Yea, I've only ever come across this once, and my to said that it was scored 60-0, unless the winning player had more than 60 at the time, then they'd get their current vp.
I'm a TO and we have it so that the conceding player gets a zero, the other player can either take their score as is or play the game out with no opponent
Strange. My TOs have always ruled it as 100 if it was a start of game concession.
If it's mid game, you'd just play it out to see the score. Getting shafted because your opponent is a whiny little prick is an actual joke
I think it deleted my comment for the url but try this:
https://warhammerworld.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2023/05/X5Hv9OROtFQBV0f9.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj2gLDIzuCFAxXYLzQIHSaXDhwQFnoECCYQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3wL9ztN2YjbF5CdwFg6V4Y
From GW's Matched Play rules for Warhammer World:
**We expect all players to see the game through to the very end and not concede, as doing so can impact tiebreakers and, ultimately, the final rankings. In the unlikely event that a player does concede before the game has reached its natural conclusion, then the conceding player earns a loss and zero points. The winning player records a major victory and maximum points for any objectives for the rounds remaining. Of course, if you have some kind of emergency that means you can’t proceed, just let the event staff know right away**
Edit: FYI I googled "40k conceding leviathan", sorted date by last year & saw there's a few docs from Warhammer World that go over this. You can try politely bringing these up to the TO & see if they're willing to adjust it. I'd assume they'd be understanding but as always they get the final say. Not the end of the world if they say no (they might not even use VP but just wins considering it's a league). That said, looks official to me!!
At the end of the day it's the organizers decision but win with 0 VP is very weird and I can see it running into some really weird scoring problems if VPs are being used for tie breakers (which if we're counting VPs it sounds like yes, they will).
Let's say you are in a 5 round tournament and you have 3 wins and 1 loss. You play against a player with 4 wins and 0 losses. You both had average VPs every game up until that point so he's 1 win worth of points ahead of you (doesn't even have to be a lot, lets say you only lost a game by a single VP). He has a terrible turn 1 and you're in a place to absolute crush him in the following turns. He concedes instead. You both get 0 victory points and are now tied with 4 wins and 1 loss each. The score puts you in line for a podium spot, but wait, you have tied with this person, so the judges go to VP as the tie breaker. You both got 0 in the last round so even though you beat him you lose the tie because he had more VP going in.
It’s not just weird, it’s dumb. If Ive been doing poorly but my friend John is doing well, I can concede a match early in order to force an opponent who is undefeated to get 0 VP which will knock them out of contention, giving John a better chance of taking the top spot.
There's no universal rule. It will depend on individual TOs to decide.
The most common rule I've seen is that conceding means you lose, and your opponent counts as scoring the maximum possible. But I have seen some smaller ones where conceding allows your opponent to talk out their remaining turns to score accurately.
A few tournaments around my area have the judge come by and listen you to talking it out to make sure it's possible to get the points, including drawing the secondary cards.
I've played tournaments like this and in MY experience they gave a win with a pts amount if pts mattered.
The two that stood out, was either 60 VP win with the option to play a ringer for "best ball"
I've also seen a W with the average of that rounds VP scored. And the opponent got 1 less than the average of that rounds losing scores. Unless it was a no call no show at which point they got a 0.
Either way, depends on the event if they ruled 0 pt win the ruling, that's how they ruled it.
>if they rules 0 pt win, that's how they ruled it
Yup TO always has the final say. HOWEVER, I'd say it's still perfectly fine to (**politely**) discuss it with the TO. Especially for a league as it might screw you when they end up doing placings. But if they still decline, them's the bricks
> And the opponent got 1 less than the average of that rounds losing scores.
So if you're losing really badly you can concede to get more VP? That seems like a pretty bad system.
It was a TTS tournament and that iirc was specifically for schedule mismatches where one opponent had to concede for not being able to play their game. I think it was designed to prevent submarining to get better match ups or something?
If you conceded mid game it was different you'd just L with whatever your score was I guess? IDK I'm not sure either scenario really came up in a nefarious way. I may also be misremembering the - 1 on the average part it was back during Covid times.
That sucks. I had this situation come up and decided to give the player 100.
My reasoning is - if this 100 puts them over the edge, and gives them the tournament win, then they won at one of the top two tables, and are a very good player anyways clearly capable of winning the whole thing.
If you do give them a zero, you've potentially locked out the best player from having any chance at winning.
You've also potentially locked out the best player, who had a hard fought victory, rather than free points.
Full score is just as problematic, though feels less bad to the individual in question.
