Hello Dakka, I was wondering how many points you allow your opponent to be. For instance, if you're a 1500pt game and someone brings a 1508 list, do you allow it? Maybe if they let you have 8 extra points? How does this differ in a tournament setting? Thank you!

It would depend on the situation. And the opponent.

In a tournament setting there shouldn't be any leeway at all. The points limit is the limit. That's why it's called a limit.

In a friendly game, I'll generally not mind a few points here or there if you're making a list up on the spot. If you're walking into a gaming session with a prepared list though, frankly there's no excuse for being over.

I wouldn't refuse to play, particularly if given time to adjust my own list accordingly... but I do consider it poor form.

In a tournament, whatever the points is listed is the hard cap.

In friendly games, I like to play not even 1 pt over.

Sometimes though, you get to the shop and someone has to throw a list together to play you. If they are struggling to cut something out and they are like 3-4pts over (in a 1500pt game, say) I don't really care too much and would rather just get to gaming. In a 1000pts, I would let them go over 1-2pts.

Like it's been said, in a competitive battle, the limit is the absolute limit.

However, in a friendly match purely for fun, depending on what they are running I let people go as far as 20 points over. If there is no way of lowering the points without A) ruining the army and b) running under points by more than 10-20 (eg. sanguine guard army) than I think it's ok. But if you can lower the total without doing either of those, than do it.

And in a themed game, it's dictated by the theme. If I was re-enacting the first companies last stand on macragge for example, the nids would have maybe a thousand or more points more than me.

99% of the time, competitive or friendly game or what-have-you, I allow 0 points over and expect my opponent to do the same.

my general rule for friendly games is 1%... if they're up to 1% over, i don't really care as long as they tell me; i'll just add an extra upgrade to a character or vehicle and call it a day. so, 2000pt game, 20pts. anything more and i'm too tempted to retweak my list and waste time not gaming.

tournies? zero points. if you're coming to a tourney with more points than allowed, you should be disqualified or at the bare minimum have your OPPONENT decide what to drop.

*insert_pun_here* wrote: If there is no way of lowering the points without A) ruining the army and b) running under points by more than 10-20 (eg. sanguine guard army) than I think it's ok.

I'm a little curious as to how you define 'ruining the army'... The whole point of playing to a points limit is that it limits what you can take. Designing an army that works within that limit is kind of the point of it.

For the group i usually game with, it largely depends on the type of game...

If its a 2v2 game, then one person might "need" to go over points limit, but as long as his team mate is slightly short its ok.

we also try to keep things relatively WYSIWYG, and if a flamer puts your army over by a couple points then we'll just roll with it. Beyond that, we keep everything light hearted, games are full of sound effects and joking about the visualisations of the battle, so getting in to the game itself is more important than figuring out if you can get your list under the points limit if its close.

10 points is the limit for me. However I tend to have a few "extra" option penned for jsut such an occasion. However it depends on the difference between my actual army. if my army is already 10 points below the limit (sometimes 9 or 7 for various reasons) I would not give them any leeway as I'm already handicapped from the limit (unless the only alternative to lowering their point cost was to take away a considerable chunk, like a Plague Marine or Thunder Hammer).

chaplaingrabthar wrote:99% of the time, competitive or friendly game or what-have-you, I allow 0 points over and expect my opponent to do the same.

That is the way you should play. I'm sorry, but going over points is not cool, bro.

Depends, for a new player I'd probably give them 5-10 points for the first few games for basic list errors while helping them prepare better for the next encounter.

After a few games... probably 2 points. Anything above that is a full weapon (Storm Bolter for ex.) and they can just drop that from there commander and learn for next time.

Depends on the situation. As someone else said, if the lists were prepared ahead of time, I would expect them to be exactly at the limit.

If we made them up on the fly, I'd allow a 1% overage.

Since I only play with friends, in neither case would I be a big jerk about it, since I play for fun and not for competition.

Yeah, I reckon 10 to 20 points is okay. That way, if you lose, you can always blame it on the extra points. Nothing like being a passive sore loser!

0

0, the point limit is a limit not a guideline. If you come to a 1500 point game with 1520 or something, then why not just make it a 1520 game instead.

n0t_u wrote:0, the point limit is a limit not a guideline. If you come to a 1500 point game with 1520 or something, then why not just make it a 1520 game instead.

well, let me amend my earlier statement, since you do raise a good point.

Since I only play with friends, I've got no problem allowing 1% over if we didn't do preformed lists. I'd rather spend time playing once we're all together and ready then arguing about something which I don't consider very important. I respect that other people play to compete, but that's not why I play, so - 1%, no problem. It's certainly frowned upon but we're not going to fight about it.

Of course, if I allow them 1%, then I'm going to give an extra upgrade to one of my squads to match.

If it's a random pickup game, saying that you're a few points over is actually an indirect way of asking to increase the point limit by a few points, as far as I can tell. A 1500 point limit is just as arbitrary as a 1525 point limit (and vice versa), so increasing the point limit for both players is fine.

Otherwise, it just seems silly to start the game out asking for a minor advantage of "just a few extra points". Unless someone has one of those magical "all options divisible by 5 points" codices, I'd expect most armies to end up slightly below the agreed point limit, and a person should get used to that.

Didn't we just have this thread like a week or so ago?

Personally, I always tailor my lists to be 0 points over, and I expect my opponent to do the same.

One or two points over in a friendly game doesn't bother me, and I'll stretch that to 10points if my opponant is very young (like 10 or something.)

Against someone my own age, however, I would prefer that we have the same points value exactly.

Valhallan42nd wrote:

chaplaingrabthar wrote:99% of the time, competitive or friendly game or what-have-you, I allow 0 points over and expect my opponent to do the same.

That is the way you should play. I'm sorry, but going over points is not cool, bro.

I agree, we are pretty strict about that in our club.

I don't like going over at all, but so long as it's not a competitive setting, I find the rule of "no more than half the cost of your cheapest model (rounded down)" to be fine leeway. Still, you should try your very best to make sure that your army fits under the limit. It's poor form to do otherwise. Just because some opponents will allow you to go a little over the limit doesn't mean you should.

Probably, and the week before that I would imagine.

Peronally I'm pretty easy going when gaming [even in tournament setrtings] and not too bothered by a few points but I do find it hard to understand why people would do this for a pre-planned game. Just smacks of lazyness and a lack of consideration for your opponent [or at worst WAAC-ism!].

PV will be 1000pts see you saturday. When saturday arrives you shouldn't be standing there saying that "I have 1005pts, my army wouldn't have worked otherwise". It can be hard to get dead on the limit but there in lies the pre-game challenge.

Pre-arranged and agreed its okay especially if someone wanted to try out a particular option or strategy with friends.

I did have this at a friendly tournament recently, one chap announced before the the event he couldn't meet the points limit and it was agreed by all that it was okay.

I played against him and during play his units seemed to have nearly all grenade options available for them and a plethora of special weapons. Although I was absolutely fine with the points before the game I couldn't help thinking that when you're standing there watching an enemy unit expend numerous special weapons options and then a demo charge "you really couldn't drop a single one of those to meet the PV?". In the same game I was actually playing 5pts short. Soured the aftertaste of the experience a little for me but not a big deal in the scheme of things.

I suppose the question is whether that extra 1-2% really makes a difference. In the example I give above the game finished really close, I lost but if I could have put another wound on a T3 HQ it would have been a draw. Makes you think.

Capt_Bowman wrote:Depends, for a new player I'd probably give them 5-10 points for the first few games for basic list errors while helping them prepare better for the next encounter.

After a few games... probably 2 points. Anything above that is a full weapon (Storm Bolter for ex.) and they can just drop that from there commander and learn for next time.

This is my view on it. If the points difference exceeds the cost of a (non-standard) weapon, then that weapon should be dropped from the list. If its just 1-2 points however, I'll let it slide.

Typically, our group either allows a player to borrow from their partner/s (in a team game) or allow their opponent the same points value. I will often rearrange my list to get it to fit better (drop a Nob Biker, and replace him with a regular nob and a couple extra boyz for example)

Tournaments, no lee-way.

Friendlies, I'm inclined to give some slack if they've adjusted their army on the spot. I'll also give some slack to folks that are 100% WYSIWYG as that makes it much harder to tweak the last few points.

When I first started learning how to play I was quite bad about going over. Luckily, the people I played with were quite lenient. In a friendly game, I wouldn't care if my opponent was 50 points over.

These days I stay under the point limit, but outside of a tournament I think anyone who would get their nose out of joint over an army man imbalance is maybe taking things a bit too seriously.

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 for 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 1 point. It doesn't make a lot of difference" is a huge fallacy. That 1 point 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 useless 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.

I think Steelmage said it pretty well. It's not like it's hard to meet points.

Fafnir wrote:I find the rule of "no more than half the cost of your cheapest model (rounded down)" to be fine leeway.

Nooo why'd I have to take those Gretchin!


Seriously though, I'm firmly in the 'point limit is the point limit' camp. I don't care if you have to drop a Terminator now, should've thought of that when you made the list.

If I can rebuild lists from scratch because they were 2 points over, so can you.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Didn't we just have this thread like a week or so ago?

And the week before that, and the one before that.

The obvious answer is zero (0). The reason for this: Is the two points the bolt pistol on the commander that the IG player wanted to include, or is the two points the 10th space marine in the tac squad? If it IS, then not only did you give them a space marine they shouldn't have had, but they also happily took that missile launcher and flamer as well. Alternatively, they got the tenth assault marine and the free rhino, for you twilight marines.

After thinking about it, I'd allow Necrons or Pure Grey Knights to go over. Would probably allow it for Dark Angels or Black Templar as well. Those guys need all the help they can get.

A lot also depends on the list. Codices like Tau, IG, Orks, and DH/WH all have tons of low point cost upgrades. You can find room somehow.

Most modern codices do operate with 5pt building blocks, such as SW, BA, and SN. Nids and Demons have more fiddly point options, but don't have thresholds for squad sizes: taking 11 termagants isn't that different from taking 12.

Eldar are a pretty rare codex in that they are low model count without many options to bulk out points. I'm ok with allowing Eldar to be a few points over more often than I am with most other books.

As has been said, for tournaments the limit is the limit, however.

I personally could care less, I have allowed some one to be 50 points over before, I added a few models to my army. It was just for fun so we had fun. I also will tell my opponent to just place his models on the table any ways if they accidently scattered off. I am playing for fun often people I play with want to try stuff out. I am also pretty new to 40k and I also am known to go over, put 10 terminators in a drop pod, and a few more stupid mistakes.

I also don't see how it is hard to stay in the limits of the points agreed on.15 points over drop a few guys or upgrades. but in q pick up game where we both make lists on the spot I don't really care.

I think it's kind of strange if you think rationally to worry so much about a few percent of the game total in points, when you know that the point values themselves are not scaled to be anywhere near a 1-2% "balance".

Also in a game where 10-25% of the person who goes second's army routinely gets killed before they have a chance to do anything how can a few points here and there rationally make a difference? Sure you can go back at the end of a game and say look those 2 pts made a difference, but if you replayed the same game an hour later the outcome would be totally different.

I play with people I know so maybe my outlook would be different if I routinely played with strangers, but for myself I can't really see getting too worked up about it.

Steelmage99 wrote:We have to set the limit somewhere....

Do we? Why?

For a fun game between friends, I'll allow some leeway- especially if they're new / just learning the game.

In a competitive setting it's got to be 0- they should know better.

seems a lot of people are more allowing then I am, point limit is the point limit. I can understand a point or 2, but anything more then that and your starting to match the price of an upgrade.

Our group are not a bunch of RAW enthusiasts, but this is one rule we never break. 1500 means 1500 or less. We never allow even a single point overage. Getting the best list possible without going over is a big part of the strategy of the game.

I agree if the person is new then few points over while they learn is okay.

The real problem I have is when you got that guy who's been playing for years asking for a little over. I think they are being enabled to play at a little over the limit.

I'd rather just say; "Ok you can't get under 1000 points why don't we try for 1250 or 1500?" than enable someone to bend the rules.

Would you allow someone to bend the rules like measuring front of base to rear of base? It's not that much distance...

Hey, they can be a little over, if that is an extra guy, then hey, just one more thing that will be dead at the end of the match.

