forfeit

[boardgamesftw]

forgot i was travelling soon and the plane ride is going to be long. im afraid the time will run out when im in flight. is there a way to forfeit a game in-advance without getting penalty?

[tbhp]

Ask your opponent if they are okay with you forfeiting. If yes, then you can concede without penalty. If no, then the game will go on after your travel and you won't have to worry about being kicked out. In both cases, everyone is happy.

[Meeplelowda]

forgot i was travelling soon and the plane ride is going to be long. im afraid the time will run out when im in flight. is there a way to forfeit a game in-advance without getting penalty?

Has the game already started? There are only two options to exit a game in progress without a penalty: 1) concede (same "resigning" in chess), but this can only be done in two-player games if the game records progress (not all games do) and progress reaches 50%; and 2) collectively abandoning the game, which can be done at any player count but requires all players to agree.

If it is a tournament that hasn't started yet, you can withdraw from the tournament with no penalty. If it is a tournament that is in progress, but you aren't actively in a game for the next round yet, you can withdraw from the tournament and take a smaller (4 karma) penalty.

[PurplePrimula]

Can you not use a time joker to add 4 days to your clock?

[Ceaseless]

forgot i was travelling soon and the plane ride is going to be long. im afraid the time will run out when im in flight. is there a way to forfeit a game in-advance without getting penalty?

Check the game. If you're playing 2-player and the "game progression" meter says it's over 50% then I'd expect there to be such an option. If you're not at 50% yet, or if there's more than 2 players, then probably not.

Ask your opponent if they are okay with you forfeiting. If yes, then you can concede without penalty. If no, then the game will go on after your travel and you won't have to worry about being kicked out. In both cases, everyone is happy.

This is nonsense. Them saying yes has no impact on whether or not it's possible to concede without penalty, and them saying no offers no guarantee you won't be kicked or that anyone will be happy.

[tbhp]

Ask your opponent if they are okay with you forfeiting. If yes, then you can concede without penalty. If no, then the game will go on after your travel and you won't have to worry about being kicked out. In both cases, everyone is happy.

This is nonsense. Them saying yes has no impact on whether or not it's possible to concede without penalty, and them saying no offers no guarantee you won't be kicked or that anyone will be happy.

I didn't mean to imply the absence of penalty is dependent on them saying yes, I wrote it like that to emphasize that in both alternatives everyone gets what they want.

If the other player doesn't want OP to forfeit, it means that they want the game to be finished the normal way. Why would they say no to conceding and then turn around and kick them out? It wouldn't make sense.

[Ceaseless]

Ask your opponent if they are okay with you forfeiting. If yes, then you can concede without penalty.

I didn't mean to imply the absence of penalty is dependent on them saying yes

And yet that's exactly what you said. On top of which if it wasn't then none of what you even typed had anything to do with answering their question of their ability to forfeit without penalty in the first place.

[tbhp]

Ask your opponent if they are okay with you forfeiting. If yes, then you can concede without penalty.

I didn't mean to imply the absence of penalty is dependent on them saying yes

And yet that's exactly what you said. On top of which if it wasn't then none of what you even typed had anything to do with answering their question of their ability to forfeit without penalty in the first place.

When you say "then" not everything that follows is necessarily included in the logical continuation. That's not how language works.

I didn't mean to answer their question. I knew other people would chime in and explain the specifics of how and when they can concede. I was just trying to push my agenda in regards to how they should ask before conceding, laying out that both alternatives work well for everyone, so there is literally no reason not to ask.

[Meeplelowda]

Ask your opponent if they are okay with you forfeiting. If yes, then you can concede without penalty.

I didn't mean to imply the absence of penalty is dependent on them saying yes

And yet that's exactly what you said.

You're forgetting that conceding is the worst crime against humanity that has ever existed. That's why you have to ask first. It's not about whether it has any effect on getting a penalty.

[Ceaseless]

I didn't mean to answer their question. I was just trying to push my agenda

sigh

Ask your opponent if they are okay with you forfeiting. If yes, then you can concede without penalty.

I didn't mean to imply the absence of penalty is dependent on them saying yes

And yet that's exactly what you said. On top of which if it wasn't then none of what you even typed had anything to do with answering their question of their ability to forfeit without penalty in the first place.

When you say "then" not everything that follows is necessarily included in the logical continuation. That's not how language works.

As it happens, that's exactly how "if x, then y" is meant to work. You say, "not everything" as though there was some sort of list, yet the only thing there was "conceding without penalty". There are plenty of resources out there that cover how basic conditional statements like "if, then" statements work.

You're forgetting that conceding is the worst crime against humanity that has ever existed. That's why you have to ask first. It's not about whether it has any effect on getting a penalty.

Ah yes, can't ignore that.