-zero chance he might lose).

I've conceded a few times but each time I've asked my opponent "I think this is hopeless for me, are you ok with me conceding?". I've yet to meet an opponent who's objected :p

enyoss
26-10-2008, 01:24
Mmm, I must say that I'm genuinely surprised by the general consensus that conceding is a `bad thing'.

In my `regular' group (well... bi-annual at least :D) it is quite rare for games to go to victory points at all. It's either obvious that one player has won, in which the other concedes, or it's too close to call, in which case both players breath a sigh of relief and settle for the draw. Conceding is usually seem as a gracious way to turn the table, enabling the players to get more games in. I for one can't stand being made to play into the death throes of a game where I may have one RBT and 2 Silverhelms left but have to hang around for another 30 minutes while my opponent attempts to completely annhiliate them. I'd much rather have a fresh game.

@ EvC: I woudn't feel too bad about conceding... I've conceded against you plenty of times (well, with my HE anyway!) and I'm sure it never made you feel that bad ;).

Crymson
26-10-2008, 02:17
I have conceded games in the past, but only when I am absolutely sure I am not going to win. Usually it's on the last turn of the game and the result is clearly not in my favour; ie, nothing I can do will earn me enough VP to win the game.

Chiron
26-10-2008, 02:19
After facing a similar army with on foot TK army I can only say... good for you, I stuck at it and wasnt that impressed when I arrived with abour 15 men left off a single 25 man skeleton unit out of an entire 2000 point army... his casualties? 2-6 models iirc

FurryMiguell
26-10-2008, 03:18
Part of the fun with warhammer is that you cant tell who will win until the very final round of combat. If a game is practically ended in the first two rounds, why play on? If so happens, start another game, maybe with difrent armylists.

EvC
26-10-2008, 04:00
3) Didn't your opponent describe his army composition before deployment?
Were there no terrain to shelter your units?

He did, but it was only when I saw it all lined up on his hill with the two units of shooters on either side that I saw it was a proper gunline. Of course he didn't describe before the game that his warmachines were all runed up to the eyeball, so I wasn't just facing a couple of stone throwers, but magical S10 re-roll scatter and misfire dice. I was also foolish enough to let him set up the terrain first, and while he didn't put a hill in both deployment zones, he did clog the centre up with difficult terrain (Not a forest or anything blocking line of sight, of course). That's what I get for giving an opponent the benefit of the doubt...


I think you were a poor sport. That's kinda how dwarfs are supposed to be played. And to be fair, there are a lot of us that have similiar feelings when facing high magic Vamps- you roll dice and add a couple of models. 5 times a turn for 5 turns...

Sound familiar in any way? Vamps are gunlines in reverse.

I don't like playing with or against them either...


@ EvC: I woudn't feel too bad about conceding... I've conceded against you plenty of times (well, with my HE anyway!) and I'm sure it never made you feel that bad ;).

Well, never on turn one, but if stuff went so badly for you that you had, I probably would feel a little bad ;)

Also everyone don't worry- my opponent easily got another game after mine, so he wasn't cheated out of a proper game :)

MonkeyLord
26-10-2008, 08:59
Also everyone don't worry- my opponent easily got another game after mine, so he wasn't cheated out of a proper game :)

Even so, I'm afraid you'll have to endure a -1 penalty to your Testicular Fortitude attribute until you've had an opportunity to atone for your sins! :)


Which, if I recall correctly, is to fight a losing battle until the very last of your models is stricken dead. Or you could bring Orcs & Goblins to your next game. But I repeat myself... :p

Kaos
26-10-2008, 10:29
I have quit playing a couple times when we both see its just a matter of cleaning up the table of the scraps that are still for some odd reason living but wont affect the game in any way in the later game. In that case we might have time to squeeze in another game and see what happens then.

I dont think i have ever met someone dropping out first turns or me doing the same. Not for the games sake atleast but perhaps for things outside the game happening at work or home.

Even though i totally hate meeting some armies and know at the start its a battle uphill with my greenskins i set myself to the task of fighting to the end to see how many enemies i can catch with me into the grave! And also if meeting a gunline or the hated demons(wich i still havent won against, keep bouncing off) i can try out new tactics just to see if something new is revealed that i didnt think of yet or try honing some old tactics that i think might work if only the dice are with me..

Altough fighting against crapheads is never fun i play it trough and let him know afterwards what i think of him in a good way. I have had my shares of those and if i meet them again i ask if theyre going to play a good game or try and screw things up like the last time saving me the time to play against someone else. I have never had to find another opponent yet and the second game is better than the first.

Yup.

Frankly
26-10-2008, 11:07
I like to finish off a game even if its looking pretty dire from the out set. I have that morib interest to see what happens, theres always that off chance the dice gods will be kind and my list will do something unusually brilliant to make the game worth playing.

I'll usually concede for reasons like: I'm to hang over. Someone else waiting for the table. Its turn 5 and the opponent has totally out played me, so its time to stop, tip my hat to him/or her and have a chat friendly while we pack up.

Theres no use ever conceding against a certain army book or armylist type, those harder games are where you learn and graft tactics against that certain army selection, its where you find out what units work and what units don't work against that army. It gives you a better understanding of what your facing next time you play that type of army.

Lister of Smee
26-10-2008, 11:21
I have never conceded, once you've started the game im in for all 6 turns. Its ok to have your army wiped out sometimes, its good for you as a player.

However if someone wanted to concede I would let them without fuss

Ward.
26-10-2008, 11:43
I've conceded once against a khorne daemonic legion on turn 4, in my defence I did have a few hundred points sitting in my storage case that should have been on the table.

Personally if they where the only person in the store and I was using a balanced list I'd be a bit dev'd that they quit.
If however there where other gamers and the list I was using was a bit foul I really wouldn't have anyone to blame but myself.

logan054
26-10-2008, 12:02
sounds like weak sauce to me no matter how 'good' a spin you put on it. A gun lines no reason to quit a game, boring maybe, but most armies won't spend more then two turns closing the gap AND most armies have answers to gunlines that should nearly be compulsory when facing those armies that can bring formidable gun lines like dwarves. Why wouldn't you be prepared to face a lot of guns?
Who says you both actually walked away happy? If I spent the time and effort to put an army together, make my way down to the store, set up my army and begin rolling dice, and then on turn 2 my opponent decided he didn't like my army and quit, at the very least I'd be annoyed.

It's bad form, if you dont who up to the tabel prepared to face an aspect of the army across the table from you you're best answer is to stick it to the guy by quitting because you don't feel like playing anymore? sad.....

To be honest i think its bad form to use a gunline in the first place, as i say to anyone i want more out of a game than yathzee with some token model movement. Win or lose you dont usuallt learn anything from these styles of games its simply down to "can i get across the board with enough models"

A sad think i noticed with dwarf players in my store is they seem to think warhammer is game without any real tactics, i personally wouldnt set my army against such people.

The Red Scourge
26-10-2008, 12:18
I've conceded once against a khorne daemonic legion on turn 4, in my defence I did have a few hundred points sitting in my storage case that should have been on the table.

Personally if they where the only person in the store and I was using a balanced list I'd be a bit dev'd that they quit.
If however there where other gamers and the list I was using was a bit foul I really wouldn't have anyone to blame but myself.

Why is that?

Sometimes you just lose the battle and find yourself without any viable options, and it is obvious to both parties that the only thing that will turn the tide is some freaky dice rolling, and not your skills as a general. It doesn't make the victory any less Ė quite opposite in fact.

Last weekend my woodies made a HE player concede by turn 2, but I had killed half his army, and he had no way of engaging my troops unless I wanted the fight. Should he carry on? Just so we could both spend an hour watching the inevitable unfold. Of course not. We shook hands and went to the pub and started a whinefest on the cheesiness of wood elves :cheese:

-

Its a game, it should be played as long as its interesting and challenging, not just to roll the dice - otherwise you could just as well be playing Ludo :)

waiyuren
26-10-2008, 13:05
To be honest i think its bad form to use a gunline in the first place, as i say to anyone i want more out of a game than yathzee with some token model movement. Win or lose you dont usuallt learn anything from these styles of games its simply down to "can i get across the board with enough models"

A sad think i noticed with dwarf players in my store is they seem to think warhammer is game without any real tactics, i personally wouldnt set my army against such people.

Very true (I field a Dwarf army myself!), but also very true of any "singular tactic" list.

When your army lists tactics can be summed up with two or less syllables, then there is no tactic. It's just point and click.

On one hand, it can be fun trying to ruin their day by wiping their mono-focus army off the board. On the other it can be an odius task, that sucks the fun out of trying to out think and out manoeuver your opponent to gain advantage.... Which unless im mistaken, (haha) was the intention of the INVENTION of the table-top wargame.

There is no shame in conceding, many real life generals quit the field only to return to fight where they found they had a better chance of success.

The only true question to ask yourself while playing ANY game is: "Am I having fun?"

Ward.
26-10-2008, 13:10
Why is that?


Why is what?

I couldn't figure out which part of my post you where responding too :angel:

EvC
26-10-2008, 13:21
I'll usually concede for reasons like: I'm to hang over.

That was a contributing factor too :D

DeathlessDraich
26-10-2008, 13:50
1) Wow! It is indeed strange that conceding is viewed by so many in this thread as bad sportsmanship.

2) In chess you are expected to concede if losing is imminent. It would be bad sportsmanship not to resign in chess.

3) In Warhammer, a player who concedes has awarded his opponent a Massacre. Surely there's nothing wrong with that - it sounds complimentary to me.

Alathir
26-10-2008, 13:56
I would have done the same.\

I'll concede if it looks like that no matter if the dice gods themselves decide to ascend from their lofty heavens and start rolling for me I still wont be anything but massacred. If I concede rather early though then I usually just ask for another game, usually switching up the armies or somesuch.

But I will mostly try fighting to the last man if it looks like I'll be able to pull off some heroic last stand stuff - thats what dreams are made of.

EvC
26-10-2008, 14:16
In a tournament I'll play to the very end. My first tournament game against Daemons and I was facing a 19 power dice monstrosity with my usual moderate Vampire Counts. I had a trump with my Black Coach- surely with absorbing up to 6 pool dice a turn it should make a dent in his magic phase? Nah, it didn't even get the third upgrade before dying. By turn 3 I had lost my Necromancer, Knights, Wight King, Coach, and all Wolves. It was not looking good and I was ready to concede. Fortunately my opponent rolled a triple 1 for a spellcast and I was back in the game and achieved a winning draw.

Sadly I couldn't see any possibility of that against the dwarf with all his re-rolls...

larabic
26-10-2008, 14:28
I absolutely can't stand games where the armies don't interact with each other, i didn't show up so i could get shot for 6 turns. We had a guy that played 6 bolt throwers and nothing but ranged weapons. I put my units into single lines 20 wide with the iron breakers in front with the standard that gave me a 5 + war save against shooting in it. Behind that was the line of long beards to make them re-roll panic tests. His bolt throwers were useless and his shooting in effectual and he tells ME that what i did wasn't fair...lol. Needless to say i told him that he needed to change his army because he always played the same exact list and it was beardy and boring.

Get creative, plan against them make it as unfair as possible for their army and give them a taste of their own medicine. Or just refuse to play them till they change their army... that's what i do.

sulla
27-10-2008, 00:03
1) Wow! It is indeed strange that conceding is viewed by so many in this thread as bad sportsmanship.

2) In chess you are expected to concede if losing is imminent. It would be bad sportsmanship not to resign in chess.

3) In Warhammer, a player who concedes has awarded his opponent a Massacre. Surely there's nothing wrong with that - it sounds complimentary to me.

:) But in chess, there is only a win or a loss. To me, conceding is like robbing your opponent of an opportunity to achieve a massacre. It doesn't matter that technically you do achieve a massacre, it's actually doing it on the battlefield that counts. No one will ever remember the glorious time your opponent gave up on turn 2, but they will remember the time you wiped them out by turn 4.

Also, giving up is so short sighted. This is a largely random dice game and you don't give yourself enough credit when you give up early. I remember a storm of chaos game I played vs Archaeon's horde once. I lost my highborn and his dragon to a lucky killing blow and monster reaction test in turn 2 (flayerkin) leaving me with about 1400pts to survive vs 4K of chaos mortals and hellcannons. I was gonna concede but since I had won last game, i decided to play it out and give the chaos guys revenge since I had won last time out vs them. But it didn't quite work out like that. Luck and jammy shooting rolls soon left his hellcannons rampaging though his own lines while I picked off the spoils with my shattered host for the win. If I'd given up, I would never have had the chance to win all the glory of beating Archaeon's hord 2 weeks in a row.

So just don't do it. No matter how onerous the odds look, play the whole game. Congratulate your opponent on doing well with the army he took or lap up the kudos of a godlike performance if you do somehow pull off that impossible win.

Master Jeridian
27-10-2008, 01:22
This is an interesting topic- I'm surprised so many people give up so often.

For my part, I very, very rarely win games- yet I never surrender. I can be grumpy, sulky, a bad sport, uncompetitive, irritated, annoyed at luck, throw my hands up at how unbalanced GW games are, etc, etc. But I'll grit my teeth and keep fighting to the end of a game.

Why?

Well, for one, it's a dice game- and your opponent could make a mistake, or suffer poor luck.

Two, I could never bring myself to quit a game mid-flow however bad my situation, how could I look a friend in the eye after sulking away. I guess I always pick the weaker armies, I'm always the underdog, and I always expect to lose from the onset so anything better is a plus (including killing stuff before I lose).

I've just started Flames of War, and in that game there are circumstances where you should 'retreat' with a Platoon, or you entire army, because the objectives are near-hopeless to capture and the game has no turn limit. So I guess stubborn refusal to accept defeat isn't always great when my opponent must spend 3-4 hours trying to drive my army off...

On the other hand, once the game is over- then I make permanent decisions.

Was the opponent fun to play? Was their army list a filth fest? Did they have a similar attitude to wargaming as me? If not, I won't play them again. Then I won't need to consider 'conceding' again.
Give the opponent at least a whole game to show their credentials- like a geek date...
The Dwarf opponent you mention, I probably wouldn't bother playing again- if he needed to shape terrain to his advantage, go full gunline, etc.

Also, more controversially I do this for armies too- when I still played 40k I avoided playing Eldar as it just wasn't fun to play Holotanks, and to have the opponent proclaim themselves tactical genius' whilst using a list and tactic a monkey could win with.

In Fantasy, I've been playing for a few years now- yet I've not played enough to know what each army can do, nor how to counter it. Which may explain part of why I lose so often.