They can take their extra termie, I will just shoot at it 30 times from one squad, he will roll a 1 eventually.

Saying most of our games our pick ups, and no one can seem to have a list prepared EVER, I kinda got over the points things. For most people at the store, going over will actually give them something that will actually make the game fun.

and additional 1" on a 6" move is more than a 15% difference in something that is an actual physical measurement. 10 pts in a 1000pt game is a 1% difference in something that is inaccurate and largely made up with no basis in reality.

I'd say a better analogy would be if you made sure you got your ruler calibrated by a certified body, and then used only notarized professional miniature movers to make your moves for you, you would be likely to get a 1% error in movement. Would you require this? than why worry about a few percent pts over?

Zero.

When I first started playing, me and my friends were rather lax in this. We started out saying 1 or 2 points over is fine. But then someone wanted to go 3 points over, and what's one more point, after all? Before you know it, the point restriction was more of a guideline than anything.

"You're 200 points over? Well, then I'll take an extra Land Raider and we'll call it even."
"But you already have 3 HS choices! If you get an extra Land Raider, then I want a 4th Berzerker squad!"
"Deal, but then I get another 100 points."
etc

When you set a point limit, that's the limit. The limit isn't 1 point more than that.

No points over.

Depends... in Ireland for casual we were ok with 1 or 2 pts.

But say I was against a marine player that was 16pts over (a marine) and he had a 5 man tac squad... I'd offer the flexability to take away a marine... (even though you normally can't have 4 man squads) since it balances things up more evenly.


But for tournaments the pts are the pts... that's it. No argument.

rodt777 wrote:...wondering how many points you allow your opponent to be.

I do not allow my opponent anything, Chuck Norris allows my opponent to be. Points don't come into it.

(None ever, and cogent sentences FTW. Thin thread is thin.)

0.

If we want to play a 1508 game we do so.

If I bring 1 extra point, my opponent gets 1 extra model--and I suggest to him it be a monolith.

I used to allow it, but after one of these threads a while back, the posts within convinced me to stop it and just aim for sets points or below.

Even if it means some lists I am short on points or have to modify the list.

Think my worst was about 18pts under as any unit that had troops for that kinda cost where maxed.

I now prefer it this way, and it avoids any potential arguements.

Zero. If I and my opponent want to play 1752 instead of 1750, then we'll agree to that instead. A point limit is a part of the game, as is building a list that fits within it.

Zero, end of story. Coming in over the limit is just lazy, rude, and/or self-entitled. No call for it, no reason you can't adjust it to the correct cap in 99.99% of circumstances.

Many armies nowadays have 3-5pt upgrades. The points limit is a limit. Take off that upgrade.

A small 1-5 points over should be allowed only if the list was being created by a new player.
They might have got some math wrong, and then with them being new, they probably won't use everything to its full power.

If it's for tournament play of course you can't go over.
I for one usually play under points, but that's because I don't see anything worth upgrading.

Also, I think some people are missing the point of friendly games...

Might as well call it "Serious Practice Time"

Kinda hard to find that some people can't play a game with even 1 extra point. It's a game... pure and simple.

Depends what it's been spent on really. Nit picky I know, but if it's paying for a really nice suit of armour on a Lord, when there is a slightly cheaper alternative out there, tough titty, downgrade.

If it's stuff like a spear armed regiment instead of hand weapons, meh.

I think its okay if they are just over the point limit eg 5 points, because 5 points isn't going to make much of a difference.

The_Savior wrote:Also, I think some people are missing the point of friendly games...

Not at all. Being friendly does not (among those I know) include breaking agreements or rules.

Making a mistake is one thing, but agreeing to a game whose point value is 2000 or less, and then deliberately showing up with more than that is another.

Being a friendly game, I am inclined to agree to (literally) any point value.


If you are 100% incapable of making a list under a certain value, do not agree to play games below that number.

kirsanth wrote:

The_Savior wrote:Also, I think some people are missing the point of friendly games...

Not at all. Being friendly does not (among those I know) include breaking agreements or rules.

Making a mistake is one thing, but agreeing to a game whose point value is 2000 or less, and then deliberately showing up with more than that is another.

Being a friendly game, I am inclined to agree to (literally) any point value.


If you are 100% incapable of making a list under a certain value, do not agree to play games below that number.

I'm talking a small mistake of 1-5.

I'm sure if you're an experienced player you can handle a few points over. Especially when playing a NEW player.

If anything, you'd probably take it as a small challenge.

The_Savior wrote:
Also, I think some people are missing the point of friendly games...

Might as well call it "Serious Practice Time"

Kinda hard to find that some people can't play a game with even 1 extra point. It's a game... pure and simple.

Okay, lets play Risk, but I get 2 more territories than you, and I get to pick those off the top, before we roll off to see who picks. No? How about tennis and we start 15-love? How about you serve with your offhand? A friendly game should be friendly, but it should be fair. When you're munchkining in more points, the underlying premise of it being 'friendly' or 'sporting' goes away.

"I'm sorry you consider it fluffy that your Tac Squads all have a TLLC Razorback. Perhaps you should rethink some other portion of your army to make it work?"

How about this, how about we just up the amount to how much you're (hypothetically) over, and you give me 10 minutes to rework my list?

While I totally accept the premise that planning an army has become a big part of the game, I also think that the points system is an abstraction, so I would happily give someone a bit of leeway on a pickup game.

However, I'd really like to see some kind of mechanism for dealing with armies of differing values, for example, where the smaller force can win by achieving its goal, even though it may get wiped out...

In friendly games I allow my friends to go over by 4 points maximum: once you hit 5 points, you should be able to drop SOMETHING in a 5th edition codex (older codexes have quite a few 1-4pt items, so it should rarely be an issue). In tournaments there is no excuse to ever go over points. Under is ok (and common) and over is bad. If I ran a tournament and one player was found to be over points in a round, all of his previous rounds would be changed to losses and the TO would decide what gets removed to make it fit for any future matches. No reason he can't keep playing: just a big penalty.

I really am suprised people are so hung up on having the points match exactly. Elsewhere on the board it seems to be common knowledge that some lists can't win and certain lists could never beat another list. Do points matter or not?

asmith wrote: Do points matter or not?

If the points do not matter, then remove them. If they are worth making a big deal about, then why is it odd your opponent makes a big deal about them too?

no they don't, that was my point!

I was not really trying to lift that to make it seem you were saying otherwise, sorry if it read that way.

I was trying to add to your statement. Ooops.

of course not ! if the opponent has a point more than you it could mean that they fit in an overpowered unit or upgrade!

asmith wrote:I really am suprised people are so hung up on having the points match exactly.

It's not that the points need to match exactly. It's that a point limit is the maximum you can take.

I often times field armies that are a few points below the maximum if there's no upgrade I want. And, with mech Eldar, there's no cheap upgrade for anything less than 10 points

That means sometimes I have an army with more points than my opponent, and sometimes my opponent has more points than me. But, we both have to be at or below the limit we agreed upon.

It's hard to communicate 100% clearly on the internet, I have the same problem myself a lot of the time.

I really would like to get some response on this because it seems like everyone is solidly on one side of this issue, and to my point of view even something as large as 5-10% of the point total difference would be largely invisible to most players in most games. I mean it's one thing if you are the two best generals in the world playing the two most point optimized lists in the world (I still think thing like who goes first could trump a 5% point difference), but to most players playing friendly games it doesn't make a lick of difference.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
@ Grakmar: Why couldn't it equally be the approximate number of points you were going to play at?

If I'm over I tend to offer my opponent the chance to match me. "Can you add another 15 points?"

If they can't, or don't want to, I'll cut down to 0.5% over. I think that's a negligible amount.

asmith wrote:@ Grakmar: Why couldn't it equally be the approximate number of points you were going to play at?

So long as both players are aware before building their list that it is only an approximate value, that's not a problem.

But if you agree to a points limit, then that limit is as high as you can go. Again, that's the whole point of it being a limit.

For those who think that holding an opponent to the points limit is over the top, what's the point of agreeing to a set limit if you are going to ignore it? Surely the player who has agreed to a limit and then expects to be allowed to ignore it is the one being unreasonable, not the player expecting that the agreed limit should be treated as what it is.

If those 5 points really have such a negligible impact on the game, cut them from the list and save arguments.

0. As others have said, it's a limit for a reason. Take off a man, or cut a gun somewhere. It'll make you a better player, and you'll learn what's really necessary, versus what you're adding just to add.

@ insaniak: You have a point there!

but how many people are that clear that it is a points limit? We usually have a conversation that goes something like:

"how many point?"

"Oh I dunno... 1850?"

Is it a stated rule or generally accepted convention that the point number is a hard and fast limit?

insaniak wrote:
If those 5 points really have such a negligible impact on the game, cut them from the list and save arguments.

That's really the point I've never seen a response to. If the x number of points REALLY is so negligible, why can't you cut it to get down to 2000 or 15000 or whatever?

why worry about it at all? the difference is negligible. (that's the point I'm trying to make anyway)

asmith wrote:but how many people are that clear that it is a points limit?

Everybody should be. It's clearly listed as such in the first step of the 'Organising a battle' sequence on page 86 of the rulebook.

Consider me informed I guess.

Seriously, yah, I don't allow opponents to go over the limit. If he's like, "I'm 8 points over!" I'm like, "I guess this space marine here (knock one over) had a heart-attack before the battle. Ah well, I guess the Emperor's Finest aren't all they're cracked up to be."

It is a point limit, not a suggestion. You can be under, but not over.

That is one rule I pretty much don't bend on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

insaniak wrote:

If those 5 points really have such a negligible impact on the game, cut them from the list and save arguments.

It is another Termagant for me, or Melta bombs for a justicar, or another skink. Yeah, 5 points is a noticeable and and potentially game changing number.

i may seem like a hard a$$

for me the limit is the limit if i say 1500 points i dont mean 1502 or even 1500.000000001

usually if you come to a gaming store, id carry a list('s) with you at all times. esp if your carrying your army around

I'm ok with one or two points over, with special consideration for any other Dark Angels Codex users. I know from experience how hard it is to balance armies from that book, so 5 to 10 points over is ok with me in that instance. (Note: I do hold myself to a different standard; I expect all of my armies to fit completely under the assigned limit, even if I have to break theme slightly to comply. I'll find a good reason fluff-wise.)

daedalus wrote:

The_Savior wrote:
Also, I think some people are missing the point of friendly games...

Might as well call it "Serious Practice Time"

Kinda hard to find that some people can't play a game with even 1 extra point. It's a game... pure and simple.

Okay, lets play Risk, but I get 2 more territories than you, and I get to pick those off the top, before we roll off to see who picks. No? How about tennis and we start 15-love? How about you serve with your offhand? A friendly game should be friendly, but it should be fair. When you're munchkining in more points, the underlying premise of it being 'friendly' or 'sporting' goes away.

"I'm sorry you consider it fluffy that your Tac Squads all have a TLLC Razorback. Perhaps you should rethink some other portion of your army to make it work?"

How about this, how about we just up the amount to how much you're (hypothetically) over, and you give me 10 minutes to rework my list?

I don't play risk, nor I don't like tennis.

However... I've played games where you start at a disadvantage and won.

It's a challenge nonetheless even if it's a mistake.

I'm okay with this on Warhammer, being the fact I've played before with 200-400 points less in my lists before.

If I can handle it, you can handle it.

I can see where you're coming from... I'm guess I'm just a little more friendly. Also I guess you could say I just don't care... I'm not one of those look at my W-L-D record people, so yeah.

Re: topic

0

Being new, when I entered this topic I thought I'd allow a few extra points, just to keep things smooth and steady. After reading through it, I've changed my mind.

zero or under.

asmith wrote:why worry about it at all? the difference is negligible. (that's the point I'm trying to make anyway)

Thales, said to be the first philosopher, argued that there was no difference between life and death. “Then why not die?” he was asked. He shot back, “Because there is no difference.”

When I said I was OK with being a bit over in friendly games, I simply meant if we're in a rush and my opponent didn't have time to add up a list precisely... or if I want to handicap the game and/or it's no big deal since I'm helping someone learn the rules.

I've actually been a few points over in a friendly game before, and it shocked me... but ended up not being a problem to my opponent, either.

