I believe this belongs in YMDC. This is a HYWPI question.
The scenario: About to play a 1500 point game with a friend. He says his list is 1535 points. I ask him to trim it down a bit since 35 points over can be a few models. He gets upset by this.
The question: What sort of overspending limits do you play with? How would you handle it if your opponent was over or asked you to trim your list? Being that I have no tournament experience, how do tournaments handle it?
Appreciate any feedback (and hope it remains civil ).
At my local gaming group, if two people agree in advance to have a 1500 point game, then both lists are AT MOST 1500 points. Everyone except one guy is really good about this, and that last guy will always downsize with a gentle reminder.
Between my friends in tends to work out like this:
-Set a points limit
-Try to get as close to that limit as possible (If you get to 10 points under, but can take an extra CSM for 13 points, take the marine)
-Inform opponent of how much you overspent by before the battle
-Opponent get to choose an upgrade to make it to that limit (or doesn't bother)
A gentle reminder is all you can really do, beyond refusing to play. Just say that you would really rather that you both stick to the agreed points limit. Part of the challenge in list building is finding a way to fit what you need into the limit, and finding the right compromise.
It's kind of analogous to exceeding the FOC limits. Would your opponent allow you to take 4 Heavy Support choices, just because you couldn't come to a compromise?
In a tournament, the player would simply not be allowed to participate unless they could amend their list. Most tournaments (at least, the ones I've been to) have a list validation system where you have to submit your list before the event. Any illegal lists would require resubmission until they were legal.
That all said, it's not unreasonable to make a narrative scenario where one player has more points than the other, but that would still require an agreement with your opponent.
Personally, since the point limit you set is arbitrary to begin with you might as well follow it to the point because if your going to go over the point limit you should have set the limit to that to begin with it.
We usually don't allow going over. Its just a rude imposition to ask to go over a predetermined limit, however every once in a while some one NEEDS to go over because they really really want to try out a new unit/stratagey or something and there is no way to make it work in a small game. That usually happens at the 750 point level with us though and then is 5 or 10 points max, 35 is an awful lot.
How I would deal with a friend who is going to get offended or upset and the need to scale his force back? Offer to player a larger game next time. My group almost never plays 1 on 1, and 750 per player or 1500 per side is the norm. But we've got baneblades and thunderhawks, heck one guy has an entire company of marines so you can image we might also want to play some bigger games. So we try and fit an all day game in now and then (once every 6 months it seems) where we can play something like 2000 points a player in a 2 vs 2 game. So, I guess what I'm saying is offer to play larger games every now and then but remind your friend gently that its a points limit not a points suggestion.
Under as much as you like, 0 over.
If people go over we usually grant a boon to the opposing player.
Last time, it was 1 kill point for every point over.
Try winning when you're 35 KP in the hole before you start.
You can be up to zero points over the point limit. If you are over the point limit then you remove things from your list until you are under the point limit. No other resolution is necessary.
(And of course if you deliberately go over the point limit without telling your opponent you're a TFG cheater and nobody should ever play with you again.)
If you set the game up to 1500, then play at 1500. If he needs a bit more points (I think 35 are too many), you two can agree to set a margin of excess - in my area, we usually allow +1% points if necessary, rounding down (so, +7 points for a 750p game; +10 for a 1000p game). If you do not agree with such margin before game, it's a no go. Of course, this house rule applies to both sides.
I would never be able to ask anyone if I could go over. I agreed to a 1500 point game and I would trim my list down to make it come out to 1500 or less. I guess I look at it like this, We said 1500 and that is where the cut off is ... anything more is a breach of my word and I would never allow myself to change what we previously agreed to without both of us agreeing to make a change. For example, upping the points to 2000 instead of 1500.
I mean what I say and I say what I mean. To go over the agreed amount is, in my mind, a poor practice that develops into other poor practices.
As we are in the Rules section, I would use the "RAW' method. check the rulebook to see what it says. Consider the terms of the game as a contract that is written out. If it says 1500 points that that would be the limit.
Personally, it depends on who I'm playing. A seasoned player, trim it down or bring mine up to match (although that is still often that little bit unbalanced. The large the gap the larger the possibility of the unbalance. If it is a new or inexperienced or just not very good player, i dont care, lets play.
It's really not a big deal either way, but it's pretty rude for someone to expect whoever they're playing to allow them to be over the point limit.
I recall, when I first started playing, my buddy coming in at 5pts over and explaining that it was no big deal. I didn't really care, as I was just happy to be playing/learning the game. I also didn't want to appear rude, as it's just 5pts. Now that we've all been around the block a bit and I spend WAY too much time squeezing everything I can out of every point while staying under the proposed limit, I have no issue telling someone that it is NOT ok for them to be over the agreed upon limit.
If you spent the time planning out your list to be fair, they should have to as well. If they ask for more points, THEY'RE the one that's being rude by expecting you to accept the handicap.
Some players consider it a sign of disrespect. The 35 point over the limit, goes beond being a sign of disrespect and goes towards being a slap in the face. of course, that is just my opinion. As a sign of respect for my opponant, I ALWAYS stay at the limit or lower. I'f I am lower, i can always toss on a searchlight, extra bolt pistol or something to bring it to the limit but NEVER over it. As someone else pointed out, I am as good as my word and follow the rules.
I pointed out treating it like a written contract mostly because we ARE currently posting in the YMDC forum where opinions and "how we would play it' are secondary to what is actually in the rules.
I'd have no problem asking for that persons' list and then pointing out something that is worth roughly 35 points and saying 'that no longer exists on your list. agreed?'
A few points over (<6) I tend not to care, but 35 points is at least one extra model that should not be there.
I'd concur with everyone saying: 'why agree to a point limit of 1500 when what they seemingly want to play is a 1535 point game?'
Peregrine wrote: You can be up to zero points over the point limit. If you are over the point limit then you remove things from your list until you are under the point limit. No other resolution is necessary.
(And of course if you deliberately go over the point limit without telling your opponent you're a TFG cheater and nobody should ever play with you again.)
I'm with Peregrine on this one. That point limit is there for a reason, and I hate to say this, but 5 -10 points can go a long way when your clever. Too many people could ask, "Hey, mind if I am 5 points over? You can take 5 as well." and that 5 points being stuck with something mildly crappy and suddenly dropping that for a beautiful pair of screw you lascannon sponsons. If someone was fairly short, but with just 5 points over, they can take a shiny new stormraven gunship, that really isn't all that fair. You can easily just trick your opponent with that simple question which makes them think "melta bomb sergeant" while you say "Thanks for the Stormraven." You either take 10 to trim off the fat, or we have problems. I made the sacrifices and built a legal list, you should too.
Our group has played with about 3pts over, usually due to certain codexes having weird points costs thrown in there.
Personally i tend to play with 1-2 points under when i can't get it perfect.
It's very disrespectful to your opponent to agree to a points limit and then show up over that limit. I'd be more than a little bit annoyed with someone who did that, possibly to the point of refusing to play them if they weren't prepared to stick to what we'd agreed.
from the Size of Game rules on page 108: "...if you decide to play a 2,000-point game, then neither player can spend more than 2,000 points on their army..." that said, it also indicates: "...sometimes it's just impossible to spend every last point. Indeed, to get around this, most players are happy to let their opponent go a few points over the agreed total - after all, a few points here or there are unlikely to upset the battle's course..."
Given the above, GW clearly indicates that you should not go over by a single point, but also recommends not sweating the small stuff because of the often-times awkward point costs associated with certain things.
Neorealist wrote: from the Size of Game rules on page 108: "...if you decide to play a 2,000-point game, then neither player can spend more than 2,000 points on their army..." that said, it also indicates: "...sometimes it's just impossible to spend every last point. Indeed, to get around this, most players are happy to let their opponent go a few points over the agreed total - after all, a few points here or there are unlikely to upset the battle's course..."
Given the above, GW clearly indicates that you should not go over by a single point, but also recommends not sweating the small stuff because of the often-times awkward point costs associated with certain things.
Good advice, I'd say.
Exactly. Every time I make a list, I ensure that it is below or at the targeted limit. However, like I said, I give my opponents a 1% benefit-of-the-doubt; that is, I doubt a 1% change is going to meaningfully affect the battle and if it does, eh, no biggie. The worst I can do is lose!
Both players have to be on the same page to play and enjoy 40k.
If you want to follow the rules by restricting yourself to the points limit, and your opponent wants to ignore the rules and be 35 points over, then you either convince them to follow the rules, ignore the rules and accept it, or not play them.
When I was a new player I thought going over the points by a little bit was not a big deal, but now I realize that when you are experienced those extra 5 points can make a big difference in the list, as often your whole list can crumble if you have to cut back 4-5 points. For this reason it is unacceptable in my book to ever go over the points limit.
35 points over is a lot, and it is silly for a person to get upset if others are not okay with it. In a friendly game I wouldn't mind few points over, but with 35 you should just agree to play 1550 point game to begin with or something.
In a friendly game, If I know about it, I dont really care. Its all in fun.
If your asking for a strict point limit and he doesnt, then he should respect that. If he doesnt, then throw about 200 points in your army without telling him and see what happens.
i would say that "not sweating the small stuff" goes both ways. If you are unable to finagle to get every last point spent without going over, then its only a small thing to stay within the limit and just not spend every last point.
Like i said efore, an experienced player should never exceed the limit but if it is a newcomer or rookie, i dont sweat a couple points over but I make sur to instruct them on this so they dont start taking it for granted.
The list i usually do are 1998 or 1997, because of the CSM weird points costs here and there.
lately i worked my lost again from scratch, but i'm on the 2006pts line.
I always tell before hand, and asks if it does bother, usually poeple says no that 6 pts isn't a big deal.
You could say that i need to take something off to go under the 2k, but my list is allready really really bare, and to get under the 2000k limit, i have nothing of 6pts value, if i have to take something off, it would be 10 or 15 pts, thats a model or melta.
Seeing that i only have 4 meltas in 2000pts, i really can't afford to pass on one.
Now it allready happened that my opponent had a 2030pts lists, and was in the same predicament has i, my only reaction was to give Gift of mutation to 2 of my Champs, portin the list to 2029 and thats it...
Farseer Pef wrote: I believe this belongs in YMDC. This is a HYWPI question.
The scenario: About to play a 1500 point game with a friend. He says his list is 1535 points. I ask him to trim it down a bit since 35 points over can be a few models. He gets upset by this.
The question: What sort of overspending limits do you play with? How would you handle it if your opponent was over or asked you to trim your list? Being that I have no tournament experience, how do tournaments handle it?
Appreciate any feedback (and hope it remains civil ).
