The same can be said of people forcing the exact point amount point. Nobody is arguing to shift the game points, let alone repeatedly, so please drop the strawman. In fact, the only person whining about "our fun is the only fun" are the detractors to people not worrying about one or two points, calling the players and groups cheaters and liars as a third party. You don't like the extra points? Well once you are involved in a game I'm sure the other player will be open to being exact in the pt lists. There has been no person here saying they would go over regardless of their opponents wishes, and any perceived pressure is in their head and therefore their own problem.

Sadly this is the internet, where the only form of communication is sass and insults

You're intentionally not following the rules of the game, what else would you call it?

It was a joke, hence the winky orkmoticon.

I am all in favour of "draw the line at the actual line", in reality. Otherwise I don't see much point in having a line.

autumnlotus wrote:
In 40k or fantasy there are hundreds of options, with many units with oddball costs that make a rounded number harder to do

I doesn't make it any harder to stay under the limit.

autumnlotus wrote:
The same can be said of people forcing the exact point amount point. Nobody is arguing to shift the game points, let alone repeatedly, so please drop the strawman. In fact, the only person whining about "our fun is the only fun" are the detractors to people not worrying about one or two points, calling the players and groups cheaters and liars as a third party. You don't like the extra points? Well once you are involved in a game I'm sure the other player will be open to being exact in the pt lists. There has been no person here saying they would go over regardless of their opponents wishes, and any perceived pressure is in their head and therefore their own problem.

Why not just stay within the agreed upon points limit in the first place? (you agreed to the limit, remember) Everything else sounds like excuses and attempts at justification.

 Ian Sturrock wrote:
I am all in favour of "draw the line at the actual line", in reality. Otherwise I don't see much point in having a line.

Well said.

I still don't get how people are okay with house rules for blasts against levels, TLoS, area cover saves, Invisibility, but not for allowing the extra few points.

So as long as I'm at/under my list, I can bring 2 WKs and act like a donkey cave? I'm not cheating because I'm following the rules.

 jreilly89 wrote:
I still don't get how people are okay with house rules for blasts against levels, TLoS, area cover saves, Invisibility, but not for allowing the extra few points.

What problem with the rules is solved by allowing the points limit to be exceeded by a non-specific number of points?

 jreilly89 wrote:
I still don't get how people are okay with house rules for blasts against levels, TLoS, area cover saves, Invisibility, but not for allowing the extra few points.

If it's agreed ahead of time then it doesn't really matter... it just means instead of playing a 1500pt game you're playing a 1505pt game

Showing up with more than the agreed points is just rude, it's not a house rule.

So as long as I'm at/under my list, I can bring 2 WKs and act like a donkey cave? I'm not cheating because I'm following the rules.

Do whatever the hell you want.... but if you're acting like an arse expect to be treated as such.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
I still don't get how people are okay with house rules for blasts against levels, TLoS, area cover saves, Invisibility, but not for allowing the extra few points.

What problem with the rules is solved by allowing the points limit to be exceeded by a non-specific number of points?

It's not, but house ruling TLoS is cheating in as much as asking for a few extra points is cheating. You're not playing by the rules, you're bending them.

If someone's being called a cheater for asking for a few points, then I think the same kindness should be extended to people who want to houserule 40k.

in my opinion, it's situational. In a tournament, 0 points, however, in friendly games, if you let the other person know, I'd say that 5 points over is nearing the top.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
I still don't get how people are okay with house rules for blasts against levels, TLoS, area cover saves, Invisibility, but not for allowing the extra few points.

What problem with the rules is solved by allowing the points limit to be exceeded by a non-specific number of points?

It's not, but house ruling TLoS is cheating in as much as asking for a few extra points is cheating. You're not playing by the rules, you're bending them.

If someone's being called a cheater for asking for a few points, then I think the same kindness should be extended to people who want to houserule 40k.

Big difference between pre-arranged house rules and players simply not abiding by the limit that they both agreed to.

It does raise the question though - if your house rule is +5 points is acceptable then why not just make the limit 1505 points instead of 1500 but with a hard limit? And if that works then why not just reduce the limit back to 1500....?

 jreilly89 wrote:
So as long as I'm at/under my list, I can bring 2 WKs and act like a donkey cave? I'm not cheating because I'm following the rules.