Just remembered an anecdote:

I had a 1000pts Empire versus Tomb Kings. Turn 1, he fires a Screamin Skull, Swordsmen block Panics and runs off the board with my General...before I'd even got to move. 1/4+ of my army gone. I was not happy, but I fought on and scraped either a Draw, or a Minor Loss, can't remember. Learnt very quickly to take a Banner of Ignore Panic.

MrBigMr
27-10-2008, 02:13
I always play my games till the bloody end, since there's no telling what'll happen. Far too many times the game has gone belly up during the last few rounds.

Just this day (that is sunday, where ever you reader might be) I was at a tournament and in the last game played a guy who was first time there. He had Lizardmen, I had my cheesy gunline Dwarfs (for once wanted to have other than a fluffy army that's fun to play but never gets anywhere). Ok, for the first 3 turns his game was nothing but picking up models as my guns dropped them. I was actually starting to feel bad for him. Then, on the 4th turn I had a few bad rolls, his units hit home on my flanks and 3 turns later we ended up with a Draw.

And in one game of BFG I had but one cruiser left while the other guy had majority of his fleet intact. He got a little too close to my cruiser when finishing it off, got caught in its blast as it detonated, stuff happened, long story shot: he was left with a crippled command cruiser and the game was a Draw.


Never give in. Look at the Ork/cs. All they need is to belive in what ever they're believing in and things happen. Just keep up with the attitude that "it's just a flesh wound, sir" and you're sure to succeed. None of that nihilistic ideology. One guy at the tournament actually calculated his losses even before any dice were rolled on a combat. Have to say it was funny when I got to flank his Longbeards with my Great Weapon Warriors and his responce was to look up from a piece of paper with a pencil in his hand and go "how much VPs did you get from a captured BSB", which he had in the unit.

I told him "None of that. Stand tall and look the enemy straight in the eye." In one tournament I had Wood Elves. My game against some Dwarfs was going badly and at the end of my movement phase I forgot to move my spearmen with my lord (which was like quarter of my army in pts.). My opponent said that I should move it, as they're well in the range of his cannons. I replied with "Nah, you won't hit them." And you know what, they didn't.

That's how its done. Imagine all those great military leaders that stood tall and proud, even in death. The captain goes down with his ship with a God damn smile on his face.

Shamfrit
27-10-2008, 02:27
The captain goes down with his ship with a God damn smile on his face.

That is how man-thing do it yes-yes?

On Skaven ship - crew burn-burns! Captain flees-flees!

EvC
27-10-2008, 02:28
I just experienced it from the other side, too. Playing against Dogs of War with my Vampires, the dice were going perfectly for me: he fired two cannons at my Black Coach- neither hit. On his second turn, he killed my Hellsteed Vampire, but this left my Black Knights in the perfect position to charge his Dwarfs with two Wizards (Now that is a fluffy army!), which he had moved up for some silly reason. Knights charged in, killing blow on Wizard Lord, he walked off without saying a word, never to return ;)

I rolled his Lord's ward save for him and it came up with a 6, but he was so cross at that point. That's the rude and quite unacceptable way of conceding that we should all avoid, I think :o

SolarHammer
27-10-2008, 02:36
For my part, I very, very rarely win games- yet I never surrender. I can be grumpy, sulky, a bad sport, uncompetitive, irritated, annoyed at luck, throw my hands up at how unbalanced GW games are, etc, etc. But I'll grit my teeth and keep fighting to the end of a game.

Well if I ever played against you, I would rather you concede than have to play with you bitching all game.

orkz222
27-10-2008, 04:31
I dont concede unless i dont have models left on the table before the 6 turns

Condottiere
27-10-2008, 05:31
If it's obvious that it's a massacre, or a heavy loss with no obvious way to make up for the difference, conceding is acceptable.

AngryAngel
27-10-2008, 09:01
Unless time was a big issue I wouldn't normally quit a game. Though if I have like a few scatterd guys left on the board, and no chance in heck, I'm highly tempted to. I do tend to fight back that feeling though and push on, trying to turn the tide or at the least trying to save my last few survivors.

So I can make up some form of story of their retreat. It's all about morale afterall. Many levels of victory in a narrative driven game. The pursuit of victory, then trying to achieve such with the setbacks occuring within gameplay. Then, from there, if victory becomes completely untenable, its the situation becomes damage control and salvaging what forces you may have to retreat.

War isn't always a win, lose draw situation. It isn't as well decided in just one engagment most times. Look at it as but one battle in the big picture, and it'll make those beat downs that are unavoidable a bit more manageable I find.

Urgat
27-10-2008, 09:27
So the main point of discussion... would you ever just give up that early, or be very offended if someone just gave up on turn one against you? Would it make you feel bad, or perhaps make you feel like you'd had an even greater achievement?

I'd do exactly the same. Considering that facing such an army meant I wouldn't play at home, and therefore I took the trouble of moving my army 50kms away, like hell I'd waste my time on that. I'd shake hands, and ask if someone else wanna play with the loser (ergo, me :p).
I don't play to prove anything, I play for fun. No fun, no game, that's how I work. I've even conceded a couple times when it was still perfectly possible for me to win, but if I'm not having fun, what's the point? Playing WFB must not turn into an ordeal for me.


Besides I'm a goblin player, it's perfectly fluffy to run away before the end:p

Latro
27-10-2008, 09:44
I think most players (fingers crossed) are smart enough to figure out when conceding is better than going down fighting. Conceding offers you a lot of time to have a battle that's actually worth fighting ... certain uneven battles can be a bore to play for both sides.

I once played a test-battle against a local player. He wanted to test his 1K Tomb Kings army against my experimental Dark Elf army. His army turned out to be a collection of shooting and a Bone Giant. I hid my army behind terrain and ended my turn. He sat and waited for me. I stayed behind terrain and ended my turn, he sat and waited for me. After a couple of turns he asked why I didn't advance ...to which I replied that I didn't feel like being shot to bits without a chance. So he wanted to know how I expected to win that way ... to which I replied that I didn't expect to win at all, but neither would he.

My opponent carefully reconsidered his army after that and entered the tournament with a more balanced build.


:cool:

(PS In our local tournaments people are not allowed to concede simply because they're losing. It's not fair towards the competition if you "give" your opponent a massacre.)

SylverClaw
27-10-2008, 10:38
Against an unfamiliar opponent Iím happy to concede after a reasonable length of time. Iíd consider it rude to concede earlier than turn four, even if Iím getting battered, because itís only fair to grant the superior player a bit of a victory lap. In a similar fashion, if Iím getting smashed that badly it would be rude to press on further Ė making him claw through every remaining turn, even though Iíve no real hope of victory is just mean.

I think itís really about knowing when itís polite. If you are continuing for your own pride then youíre going too far. If youíre continuing because itís still fun for both of you, fair play.

On the other hand, when I play my brother we tend to be quite vicious. We have an unspoken rule that whoever has the upper hand in a game by a large degree can insist on it continuing even when itís obvious the other person canít win Ė sometimes, when feeling particularly mean, said impending-winner can even insist that the game continues beyond the turn limit until every unit on the other side is destroyed or routed. Takes bloody ages sometimes.

There is something very mean spirited about that desire to grind your defeated foe into the dust, but when itís family you can take the punishment on the chin. I wouldnít ever want someone else to do that though Ė accepting graciously when someone throws the towel in is just as important as knowing when itís polite to throw it in.

Ronin_eX
27-10-2008, 11:00
I tend to play through to the end (good chance to try some last ditch tactics) but I agree that if you aren't having fun that conceding is the way to go.

Strangely even when getting trampled I still tend to have fun (maybe its because I play a balanced Dwarf list so I don't have to fret a gunline from WE's or O&G's). If I get trounced it gets written down in the Book of Grudges until next match when I work to avenge the wrongs.

In Dwarfy fashion I tend to make more than I clear (even when I win) so it keeps me focused even when my luck leaves me. :D

Frankly
27-10-2008, 11:56
LoL

Has anyone done the opposite an not conceded just to be a bastard and waste some dirty sinker of an opponents time and not give him the extra time he wants to wallow in his brilliant win? ... I have.:evilgrin:

Its a bit negative, but sometimes its a matter of 'trying' to gather up a little bit of your shattered pride.:cries:

chaospantz
27-10-2008, 12:49
Only time i've told a guy i'm not intrested in playing him was with my DE against a HE dragon list. Basicly his list was cut and paisted from some web site, he was even braging about how easy the guy that made it had won. When he asked if I wanted to play I was honest and told him no I dont want to play you because your boring. You have no imagination and i'm not going to have any fun playing you so why would I waist 2 hours of my life being bored.

DeathlessDraich
27-10-2008, 12:53
In a tournament I'll play to the very end.

Since exact VPs are important in most tournaments, conceding would not be right.


:) But in chess, there is only a win or a loss. To me, conceding is like robbing your opponent of an opportunity to achieve a massacre. It doesn't matter that technically you do achieve a massacre, it's actually doing it on the battlefield that counts. No one will ever remember the glorious time your opponent gave up on turn 2, but they will remember the time you wiped them out by turn 4.


Actually ... a draw is the most common result in chess. :D

I understand your point, which is very valid, about finishing the game and allowing your opponent to see his succesful strategies (or incredible luck!) carried out to the very end. Denying an opponent his glorious moment (if he perceives it that way) would not be nice too, especially if he has lost several games previously.

The wipe out - When I first started playing, that's how most of my games ended - my army was completely wiped out.
Being an older person I simply persevered but I certainly wouldn't wish it on young novices who sometimes just give up the game altogether.


he walked off without saying a word, never to return ;)

I rolled his Lord's ward save for him and it came up with a 6, but he was so cross at that point. That's the rude and quite unacceptable way of conceding that we should all avoid, I think :o

I think this is why many here have objected to conceding - the ungracious way in which it has sometimes been done.




I once played a test-battle against a local player. He wanted to test his 1K Tomb Kings army against my experimental Dark Elf army. His army turned out to be a collection of shooting and a Bone Giant. I hid my army behind terrain and ended my turn. He sat and waited for me. I stayed behind terrain and ended my turn, he sat and waited for me. After a couple of turns he asked why I didn't advance ...to which I replied that I didn't feel like being shot to bits without a chance. So he wanted to know how I expected to win that way ... to which I replied that I didn't expect to win at all, but neither would he.

My opponent carefully reconsidered his army after that and entered the tournament with a more balanced build.

Reminds of me of a 1K game I played aginst VC - shot and destroyed 2 Dire wolf units (the only fast moving units) and simply moved away from the other units without engaging them - explaining that they are too afraid to battle with Fear causers.
My opponent wasn't very pleased at first but joined the other spectators and laughed when it was clear that the result would be a draw.





(PS In our local tournaments people are not allowed to concede simply because they're losing. It's not fair towards the competition if you "give" your opponent a massacre.)

Yes, the VPs scored is not the actual VPs. The game could have possibly not ended in a massacre or maybe the victor would not be awarded sufficient VPs.

EvC
27-10-2008, 12:56
Hell at one tournament I came second place because two friends were drawn with each other and the other guy decided to gift his mate a massacre, meaning his three massacres (The two games he did play featuring extensive cheating) beat my two massacres and minor victory. Now that is cimply inexcusable.

Conotor
27-10-2008, 13:00
I wouldn't give up like that no. I would take it as a challenge and try my best to pull out a win. Surely that is more fun than not playing at all?. A game is what YOU make of it. If you say 'Uggh, this is going to suck and be boring' it will suck and be boring. If you think 'Well, this is going to be a challenge, how do I solve it' It wont be boring.


On a gunline, its not a "challenge" beacuse you have no input in the game whatsoever. Its all dice. You may as well play yatzee.

SylverClaw
27-10-2008, 14:21
On a gunline, its not a "challenge" beacuse you have no input in the game whatsoever. Its all dice. You may as well play yatzee.

Or 40k... :D

AngryAngel
27-10-2008, 19:09
Hey hey lets leave the 40k out of this. Some of us play and enjoy both. Don't make me bust out my 2,000 40k dice one you !!

SolarHammer
27-10-2008, 20:19
Don't make me bust out my 2,000 40K dice one you !!

What does that even mean?

FurryMiguell
27-10-2008, 21:58
Solarhammer: seconed:p

Gunline is as said earlier (also by me) a waste of time. Why do you love dice-rolling so much!?

ZeroTwentythree
27-10-2008, 22:06
For those saying the conceding vs. a gunline is unsporting...

Would it be more sporting to hide all of your units behind terrain, out of LOS and wait for the gunline to come to you?

:angel:

dragonlancr
28-10-2008, 00:04
Honestly, I find it a challenge to try and pull a win from these types of circumstances. After going through the trouble of setting everything up and investing the time, I would rather play a game than concede. Plus, I like to add one more "notch" to my belt of things I experienced.

When a player quits like that, I assume they are a WAAC player that is very sore and either likes to pummel their opponent or run crying back to the forums about how unbalanced their force is against "X," with X being whatever beat them recently.

Foxbat
28-10-2008, 01:08
Personally, I prefer to play all the way through. However, there are times that I will concede, even in a tourney. Normally I will concede, when itís painfully clear that I do not have sufficient resources to score sufficient victory points to chance the outcome from a massacre. If I think I can score a solid loss or better, then I will normally play on.

Strangely enough, Iím more likely to play a full 6 turns against gun lines hoping for a misfire.

ChaosCajun
28-10-2008, 01:24
I take it by your mentioning Grave Guard and Knights that you were playing Vamps. If I were playing dwarves against an unknown Vamp list, I'd bring a gunline as it's probably my most powerful build against such an opponent. Conceding to a boring OTT gunline opponent when you are playing a list that is currently considered broken and most opponents find playing against it boring is pretty interesting to say the least. I realize you were playing an interesting, non-powered up list, but how was your opponent to know this? In fact, perhaps this dwarf opponent had been spanked by Vamps numerous times and wanted some payback, which was denied him.

Bottom line, the game can be fun even if you are getting tromped. I usually pick one tough unit and decide that if I can break or destroy that unit, then I 'win'.

FurryMiguell
28-10-2008, 01:33
Sometimes its not that hard to see if you will win or lose a battle. and if half your force is gone in first round of the game due to gunfire, why would the next few rounds be any difrent? it takes me 3 rounds to get to CC if he plays a gunline that just sits around at its deployment zone! (my knights get shot first anyway...)

Therfore alow me to say: yes. yes it is

MrBigMr
28-10-2008, 01:51
Sometimes its not that hard to see if you will win or lose a battle. and if half your force is gone in first round of the game due to gunfire, why would the next few rounds be any difrent? it takes me 3 rounds to get to CC if he plays a gunline that just sits around at its deployment zone! (my knights get shot first anyway...)
Usually it hasn't taken more than one or two units on the flanks of a gunline to crush it. If you just rush over the open at them, no wonder if you get creamed. Use the terrain to your advantage. Circle around hills and woods. And if your opponent gets the first turn, I doubt 24" weapons, which are majority of a gunline army, are going to reach you due to the 24" in between you two. Few cannons are not going to reduce your army into dust on the first turn.