We pick a point value a little low, then if some one has a hard time trimming down his list, we discus it a bit ( that is to say we are not going to quibble about 10 points or so ), above that points there is usually one or 2 things that the other person can take to come to near parity. If it's closer to 30-45 points, we are more likely to go ahead and raise the point limit to the nearest 50 points.
So if we set the original point limit a little on the low side @ 850 ( with the understanding that it might be a little low ) - if one person has a hard time getting below 860-865, we are not going to worry about it. If they have hard time getting below 870-875 ( let's face it some armies have a harder time doing anything at lower point values ), we talk about what they are taking a bit, and then if it looks like they have trimmed much of the fat, and the other can take an item or two to bring them into point parity, then we go with that, otherwise we might go ahead and bump it up to a 875 or even a 900 point game, and adjust everything as necessary - usually it's easier to trim the fat with higher point.
You might try keeping a second list of things you would like to have in a game, and either offer to add a thing or two from to your second list to bring your list into parity with his or let him strike an item or two off of his list to bring his list into parity with yours.
Let's face it, the basic reason for using a points system, is to start play at near parity - it really does not matter if both armies are at 1500 or 1545.
So if near parity is achieved by agreeing with 1500 pts, but if you are then prepared to add a model or piece of equipment in case your opponent can't get his army below 1535, what is the problem? The idea is to have fun.
So if near parity is achieved by agreeing with 1500 pts, but if you are then prepared to add a model or piece of equipment in case your opponent can't get his army below 1535, what is the problem? The idea is to have fun.
+1.
For those who say that even 1 pts above the agreed limit is unacceptable, if you're playing in a friendly game (non-tourney), remember you're really just playing a game of "Pew Pew Layzors!" .
I don't really understand the whole thing of "It must be EXACTLY as specified" when playing for "fun". You're supposed to be just messing around with your friends, maybe drinking a beer, making inappropriate yet incredibly funny jokes, randomly making DoW quotes and speculating as to how exactly a battlecannon shot just landed 3" behind the turret.
Or maybe 40k is really "Srs Bizniss" where you are...
namiel wrote: I WANT to see flamers popping tanks, guardsmen beating bloodthirsters to death I WANT it to be full of this stuff.
Oh, the mental imagery! In my mind I saw an IG holding his lasgun by the barrel, sitting on the Thirster's face, smacking it repeatedly with the butt of the gun, yelling "I've fking had enough of you!"
That goes both ways. if your playing for fun, not having that extra melta or daemon or whatnot is not that big a deal and is a lot more respectfull than just saying "My mathammer is strong and if I dont have extra 8 conscripts, i will go down 4.97% to kill a marine per 38 shots."
I understand your view on this and mean no disrespect but I just feel that that respect goes both ways and that it is more disrespectful to purposely go over the limit by 35 points in order to gain an advantage than it is to ask someone to play by the rules.
That being said, i would say consider your options. How many oponents do you usually have? If thats the only other guy in town, it might be woth it to let it slide but inform him that next time he needs to come prepared. Consider the person. Is it an honest mistake that they wont make again or is it some chhesball who spends hours mathammer to get the perfect percentages they want? Or is it the rookie player who is just learning the game? Is it your best friend who would get upset enough to where it would create a rift in the friendship? These and other questions could alter your decision. What it comes down to is a personal decision that you and your opponant need to work out for yourselves.
As a side not, something you could do is set aside a sheet of notebook paper and keep track. This tie, he went over 35 points. next game, YOU get to spend an extra 35 points.
Another could be to play arrative games where points arent that big a deal. My old gaming group had a lot of fun with this as there was only 3 of us, we always had an odd man out except when we played 2v1. the odd man out would set up the table and develope the scenario. This way, if one guy is over 35 points, the game "er" could tip the scales 35 points worth in some fashion.
So if near parity is achieved by agreeing with 1500 pts, but if you are then prepared to add a model or piece of equipment in case your opponent can't get his army below 1535, what is the problem? The idea is to have fun.
+1.
For those who say that even 1 pts above the agreed limit is unacceptable, if you're playing in a friendly game (non-tourney), remember you're really just playing a game of "Pew Pew Layzors!" .
I don't really understand the whole thing of "It must be EXACTLY as specified" when playing for "fun". You're supposed to be just messing around with your friends, maybe drinking a beer, making inappropriate yet incredibly funny jokes, randomly making DoW quotes and speculating as to how exactly a battlecannon shot just landed 3" behind the turret.
Or maybe 40k is really "Srs Bizniss" where you are...
Disrespect is coming to a game and expecting your opponent to accept that you're playing above the agreed upon point level.
Having said that, I'd much rather play a guy with +35pts, +50pts, hell....+200pts than to play someone who has ZERO interest in playing at a respectable pace. I recently played against a guy who took for-freaking-EVER to play his turns. He looked up every rule for his codex (ignoring the fact that I was giving him the info as he was playing an army that I also play) and basically just crawled through molasses to do anything (when he wasn't turning around to join in on a conversation that was going on in the room. AAAAARRRGHHHH!!!) We got through 3 full turns in almost 4 1/2 hours, and after that, I told him I had to leave.
I will NEVER play that guy again. NEVER!
I'd heard from others afterward that his focus was largely modeling/converting, but that's no excuse. This game requires a social contract, and I'm not signing the dotted line if you've added an "I'm going to suck the life out of you and make you hate humanity" clause to yours.
Remember that now playing 5 Elites and 6 HS units, isn't illigal anymore, its just a way to argue
My assumption was single FOC, but thanks.
And since I double check lists in battlescribe during deployment (takes all of 2 minutes unless their list is horribly written, in which case I ask them to throw it in battlescribe on my ipad) it'd be hard for something that big to slip by me. Especially when I rarely ever play games more than 1850 points.
I'll allow a zero point breach of the maximum allowed.
5 points is the difference between a Mortar and an Autocannon. It makes a hell of a lot of difference to the Rhino heading towards you.
3 points allows a Singing Spear upgrade. Make a lot of difference to the Land Raider nearby. Plus I get to hear about how his Warlock killed my Land Raider forever.
Saying; "It's just x points. It doesn't make a lot of difference" is a huge fallacy. Those few points might be part of a larger chunk of points that makes it possible to field that extra Hive Guard, Terminator, Meltagun or whatever.
Saying; "Just add a Melta Bomb to one of our Sergeants and we are even" is a fallacy. Said squad might not have been taken to move aggresively forwards....making the upgrade utterly pointless. Hell, it might even induce me to stray from the basic tenents of my battleplan, which I had in mind when I made the armylist. Maybe I even considered giving him a Melta Bomb but discarded the idea because it was a pointless waste of points.....and now I add it again to compensate for your unwillingness to follow the rules?
If 5 points is no big deal, then remove them. They are "no big deal", remember?
Thank you for putting me in a situation where I, by saying "no", is denying you your "right to have fun". I am not really given a choice. You broke the rules/agreement and suddenly I'M the TFG?!?
We have to set the limit somewhere....and that might as well be at the limit agreed upon beforehand.
In a competitive setting this wouldn't normally be allowed, unless it was built into the rules of the competition.
In a casual setting, if you found out right before the game starts that your friend's army has 35 extra points, you could ask for a few minutes while you add 35 points to your army to even the forces out, at least in point value. Or you can make some other compromise, like you get 1 reroll or victory point per 5 points difference.
Regardless, you may consider trying to understand why your friend is going over. Rather than guessing as to why, talk about it. Maybe they don't fully understand or even just don't like the list-building aspect of the game. Maybe they don't think having to sacrifice fielding one unit in favor of another is "fun".
As said earlier in the thread, the points limits are entirely arbitrary. It doesn't have to be a round number... it can even be a prime number. The point is, if your friend is chronically over-points, you could have him make his list first and tell you how many points he's fielding a few days in advance of the game, so that you have plenty of time to plan an army of matching points.
A few thoughts (some repeats of those already mentioned);
1) Some people are complainers. They might not mean to and they might not be bad people but when challenged about anything they'll complain. They might well agree or not put up actual resistance but they'll still complain - its just the way they are. Typically its best just ignored as a quirk of character and 5 mins into the game it should be water under the bridge and long forgotten as you get into the game.
2) Army lists - even in casual play always try to ensure written out lists; it helps to ensure fair play by both parties and also means that any mistaken maths has the potential to be corrected by the opponent (when they see the list) before the game begins. It takes a few moments to write out a list so try to always insist upon it (I put this down alongside always playing with rule books+codex+any FAQ/errata printed out if you're going to use the FAQ/errata - its all just basic parts of playing this game).
3) Where a players army fails to meet the points list - either over or under the limit; try to see if there is way to correct the issue. Most players will correct it themselves if they are under the points limit and unless its a very significant amount there is unlikely to be a perfect way to get to the points level for each army.
Where you've a player who has gone over there are a few approaches;
a) Ask them to remove some assets to take their points cost down to equal or just lower than the set limit. A first port of call and a good one to make.
b) Ask to allow yourself to be taken up to the same value as the other army; this is a great option for casual games and its really just having minor adjustment to the games points limit in the match you're playing.
c) Refuse to play - not ideal and a very last resort that should be reserved only for the most frequent breakers of the rules and the most rude refusal to play by them. Chances are this will never be used or if it is is highly rare.
In the end remind your opponent that you're just ensuring a fair and equal game; there's no fun in a one sided match and the fun of the game is in the challenge of equal matched opposing teams fighting it out.
In the past myself I've mostly played in casual environments - 5 or so points over the limit was mostly just ignored although most were generally good at ensuring they were not over. A similar 1% limit is also a decent point to work from as a rough house rule.
Selym wrote: For those who say that even 1 pts above the agreed limit is unacceptable, if you're playing in a friendly game (non-tourney), remember you're really just playing a game of "Pew Pew Layzors!" .
I don't really understand the whole thing of "It must be EXACTLY as specified" when playing for "fun". You're supposed to be just messing around with your friends, maybe drinking a beer, making inappropriate yet incredibly funny jokes, randomly making DoW quotes and speculating as to how exactly a battlecannon shot just landed 3" behind the turret.
This. It's never a big deal if you're a little under the limit, so you should never insist on going over so that you can have a better chance of winning the game. Just play your 1495 point list, have a beer, and enjoy the game.
For those who say that even 1 pts above the agreed limit is unacceptable, if you're playing in a friendly game (non-tourney), remember you're really just playing a game of "Pew Pew Layzors!" .
I don't really understand the whole thing of "It must be EXACTLY as specified" when playing for "fun". You're supposed to be just messing around with your friends, maybe drinking a beer, making inappropriate yet incredibly funny jokes, randomly making DoW quotes and speculating as to how exactly a battlecannon shot just landed 3" behind the turret.
Or maybe 40k is really "Srs Bizniss" where you are...