Correct.

Of course, you might see a lot of refused games in the future, but you're no cheating, no.

As far as I am concerned, the players determine the points limit.

Therefore, if they agree to have different points limits for each side, that's their prerogative.

I will not judge them based on whatever they agree to play.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
I still don't get how people are okay with house rules for blasts against levels, TLoS, area cover saves, Invisibility, but not for allowing the extra few points.

What problem with the rules is solved by allowing the points limit to be exceeded by a non-specific number of points?

It's not, but house ruling TLoS is cheating in as much as asking for a few extra points is cheating. You're not playing by the rules, you're bending them.

If someone's being called a cheater for asking for a few points, then I think the same kindness should be extended to people who want to houserule 40k.

Big difference between pre-arranged house rules and players simply not abiding by the limit that they both agreed to.

It does raise the question though - if your house rule is +5 points is acceptable then why not just make the limit 1505 points instead of 1500 but with a hard limit? And if that works then why not just reduce the limit back to 1500....?

Is it? To have a house rule in the first place, you have to ask your opponent if they accept it, same thing with those 5 points. I'd let my opponent go up a few points, I'd share my dice, I even let my opponent borrow my templates or measuring tape or rulebook. In a friendly game, 5 points ain't the end of the world.

 jreilly89 wrote:
I have an honest question, not trying to attack anyone here.

To those of you who responded.....vehemently against being any points over, do you actually still play 40k? I've seen a lot of these passionate responses from users who've stated that they've quit 40k and I find it a bit ironic that they're so up in arms over being a few points over.

Yes. As I stated, I have 16 points to spend in one of my Decurion lists, and I won't go even a point over to field another Immortal.

To enjoy a game, in order for it to have at least some amount of competition to it, all participants agree to a set of rules.
I like my games to have evolved past the stage of "pew-pew: your dead! Answer: Nah-ah! You missed!..." except I guess those statements are interspersed with rolling of dice.
Rules lead to defined outcomes rather than an opinion or wish expressed by the players.
It just seems maddening that if we cannot agree to sticking to the rule of not exceeding the army points limit, what hope is there in agreeing on anything else?
Until 40k it never entered my mind to exceed points limits... it was the rules for heavens sake!

I have a hard enough time convincing my son that deciding to change the rules on the fly to suit yourself is cheating, poor sportsmanship and just plain rude.
I constantly see him trying to "reinterpret" things to his advantage to his brother's detriment.
This is what I think of when people push for changes to a game when we are about to have one.

I AM used to competitive play and so the #1 rule is to follow the rules to the bleeding edge.
Going past that point you become a WAAC player.

 jreilly89 wrote:
I still don't get how people are okay with house rules for blasts against levels, TLoS, area cover saves, Invisibility, but not for allowing the extra few points.

I already answered this earlier: changing rules like that is very different because it's an attempt to fix something wrong with the game in a way that applies equally to all players, not to gain an advantage for yourself. If people suggest, say, bringing back the old rules for levels in ruins then it applies to their blast weapons, their opponent's blast weapons, everyone's blast weapons in the next game they play, etc. That's not at all the same as asking to break the point limit just so you can have a more powerful list.

Now, you'd have a point if there was a player who suggested rule changes like this when it benefits then and mysteriously forgets about those house rules when it doesn't, but they are not the majority.

So as long as I'm at/under my list, I can bring 2 WKs and act like a donkey cave? I'm not cheating because I'm following the rules.

I have no idea how you could possibly conclude "any TFG behavior is ok" from "don't break the point limit". The point limit is just one of many rules that should be followed.

As many people have noted-if its so hard for you to fit just right into the point limit-why not just be a bit under rather than a bit over?

If you want to be a bit over X, why not set the limit to X+(a bit) to begin with? why meddle with these "well, we said X, but I want just a little bit more..."

There is no rational reason to put yourself into that scenario to begin with, if you can't even follow your own point limit agreement, how can you play a friendly game properly? are you going to go over the charge distance a bit, because its "almost there"? or ignore cover because you "almost have a clear shot"?