Bitching about gunline is like bitching about daemons. Instead of bitching, how about people just try to adapt. It's WW1 all over again. Dear God, perish the thought of changing a good tactic just because the enemy has a machine gun. Tally-ho, lads! Up and over, I say.

EvC
28-10-2008, 02:31
One or two units on the flank? Presumably they have to move to within 24" of the army to get there, with all the guns encircling the hill castle, Organ Guns for guaranteed destruction. Doubly difficult if the opponent decided to place terrain like a tit.

Alathir
28-10-2008, 02:47
:) But in chess, there is only a win or a loss. To me, conceding is like robbing your opponent of an opportunity to achieve a massacre. It doesn't matter that technically you do achieve a massacre, it's actually doing it on the battlefield that counts. No one will ever remember the glorious time your opponent gave up on turn 2, but they will remember the time you wiped them out by turn 4.

If I ever do concede then its because they have had a glorious moment that has completely denied any chance of victory to me. One thing to remember is that conceding is usually more fun for both players as one sided games with no hope in sight arent fun to play for either side (in my experience).

I had a High Elf magic heavy force against a Dwarf shooty/combat army with almost no magic defense. His Lord was dead by the end of turn 2 without evening seeing combat, none of his war machines were firing because of my magic either and the first combat we had my Phoenix Guard won without any trouble at all. I just decided to call it soon after that.

So conceding can sometimes be more fun for both players, have a rematch with different lists and both players will have a better time.

MrBigMr
28-10-2008, 10:36
One or two units on the flank? Presumably they have to move to within 24" of the army to get there, with all the guns encircling the hill castle, Organ Guns for guaranteed destruction. Doubly difficult if the opponent decided to place terrain like a tit.
Even if you move within the 24" no man's land, it doesn't mean the whole army automaticly gets to shoot at you. Only the ones that reach you. And why are you letting your opponent set up the terrain? We usually try to deploy it so that majority of it is in the no man's land. And if the gunline stretches from edge to edge, it's stretched pretty thin. Even easier to take care of it with a flank charge.

Out of the more experienced players around here, no one thinks of a gunline as a cheesy army that's no good to play against. They're all quite good at exploiting the weaknesses of such a setup.

Latro
28-10-2008, 11:18
Out of the more experienced players around here, no one thinks of a gunline as a cheesy army that's no good to play against. They're all quite good at exploiting the weaknesses of such a setup.

It's generally considered no good to play against because it's boring as heck.


:cool:

The Red Scourge
28-10-2008, 11:33
..We usually try to deploy it so that majority of it is in the no man's land...

That sounds weird... This just gives the advantage to the more mobile armies.

And terrainhammering i.e. choosing the battlefield is and should be a really big part of the game.

Braad
28-10-2008, 11:55
I put my units into single lines 20 wide with the iron breakers in front with the standard that gave me a 5 + war save against shooting in it. Behind that was the line of long beards to make them re-roll panic tests. His bolt throwers were useless and his shooting in effectual and he tells ME that what i did wasn't fair...lol. Needless to say i told him that he needed to change his army because he always played the same exact list and it was beardy and boring.

This, and another tactic about hiding (couldn't find the post anymore?!?)... I think they are excellent ways to deal with this. Just show 'm that there are ways to win. If they complain, you know their intentions, and they are not to give you a good game...


Hell at one tournament I came second place because two friends were drawn with each other and the other guy decided to gift his mate a massacre, meaning his three massacres (The two games he did play featuring extensive cheating) beat my two massacres and minor victory. Now that is cimply inexcusable.

Right... I completely agree. Some people really forget that most other people play this game for fun.

I don't really have friends that field a lot of gunline, though I do remember a few of my first games against empire, where he mainly had the old starterkit (me too) and he just waited and shot me to pieces with handgunners and cannon... No fun there, simply because I did not have the stuff yet to counter anything. I fielded all I owned back then. Still no conceding though...
I would really love to play someone with a complete gunline, and then field a cavalry and shaman heavy army, call a WAAAGH first turn, and than magically WAAAGH my army into combat on turn one.

EvC
28-10-2008, 12:46
Even if you move within the 24" no man's land, it doesn't mean the whole army automaticly gets to shoot at you. Only the ones that reach you. And why are you letting your opponent set up the terrain? We usually try to deploy it so that majority of it is in the no man's land. And if the gunline stretches from edge to edge, it's stretched pretty thin. Even easier to take care of it with a flank charge.

Out of the more experienced players around here, no one thinks of a gunline as a cheesy army that's no good to play against. They're all quite good at exploiting the weaknesses of such a setup.

Your experience does not reflect mine, sadly ;)
Only the ones that reach can shoot: there seems to by a myth that the weapons found in most gunlines can only shoot 24". That is true of handguns, Organ Guns, and err, what else? In the meantime you're getting shot by cannons, S10 stone throwers, bolt throwers, quarrelers, etc. No sane player would stretch his gunline from one edge of the table to the other, that's madness. No wonder you find it easy to beat such armies if they're deploying so rubbishly. Try a hill with the war machines on it, lines of shooters around the slopes (angled to protect flanks while still aiming forwards), and maybe token infantry in the centre. You are not going to roll the flanks. Plus of course gunlines are easy to beat if you're placing large amounts of LoS-blocking terrain in the centre. I think I'd be able to do it in that case as well.

So in conclusion, in the game I conceded, my opponent had set up what he claimed was a "fair" table's worth of terrain that is the complete opposite of how the table would look if you were facing a gunline. Presumably therefore if you'd been in the same position you'd have either said "Whoa, that's not how the terrain should look, this isn't a fair game" and restarted it with the fair terrain that you're used to, or continued and been blasted to pieces by someone using his gunline in a competent manner...

daemonkin
28-10-2008, 12:56
The last time I rolled out my Slaanesh Hordes my Lvl 4 DP miscast the first roll of the game and blew his head off! Double Snake Eyes - chance in a million!

I carried on and almost pulled off a win against Empire despite losing more than a quarter of my army in 1st turn.

Moral: Keep playing and adapt to the situation.

D.

narrativium
28-10-2008, 13:04
Double Snake Eyes - chance in a million!Just being pedantic, but it's much nearer to a thousand :) (1/1296).

Kahadras
28-10-2008, 13:18
The only time I can remember conceding was a few years back. I was using a fairly balanced High Elf army against an Empire army. On his first turn he moved his archers forward and hit my archers with a volley which caused a panic check. This the rippled along my lines with me failing about 6 or 7 checks. My rolls were then high enough to take every single unit off the battlefield bar the unit of damaged archers.

I was left at the start of my first turn with a unit of fleeing archers (which decided not to rally) and a unit of Silver helms that contained my general. This was facing his untouched Empire force who were laughing their socks off. Needless to say my chances of victory were zero at that point.

Kahadras

BEEGfrog
28-10-2008, 13:30
I generally play to the end when being beaten. If nothing else it can be a good learning experience and a gracious winner can even make it pleasant.

However, when you are faced by something excessive for the environment AND your opponent turns out to be a pain...

...I am a games player not a masochist. Ending it early means that you both have an opportunity to do something else. If it loses me the opponent then it is the type of opponent I am happy to lose. There is reciprocity involved in gaming, if you expect to get enjoyment and fun you have to provide an opportunity for your opponent to have fun too.

The earliest I have packed up was before deployment, the opponent wanted to do something that was at best a major bend in the rules (I thought it was past breaking point, plus we had previous history of disagreements over rules). He was insistent that we had to do it his way, so I just put my stuff away and joined in a different game.

For anyone interested, it was a different ruleset. He wanted to place a small hill where his scouts would be able to see my entire deployment, entirely legal under the rules so far... The sticking point was that he wanted to make it so small it wouln't then be large enough to have a tactical effect on the battle and so did not need to have a piece of terrain placed to represent it. The rules did not have minimum terrain size restrictions for hills but I insisted that if it was large enough tp provide vision over troops it was large enough to have a tactical effect and needed to be represented.
I said I didn't mind which, either a hill that has a significant effect and exists for the entire battle or there isn't a hill at all.

JackBurton01
28-10-2008, 13:30
Fought an empire gunline once and took two reall bad shots from his hellcannons destroyed my graveguard, blackknights, the vampire lord in the knights and the thrall in the graveguard. I took a bad list and played it badly, so I conceeded in turn three. I revised my list and and we played again. I don't see a problem with conceeded if the person has obviously won, unless my opponent really wants to kill me to the last man, which I understand. I always ask if they want to continue, since the game is not about just me.

MrBigMr
28-10-2008, 13:51
Your experience does not reflect mine, sadly ;)
Only the ones that reach can shoot: there seems to by a myth that the weapons found in most gunlines can only shoot 24". That is true of handguns, Organ Guns, and err, what else?
Bows.


In the meantime you're getting shot by cannons
That might not bounce enough, or too much, and can missfire. I lost my organ gun in three games the first time I shot it at a tournament last weekend.


S10 stone throwers
Which scatters, so it's good not to place your army in a big bunch.


bolt throwers
Which are one shot wonders, unless of the superior elvish design.


quarrelers, etc.
Hits on 5+ at long range.


No sane player would stretch his gunline from one edge of the table to the other, that's madness. No wonder you find it easy to beat such armies if they're deploying so rubbishly. Try a hill with the war machines on it, lines of shooters around the slopes (angled to protect flanks while still aiming forwards), and maybe token infantry in the centre. You are not going to roll the flanks. Plus of course gunlines are easy to beat if you're placing large amounts of LoS-blocking terrain in the centre. I think I'd be able to do it in that case as well.
That's the whole point, no one stretches it from edge to edge. That means that either you have one flank or both exposed because the army can't shoot in all directions fully. And circling around with fast units makes sure that even if you're in their LOS, not every unit there can shoot you.

And so far the emount of terrain on tables have been around 1-4 hills, which sometimes extend to the deployment zones as well, but quite rarely you have a whole hill to put your shooters on it. So you can probably squeeze a unit of shooters on it or maybe a cannon or something. Still doesn't make it overly deadly. Other terrain consists of a forest or two and maybe a lake. Quite normal terrain all in all. Yet even that one hill or a forest can provide good cover.

Besides, if you're facing gunlines with plenty of cannons and bolters, reform your units to have fewer ranks. There's a big difference in a bolter turning 5 or 2 men into a kebab roll. Never expose your flanks to such things. Once a friend got to flank my force with spider riders and wolf riders. They advanced quite nicely until by his own stupidity was caught in a battle right before my cannon. One shot through both units annihilated the spider riders (which has happened to him before when a great cannon took out his boar boyz with a shot to their flank) and good deal of the wolf riders.

Also, advance in waves. Skirmishers are a perfect cover for advancing blocks. Enemy gets minus to hit them, bolters won't hit ranks, etc. Cannons and stone throwers... Well, yes, you can over estimate your ranges to hit the units they can't see, but that's really not sportsmanlike. I've rarely done it, mostly against players I know. But then again, no one I know considers charging a unit that's in the way as cheating no matter how GW's FAQ tries to convince us it is so. Everyone uses it as a valid tactic.


So in conclusion, in the game I conceded, my opponent had set up what he claimed was a "fair" table's worth of terrain that is the complete opposite of how the table would look if you were facing a gunline. Presumably therefore if you'd been in the same position you'd have either said "Whoa, that's not how the terrain should look, this isn't a fair game" and restarted it with the fair terrain that you're used to, or continued and been blasted to pieces by someone using his gunline in a competent manner...
I don't think it's conceding if you just want to reform that table. Surely it's good to do beforehand and not after models are planted. And if you want an unbiased table, have someone else do it for you. That's what we always do at our club. Some third party, especially if they have animosity towards both players (which is everyone vs. everyone in our merry little band of brothers) so that there's not favoritism either way.

FurryMiguell
28-10-2008, 14:42
MrBigMr: A gunline player with brains would protect his flank, not expose it to open for flanks. And the middle is no good advancing, cause you'd be caught in the crossfire.

I dont know how much terrain you usually play with, but I have never had so much terrain that I can walk unseen up to his line (or even slightly more than half way).

Gunline is no fun, cause it is no tactic beond deployment (not from my side, obviously, but thats not what Im talking about). All he ever does in a fight is roll dice. Maybe move a few units in for better firing positions. Dont get me wrong, I have played against gunlines quite a few times, all the way to the end. But even when I win fighting gunlines, I dont feel its a victory, cause all I ever did was moving units around, and all he did was rolling dice. The CC was over even before it begun (seriously, Chaos warriors VS handgunners...). It simply involves too little tactics and competition in fighting a gunline.

This may just as well be the other way around for you, and you about that.

As for the terrain, set it up as fair as possible (I and my friends have the rule of no hills in deployment zone, unless both parts agree, and than there should be one in both deployment zones). We make sure we set up for the most balanced games we can. And we have the internal rule that no more than 70% of your army can be shooty units (pts wise). IMO this is a little to much, but I accept it, cause I feel I have an as fair chance against them as they have fighting me.

MrBigMr
28-10-2008, 15:24
Well naturally you can't walk up unseen, but if you can half the amount of units firing at you, that's something is it not? "Hey, it's war, people die." as the one guy said to the camera in Star Wreck after doing a failed charge and getting shot. Besides, would it be better if I just stocked up on CC units that are not as good as the enemy's CC units and get hacked to pieces? That's fair, is it not? Never ever touch those guns that are there to make up for the fact that you're not that good in CC. I've seen dwarf armies played around by pretty much any army when they didn't take guns.

And to use a gunline effectively, you better have some brain. It's not just rollin' high. I can tell you that I have seen some gunlines where the player had no idea how to use them and as a result get creamed. You need to know which gun to use where, and so forth.

And gunline is fun, especially if you're facing a total dick.

Somerandomidiot
28-10-2008, 17:38
Seriously, how dare that terrible Dwarf player play an entirely legal armylist! (most likely without a special character too, and to top it all of, from a book that's not exactly considered broken!) You've got a valid complaint with how the terrain was set up, but then again that's easy enough to fix- just say you'd rather use the method in the book, and set it up again. Not like it takes more than a minute or two.

Perhaps he should play to his army's strengths, and you should play to yours? I think weakening your army to fight another's is fine, but I certainly wouldn't expect my opponent to do the same. I'm with MrBigMR on this one- when I play against Dwarves, I expect to get shot at... when I play against High Elves, I expect to strike last... when I play against Daemons, I expect to get bent over the table and (ok, that last one was a joke =P).