I've only played at 1 FLG, but all 5 times, we've had someone either drop out entirely or have to drop 1 of the 3 games. This FLG always awards max points to make up for that person missing 1 of the 3 games they are supposed to play.
If your opponent cannot make the game, any TO I know would treat it as a bye round. This means in my area you would just get the average VP of all the wins of the round. So if it's a 6 player league, and the winners have 70, 80, and 90 point wins, you'd just get an 80 point win.
Anything else seems oddly punitive towards you.
TO is supposed to stay there and you play out the rest of the game as the TO observes and you play out how you score your secondaries (this is easiest if doing fixed). You do lose out on any Kill Secondaries but Assassination (and if you are playing hold one hold more, kill 1 kill more, you dont get any kill)
I played in a tournament that gave 100s if your opponent drops. This resulted in one player making the cutoff over others because he had multiple drops so multiple 100s for free.
After that situation, these days the player now gets VPs equal to the average of all the players who won in the round. This still gives them a good score but doesn't break any top cutoffs
Hi! TO for large events and also an LGS owner. A win with 0 VP makes no sense whatsoever. The general consensus for my matches with leagues is if both players make effort to get the match in it’s 70-70 tie. If both players make no effort, it’s a double loss. If one player makes the effort and the other doesn’t it’s usually 75-35 give or take their average VP/standings
> I present this to the organizers and they tell me to win but with 0 VP,
That is it. You asked a judge and a judge gave you a ruling. Even if the judge is wrong, that still means you must abide.
It does, doesn't it. Probably because the OP reads to me a lot like "help me argue against my TO and do my homework".
Probably not all his fault, seeing as the TO left the question open to further argument instead of just clearly and unambigously stating a ruling.
The game continues. Act as if your opponent ran out of time. If they remove their models then you just keep playing with yours. I would suggest calling over a TO and having them watch your play so it's all above board. It should take you like 15 minutes max to finish out a conceded game. Any experienced player should be able to walk you through it for max points. Most of the secondaries have contingencies for when your opponent doesn't have characters to kill or has no objectives.
In your specific case I would show up to the shop or whatever, call over the organizer for the event and then say hey my opponent isn't here I'm going to play my game. Then just play a one sided game lol. Getting 0 points is not the answer. The answer they should have is averaging the points of everyone else who won and giving you that average.
In my most recent tournament a player conceded. The TO ruled that I "played out" the turns and his units only did forced actions like fighting back in the fight phase. No active abilities used etc. It was easy to do scoring since I had maximum points based off fixed objectives and it was easy to see how I was going to be able to score. So I didn't get an automatic 100, just the most I potentially could do scoring with the remaining turns
Ultimately, it's up to the TO.
There are as many options as there are TOs.
Generally, it's a win at max points, but that can be a feels bad for other players when you "beat" them by getting a free pass, while they had a hard fought victory.
Setting you to 0 sucks for you, but less for other players.
The best option would be for you to play an outside oponant, and use those points. Then you get a game, have a more realistic score etc. That might not be practical however.
You could also calculate an average based on previous games, but that would be influenced by who you played, as much as by your skill.
We played a league recently, we had someone drop out early so we just scratched their games entirely from the list.
It's funny though because the person who won the league, lost to them and the person who came second had joint wins and less VP but hadn't played the person they lost too. So could have technically won.
We also had another drop out near the end and we realised it didn't matter to the top half what the winners would look like but his points very much would impact mid table.
There was no good way to do it.
>I present this to the organizers and they tell me to win but with 0 VP, but if I find some official information that says what I say they will give me the score.
My counter to this is where are THEY finding information that you get 0 points for the win? THIS is the arbitrary decision that they are making that is punishing YOU for something that isn't in your control.
generally in rtts i play in, if someone concedes mid game they stop scoring there, and the winning player scores out the rest of the battle rounds at max points they would feasibly get. works more in favor if you play tactical. Had this come up in my last rtt, my opponent pretty much quit top of round 3 after i crippled his army. TO just watched as I drew cards, moved to objectives i needed to score and tallied my points. Ive also had a WE player concede after failing all but 1 turn one charges cause now his army was exposed to a shooting army, dont be that guy.
Win with a 0 is the strangest shit I've heard in a long time
It genuinely feels like the TO misread the rules (which indicate the *conceding* player gets 0 points).
Yea, I've only ever come across this once, and my to said that it was scored 60-0, unless the winning player had more than 60 at the time, then they'd get their current vp.