If it's a friendly game why is your opponent not respecting the agreed upon point limit? It's not something to get 'worked up' about but it is rather inconsiderate and presumptuous ...AKA, rude. No one has tried this on me in a friendly game yet but if someone presented me with their list and asked if it was ok that they went over their point limit I would say something to the effect of "I will accept that have not brought a list that fulfills the agreed upon requirements and have just forfeited the game but I am willing to play it out if you like" and I would not be 'worked up' over it... that's just 1-10 points over for me. At 35 points over I would accept their concession and not even offer to play it out.
I did have one player change his list after deployment and into the first player turn(my first turn). He said "Oh wait, that's the old list I had, this is the correct one"... it was essentially the same but his Vendettas where equipped differently. As I had already selected psychic powers, deployed and moved based on the other list and did not feel like doing it all over again I said the above to him and he dropped his head and said 'ok'. Later in the game I got my units of Zoanthropes mixed up and proceeded to used the wrong powers with two of them. He realized after the fact and informed me of my mistake. I offered to take it all back but he said it was to late and that he would accept my concession but would play it out anyways if I'd like to... I dropped my head and agreed, we both laughed and continued the game. Nobody won as we had both conceded but it was fun none the less
Cheating is still cheating even in a friendly game.
EVIL INC wrote: i would say that "not sweating the small stuff" goes both ways. If you are unable to finagle to get every last point spent without going over, then its only a small thing to stay within the limit and just not spend every last point.
Like i said efore, an experienced player should never exceed the limit but if it is a newcomer or rookie, i dont sweat a couple points over but I make sur to instruct them on this so they dont start taking it for granted.
I used to spend hours finagling my lists every which way for maximum possible advantage from the points we were playing at. Enjoyed it too, for a time. After a while though, I'd found that while the small incremental advantages were generally speaking allowing me to win more often, the time I spent on it wasn't really worth it regardless; since the experience was actually more entertaining the less chance of a mathematically decisive victory there was. In other words, the better games are the close ones, not the ones where you rofl-stomp your opponent (in my experience).
So from my perspective? Try and fit in to the points you agreed on, and 'under' is better than 'over'. If you don't? let your opponent know and accept their solution.(which will for the most part be 'no worries dude' or something else reasonable) That is all anyone need do I think.
If someone complains and is adamant about fielding an over budget list, you can bet its because they want their list to be "better" than if they go under or equal. This means they're looking at the game from a competitive point of view and hence can be considered cheating.
Having a point limit is part of the challenge of playing. Remind your friend of this. And it is also a respect thing between players to follow the rules when it comes to this.
I have let players play 1-10 points over. That's about it. After that they are just taking advantage.
Could you add something to your list to meet his points?
Take a look at his list. See if your friend would like help with his list building. Maybe you could find something that doesn't work for him in his army and he could adjust his list from that. Or post it on Dakka and we all could take a look and help out.
In my local gaming we tend to use the rule of thumb as follows.
Does the overspend get you something extra so exmple
1500 points and they spend and extra 8 on an eldar guardian (1508) not allowed
But say it went to 1504 with the guardian acceptable. if you are at 1500 spending 4-5 points on an extra equipment not acceptable. I think 1505 at 1500 is acceptable for casual gaming as long as the whole point value doesn't get you something new.
However if some were to say to me can i play 1535 and you can add 35 points i am completely okay with this they may just have to accept you take a squad in a non valid format eg a squad of 3-4 instead of 5 etc. Give and take for casual play imo.
A fair way to do it, so the player understands what they are attempting to do to the scheme of the game, is ask for the same points allowance they got over their final total.
Person A: 'Hey, I know we talked about 1500 points, but I couldn't build a good list without going over. I'm at 1512."
Person B: "Okay, then I'll match that unknown points overage with one of my own and add models/upgrades to go up to 1524 and we'll be solid, right?"
If they complain, they have only themselves to blame as that is the exact same situation they put you in without regard for implications. If they don't complain, game on!
I use to play in a campaign using the map tiles, our army lists were based on how much resources we control (number and type of tiles), and who we shared borders with (enemies meant more forces available, friends meant less forces required). In a match up versus Daemons, for example, my GK list had an extra 220pts over force limit (1500pts for that match). This was 3rd Ed Daemonhunters versus 5th Ed WD Daemons (pre-GK codex). Those 220pts I could have taken legally over the limit was literally another unit of GKT or PAGK or all the anti-daemon wargear no one took in competitive lists. Those 220pts allowed me to list tailor so I could table my opponent without losing a single model.
It felt unright, like I was give permission to abuse a child (my opponent was in his late 20's, while I was in my early 30's at the time). So instead of taking another unit, or extra wargear, we just played at the limit, had an awesome game, both lost models on each side, and in the end, we both had fun. I won the match, and kept the tile that was bring invaded by Daemons. Yet the fight was not tainted by my using more points than my opponent, despite being legally able to field more points than he did.
So, does few points difference feel good when you win with more points than your opponent? I know losing against the odds feels less fair to me than winning against the odds does, which is why my standard is to be at or under, never over.
My regular gaming buddy and I have hardly EVER gone over the agreed points limit, and with good reason. Our house rule states that if you absolutely must bring an unwieldy and bloated army list (but never more than the cost of a removable upgrade), then your opponent gains a re-roll to either the Deployment Zone or First Turn roll. That keeps us 'honest'.
That said, I simply can't conceive of any of my friends turning up 35pts over the limit..."I couldn't afford to give these guys a transport, do you mind if I just give 'em a Rhino anyway?" Errr...
How about this house rule: For every full 5pts over an agreed limit, your opponent gets a 'free' re-roll to be taken at any point during the game? That should cure 'points creep' pretty swiftly.
Henrythesecond wrote: My regular gaming buddy and I have hardly EVER gone over the agreed points limit, and with good reason. Our house rule states that if you absolutely must bring an unwieldy and bloated army list (but never more than the cost of a removable upgrade), then your opponent gains a re-roll to either the Deployment Zone or First Turn roll. That keeps us 'honest'.
That said, I simply can't conceive of any of my friends turning up 35pts over the limit..."I couldn't afford to give these guys a transport, do you mind if I just give 'em a Rhino anyway?" Errr...
How about this house rule: For every full 5pts over an agreed limit, your opponent gets a 'free' re-roll to be taken at any point during the game? That should cure 'points creep' pretty swiftly.
Works for me.
Those rolls on Be'lakor become very important very quickly.
Henrythesecond wrote: How about this house rule: For every full 5pts over an agreed limit, your opponent gets a 'free' re-roll to be taken at any point during the game? That should cure 'points creep' pretty swiftly.
I'd make it one re-roll for every point over, not for every five points. And I'd make the re-roll apply to any number of dice rolled at the same time. So, if you go over the point limit by one point I can make one unit's shooting effectively twin-linked for a turn. Harsh? Sure, but if you're over the point limit you're lucky I'm willing to play against you at all.
Overread wrote: b) Ask to allow yourself to be taken up to the same value as the other army; this is a great option for casual games and its really just having minor adjustment to the games points limit in the match you're playing.
Just picking this one out as it is an often heard solution. I never got how it would be fair to be given the same additional points, as those few points over were especially important otherwise why are you over. So how is me spending some points on a useless upgrade a fair resolution?
To me if you insist on coming to a game we agreed on to be a set points limit by a list that is over, than the fair option would be to allow me to add something useful to my list as well. So if you are 3 points over I could add +X points to add a special/heavy weapon, or +X points to add another member to a squad.
Still I prefer to have my opponent stay within the agreed points limit as like any game the rules governing the game determine the enjoyability (unless copious amounts of alcohol are involved). And starting the game by breaking the only rule you set before beginning does not bode well for the coming game.
If your opponent is going to just toss that rule out the window, why tiptoe on that slippery slope, Just stomp on it and just toss out whatever rules you dont like.
Frankly, if people are going to quibble about fairness over even 1 point, how is it fair for anyone, that both armies are not starting with the exact same number of points ( regardless of agreed limit )?
Seriously though, maybe it's just me, but if you are not talking to your opponent, well before the game, to settle any point overage issues, you almost deserve what you get.
Cheating? You have to be kidding me.
Cheating is bringing loaded dice to he game or intentionally trying to SNEAK stuff in, that wasn't accounted for in the points - in other words being deceptive.
Being openly over points is no more cheating, than flapping your arms makes you a bird. Sloppy in accounting, forgetful even, relaxed attitude to the game is very likely.
I am less concerned about people being a little over, than I am about people who are going to quibble about 1 point.
Why?
Because people who are quibbling about 1 point have obviously gone over their army and the rules with a fine tooth comb, looking for every single advantage they can get, and those are the same types of people that don't have the time of day for a beginner ( that doesn't understand the all rules for every single army ) and will go out of their way to make use of every single mistake that the beginner makes, without teaching him/her - sure they will TELL the beginner he did this wrong and that wrong, but it's not teaching.
And that isn't fun for the beginner ( personal experience ).
Come on - there is absolutely no difference between starting with one army at 1488 pts and the other at 1499 pts and starting with one army at 1498 and the other at 1509 ( or for that matter armies at 1511 and 1522, even if the point value of the game was originally set at 1500 ).
Just spend a little more time talking to your opponent - decide what maximum point difference between armies is going to be, and stop worrying about a stupid concrete ceiling that some people think is so shrouded in holiness that it can supposedly never be violated.
People seam to have a hard time remembering that most games is not a high stakes tournament game - so you should never treat all games like they were.
Frankly, if people are going to quibble about fairness over even 1 point, how is it fair for anyone, that both armies are not starting with the exact same number of points ( regardless of agreed limit )?
Seriously though, maybe it's just me, but if you are not talking to your opponent, well before the game, to settle any point overage issues, you almost deserve what you get.
Cheating? You have to be kidding me.
Cheating is bringing loaded dice to he game or intentionally trying to SNEAK stuff in, that wasn't accounted for in the points - in other words being deceptive.
Being openly over points is no more cheating, than flapping your arms makes you a bird. Sloppy in accounting, forgetful even, relaxed attitude to the game is very likely.
I am less concerned about people being a little over, than I am about people who are going to quibble about 1 point.
Why?
Because people who are quibbling about 1 point have obviously gone over their army and the rules with a fine tooth comb, looking for every single advantage they can get, and those are the same types of people that don't have the time of day for a beginner ( that doesn't understand the all rules for every single army ) and will go out of their way to make use of every single mistake that the beginner makes, without teaching him/her - sure they will TELL the beginner he did this wrong and that wrong, but it's not teaching.
And that isn't fun for the beginner ( personal experience ).