A few weeks ago, I watched someone playing a Warriors of Chaos melee army with Mark of Khorne all over complain that the High Elf magic/ranged heavy player fled from combat and hit him from range. His opponent's response? "If I charge into combat, you'll slaughter me- why would I do that?" Moral of the story: not everyone wants to play the same way you do, and even if they do you may end up facing the plaguebearer/flamer/bloodthirster army of cheddar that'll murder you *anyways*.

Side note: I complain about chaos daemons because I'm posting on warseer, and if I didn't do so the universe might implode or something, not because I actually have a problem with them. :)

The SkaerKrow
28-10-2008, 18:16
I whole-heartedly support conceding a bad contest. There are just some builds that aren't any fun to play against in a casual game, and in those situations I'd rather give myself and my opponent a chance to find players that will give the both of us a more satisfying match-up.

Lord Dan
28-10-2008, 18:18
i wont stop a game cos i have no chance of winning, but a gunline is pretty boring

you move 10"
you opponent shoot
you take of models
repeat 5 times

Do you always play games starting 50" from your opponent? :)

Lord Dan
28-10-2008, 18:20
Seriously, how dare that terrible Dwarf player play an entirely legal armylist! (most likely without a special character too, and to top it all of, from a book that's not exactly considered broken!) You've got a valid complaint with how the terrain was set up, but then again that's easy enough to fix- just say you'd rather use the method in the book, and set it up again. Not like it takes more than a minute or two.


Do you play in a lot of tournaments, by any chance?

logan054
28-10-2008, 18:49
Seriously, how dare that terrible Dwarf player play an entirely legal armylist! (most likely without a special character too, and to top it all of, from a book that's not exactly considered broken!) You've got a valid complaint with how the terrain was set up, but then again that's easy enough to fix- just say you'd rather use the method in the book, and set it up again. Not like it takes more than a minute or two.

Dwarf infantry is just as much a strength of the army as shooting is, the difference is it takes far more effort to use, i have also meet dwarf players who think warhammer lacks tactics and they use gunlines. So playing to strength of the army? no, not really, focusing on a phase that a 5 year old could win with more like.


Perhaps he should play to his army's strengths, and you should play to yours? I think weakening your army to fight another's is fine, but I certainly wouldn't expect my opponent to do the same. I'm with MrBigMR on this one- when I play against Dwarves, I expect to get shot at... when I play against High Elves, I expect to strike last... when I play against Daemons, I expect to get bent over the table and (ok, that last one was a joke =P).

I would say its more along the lines of "i have two hours to kill, i think i will use a army that is enjoyable to use, if im going to play someone i want to enjoy the experience". If i spend the game just removing models i tend to become rather bored just as would anyone, powergaming dosnt make a good gaming experience for anyone.


A few weeks ago, I watched someone playing a Warriors of Chaos melee army with Mark of Khorne all over complain that the High Elf magic/ranged heavy player fled from combat and hit him from range. His opponent's response? "If I charge into combat, you'll slaughter me- why would I do that?" Moral of the story: not everyone wants to play the same way you do, and even if they do you may end up facing the plaguebearer/flamer/bloodthirster army of cheddar that'll murder you

and i bet the same HE would complain if he played a all mounted chaos army and after turn two he had maybe two units lefts after all the cavalry went charging in. So the moral of the story is if you make the game boring for someone they may well make it just as boring for you.

Lord Malorne
28-10-2008, 19:07
One day I took my Night Goblins to a GW I hade not been to in awhile (I lived in covenrty at the time and was visiting GW carlisle) I had an ok list that had bagged me my first two games...out of two games!

So I show up in high spirits and start gaming...having not been there for awhile people wanted a game so I ended up playing 3 games...lost all three of them!

in the first game (6th ed rules) army panic..well you know the rest turn 1 nad a half defeat...next two games were very, very similar...the odd things is becasue I lost so badly in each game at such a early point I found it rather funny so was not annoyed at all...except the gunline, mages and 2 units of knights empire army...I expected to lose that one :D.

badguyshaveallthefun
28-10-2008, 19:42
I try my hardest to set up terrain beforehand in a manner that is fair to both sides. Then, and only then will I play a game with someone. I have no problem losing a game due to someone else being a better general, (because that's when I learn the most) but I don't like losing a game because of terrain set-up. (tailoring to gun-lines for instance)
I will only concede typically around turn 5 or 6 when it's obvious that I can't win (when my opponent has all/most of his units left and the reverse is true for me).

GrogsnotPowwabomba
28-10-2008, 19:50
I have conceded games before. What's the point of playing a game that is no fun, especially with people who make abusive lists?

GrogsnotPowwabomba
28-10-2008, 19:54
I do feel bad for letting my opponent down

You did not let your opponent down. He created a boring, one dimensional army and he has no one to blame but himself for what happened. Hopefully he will learn a lesson and create a more diverse, interesting army. It will be more fun for him as well.

FurryMiguell
28-10-2008, 20:02
MrBigMr: please, you make it sound like i dont want any guns at all! I dont mind guns, I mind armies witho only guns! I said in my previous post that I prefered about 70% top of the pts in your army spent on shooty things. that is not harsh at all! I think (no offence) that your getting desperate, as you are losing this argument. I do however agree with you on quite a few poins, just not on the allowing gunlines one.

Shamfrit
28-10-2008, 20:16
MrBigMr: please, you make it sound like i dont want any guns at all! I dont mind guns, I mind armies witho only guns! I said in my previous post that I prefered about 70% top of the pts in your army spent on shooty things. that is not harsh at all! I think (no offence) that your getting desperate, as you are losing this argument. I do however agree with you on quite a few poins, just not on the allowing gunlines one.

All of this, despite the fact that military warfare has been dictated by ranged weaponry since what, the interring of the Longbow in the armies of the Welsh, hell, even further back in Japanese history - the Samurai were the leading force and lead by combat and tactics until the advent of the rifle became the armoured warrior's bane.

Gunlines will always be present in any tabletop wargame that touches the fringers of modern society - even with bows only, in armies such as wood elves and high elves, gunlines can still pose a potent threat. The general theme seems not to be the presence of ranged weaponry, but presence of Str4 AP weaponry, giving most rank and file no save against....well, a blackpowder rifle..

Which is exactly what it should be like.

If you wish to concede, it is entirely in your preprogative to do so - but faulting another indidividual because of their playstyle or army list is no way to concede the fact that, well, you're conceeding, you're giving in, you've been beaten. Regardless of how you personally view the gunline approach, or the tactics, or general lack-of therein indicated.

Lord Malorne
28-10-2008, 20:20
I agree with MrbigMr...gunlines should not be moaned at...they are just another army that add variety to the game, its like moaning ''why do warriors of chaos have really good combat units and no shooting'' an army is based on the player not the army itself.

As I have often said I have played against cheesy armies and have had immense fun and I have played suck ass armies and been frustrated and annoyed...why? its the player not the army that matters.

Now Salamanders...I hate those.

Somerandomidiot
28-10-2008, 21:36
Do you play in a lot of tournaments, by any chance?

Not at all, in fact. I'm a 40k player who's just starting to get into fantasy, and I haven't even done anything beyond a local game store tournament with my 40k armies. I just find it interesting that everyone seems to think that shooting-focused armies are somehow bad and close combat focused armies are somehow good. If you're getting a solid whipping (i.e. your caster blows up turn 1, sending 3/4 of your army off the table) I'm perfectly fine with resigning to avoid the frustration of watching your opponent hunt down the last bit of resistance, but resigning just because you don't like your opponent's army or list is just sad.

Personally, I've picked up High Elves, and literally every game I've played my opponents have complained about the various 'cheesy' aspects of my army, even after I've changed lists around to make them more 'balanced'. Hell, at this point I wouldn't be surprised if a 2000pt list of entirely core choice spearmen would *still* get people complaining about always strike first and an extra rank fighting, even as they mow my troops down like grass... The list with 1 repeater bolt thrower? Constantly complained about it, even though I was facing 2 cannons... How dare I use a rare choice in a 2000pt game!

In any case, I'm convinced at this point that half of you won't be happy until the army on the other side is fighting naked with their bare hands, and this "gunline" complaint is just an outpouring of that. How dare your opponent have a strategy, or have put thought into their army list? After all, the game is about YOU, no attention to them at all, having fun (right GrogsnotPowwabomba?) and certainly not about overcoming their strategy with your own superior strategy... Tossing around insults like "an army even a 5 year old could use" doesn't help either- anyone can generalize to the point of absurdity. "Charge forward and smash face!" is certainly another valid one, and sounds just as substantial.

I'd like to echo Lord Malorne as well here- the game would be absurdly boring if everyone played the same lists. You complain about the dwarf gunline, the dwarf player complains about the brettonian cavalry army (judging from comments earlier, cavalry beats gunlines?), and the cavalry army complains about whatever kills cavalry- nobody ever gets anywhere, and more importantly nobody has any fun. You'd be surprised how fun a game of warhammer can be (even when getting your a** handed to you) when you stop focusing on all the bad things, and start focusing on the good things.

logan054
28-10-2008, 21:44
I agree with MrbigMr...gunlines should not be moaned at...they are just another army that add variety to the game, its like moaning ''why do warriors of chaos have really good combat units and no shooting'' an army is based on the player not the army itself.

They shouldnt be moaned at because they make for a great gaming experience and really test the tactical ability to both players to the limits.


As I have often said I have played against cheesy armies and have had immense fun and I have played suck ass armies and been frustrated and annoyed...why? its the player not the army that matters.

Now Salamanders...I hate those.

Well sure the player does matter however if im going to have a boring game i may as well just take the guy down the pub, i can have the same social interaction just without tidous notion of rolling dice and periodically removing models. Its the same when i play many magic heavy armies, im just watching the other guy rolling dice, when my army actually reaches the other guy all its is a case of is "do i have enough models to kill his guys"

I have seen games like this at a club i used to visit, people just marching units of 40 wolf riders forward, its not even entertaining to watch.

MrBigMr
28-10-2008, 21:53
MrBigMr: please, you make it sound like i dont want any guns at all! I dont mind guns, I mind armies witho only guns! I said in my previous post that I prefered about 70% top of the pts in your army spent on shooty things. that is not harsh at all!
That's quite a lot of shootiness, as shooty units aren't that expensive. Of my 2000pts. dwarf army (minus character points) shooty units are less than half the points, yet out of 11 units, 7 have ranged attacks (I'm counting gyrocopter into this).


I think (no offence) that your getting desperate, as you are losing this argument.
I didn't think we had to duke it out on the matter. I'm just talking.

Lord Malorne
28-10-2008, 22:01
They shouldnt be moaned at because they make for a great gaming experience and really test the tactical ability to both players to the limits.

Not really, its not as if a gunline auto= ''army of killy death you have no chance haha!'' any army has strengths and weakness' is it because you are playing one or two extra turns of moving rather than getting closer really fast?

Gunlines can be hard. But so can all skirmisher armies, are they hard? NO! gunlines are not hard IMO, they hit maybe a 1/3 of the time, then wound maybe 1/2 of the time...but the units generaly cost alot more than your R&F guy and for a reason. Magic heavy armies are there own thread entirely, though as I am sure many VC's players have found defeat in trying to max out characters with little army support as the cost.




Well sure the player does matter however if im going to have a boring game i may as well just take the guy down the pub, i can have the same social interaction just without tidous notion of rolling dice and periodically removing models. Its the same when i play many magic heavy armies, im just watching the other guy rolling dice, when my army actually reaches the other guy all its is a case of is "do i have enough models to kill his guys"

I have seen games like this at a club i used to visit, people just marching units of 40 wolf riders forward, its not even entertaining to watch.

Whats a boring game to you? is a boring game to you the same as everyone else? your view (and sorry for this) seems one dimensional in regards to the warhammer game, many armies have decent dispell abilties not all armies can rely on heavy magic and those that do do not find it working all the time, same for shooty armies and combat armies and skirmisher armies and elite armies and horde armies and points denial armies and even...balanced armies!

Armies have many different options, I myself play a Wood elf army and a balanced one at that, the players around here play DE, Daemons, Lizardmen and vampire counts and there was a dwarf gunline army...I have trashed them all with a balanced army and we both had fun in the game.

For me I play for those moments that make you smile, like cannons having a clear shot at a character then rolling a missfire, or wizards blowing up, or units killed to one man in combat then rolling 1's and getting insane courage! or having a warhawk rider flying around after his buddies were killed and he goes on to kill skink priest commando style ;).

Thats warhammer to me.

FurryMiguell
28-10-2008, 22:12
MrBigMr: yes, 70% of an armies pts in shooty units is a lot of shootyness. But It makes it so that you can play against something close to a gunline, and still keep at least an element of moving and CC tactic in all the dicerolling.

And thats my entire point! Not that I cant cope with a gunline, I just find them boring to play, as there is too much dicerolling (and luck...), and too little brains and tactic!

Further so, sry about the argument thing, I was stressed, jsut got out of a game of BF2 where TKing was something close to holy, and teamplay was banned... Alow me to eat my hat for you:p

I do still though, agree with you on some points, at some not.

Iseult
28-10-2008, 22:13
So the main point of discussion... would you ever just give up that early, or be very offended if someone just gave up on turn one against you? Would it make you feel bad, or perhaps make you feel like you'd had an even greater achievement?

I once played an empire gunline in 6th ed with all wizard chars, dark emissary, and the balance handgunners and war machines...

I gave the guy my spare movement trays and said, "deploy cav behind woods, I charge you, resolve combat and see how it goes"

... honestly in such cases it's not a tactical game at all, its a pointless probability experiment

I will always try my best to be a good opponent but such a game is not why I play Warhammer - it is boring win or lose and can easily be simulated ad infinitum in excel. I'm there to enjoy myself and in cases where I know I won't, I'd rather not be there!

Lord Dan
28-10-2008, 22:14
I just find it interesting that everyone seems to think that shooting-focused armies are somehow bad and close combat focused armies are somehow good.
I don't think that's necessarily the case. I believe people think that any army that has "too much of a good thing" is bad, be it shooting, magic, or (though I concede less likely) close combat.


I'm perfectly fine with resigning to avoid the frustration of watching your opponent hunt down the last bit of resistance, but resigning just because you don't like your opponent's army or list is just sad.
You don't think the two go hand in hand? I mean generally if I don't like my opponent's list, it's because I believe he can too easily win and hunt down the last bit of my resistance...