We have plenty of friendly games with the points not being fully set until we know what sort of game we want to play, so ur logic of it being impossible is dead from the start. Granted the sort of person being pointed out countless times thats the strawman, rude guy who pops up before you start asking to have free points and refusing to change their list, is someone to be avoided and should be put in their place if the negative behavior becomes a pattern. But who here is advocating that sort of behavior? I'm not, and have yet to see a poster saying anything similar

 jreilly89 wrote:
I have an honest question, not trying to attack anyone here.

To those of you who responded.....vehemently against being any points over, do you actually still play 40k? I've seen a lot of these passionate responses from users who've stated that they've quit 40k and I find it a bit ironic that they're so up in arms over being a few points over.

Who's up in arms? You keep saying people are losing their gak on this topic, and i'm just not seeing it.

 Torga_DW wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
I have an honest question, not trying to attack anyone here.

To those of you who responded.....vehemently against being any points over, do you actually still play 40k? I've seen a lot of these passionate responses from users who've stated that they've quit 40k and I find it a bit ironic that they're so up in arms over being a few points over.

Who's up in arms? You keep saying people are losing their gak on this topic, and i'm just not seeing it.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:
If your opponent is ok with it in a friendly game, I don't see why it would be a problem.

Because its obviously not a 'friendly' game or else your opponent would keep to the agreed points limit.

 Peregrine wrote:

autumnlotus wrote:
So the rules are more important then both players enjoyment and their option to work out a pt amount as they build their lists?

No, the rule protects both players' enjoyment of the game. By respecting the original point limit you don't put your opponent into an awkward position where they feel pressured to let you cheat a bit just to keep you from getting upset about it. Constantly re-negotiating the point limit as you're building your lists does nothing to improve the game for both players, it just allows one player to gain an advantage.

This sounds less about rules, and more about you demanding that players play your way or not play at all

Yeah, what horrible demands we make, expecting people to refrain from bending/breaking the rules in their favor...

 Ghaz wrote:

Colehkxix wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
The point is, its rude to ask your opponent if its okay to cheat. Would you be okay if your opponent asked if he could move all of his infantry squads 7 inches after he has already done so and expect you to only move yours 6 inches?

I.. it isn't rude to try and negotiate with another player and calling it 'cheating' is rather unreasonable.

The time to negotiate points values is past and it is rude to go back on your agreements. If I can't trust you to keep to your agreements in something as inconsequential as a game, how can I trust you to keep your agreements when it matters?

*cough cough*

Need I go back and find more? Or is the part where they call negotiating with your opponent flat out cheating enough?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BoomWolf wrote:
As many people have noted-if its so hard for you to fit just right into the point limit-why not just be a bit under rather than a bit over?

If you want to be a bit over X, why not set the limit to X+(a bit) to begin with? why meddle with these "well, we said X, but I want just a little bit more..."

There is no rational reason to put yourself into that scenario to begin with, if you can't even follow your own point limit agreement, how can you play a friendly game properly? are you going to go over the charge distance a bit, because its "almost there"? or ignore cover because you "almost have a clear shot"?

Depends. If its against some of the people I've seen here on Dakka, I may just throw the table.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
I still don't get how people are okay with house rules for blasts against levels, TLoS, area cover saves, Invisibility, but not for allowing the extra few points.

I already answered this earlier: changing rules like that is very different because it's an attempt to fix something wrong with the game in a way that applies equally to all players, not to gain an advantage for yourself. If people suggest, say, bringing back the old rules for levels in ruins then it applies to their blast weapons, their opponent's blast weapons, everyone's blast weapons in the next game they play, etc. That's not at all the same as asking to break the point limit just so you can have a more powerful list.

Now, you'd have a point if there was a player who suggested rule changes like this when it benefits then and mysteriously forgets about those house rules when it doesn't, but they are not the majority.

So as long as I'm at/under my list, I can bring 2 WKs and act like a donkey cave? I'm not cheating because I'm following the rules.

I have no idea how you could possibly conclude "any TFG behavior is ok" from "don't break the point limit". The point limit is just one of many rules that should be followed.

Because you guys claim that even though it's mentioned for a friendly game, I have to follow the rules to the T, no exceptions, or else I'm WAAC. My point is that there's plenty of completely legal things I can do to be TFG without cheating.

 jreilly89 wrote:
*cough cough*

Need I go back and find more? Or is the part where they call negotiating with your opponent flat out cheating enough?