Come on - there is absolutely no difference between starting with one army at 1488 pts and the other at 1499 pts and starting with one army at 1498 and the other at 1509 ( or for that matter armies at 1511 and 1522, even if the point value of the game was originally set at 1500 ).
Just spend a little more time talking to your opponent - decide what maximum point difference between armies is going to be, and stop worrying about a stupid concrete ceiling that some people think is so shrouded in holiness that it can supposedly never be violated.
People seam to have a hard time remembering that most games is not a high stakes tournament game - so you should never treat all games like they were.
it is not a atter of fairness. You can have 2 armies made to the exact same point value where one is maxcheesed to the limit and one is just random stuff tossed together the randomly tossed together list given to a 3 year old to use and the maxcheesed list given to a tournament circuit pro to use against them.. Yes, this is an extreme example but an example of how perfectly pointed armies can not be "fair" against one another.
However, Since the issue is not about fairness, it therefore has to be about SOMETHING. Lets see what it could be about.
1. The rues. As a few others pointed out, t is in the rulebook in black and white. as vorn said, if your going to scrap that rule, why not whatever other rules you like. Bottom of last turn of the game and my squad is 20 inches from an objective that would win me the game. I think I'll just nudge my guys to winin 3 inches to claim it anyway.after all, the points allowance rule is to be ignored, why quibble over a few extra inches of movement?
2. Self respect. Since playing rogue trader, I have no once EVER gone over the amount. I pride myself on following the rules. To think that I would give myself even a minuscule of extra advantage over someone else by not following the rules is anathema to me. In fact, it would be by definition, dishonest. I cant remember what movie it was in but there is a quote I like. it goes something along the lines of " Honor is a gift a man gives himself and which no one can take from him but himself".
3. Respect for your opponent- If I thought so little of my opponent that i could totallyignore any feelings towards honesty or fairness or thier feelings towards what is right and wrong or following the rules, then breaking the rules by going over the limit would not bother me. However, I have respect for my opponents. Gamers are often looked down upon and made fun of by non-gamers. We have to live with that. Some of us old timers come from a time when it was more than just that. Growing up in the 80s when painting zombies and skeleton and chaos marines for our armies, playing D&D and listening to rock and roll music , we were usually branded as satanists and outright reviled in our communities to the point where finding jobs was almost impossible as employers were afraid to hire us. I have more respect for a fellow gamer than that.
4. it is "only a game". Winning is not so important that I will die if i lose so why quibble with an opponent to allow me to break the rules and take extra stuff or go over the limit? It is not THAT important so I'll just take enough to meet the limit and not go for the extra killy power that costs 35 points more.
After all. Look at the codices nowadays. Numbers of models and so forth are now set you to make it easier to stay within the limits. At one time, you had to uy the 10 model tactical squad whole or not at all. Now, you buy the first five and add as many as you want up to 10.
Like I said before, against a roookie, I will likely let it slide and explain the situation to them to prevent it from happening again and coach them on how to avoid it and others have provided a lot of very creative and fair house rules to address it. Some of which I will be sure to remember.
However. The OP DID post the question in YMDC. In this particular forum section, the answer always boils down the RAW, the law of the rules. How we would play it, thoughts of fairness and so forth are irrelevent here. You will notice that this exact same question posted in the 40k general forum got answers that were not based on the rules near so much but which were more opinion based. here is a link that may help us to address the OPs question and should be kept in mind when replying to it.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253892.page
The odds of any two people with two different armies coming up with the exact same point value, are off the scale, unless they sit down together and cooperate ( even then it is unlikely to be exactly the same, because different armies have different point values ).
No one is going to make much of a fuss, if there is a 35 point difference between armies, if both are below the so called sacred point limit, but to hear many people here, the second that either army goes above that point limit, someone is cheating, and all sorts of concessions have to be made on the part of one person.
I have either seen or been a part of plenty of games, where it was a matter of either being well under or slightly over the so called limit - I remember one of mine that I was going to be 38 under or 26 over, when my opponents was within +/- 15 points, and the alternative to being over by 26 points was take a bunch of useless stuff to make up about 30 odd points of difference. Sure I could have taken that stuff to raise the points of my army, but as far as usefulness is concerned, it would have been the same as playing the game 38 points short. So what happened? I sat down with my opponents about a week earlier, we talked about it for a couple of minutes and raised the so called point limit by 50 points - that let most everyone take an extra item of two that they had already trimmed out of their lists ( one person got an idea from that the extra 50 points, totally revamped their list ), while it was enough for me to drop one model from three squads, and picked up a short squad in return, and all 6 players was within a 10 point window of the new "limit".
The rules do not say, that the players can not decide on a new point total, yet to hear many people here, it sounds like people are saying that 1500 points are 1500 points and you are going to stick to it - no if's, and's, or but's, about it.
How is it that an 11 or 15 point difference in Army's are acceptable if everyone is below the agreed cap, but some how that same 11-15 point difference is changing the rules and cheating, if one of them is over the cap, by even a single point?
If the point difference between the army's is not going to make any difference if everyone was below the cap, how the heck is it going to make any difference if one or both players are above it?
Good grief! Move the cap from 1500 to 1508 or even 1525 and get on with the game.
That's the funny thing about the point cap rule - when you think about it, it's about the most flexible rule in the book ( especially in a game where there is almost always some kind of exception to all the other rules ).
The most important rule in the rule book comes from Pg 4 BRB ( oddly enough from the section "The Most Important Rule" ), "....be prepared to interpret a rule or come up with a suitable solution for yourselves", and the discussion about point limits are most applicable here as I can't think about a single absolute set rule about them. Even pg 108 says, " ... most armies are actually a shade smaller than the agreed limit - sometimes it's impossible to spend every last point. Indeed to get around this, most players are happy, to let their opponent go a few points over the agreed total - after all, a few points here or there are unlikely to upset the battle's course. " ( italics mine ).
So if anyone wants a rule, that covers this situation, there it is. Not a single word, about how a point limit can not ever be broken ( or moved ), and can even be read as giving tact approval for allowing a player to go over, if it's not carried to absurdity.
Which has been my entire point about not worrying about a point limit set in a stone ceiling ( that is never supposed to be broken ), and just build army's to near parity in points.
Chopper Greg wrote: How is it that an 11 or 15 point difference in Army's are acceptable if everyone is below the agreed cap, but some how that same 11-15 point difference is changing the rules and cheating, if one of them is over the cap, by even a single point?
Because the rules say "you may spend up to X points". If you voluntarily spend fewer points then that's your choice to make. If you deliberately make a list that spends more points then you are cheating.
I remember one of mine that I was going to be 38 under or 26 over, when my opponents was within +/- 15 points, and the alternative to being over by 26 points was take a bunch of useless stuff to make up about 30 odd points of difference.
Why are you so obsessed with winning that you have to change the point value of the game so that your list gets a little more efficient? Why can't you just play the game within the rules that you agreed to and accept that you might not always have the perfect list?
Frankly, if people are going to quibble about fairness over even 1 point, how is it fair for anyone, that both armies are not starting with the exact same number of points ( regardless of agreed limit )?
It's fair because both players have the same resources available (the agreed-on number of points) to use. If one player doesn't use all of those resources it's still a fair game because failing to do so is their voluntary choice. Perhaps playing a 1495 point list is actually better than changing some upgrades just to spend that extra point (for example, they want a melta gun instead of the more expensive plasma gun).
Because people who are quibbling about 1 point have obviously gone over their army and the rules with a fine tooth comb, looking for every single advantage they can get, and those are the same types of people that don't have the time of day for a beginner ( that doesn't understand the all rules for every single army ) and will go out of their way to make use of every single mistake that the beginner makes, without teaching him/her - sure they will TELL the beginner he did this wrong and that wrong, but it's not teaching.
I can make ridiculous stereotypes too! Everyone who insists on being entitled to go over the agreed-on point limit is a WAACTFG who is so obsessed with winning that they pressure other people into "being casual about it" so they can take an illegal list and gain a better chance of winning. A game against a player who has followed the point limit (or even spent fewer points because it's not worth obsessing over spending the last few points) will likely involve the TFG badgering them about some other rules issues, like insisting that it's ok when their models move an extra 1" because "only TFGs insist on perfect measuring, that extra 1" won't make any difference".
I understand your point. a single point or two may not be a gaming winning or losing matter. However, there is always the chance that that 1 point searchlight you bought taking your amy from the agreed upon 1500 limit to 1501 could allow you to destroy an entire unit on your first turn before i get to fire it when otherwise you might not have been able to.
my point is this, the rule is concrete, black and white in the rulebook. When you start breaking rules because you personally dont agree with them, you set a precedent for breaking others. It is a game designed for fun. In a for fun game, it is a matter of respect (and the rules) to not cheat by breaking the rules. In a competative game, it is a matte of just being turned away at the door because you did not meet the requirements.
In this particular section of the forum, the letter of the rules are what matters.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253892.page if you want to discuss it in other other means like why or what would you do, try posting in the thread in the general section of the forums. In this particular section however, anything other than the actual rules and the interpretation of them is considered irrelevant and spam according to the as posted.
Mike walks up to the table and explains to Bob that his list is a little over the target points limit. The way Mike casually talks about the infraction, it's clear he doesn't think it's a big deal and expects Bob to fall in line. Bob blinks, thinks a moment, and blurts out:
A) "Sure...that's fine. Whatever, man. A few points isn't going to matter that much." (a nice guy and a potential push-over)
or
B) "No can do. I fit my list under the points limit, you need to do the same." (not sure what type of guy he is, but he'll stand up for himself)
No matter the response, Mike has shown bad table etiquette for putting Bob in that situation.
It's pretty much as simple as that. I don't think we need to drag rules or list-building into this...
Chopper Greg wrote: Frankly, if people are going to quibble about fairness over even 1 point, how is it fair for anyone, that both armies are not starting with the exact same number of points ( regardless of agreed limit )?
It's fair because both armies have the ability to spend up to the same number of points. If you write a list that is under the agreed limit, that's your choice, not a limitation of the game.
Because people who are quibbling about 1 point have obviously gone over their army and the rules with a fine tooth comb, looking for every single advantage they can get, and those are the same types of people that don't have the time of day for a beginner ( that doesn't understand the all rules for every single army ) and will go out of their way to make use of every single mistake that the beginner makes, without teaching him/her - sure they will TELL the beginner he did this wrong and that wrong, but it's not teaching.
This is a ridiculous generalisation.
I've lost count of the number of new players I have helped along in this hobby in the last 20 years. But I 'quibble' over over-point lists for the same reason I 'quibble' over people measuring extra movement or range... because a limit is a limit, and the limits imposed by the rules are the framework around which the game works.