RiTides wrote:When I said I was OK with being a bit over in friendly games, I simply meant if we're in a rush and my opponent didn't have time to add up a list precisely... or if I want to handicap the game and/or it's no big deal since I'm helping someone learn the rules.

I've actually been a few points over in a friendly game before, and it shocked me... but ended up not being a problem to my opponent, either.

i assume this is under the concept that your at his house making a list on the fly.

normally when i know when im going to play (witch is the only time ill bring my army out) ill acually carry a folder with a 500-1000-1500-2000-3000-10000 point lists.

i also usually make them so if its from 3000-10000 i can just dupe certian parts of the list for them....or i bring my labtop xD

If they allow me to go over, I'll let them go over the same amount of points.

0. I have never been over, asked if I could be a little over, nor allowed my opponent to be over. If we are playing a game at 500,1000,1500, or 2000 it is that number or lower. That's simply how the game is. Then again I play to win and in competitive environments.

Personally I have a free range of maybe 5-10 points apart.

It's just a bit more friendly that way.Sometimes one model is just one or two points over the limit,you can hardly drop a 25 point Noise Marine because of a few points are over the limit.

Anyway,having an extra twin-linked bolter kinda fails to make an impact fighting against a 2000 points army led by Calgar and Tigrius.

But I like having exactly 2000,since it's a nice round number,and I keep my interchangible squads the same points value for easy rotation.

The points limit is a limit.

1. The one game-deciding combiweapon may be exactly those five points he was over, and then what?

2. If a minor difference doesn't matter, then define minor. Isn't 50 points minor in a 2500 points game? That's one SM trike right there, not to mention what other armys could field for that amount. And once you define minor (for example as 0.5%), a 2000-points-game suddenly is a 2010-points-game. And hey, sorry, but I'm over by five points, 2015, that's minor, isn't it? In the end, you'll be playing a rather one-sided 3000-points-game.

[/sarcasm] Scr.

In a friendly, 5-10pts (and then I'll equal it).

In a tournament, not one point over.
It's called a 'points limit' for a reason.

Asherian Command wrote:If they allow me to go over, I'll let them go over the same amount of points.

If both people are playing at or below the same agreed upon value, no one is going over.

This is the same as simply deciding to play a higher value game.
The problem is that by (deliberately) going past the agreed upon value, and then informing your opponent that he should take an extra xxx points is being . . . shady at best.

If you are making lists together (or at the table anyway) it does not have to be a matter of "going over" so much as having a floating value that you both aim for. "Let's go 1500. . .hmmm, I cannot seem to figure out how to remove an upgrade instead of a model so I am at 1505--want to play that instead?" is more than acceptable most anywhere I have seen.

If the lists were pre-generated it will (generally) be much harder for your opponent to get use from the extra points that you (deliberately abused your agreement to) generate your list around from the start.

So be a sport and honor your agreement.

This is entirely different than making a mistake.
I played a guy who accidentally went over by almost 20% of the value of the game. After figuring it out, it was simply a matter of laughing and finishing with the lists were started with anyway. I lost but had a grand time doing so, and have happily played the same guy since--with only the occationally ribbing about his math skills.

I think I'm in the camp that says in competitive play there should be no extra points over.

However in friendly play, especially one of those really ad-hoc on the spot games, I will allow points over in certain cases.

For example, if they have 1000pts list, and they add a 5pt upgrade, then that is uncool, because they intentionally exceeding the limit and gaining an advantage in the process. However, say I am playing someone with a unit that must be 10 models minimum, and they have enough points for 9 models, but adding one more takes them to 1007, then I will usually let the extra 7 points slide as it means I won't be sat there scratching my backside (and wasting valuable hobby time) waiting for them to re-structure an on-the-spot list.

As for me, my ork list comes in at 998 pts, hasn't changed for about 18 months, and I still suck at winning games!

As a new player for this game Its nice to see people are generous. I remeber back with more than one game the Zero Tolerance for Overage policy people had even friendly games. Now I get the deal with a Tourny and a pre-planned army, there is just no excuse for your points to be over at all in that kind of scenario.

However I consider myself as a good example, I'm still learning the scoring curve that goes with WYSIWYG, and I must say it is quite different from any other miniature game I've played where the individual pieces are very static in abilities

Solorg wrote:Seriously, yah, I don't allow opponents to go over the limit. If he's like, "I'm 8 points over!" I'm like, "I guess this space marine here (knock one over) had a heart-attack before the battle. Ah well, I guess the Emperor's Finest aren't all they're cracked up to be."

*cough cough* tool.

Shadowmarine wrote:

Solorg wrote:Seriously, yah, I don't allow opponents to go over the limit. If he's like, "I'm 8 points over!" I'm like, "I guess this space marine here (knock one over) had a heart-attack before the battle. Ah well, I guess the Emperor's Finest aren't all they're cracked up to be."

*cough cough* tool.

Lmao

But, I don't like it when people go over, I won't make a space marine palpitate, but it isn't right. In friendly matches that is, in tourneys it is a no-no..

So, after 4 pages, perhaps we've finally reached a consensus.

Friendly games A.) Many people allow up to 1% over for newer players, or for a hastily created list, which is then matched. The goal being to segue as soon as possible into...


Friendly games B.) It's a jerk move to ask for extra points, since it's puts your opponent into a bad spot: allow it and be at a disadvantage, or make him into TFG - so, no extra points.

OR

Tournaments: NO EXTRA POINTS EVER. NO MERCY. NO REMORSE.

so maybe we can sticky this or something and never have this thread again.

Ouze wrote:So, after 4 pages, perhaps we've finally reached a consensus.

Friendly games A.) Many people allow up to 1% over for newer players, or for a hastily created list, which is then matched. The goal being to segue as soon as possible into...


Friendly games B.) It's a jerk move to ask for extra points, since it's puts your opponent into a bad spot: allow it and be at a disadvantage, or make him into TFG - so, no extra points.

OR

Tournaments: NO EXTRA POINTS EVER. NO MERCY. NO REMORSE.

so maybe we can sticky this or something and never have this thread again.

/agree

Good call bro

In a tournament, never that's cheating bro.

In a friendly game, I adopt a slight grin, look at my opponent, and say, "XXX points ehh? I could use XXX points." 9 Times out of 10 my opponent will usually withdraw their request.

pogo wrote:usually if you come to a gaming store, id carry a list('s) with you at all times. esp if your carrying your army around

But how do you tailor your list to give you the best chance of beating the other guy (who actually had a list ready)?!!!

Why do so many people not have lists ready? I can only assume that it's so they can list-tailor.

Scott-S6 wrote:

pogo wrote:usually if you come to a gaming store, id carry a list('s) with you at all times. esp if your carrying your army around

But how do you tailor your list to give you the best chance of beating the other guy (who actually had a list ready)?!!!

Why do so many people not have lists ready? I can only assume that it's so they can list-tailor.

Perhaps because they don't happen to know at what point value they will be playing that day. Personally I prefer to play at 2000points and above. But if the only guy at the game store wants to play 1500 points instead I'll compromise and say how about 1750? Sometimes you just have to make a list up on the spot. If they game is planned ahead of time you should have no problem bringing a list w/ the right amount of points.

On another not, sometimes I mess w/ people that List tailor. I'll whip out 3 Land raiders and set them on the table before the game starts. When the other guy finishes building his list I'll set the LR's back in box and pull out the pieces I actually plan on fielding.

Ouze wrote:So, after 4 pages, perhaps we've finally reached a consensus.

Friendly games A.) Many people allow up to 1% over for newer players, or for a hastily created list, which is then matched. The goal being to segue as soon as possible into...


Friendly games B.) It's a jerk move to ask for extra points, since it's puts your opponent into a bad spot: allow it and be at a disadvantage, or make him into TFG - so, no extra points.

OR

Tournaments: NO EXTRA POINTS EVER. NO MERCY. NO REMORSE.

so maybe we can sticky this or something and never have this thread again.

I can agree with this. Can we get this stickied in the hopes that this topic won't come up again next week?

This thread pops up a few times a year.

The correct answer is 0 points over.

Teach the new players the importance of knowing how to calculate points.

Points values aren't speed limits: there are rules. 1,500 points means less than or equal to 1,500 points. To ask for an exception to this is already making you TFG.

pogo wrote:

RiTides wrote:When I said I was OK with being a bit over in friendly games, I simply meant if we're in a rush and my opponent didn't have time to add up a list precisely... or if I want to handicap the game and/or it's no big deal since I'm helping someone learn the rules.

I've actually been a few points over in a friendly game before, and it shocked me... but ended up not being a problem to my opponent, either.

i assume this is under the concept that your at his house making a list on the fly.

normally when i know when im going to play (witch is the only time ill bring my army out) ill acually carry a folder with a 500-1000-1500-2000-3000-10000 point lists.

i also usually make them so if its from 3000-10000 i can just dupe certian parts of the list for them....or i bring my labtop xD

I was making a list on the fly, but wasn't at his house- I had anticipated playing at a different point level then we ended up playing, and didn't have one ready.

Also, to those saying confidently you've "never" been over- well, if you've been playing for a long time, or try out different lists, I honestly doubt it. I say this, because I thought so myself- and the only reason I found out that it wasn't true for me, is that I went through my list again after the afore-mentioned game, and discovered I was in fact 4 points over.

I'm pretty anal about this stuff. No matter how careful you are, if you mix things up a lot, do pick-up games, and have been playing for a long time, it's bound to happen to you. That said, I'm talking about playing friendly games at varying points levels. For a tournament, I check my list probably 10 times... so I'm reasonably confident that that hasn't (and won't) happen.

As to having lists for every point level ready and on-hand... your above lists jump over all the 250 increments (common for fantasy), and now people are starting to play things divisible by 4 for percentage purposes. I used to carry a list for every 250 point increment, and this still happened to me.

Anyway, food for thought...

Thaylen wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:

pogo wrote:usually if you come to a gaming store, id carry a list('s) with you at all times. esp if your carrying your army around

But how do you tailor your list to give you the best chance of beating the other guy (who actually had a list ready)?!!!

Why do so many people not have lists ready? I can only assume that it's so they can list-tailor.

Perhaps because they don't happen to know at what point value they will be playing that day. Personally I prefer to play at 2000points and above. But if the only guy at the game store wants to play 1500 points instead I'll compromise and say how about 1750? Sometimes you just have to make a list up on the spot. If they game is planned ahead of time you should have no problem bringing a list w/ the right amount of points.

Totally. But some people never seem to have lists ready in advance.

None. I always make my lists under the value, never over. I don't care if that flamer is an extra five points and you're at 1497 points. You can't have it.

My group has an informal "I'm over on points. Deal with it!" agreement. : )
We all know and trust each other, so we know we're not going to hose each other on something.
If we're a point or 3 over, it's okay. Once you hit the point where you're over by the cost of wargear, though... lose the wargear.

You're 10 points over? No. Lose a melta gun or something.
If you're 5 points over & you've got a 5 point piece of wargear somewhere, then drop it.

At a tournament, though, no leeway.

Eric

Zero. A points limit is just that a LIMIT. I mean there is no reason to be over, if you are just drop a 5 point upgrade/special weapon.

However I will handicap myself if against a newer player by reducing my cap. Not only will this make me a better player by forcing me to play down but it also allows the newer player a good game where he can learn how to deal with threats in smaller amounts as opposed to being face-rolled. Kind of the Allergy shots theory. Start small & build it up until you can deal with it properly.

"I'm just a little over my points limit, but I'll just have a slight point advantage"

"I'm just an inch out of charging range, but I'll just push them a little bit further"

"I just missed with my Melta gun, but I'll just go ahead and hit the vehicle"


Not much difference really.

I learned another thing on this thread: people are very bad at analogies.

MIKEtheMERCILESS wrote:"I'm just a little over my points limit, but I'll just have a slight point advantage"

"I'm just an inch out of charging range, but I'll just push them a little bit further"

"I just missed with my Melta gun, but I'll just go ahead and hit the vehicle"


Not much difference really.

So, by that logic, driving a little over the speed limit isn't that different from high treason.

Interesting.

As much over a they want. When i inevitably get beaten i can find comfort in the fact i could never have won. In fact i hate it when they are under, it gives them an 'excuse'...... Haha seems i have created an ouruborous...

No points over. As so many people have pointed out, even little bits of equipment can have a big effect on the game.
That combi flamer that you bought could decimate a unit of orks, or those melta bombs could stop a land raider.

