Greetings!

Just interested in others opinions on finishing games. If during a player's turn, the obvious outcome is the inevitable and unrestricted win of either player, do you carry out the game to the end, or call it?

For instance, last night I was playing as Light Side and had destroyed one Dark Side objective. The Death Star was on 10 (bad game for me with lots of event cards and few units) and by the end of my deployment phase it was obvious I would not win the force struggle. Also obvious was the ability to take only one additional Dark Side objective in best case scenario.

I decided to be a good sport and concede, but my opponent felt I was being a poor sport and demanded we play the game to the end. So, I did, but voiced concern that the fun of the game is in playing it, and when the final outcome is by far evident, to continue to press was like "spiking the ball". I mean, it wasn't like the Dark Side was going to even engage another conflict…I would have completed my conflict and force phase and then the dial would be moved up two…end of game.

Anyway, just curious in other opinions and please don't construe this with tournament play. I would assume in tournament play, for the purpose of "proof" the game is played until completion.

Thanks all!!

DJ

If it's literally a set up like that (I can't win the force battle or destroy the needed objectives and my opponent will end as soon as their turn starts), then I will usually say something along the lines of "I can't do enough, you win on your turn," and my opponent has always been ok with that.

I usually like to play it out as I feel every turn whether you are going to win or lose is more experience and I have seen some pretty crazy swings in this game even at the last turn.

In a tournament, the resuls of your game may matter when it comes to seeding or points. I don't see anything wrong with conceding though.

When I play, if we get into a situation like that, then I usually concede and my opponent so far has been good with that.

I can say until recently, most of the games were fairly decisive and conceding was common.

I'm alright if its obvious that you can't win to concede. It's more fun, in my opinion, if both players are truly engaged and trying to win rather than just going through the motions to lead up to what's already happening. In my experience people that have a problem with other people conceding are the same guys that will sit there and not win the game just to see how long they can draw it out.

there has been times i haved played where its been obvious i would lose the next turn so i usually inform my opponent point out how they would win, and do a play to show how i would try to prevent that then afterwoods, the opponent finishes his turn cos they have played a good game and i dont think its good sportsmanship my self to give in and deny that person the win they deserve but thats just me, usually afterwards we discuss the deck i used and point out where it failed and usually look at how to change the deck to try and win.

conceding is ok in my mind, but just make sure his win condition isnt based on a "may" event instead of a "must" event, your opponent is human and can always make a mistake!

To the OP - I only concede when there is nothing that can be done. If it is contingent on my opponent making the right choice (and I can see it) then I wait. I have no problem with a concession.

MasterJediAdam said:

My words exactly. If I'm 100% sure I can't turn it around I concede the game rather than sit it out. It's usually only the very last round where my opponent would have committed his units to destroy my last objective or if the DS dial would go to 12 when I said I was done anyway.

Rather concede and get it another game than sit and wait for the inevitable

When I am in a game and I see that there is no way to win usually I tell the person I am playing against and we both try to figure out if there is actually a way for the losing side to actually win or determine if it is indeed a losing battle.

Sometimes there is no way to pull out the victory but sometime we figure out some crazy combo / order of opperations that would let the down and out player actually pull a win. Granted this is only in casual games with friends.

To the OP -

Sounds like the guy was a sore winner.

The idea that it is poor sportsmanship to concede is largely a Western idea. In Asia with Go, for instance, its actually considered rude to continue playing if your victory hinges on your opponent making a mistake--the opinion is that you should respect your opponent enough to not hope they mess up. You should want to beat them at their best.

But in Chess over here, you'll see tons of people who don't like it when you knock your king over early. Westerners just seem to have this obsession with the kill, rather than the hunt, so to speak.

I'll keep playing if there's an unlikely sequence of events where I could win. However, when I know from the information showing on the board and in my hand that I cannot win under any circumstance, conceeding generally seems like the right thing to do.

I don't think I've yet been in a situation yet where I'm assured to win next turn and there's nothing my opponent can do to stop that. Maybe that's a bad sign.

I have been in the on-the-ropes situation, and I'll usually make at least a last stand. I hope it doesn't seem like I'm being a poor loser, but I'd rather go down swinging, even if it's ultimately futile. And it seems thematic; in my experience, it's usually that the Dark Side is going to win once they get to their next turn, and staging some last hurrah fits well for the Light Side. (Of course, the Light Side could control the Force and be one damage on an objective away from victory.) And I have had several games where I managed to pull off a last minute victory. Top decking the Rebel Assault that let's me take out my final objective.

Or on Saturday, I put out a seemingly futile last attack with a Rookie Pilot, and then played two Crossfires to get the Blast Damage icons needed to win the game. In that case, it was an instance of winning due to my opponent making a mistake; he revealed that he'd had a Heat of Battle he should've played in that last edge battle. Maybe I should feel a little bad that my victory came from an oversight on his part, but I really don't.

You can't really be sure that you'll win, but you can be sure of losing. For instance, the Death Star dial is at 11 and I (playing LS) know that I can't win on my turn.

I will concede if it is clear I cannot win – this is usually when it is clear I cannot stop the DS dial ticking over to 12 the next turn or if I cannot defend the third objective

I conceded a game this evening. I am with the OP on this one.

Here's the deal: we're (mostly) adults here, or learning to act like adults as we grow up. If it is clear to you that it is physically impossible to win, and you attempt to concede and your opponent refuses, really, what is he going to do? Restrain you as you scoop up your cards? Refuse to ever play you again? Sounds like he might be someone you wouldnt want to play against anyway in the future.

Most mature adults would be ok with taking the win, and then getting on with the next game. After all, while playing is fun, the objective is to reach a conclusion in the game, which is one side winning and the other side losing. If there is doubt that the game is a "forgone conclusion", then maybe play it out…but if it is to just to assage the other player's ego, forget about it.

As for tournaments, I have never played in a tournament that didnt allow forfeits…so you conceding and giving up would usually be well within the rules.

What if degree of victory matters in Official Play (i.e. position of the Death Star dial in LS victory, or damage dealt to DS objectives in DS victory)?

If position/points matter in official play then that's an easy fix:

The conceding player would be given the maximum negative effect and the winner would get the maximum positive effect no matter what their current positions are. That way the loser cannot get partial points that could benefit them after the consesion, and the winner is not robbed of potential points that he could have racked up had the game played out normally.