Come on - there is absolutely no difference between starting with one army at 1488 pts and the other at 1499 pts and starting with one army at 1498 and the other at 1509
Sure there is. If the agreed limit is 1500 points, then in the latter example one of those armies is illegal.
People seam to have a hard time remembering that most games is not a high stakes tournament game - so you should never treat all games like they were.
It never ceases to amaze me how many people present this as something that only applies to those arguing for sticking to the limit...
If you agree to play a 1500 point list, and you show up with a list that is 10 points over, how is it that your opponent expecting you to follow the rules is unreasonable, while your refusal to correct your list to fit within the agreed upon limit is not?
The odds of any two people with two different armies coming up with the exact same point value, are off the scale, unless they sit down together and cooperate ( even then it is unlikely to be exactly the same, because different armies have different point values ).
Really?
I have nine 40K armies. Many of those have had multiple codexes over the last 5 editions that I have played the game... in for many of the games I have played in that time, both my and my opponent's list have been exactly on the points limit.
If I'm bucking the odds that impressively, it must be time to go buy a lotto ticket...
No one is going to make much of a fuss, if there is a 35 point difference between armies, if both are below the so called sacred point limit, but to hear many people here, the second that either army goes above that point limit, someone is cheating, and all sorts of concessions have to be made on the part of one person.
Yes, that's how it works when you have an agreed limit.
Just like if one players is moving his guys 6 inches, and the other guy is moving his guys seven inches, one of them is cheating, and the other is not.
So what happened? I sat down with my opponents about a week earlier, we talked about it for a couple of minutes and raised the so called point limit by 50 points
In which case you now had a new agreed points limit, and everything was rosy.
That's not the issue. You and your opponent are free to play at whatever points limit you both agree to. It's showing up to a game with an agreed points limit and just expecting to be allowed to use an illegal list that people take exception to.
If you have agreed to a 1500 point game, and your opponent wants to play a 1500 point game, they're not the unreasonable one for expecting you to use a 1500 point army.
Because the rules say "you may spend up to X points". If you voluntarily spend fewer points then that's your choice to make. If you deliberately make a list that spends more points then you are cheating.
If the rules say it is allowed, it's not cheating. If the rule did not allow it, it would go out of it's way to say so, but it doesn't do that. Instead, it goes out of it's way to allow minor overages.
Why are you so obsessed with winning that you have to change the point value of the game so that your list gets a little more efficient? Why can't you just play the game within the rules that you agreed to and accept that you might not always have the perfect list?
That is so absurd that doesn't even amount to a very poor joke. Even with the revised point total, that brought the army's closer to parity, I didn't even have a chance. That being said, if others come to me, for the same thing it's still not an issue. High point games, it's not going to happen so often, but with low point games it can happen fairly frequently simply because some army's can't be made to work very well at lower point totals ( even more so if the selection of available models is somewhat limited as it is in my case ).
Frankly, if people are going to quibble about fairness over even 1 point, how is it fair for anyone, that both armies are not starting with the exact same number of points ( regardless of agreed limit )?
It's fair because both players have the same resources available (the agreed-on number of points) to use. If one player doesn't use all of those resources it's still a fair game because failing to do so is their voluntary choice. Perhaps playing a 1495 point list is actually better than changing some upgrades just to spend that extra point (for example, they want a melta gun instead of the more expensive plasma gun).
You are making an unwarranted assumption, that everyone has the same resources access available. Even if player skill was not a factor, if someone is limited in their access to models ( which can be rather expensive ), then their options they have for their army are also limited ( regardless of point total ) - thus limits what models they are able to field. If you then limit their options even further, by not allowing a minor overage as allowed by the rules, it goes back to an issue of being fun for only one player.
Are you then going to make the game exclusive only to people, that have enough money to field all options as allowed in the codex?
I can make ridiculous stereotypes too! Everyone who insists on being entitled to go over the agreed-on point limit is a WAACTFG who is so obsessed with winning that they pressure other people into "being casual about it" so they can take an illegal list and gain a better chance of winning. A game against a player who has followed the point limit (or even spent fewer points because it's not worth obsessing over spending the last few points) will likely involve the TFG badgering them about some other rules issues, like insisting that it's ok when their models move an extra 1" because "only TFGs insist on perfect measuring, that extra 1" won't make any difference".
It would be one thing if someone was 75-100 points over, but given that we are talking about a few points as allowed per the BRB, it only comes down to whether or not the game is in fact a tourney game or not. If it isn't, and you are not allowing something that is useable in the rules then the shoe ( the one about needing to win at any cost ) is on your foot now. Does someone need to win so badly, that they are going to quibble about someone being a single point over?
EVIL INC wrote: I understand your point. a single point or two may not be a gaming winning or losing matter. However, there is always the chance that that 1 point searchlight you bought taking your amy from the agreed upon 1500 limit to 1501 could allow you to destroy an entire unit on your first turn before i get to fire it when otherwise you might not have been able to.
my point is this, the rule is concrete, black and white in the rulebook. When you start breaking rules because you personally dont agree with them, you set a precedent for breaking others. It is a game designed for fun. In a for fun game, it is a matter of respect (and the rules) to not cheat by breaking the rules. In a competative game, it is a matte of just being turned away at the door because you did not meet the requirements.
Lets think about your example a bit. Say you and I set up a1500 point game for what we are going to play next week.
You use up 1500 points, and want to take a 1 point searchlight - wait a minute, you already used all of those 1500 points, there is not any justification to take 1 more point simply because you have already used the 1500 points.
Now, if you have built a 1490 pt army, and for some reason searchlights cost 15 points, I'm not going to have a problem with it, as long as you haven't also given 2 point offensive and 4 point defensive grenades to all six of your squads. You are either going to have to get rid of some of those grenades to get that searchlight or you are going to have to get my agreement, that the new cap is 1510 or so, and I can now use that extra points how ever I feel like ( within the codex I'm running ) - heck there is a fair chance that I may tell you that you can take it anyway and not make any changes to my list in return.
You call me 3-4 days ahead of time and tell me you want to run a 1550 pt game instead of a 1500 pt game, I'm fine with that too.
As for the rest, about the rule being black and white.....
The very same moment that GW added the allowance to go a little over the point limit to the rest of the rules, they changed it from black and white, to shades of grey. If it's going to be black and white, with no possibility of allowing some limited overage, then they need to out right remove the part about most players allowing it and explicitly state that no overage what so ever is allowed - because otherwise it gives people the wrong idea.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Voidwraith wrote: Mike walks up to the table and explains to Bob that his list is a little over the target points limit. The way Mike casually talks about the infraction, it's clear he doesn't think it's a big deal and expects Bob to fall in line. Bob blinks, thinks a moment, and blurts out:
A) "Sure...that's fine. Whatever, man. A few points isn't going to matter that much." (a nice guy and a potential push-over)
or
B) "No can do. I fit my list under the points limit, you need to do the same." (not sure what type of guy he is, but he'll stand up for himself)
No matter the response, Mike has shown bad table etiquette for putting Bob in that situation.
That's the entire point about talking to each other about any overage issues before you come to the game table - so it doesn't happen after everyone is otherwise ready to play.
The rules are the rules. if you want to discuss 'what ifs" or "how would you play its" or whatever other excuses or justifications for blatantly breaking the rules, there is a 40k general section to discuss it with a threaalready started.
As this section is for discussing the actual rules, I will address the rule s written in the rulebook where it is wrttn in black and white with no grey areas.
Chopper Greg wrote: If the rules say it is allowed, it's not cheating. If the rule did not allow it, it would go out of it's way to say so, but it doesn't do that. Instead, it goes out of it's way to allow minor overages.
The rules do NOT allow you to go over, they merely state that if you do break the rule by going over the point limit then some people don't think it's worth worrying about it.
Even with the revised point total, that brought the army's closer to parity, I didn't even have a chance.
Then why did you need to change the point limit to accommodate the more efficient list you wanted to bring? Why couldn't you just play within the point limit with a less-efficient list? If you don't have a chance anyway then why was it so important to make the change?
You are making an unwarranted assumption, that everyone has the same resources access available.
No I am not. If it's a 1500 point game then both players have 1500 points to spend. You don't get to insist on getting extra points just because a legal list wouldn't be as effective at winning.
Are you then going to make the game exclusive only to people, that have enough money to field all options as allowed in the codex?
This is absolute nonsense. People with limited budgets can still play by the rules.
Does someone need to win so badly, that they are going to quibble about someone being a single point over?
This is exactly my point: why do you need to win so badly that you're going to insist on being allowed to have that extra point instead of just making your list fit within the point limit that you agreed to?
If it's going to be black and white, with no possibility of allowing some limited overage, then they need to out right remove the part about most players allowing it and explicitly state that no overage what so ever is allowed - because otherwise it gives people the wrong idea.
Or you just need to understand that "some people don't think it's a big deal" does not mean you get to act entitled about those extra points and accuse your opponent of TFG behavior if they won't let you have them.
That's the entire point about talking to each other about any overage issues before you come to the game table - so it doesn't happen after everyone is otherwise ready to play.
There is no "overage issue" to talk about. If you have enough advance warning about an upcoming game that you can negotiate with your future opponent then you have enough time to make a legal list. Whether or not you talk to them in advance or not you're still putting your opponent in the position of having to choose between letting you cheat and having an awkward situation where they have to tell you to stop cheating.
Chopper Greg wrote: If the rules say it is allowed, it's not cheating. If the rule did not allow it, it would go out of it's way to say so, but it doesn't do that. Instead, it goes out of it's way to allow minor overages.
You have that backwards. The rules don't have to say that something isn't allowed for it to be illegal. They have to explicitly allow it for that to be something you can do.
The rules don't allow you to go over the points limit. They rather explicitly state that the points limit is the maximum amount that you can spend.
Even if player skill was not a factor, if someone is limited in their access to models ( which can be rather expensive ), then their options they have for their army are also limited ( regardless of point total ) - thus limits what models they are able to field.
Then they have the option of fielding an understrength army until they can obtain more models, or they can play at a different points limit. It's not an excuse for ignoring an agreed-to limit.
The very same moment that GW added the allowance to go a little over the point limit to the rest of the rules,...
Except that they didn't. They added a comment that 'most players' don't mind if you go over. There is no allowance within the rules to do so... it's purely up to the players.
But the salient point once again is really this:
Does someone need to win so badly, that they are going to quibble about someone being a single point over?
Because, again - this works both ways. Do you need to win so badly that you have to use a list that is a single point over?
Chopper Greg wrote: Frankly, if people are going to quibble about fairness over even 1 point, how is it fair for anyone, that both armies are not starting with the exact same number of points ( regardless of agreed limit )?
Seriously though, maybe it's just me, but if you are not talking to your opponent, well before the game, to settle any point overage issues, you almost deserve what you get.
