If no VC3 or VC4 are scored and one player forfeits, how many VCs does the winner get? Points?

You can check the current tournamant rules, but if I'm not mistaken when a player forfeits a game, the winner is treated as if they had a bye (a win with 0 VC's), and the forfiter is disqualified from the rest of the tournament.

That is correct. 1 win, 0 VCs, disqualification from tourney for the person who quit.

What if the game is underway and all is lost for one side and there is no point in continuing? Can the game be ended mercifully or does the poor player need to be beaten until all the pieces are gone or time runs out?

You have to play till time, which sucks becuase I one played a game in a sealed, had wiped out all my opponets units except one (A wolf hunter Thor) and had 20some odd vc3.

My Local BM said we had to play till time, so i figured I might as well of made a all or nothing aginst her Thor (Wolf Hunters on sweet spot). I had the Nova Cat Thor 4 clicks in, NC Avalanche 6 clicks in, a WH R10 on sweet spot and 2 HS GDSBA. She ended up killing both of my mechs, and winning the round.

Which is why I feel that there should be a Conced the game clause in the Tournament rules.

I checked the tournament rules and didn't find anything. I checked the AOD rulebook and found this:

But I'm gathering "withdrawing" or forfeiting is no permitted in tournament play, correct? Unless it's a one way trip out of that tournament...

If you want to concede I tend to permit it provided it will not sway the results.

You see otherwise one person does what a guy did the other day. He pushed as often as he could, moved units into range with rear arcs facing the other units - just to get it over with quicker. That's collusion because it gives his opponent more VC points than they would have had otherwise and it is just as disqualifiable as withdrawing.

So I usually turn a blind eye to people who decide not to continue playing. After all, I am only really supposed to intervene to deal with stalling where one player complains about the other. I would prefer that to the alternative where a player really doesn't want to play on. Or should I just go ahead and DQ everyone and not bother running events?

I will admit that I establish that both players are happy ending the game and that no unfair advantage is gained as a result (e.g. no salvage units outside the DZ that could otherwise feasibly make it back - that sort of thing). Provided it isn't fixing the results of the tournament I think it is an acceptable compromise.

And if I get warned, I'd rather get warned or even lose my BM status than destroy my player base thanks to a ridiculous rule that's really only there for the more cutthroat arenas....

One way trip out is correct, as far as the rules are written.

The concern is that withdrawing can affect the results of the tournament. Let's take an extreme case of a skilled player against one of those moody players you occasionally encounter. The skilled player quickly eliminates the moody players centerpiece 'Mech because of lucky rolls (critical hits, maxed out hand-to-hand weapon rolls, etc). Moody player gets pissed and "concedes" the game. Say the rules allowed this. The skilled player gets 2 VCs and a small amount of VC1 points.

Fast forward to the end of the tournament. With the number of players we have a tie for most wins. The skilled player from that round is tied with another player. Whoops, he loses the tournament because he wasn't alllowed time to get VC3 against that player.

I've seen it happen. It's completely lame especially if the player with the advantage would surely get VC3/VC4 if given the time. A player can actually cheat him/herself by salvaging the last piece on the board before completing a mission or collecting a VC3 point.

This is a touchy issue. A player can become a patsy and give points to the other guy or the strong player could let the weaker struggle while he/she strolls about collecting VC objectives.

I think if a player concedes, the winner should get all VCs (plus VC4 if a mission card is in play).

There is also the flip side. If Moody player had really wanted to, he could have denied Fairminded player both VC3 and his mission and potentially pinched VC1.

Instead Moody player throws the game and Fairminded player gets four VCs (would have had 2) and lots and lots of VC2 because Moddy player didn't even resist the capture.

Fast forward to the end of the tournament. Players are tied on wins but anyone who played against Moody player and did well will win tiebreaks.

The problem isn't conceding, it's that Moody players will throw the game! Question is do you allow them to do it sooner ... or later? And as BM in the meantime you can see the need to coach Moody player into learning how to make the best of a bad situation.

IMO Tournaments can be skewed with the existing rules too so it isn't one way. I know WHY we are supposed to not allow players to concede - I just don't believe it prevents results being skewed - if anything it forces things the other way. I'd like BMs to have the discretion to look at it and if it seems too early, to say no. I am not keen on a blanket "no".

In terms of the rules, as the people say above, if someone withdraws then the scoring is the same as a Bye. That can be, and is, used to skew results. Your mate's doing OK but you aren't and the guy you're playing is leading? Withdraw. There, now he gets a win but no VCs and your mate wins...


I am in favour of still punishing unilateral withdrawal but giving BMs the discretion to permit games to end by "mutual consent" as laid out in the rules of warfare. Here's why...