I think your definition of gak is very different to mine.

 Torga_DW wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
*cough cough*

Need I go back and find more? Or is the part where they call negotiating with your opponent flat out cheating enough?

I think your definition of gak is very different to mine.

That is possible and entirely okay.

 Scott-S6 wrote:
200 points of gretchin is not equal to a landraider. In fact, they can't even hurt the landraider. 1500 points of vanguards in drop pods is much more effective than 1500 points of servo skulls. A 2000 point army with no anti-tank or anti-air weapons is going to be much weaker than the vast majority of "normal" 2000 point armies.

Well, yes and no.

You can't just compare individual units in a vaccuum, for sure. However, the whole (ahem) point of the points system is to allow players to assemble more-or-less equal armies to play a fair game. So ideally, while a 200 point gretchin unit may not be 1-for-1 equivalent to a 200-point Terminator unit, each army should be more or less balanced at the points level at which the game is designed to play. Those 200 point gretchin and terminator units would be balanced out by the remainder of the armys' compositions.

The problem is that 40K has always done this balancing quite badly, and this has only gotten worse as army composition rules became more 'loose' in the last two editions. Once you reach a point where you can literally build armies out of any combination of units you want, any idea of balance just goes straight out the window. An army made up entirely of Gretchin would stand no chance against an army composed entirely of Knights... in which case, those armies shouldn't be showing up on the same table in the first place, outside of specific scenarios.

I spent a bit of time on Quarter Master last night, getting together 500, 750, 1000 and 1500pts worth of Eldar lists (with only one Wraithknight, in the 1500pt one!)

Outside of the the 500pt list, I found I was usually going about 3 to 5 points over without any shiny extras.

Usually I'd just think "Ho hum" but having read the earlier portions of this thread and recently deciding I want to get playing more, and a bit more 'seriously', I re-tweaked and shuffled around and now I'm a good few points under on the bigger lists (14 - 26 or so).

It might mean one fewer Fire Dragon, but HE could make the difference and that wouldn't be fair.

I suppose it leaves room for a bit of wargear for my Farseer or Autarch, too, which is nice.

So yes, I can see both sides of the arguments. Under or equal on points for pick ups, at events etc are absolutely necessary. Against mates at home I'd say bring what you want and lets have a laugh.

*edit* Early morning spellings.

 jreilly89 wrote:
Because you guys claim that even though it's mentioned for a friendly game, I have to follow the rules to the T, no exceptions, or else I'm WAAC. My point is that there's plenty of completely legal things I can do to be TFG without cheating.

No, and I've explained this multiple times already: there is a huge difference between "follow every rule, no exceptions" and "don't try to bend/break the rules to give yourself an advantage". Fixing a bad rule is not at all the same thing as taking a few extra points for yourself or nudging your models a bit when your opponent isn't looking. And nobody here has tried to claim that the only way to be a TFG is to cheat, so please stop bringing up this ridiculous straw man.

This thread has been a bit of an eye-opener for me if I'm honest and it has changed my attitude significantly. Apologies if this has already been said (I haven't been able to read the entire thread yet) but I used to be of the mindset that one or two points over didn't really matter too much. I'd always mention it to my opponents up front and they'd always say 'yeah, no problem'.

However, having read some of the (more measured) comments on here I think it's a really important point to note that it's not the 1 or 2 points over that make the difference, it the other 8 or 9 or whatever for that particular buff or upgrade that make the crucial difference, and we have to be mindful of what's "under the surface". It's made me revisit my list and take out entire squads sometimes and replace with different units. It's made the list-building process more of a challenge, but I think more satisfying too when you nail the target points limit.

0.

 insaniak wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:
200 points of gretchin is not equal to a landraider. In fact, they can't even hurt the landraider. 1500 points of vanguards in drop pods is much more effective than 1500 points of servo skulls. A 2000 point army with no anti-tank or anti-air weapons is going to be much weaker than the vast majority of "normal" 2000 point armies.

Well, yes and no.