Personally, I've picked up High Elves, and literally every game I've played my opponents have complained about the various 'cheesy' aspects of my army, even after I've changed lists around to make them more 'balanced'.
I'm sorry your opponents have been so unforgiving. Honestly I find a lot of people who play armies that are widely rumoured to be "unbeatable" (Daemons players right now the most so) get ridiculed even for honest wins. It's unfortunate, but it just happens to be one end of the spectrum. Please don't assume we all think that way.



Hell, at this point I wouldn't be surprised if a 2000pt list of entirely core choice spearmen would *still* get people complaining about always strike first and an extra rank fighting, even as they mow my troops down like grass...
It probably would. Your example is somewhat extreme, but take the wood elf tree list, for instance. It's almost all core choices, however it's hard to beat because it exploits the armies strengths while retaining an ability to avoid and even ignore common WE army weaknesses.


In any case, I'm convinced at this point that half of you won't be happy until the army on the other side is fighting naked with their bare hands, and this "gunline" complaint is just an outpouring of that.
I don't think its fair to assume that wanting your opponent to wield something other than -2AS +1 to hit handguns means we want them to be weak and defenseless. We want to play against something with tactical variety, and something we don't feel helpless against.


How dare your opponent have a strategy, or have put thought into their army list?
I think that's a direct contradiction of the nature of a gunline. It requires very little strategy and almost no thought when designing a list around: "sit there. shoot them with the guns until they stop moving towards us." That's the complaint here.


Tossing around insults like "an army even a 5 year old could use" doesn't help either- anyone can generalize to the point of absurdity.
You're right, I believe insults are unnecessary as well. I think people simply get fed up when facing the same seemingly insurmountable problem time and time again (why do you think there are so many threads complaining about Daemons?).


You complain about the dwarf gunline, the dwarf player complains about the brettonian cavalry army (judging from comments earlier, cavalry beats gunlines?), and the cavalry army complains about whatever kills cavalry- nobody ever gets anywhere, and more importantly nobody has any fun.

So what about the army that rarely loses? Warhammer isn't rock-paper-scissors, as not every army has a "bane". In this case people have mentioned a Brettonian list only because it probably stands the best chance of winning. I still wouldn't put money on it winning.

It's not about taking an army to beat your opponent. It's about using the strengths in your army to tactically exploit the weaknesses in your opponent's army, and do your best to avoid your opponent doing the same to you. Now what do you do if your army doesn't have a weakness that you can realistically exploit?

Concede.

logan054
28-10-2008, 22:29
I agree with MrbigMr...gunlines should not be moaned at...they are just another army that add variety to the game, its like moaning ''why do warriors of chaos have really good combat units and no shooting'' an army is based on the player not the army itself.

They shouldnt be moaned at because they make for a great gaming experience and really test the tactical ability to both players to the limits.


As I have often said I have played against cheesy armies and have had immense fun and I have played suck ass armies and been frustrated and annoyed...why? its the player not the army that matters.

Now Salamanders...I hate those.

Well sure the player does matter however if im going to have a boring game i may as well just take the guy down the pub, i can have the same social interaction just without tidous notion of rolling dice and periodically removing models. Its the same when i play many magic heavy armies, im just watching the other guy rolling dice, when my army actually reaches the other guy all its is a case of is "do i have enough models to kill his guys"

I have seen games like this at a club i used to visit, people just marching units of 40 wolf riders forward, its not even entertaining to watch.


Not at all, in fact. I'm a 40k player who's just starting to get into fantasy, and I haven't even done anything beyond a local game store tournament with my 40k armies. I just find it interesting that everyone seems to think that shooting-focused armies are somehow bad and close combat focused armies are somehow good. If you're getting a solid whipping (i.e. your caster blows up turn 1, sending 3/4 of your army off the table) I'm perfectly fine with resigning to avoid the frustration of watching your opponent hunt down the last bit of resistance, but resigning just because you don't like your opponent's army or list is just sad.

Well depends on the type of closecombat army, if its the type that takes two turns to reach combat and then kill your army you correct, no real difference, the thing is many are not like this, the ones that use infantry actually requires tactics to use. the main problem people have with shooting armies is that you spend half the game coming across the board, the other guy is just rolling dice and guessing ranges, thats it, honestly can you say this is enjoyable for either person.


"an army even a 5 year old could use" doesn't help either- anyone can generalize to the point of absurdity. "Charge forward and smash face!" is certainly another valid one, and sounds just as substantial.

Again perhaps you can explain how rolling dice and picking a target requires any real thought when compared to moving up flanks, baiting units, flanking charging, moving units behind the enemy for cross fire, using cover, minimizing the enemies LoS, setting counter charges, deciding which units to feet units to protect your better units. Yes you are correct is just charge forward and smash face.


I'd like to echo Lord Malorne as well here- the game would be absurdly boring if everyone played the same lists. You complain about the dwarf gunline, the dwarf player complains about the brettonian cavalry army (judging from comments earlier, cavalry beats gunlines?), and the cavalry army complains about whatever kills cavalry- nobody ever gets anywhere, and more importantly nobody has any fun. You'd be surprised how fun a game of warhammer can be (even when getting your a** handed to you) when you stop focusing on all the bad things, and start focusing on the good things.

The game would certainly be boring if we all played the game, you what the worst game to watch is gunline vs gunline, you whats the most interesting, balanced (jack of all trades so to speak) vs a balanced, trust me warhammer wouldnt be any worse of if people didnt use gunlines, im going to mention the example of dwarfs players saying warhammer requires no tactics (while fielding gunlines), i think that speaks leaps and bounds about gunlines.


Not really, its not as if a gunline auto= ''army of killy death you have no chance haha!'' any army has strengths and weakness' is it because you are playing one or two extra turns of moving rather than getting closer really fast?

Gunlines can be hard. But so can all skirmisher armies, are they hard? NO! gunlines are not hard IMO, they hit maybe a 1/3 of the time, then wound maybe 1/2 of the time...but the units generaly cost alot more than your R&F guy and for a reason. Magic heavy armies are there own thread entirely, though as I am sure many VC's players have found defeat in trying to max out characters with little army support as the cost.

Who said anything about auto win?? i just said its a rather boring gaming experience, you making some very false assumptions here, the game is going to be boring regardless of the outcome, you making assumptions here as to me not even knowing how to beat them, please dont in future.


Whats a boring game to you? is a boring game to you the same as everyone else? your view (and sorry for this) seems one dimensional in regards to the warhammer game, many armies have decent dispell abilties not all armies can rely on heavy magic and those that do do not find it working all the time, same for shooty armies and combat armies and skirmisher armies and elite armies and horde armies and points denial armies and even...balanced armies!

Armies have many different options, I myself play a Wood elf army and a balanced one at that, the players around here play DE, Daemons, Lizardmen and vampire counts and there was a dwarf gunline army...I have trashed them all with a balanced army and we both had fun in the game.

For me I play for those moments that make you smile, like cannons having a clear shot at a character then rolling a missfire, or wizards blowing up, or units killed to one man in combat then rolling 1's and getting insane courage! or having a warhawk rider flying around after his buddies were killed and he goes on to kill skink priest commando style ;).

Thats warhammer to me.

I dare say my view seems one dimensional because you start by making silly assumptions, i dare say what i find a boring game is different to some people, then again this is to expected with the millions of people all over the world ;) Whats a boring game for me, well if all that happens is my army moves forward, the other guy rolls some dice then i roll some dice and i continue this for 6 turns. A interesting game will have me trying to flank, counter my opponents attempts to flank me and counter my flank charges, my opponenet and i trying to bait each other, me trying to get models behing his army to march block, me trying to take out his support while retaining mine.

Those moments you mentions certainly are great, i for one love the moments when you get that sneaky KB on a enemy combat lord, is it so much to ask to be mentally taxed (just abit) and funny moments!

Lord Malorne
28-10-2008, 22:52
I have made no assumptions, nor have I said anywhere in my posts that you said anything, you are making an assumption by saying the game is going to be boring regardless of outcome...that is just an insult to many players who play with or against these armies and do have a fun game.

Again I did not make assumptions on you being able to beat these armies or not...really confused me thereI did not even talk about you playing a game in my posts let alone your gaming ability...it is you who are making assumptions of me.

Again you start off by saying I am making silly assumptions...that is just insulting.

How you play your games is of no concern to me, I am just defending the right for gunline armies to exist in this game.

Somerandomidiot
28-10-2008, 22:54
You don't think the two go hand in hand? I mean generally if I don't like my opponent's list, it's because I believe he can too easily win and hunt down the last bit of my resistance...

There is a HUGE difference between starting the game with 75% of your army dead, and having to overcome an army with a slight advantage over you in some area. Heck, not too long ago I had a full bock of White Lions (stubborn LD9) break and flee from combat to be cut down, which triggered the Dragon Princes with a hero next to them (perfectly positioned for a crushing flank charge next turn) to flee combat as well, running off the table... I lost almost 600 points from one set of horrifically poor dice rolls, but the game certainly wasn't over. I ended up losing, but at least I managed to fight it back to a minor loss.



I don't think its fair to assume that wanting your opponent to wield something other than -2AS +1 to hit handguns means we want them to be weak and defenseless. We want to play against something with tactical variety, and something we don't feel helpless against.

I think that's a direct contradiction of the nature of a gunline. It requires very little strategy and almost no thought when designing a list around: "sit there. shoot them with the guns until they stop moving towards us." That's the complaint here.


You're saying the gunline player doesn't have to worry about things like target priority, or sacrificial units, or march blocking, or what to do when the army inevitably gets to the gunline? How is that any different than the strategy involved in screening your vulnerable units, using terrain, or maximizing movement in order to reach the dwarves before they cut you down? For some reason you have no problem with a list that maximizes close combat, or speed, but the ones that do things from range you do...



You're right, I believe insults are unnecessary as well. I think people simply get fed up when facing the same seemingly insurmountable problem time and time again (why do you think there are so many threads complaining about Daemons?).

So what about the army that rarely loses? Warhammer isn't rock-paper-scissors, as not every army has a "bane". In this case people have mentioned a Brettonian list only because it probably stands the best chance of winning. I still wouldn't put money on it winning.

It's not about taking an army to beat your opponent. It's about using the strengths in your army to tactically exploit the weaknesses in your opponent's army, and do your best to avoid your opponent doing the same to you. Now what do you do if your army doesn't have a weakness that you can realistically exploit?

Concede.

Doesn't have a weakness that you can realistically exploit? I find that very hard to believe. If you resign yourself to just losing against any number of armies, that's fine by me, but please don't push it on the rest of us as well. I don't know the terrain rules for fantasy well, but aren't you able to place at least 1 or 2 pieces of terrain when setting up? Perhaps a nice stand of trees would his dwarves' line of sight, but still allow room for your army to maneuver around? Or a small hill? Let's face it, you're certainly not going to get to his lines unmolested, but then again his troops are far weaker than yours in close combat (I certainly hope so at least, not sure what you're running) or you greatly outnumber him, so even a thinned down force can still defeat him if it reaches the line.

Let's face it- when playing against an army your list may not be designed to fight, you have many options, but neither the "resign and whine about it" or the "keep playing and whine about it" ones are going to get much respect from me.

Edit: logan054, while I'm sure you think your style of play is superior to all others, I don't think that it's a good assumption to make for an argument. I've never heard a dwarf player say "fantasy doesn't require tactics"- I've heard it from plenty of 40k players though... There are 4 primary phases to the game: movement, shooting, magic, and close combat. I'm not sure from where you get the idea that tactics in the movement phase are somehow harder or superior to tactics in any other part. I'm still learning how to assign my attacks in close combat, for example, showing that even a phase that seems absurdly simple still requires tactics.

logan054
28-10-2008, 23:23
I have made no assumptions, nor have I said anywhere in my posts that you said anything, you are making an assumption by saying the game is going to be boring regardless of outcome...that is just an insult to many players who play with or against these armies and do have a fun game.

actually you did, you said "Not really, its not as if a gunline auto= ''army of killy death you have no chance haha!''" that certainly looks like a assumption to me


Again I did not make assumptions on you being able to beat these armies or not...really confused me thereI did not even talk about you playing a game in my posts let alone your gaming ability...it is you who are making assumptions of me.

I suggest you reread your post, thats certainly how you post came off, im hardly making a assumption if you say "well it dosnt mean you will lose" "this is how you do it", seriously, dont try and turn it round like that, be it the intention or not thats how you post came across.


Again you start off by saying I am making silly assumptions...that is just insulting.

I found it insulting that someone thought they need tell me to use skirmishers to kill gunlines, kinda like your insulting my intelligence.


How you play your games is of no concern to me, I am just defending the right for gunline armies to exist in this game.

Yes your welcome to to defend their right, then again its my right to post a opinion on them and how little i feel they add to a game.


Edit: logan054, while I'm sure you think your style of play is superior to all others, I don't think that it's a good assumption to make for an argument. I've never heard a dwarf player say "fantasy doesn't require tactics"- I've heard it from plenty of 40k players though... There are 4 primary phases to the game: movement, shooting, magic, and close combat. I'm not sure from where you get the idea that tactics in the movement phase are somehow harder or superior to tactics in any other part. I'm still learning how to assign my attacks in close combat, for example, showing that even a phase that seems absurdly simple still requires tactics.

I think if you speak to any vet they will tell you that deployment are the most important phases of the game, these are also the most enjoyable, sure their are four phases to game, then again a dwarf gunline is generally only taking part in one phase (empire would take part in two), sure deciding what to attack requires something, common sense and maths skills. I wouldnt target target designation as a tactic, just ability to figure out the odds of wounding in your head, for example in close combat are your not going to hit a T5 1+ save hero with you great sword when hes standing next to a T3, WS3 5+ save trooper, logically you will go for the easiler to kill target to allow you to win the combat (unless your going to lose the combat anyways or feeling lucky).

Lord Malorne
28-10-2008, 23:28
actually you did, you said "Not really, its not as if a gunline auto= ''army of killy death you have no chance haha!''" that certainly looks like a assumption to me

That was not in reference to you saying that. I did say ''its not as if'' not ''you are saying''.



I suggest you reread your post, thats certainly how you post came off, im hardly making a assumption if you say "well it dosnt mean you will lose" "this is how you do it", seriously, dont try and turn it round like that, be it the intention or not thats how you post came across.

How did I say this is how you do it?


I found it insulting that someone thought they need tell me to use skirmishers to kill gunlines, kinda like your insulting my intelligence.

Were did I say you need to use skirmishers?


Yes your welcome to to defend their right, then again its my right to post a opinion on them and how little i feel they add to a game.

And again its my right to say that if they add little to the game what does magic heavy or combat armies add? They are in the same boat...

logan054
28-10-2008, 23:43
That was not in reference to you saying that. I did say ''its not as if'' not ''you are saying''.

Again that is how you post came off to me, oh well


How did I say this is how you do it?

