Friday, 16 August 2013

When To Give Up?

In a thread this morning by my friend KhorneGuy, he talks about when should a player just give up. It's an interesting read that you can find here: When To Give Up?

I'm doing this response because we had something very similar to what he describes happen at a league game about a month ago. My nephew (Dark Angels) was playing opponent J (new Eldar codex) in a game where deployment was opposite ends of the table (Hammer and Anvil?). The problem was that J had filled his list with long range marine killing lances, star cannons and the nice new Wraithknight. My nephew had figured that he needed to do something similar and had maxed out all his lascannon options. Both deployed behind cover and sat there. Neither player was prepared to move forwards because it was just going to be shooty death and no good general wastes the lives of their troops. Turn 2 my nephew rage quitted saying that there was no point in playing if J was not going to move forward. J obviously wasn't going to move forwards either.

In that situation I was both in agreement because it would be foolish to do so and rolling my eyes in desperation because what is the point of playing if you don't? Yes, it was a league and it was competative but still! There was no right or wrong outcome to this. I've had more than a few games against opponents were were creaming me left and right but I stay until I have no chance of winning, even if the game has become no fun because of it. But there you have the rub of it, because if the game isn't fun why are you still playing? Both players need to have that fun and rage quitting isn't making the game fun for either side.

What do you guys think? How should this sort of situation be handled and when is it ok to just quit mid-game?


  1. See this is what happened in the game i described in my post. Hammer and Anvil deployment and the Eldar play wasn't going to sacrifice his position and the DE player had a long range shooty force as well.

    Now, I agree that it still needs to be fun for both sides, why build forces that aren't going to be fun for both players to play with/against? I think too many people forget that it's a game and games by their very definition are there to be enjoyed.

    What I disagree with is one player rage quitting because things don't go their way. As I said in my post, I expect people to play the game to the end when things are going my way and I'm pounding an enemy into the dirt, so it's just disrespectful to quit when things aren't going my way, as that would be denying my opponent that same pleasure.

    There have been plenty of games where my army's pretty much bounced off the enemy (my first 6 months of playing fantasy springs to mind), btu I've always played it out regardless

    1. This is a really good post, as it outlines what happens on the tabletop quite a lot. I have no definitive answer for you, but I do have my answer to the fun side of the game. I decided that there was no point trying to make the best game winning list, in friendly or tournament environments. So I just hit the fluff, now every list I play has some sort of fluff aspect to it, and believe me, I do lose about half of my games, but plying them are amazing for both myself and my opponent. Sometimes loosing is hard, but if you go with a crazy list in the first place or reside to possibly loosing for making the wrong tactical move. Good luck with resolving this>