You can't just compare individual units in a vaccuum, for sure. However, the whole (ahem) point of the points system is to allow players to assemble more-or-less equal armies to play a fair game. So ideally, while a 200 point gretchin unit may not be 1-for-1 equivalent to a 200-point Terminator unit, each army should be more or less balanced at the points level at which the game is designed to play. Those 200 point gretchin and terminator units would be balanced out by the remainder of the armys' compositions.

The problem is that 40K has always done this balancing quite badly, and this has only gotten worse as army composition rules became more 'loose' in the last two editions. Once you reach a point where you can literally build armies out of any combination of units you want, any idea of balance just goes straight out the window. An army made up entirely of Gretchin would stand no chance against an army composed entirely of Knights... in which case, those armies shouldn't be showing up on the same table in the first place, outside of specific scenarios.

Absolutely and this bears directly on the points issue. The unit that is taking you slightly over the points limit may be much more valuable in the context of the rest of the army than the unit that fits within the limit so it isn't "just 3 points".

Yeah the the 3-5 pts can be the difference between runing 2 grav bike units and 3 grav bike units. Which technicly is fewer bodies but more grav guns.

I've already said 0 points over, but I don't understand the kerfuffle people are still having.

Rules are rules. You don't measure out a Bolter to 25" and go "close enough" do you?

Do you go into a shop, go to buy something for £2, give the shop keeper £1.50, and say "It's close enough to the asking price so shut up"?

I personally, do not deal in "ish's". The limit is not 1500-ish. Bolters are not 24"-ish and the price was not £2-ish.
You are gaining some semblance of advantage whether you recognise it or not, to say otherwise is ignorance.

If I run a list at 1500 points, but go over by 5 pts because I included a 375 pt Imperial Knight, how is that fair to my opponent?

Izural wrote:
I've already said 0 points over, but I don't understand the kerfuffle people are still having.

Rules are rules. You don't measure out a Bolter to 25" and go "close enough" do you?

Do you go into a shop, go to buy something for £2, give the shop keeper £1.50, and say "It's close enough to the asking price so shut up"?

I personally, do not deal in "ish's". The limit is not 1500-ish. Bolters are not 24"-ish and the price was not £2-ish.
You are gaining some semblance of advantage whether you recognise it or not, to say otherwise is ignorance.

If I run a list at 1500 points, but go over by 5 pts because I included a 375 pt Imperial Knight, how is that fair to my opponent?

Because you could drop a 5 point upgrade and still be bringing a knight? Meeting or being under the points limit doesn't automatically your list fair. You can still bring a WAAC list that's exactly 1500 points.

Also, yeah, a Bolter can be 25" if you and your opponent agree to it.If he/you don't, then no, it's not.

If your shopkeep says £1.50 is close enough, then that's on him. I'm not advocating these things, but if my store owner said "Oh, that's $41.70? Let's call it $40", okay, whatever.

The point is these few points are for friendly games, not tournies. And I'll always ask my opponent ask about this before hand, same with any other rules discussion/unclear issue I have.

If i set up a game with anyone( friend or stranger) and we set up a limit in points then this is the limit. end of discussion.

Both agree to that limit before writing a list. Always insisting on keeping that limit is a real good way to prevent some kind of onoing point raising. someone already brought that thing: if i allow to be a certain above a point limit. then after a while this 100%+x becomes the new point limit. this is only natural. so why bother with this at all?

Talk with the other player. set up a limit and then both use THIS limit to write a list. thats not unfair or beeing TFG or WAAC its simply to stay to something you agreed.

 _ghost_ wrote:
If i set up a game with anyone( friend or stranger) and we set up a limit in points then this is the limit. end of discussion.

Both agree to that limit before writing a list. Always insisting on keeping that limit is a real good way to prevent some kind of onoing point raising. someone already brought that thing: if i allow to be a certain above a point limit. then after a while this 100%+x becomes the new point limit. this is only natural. so why bother with this at all?

Talk with the other player. set up a limit and then both use THIS limit to write a list. thats not unfair or beeing TFG or WAAC its simply to stay to something you agreed.

And this proves that anyone who plays you should follow the rules, because that is how you wish to play the game. And that's a good thing, you want a game that plays in the default way and nobody should pressure you in any other way.