Polonius wrote:

MIKEtheMERCILESS wrote:"I'm just a little over my points limit, but I'll just have a slight point advantage"

"I'm just an inch out of charging range, but I'll just push them a little bit further"

"I just missed with my Melta gun, but I'll just go ahead and hit the vehicle"


Not much difference really.

So, by that logic, driving a little over the speed limit isn't that different from high treason.

Interesting.

If you tend to compare a 7" charge to the crime of High Treason, than sure, why not.

Wow, that executioner is going to get quite the work out.

Well, that, or you accept that different violations of rules have different impacts on the systems that the rules are designed to uphold, which would be the general point that Polonius was making.

Which leads onto my point that instead of analysing how big an impact the violation would have on the outcome of the game, simply accept it as you would any other game rule and not violate it.

A single boltgun very rarely ever makes a difference to the outcome of game, so why are you much less likely to hear someone ask "You don't mind if we just say that one hit?"

MIKEtheMERCILESS wrote:Which leads onto my point that instead of analysing how big an impact the violation would have on the outcome of the game, simply accept it as you would any other game rule and not violate it.

Except people violate game rules all the time. How often have you allowed an opponent to backtrack and move a unit, or use an Eldar psychic power, or play with non-WYSIWYG models, or any of the other courtesies that are often exchanged in casual games?

Why is allowing somebody to be a few points over any different from other violations of game rules that make the game more interesting for both parties?

A single boltgun very rarely ever makes a difference to the outcome of game, so why are you much less likely to hear someone ask "You don't mind if we just say that one hit?"

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

MIKEtheMERCILESS wrote:Which leads onto my point that instead of analysing how big an impact the violation would have on the outcome of the game, simply accept it as you would any other game rule and not violate it.

A single boltgun very rarely ever makes a difference to the outcome of game, so why are you much less likely to hear someone ask "You don't mind if we just say that one hit?"

Because that extra hit could potentially kill the trygon that was going to charge the following turn, causing the whole game to crash and burn.

I have played WHFB and I was 500 points under my opponent. It gave me a challenge, and it is a game so why not?

Were I to enter a tournament? I would be at or below the limit but never above. Bringing more points than allowed to a tournament is cheating (and high treason).

In any other game - who cares? We routinely have armies that are 1857 points rather than 1850 or 2002 points rather than 2000 or whatever. Hell, the last event we held didn't even have points limits. It was just "take what you want and go". We have games of 2000 points fighting 4000 points, and 1500 points taking on 1200 point armies. We had a blast.

Polonius wrote:So, by that logic, driving a little over the speed limit isn't that different from high treason.

Dude, driving over the speed limit is high treason. Everyone knows that!

insaniak wrote:It would depend on the situation. And the opponent.

In a tournament setting there shouldn't be any leeway at all. The points limit is the limit. That's why it's called a limit.

In a friendly game, I'll generally not mind a few points here or there if you're making a list up on the spot. If you're walking into a gaming session with a prepared list though, frankly there's no excuse for being over.

I wouldn't refuse to play, particularly if given time to adjust my own list accordingly... but I do consider it poor form.

I would have to agree with Insaniak with this one. It ok to be under, but never over. Not even a single point

MagickalMemories wrote:You're 10 points over? No. Lose a melta gun or something.
If you're 5 points over & you've got a 5 point piece of wargear somewhere, then drop it.

I'd prefer my opponent to be 5pts over than to start the "this meltagun is actually a flamer" nonsense.

Up to 10 points and I generally don't care.

I always try to make my lists on or under points though.

chaplaingrabthar wrote:99% of the time, competitive or friendly game or what-have-you, I allow 0 points over and expect my opponent to do the same.

Agreed. Same here. Unless say its someone I know quite well that is testing a new army list out. Then there's a little leeway. But for myself I never go over the points cap.

MIKEtheMERCILESS wrote:"I'm just a little over my points limit, but I'll just have a slight point advantage"

"I'm just an inch out of charging range, but I'll just push them a little bit further"

"I just missed with my Melta gun, but I'll just go ahead and hit the vehicle"


Not much difference really.

Wow, Forgeworld and GW have scenarios all the time where the two armies don't match point-wise. Who knew the company was so full of cheaters?

Specific scenarios are very different, because they have supposedly been specifically balanced in terms of forces allowed, and victory conditions, and special rules, so as to not need to have the same number of points.

This assumes they've been designed competently, and actually playtested before publication -- I do have my doubts about that, a lot of the time.

Edit -- on the subject at hand -- I allow my opponent to be as many points under as they like. If they find they're a few points over and have no little upgrades they want to drop, they can always drop their cheapest unit entirely. If they want to play "bring all your models and put them on the table and I'll bring all mine and we'll see what happens", I believe that's called Apocalypse.

insaniak wrote:It would depend on the situation. And the opponent.

In a tournament setting there shouldn't be any leeway at all. The points limit is the limit. That's why it's called a limit.

In a friendly game, I'll generally not mind a few points here or there if you're making a list up on the spot. If you're walking into a gaming session with a prepared list though, frankly there's no excuse for being over.

I wouldn't refuse to play, particularly if given time to adjust my own list accordingly... but I do consider it poor form.

+1

Scott-S6 wrote:

MagickalMemories wrote:You're 10 points over? No. Lose a melta gun or something.
If you're 5 points over & you've got a 5 point piece of wargear somewhere, then drop it.

I'd prefer my opponent to be 5pts over than to start the "this meltagun is actually a flamer" nonsense.

Doesn't bother me, so long as it's universal.
ALL flamers are meltas? Fine.
This flamer is a flamer, but this one over here is a melta? :eye roll:

Eric

JOHIRA wrote:Wow, Forgeworld and GW have scenarios all the time where the two armies don't match point-wise. Who knew the company was so full of cheaters?

Yay for deliberately missing the point.

It's not cheating if both players agree to play that way.

insaniak wrote:

JOHIRA wrote:Wow, Forgeworld and GW have scenarios all the time where the two armies don't match point-wise. Who knew the company was so full of cheaters?

Yay for deliberately missing the point.

It's not cheating if both players agree to play that way.

And if both players agree to let one player be 10 points over?

yeah,
TLDR... I read page1 and here's my two cents.

I try to stick to the limit agreed it's only proper, but if I want to go over the limit I'll check that it's cool to do so.

I'm always happy for my opponent to be over costed by any number of points as long as I get to add in an extra melta/troop/tank!

Panic

I prefer the 0 points over, since a lot of my gaming will probably be tournaments (until I get used to my work schedule). But if someone wants to go over, for whatever reason, I would rather increase both army lists point limit so then both of us can have more shiny things.

we allow about 2-3 points over, but if its because of an upgrade never, but we always take spare troops incase one person doesnt agree so we readjust our armys before hand, like removing a battle suit so a parrana can be used (sorry my spellng sucks)

MIKEtheMERCILESS wrote:
A single boltgun very rarely ever makes a difference to the outcome of game, so why are you much less likely to hear someone ask "You don't mind if we just say that one hit?"

Most likely because allowing a bit of overage with respect to points is not the same thing as the direct manipulation of what are supposed to be random number generators.

In the first case the conventions of a given environment are relaxed, in the other case a fundamental change is made with respect to a basic element of the game. If you start fudging dice rolls, then the random element isn't random at all.

IMO, they're allowed to be up to 5 points for every 1000 points (so, 1005, 2010, 4020, 8040, etc)

Usually, if they stick to these guidelines, I'll throw in another upgrade somewhere, and get on with it. (Casual games of course, and I always ask to see a list or have a rundown of their army)

:EDIT:
Quick question: Dogma, what the hell is your avatar? It's been bugging me for ages

S_P

Its a giant, steam-powered platypus.

I used to allow up to 4 points over, but recently I have started saying you have to be at the number or lower, I've found a player or two will add an item just because he can go over rather than they don't have another way to do it.

Bottom line: It can be fun to allow, but normally you shouldn't allow it.

It really gets me though when someone asks if they can be 3 or some points over, where I've already made my list on the spot at the points or under.

Polonius wrote:

MIKEtheMERCILESS wrote:Which leads onto my point that instead of analysing how big an impact the violation would have on the outcome of the game, simply accept it as you would any other game rule and not violate it.

Except people violate game rules all the time. How often have you allowed an opponent to backtrack and move a unit, or use an Eldar psychic power, or play with non-WYSIWYG models, or any of the other courtesies that are often exchanged in casual games?

Why is allowing somebody to be a few points over any different from other violations of game rules that make the game more interesting for both parties?

What I'm trying to get at is that sure, you can let that player use that Phychic Power even though he failed it or let him charge because he was *just* out and is down on his luck. However, it's always clear that this is breaking the rules and giving him a leg up, which you allow as a curtesy.

It's one thing for someone to ask you if you mind if he can bend the rules at some point to at least keep the game from being one-sided;
it's a different thing altogether, if someone in advance of the game has given himself an advantage by packing that extra melta-gun which takes him over the agreed points limit, and assumes that there's nothing wrong with that.

I'm not talking about punishing someone who's over their points as if he's cheated; I'm talking about the attitude that many players take that not only is it not a rules violation, but that it would be unexpected if you as the opponent would have an issue with it. You're welcome to allow it, but you do on the premise that you're accepting that he has the advantage of that extra piece of wargear that not only takes him above the agreed points limit, but what was aparrently to important for him to simply drop to avoid the violation.

2 points is the limit for me. I usually play friendly games (but competitive) so it isn't a big deal for me. But if your over more than 1 weapon or 1 model. just drop it.
You should have thought about it better.

0, zilch, nothing.
BE AT THE LIMIT OR...I'd probably just add another melta bomb. I suck at arguing over even the tiniest conflicts.

Tbh, I really really want people to stay under the limit. I very very often find my self at 2001p, I can't get under it without dropping something, weakening my army.
Which I do believe is the point. If you can't fit something in 2000p you can't bring it to a 2000p match...

I'll happily go to five over. With the newer codexes, it's very easy to get bang on the money, by adding or dropping grenades, melta bombs etc, but the older codexes often have random numbers in unit costs, with little or nothing to allow the player to keep it on the number.

I find single digits is not worth bothering about(1-9 points_) and really makes little difference.

Sometimes you get those 2001 point lists, etc.

I try to stay at or under myself.

0 points over. It's a points LIMIT and that's what limit means. I say that as a casual gamer.

If they can reach the limit by dropping something then they should have to, but 1 or 2 points over doesnt worry me too much.
No getting away with that extra meltagun though.

I am still wondering why more people do not simply agree to playing 2005 point games, when it is obviously so difficult for them (or their opponent) to build a 2000 point list.

Sure, no tourney I have ever seen does that, but then no tourney allows more points then they state originally anyway.

Agreeing to allow 5 extra points is the same as agreeing to play a game with a different point total.

Put another way--if your games allow players to be 10 points beyond the number the players agreed to, then you are just lying (to yourself) about the game total, not simply allowing extra points. Saying something like "It is ok to be 5 points over at 2000" is really saying "I am playing a 2005 point game."

Less than 3pts

Zero points over.

I could care less if the guy is exactly on or under or 10 points over. There's more important things in life to worry about...

If it bothers you so much, ask your opponent to remove 1 model from one of his units. Or, tell him you're gonna add a model to one of your units to even it out. Or one of you can add/remove a piece of cheap wargear.

Necros wrote:If it bothers you so much, ask your opponent to remove 1 model from one of his units. Or, tell him you're gonna add a model to one of your units to even it out. Or one of you can add/remove a piece of cheap wargear.

This is a pretty easy way to deal with it in a friendly game. If they have a list that couldn't drop the last 3 points, and you're 2 points under, you've got a 5 point piece of gear to add on somewhere...

Hello, ironcurse icon!!! (for WHFB)

If we have agreed ahead of time to a 2000 point game, I expect my opponent to show up with a list of 2000 points or LESS. Not one point over. If it's a pickup game and we are throwing lists together on the spot, I'm not that worried about 5 or 10 points over.

I prefer that they go under but if it's really minuscule like 1-4 points I let it go. I mean it's just a game and usually that much more points doesn't make a huge difference. If it's a tournament though then no they have to meet the limit. Don't wanna go all Walter Soljack on their you know what's now. "MARK IT ZERO!" lol.

kirsanth wrote:Agreeing to allow 5 extra points is the same as agreeing to play a game with a different point total.