Generally if you quote someone the post is aimed at them, if your saying this post didnt apply to me why are you quoting me?


Were did I say you need to use skirmishers?

You certainly mentioned them, but ok, you want to quibble the exact wording of the sentence :rolleyes:


And again its my right to say that if they add little to the game what does magic heavy or combat armies add? They are in the same boat...

I dont think i need to repeat myself on this.

Lord Malorne
28-10-2008, 23:48
If I quote a post I am not only talking to you...didn't know there was quoting ettiquette.



You certainly mentioned them, but ok, you want to quibble the exact wording of the sentence :rolleyes:


Quibble on what? I never said use skirmisher against them, got you there :p.

Anyhoo, back on topic.

As has been said I will continue a game even if the army I am playing against is a hard one...for me its the players not the army.

Lord Dan
28-10-2008, 23:55
There is a HUGE difference between starting the game with 75% of your army dead, and having to overcome an army with a slight advantage over you in some area.
The issue at hand is when armies with a "slight advantage" over you are taking out 75% of your army in the march across the board, which is much more realistic than the unfortunate occurance of having 75% of your army start dead, whatever that means. And I don't know what your definition of "slight advantage" is, but it's obvious to me that you haven't played against too many real gunlines.


Heck, not too long ago I had a full bock of White Lions (stubborn LD9) break and flee from combat to be cut down, which triggered the Dragon Princes with a hero next to them (perfectly positioned for a crushing flank charge next turn) to flee combat as well, running off the table... I lost almost 600 points from one set of horrifically poor dice rolls, but the game certainly wasn't over.
We're not talking about bad dice rolls. We're talking about playing strategically well, rolling averagely, and still getting slapped around the table. If you don't find an issue there, then this conversation is already pointless.


You're saying the gunline player doesn't have to worry about things like target priority...
Not if he has enough guns.


...or sacrificial units...
Not if they are, in fact, sacrificial.


...march blocking...
Gunline armies don't do a lot of marching, so I assume you mean the gunline player's need to slow down the enemy army with march blocking? You got me there. A gunline player needs a firm understanding of where to place his march blocking units so he can better obliterate his opponent. Tons of thought there.


...or what to do when the army inevitably gets to the gunline?
As the OP mentioned, in many cases there is very little of an army left to do much of anything when they get to the other side. Aside from that, a unit of 20 thunderers with full command and shields is pretty tough to take down with whatever is left of your units.


How is that any different than the strategy involved in screening your vulnerable units, using terrain, or maximizing movement in order to reach the dwarves before they cut you down?
You can't screen units from shots on a hill or from cannonballs or stone throwers/ mortars, terrain only helps so long as you hide behind it, and most of the time, as you said, your opponent will be march blocking you to ensure you can't maximize your movement.



For some reason you have no problem with a list that maximizes close combat, or speed, but the ones that do things from range you do...
Close combat/ speed lists that bug me:
-Brettonian Royal Air Force
-Tree List
-Multi-god Daemons
-Dwarf Slayer list (OOP)
I have a problem with any list that maximizes all of its strengths, min/max's unit choices, and with a player that stands by the fact that the list is technically "legal". As a non-tournament player you should be more concerned with players actually wanting to play against you, which they won't want to do if they feel they don't have any chance of beating you.
I'm not saying you should hand the game to your opponent, but don't rob them either.


Doesn't have a weakness that you can realistically exploit? I find that very hard to believe. If you resign yourself to just losing against any number of armies, that's fine by me, but please don't push it on the rest of us as well.
I find it hard to believe that as someone who has said himself that you're new to fantasy, you jump in and assume that people who have been playing for much longer than you have no idea what they're talking about.

I've never conceded a game. I have, however, refused to play against certain lists in friendly games before.


I don't know the terrain rules for fantasy well, but aren't you able to place at least 1 or 2 pieces of terrain when setting up? Perhaps a nice stand of trees would his dwarves' line of sight, but still allow room for your army to maneuver around? Or a small hill?
Again, why are you speaking as though you're coming up with new ideas? If people are doing all this and still getting tromped, would you admit there might be a problem at hand? If yes, then welcome aboard.


Let's face it, you're certainly not going to get to his lines unmolested, but then again his troops are far weaker than yours in close combat (I certainly hope so at least, not sure what you're running)
A dwarf thunderer is better than most RAF units in other armies, and has a gun. A smart empire player will be using more detachments than you could wrap your mind around, so their weaker statline is irrelevant when they're ignoring panic and negating your rank bonus. High elves strike first, so even a line of 10 archers (or even a bolt thrower) stands a decent chance of winning combat against the fast cav or flying units that are inevitably going to get to them.


or you greatly outnumber him, so even a thinned down force can still defeat him if it reaches the line.
Thinned down? Have you seen how many guns are in a 2000 point Dwarf gunline? Look that up and get back to us. Hopefully this argument will end at that point, though I doubt it.


Let's face it- when playing against an army your list may not be designed to fight, you have many options, but neither the "resign and whine about it" or the "keep playing and whine about it" ones are going to get much respect from me.
Completely disregarding the fact that how much you respect me means quite little to me, the whole point of playing warhammer is to enjoy the game. If you were talking about the tournament scene, you'd have a valid argument. You're not. You're talking about friendly games between people who are looking for a good time. Think about that for a bit.

Kahadras
29-10-2008, 01:10
Not if he has enough guns.


I agree. A 'gunline' has to worry far less about target priority than an army that only has a couple of missile units. To tell the truth though I'll happily play a gunline; I'll tuck my entire army behind terrain and wait for the game to end, thank my opponant and leave. Jobs a good 'un.

Kahadras

Lord Dan
29-10-2008, 03:42
Jobs a good 'un.

I just literally laughed out loud.

FurryMiguell
29-10-2008, 03:56
Kahadras: how fun would it be to stand around behind terrain for a game and then leave, after getting there, making armylist and unpack all your stuff? not worth the time. Id rather tell him to go tuck himself in, and play somebody else:p. Or just fight him. If I win, I would gloat about it so I made sure I didnt have to play him again (no matter what you say, we all no gloating is fun^^. though I dont do it usually...)

Yes. Job is a good 'un...

ZeroTwentythree
29-10-2008, 05:25
There is a HUGE difference between starting the game with 75% of your army dead, and having to overcome an army with a slight advantage over you in some area.


The issue at hand is when armies with a "slight advantage" over you are taking out 75% of your army in the march across the board, which is much more realistic than the unfortunate occurance of having 75% of your army start dead, whatever that means. And I don't know what your definition of "slight advantage" is, but it's obvious to me that you haven't played against too many real gunlines.



I was reading that as meaning that he's talking about having the gunline take out the majority of the army in the first turn or two. If that's so, I think you two may actually have a similar opinion. ;)

And that, I think, is the point of the OP. It's not that he was talking about giving up before a turn was played or because he had some percieved disadvantage. I think the OP was talking about having enough of your army taken out in the first turn to make it pretty much impossible to have enough left to have any chance of winning.

DeathlessDraich
29-10-2008, 10:06
Here's a freak incident that happened last week which I think is worth mentioning here:

1) 2 DE Bolt throwers shot a unit of Bret knights, slaying and causing Panic in TURN 1.

2) The fleeing knights flee off the board through some Pegasus who also Panic. Their (Pegasus) flee direction takes them right through ALL of the remaining Bret army, Panicking 3 more units

3) When the dust settled, Brets had lost 3 units of knights, a Trebuchet with the fleeing Pegasus just hanging on to the board edge. All even before they moved.

4) The Dark elf player offered a re-roll for all units that fled off the board. The Bret player re-rolled and failed 2 and then both players decided it would be best to restart
- effectively conceding the game

Kahadras
29-10-2008, 12:13
Kahadras: how fun would it be to stand around behind terrain for a game and then leave, after getting there, making armylist and unpack all your stuff? not worth the time.

Because unpacking your army and setting up doesn't take that long IMHO and the game should take even less time. The outrage that you're not just going to march into the teeth of his firepower is pretty enjoyable as well. If you refuse to play him and pack up then he can still chalk it up as a win 'I'm so awesome my opponant wouldn't even play me for fear of my brilliant tactics'. By grinding out some draws at least I can point out that Gunlines don't have a particularly good record against me.

Kahadras

Lord Malorne
29-10-2008, 12:22
That is just stereotyping gunline players.

Frankly
29-10-2008, 12:29
Because unpacking your army and setting up doesn't take that long IMHO and the game should take even less time. The outrage that you're not just going to march into the teeth of his firepower is pretty enjoyable as well. If you refuse to play him and pack up then he can still chalk it up as a win 'I'm so awesome my opponant wouldn't even play me for fear of my brilliant tactics'. By grinding out some draws at least I can point out that Gunlines don't have a particularly good record against me.

Kahadras


How many times have you actually done this?

Kahadras
29-10-2008, 12:46
How many times have you actually done this?

Going total turtle? Twice to date. If I think I can win the game then I'll go for it but if the chance of getting across the table alive look non existant then I'll just head for draw city. Fortuanatly the gaming group that I attend nowadays doesn't really go in for such list building shenanigans so the need for me to use such boring tactics have disappeared.

Kahadras

EvC
29-10-2008, 14:04
That's a good point. In my game I could have just moved my troops backwards, reformed all units into one long line and tried to hide, and then let him spend 6 turns blasting at me, praying for a misfire followed by a double 1. I'm sure that would have been a great use of our time ;)

Angelwing
29-10-2008, 19:23
Well, I'll ask my opponent if he wishes to carry on if I've been beaten to a point where there is nothing much left on the board (eg a couple of skeletons here and there that will take my opponent a couple of turns to reach).

I won't concede against a list I know I won't beat (with the exception of wacky dice rolls). I'll make my own objectives (eg kill the enemy general, get a unit to my opponents board edge etc) or turn turtle, waiting for an opportunity to present itself, whilst hoping the dice turn against my opponent.
Opponents can't expect you to play to their armies strengths (ie walk into the gunline to be shot, or charge the frenzied warriors of choppy death), so if they get frustrated by your tactics to counter their army, then it's their turn to come up with something different. Simply conceding against such lists is wrong in the sense that nobody learns from it.

So, for me:
Conceding is fine in the death throes of a game when continuing would be a time wasting exercise or when a series of outrageous dice rolls result in one army being made unplayable in the first turn (army wide panic etc). A restart in this case would be good. Both players should agree that conceding is the best option.

I can understand why some people concede against opponents that simply annoy them (mannerisms, rudeness, cheating etc). In such a situation, I'd probably play on, but not play them again. I'd have to be pretty insulted to concede the game and walk away.

Morentez
29-10-2008, 21:08
i conceded last night after all 4 of my gorgers that came on the table fluffed their attacks and died after one turn of being there, almost my entire magic phase died out horribly, skragg was killing 2 zombies a turn and stuck in combat, and out of an entire rank of ironguts, i hit with one attack and failed to wound against black knights... not to mention i had a vhargulf on each flank of my army (one of which had taken 20 leadbelcher shots and lost NO wounds)

thats the sort of game i just concede before i stress out

Zoolander
29-10-2008, 23:21
I would say never give up. I have had far too many games where the last turn or two changed the outcome dramatically. I'll give you two examples:

1) I once played a game similar to your game, with my Bret army to my opponent's dwarven gunline, complete with AoD. Suffice to say, all my units of knights were destroyed before they reached the other side of the table. However, my three characters lived, and I'll be damned but they not only made it across the table without their units, they ended up killing nearly everything in site in the last 2 turns. I believe he had 2 war machines left, and half a unit of thunderers or something, which were just getting into combat with my men-at-arms. Massacre for the Brets.

If I had given up, he would have felt bad for playing such a horrible list and making me quit, and I would have felt bad for not have played a good game. However, the excitement and determination of such a game made the game all worth while. I was biting my nails for 4 turns! But then things changed...

2) I was facing a close game with my mortal chaos army versus a skaven SAD. Not a good army to go up against with a khorne-based army, let me tell you. However, though he had a slight upper hand on me, my giant managed to get across the table unscathed, and the following turn, 3 of his units, including his general, fled off the table from terror, giving me a slight victory.

So, IMHO, never give up! With a game based a lot on chance, there is no reason NOT to stay and play. It all depends on your outlook on the game (and possibly at life). I look at games like that as a challenge, and I try to beat the odds against poor matchups. If I win, I feel a sense of pride for what I accomplished. If I lose, I really lose nothing, and at least I had fun trying, and possibly I even learned something new, so walk away with more knowledge and pride that at least I tried where lesser men might have given up on turn 1. But that's just me.

Please note signature...

EvC
30-10-2008, 00:49
I think if I were using an army that could charge everything on turn two, I might've stuck around too ;)

Edonil
30-10-2008, 01:10
The only time I've conceded without being mostly wiped out is during a campaign. Lizardmen heavy infantry list against dancing wood elves with lots of tree singing. I played three games against him, with as many modifications as I was allowed to due to 1) cost in cash and 2) rules of campaign. I got into combat once. So, when we were going to play for a fourth time, I said 'nope.' Oddly enough, he understood perfectly, lol. Still, I try to avoid giving up- even though it's unlikely, there's that odd chance that I'll pull it off. Took my Chaos at a tourney last week, and wiped out a siegeline, which I've never seen happen before. And that was the army I was worried about playing gunlines with!

MarcoPollo
30-10-2008, 16:56
I try to take pride in fighting a loosing battle. This requires me to work hard and use unusual tactics, which I can use later in a tourney or something. And in my opinion, gunline tactics are the most boring (right next to mage councils). Games with lots of movement, strikes and counter strikes are the games that I like to play. So i design my gaming lists accordingly.

And if I happen to have to play a gunline game, I try to teach those players a lesson. If you want to stand around and roll dice go play yahtzee. If you want a rich experience, then get your models moving.

Granted, some people who start fantasy don't realize how much of a bore gunline games can be. Because they haven't played with many other styles. So that is fine, they are learning, and I can be patient. But if I am playing an experienced player who uses a mega gunline, then I will try to take the fight to him.

As for conceding, only when every avenue is exhausted and prolonging the game would not benefit myself, my opponent, or other people waiting for a table to play on. Otherwise, fight on.