Case Study 1:
It's the last-but-one game. A player has been trounced in the first game. For personal reasons his mind isn't on playing and so he just makes careless mistakes that game. Second game he has one unlucky roll and is in a losing position. He has a shot at rescuing it but the other player counters it. It's mop-up time. This player will be having a Bye in the next round but he's had enough. He gets up and says to me that he's conceding. I can DQ him if I like but he really doesn't care at the moment for the game. The other players start up an impromptu CCG and he's cheered up. If I DQ him then the player who soundly beat him in game 2 would have been runner-up to the player who soundly beat him in game 1.

All the players agree the game should be counted up at that point - I did poll them. So I turn a blind eye.

Then WK clarify that I can't exercise this discretion...


Later that month...


Case Study 2:
Player plays his first game. It goes really well up to a point then his luck goes to pot and he ends up losing 2-1.

Second game he plays well again but the dice just hate him. Loses 2-1.

Game three he starts with a critical miss and his luck just gets worse from there. He gives up. Wants to concede but I force him to continue. He misses a number of possibilities to make life hard for his opponent and instead just makes bad choice after bad choice (charges when needing a 12 and it would shut him down and blow him up, rams, that sort of thing) simply through carelessness. He loses 4-0.

Time to sort out the results. Three players are tied at the top - all opponents of this player. His third opponent wins the tournament and the 4 VCs are instrumental. Nobody is happy. The winner feels as if he's cheated. The two runners-up feel that the throwing of the last game lost them a fair shot at champion. The guy who threw the game is mad at me for making him continue (he doesn't play any more, BTW).


Case Study 3:
One player is being soundly beaten. He holds out but then his opponent starts to rack up VC3. Basically he can keep his battered 'Mechs out of trouble and win VC2 because he salvaged an opposing unit and his opponent had a faction pride. However he's losing VC1 thanks to an earlier kill and now he's losing VC3. So the game will be 2-1. The winner of the game needed one VC or the win to clinch the tournament and knows it. When the VC3 points reach double digits, the player realises the cause is lost and moves his units to where the other player can eliminate them. That player then promptly withdraws his forces to his DZ. Both players are now sat in their DZs. The result is without question because the winning player has battered his opponent - just not killed enough to counteract his Faction Pride yet. They're both happy to sit there, make occasional runs to the bar and just talk about the upcoming new set and what's been previewed.

This seems to be the way the players at my venue have adapted to WK objecting to my use of discretion. Nobody complains it's stalling so what should I do? DQ everyone? Or, roughly translated, drive every single one of my players away?


Those are the three occasions where I have / could have / should have exercised discretion to allow the game to end sooner. In my opinion, a BM should be able to be granted the discretion to allow the game to end by mutual consent. The BM need only watch out for people trying to concede to early to perhaps protect a VC position (by way of # of points or # of VCs for tiebreaks).


In World War One and before, British Officers were under orders to shoot deserters as an example. How many wasted soldiers is that? How many thousands were murdered for what could simply have been a moment of stupidity? If that was supposed to serve as an example to the others, all it did was encourage the troops to "accidentally" shoot their officers in combat situations. Nobody could ever prove who fired the shot because enemy formations often had irregular troops on the fringes whose main role was to shoot officers and NCOs.

There are other ways to deal with a problem that do not involve always adopting the hard line. People are not sheep to be herded, even though the media treat them that way. Sometimes it's easier to think of them that way and to rule by tyranny but for all that this is one way of being "fair", does it achieve the objective of being "fair and fun". Because I don't believe it does.

Wow. I'd quote Kotch's post above but that would just take up real estate :)

It boils down to having fun. We play by the rules otherwise it's not much of a competition. Finding the balance is the hardest part for the BM. The rules say one thing and what feels fair is another.

Subsituting rules (read: hiding behind them) for actually talking to players on this issue make things very clinical and, to me, inspires bitterness. It may be very difficult, but having a professinal level converstation (no name calling) discussing the spirit behind the game and why withdrawing can ruin the game for the competition needs to be done.

We need players to keep playing to support the game and the venue. That means keeping as many of them enjoying the game. That is the key. If one player is driving the others off "by playing by the rules" it doesn't help anyone except that one player. Venues with a BM and a single player don't last long.

I will add that all my players now play their games as far as they can to be able to win. And often games that looked lost can be brought back from the brink and turned into victories. My dislike of the rule isn't about them.

What I would like is the discretion to be able to spare the blushes of the youngsters I'm hoping the War College will have drawn in. So they don't have to get discouraged and so they can get a little bit of coaching in between rounds ....

... 'cept it isn't going to happen... :(