But this isn't about you, the point being made was that if both sides are okay with it then the strict limit doesn't matter. Reworking the limit as 1503 is not witchcraft, because both sides are down for it. If that doesn't affect you, will you still get upset? If not then we are in agreement, coolio, but if not then you are now making judgement calls in games you are not involved in which puts you squarely in TFG territory

And this puts it down to the point of the whole diskussion: There is no alloable # of free points. not in general.

its not about reworking the limit to 1503 points... It always comes down to: how many points are allowed. and this is a value the two playing people involved have to choose.

 _ghost_ wrote:
And this puts it down to the point of the whole diskussion: There is no alloable # of free points. not in general.

its not about reworking the limit to 1503 points... It always comes down to: how many points are allowed. and this is a value the two playing people involved have to choose.

Could they not choose to allow differing points on the two sides, such as 1850 Eldar vs 2000 Blood Angels?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 _ghost_ wrote:
And this puts it down to the point of the whole diskussion: There is no alloable # of free points. not in general.

its not about reworking the limit to 1503 points... It always comes down to: how many points are allowed. and this is a value the two playing people involved have to choose.

Could they not choose to allow differing points on the two sides, such as 1850 Eldar vs 2000 Blood Angels?

Maybe 1850 Eldar vs 3000 BA. Even the, I'd have Eldar the advantage.

Right, so if the players can agree on unbalanced points limits, what's wrong with the two players agreeing to play 1504 vs 1500?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Right, so if the players can agree on unbalanced points limits, what's wrong with the two players agreeing to play 1504 vs 1500?

Originally I was opposed to this, but now I think it just doesn't matter at all because lists aren't buying the same level efficacy for their points across all the codices.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 _ghost_ wrote:
And this puts it down to the point of the whole diskussion: There is no alloable # of free points. not in general.

its not about reworking the limit to 1503 points... It always comes down to: how many points are allowed. and this is a value the two playing people involved have to choose.

Could they not choose to allow differing points on the two sides, such as 1850 Eldar vs 2000 Blood Angels?

Yes, that is specifically mentioned in the rulebook (Choosing Your Army, Army Selection Methods, 1st paragraph) but it would still be done before you actually build your list.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 _ghost_ wrote:
And this puts it down to the point of the whole diskussion: There is no alloable # of free points. not in general.

its not about reworking the limit to 1503 points... It always comes down to: how many points are allowed. and this is a value the two playing people involved have to choose.

Could they not choose to allow differing points on the two sides, such as 1850 Eldar vs 2000 Blood Angels?

Yes, that is specifically mentioned in the rulebook (Choosing Your Army, Army Selection Methods, 1st paragraph) but it would still be done before you actually build your list.

Okay, if you parse the rules that way, they can throw their list out, ask for 4 more points before building a new one, and then build the same list with an extra meltabomb or whatever. Like literally you're fixating on near irrelevancies.

No, because again once you start building your list the time to agree on the points used for the game has come and gone. Uneven points values doesn't change that simple fact.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 _ghost_ wrote:
And this puts it down to the point of the whole diskussion: There is no alloable # of free points. not in general.

its not about reworking the limit to 1503 points... It always comes down to: how many points are allowed. and this is a value the two playing people involved have to choose.

Could they not choose to allow differing points on the two sides, such as 1850 Eldar vs 2000 Blood Angels?

Yes, that is specifically mentioned in the rulebook (Choosing Your Army, Army Selection Methods, 1st paragraph) but it would still be done before you actually build your list.

Okay, if you parse the rules that way, they can throw their list out, ask for 4 more points before building a new one, and then build the same list with an extra meltabomb or whatever. Like literally you're fixating on near irrelevancies.

Nope, if you go over your points limit, you are literally Hitler.

 Ghaz wrote:
No, because again once you start building your list the time to agree on the points used for the game has come and gone. Uneven points values doesn't change that simple fact.

Wait so you're saying that all the lists I build before a game is agreed upon between me and my opponent are invalid because they were built before the time to agree on the points used for the game?

Do you guys just not have several lists written out for various point values?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Do you guys just not have several lists written out for various point values?

No, I organically produce them as I need them.

Martel732 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Do you guys just not have several lists written out for various point values?

No, I organically produce them as I need them.