Colonel Fitzgerald
31-10-2008, 14:23
I conceeded to Voltaire the other day - I was using Dwarves, he was using Chaos. I HAD IT IN THE BAG - just had to make a LD test on LD 9 using one dice (so, autopass then) then charge in for the win on my turn, right after the test. I just FORGOT to use the rune I'd paid for. Doh! Naturally, 11 smiled up at me. Bye bye went about 600 victory points in one go, the whole left flank & any chance I had of winning, so I called it there. He said about playing on as if I had used the rune, coz he's nice like that, but I was so disgusted with myself I put the Dwarves away & began to brood on it like Sean Penn..

vash1313
31-10-2008, 16:39
I have conceded a few times, but it depends more on who I am playing rather than if I am losing. If I am getting my butt handed to me but my opponent is being a good sport about it and having fun, then I am having fun. If my opponent is acting like an immature ass, I am likely to pick up my figs and call the game. If I am winning, it is less likely because it is somewhat satisfying to ruin that persons Christmas, but there have been times were I conceded while winning just because the other person made it difficult to have a good time. I play this for fun, win or lose. If winning was my biggest concern then there are a lot more balanced games out there to play. I hear chess masters get way more props then Gamesday champs. Luckily I have a pretty large group of tight knit people that I game with consistently and we generally take a more gentlemanly approach to gaming against each other.

One thing that has gotten me to concede in the past is if my opponent is cheating - consistently and deliberately. I have no desire to spend the entire game making sure that my opponent is not breaking the rules at every opportunity. There have been a few times where I have simply quit and told the person that if winning is so important that they resort to cheating then what is the point of even playing? They should of just told me before the game what they intended to do and I would give them the victory and save myself the time and aggravation.

Ubermensch Commander
31-10-2008, 17:38
I do not accept the justification "gunlines are no fun" as a reason to concede. It isn't fun for Dwarves to sacrifice a part of their army that is both thematic and effective. Dwarves cannot reliably CATCH any other unit in the game and rather than just SIT there and let the enemy do as they please (believe me, that is no fun at all) they take guns to help make up for their low mobility just as Dark Elves take Magic and Big Ciitters or RBT's to make up for their low toughness and armor.
I see the Dark Elf player has brought an army of all cavalry and hordes of sorceresses. Should I quit because I did not bring enough guns or I know he is gonna run circles around me?
You may hate getting shot but that is not reason enough to concede.
Well, I hate Undead restoring wounds, doesn't mean I will not play them.
Now if the game was well and truly lost and you had to be somewhere or could start up another game, these are good reasons to concede, IMO.

Desert Rain
31-10-2008, 17:39
I have nerver ever conceded a game. Enven if I face almost certain defet I carry on, a mistake from my opponent might give me an unforseen opportunity. I also try to complete personal objectives like Angelwing wrote earlier. You can have a funny game even if you are loosing.

EvC
31-10-2008, 17:46
Althoug I am certain OP didn't mean it to sound this way, what I got out of this post was "ahhhh I hate when I get shot! I am done."

I may just have this engraved on my tombstone.

Caine Mangakahia
06-05-2009, 21:52
I once thought conceding was a terrible way to end the game, but I have to admit that I conceded during a game at the beginning of turn two.
Shocking I know
VC vs WoC game, my opponant had Villich and his other Infernal Puppet wizard bunkered (in a unit) on the other side of the board inside a tower, then he casts IG with irresistable force and rolls an 11 for strength and kills my General inside a GG unit with another vampire hero,
Then casts Pandemonium which I fail to dispel
I still have a unit of Ghouls and my BSB and Manfred acolyte left 2 Units Zombies and 3 Wraiths left.
I study the board for a moment then shake my opponants hand and congratulate him on a sound win.
Now neither of us enjoyed the game, but that was not due to any fault of either of us. Neither of us was a bad General or made glaring errors which decided the game, he played the IF strategy and it paid off for him and I applaud him for it.
As much as I hate conceding, it was a foregone conclusion how the game would end. I would have to endure crumbling and a magical onslaught while enduring a physical assault from the rest of his army, and then have to assault a building with whatever is left.
IG is stupid (I would have just added 6 additional hits for an 11 or 12) and GW developers can be ****** sometimes, but the spell is written that way and and I accept it, cest la vie.
Heres the point, if I was forced to play the game through, I would probably have a harder time watching my opponant gloat over my inevitable demise and then shaking his hand at the end (as it was he insisted on playing it out by himself to see how much I crumbeled while I watched another game. Some people are like that, but if thats what gets you hard so be it).
As it was I was able to shake my opponants hand and walk away with congratulations and a shrug saying the dice are like that sometimes.

Rolo Ramone
06-05-2009, 22:23
Itīs Alive!!!!!

Caine Mangakahia
06-05-2009, 23:24
Yeah, i know I'm resurrecting a long dead thread, but what do you expect? I'm an undead player :)
I could have started a new one titled "Infernal Gateway is a f@#$%!* stupid spell and a great way to ruin a game" but this one seemed much more appropriate.
I was surprised to see an old tread of mine brought back to life recently.

W0lf
06-05-2009, 23:26
Call me crazy but im kind of fond of the models in my army.

If im clearly losing id rather concede then watch my whole army die :)

Shiodome
07-05-2009, 01:13
yeah, heaven forbid your opponent see the models they're fond of earn victory. quitting in a 2 player game is selfish, you have every opportunity to find out if it's the kind of game you want to play before models are put on the table, and before anyone's time is wasted... quitting a few turns in, once your opponent looks like he's winning is just weak and slightly laughable.

Gork or Possibly Mork
07-05-2009, 01:55
I have nerver ever conceded a game. Enven if I face almost certain defet I carry on, a mistake from my opponent might give me an unforseen opportunity. I also try to complete personal objectives like Angelwing wrote earlier. You can have a funny game even if you are loosing.

Same here. I had games before where every one of my models died by the end but after it looking bad early I made goals to atleast make thier win not so easy.

I had games where it looked like I was finished early but somehow snatched victory from the jaws of defeat with a lot of skill ( but mostly good luck for me and horrible for my opponent ). These were some of the most fun games I ever had and Im glad to have lost some so badly to pull off a few that seemed impossible.

Caine Mangakahia
07-05-2009, 02:37
yeah, heaven forbid your opponent see the models they're fond of earn victory. quitting in a 2 player game is selfish, you have every opportunity to find out if it's the kind of game you want to play before models are put on the table, and before anyone's time is wasted... quitting a few turns in, once your opponent looks like he's winning is just weak and slightly laughable.

A fair opinion and I would agree with you on most occassions. I will often play a game when I'm clearly losing and will endure..
But its very situational, theres a difference between quitting because things aren't going your way and conceding because the end of the game is a foregone conclusion.
I have no problem letting my opponants models earn a victory, but theres the rub, in this case my opponants models, didn't ean a victory, a single model a lucky roll and a stupid spell earned him the victory at the start of turn two. After that , everyone else was pretty much a bystander (and my undead could be classified as landfill)
In this case, due to army compositions (neither of which were particularly bad) and terrain setup, my role in the game would have been pretty much reuced to moving my models slowly forward and knocking them over as they died to magic and crumbling. While I'm sure my opponant might enjoy gloating over my continuous misfortune, personally I would find it unenjoyable in the extreme and a strain on my normally amiable temperament.
my opponant even played a couple of turns as VC and in the end admitted doing so was pointless. If time had allowed I would have preferred a replay (which is a better way to settle things) , but we were running late as it is.
We pretty much decided that while it was a dissapointing end to an anticipated game, the fault didn't really lie with the players, it was with the rules themselves (VC General crumbling and IG) and the roll of the die.

Kevlar
07-05-2009, 07:44
I've had a lucky roll on my screaming bell panic half my opponent's army off the field before he got out of his deployment zone. I didn't have a problem with him conceding. Do people really want to spend two hours mopping up a bunch of scattered and helpless troops?

daemonkin
07-05-2009, 08:55
Never conceded, don't like to deny my opponent the satisfaction of crushing me utterly. The game is a 2-player game, not just for 1 person to enjoy.

I never give up as there may be a chance to turn the tide.

Bloodbowl is a good game for potentially obliterating your opponent only to fail 1 roll and have victory snatched from your grasp. I was down 3-0 and looking at a major defeat 1 game after winning the Spike trophy. I persevered and managed a 3-2 loss but really hurt my opponent's team in the process and actually won more money than he did at the end of the match.

Another game, WHFB, first roll of the game and my Slaanesh Daemon Prince miscasts and has his head blow off taking 1/4 of my army's points with him. My opponent gracefully asks if I want to start again. I said 'No' and carried on. Although he won in the end it was a good experience playing against an opponent with numerical advantage. I almost won as well!

D.

OldMan
07-05-2009, 10:04
We don't mind conceding, when it is arleady obvious what the outcome will be.
But still, surrendering in the first turn is rude. You can never tell what will happen in next few turns.
I remember a 1500 battle, where in first turn my Skaven blow up a whole unit of HE archers, over a half unit of swordmen and paniced a unit of silver helms after killing 2 out of 5. ( yes i was playing :( ) . One unlucky dice roll and two mistakes later HE pull out minor victory after exciting and bloody battle.

The Red Scourge
07-05-2009, 10:43
Continuing with a onesided slaughterfest holds just as much amusement as playing a gunline. Pick up dice, roll, remove casualties, yawn.

It might be a game involving dice, but relying on luck to win would be equal to playing Ludo.

PeG
07-05-2009, 10:57
I have not conceeded so far but I have offered my opponent to stop playing and start again. The latest occasion was a 2250 points WE against skaven and the rats had a bad day. WE got a hill so could shoot weapons teams etc and on turn 3 a forest dragon (my first and only game so far bringing it) landed among the rats and caused chain panic. At that point it was obvious that it was going to be 3 turns of mopping up (if any of the rats actually decided to stay on the table) and I though it would be better to start over.

Da GoBBo
07-05-2009, 11:03
In my group we nearly allways concede when it's really abvious who's gonna win. Some battles are a close call to the very end, those are the best, but others will involve pure luck to turn the tide. If your able to put yourself into such a advantageous position, your the winner in our book and so we call it a day. I don't think we ever really know by turn 2. This way we can play another game (change some tactics, see who's on top then) or go to the pub above the store early :D Also, every ones in a while we play 2 days straight, so you just want to play as much as possible.

Darkspear
07-05-2009, 11:12
I never concede a game once, although there is once where my opponent said we should end the game coz there is no longer any hope for me (had a few units left vs a gunline). Although I agree to that arrangement, I also mentioned later that i do not like conceding. Neither of us concede a game to each other for the next 7 years...

I hate conceding, it felt like stealing a victory from the victor. Not everybody concede due to the opponents' armylist, there are people who concede because they are totally outsmarted, outplayed. I also want to re-emphasize something that others have mentioned... conceding means that the opponent may not have time for another game later in the evening.

Anyway why concede? If you have only 1 or 2 models left, it will not take long to finish u up anyway. Usually when I know that I am going to lose big, I will change my plans to make sure i kill as many enemies as possible...go with a BANG!

Nicha11
07-05-2009, 11:14
I will occasinaly conceed.

If there are 3 turns to go and all i have left is my flying hero,then he's just going to journey deep into the difficult terrain.

And then were is the fun for both parties? The game should stop when both players rationally decide it is no longer enjoyable.

Darkspear
07-05-2009, 11:21
I will occasinaly conceed.

If there are 3 turns to go and all i have left is my flying hero,then he's just going to journey deep into the difficult terrain.

And then were is the fun for both parties? The game should stop when both players rationally decide it is no longer enjoyable.

That is the difference. Some players will choose to hide their last playing pieces, other will think about how much damage they can do with their last soldier.

W0lf
07-05-2009, 11:31
yeah, heaven forbid your opponent see the models they're fond of earn victory. quitting in a 2 player game is selfish, you have every opportunity to find out if it's the kind of game you want to play before models are put on the table, and before anyone's time is wasted... quitting a few turns in, once your opponent looks like he's winning is just weak and slightly laughable.

If i were to reply as i would like, id probably get banned :).

Luckily i play with mates outsude of tournys and in both cases they arnt bothered about conceeding. Most people dont need to clear the enemy of the board to get the pleasure of a game/win. Obviously you do. Ive never had a problem with anyone conceeding to me as warhammer is about having a fun game and ultimatly winning.

If you'd rather play vs someone who spends 5-6th turn shooting you with skinks you cant catch or hiding ratehr then pack up early and ether get another game in or go get a drink then more fool you.

Harwammer
07-05-2009, 11:55
I took a deathstar against a wizard I knew had infernal gateway and lost

I'm not saying you're a bad general, but didn't you think of maybe employing a different strategy against villich, i.e spreading your points across multiple units?

If this was not possible because you didn't select enough units to spread out your characters and took little protection against crumbling then I'm not going to bother critisizing your list because it seems built to hope for the best an just quit if the worst happens, which I suppose is a viable strat (big wins or big losses/conceeds only).

Whitehorn
07-05-2009, 12:16
I have never conceded a game early - perhaps on the last one or two turns if failure was certain and perhaps time rushed.

It is a shame to see people concede against me, but it's only ever been through sheer luck or stupidity that caused it - I once hellcannoned a Vampire general on the first turn and he conceded without playing.

I don't play power lists, just strive towards competitive or experimental, so that contributes to people not conceding against me. I'd like to think I win games through competence and strategy.

I have obviously played some games that simply were not fun. Similar to EvC, I used an Orc horde against some tough Dwarf missile fire. Poor luck with animosity/fanatics (being unbale to charge Dwarves that were 2 inches away... Black Orc bosses killing half my units) and some nasty shooting really made the game un-enjoyability and couldn't be recovered.

urien
07-05-2009, 12:26
Mainly as they're denying me a full game of warhammer and its rarely due to them not enjoying the game any considerable amount, more due to their chance of winning becomming slimmer than they would like it to be.

it's the same reasons, but for me it;s the opposite, i am going to concede every game in tournament to a couple of persons and armies like demons, i'm not going to play theyre game,

they're denying me a full game of warhammer, there's no reason to play some powerbuilds when youre there to have fun,

im known for stubbornes and not giving up in my group, but some ppl take games to the extreme, especially younger ones are not fun at all.

Cheers,
Urien

CauCaSus
07-05-2009, 19:16
I've had a lucky roll on my screaming bell panic half my opponent's army off the field before he got out of his deployment zone. I didn't have a problem with him conceding. Do people really want to spend two hours mopping up a bunch of scattered and helpless troops?

Agreed.

I will never expect anyone to waste 2 hours of their life if they don't have any fun playing just like I will never waste 2 hours of MY life if I'm not having fun.

Believe it or not, there is more to life than shoving around little plastic men on a table and having it feel like a chore.

Of course, it would be up to each player when enough is enough. If he put all his faith in a Big Basket of Eggs (tm) and I accidentily manage to cripple it on the first turn, then thats his problem. Hopefully he'll recognize his mistake and I might give him another try with a new list.

Nuada
07-05-2009, 19:36
It's happened to me the other way around a month ago.

My opponent had a thorek gunline. In his first turn thorek blew up, and a stone thrower and two organ guns destroyed themselves. Very unlucky.