Only if you insist both players' armies be at the same point value.

Put another way--if your games allow players to be 10 points beyond the number the players agreed to, then you are just lying (to yourself) about the game total, not simply allowing extra points. Saying something like "It is ok to be 5 points over at 2000" is really saying "I am playing a 2005 point game."

And why does that matter?

JOHIRA wrote:

kirsanth wrote:Agreeing to allow 5 extra points is the same as agreeing to play a game with a different point total.

Only if you insist both players' armies be at the same point value.

Not true at all in the quote you grabbed. Otherwise, I do tend to assume that the game is agreed to be the same value for both players. However here I have rather been simply pointing out the variance.
If you agree to play with 1500 vs 2000 and allow 5 points extra, that is agreeing to playing 1505 vs 2005. Which is what I wrote. I am not sure what confused you in that-or what brought that up.

JOHIRA wrote:And why does that matter?

Scroll up, it was in the same post.

kirsanth wrote:I am still wondering why more people do not simply agree to playing 2005 point games, when it is obviously so difficult for them (or their opponent) to build a 2000 point list.

I do not think it does.
editing to add:
We somewhat regularly challenge others in our gaming group to odd point cost games. If by some lark, I create a really interesting list for killing Space Wolves that comes out to 1643 points when throwing it together, I am inclined to ask a Space Wolves player I know to play me with their own 1643 list built to play Tyranids.

That said, I would tell him to make a new list if he showed up with 1644 after agreeing to the game.

Wow, it seems like people are Really more points anal than my friends and I are. The going over usualy happens when you are like 40-50 points under the limit and add an extra squad or vehicle to get it up to it.

Under 20 with a "Hey I am over, is that cool?" is fine with me. That just means i upgrade some wargear to compensate.

Personally for our games I allow up to 5pts over, but only if it's not avoidable. By that I mean if you have 1500pts and want that 5pt upgrade, ya can't have it unless you rework your list

kirsanth wrote:If you agree to play with 1500 vs 2000 and allow 5 points extra, that is agreeing to playing 1505 vs 2005. Which is what I wrote. I am not sure what confused you in that-or what brought that up.

And if that is acceptable, why does it ruin the game to agree at the last minute to play 1510 vs. 2005?

JOHIRA wrote:

kirsanth wrote:If you agree to play with 1500 vs 2000 and allow 5 points extra, that is agreeing to playing 1505 vs 2005. Which is what I wrote. I am not sure what confused you in that-or what brought that up.

And if that is acceptable, why does it ruin the game to agree at the last minute to play 1510 vs. 2005?

Would you rather read the text I posted already or have me quote it back for you?

Here is the quick and dirty answer that skips some details, but it seems that would only help in this case. . .

kirsanth wrote:The problem is that by (deliberately) going past the agreed upon value, and then informing your opponent that he should take an extra xxx points is being . . . shady at best.

If you are making lists together (or at the table anyway) it does not have to be a matter of "going over" so much as having a floating value that you both aim for. "Let's go 1500. . .hmmm, I cannot seem to figure out how to remove an upgrade instead of a model so I am at 1505--want to play that instead?" is more than acceptable most anywhere I have seen.

If the lists were pre-generated it will (generally) be much harder for your opponent to get use from the extra points that you (deliberately abused your agreement to) generate your list around from the start.

So be a sport and honor your agreement.

Now let me ask you, why would it ruin the game to play by the rules you agreed to follow?

I don't allow opponents to be over at all. Unless it's a child or really new player kind of fumbling with their army list due to a combination of inexperience and limited model selection.

It depends on the player and the circumstance.

Against a mate who I know builds list for fun more than anything, I'm fine with them going over because I know it's to make a list more interesting, not more powerful. A little while back a mate asked me if he could go ten points over, because he wanted to include a full strength unit of Possessed. Alright, I said, but only if I can take a fourth heavy option, because I had twenty spare points and a freshly painted grot kannon...

Against a guy who I know is focusing on a more powerful list, I wouldn't be lenient.

kirsanth wrote:

JOHIRA wrote:And if that is acceptable, why does it ruin the game to agree at the last minute to play 1510 vs. 2005?

Here is the quick and dirty answer that skips some details, but it seems that would only help in this case. . .[snipped]

That didn't really answer my question, you just presumed a very particular mindset for a problem that can come up for a variety of reasons.

But don't think I'm personally getting after you about this. I'm fishing for an answer as to why this matters to anyone. It seems a sizable portion of posters on this thread are ready to declare that the way they play with their dollies is the only acceptable way to play with dollies, and anyone who doesn't follow their rules is a dirty rotten cheater, even if they're playing dollies with someone completely different. There have even been several posters apparently so passionate about their chosen way to play with dollies that they don't even want to permit other opinions about how to play with dollies to even be discussed in this thread- there has been more than one request to lock it.

Now let me ask you, why would it ruin the game to play by the rules you agreed to follow?

I didn't say it would.

JOHIRA wrote:why this matters to anyone.

The only people it matters to are you and your opponent. No one else on the planet gives a what you do in a game.

If you assume that it doesn't matter you are in for a lot more issue getting a game than if you assume it does.
If you know that your opponent does not care, then man up and admit you are playing a higher cost game.


As an odd thought, posting a battle report for a "2000 point game" where (one of) the players have 2001 or more points makes it look like you just can't count or someone was cheating.

Editing to add:
The main reason people are saying playing at or below the point value they agreed to in a game matters is because the OP actually asked.
/shrug

If it were a competitive game, its a no no. But if we are playing a friendly game, they can be as many points over as they want, only if i get to match that.

rodt777 wrote:Hello Dakka, I was wondering how many points you allow your opponent to be. For instance, if you're a 1500pt game and someone brings a 1508 list, do you allow it? Maybe if they let you have 8 extra points? How does this differ in a tournament setting? Thank you!

Some people, really good friends, it doesnt matter much. anything under 10, although up to 50 is cool.

Random people I dont really know or know that well? 3-4 points. Anything over 5 you can drop a piece of wargear....

I allow under 2 since over 2 pts usually means some piece of wargear. But in tournaments and competitive situations where you prepare your list before, i wouldn't allow a point

Zero for the group that I play within, and that goes for pickup games we play as well. Seems a bit tight maybe, but I/we do allow opponants and ourselves to be under by as many points as you want. For us it all comes down to being realistic and losing that couple of points somewhere to make it fit, you can't always have everything you want. Mostly it's between 1 and 3 points under, for example.



Couldn't be bothered to read the whole thread and give argument on cases brough previosly.

kirsanth wrote:If you know that your opponent does not care, then man up and admit you are playing a higher cost game.

Yay, and now we've reached the point in the thread where people who don't play with their mandollies in the correct way are not just cheaters, they are insufficiently manly cheaters.

JOHIRA wrote:

kirsanth wrote:If you know that your opponent does not care, then man up and admit you are playing a higher cost game.

Yay, and now we've reached the point in the thread where people who don't play with their mandollies in the correct way are not just cheaters, they are insufficiently manly cheaters.

Lol.

I know that being over the points limit is a pretty easy to measure form of rules violation, but even being five points over is less of an advantage than a single one inch fudge. I'd much rather get to the game than worry about a few points.

I have to admit that I think folks willing to break their agreements over their self-proclaimed space barbies to be a challenge to game with.
When those -rules- are broken before the game starts it makes it less likely to occur.

When I play my necrons, I always seem to be exactly three points over. If this is a problem for my opponent, I'll take out a warrior. If it's not, that's cool too.

I don't really care. I once tabled my TFG who i found had taken 200+ more points than me and bought plenty of illegal upgrades. Didn't stop me from whooping his butt

Anyways, I never go over. I don't go to a gaming store without a proper list. Will I let you do it? eh. most of the time. I'm not going to get anal on you, but if you consistently do it.. wtf
Especially with marines. it's pretty much all 5's and 10s. how the bloody hell do you manage to go over points with that?!?

If my opponent in a friendly game is over the limit, I just change the limit. If we said we would play a 1500 point game, and they've got 1531 because the miscalculated, I just change it to a 1531 point limit and put something new in my list. After all, it's a friendly game.

Id say 5-10. If its closer to 10 though, I like to look at there list to see if they are giving someone and extra power weapon that could be lost to get the points total down....but then again, im not overly competative about the game....im playing to have fun

We have a general rule at the 2 gaming clubs I attend which is simple 1 point per 500. so for a 500pt game 1 point over, 1000pt 2 points over etc etc

Works pretty well for us

CT GAMER wrote:
2001 point lists

My God...

It's full of Spam!

I never go over. Most of my CSM lists are somewhere between one and four points below the limit due to Berzerkers refusing to cost a multiple of five. I print out all of my lists before I go the FLGS, and bring copies for pretty much every multiple of 250 starting with five hundred.

My response to an opponent being over varies. Is it a little kid or someone with an extremely limited model collection? In that case, I'm cool with some variance. I'd also include older codexes that lack easy numbers. With a space marine player, I'd probably ask that they drop a five-point upgrade somewhere. I've got options with my chaos to add points (Havoc Launchers, melta bombs, changing special weapons, etc), but I generally prefer to just play at the point limit we agreed to.

Makenshi wrote:We have a general rule at the 2 gaming clubs I attend which is simple 1 point per 500. so for a 500pt game 1 point over, 1000pt 2 points over etc etc

Works pretty well for us

So why don't you simply allow the following lists:

501
1002
1503
2004

Instead of:
500
1000
1500
2000

It makes zero sense.

imweasel wrote:It makes zero sense.

Does it?

I think making a fuss over the difference between officially calling for a 501 point list, and allowing someone to play a 501 point list despite agreeing to a 500 point game makes zero sense.

JOHIRA, in that case, why not alllow 502 points? You still have a hard limit on points; it's just one point different to the hard limit that you say you have. Why not just be honest, and say "501 points; no points over"?

You can have 0 dollars or 1 dollar, which would you prefer? Seeing as how it evidently makes no difference, I'll take 1 please. 1 point is the difference between a lasgun and a bolter for the IG.

I have to say, I usually allow people in friendly matches to be up to 1% over (as I usually play 1000 point games, that's 10 points).

Ian Sturrock wrote:JOHIRA, in that case, why not alllow 502 points?

Indeed, why not?

Why not just be honest, and say "501 points; no points over"?

I find it absurd that this keeps being treated as an issue of honesty.

4pts over is OK in a friendly game.

No more.

Ever.

JOHIRA wrote:

imweasel wrote:It makes zero sense.

Does it?

I think making a fuss over the difference between officially calling for a 501 point list, and allowing someone to play a 501 point list despite agreeing to a 500 point game makes zero sense.

Oh really?

Well why not allow 502, 1003, 1504 and 2005 then?

I am still amazed that people who attempt to renig on their previous agreement still want to treat this as an issue of honesty.

Renig is not an act of honesty, from anything I have read.

kirsanth wrote:I am still amazed that people who attempt to renig on their previous agreement still want to treat this as an issue of honesty.

Renig is not an act of honesty, from anything I have read.

No offense, but I find it odd you've edited this post 3 times, and haven't realised that it's spelt 'renege'.

Haven't followed this immensely long argument - when I play I come in at or under the points level, if someone is 1 point over, they'd better take out a 5 pt upgrade or something, just like I would.

You know what else is funny?

I have looked it up each time as it looked off. There is apparently some reason to print it as I have, even if it is not always right.

I have, really.

I knew it looked wrong each time I typed it.

Thanks!

(Also! -- no offense taken. I very much appreciate corrections!)

No more than 5 points.

I-bounty-hunt-the-elderly wrote:

kirsanth wrote:I am still amazed that people who attempt to renig on their previous agreement still want to treat this as an issue of honesty.

Renig is not an act of honesty, from anything I have read.

No offense, but I find it odd you've edited this post 3 times, and haven't realised that it's spelt 'renege'.

Haven't followed this immensely long argument - when I play I come in at or under the points level, if someone is 1 point over, they'd better take out a 5 pt upgrade or something, just like I would.

agreed.

If against my brother 300. If against my friends, none because I hate vox-casters!!!

If someone asks you if it's okay to go over the points limit, then just ask them if
it's okay if you go over their points limit.