Same thing here. The only lists I have saved in battlescribe are lists I am buying models to complete, like my 2500 black Templar list that I'm almost finished building.

 jreilly89 wrote:
Nope, if you go over your points limit, you are literally Hitler.

And Godwin's Law has been reached. Outstanding.

autumnlotus wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Do you guys just not have several lists written out for various point values?

No, I organically produce them as I need them.

Same thing here. The only lists I have saved in battlescribe are lists I am buying models to complete, like my 2500 black Templar list that I'm almost finished building.

Any particular reason you don't have lists prepared in advance? Do you write them before or after you know which army you're playing against?

I write them before I know the opponent, once I know the point level. Usually making the list on the spot is the only enjoyment I get out of a match. So why deny myself that by having canned lists?

Generally we work out the point amount, and we tell the other what army we are bringing. Not so much "eldar bike spam, daemon flying circus" but more "space marines w/ inquisition". That way we both have a general idea of what would be helpful and what would be pointless to bring. We discourage netlisting or an army of one unit, such as an all Lemun Russ army, but sometimes we let it slide when the game seems to be looking fun to play.

autumnlotus wrote:
Generally we work out the point amount, and we tell the other what army we are bringing. Not so much "eldar bike spam, daemon flying circus" but more "space marines w/ inquisition". That way we both have a general idea of what would be helpful and what would be pointless to bring. We discourage netlisting or an army of one unit, such as an all Lemun Russ army, but sometimes we let it slide when the game seems to be looking fun to play.

I don't get to know the army name at all. I have to prepare for both IKs and hordes every match. This is one reason I greatly envy the scatterlaser.

autumnlotus wrote:
Generally we work out the point amount, and we tell the other what army we are bringing. Not so much "eldar bike spam, daemon flying circus" but more "space marines w/ inquisition". That way we both have a general idea of what would be helpful and what would be pointless to bring. We discourage netlisting or an army of one unit, such as an all Lemun Russ army, but sometimes we let it slide when the game seems to be looking fun to play.

so you get to tailor your lists too ?

Well that is a local group issue, at least in my eyes. I dont enjoy watching my plague zombie Hordes be mailed to death with no way to harm the enemies IK, so some fairness should be enforced so there's at least some fun to be had in a game

autumnlotus wrote:
Well that is a local group issue, at least in my eyes. I dont enjoy watching my plague zombie Hordes be mailed to death with no way to harm the enemies IK, so some fairness should be enforced so there's at least some fun to be had in a game

Fairness? This is a GW game. IK suck anyway.Just get some meltagun CSM and they go bye bye real fast.

Eh that is true, but we do our best to have as much fairness as possible. If I hear I'm fighting IK in a low point game I'm more likely to add the multimeltas to me Crusaders, but that's mostly because that sort of army has only one answer to it

autumnlotus wrote:
Eh that is true, but we do our best to have as much fairness as possible. If I hear I'm fighting IK in a low point game I'm more likely to add the multimeltas to me Crusaders, but that's mostly because that sort of army has only one answer to it

IKs die all the time to S6/7 against their side armor. They suck for their points.

I say 'Try to stay under the limit, 2-3 points is okay, but please remove a melta bomb or something similar'

I only play hardcore die hard wh40k fans. Full painted army min 5 colors per model with highlights, shades and full based. WYSIWYG 100% or the model can be proxied but blown up with a cherrybomb after game. Ritual blood oath taken to agree to follow the rules or forfeit our souls. If a dice hits the floor? no re-roll that dice is GONE, I don't mean don't count the dice roll I mean tossed into a blender and melted. Can't bring your own dice, to easy to cheat with, only NASA approved gravity dice that are perfectly balanced and vacuumed sealed to prevent weight added to a die from oils and grease from our fingers. No measuring tapes, to inaccurate, we only allow laser guided measuring tools accurate to the micron. All terrain boards are randomly generated by high tech computers(gw brand of course) using only gw approved terrain that is bolted into place to prevent any 'accidents' bumping into the terrain. A sniper is on duty at all times to take out any cheater/police who start to investigate the premise. Everyone who enters is forced to subject to a mind wipe and blood check to see if suitable for the spider overlords. But we aren't as bad as we sound, every Tuesday there is free pizza and and optional gun-point brain wash.