Cheating? You have to be kidding me.
Cheating is bringing loaded dice to he game or intentionally trying to SNEAK stuff in, that wasn't accounted for in the points - in other words being deceptive.
Being openly over points is no more cheating, than flapping your arms makes you a bird. Sloppy in accounting, forgetful even, relaxed attitude to the game is very likely.
I am less concerned about people being a little over, than I am about people who are going to quibble about 1 point.
Why?
Because people who are quibbling about 1 point have obviously gone over their army and the rules with a fine tooth comb, looking for every single advantage they can get, and those are the same types of people that don't have the time of day for a beginner ( that doesn't understand the all rules for every single army ) and will go out of their way to make use of every single mistake that the beginner makes, without teaching him/her - sure they will TELL the beginner he did this wrong and that wrong, but it's not teaching.
And that isn't fun for the beginner ( personal experience ).
Come on - there is absolutely no difference between starting with one army at 1488 pts and the other at 1499 pts and starting with one army at 1498 and the other at 1509 ( or for that matter armies at 1511 and 1522, even if the point value of the game was originally set at 1500 ).
Just spend a little more time talking to your opponent - decide what maximum point difference between armies is going to be, and stop worrying about a stupid concrete ceiling that some people think is so shrouded in holiness that it can supposedly never be violated.
People seam to have a hard time remembering that most games is not a high stakes tournament game - so you should never treat all games like they were.
If you've read the entire thread you'd realize you share the viewpoint of the minority.
After reading this thread, I am glad I don't play against most of you. 1-2 points over is not going to do much. There are many armies that I have built, for fun, that do this and don't use much in the way of upgrades, but I would have to play 8 points under and with an illegal squad as it is now under minimum size due to this "no overage ever" mentality. Are you so hard up for a win that you have to be 8 points more than your opponent? The 35 points over in the op is a bit over the top, but this "oh no you have to completely redo your entire army if you ever want to play against me" stuff is as well. In a tournament, yes no overage, unless the TO allows for one, but a pick up game come on play the game, have some fun, and maybe help the guy tweak his list to play the way he intends while staying under the points cap next time.
Since I have gained more experience with the game, I tend to not go over, but when I play test lists for tournaments I may start with a point over, and then tweak the list to a correct level and ask my opponent what changes he would have made, keeping within my play style/army design, that would be more efficient or might have worked better.
Even still, I have no problem with my opponent being over by a couple points.
megatrons2nd wrote: After reading this thread, I am glad I don't play against most of you. 1-2 points over is not going to do much. There are many armies that I have built, for fun, that do this and don't use much in the way of upgrades, but I would have to play 8 points under and with an illegal squad as it is now under minimum size due to this "no overage ever" mentality. Are you so hard up for a win that you have to be 8 points more than your opponent?
You're telling me that these lists have only the minimum squad size with no upgrades whatsoever on any unit in the list?
I'll call BS on that. You're free to have your viewpoint but don't exaggerate.
I like to take them out back and beat the $%#! out of them for going over. Even by one point. The limit is the limit. Why do people think it's OK to go over the limit? Now, if I said "Let's play about1500 points"- that would imply that it's OK to go over the points limit. How much? That's up to each set of players to decide.
Every army has options for a player to lose 1, 2, 5, 10, 15, 25+ points on models/units, not to mention just dropping a model to get under the points.
megatrons2nd wrote: After reading this thread, I am glad I don't play against most of you.
IF you are so adamant that you absolutely have to cheat by breaking the rules written in black and white in the rulebook (for whatever reason). Rules that are so plain and understandable that there is no need to FAQ them as there is no other way to interpret them but how it says exactly, That it is us who are glad to not play against you. The rules are there for a reason. breaking them willy nilly as is convenient is simply not a good thing.
This is the YMDC section dedicated to defining and working out the rules of the game. The rule is simple. You dont go over the limit. If one player plays by the rules and makes a legal list, why should the other player get special privilages to ignore the rules and make an illegal list? cheating is cheating whatever color bow you want to tie onto it.
megatrons2nd wrote: After reading this thread, I am glad I don't play against most of you.
IF you are so adamant that you absolutely have to cheat by breaking the rules written in black and white in the rulebook (for whatever reason). Rules that are so plain and understandable that there is no need to FAQ them as there is no other way to interpret them but how it says exactly, That it is us who are glad to not play against you. The rules are there for a reason. breaking them willy nilly as is convenient is simply not a good thing.
This is the YMDC section dedicated to defining and working out the rules of the game. The rule is simple. You dont go over the limit. If one player plays by the rules and makes a legal list, why should the other player get special privilages to ignore the rules
and make an illegal list? cheating is cheating whatever color bow you want to tie onto it.
It goes beyond cheating though. When he agreed to play at a certain points limit and can't be bothered to keep his word for something as trivial as a game, why should someone trust him to keep his word on something that really matters?
very true. thats what we have been saying all along.....snipped from an earlier post...
"2. Self respect. Since playing rogue trader, I have no once EVER gone over the amount. I pride myself on following the rules. To think that I would give myself even a minuscule of extra advantage over someone else by not following the rules is anathema to me. In fact, it would be by definition, dishonest. I cant remember what movie it was in but there is a quote I like. it goes something along the lines of " Honor is a gift a man gives himself and which no one can take from him but himself".
3. Respect for your opponent- If I thought so little of my opponent that i could totallyignore any feelings towards honesty or fairness or thier feelings towards what is right and wrong or following the rules, then breaking the rules by going over the limit would not bother me. However, I have respect for my opponents. Gamers are often looked down upon and made fun of by non-gamers. We have to live with that. Some of us old timers come from a time when it was more than just that. Growing up in the 80s when painting zombies and skeleton and chaos marines for our armies, playing D&D and listening to rock and roll music , we were usually branded as satanists and outright reviled in our communities to the point where finding jobs was almost impossible as employers were afraid to hire us. I have more respect for a fellow gamer than that. "
Even by one point. The limit is the limit. Why do people think it's OK to go over the limit?.
Maybe because GW explicitly told them that most players are OK with it?
I don't usually go over the limit, and if I ever do I discuss about it with my opponent beforehand (so they have time to adjust their list/decline to play/agree upon new point total) and not just show up in a game with an illegal list with an assumption that it would be OK. However, I really don't understand why people are always so adamant in these threads. Players with limited model collections that want to adhere to WYSIWYG may have hard time dropping few points. And I, for one, would rather have my opponent to go few points over that to break WYSIWYG.
The question is not "is most players ok withit" (obviously most players are NOT ok with cheating if the replies here are anything to go by. The question is "what is the rule?" that is fairly straightfoward and simple.
A game wherein it is both rude and acceptable to spam the cheesiest thing possible, but the second anyone goes even one point above the limit, the rule nazis start raging.
Tamwulf wrote: I like to take them out back and beat the $%#! out of them for going over. Even by one point.
When a friend calls you up for a friendly game and accidentally ends up a couple of points over the limit, do you really think it's a good thing to just verbally or physically beat them down over such a small thing in a meaningless game?
It depends on the situation for me.
In campaigns/tournaments everyone should be at the agreed point limit or below.
In normal games Id usually let the other guy go over the limit by a few points. But then again that depends on who he is, I know some people that would specifically build their list to 2005 points, if they knew the other one tends to have a 5 point leniency in 2000 pts games. Those guys have to be on/below the limit.
Younger/non-powerful-fluffy/ less-experienced players are allowed to overspent a bit more.
But, I do fully expect the opponent to request and inform me of his points before game start. And I do overspent sometimes myself, but only when playing against someone I know is ok with it beforehand.
I do believe its in the spirit of the game to be able to overspend: Page 108 in the rulebook. "Choosing Your Army" chapter, explains "size of game" and "points limits" etc and specifically says: ...most players are happy to let their opponent go a few points over the agreed total...
I dont see it as cheating, loss of self respect, dishonesty, disrespecting my opponent, going beyond cheating so much that I cant be trusted with important real life matters, deserving of getting my $%#! getting beaten out of me, WAACTFG, etc. And dont worry, if I were to play against any of you guys that is against going over the point limit, I wouldnt ask you if it was ok or not, but just stay on/under the limit.
But seriously, treat people with respect. Megatronds2nd has a different view than you, so be it. Dont be TFG and threaten him(and like minded people) with violence etc you are not babies, nor gangstas!
Regarding the OP: I do believe 35 pts was too much, and he had no right whatsoever to complain about your request. I hope you won the game
Players need to remember it is a 'game". to be so adamant about cheating to get even a little extra advantage is appalling. I it honestly not hard at all to build an army that is legal and actually follow the rules. Remember the golden rule, going to those lengths to outright cheat for an advantage not only breaks it but takes a crap all over it (figuratively speaking).
Automatically Appended Next Post: Re-reading through the thread, I'm seeing a pattern. It is something like this...
Side A.- It is ok to cheat and you are ruining my fun and disrespecting me if you dont let me.
Side B- The rules are there for a reason. To insist upon cheating ruins the game and disrespects me.
Side A.- It is ok to cheat and you are ruining my fun and disrespecting me if you dont let me.
Side B- The rules are there for a reason. To insist upon cheating ruins the game and disrespects me.
Side A.- It is ok to cheat and you are ruining my fun and disrespecting me if you dont let me.
Side B- The rules are there for a reason. To insist upon cheating ruins the game and disrespects me.
and so on and so forth, each time using different words but saying the same thing..
It seems one side is forgetting the tenets of this forum.
If I know of the game size in advance, I make sure I'm not over (which is relatively easy as I run minimal upgrades). If I'm making a list spur of the moment (which is normal on pick up nights), I occasionally go over. Before playing I check with my opponent on whether or not a few points over will be a problem. Friendly games, a few points over...whatever. Tournaments, no.
I'm not sure why people who expect others to stay AT or BELOW the designated point level are considered WAAC players, but it is a running theme from those who are much more lax about the point totals. I suppose it runs parallel with the narrative they've forged about people who expect everyone to play by the rules, but it's an overall weak generalization.
I can only speak for myself when I say this, but when I play 40k, the game mechanics are very important to me. I would like them to be followed as closely as possible, as it's the map we all follow that makes list planning and the things we think about during non-game-time mean anything. Having said all that, I also want the game to be enjoyable for all included, so if there's something I can do to make sure my opponent has a good time (such as allow him to fire a shot from a unit that he forgot about even though it's now the assault phase or allow a Necron player to roll reanimation protocols that he forgot about even though it's 15minutes later) I will. If something SHOULD have taken place and it's not going to impact the current game-state in a super-negative way, I'm down for things to be made right.