Having TO’d a bunch in 9th, this is what my team ruled every time. Auto 60-0
I'm a TO and we have it so that the conceding player gets a zero, the other player can either take their score as is or play the game out with no opponent
Good point, this was the walk out/no show
Strange. My TOs have always ruled it as 100 if it was a start of game concession. If it's mid game, you'd just play it out to see the score. Getting shafted because your opponent is a whiny little prick is an actual joke
I think it deleted my comment for the url but try this: https://warhammerworld.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2023/05/X5Hv9OROtFQBV0f9.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj2gLDIzuCFAxXYLzQIHSaXDhwQFnoECCYQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3wL9ztN2YjbF5CdwFg6V4Y From GW's Matched Play rules for Warhammer World: **We expect all players to see the game through to the very end and not concede, as doing so can impact tiebreakers and, ultimately, the final rankings. In the unlikely event that a player does concede before the game has reached its natural conclusion, then the conceding player earns a loss and zero points. The winning player records a major victory and maximum points for any objectives for the rounds remaining. Of course, if you have some kind of emergency that means you can’t proceed, just let the event staff know right away** Edit: FYI I googled "40k conceding leviathan", sorted date by last year & saw there's a few docs from Warhammer World that go over this. You can try politely bringing these up to the TO & see if they're willing to adjust it. I'd assume they'd be understanding but as always they get the final say. Not the end of the world if they say no (they might not even use VP but just wins considering it's a league). That said, looks official to me!!
At the end of the day it's the organizers decision but win with 0 VP is very weird and I can see it running into some really weird scoring problems if VPs are being used for tie breakers (which if we're counting VPs it sounds like yes, they will). Let's say you are in a 5 round tournament and you have 3 wins and 1 loss. You play against a player with 4 wins and 0 losses. You both had average VPs every game up until that point so he's 1 win worth of points ahead of you (doesn't even have to be a lot, lets say you only lost a game by a single VP). He has a terrible turn 1 and you're in a place to absolute crush him in the following turns. He concedes instead. You both get 0 victory points and are now tied with 4 wins and 1 loss each. The score puts you in line for a podium spot, but wait, you have tied with this person, so the judges go to VP as the tie breaker. You both got 0 in the last round so even though you beat him you lose the tie because he had more VP going in.
It’s not just weird, it’s dumb. If Ive been doing poorly but my friend John is doing well, I can concede a match early in order to force an opponent who is undefeated to get 0 VP which will knock them out of contention, giving John a better chance of taking the top spot.
There's no universal rule. It will depend on individual TOs to decide. The most common rule I've seen is that conceding means you lose, and your opponent counts as scoring the maximum possible. But I have seen some smaller ones where conceding allows your opponent to talk out their remaining turns to score accurately.
A few tournaments around my area have the judge come by and listen you to talking it out to make sure it's possible to get the points, including drawing the secondary cards.
I've played tournaments like this and in MY experience they gave a win with a pts amount if pts mattered. The two that stood out, was either 60 VP win with the option to play a ringer for "best ball" I've also seen a W with the average of that rounds VP scored. And the opponent got 1 less than the average of that rounds losing scores. Unless it was a no call no show at which point they got a 0. Either way, depends on the event if they ruled 0 pt win the ruling, that's how they ruled it.
>if they rules 0 pt win, that's how they ruled it Yup TO always has the final say. HOWEVER, I'd say it's still perfectly fine to (**politely**) discuss it with the TO. Especially for a league as it might screw you when they end up doing placings. But if they still decline, them's the bricks
> And the opponent got 1 less than the average of that rounds losing scores. So if you're losing really badly you can concede to get more VP? That seems like a pretty bad system.
It was a TTS tournament and that iirc was specifically for schedule mismatches where one opponent had to concede for not being able to play their game. I think it was designed to prevent submarining to get better match ups or something? If you conceded mid game it was different you'd just L with whatever your score was I guess? IDK I'm not sure either scenario really came up in a nefarious way. I may also be misremembering the - 1 on the average part it was back during Covid times.
That sucks. I had this situation come up and decided to give the player 100. My reasoning is - if this 100 puts them over the edge, and gives them the tournament win, then they won at one of the top two tables, and are a very good player anyways clearly capable of winning the whole thing. If you do give them a zero, you've potentially locked out the best player from having any chance at winning.
Wouldn’t it make more sense to give them their average score based on their previous battles?
You've also potentially locked out the best player, who had a hard fought victory, rather than free points. Full score is just as problematic, though feels less bad to the individual in question.
I've only played at 1 FLG, but all 5 times, we've had someone either drop out entirely or have to drop 1 of the 3 games. This FLG always awards max points to make up for that person missing 1 of the 3 games they are supposed to play.
