Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So I was wondering - outside of tournaments of course- how many points you will allow your opponent to be over (if any).

EDIT: changed the poll options around to be a bit more accurate

If someone wants to play 1007 points, or whatnot, they should say that from the outset. If we agreed to 1000, you need to stick to 1000.

Zero.

The point restriction is there for a reason.

The difference of a couple of points is okay to me. However, I'd be iffy about anything above 10 pts. higher than the alleged limit.

 SarisKhan wrote:
The difference of a couple of points is okay to me. However, I'd be iffy about anything above 10 pts. higher than the alleged limit.

personally I'm the same. Didn't know there was an "alleged limit"

We stick with the limit where I am at. Half of the fun is squeezing for the last few points.

if its like 0.35% of the total points who cares, just dont be shocked if i add meltabombs here or there to match your points

I voted 10 but I'd say more like 5. If you're at 2003 or something like that it may well just be awkward points not fitting quite right, but there are a lot of small upgrades in the 5-10 point range. Even if you aren't taking any, by that point you could probably have tangibly improved your army somehow with the extra points they spent, even if the upgrade would be fairly situational.

To me 1-4 is okay for points over, but after that you need to find something to remove.

thisisnotaseriousaccount wrote:
I voted 10 but I'd say more like 5. If you're at 2003 or something like that it may well just be awkward points not fitting quite right, but there are a lot of small upgrades in the 5-10 point range. Even if you aren't taking any, by that point you could probably have tangibly improved your army somehow with the extra points they spent, even if the upgrade would be fairly situational.

fair point. 10 points is a plasma gun in some codices

Brother Payne wrote:

 SarisKhan wrote:
The difference of a couple of points is okay to me. However, I'd be iffy about anything above 10 pts. higher than the alleged limit.

personally I'm the same. Didn't know there was an "alleged limit"

"Alleged" as in, "we decided on a 1750 pts. game, but you suddenly have 1763 pts., so it's no longer really a 1750 pts. game".

thisisnotaseriousaccount wrote:
I voted 10 but I'd say more like 5. If you're at 2003 or something like that it may well just be awkward points not fitting quite right, but there are a lot of small upgrades in the 5-10 point range. Even if you aren't taking any, by that point you could probably have tangibly improved your army somehow with the extra points they spent, even if the upgrade would be fairly situational.

Yeah, if my opponent is 5 over, then i'm going to take that extra Big Shoota or Ammo Runt, because sometimes that little push can be a big deal.

Edit: That came off as sarcastic, it was meant to be honest. My bad.

I'm usually pretty lenient with my opponent being about 5 points over the limit but stick to the limit or under myself. However if there is a clearly viable way for my opponent to get themselves back to the limit or under I usually see if they'd take that option.

It doesn't concern me greatly. I like to short myself on points to train myself to fight uphill anyway, so it doesn't confront me none to allow my opponents to go over.

I also use a handicap system, where I require myself to go under my points limit by 5% per cumulative victory I have over the opponent in question.

Depends. At 1850-2000 It wouldn't matter a toss to me if it was about 10-15 points over, but at lower than that 10-15 points can be an extra meltagun or a plasma gun somewhere that might set the outcome of the battle in stone too easily, though mostly at sub-1200.

It has to be dead on or under the point limit - I will change up my list if I have to in order to make it all fit.... if you can go a few points over then it just invalidates all the efforts of list building.

Very rarely do armies comprise of bare bone squads, there is always a grenade or special weapon that can be dropped to fit within the point limit.

As long as they tell me, so that I can add some more stuff to match their points, I have no problems with that.

0 points.
The point limit is a mutually agreed upper limit.
Why agree on 1750 points, if you build up to 1785?
I played kill team a bit ago, and we decided on a higher point limit to have more choice for units, but we agreed prior to the game days bfore, btw... The night of the game we all had a squad well inside the limits, all the five of us.

 Sparkadia wrote:
We stick with the limit where I am at. Half of the fun is squeezing for the last few points.

Yeh definitely the truth.
Although it was more interesting back in earlier editions where there were a lot more little upgrades to play around with.... now it's just meltabomb

That was really the only good thing about 3rd Ed, actually.... characterful things like giving your Imperial Guard Lieutenant a cigar as a trademark item

One point over, max.

We used to have a guy routinely be over on points. We had to add up his army list before every game. He wasn't trying to cheat, he was just very sloppy. We made a rule that for every point over the limit you had to remove double that (under the limit) before the game began.

A limit is there for a reason. Once you allow for going over, where do you draw the new line?

Zero points over is the limit. Deliberately taking more points than the agreed-on limit is blatant cheating, just like deliberately moving your models 1" more than their maximum movement distance because you want to get into range faster.