What I do not like is when I give the player the benefit of the doubt on something (for example, I let him shoot at a model of mine that may be out of sight) but later in the game he does not give me a similar courtesy. That, to me, is bush league and easily erases whatever good-will that player had built up with me. A number of such actions will make me shy away from games with that player, as he has now led me to believe that he is not out for the same thing I am....a good time rolling dice and killing one another.
Bringing it back to the topic at hand: A player asking me to allow him to play over the point limit is just an early indication that he may not be a good time to play against. THAT could be a gross generalization, but it is what it is...I wouldn't ask someone to allow me extra points, so I immediately find it rude for someone to expect me to allow them to do so. That may just be me...
Side A.- It is ok to cheat and you are ruining my fun and disrespecting me if you dont let me.
Side B- The rules are there for a reason. To insist upon cheating ruins the game and disrespects me.
Side A.- It is ok to cheat and you are ruining my fun and disrespecting me if you dont let me.
Side B- The rules are there for a reason. To insist upon cheating ruins the game and disrespects me.
Side A.- It is ok to cheat and you are ruining my fun and disrespecting me if you dont let me.
Side B- The rules are there for a reason. To insist upon cheating ruins the game and disrespects me.
and so on and so forth, each time using different words but saying the same thing..
Nobody is saying that cheating s okay. We're saying that accidentally going over by 1 or so points is not necessarily cheating.
And pointing out that being 1 point over the opposing army means about as much as the last ant I stepped on.
The real issue appears to be the but hurt shown by the opponent in the OPs original post.
The rules don't legislate for a players frame of mind - points limits or not.
OP - Play how you would like to play. If you cannot find n amicable middle ground then it maybe time to find another opponent or learn to set stricter guidelines before hand.
EVIL INC wrote: The question is not "is most players ok withit" (obviously most players are NOT ok with cheating if the replies here are anything to go by. The question is "what is the rule?" that is fairly straightfoward and simple.
It was asked why so many people think it would be OK to go ever few points. It is because GW told them that it would be. Whether or not you agree with it, that sentence is there and certainly communicates how GW expects the game to be played, and it is no wonder if some people believe them. There is absolutely no similar verbiage in any other rule ("Yes, this is the rule, but it is no big deal to break it a bit.")
So if both players have agreed on a 1500 pts game, and one of them asks the other one, 15 min before gamestart: hey, Cornelius. can we agree on a 1501 pts game instead? as thats what my list is now, I´ll let you have a bite of my snickers then.
If Cornelius agrees, they are both going 100% RAW and noone is cheating or deserving of a beating out back. right?
If no, is a player always a cheater if he kindly requests another point limit for the upcoming game? what if he said: Dude, I like totally forgot my tanks at home, can we make it a 1000 pts game instead of 1500?
Or: Yeah I know we agreed on 1500 on the phone, but I just got this sweet deal on 3 fully painted Mega-dreads, would you mind we upped the game to 2K?
How long time in advance is a player allowed to kindly request a different point level than the original agreed upon, without being branded cheater and TFG? 3 days? 15min? after the other guy has deployed ½ his army?
@EVIL INC If you think Ive broken some forum rules, I would kindly request you to tell me how and why, and of course report me to Mods. (As Im not part of side B in your example)
Britneyfan12 wrote: So if both players have agreed on a 1500 pts game, and one of them asks the other one, 15 min before gamestart: hey, Cornelius. can we agree on a 1501 pts game instead? as thats what my list is now, I´ll let you have a bite of my snickers then.
If Cornelius agrees, they are both going 100% RAW and noone is cheating or deserving of a beating out back. right?
If no, is a player always a cheater if he kindly requests another point limit for the upcoming game? what if he said: Dude, I like totally forgot my tanks at home, can we make it a 1000 pts game instead of 1500?
Or: Yeah I know we agreed on 1500 on the phone, but I just got this sweet deal on 3 fully painted Mega-dreads, would you mind we upped the game to 2K?
How long time in advance is a player allowed to kindly request a different point level than the original agreed upon, without being branded cheater and TFG? 3 days? 15min? after the other guy has deployed ½ his army?
The request to change point levels isn't cheating, its going over the agreed point level without compensating your opponent is cheating
Also expecting your opponent to happily agree to changing the points value at any time is pretty inconsiderate. You may not realize this but some people don't carry their entire army with them so will only bring what models they need. This is why its rude to just change the points limit on a whim. If you increase the point limit they may not have brought enough models to play that size game, if you reduce the point limit then you forced you opponent to carry a bunch of cases and models for no reason.
Its just a courtesy to let your opponent know in advance what the point size is before they commit to anything.
Well as being over by 1 whole point is sacrilegious, because it makes the game unfair, then you shouldn't mind cutting your points to match my 992. I mean, seriously, you want a perfectly matched game. The difference in ability is far greater being 8 under than 1 over.
As an aside, My 1000 point Tau list has 5X6 man Fire Warrior Squads, a naked Hammerhead with railgun as that is how it was modeled long before I learned how to magnetize stuff, 6 Pathfinders naked, 2 total Broadsides, two 3 man team of stealth suits, and my commander and bodygaurds. The commander and bodyguards actually have upgrades because well you know they have no weapons if you don't give them an upgrade, and you waste points on them if you don't take 2 weapons since they are priced as if they are firing 2 weapons a turn. But of course I am being unfair when I end up 1 whole point over. Sure I can lose a whole squad of fire warriors to upgrade the bejeezus out of something, but that isn't what I was aiming for. I prefer to use boots on the ground over over priced upgrades of dubious tactical value. Also removing a pathinder just makes the point discrepancy worse.
megatrons2nd wrote: Well as being over by 1 whole point is sacrilegious, because it makes the game unfair, then you shouldn't mind cutting your points to match my 992. I mean, seriously, you want a perfectly matched game. The difference in ability is far greater being 8 under than 1 over.
As an aside, My 1000 point Tau list has 5X6 man Fire Warrior Squads, a naked Hammerhead with railgun as that is how it was modeled long before I learned how to magnetize stuff, 6 Pathfinders naked, 2 total Broadsides, two 3 man team of stealth suits, and my commander and bodygaurds. The commander and bodyguards actually have upgrades because well you know they have no weapons if you don't give them an upgrade, and you waste points on them if you don't take 2 weapons since they are priced as if they are firing 2 weapons a turn. But of course I am being unfair when I end up 1 whole point over. Sure I can lose a whole squad of fire warriors to upgrade the bejeezus out of something, but that isn't what I was aiming for. I prefer to use boots on the ground over over priced upgrades of dubious tactical value. Also removing a pathinder just makes the point discrepancy worse.
I second that.
That is part of the philosophy of my group.
We set a limit, and we have to get as close to that limit as possible (If you're 4 points under, but could be 1 point over, be 1 point over).
Selym wrote: We're saying that accidentally going over by 1 or so points is not necessarily cheating.
No, that's not at all what we're talking about here. The issue isn't playing a game with what you thought was a legal list and realizing later that you made a math mistake and you were actually a point or two over, which would be an accident and not cheating. We're talking about deliberately making a choice to play a list that you know is over the point limit, which is cheating.
And pointing out that being 1 point over the opposing army means about as much as the last ant I stepped on.
Actually it says a lot about your attitude about the game and your need to win at all costs. If you insist that you're entitled to break the point limit so you can have a better chance of winning then I can expect a game full of other WAAC behavior: rules lawyering, moving your models a little extra distance, etc.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
megatrons2nd wrote: Well as being over by 1 whole point is sacrilegious, because it makes the game unfair, then you shouldn't mind cutting your points to match my 992. I mean, seriously, you want a perfectly matched game. The difference in ability is far greater being 8 under than 1 over.
So what if it's a bigger difference? We have the same point value to work with, and that's what fairness is. If you don't reach the point limit then you are free to add things to your list until you do (without going over).
The commander and bodyguards actually have upgrades because well you know they have no weapons if you don't give them an upgrade, and you waste points on them if you don't take 2 weapons since they are priced as if they are firing 2 weapons a turn.
Why does this mean you're entitled to cheat? Take cheaper weapons, take a twin-linked weapon instead of two weapons, or even take just a single weapon. Or downgrade the bodyguards to cheaper standard elite crisis suits. The only "problem" here is that making these changes would hurt your chances of winning.
But of course I am being unfair when I end up 1 whole point over.
Exactly. You had 1000 points to work with, and you don't get to demand extra points just because it would give you a better chance of winning.
Sure I can lose a whole squad of fire warriors to upgrade the bejeezus out of something, but that isn't what I was aiming for.
Yes, and you failed in your aim and did not make a legal list. Now you have to revise your list and make a legal one.
I prefer to use boots on the ground over over priced upgrades of dubious tactical value.
Again, why does this mean you're entitled to cheat? If you want more boots on the ground then change your list to add more of them without going over the limit. For example, you could trade your Hammerhead for more troops.
Also removing a pathinder just makes the point discrepancy worse.
So what? It would be a legal list, which is the only difference that matters.
And pointing out that being 1 point over the opposing army means about as much as the last ant I stepped on.
Actually it says a lot about your attitude about the game and your need to win at all costs. If you insist that you're entitled to break the point limit so you can have a better chance of winning then I can expect a game full of other WAAC behavior: rules lawyering, moving your models a little extra distance, etc.
Actually, that works both ways. I don't give a damn if my opponent is a few points over me.
Heck, I could give an Ork player a 100 point advantage against my CSM, and it would still be an easier game than one where I face Tau.
And that is what I mean.
I'm not suggesting that I'm entitled to break rules, I'm saying that you're supposed to be having fun, rather than wasting hours arguing about every tiny little miniscule aspect of the game in the name of "fairness". And facing an army that is a couple of points over in no way means that the player is going to do: "WAAC behavior: rules lawyering, moving your models a little extra distance".
megatrons2nd wrote: Well as being over by 1 whole point is sacrilegious, because it makes the game unfair, then you shouldn't mind cutting your points to match my 992. I mean, seriously, you want a perfectly matched game. The difference in ability is far greater being 8 under than 1 over.
As an aside, My 1000 point Tau list has 5X6 man Fire Warrior Squads, a naked Hammerhead with railgun as that is how it was modeled long before I learned how to magnetize stuff, 6 Pathfinders naked, 2 total Broadsides, two 3 man team of stealth suits, and my commander and bodygaurds. The commander and bodyguards actually have upgrades because well you know they have no weapons if you don't give them an upgrade, and you waste points on them if you don't take 2 weapons since they are priced as if they are firing 2 weapons a turn. But of course I am being unfair when I end up 1 whole point over. Sure I can lose a whole squad of fire warriors to upgrade the bejeezus out of something, but that isn't what I was aiming for. I prefer to use boots on the ground over over priced upgrades of dubious tactical value. Also removing a pathinder just makes the point discrepancy worse.