 Matthew wrote:
I say 'Try to stay under the limit, 2-3 points is okay, but please remove a melta bomb or something similar'

Unless you're doing pure Imperial Knights, EVERY army has a way to cut 5-10 points to hit the mark.

Points are there for a reason but as GW decided it's cool to give freebies worth several hundred points why bother?

"You got free Razorbacks? That's cool, I have an extra unit of necron warriors."

Izural wrote:
I've already said 0 points over, but I don't understand the kerfuffle people are still having.

Rules are rules. You don't measure out a Bolter to 25" and go "close enough" do you?

5pts, out of 1850, is roughly a 0.3% error. A full inch on 24" is a 5% variance. To answer your question: sure, I don't question every measure. If my opponent either actually thinks it's in range, or is willing to actively fudge it, I'd generally allow it.

Do you go into a shop, go to buy something for £2, give the shop keeper £1.50, and say "It's close enough to the asking price so shut up"?

No, but I don't argue with shop keeps over pennies either.

I personally, do not deal in "ish's". The limit is not 1500-ish. Bolters are not 24"-ish and the price was not £2-ish.
You are gaining some semblance of advantage whether you recognise it or not, to say otherwise is ignorance.

If I run a list at 1500 points, but go over by 5 pts because I included a 375 pt Imperial Knight, how is that fair to my opponent?

And the world would end! A tiny advantage!

In friendly games 1-5 points b/c it's for fluff, in tournies zero. I'm not playing a WAAC guy who also doesn't have the decency to follow the basic rules.

Izural wrote:
I've already said 0 points over, but I don't understand the kerfuffle people are still having.

Rules are rules. You don't measure out a Bolter to 25" and go "close enough" do you?

Do you go into a shop, go to buy something for £2, give the shop keeper £1.50, and say "It's close enough to the asking price so shut up"?

I personally, do not deal in "ish's". The limit is not 1500-ish. Bolters are not 24"-ish and the price was not £2-ish.
You are gaining some semblance of advantage whether you recognise it or not, to say otherwise is ignorance.

If I run a list at 1500 points, but go over by 5 pts because I included a 375 pt Imperial Knight, how is that fair to my opponent?

Well, actually, unless they're measuring distances with their tape flat on the table, odds are good that most people ARE measuring their bolters out to 25" or more, because of the angle we view that final point on the tape from.

I lay my tape completely flat. No angles to make mistakes with.

 vipoid wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
Nope, if you go over your points limit, you are literally Hitler.

And Godwin's Law has been reached. Outstanding.

Only kinda relevant, but I was watching a show about people who hunt down mythological treasures like the Ark of the Covenant and the Holy Grail and whatnot, along with more modern ones like that room lined with amber that went missing and turned out to have been destroyed to prevent it from falling into enemy hands.

I wasn't entirely paying attention at the time, but I swear they referred to one of the higher-ups in that party as "...the kind of guy who'd be playing Warhammer if he lived today."

It still weirds me out to hear people on TV talking about nerdy gaming hobbies so casually.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I lay my tape completely flat. No angles to make mistakes with.

Awesome.

My measuring tape is sadly too big to lay flat on the table without having to move nearby models, and there's usually uneven terrain in the way. I compensate by measuring movement with the tape nearly touching a fixed point of a model, such as an infantry's head, or a Rhino's smokestack thingy, and end with that same part touching it. And when shooting, I ask my mom (my only opponent for the past decade) to check whether I'm in range, and what I'm in range of, while I focus on making sure my end doesn't start sliding forward. It's not just measuring tapes that do that, often while playing video games and spamming my filler attack while watching for battlefield hazards or dodging area effect attacks, I suddenly stop attacking, then I look back at my ability bar, and my pointer has moved off of the button, without me feeling my hand move.

[quote=Pouncey 670800 8283154 c4dcc7aba1b12bbf127c68af0ea833bd.png
Only kinda relevant, but I was watching a show about people who hunt down mythological treasures like the Ark of the Covenant and the Holy Grail and whatnot, along with more modern ones like that room lined with amber that went missing and turned out to have been destroyed to prevent it from falling into enemy hands.

I wasn't entirely paying attention at the time, but I swear they referred to one of the higher-ups in that party as "...the kind of guy who'd be playing Warhammer if he lived today."