It'll be awesome.

imweasel wrote:

JOHIRA wrote:

imweasel wrote:It makes zero sense.

Does it?

I think making a fuss over the difference between officially calling for a 501 point list, and allowing someone to play a 501 point list despite agreeing to a 500 point game makes zero sense.

Oh really?

Well why not allow 502, 1003, 1504 and 2005 then?

Indeed. Why not?

malfred wrote:If someone asks you if it's okay to go over the points limit, then just ask them if
it's okay if you go over their points limit.

It'll be awesome.

Haha, this is true! If I've brought 1998 points and he's bought 2002, why can't I slap on another 5 pt upgrade!?

To clarify, I'm not someone who is going to be a hardass to some new player who's 1 point over, or anything. Just the idea I was brought into the hobby with (and I think it exists for sound reasons) is that when building your list you build to less than or equal to the points limit. When I write a list, I often reach the last unit or so and realise I'll go over the limit. I simply go back, shuffle things around, and come in under the limit before I write the points total at the bottom of the list and set off. That's not a hard thing to do, and it helps if everyone in a group adheres to that.

I-bounty-hunt-the-elderly wrote:

malfred wrote:If someone asks you if it's okay to go over the points limit, then just ask them if
it's okay if you go over their points limit.

It'll be awesome.

Haha, this is true! If I've brought 1998 points and he's bought 2002, why can't I slap on another 5 pt upgrade!?

To clarify, I'm not someone who is going to be a hardass to some new player who's 1 point over, or anything. Just the idea I was brought into the hobby with (and I think it exists for sound reasons) is that when building your list you build to less than or equal to the points limit. When I write a list, I often reach the last unit or so and realise I'll go over the limit. I simply go back, shuffle things around, and come in under the limit before I write the points total at the bottom of the list and set off. That's not a hard thing to do, and it helps if everyone in a group adheres to that.

I'm not suggesting that ypou go to 2002. I'm suggesting that you go to 2007.

then he'll want to go to 2012.

then you can up the ante to 2017.

Casual game, 4pts above maximum in 40k, 0 above in Fantasy (there's enough 1-5pt stuff in fantasy you can drop, as opposed to 40k where the cheapest things are usually 5pts or more).

Competative? 0. Tournaments should have ways of filtering out these lists, but if it's a non-regulated tournament or just a small thing, then often they can slip through. You had 1 month to prepare, not 1 minute.

Assuming that a point actually means something in terms of game balance (which is highly debatable) a 15 or 20 point difference in a 1500 pt game is less error than is introduced by using chessex dice instead of a casino dice, or a red measuring stick instead of a set of calipers. Why is it on this particular issue people are so concerned with precision? Especially since the very measurement unit people are so worried about precision on is arbitrary to begin with, it makes no rational sense.

Because points are one of the few factors that you can control whether you're a beginner or a veteran. A beginner won't go out of his way to buy a bucket-load of expensive casino dice, but he can sure as hell look at his codex/army book and re-work a few things.

But why should he have to as it makes no difference to the game outcome if he does or he doesn't?

5pts over buys him a meltabomb he uses to blow up my land raider in combat on the final turn of the game and he wins by 1 killpoint.

Without the meltabomb, my land raider survives and the game is a fair draw.

And 99 other times he doesn't get to use the meltabomb and his points are wasted. your example doesn't show anything one way or another.

asmith wrote:But why should he have to as it makes no difference to the game outcome if he does or he doesn't?

If it does not matter, do not bring it.

asmith wrote:And 99 other times he doesn't get to use the meltabomb and his points are wasted. your example doesn't show anything one way or another.

No, it does show something, but you are too stubborn to acknowledge it.

@ kirsanth: Why worry about it at all? you guys are obsessing over trivialities with regard to points that you do not obsess over in regards to anything else involved in the game.

@ avatar 720: No it doesn't show anything at all, and I'm not being stubborn, I'm being rational. Your example is not.

asmith wrote:Why worry about it at all? you guys are obsessing over trivialities with regard to points that you do not obsess over in regards to anything else involved in the game.

Because points are one of the few factors that you can control whether you're a beginner or a veteran etc. etc. ad nauseum.

@ avatar 720: No it doesn't show anything at all, and I'm not being stubborn, I'm being rational. Your example is not.

It is perfectly rational, meltabombs are taken all the time to counter dreadnoughts etc. and these kills, as shown, can tip a game.

Anyone can control measurement and dice randomization just as tightly as you guys want to control points allocation. The lengths you have to go through to do so make no sense for so little effect. The same is true of points allocation, it's just that for some reason most people don't acknowledge it. I guess your point is that it's just psychological?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
cherrypicking an anecdote is not a rational arguement

I don't think it matters whether 5 points has an effect on a particular game, it's the principle. You agreed to play a points limit, it takes SO LITTLE effort to come in under that. As said, if it's a trivial difference, the man who's over the limit should man up and be 4 points under!

JOHIRA wrote:Indeed. Why not?

If you bring 2k I should be able to bring 2100.

After all, why not?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

asmith wrote:Anyone can control measurement and dice randomization just as tightly as you guys want to control points allocation. The lengths you have to go through to do so make no sense for so little effect. The same is true of points allocation, it's just that for some reason most people don't acknowledge it. I guess your point is that it's just psychological?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
cherrypicking an anecdote is not a rational arguement

No more than you cherry picking whatever you decide is worth cherry picking.

I mean, after all, if I am throwing 35d6, wouldn't it be ok to throw the whole brick of 36? That's 'so little effect' as to hardly bother worth talking about, right?

@ imweasel: No probably it would not have that much effect (about 3%). Even so that is about a 600% greater effect on the outcome than if we were talking about 8 points over in a 1500 pt game. If you wanted to make a fair comparison it would be if you needed to roll 199d6, but rolled 200d6 instead. In fact while counting this many dice you probably would expect about that much error.

asmith wrote:@ kirsanth: Why worry about it at all? you guys are obsessing over trivialities with regard to points that you do not obsess over in regards to anything else involved in the game.

You do not visit ymdc much, do you? All kinds of trivia is used to 'obsess over'.
As I have said, I do not worry. I know the folks I play with are honest and can count.

When the folks I play agree to any rule, they will abide by it.
Point limit is the first rule you agree on when starting a game, by the rules. Check page 86.

Like I said earlier dice and measuring equipment have greater errors than the kinds of points differences that are being talked about here, and no one calls people who use these things dishonest cheaters. It just seems strange to me there is such a disconnect between the two.

The difference between 0 and 1 is pretty much infinite.

Cheating is generally acknowledged to require intent.

It seems strange to me to associate a mistake or random chance with deliberately breaking an agreement.

Gonna try to sum up the two arguments here:

Side A: 5 points over isn't a big deal so why make a fuss over it.
Side B: You knew the rules, follow them like I do.

I will pose a question to side A:
Side A: If you claim that 5 points is no big deal, can't you simply go without it and come in at or under the points limit

I myself am firmly planted in side B, mainly because I play by the rules and I feel they are there for a reason.
If playing a lower skilled / newer play I will handicap myself by intentionally playing low but he must still abide by the points limit, it will teach him how to build a proper list as well as the cost effectiveness of various items. I.E. does that sarge really need melta bombs? I mean how often is a dev sarge assaulting a vehicle? ect

cost effectiveness? Wait are you knowingly picking things that cost points less than they should compared to their in game effectiveness? I think this is an intent to cheat there pal.

edit: guess I need to put a in there



Automatically Appended Next Post:
@kirsanth: yes it is not that he was aiming for a 2000 pt list and it happened to come out to 2008, it is that he had a 2000 pt list then maliciously added 8 more critical points that are probably going to swing the game in his favor at a crucial moment, and now he is trying to use social engineering to break down your defenses and allow him to carry out his dastardly plan. the cheating bastard!

asmith wrote:Wait are you knowingly picking things that cost points less than they should compared to their in game effectiveness? I think this is an intent to cheat there pal.

Please sir explain how reading the rules & playing by them is intent to cheat? Where am I breaking any rules. To facilitate this challenge I will send you $10.00 via paypal if you can find a worthy example** of how using cost-effective units (according to the rules in the codex & BRB) is cheating. Keep in mind you must still abide by ALL other rules (FoC / Points limit / Wargear & unit size restrictions ect.) the only thing you may do is select legal units & legal options, one will just be more effective than the other.

**Worthy example shall be defined by the dakka community, i will create a poll showing your example & ask if it is cheating or not. The poll will decide the fate.

Besides the fact that I even went back and added a wink (thus indicating that it was a joke) more aimed at kirsanth then you, you still decide to make an issue of it. Even though you are perfectly illustrating one of my points. Point costs are not created equal in the first place so why worry over a few % point deviation?

*insert_pun_here* wrote:Like it's been said, in a competitive battle, the limit is the absolute limit.

However, in a friendly match purely for fun, depending on what they are running I let people go as far as 20 points over. If there is no way of lowering the points without A) ruining the army and b) running under points by more than 10-20 (eg. sanguine guard army) than I think it's ok. But if you can lower the total without doing either of those, than do it.

And in a themed game, it's dictated by the theme. If I was re-enacting the first companies last stand on macragge for example, the nids would have maybe a thousand or more points more than me.

In the old Warhammer Siege book they have the stats and layout of Fort Macragge so you can play out the battle. The forces aren't mentioned, but nids would have around double the points and the marines get an awesome fortress that's pimped out by those rules.

I thought it was funny.

A bit misguided (see my post on page 3), but funny nonetheless.

I try anyway...

asmith wrote:@ imweasel: No probably it would not have that much effect (about 3%). Even so that is about a 600% greater effect on the outcome than if we were talking about 8 points over in a 1500 pt game. If you wanted to make a fair comparison it would be if you needed to roll 199d6, but rolled 200d6 instead. In fact while counting this many dice you probably would expect about that much error.

Actually, it would take 3 sets of rolls between the two samples to statistically guarantee 1 more wound (assuming 3's to hit and 4's to wound) or 4 sets assuming 4's to hit and 4's to wound, but whatever.

However, this whole discussion is pot meet kettle.

Hi, I'm Mr. Pot! It was nice to meet you Mr. Kettle!

I was being more simplistic than that, about 3% more rolls vs about .5% more points. Neither seems to me worth stressing over. I wonder how many games you would have to play for that 8 pts to change the outcome?

One. A melta is 5 points more than a flamer. Enemy drives up the rhino w/ the melta and pops open your land raider or even immobilizes it. The TH/SS terminators now have to footslog across the board all the while taking fire & having the enemy outrun them.

I wish there was a method to effectively sigh and shake your head over the internet.

As do I when I read some of your "arguments".

There's a middle ground between:

1) We play at 1500pts and not a single point over.

and

2) We play at 1504 pts, and not a single point over.

That middle ground is known as "good cause." Basically, if somebody is a few points over because of a high priced or essential upgrade, than allowing them to play is good cause. If there is an upgrade that can be removed without making the list dramatically under pointed or causing a unit to lose a key element, than there is no just cause.

So, adding a melta bomb to a 1497pt list isn't good cause. Adding Bladestorm (IIRC 15pts) to a 1487pt list could be seen as good cause.

Basically, a lot of players understand that there are sometimes reasons for a person to be over the points limit.

Of course the argument against that is that listbuilding isn't necessarily linear and you don't have to remove a key element just because it was the last thing added. You'd just remove something else instead right?

asmith wrote:Of course the argument against that is that listbuilding isn't necessarily linear and you don't have to remove a key element just because it was the last thing added. You'd just remove something else instead right?

It's conceivable that there are no low cost, no-essential items in a list, especailly with something like eldar. Not worth arguing over in a friendly game, at least.

You should never be more then 1 or 2 points over. It really isn't that hard to just play by the rules. And if you aren't concerned about the total points that much why don't you just use less points instead of more? If your argument that being 5 or 10 points over won't make a difference then you would need to agree that the opposite argument holds true. So again if you don't care about being strict on the points why don't you just come with less points?

asmith wrote:I was being more simplistic than that, about 3% more rolls vs about .5% more points. Neither seems to me worth stressing over. I wonder how many games you would have to play for that 8 pts to change the outcome?

Your point being?

We arbitrarily draw a line. So do you. You are simply here telling us that yours is a 'superior' point to draw the line at while we are all 'stressing' about following the rules.

brettz123 wrote: So again if you don't care about being strict on the points why don't you just come with less points?