I suggested we start again. He didn't want to, but eventually he accepted. I'd rather have a competitive, but enjoyable game

GuyLeCheval
07-05-2009, 20:07
I give up when I battle against Thorek and I manage to do that 2 weeks before the battle. How?

Declining the offer to battle against Thorek is my secret. (And that of many others;))


I give up everytime he offers me a game and shows that list.

Gork or Possibly Mork
07-05-2009, 20:37
I give up when I battle against Thorek and I manage to do that 2 weeks before the battle. How?

Declining the offer to battle against Thorek is my secret. (And that of many others;))


I give up everytime he offers me a game and shows that list.

The first time I played thorek he blew up on the first turn. I thought hmm whats all the fuss about he isn't so bad. Second time I soon realized what all the complaints were about.

Back to topic.
Although I have never conceded if I had run into some of the sitiuations in this thread I probably would have. It just never came up in any games I played. Every game I had was close enough for me to come back or when it was pretty much impossible to comeback it was already turn 5 or 6 so I just finished the game. Like I said though I had games where it was looking really bad early but I managed to hold on and my opponents had bad luck sometimes to allow for a really miraculous come back. If I had a game where it was all bad for me and all good for them and 75% of my army was gone by the beginning of turn 4. Yeah I'd concede if it gets pointless but if theres even the smallest hope I can win or atleast pull off a draw ( without hiding and just being a bore ) then I will continue on.

Caine Mangakahia
07-05-2009, 20:48
I'm not saying you're a bad general, but didn't you think of maybe employing a different strategy against villich, i.e spreading your points across multiple units?

If this was not possible because you didn't select enough units to spread out your characters and took little protection against crumbling then I'm not going to bother critisizing your list because it seems built to hope for the best an just quit if the worst happens, which I suppose is a viable strat (big wins or big losses/conceeds only).

I seem to have been misquoted somewhere.
While my general was in the graveguard unit, my BSB and other character were in a ghoul unit, tough but hardly a deathstar. Of the 4 infantry units only two of them could contain characters. I'm not quite sure what else I could have done, apart form depoleyed more thatn 24" away until Vilich came out of his building , but that would have benn pretty boring.
I play a pretty balanced list with an even mix of combat magic and support and my list has plenty of options, I think it would be fairer to say that my opponants list was built to hope for Gateway and wins big/loses big depending on the eventuality.
For the record I ran something like

VCount
Gilded Curias, Sword Kings, Cursed Book , Crown Damned
Eternal Hatred, Extra Level (Lvl 4 Total) Summon Ghouls, Dreadknight

MAnfredd with Skulstaff

Vampire Knight, Hatred Helm Command

Wight BSB Drakenhof

19 GG with GW

14 Ghouls

2 x 20 Zombies

9 DW

2 Carts with BF

3 Wraith with Banshee

Pretty mild on PD as far as VC can go, no real bunkers, whole army designed to be in combat. After General dies Pandemonium Spell followed and army crumbled big time (this happens immediatly after the General dies remember. What would you have suggested?

Shiodome
07-05-2009, 20:56
If i were to reply as i would like, id probably get banned :).

Luckily i play with mates outsude of tournys and in both cases they arnt bothered about conceeding. Most people dont need to clear the enemy of the board to get the pleasure of a game/win. Obviously you do. Ive never had a problem with anyone conceeding to me as warhammer is about having a fun game and ultimatly winning.

If you'd rather play vs someone who spends 5-6th turn shooting you with skinks you cant catch or hiding ratehr then pack up early and ether get another game in or go get a drink then more fool you.

well i play O&G's only, so it's normally me receiving the beating :P my games are 50/50 vs friends/pick up games against strangers... over the years packing up as soon as the result is certain either way would have missed many many memorable last stands, comedy moments and even comebacks against all odds. the game aint over until it's over! (unless you quit that is... ;) )

Ironstone Doomhammer
07-05-2009, 21:12
I have too much pride to give up, I'll fight to the last Dwarf. Even if I know it's going incredibly bad, I'll never give up. I've never been tabled either, it's always ended at the 6th turn, whether it be a a win, loss, or draw I've always had fun fighting with that last unit of Slayers.

To me though, it's fun until someone starts whining. Once they're whining about losing, then I'd rather them just concede because I hate to hear that. Have fun with the game even if you're losing.

The only thing I don't like is when people laugh at other's misfortunes, dice rolls, tactics. Although they might not be as good as yours, there's no reason to snicker.

Chaos and Evil
07-05-2009, 21:38
I've conceeded a few times, and have had opponents conceed.

Warhammer & Warhammer 40,000 being what they are (Pretty unbalanced), you're eventually going to come up against an army list combination which you cannot beat...

...if you're two turns in and you can see the way the game's going to go, why not conceed, then play an army against which you actually stand a chance?

lparigi34
07-05-2009, 22:05
To the OP. I would have keep that one going.

In a similar game I was playing Orcs, by turn 2 half my army was running amok, but when my Orcs got to reach the Dwarfs, they smashed all the machines pretty quickly.

Anyway, I guess you did not want to be specific about the situation, so I agree, I would concede if my opponent brings in a no-fun army. Thorek, Archaon and some others are a no-go for me, since I am never prepared for them as I never bring the cheese into the party.

lparigi34
07-05-2009, 22:10
I've conceeded a few times, and have had opponents conceed.

Warhammer & Warhammer 40,000 being what they are (Pretty unbalanced), you're eventually going to come up against an army list combination which you cannot beat...

...if you're two turns in and you can see the way the game's going to go, why not concede, then play an army against which you actually stand a chance?

Sometimes the game goes one way or the other for chance and tactical issues. I was playing once against some Beast of Chaos (me playing Orcs), my greenskins were all ripped apart in a way that even my opponent decided that it was best for me to concede and start a new game.

So, with the time saved, we played a second game, same armies, same table setup, same sides. That second game is still one of the funniest I've ever played.

Da GoBBo
07-05-2009, 23:50
Luckily i play with mates outsude of tournys and in both cases they arnt bothered about conceeding. Most people dont need to clear the enemy of the board to get the pleasure of a game/win. Obviously you do. Ive never had a problem with anyone conceeding to me as warhammer is about having a fun game and ultimatly winning.

I totally agree on that one and to be frank I'm kind of suprised by the animosity I'm sensing on this thread (and I'm a greenskin). It's a stra-te-gy-game. Part of that is knowing when your beat. It takes a good general to corner and beat ye, but it takes a good general, who knows his ladz, to know when when such is the case as well. It takes a good general to admit that he has been bested at his own game. Also, it takes a good general to aknowledge that very fact when his opponent conceeds, even when both players have half their armies left.
Warhammer is strategygame, its goal: to best people and have a lot of fun doin so. It doesn't take a whiped table to end the game. The game ends when someone has the other beat and if this happens on the 2nd or 3rd turn, so be it. Play another round. You could of course play on till the very last turn/model because Shiodome is absolutly right. Lots of weird stuff can happen during that time. Extreme whackiness can turn the tide. Strategics? No. Luck? yes. Fun? Hell yeh! :p

Harwammer
08-05-2009, 12:22
/army build/

Sorry, I was pretty presumptuous to say death star; I heard gg+lord+vamp in one unit and bells went (falsely) ringing. Still, I wouldn't like to go to battle with 4 expensive characters and only a couple of units to put them in.


and man! Having pandemonium cast on your VS with a dead general... *shudders at the thought of the crumbling!* I didn't even think of that. Nasty.

Anyway, I'm sorry for being so mean earlier; it was bad of me and I was being rather assuming over your army build.

Sorry :(

Caine Mangakahia
09-05-2009, 00:06
Its a fair assumption, I'll even admit that the deathstar option is kept open depending on the situation (chaos knight bearing down on the GG might see the BSB scoot over if the chance is allowed). I prefer to have the two combat units though (standarsd in one and lord in the other) GG can usually get by without the banner and Ghouls benefit from the added protection.

Ertle
09-05-2009, 02:12
My opinion is that conceding just wastes everybody's time. Like someone said earlier in this thread no one wants to hear about the game where your opponent conceded. So my advice say a prayer to the Emperor and get stuck in.

Luckywallace
09-05-2009, 08:32
I have never actually done anything like that before but I can totally understand it and sympathise with conceding if the game is looking to be just a complete bore.

At the end of the day, Warhammer is a hobby you have chosen to get involved in, any games you play are ones that you have chosen to play. The reason you are doing all of this is for fun and if you are set to be involved in a game which is just not going to be any fun (for whatever reason, be it army composition, opponent being an irritating ***** or maybe if it is the middle of the winter and the venue you are playing in has no central heating) then I don't see what is 'wrong' about gracefully bowing out of such a game.

Having a tempor tantrum is not the same and is rather out of order...

King Vyper
09-05-2009, 11:03
This thread provides good evidence on why WHFB needs an Army Level Bottle Test.

Historically most armies would quit the field after losing more then 50% of there troops.

And everyone needs to cut the Dwarf players some slack. I really wonder what people around here consider an balanced Dwarf Army.

Condottiere
09-05-2009, 11:19
I think that historically armies quit much sooner than that. In fact, suffering 10% casualties (total) is considered a bad result, since it tends to add up.

W0lf
09-05-2009, 11:37
Yes 50% is an horrific casualty rate.

Historically ALOT of armies quit before the battle began, if two armies met and one was clearly superiour to the other they would quit the field. Kinda reminds me of Daemons vs Orcs N Gobbos as a matter of fact ^^

Gazak Blacktoof
09-05-2009, 12:22
50% is an horrific casualty rate but it depends which time period you're talking about as to how quickly an army loses its nerve and exactly what the repercussions of losing the battle would be.

In warhammer you're not going to receive the same quality of treatment after surrender as the ancient Greeks would expect.

W0lf
09-05-2009, 12:25
Yes ofc, it also depends what they were fighting for.

Civil wars are known to often have huge casulty rates as are wars fought over religion/monarchy.

Shiodome
09-05-2009, 12:37
you need to get over the link you've made in your head wolf, that people against conceding think that way because they want to annihilate their opponents. the point has been made several times that it's often that the player doesn't concede because they don't want to deny their opponent their fun... if the opponent is trashing me and says "let's call it a day, i've clearly won" i'll normally ask to play on because personally i like the 'stand to the last man' type scenario... but if the opponent is clear that they won't enjoy grinding my last few units to dust then fair's fair and we call it a day.

really don't see how you went from "i don't concede when losing" to "i like to see all my opponents units crushed when winning". the two are almost opposites. simply, some people enjoy 'hopeless last stands', and for them the games enjoyment isn't limited to the determination of the victor... once the victor is clear there's still fun to be had!

Condottiere
09-05-2009, 12:43
Surprise upsets have happened (think Liverpool), but not normally in the endgame, unless someone really screws up.

EvC
09-05-2009, 14:04
really don't see how you went from "i don't concede when losing" to "i like to see all my opponents units crushed when winning". the two are almost opposites.

For evidence of why you're wrong (despite that we'd like you to be right), look at the winrate of the last person who whined about people conceding.

Anyway, W0lf is correct. Can you imagine people getting upset if you resigned in a game of chess? Social retards would be putting it mildly!

Shamfrit
09-05-2009, 14:12
I never resign in chess, even if it's just my king left...

Namely because I know the Stonemate/Stalemate rules :D

Gorbad Ironclaw
09-05-2009, 15:37
My opinion is that conceding just wastes everybody's time. Like someone said earlier in this thread no one wants to hear about the game where your opponent conceded.

Sometimes playing the game is wasting everybody's time. No one wants to hear about a game that's effectively over after deployment.

I've had a few games like that with my Dark Elves (with the previous book); where I knew after deployment that baring some really bad mistake on my part I had won. Not because of any tactical brilliance on my part or anything just that I faced something that couldn't deal with my army (specifically two separate OnG armies facing my Dragon).

That doesn't make for terribly interesting games either and I can certainly see why you sometimes would go "this is a waste of time, you win".

Da GoBBo
09-05-2009, 18:14
I never resign in chess, even if it's just my king left...

Namely because I know the Stonemate/Stalemate rules :D

Aah, but this is somewhat different from a lot of situations in warhammer where me and my mates dů concede. If you can still pull off a stalemate, you have to think very carefully every step of the way and its all about strategics.

In warhammer though, situations like this arise. Your oponent has gotten a lucky break and suddenly a fast cav unit positioned itself to its rear, a hammer unit to the flank and big blocks are blocking you from front. Some units are locked and you have no space to manouvre. You know next turn your army is gonna get charged to tiny pieces and nothing short of extremly unlikly dicerolling is gonna make it otherwise. Your done, your through and you know it. A lot of people I know would rather play a new game and use their time to make sure a hopeless situation like this doesn't happen next time. We like rolling dice, but we like thinking strategy more.


For all you cry babies that just give up, cause you cant win, why bother playing? this game is a war game, and you cant win everything, and in real life, armies dont win every encounter they go into

I'd like to alaborate on this especially for Kill-Freedom (quote) and people like him. In the above example, the one who gives up doesn't give up because "he can't win", he just aknowledged the fact that has lost.

Of course there are other situations, like a very unfavourable position after deployment. I'v never seen something like that happen but I do agree with others that ye should at least give it a shot. Ye can still surprise your opponent and give him a hard time. With enough lcuk ye might even draw :D

Giving up because your dragonprinces got redirected sounds childish to me.

EvC
09-05-2009, 19:44
I've started using a new VC list (With a Dragon~~~), and so far I've had 2 games. First one my opponent conceded turn 2. He had lost:
2 x 10 Glade Guard
2 x 8 Dryads
4 Treekin
Spellsinger (general)
Alter Highborn
And next turn my Lord could easily have killed his Treeman thanks to Flaming lance. I couldn't fault him for giving up. My second game was against a friendly Daemon list, and after a mistake by my opponent gave my Knights free reign to zoom up the flank of his MSU setup by turn 2, he said it was game over, and played on. With the very last roll of the game on turn 6, I sent his last mode, his Daemon Prince, screaming back to the warp. A great game, and I learnt a lot more about fighting Daemons, but how much fun was it for him to keep playing on, I don't know. I certainly wouldn't have minded if he'd given up, say, turn 4 when I got his Sundering BSB, but if he had given up after losing 1 unit of Fiends, then I'd have thought it was a bit silly...

W0lf
09-05-2009, 23:43
Anyway, W0lf is correct. Can you imagine people getting upset if you resigned in a game of chess? Social retards would be putting it mildly!

My p/m box begs to differ :D

Oh and shiodome if you like last stands you can play them. The loser is the one who conceeds. For a winner to suggest his opponent to concede would be rude imo.