 Melcavuk wrote:
However if there is a clearly viable way for my opponent to get themselves back to the limit or under I usually see if they'd take that option.

There is always a clear viable way for your opponent to get back under the limit, unless you're playing some kind of ridiculous game where the point limit is just barely enough for the cheapest possible HQ + 2x troops that their army can bring.

If you're playing a 1500 points game, but it's okay to be 10 points over, aren't you really playing a 1510 points game?

0, no more than stated.

5 points over...?
There's always a unit that can lose a melta bomb, or swap out a high-cost model into a lower-costed unit.
Got a 10-point upgrade on a vehicle? Swap it for a 5-point upgrade elsewhere.

I am not too iffy about it, it seems unlikely that anyone would do it with the intent of cheating anyway. If I feel like I want my Vindicator instead of my Helbrute, it is easy to just say 'Hey, is it okay if we play 1800 instead of 1750?' which pretty much always works.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
Zero points over is the limit. Deliberately taking more points than the agreed-on limit is blatant cheating, just like deliberately moving your models 1" more than their maximum movement distance because you want to get into range faster.

 Melcavuk wrote:
However if there is a clearly viable way for my opponent to get themselves back to the limit or under I usually see if they'd take that option.

There is always a clear viable way for your opponent to get back under the limit, unless you're playing some kind of ridiculous game where the point limit is just barely enough for the cheapest possible HQ + 2x troops that their army can bring.

Wow' you're taking this very seriously. Are there any cheaters around where you live?

As most games I play are 5K plus, and my group of friends are quite relaxed, 25 points or so is acceptable, at that high a points game, its not going to be a game winner


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As most games I play are 5K plus, and my group of friends are quite relaxed, 25 points or so is acceptable, at that high a points game, its not going to be a game winner

Copy-paste to the rescue!!

------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'll allow a zero point breach of the maximum allowed.

5 points is the difference between a Mortar and an Autocannon. It makes a hell of a lot of difference to the Rhino heading towards you.

3 points allows a Singing Spear upgrade. Make a lot of difference to the Land Raider nearby. Plus I get to hear about how his Warlock killed my Land Raider forever.

Saying; "It's just x points. It doesn't make a lot of difference" is a huge fallacy. Those few points might be part of a larger chunk of points that makes it possible to field that extra Hive Guard, Terminator, Meltagun or whatever.

Saying; "Just add a Melta Bomb to one of our Sergeants and we are even" is a fallacy. Said squad might not have been taken to move aggresively forwards....making the upgrade utterly pointless. Hell, it might even induce me to stray from the basic tenents of my battleplan, which I had in mind when I made the armylist. Maybe I even considered giving him a Melta Bomb but discarded the idea because it was a pointless waste of points.....and now I add it again to compensate for your unwillingness to follow the rules?

If 5 points is no big deal, then remove them. They are "no big deal", remember?

Thank you for putting me in a situation where I, by saying "no", is denying you your "right to have fun". I am not really given a choice. You broke the rules/agreement and suddenly I'M the TFG?!?

We have to set the limit somewhere....and that might as well be at the limit agreed upon beforehand.


....

 Jimsolo wrote:
It doesn't concern me greatly. I like to short myself on points to train myself to fight uphill anyway, so it doesn't confront me none to allow my opponents to go over.

I also use a handicap system, where I require myself to go under my points limit by 5% per cumulative victory I have over the opponent in question.

I really like this idea. Think I might start doing that as well forces you to think more on how you play as opposed to banging your forces together till someone comes out on top

 Peregrine wrote:
Zero points over is the limit. Deliberately taking more points than the agreed-on limit is blatant cheating, just like deliberately moving your models 1" more than their maximum movement distance because you want to get into range faster.

 Melcavuk wrote:
However if there is a clearly viable way for my opponent to get themselves back to the limit or under I usually see if they'd take that option.

There is always a clear viable way for your opponent to get back under the limit, unless you're playing some kind of ridiculous game where the point limit is just barely enough for the cheapest possible HQ + 2x troops that their army can bring.

Well to clarify I play with alot of younger or new players, by clearly viable I mean if you can drop a piece of wargear, or an ork boy etc to get yourself under the mark then I'd prefer if it you did so. If however all your units are minimum sized and you're 5 points over I dont feel the urge to tell my opponent to drop themselves 50+ points under the limit to get rid of that last 5.

But again thats just me and just for friendly games, at the end of the day 5 points isnt worth the fuss of upsetting an opponent or making them go back for a rewrite, its a friendly game.

I voted 5pts... But not in "standard" games. I mean that for those games where you're at someone's house, and it's 2am, and they ask if you want a game, so you quickly cobble a list together. (To be fair though, that is pretty much most of my games...)