Because having more models/toys/abilities is more fun than having fewer?

I don't think anybody is arguing that everybody should always allow people to play a few points over. But there are times when it's just more fun to play than watch somebody eliminated three points in a list.

Polonius wrote:

It's conceivable that there are no low cost, no-essential items in a list, especailly with something like eldar. Not worth arguing over in a friendly game, at least.

I agree with what you are saying in principle, I was just pointing out an obvious flaw.

asmith wrote:

Polonius wrote:

It's conceivable that there are no low cost, no-essential items in a list, especailly with something like eldar. Not worth arguing over in a friendly game, at least.

I agree with what you are saying in principle, I was just pointing out an obvious flaw.

Well, yeah. I think most people would request an opponent drop a plasma pistol or melta bomb or other "luxury" upgrade to get under points. It's things like upgrading a dreadnought storm bolter to heavy flamer, or adding a combi-melta to a tactical sgt, that are considered more "core" upgrades.

imweasel wrote:

asmith wrote:I was being more simplistic than that, about 3% more rolls vs about .5% more points. Neither seems to me worth stressing over. I wonder how many games you would have to play for that 8 pts to change the outcome?

Your point being?

We arbitrarily draw a line. So do you. You are simply here telling us that yours is a 'superior' point to draw the line at while we are all 'stressing' about following the rules.

Now we are getting to the heart of the matter, I'm not talking about drawing an arbitrary line, if you are after a balanced game then at what level does a point imbalance start to really matter? At the level of balance in this game the question is not answerable. In the end it's all about two people agreeing to play regardless of the point total. Why be such a stickler on this particular point when you aren't about anything else?

And if they can't agree to the new point value?

Do they then stick to the previously agreed upon value?

No.

The most obvious example of that being done correctly was posted.

Player 1 asks if player 2 wants to play a 2000 point game.
Player 2 agrees.
Player 2 brings 2002 point list and asks if it is ok.
Player 1 says sure, if I can have 2050.
Player 2 agrees.
Player 2 brings 2111 point list and asks if it is ok.
Player 1 says sure, if I can have 2550.

etc.

This is at least as acceptable as anything else, apparently.

It makes me really happy to play games with the people I do, actually.

Polonius wrote:

brettz123 wrote: So again if you don't care about being strict on the points why don't you just come with less points?

Because having more models/toys/abilities is more fun than having fewer?

I don't think anybody is arguing that everybody should always allow people to play a few points over. But there are times when it's just more fun to play than watch somebody eliminated three points in a list.

Sure more is fun but if you want more stuff on the table just play more points, no? That is my point if you both have agreed to a mutually agreeable point total then it isn't very hard or to much to ask for both people to stick to it. Personally I don't care if someone is a couple points over because I feel like I can beat them anyway. But having said that as you start to get closer to being 5 - 10 points over I start to think you are actually just trying to cheat by getting something in the game that you wouldn't normally be able to have.

asmith wrote:Now we are getting to the heart of the matter, I'm not talking about drawing an arbitrary line, if you are after a balanced game then at what level does a point imbalance start to really matter? At the level of balance in this game the question is not answerable. In the end it's all about two people agreeing to play regardless of the point total. Why be such a stickler on this particular point when you aren't about anything else?

So why be a stickler about anything? Why not just let people do whatever they want however they want?

Where do you draw the line? If the question is not answerable, why draw ANY lines at all? 50pts? No big deal. 100pts? No big deal.

Like I said, you just think you are superior and that we are just nit picky.

Kinda Dr. Seussish but I thought up this little rhyme:

You cannot be over by one point at all,
A rule is a rule no matter how small.

There are several variations of the rhyme but the fact of the matter is I consider being over cheating. I mean read the top right paragraph on page 86 of the BGB. Spells it out very clearly that the point cost must come to X or less, where X is the agreed upon value.

imweasel wrote:

JOHIRA wrote:Indeed. Why not?

If you bring 2k I should be able to bring 2100.

After all, why not?

Depending on the set-up, scenario, and who you are, I could agree to that.

JOHIRA wrote:

imweasel wrote:

JOHIRA wrote:Indeed. Why not?

If you bring 2k I should be able to bring 2100.

After all, why not?

Depending on the set-up, scenario, and who you are, I could agree to that.

And then bring 5k points?

Shas'O Dorian wrote:Side A: If you claim that 5 points is no big deal, can't you simply go without it and come in at or under the points limit

You're making the mistake of assuming that I have no problem with people going slightly over the limit in order to help myself. When I started learning the game I used to go over the limit and likewise allowed my opponent to do so. However for the last several years I've never gone over, and yet I still have no problem with my opponent being a few points over. It's not to get me an advantage, it's just because I don't see it as a big deal.

kirsanth wrote:As I have said, I do not worry. I know the folks I play with are honest and can count.

This is the sentiment I'm arguing against- the notion that not playing with dollies the same way you guys who are strict on points do makes someone bad as a person. Playing with dollies incorrectly is a character flaw, apparently to be scorned and criticized for several pages.

JOHIRA wrote:the notion that not playing with dollies the same way you guys who are strict on points do makes someone bad as a person.

This is where you misunderstand then. Your dollies do not matter more than mine.

Apparently my word matters more than yours.


That is meant as annoying as it sounds, being that I am simply saying that I am willing to keep my word over my dollies and you are arguing that your word does not matter because it involves your dollies.

kirsanth wrote:

JOHIRA wrote:the notion that not playing with dollies the same way you guys who are strict on points do makes someone bad as a person.

This is where you misunderstand then. Your dollies do not matter more than mine.

Apparently my word matters more than yours.


That is meant as annoying as it sounds, being that I am simply saying that I am willing to keep my word over my dollies and you are arguing that your word does not matter because it involves your dollies.

Actually, what most people are saying is that they don't care to hold others to their word as strictly as you would want to hold others (or be yourself held).

It's similar to the way in which if I pick up a lunch order for somebody, and it was $10.17, I'll just ask for ten bucks.

Polonius wrote:It's similar to the way in which if I pick up a lunch order for somebody, and it was $10.17, I'll just ask for ten bucks.

That is a more polite way of putting it. Cheers.


That said, it is the last bit that makes me disagree. Asking for ten bucks means you get 10 bucks. Otherwise I entirely assume I owe $10.17 and would not be suprised or passive agressive if it was also assumed of me.

Personally i would rather play under points than over points.
If i cant come up with a list that is within the point limit , thats my own problem. Why would i ask my opponent for special allowance?
I mean sure ,a power fist might be better than a power sword and more expensive , but it doesnt fit the points then i'll just take the sword.

Polonius wrote:Actually, what most people are saying is that they don't care to hold others to their word as strictly as you would want to hold others (or be yourself held).

The more I read this, the more it irritates me.

This could entirely be simply because you are correct.
Noted.

At the risk of devolving to ridiculous hyperbole, my general thought on this has been "This is the first rule we agreed to, and they are breaking it."
Should I continue with the game assuming the person, who already broke an agreement with me personally, in the hope that this was an anomaly?

Someone so entitled that they assume rules can be bent to their whim is NOT someone I think should be entertained.


So I guess, I am not just a rules-lawyer, elitist, and bound by ethics, but TFG for thinking you are willing to do what you said.

OK!

kirsanth wrote:

Polonius wrote:Actually, what most people are saying is that they don't care to hold others to their word as strictly as you would want to hold others (or be yourself held).

The more I read this, the more it irritates me.

This could entirely be simply because you are correct.
Noted.

At the risk of devolving to ridiculous hyperbole, my general thought on this has been "This is the first rule we agreed to, and they are breaking it."
Should I continue with the game assuming the person, who already broke an agreement with me personally, in the hope that this was an anomaly?

Someone so entitled that they assume rules can be bent to their whim is NOT someone I think should be entertained.


So I guess, I am not just a rules-lawyer, elitist, and bound by ethics, but TFG for thinking you are willing to do what you said.

OK!

Except again, I think most people here would be annoyed if the game was set up ahead of time, or part of league, campaign, or tournament play. Some people (like myself) don't care much even in those situations, but the bulk of support for being over seems to be in situations of hastily drafted lists, or with newer players, or under some sort of extenuating circumstances.

It's also a matter of mind set. You are looking at in very strict terms: somebody is either legal or illegal. Others look at it terms of relative bloat: 5 extra points in 1850 is less than 1% of the game total.

Also, if it's accepted practice in a group to not make a big deal of going over a few points, than by definition it's not breaking a rule. If it's understood that "1500 pt games" really mean "1500pts, or as close to it as you can get while building the list that you like", than it's ok to take that wiggle room. And before you ask, the reason they don't simply say "1510 pt games" is because most systems with wiggle room still respect the original limit, with ramifications if it's abused.

My rent is due the 5th of every month. I've regularly turned it in a few days late, and once while studying for the bar exam I completely forgot a month and me and my landlord spent a few days figuring out if I had paid. By my contract, I owed him a pretty hearty late fee, which he waived. Now, my rent was late, but he didn't mind. Because I'm a good tenant, and I've always paid my rent, and I don't cause trouble, he's willing to extend a courtesy. Now, this is a legal agreement in which my primary obligation is to pay him monthly. Yet he waived his due late fee, and even gave me a nice price on a bigger unit that opened up a year later.

The analogy is this: i'm willing to look the other way if somebody is over because it doesn't hurt me in any appreciable way and I have no reason to suspect that they're going to take advantage of it.

I have repeatedly stated and made apparent I am not discussing prior agreements to vague totals-- about 2k? Nor am I referencing odd numbers, 1500 vs 2000.

Neither am I talking about times we sit and make lists together.
Simply pre-agreed values.

You said you would bring 53983 points? Put 53983 points or less down.

kirsanth wrote:I have repeatedly stated and made apparent I am not discussing prior agreements to vague totals-- about 2k? Nor am I referencing odd numbers, 1500 vs 2000.

Neither am I talking about times we sit and make lists together.
Simply pre-agreed values.

You said you would bring 53983 points? Put 53983 points or less down.

Ok. Hey, I think it's a douchey thing to ask a lot of the time, precisely because some people seem to take it more seriously than others. I explicitly don't care, and will offer it gladly, but I'd never ask for permission to be a few points over.

I don't think anybody that draws a hard line in the sand is being TFG, but I do think they're assigning a moral dimension to the situation that I wouldn't, to a strictness that i wouldn't.

Polonius wrote:Ok. Hey, I think it's a douchey thing to ask a lot of the time, precisely because some people seem to take it more seriously than others.

This is the disagreement then.

When playing with folks this may come up with and no other constraints? "A lot of the time" is ever, otherwise when do you count?
How many times do you have to break you word to be considered a liar and a cheat?

To entirely take things out of reference and place them in a way that does not matter, I once had a shoplifter tell me he wasn't a thief.
How many times do you need to steal to be a thief?

Is it really that hard or bad for an army list to have the person just remove say... 1 ork boy so it wont be over the points? doesnt seem to be a big deal

1-4. Unless he has some upgrade in that list that's within that range, or he allows me to up my list.

kirsanth wrote:

Polonius wrote:Ok. Hey, I think it's a douchey thing to ask a lot of the time, precisely because some people seem to take it more seriously than others.

This is the disagreement then.

When playing with folks this may come up with and no other constraints? "A lot of the time" is ever, otherwise when do you count?
How many times do you have to break you word to be considered a liar and a cheat?

To entirely take things out of reference and place them in a way that does not matter, I once had a shoplifter tell me he wasn't a thief.
How many times do you need to steal to be a thief?

Ok, this is where you're losing me. Instead of reading what I'm writing, you seem to be wanting to repeat "liar" as many times as possible.

As I stated in an earlier post, if a group of people have an understanding that you can be a few points over, it's not douchey to ask.

Shoplifters are clearly thieves. Am I a thief for taking some of my roommates food, when he has plenty, and we have an understanding that we'll just replace what we take?

Apologies for useless repetition, it related more to the last part than the first.

As you said, when a group knows that, for example, 2000 means 2005 or even 6000 that is fine and undeniably out of scope of the discussion.

When you take something that may or may not matter from a roommate/opponent you are outside your rights.