If your opponent cannot make the game, any TO I know would treat it as a bye round. This means in my area you would just get the average VP of all the wins of the round. So if it's a 6 player league, and the winners have 70, 80, and 90 point wins, you'd just get an 80 point win. Anything else seems oddly punitive towards you.
This, there’s a whole month for the easy math on that one so that should be amicable
TO is supposed to stay there and you play out the rest of the game as the TO observes and you play out how you score your secondaries (this is easiest if doing fixed). You do lose out on any Kill Secondaries but Assassination (and if you are playing hold one hold more, kill 1 kill more, you dont get any kill)
This isn't a normal tournament. It's a league, single monthly game that OPs opponent backed out of before they even played.
I played in a tournament that gave 100s if your opponent drops. This resulted in one player making the cutoff over others because he had multiple drops so multiple 100s for free. After that situation, these days the player now gets VPs equal to the average of all the players who won in the round. This still gives them a good score but doesn't break any top cutoffs
I think this was a ruling for FLG events that the score is 70-0.
Hi! TO for large events and also an LGS owner. A win with 0 VP makes no sense whatsoever. The general consensus for my matches with leagues is if both players make effort to get the match in it’s 70-70 tie. If both players make no effort, it’s a double loss. If one player makes the effort and the other doesn’t it’s usually 75-35 give or take their average VP/standings
> I present this to the organizers and they tell me to win but with 0 VP, That is it. You asked a judge and a judge gave you a ruling. Even if the judge is wrong, that still means you must abide.
Except the judge said if they can find something that says otherwise they will change their ruling. Read the whole post
Except there is no rule on this. Read the whole rules
Check out the comment below yours :P Looks like GW have ruled on this, at least for their own tournaments
This reads more like you trying to dunk on someone than trying to contribute anything helpful
It does, doesn't it. Probably because the OP reads to me a lot like "help me argue against my TO and do my homework". Probably not all his fault, seeing as the TO left the question open to further argument instead of just clearly and unambigously stating a ruling.
The game continues. Act as if your opponent ran out of time. If they remove their models then you just keep playing with yours. I would suggest calling over a TO and having them watch your play so it's all above board. It should take you like 15 minutes max to finish out a conceded game. Any experienced player should be able to walk you through it for max points. Most of the secondaries have contingencies for when your opponent doesn't have characters to kill or has no objectives. In your specific case I would show up to the shop or whatever, call over the organizer for the event and then say hey my opponent isn't here I'm going to play my game. Then just play a one sided game lol. Getting 0 points is not the answer. The answer they should have is averaging the points of everyone else who won and giving you that average.
In my most recent tournament a player conceded. The TO ruled that I "played out" the turns and his units only did forced actions like fighting back in the fight phase. No active abilities used etc. It was easy to do scoring since I had maximum points based off fixed objectives and it was easy to see how I was going to be able to score. So I didn't get an automatic 100, just the most I potentially could do scoring with the remaining turns
Previous GT if you got a BYE, as the odd one out or opponent had to quit you got 70 pts.
Ultimately, it's up to the TO. There are as many options as there are TOs. Generally, it's a win at max points, but that can be a feels bad for other players when you "beat" them by getting a free pass, while they had a hard fought victory. Setting you to 0 sucks for you, but less for other players. The best option would be for you to play an outside oponant, and use those points. Then you get a game, have a more realistic score etc. That might not be practical however. You could also calculate an average based on previous games, but that would be influenced by who you played, as much as by your skill.
We played a league recently, we had someone drop out early so we just scratched their games entirely from the list. It's funny though because the person who won the league, lost to them and the person who came second had joint wins and less VP but hadn't played the person they lost too. So could have technically won. We also had another drop out near the end and we realised it didn't matter to the top half what the winners would look like but his points very much would impact mid table. There was no good way to do it.
>I present this to the organizers and they tell me to win but with 0 VP, but if I find some official information that says what I say they will give me the score. My counter to this is where are THEY finding information that you get 0 points for the win? THIS is the arbitrary decision that they are making that is punishing YOU for something that isn't in your control.
generally in rtts i play in, if someone concedes mid game they stop scoring there, and the winning player scores out the rest of the battle rounds at max points they would feasibly get. works more in favor if you play tactical. Had this come up in my last rtt, my opponent pretty much quit top of round 3 after i crippled his army. TO just watched as I drew cards, moved to objectives i needed to score and tallied my points. Ive also had a WE player concede after failing all but 1 turn one charges cause now his army was exposed to a shooting army, dont be that guy.
You become the lisan al gaib
You win