If you are really asking if taking* a little that someone might not care about is stealing, yes. I think it is.

editing:
*I wrote stealing. That is too literal and out of scope. Yes stealing is stealing. Oddly, people thinks taking is not stealing despite a lack of permission.

kirsanth wrote:Apologies for useless repetition, it related more to the last part than the first.

As you said, when a group knows that, for example, 2000 means 2005 or even 6000 that is fine and undeniably out of scope of the discussion.

When you take something that may or may not matter from a roommate/opponent you are outside your rights.

If you are really asking if taking* a little that someone might not care about is stealing, yes. I think it is.

editing:
*I wrote stealing. That is too literal and out of scope. Yes stealing is stealing. Oddly, people thinks taking is not stealing despite a lack of permission.

So, even if my roommate and I have an understanding that if he has plenty of something, I can take some and replace it, I'd be outside my rights to do so? So, if he has eight cans of soup, and I take one and eat it, and replace it long before he needs it, and he's ok with it, I was still outside my rights?

That's interesting. It seems to me that you're not allowing people to develop moral codes distinct from your own. If my roommate uses some of my food, i don't consider it theft because I've done the same dozens of times. It's quasi-community property.

The same applies for points values. If a group doesn't care if somebody is a few points over because they dont' want to gimp themselves, and it's understood by all that it's ok as long as they dont' abuse it... then how it violating the rule? Are you simply uncomfortable with any rule that's not black and white?

Polonius wrote:
So, even if my roommate and I have an understanding

That is where you lost context.

Editing to add:
My stating "may or may not matter" actually meant that. If there is no doubt, there is no question.

So, if there is no doubt that people wont' be bothered by being a few points over the limit due to vagaries of list construction, but it's also understood that trying to stay under the points limit is still preferable, is it a problem?

13

Polonius wrote:So, if there is no doubt that people wont' be bothered by being a few points over the limit due to vagaries of list construction, but it's also understood that trying to stay under the points limit is still preferable, is it a problem?

I don't think it would be a problem for most people, but you really have to ask why that guy can't just remove an extra hormagaunt or guardsman or something strange like that. Typically if you're going over you have squads that are bulked up past the starting allocation and trimming a single model down shouldn't be a huge deal either. If the opponent's army is min/maxed to the point where he can't drop a single model but wants to spend another 5 points on a meltagun or something then he's probably trying to squeak out a pretty decent relative gain for going above his points limit. Maybe if he has peculiar squad sizes that are making him tend to be 3-4 points over then it's a good example of the just cause you were talking about - he's not really trying to break anything, his army book just wasn't designed lego-brick style like the new ones.

You raise some really excellent points, and it's an interesting discussion - after all, 3 points really isn't a big deal, but neither is removing a single random model from a squad. Who's "not a big deal" matters more? I suppose it's the consensus of the gaming group at that point.

Polonius wrote:So, if there is no doubt that people wont' be bothered by being a few points over the limit due to vagaries of list construction, but it's also understood that trying to stay under the points limit is still preferable, is it a problem?

If there is an understanding that exceptions are . . . normal and not exceptions, and "limit" means "roughly" or somesuch, sure.


When people agree to a game that is "about" xxx points that is something entirely different than when people know the game is xxx points or less, as the rule have us agree.
Or perhaps entirely the same.
Would you assume when I said "play me with 2000 points or less" is the same as "play me with roughly 2000 points?"
Again the first rule we agree to is point cost. If we agree to a floating value, we agree.
If you agree, and then play something else, there is issue.

Well, many armies have easy ways to lose a few points. Drop a hormagant, take off a melta bomb, whatever.

Others aren't a fine toothed. Look at eldar. Or Dark Angels.

Other armies have cascading upgrades: taking off the 10th man in a space marine squad loses a special and a flamer. Taking off the 30th boy makes you lose a big shoota.

I actually agree in principle, certainly at larger point values that experienced players shouldn't run over. It's gauche to ask, and puts people in the awkward situation of either allowing a slight not tangible advantage or looking like a tool.

I just feel that most of the time, a guy a few points over is just a dude that doesn't take the game very seriously and accidentally ran over. I don't feel like he's a bad guy, or a liar, or a cheater. Maybe it's because I work in the legal field, where the term "harmless error" comes up a lot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirsanth wrote:Would you assume when I said "play me with 2000 points or less" is the same as "play me with roughly 2000 points?"
Again the first rule we agree to is point cost. If we agree to a floating value, we agree.
If you agree, and then play something else, there is issue.

I think part of my issue here is that I'm a lawyer, and in the legal world, 99% of the time "2000pts or less" really means "roughly 2000pts."

Polonius wrote:I think part of my issue here is that I'm a lawyer, and in the legal world, 99% of the time "2000pts or less" really means "roughly 2000pts."

I understand, but as a producer when someone says xxx 'points' or less, they are held to that or held accountable.

The details about why are 100% worthless. You should have started with the assumption that your word on point total matters.

People are welcome to disagree. Really.
But people are more likely to find a game when they are capable of honoring their word, even when their word is about space barbies.

I wouldn't personally judge someone's character from bringing a list that's a few points over, but in our group we definitely don't allow any wiggle room. I can see the wisdom in not caring too much about it but that's the way we choose to play it. I wouldn't really fault anyone for doing it either way.

An interesting facet of the thing is usually all of these declarations come with the unstated caveat "Unless, of course, we were in a tournament" <- if you feel that's correct, and that tournaments, supposedly a more ''legitimate'' environment for this sort of thing, are where you wouldn't allow this sort of behavior, why is it ok in other types of game? Would someone be ok with a tournament that allowed you to be ''a few'' points over?

kirsanth wrote:

Polonius wrote:I think part of my issue here is that I'm a lawyer, and in the legal world, 99% of the time "2000pts or less" really means "roughly 2000pts."

I understand, but as a producer when someone says xxx 'points' or less, they are held to that or held accountable.

The details about why are 100% worthless. You should have started with the assumption that your word on point total matters.

People are welcome to disagree. Really.
But people are more likely to find a game when they are capable of honoring their word, even when their word is about space barbies.

Honestly, it's hard not to giggle a little when a few points is considered a manner of honor. I guess I feel that as a matter of gentlemanly conduct, I forgive a man a minor fault.

Polonius wrote:Honestly, it's hard not to giggle a little when a few points is considered a manner of honor. I guess I feel that as a matter of gentlemanly conduct, I forgive a man a minor fault.

But that only goes one way? In the favor of the guy breaking the previous agreement?!?!?

MikeMcSomething wrote:I wouldn't personally judge someone's character from bringing a list that's a few points over, but in our group we definitely don't allow any wiggle room. I can see the wisdom in not caring too much about it but that's the way we choose to play it. I wouldn't really fault anyone for doing it either way.

An interesting facet of the thing is usually all of these declarations come with the unstated caveat "Unless, of course, we were in a tournament" <- if you feel that's correct, and that tournaments, supposedly a more ''legitimate'' environment for this sort of thing, are where you wouldn't allow this sort of behavior, why is it ok in other types of game? Would someone be ok with a tournament that allowed you to be ''a few'' points over?

Tournaments are planned in advance, so there is no real excuse for not having a legal list. Casual play can often result in quickly compiled lists. I think that's the big difference.

Casual play often includes more breaches of rules. Mulligans are allowed, as are backtracking a phase (moving a unit in the shooting phase, for example).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirsanth wrote:

Polonius wrote:Honestly, it's hard not to giggle a little when a few points is considered a manner of honor. I guess I feel that as a matter of gentlemanly conduct, I forgive a man a minor fault.

But that only goes one way? In the favor of the guy breaking the previous agreement?!?!?

Well, the standard I hold myself to are my own. I consider the material part of the agreement playing a game of 40k, usually in preparation for a tournament or to allow me to try out a new list. If I'm prepping an 1850 tournament list, I don't care if he's got 1860pts, especially since my casual play competition runs a little weaker. I don't care because it literally does not hurt me in any way.

Polonius wrote:Tournaments are planned in advance, so there is no real excuse for not having a legal list.

I think this is where you may be taking me out of context.

I am not saying that every game needs to be 100% nit-picked.

Simply that if we agree to a point value, no one will violate that.
In the same manner that assuming a 6" move is 6" or less, not "about 6 inches."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:If I'm prepping an 1850 tournament list, I don't care if he's got 1860pts, especially since my casual play competition runs a little weaker.

Then we are disagreeing for no reason.

I pretty much entirely agree with what Polonius has said here.

My problem is not whether or not anyone agrees to allow someone to go over points.

My problem is the assumption that what your gaming group accepts as standard play must be the standard play in every gaming group, and anyone who doesn't play the way you do is morally inferior, i.e. a liar and a cheater. It's attaching moral judgments to how someone plays with dolls.

Polonius wrote:I think part of my issue here is that I'm a lawyer, and in the legal world, 99% of the time "2000pts or less" really means "roughly 2000pts."

Well this here's your problem.

Roughly?

So if I am supposed to move 6" I can move 6.75". That's 'roughly' 6".

imweasel wrote:

Polonius wrote:I think part of my issue here is that I'm a lawyer, and in the legal world, 99% of the time "2000pts or less" really means "roughly 2000pts."

Well this here's your problem.

Roughly?

So if I am supposed to move 6" I can move 6.75". That's 'roughly' 6".

Yes. Because it's widely known that people willing to make exceptions to rules do so without any regard to the magnitude of the exception.

By the very nature of people willing to overlook small infractions because they are, in fact, small, they'll also keep track of when an infraction is not small. Being less 1% off point wise is pretty easy to distinguish from being 10% over while measuring. 1% of 6" is very roughly 1/16". Do you make a big deal of somebody being 1/16" over?

There is also context. Being a handful of points over before a game begins when not even the mission is known is very different from taking an extra inch of movement at a potentially pivotal moment.

My comment about legal contracts is that nobody goes to court over minor discrepencies. If we sign a contract where you pay me $50 for 100lbs of scrap, and I deliver 99.9lbs of scrap, no court in the land is going to make me pay 50 cents. (Unless of course a specification is exact for reasons that are integral to the contract, such as high precision work.)

I mean, I know you're just trying to make noise, which is why you keep repeating a fairly tired strawman, but there is a notable difference between your examples that shows a lack of insight into the situation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JOHIRA wrote:I pretty much entirely agree with what Polonius has said here.

My problem is not whether or not anyone agrees to allow someone to go over points.

My problem is the assumption that what your gaming group accepts as standard play must be the standard play in every gaming group, and anyone who doesn't play the way you do is morally inferior, i.e. a liar and a cheater. It's attaching moral judgments to how someone plays with dolls.

there is a trend you see in 40k rules discussions online, where it's clear that many of the people are arguing from a point of distrust. It seems to stem from a thought that anybody breaking a rule or playing differently from them is trying to gain an unfair advantage. It's closely linked, but not always tied, to the accusations of "cheater" that seem to imply a malice that there is no real evidence of.

The hobby is a big place, and paranoia isn't just about tin foil hats. Just realize that there are people that aren't just being academic about concerns of unfair advantage.

Polonius wrote:Yes. Because it's widely known that people willing to make exceptions to rules do so without any regard to the magnitude of the exception.

By the very nature of people willing to overlook small infractions because they are, in fact, small, they'll also keep track of when an infraction is not small. Being less 1% off point wise is pretty easy to distinguish from being 10% over while measuring. 1% of 6" is very roughly 1/16". Do you make a big deal of somebody being 1/16" over?

There is also context. Being a handful of points over before a game begins when not even the mission is known is very different from taking an extra inch of movement at a potentially pivotal moment.

My comment about legal contracts is that nobody goes to court over minor discrepencies. If we sign a contract where you pay me $50 for 100lbs of scrap, and I deliver 99.9lbs of scrap, no court in the land is going to make me pay 50 cents. (Unless of course a specification is exact for reasons that are integral to the contract, such as high precision work.)

I mean, I know you're just trying to make noise, which is why you keep repeating a fairly tired strawman, but there is a notable difference between your examples that shows a lack of insight into the situation.

And once again, here is someone telling us his version is superior because the line he draws is better than the line someone else has drawn.

No, that's not what he said. I think that was a rather rude misinterpretation.

And while I think Polonius and Kirsanth have done an admirable job elucidating their positions while staying polite, the whole discussion is beginning to go 'round in circles, so I'm shutting it down.