Yes you are being unfair. All you have to do is drop 1 fire warrior. then you put the other 5 amongst the rest of your squads and spend the remain 11 points on an upgrade which can easily be 10 points. Now you're 1 point under and have a legal list.
Honestly the only reason i think people have such a big issue with this is because they are really bad a writing lists. its really easy to stay only 1 or 2 points under a limit if you aren't stupid about it.
Aah but megatrons2nd isnt being 1 point over at all. He is merely kindly requesting the point limit to be 1001 instead of 1000. Thereby upholding the RAW regarding both players have to agree on a set limit (BRB 108).
Megatrons2nd would of course allow you to also play 1001 points. Courtesy or not, if both players can agree on a point level, then it is RAW. It doesnt matter when you agree on that point level, it could easily be 5mins before gamestart (sure the opponent isnt forced to accept, but if he does, its completely RAW and HIWPI)
Selym wrote: I'm not suggesting that I'm entitled to break rules, I'm saying that you're supposed to be having fun, rather than wasting hours arguing about every tiny little miniscule aspect of the game in the name of "fairness".
But there's nothing to argue about. Bring a legal list within the point limit and don't spend time arguing about how you really need to have those extra points.
And facing an army that is a couple of points over in no way means that the player is going to do: "WAAC behavior: rules lawyering, moving your models a little extra distance".
Of course it does. If you know that the point limit is 1000 points and you deliberately make a choice to bring 1001 points and exploit your opponent's reluctance to be the bad guy and refuse to allow it then that is not a good start to the game. If you're going to take a little extra in one area then why should I believe that you aren't going to take a little extra somewhere else?
Britneyfan12 wrote: Aah but megatrons2nd isnt being 1 point over at all. He is merely kindly requesting the point limit to be 1001 instead of 1000. Thereby upholding the RAW regarding both players have to agree on a set limit (BRB 108).
Megatrons2nd would of course allow you to also play 1001 points. Courtesy or not, if both players can agree on a point level, then it is RAW. It doesnt matter when you agree on that point level, it could easily be 5mins before gamestart (sure the opponent isnt forced to accept, but if he does, its completely RAW and HIWPI)
No duh, that's why that's not what this thread is arguing about. We are debating whether its alright to have 1001 points when the limit is 1000.
Also he isn't asking for the limit to be 1001. He says that the list for 1000 is 1 point over should be legal because he can't be bothered to write a list that is within the given point limit.
It is so mind boggling amazing to me to see people advocating that it should be acceptable for a offender to victimize another for standing up for their themselves. Specifically a cheater bullying his opponent into accrpting an illegal list by making their honest opponent ashamed of even questioning the illegality.
As to "most people", GW does not speak for me: I am not okay with overages, its against the social agreement for a mutually fun game. If its "fun" for you to not follow the agree upon limits, what makes you think its "fun" for me to let you brow beat me into accepting your braking of our mutual agreement? If you can't keep your work on building a list, what else won't you be keeping your word on? Dice rolls? Measurements? Line of Sight? Basic math?
"Because people who are quibbling about 1 point have obviously gone over their army and the rules with a fine tooth comb, looking for every single advantage they can get, and those are the same types of people that don't have the time of day for a beginner ( that doesn't understand the all rules for every single army ) and will go out of their way to make use of every single mistake that the beginner makes, without teaching him/her - sure they will TELL the beginner he did this wrong and that wrong, but it's not teaching. "
I find that very insulting. i have taught the game to many players over the years and teaching that following the rules is nopt a bad thing. it instills a sense of personal honor in them. I also find it very insulting to be accused of being TFG and going over the list with a fine tooth comb mathmatically searching for every advantage (Obviously as we have seen in another thread this is not true). Even in tournaments I take what i THINk might or might not work and what i think is cool or whatever unt I just finished painting and want to show off. that assumption of my motives for following the rules is a personal insult and attack.
Expecting my opponent to follow the rules and nopt cheat in a game is not at all using them as a weapon against them. Rules are rules regardless of if you are in the game or on a forum or living in society (laws), you follow them.
Instead of going 1 point over, I am just going to arbitrarily reduce the point value of weapon options and models so my list is legal. I mean really? Who cares if my Cybork Upgrade is 9 points instead of 10 or my Red Paint job is a point cheaper?
I mean 'My Fun' is the most important thing and winning is how I have fun which is why I won't play with a list UNDER the limit when I can bully an advantage by downplaying how points impact games.
You going to go over? I will lower the point costs on my units... And maybe next my models will move half an inch farther than normal too?
I have removed a bunch of off-topic chatter from the thread. Please stick to the topic. It is not up to posters to take others to task for perceived rules infringements If you see a post that you think is inappropriate, just report it and leave the moderating to the moderators.
nkelsch wrote: Instead of going 1 point over, I am just going to arbitrarily reduce the point value of weapon options and models so my list is legal. I mean really? Who cares if my Cybork Upgrade is 9 points instead of 10 or my Red Paint job is a point cheaper?
I mean 'My Fun' is the most important thing and winning is how I have fun which is why I won't play with a list UNDER the limit when I can bully an advantage by downplaying how points impact games.
You going to go over? I will lower the point costs on my units... And maybe next my models will move half an inch farther than normal too?
And overreactions like these are why I don't talk to strangers anymore.
Let's get a few examples going on here, so that we can clarify a few opinions.
Example 1:
Spoiler:
500 pts game.
One guy plays an ABG, takes a CCT with a couple of upgrades (200 pts), and 2 LRBT's (150 each) totalling a clean 500 pts.
The other guy plays CSM and brings:
Both players have only just met in a GW store, and the CSM player only has these models on him, and has all the wargear glued on and in WYSIWYG condition.
Is the CSM player being a WAAC cheat, or is the +5 pts acceptable?
Example 2:
Spoiler:
500 pts game.
ABG player brings the same, but faces a different CSM player. He has prearranged this game several days in advance, and knows that the CSM player has enough options to make a competitive 500 pts list.
The CSM player brings the same list as the other CSM player, but as a way to try out something new that he knows is not competitive (trust me, it's not).
Is the CSM player being WAAC cheat, or is the +5 pts acceptable?
Example 3:
Spoiler:
500 pts again.
Same story as Example 2, except the CSM player brings:
Is the CSM player being WAAC cheat, or is the +5 pts acceptable?
IMO, the first 2 are acceptable, while the third is a blatant point grab.
I am of the opinion that being slightly over the limit is acceptable if you're not just grabbing at the chance to get more stuff (i.e intentionally being uncompetitive, or you were caught in an unexpected pick up game).
megatrons2nd wrote: After reading this thread, I am glad I don't play against most of you. 1-2 points over is not going to do much. There are many armies that I have built, for fun, that do this and don't use much in the way of upgrades, but I would have to play 8 points under and with an illegal squad as it is now under minimum size due to this "no overage ever" mentality. Are you so hard up for a win that you have to be 8 points more than your opponent? .
That last question will continue to garner the same response, no matter how many times it is asked - Are you so hard up for a win that you can't drop that point that would make your list legal?
Why is it only the player insisting on adhering to the points limit who isassumed to be the one with the WAAC mentality? If that point is so trivial, why can't you just drop it before you even show up for the game, rather than making a potential issue of it?
Here's the thing: Points costs actually do two things. The most obvious is that they tell you what a given option is worth. But the other thing that they do as a result of that is restrict how much stuff you can fit into an army list at a given points limit. If including that last lascannon takes you over the limit, and you really want that lascannon, well then you need to make the tactical choice to remove something else to keep the list legal. Building an effective list within the limit is a part of the strategy of the game, just like choosing how to deploy, or where to move your units.,
Insisting on you adhering to that isn't your opponent being unreasonable. It's the entire (ahem) point of the limit.
insaniak wrote: By 'worth' I simply meant 'what it costs to take it'. Whether or not those costs are accurately balanced is a separate can of worms entirely.
Than why bother with points at all? The points are obviously wrong. So why are people so adamant about being 1 point over being so evil? Obviously, a point has a margin of error in it.
It is no more unfair for me to ask for 1 point than it is for you to ask me to play at -8 points.
It appears that many people on here have quite a bit of free time to go over a list. I don't, and all my lists are made on the fly so to speak, as I never know when I will get a game in.
Luckily every person I've asked has allowed a couple points.
One guy plays an ABG, takes a CCT with a couple of upgrades (200 pts), and 2 LRBT's (150 each) totalling a clean 500 pts.
The other guy plays CSM and brings:
Both players have only just met in a GW store, and the CSM player only has these models on him, and has all the wargear glued on and in WYSIWYG condition.
Is the CSM player being a WAAC cheat, or is the +5 pts acceptable?
Cheat. Why would you make the choice bring only the right combination models to play a 505 list in the first place?
Example 2:
Spoiler:
500 pts game.
ABG player brings the same, but faces a different CSM player. He has prearranged this game several days in advance, and knows that the CSM player has enough options to make a competitive 500 pts list.
The CSM player brings the same list as the other CSM player, but as a way to try out something new that he knows is not competitive (trust me, it's not).
Is the CSM player being WAAC cheat, or is the +5 pts acceptable?
Cheat. He had several days to come up with a list under 500, and still made the choice to bring one that was 5 points over.
Example 3:
Spoiler:
500 pts again.
Same story as Example 2, except the CSM player brings:
Is the CSM player being WAAC cheat, or is the +5 pts acceptable?
Cheat. He also had several days.
IMO, the first 2 are acceptable, while the third is a blatant point grab.
I am of the opinion that being slightly over the limit is acceptable if you're not just grabbing at the chance to get more stuff (i.e intentionally being uncompetitive, or you were caught in an unexpected pick up game).
I think the common thread here is that none of these games can really be all that "unexpected." For what other reason would you pack up your army and lug it to the store if not to play a game?
Breaking the rules is breaking the rules. GW produced a rulebook for a reason. To toss it out the window because you dont want to follow the rules that are in it and still apply those rules to your opponent is not acceptable to me.
To pick and choose what rules you want to apply to which player based on what you think is more likely to get you a win is also not acceptable.
The rules are there for a reason, to be followed.This particuler rule is one of the ones that is plain and simple without the need for a FAQ at all.
The game is designed to be fun for BOTH players. making a list that is legal is easier now than it has ever been before in terms of not going over the points limit. To purposely go over the limit is a breach of not only the rules as written in the rulebook, but also the most important rule as you are purposely disrespecting, insulting and trying to ruin the fun of your opponent by cheating to gain an unfair advantage.
The rules are the rules. Either you follow them or you are cheating. In a case like this, there is not grey area, it is a black and white issue. To propose that it is "ok" to break the rules is proposing that it is "ok" to cheat.
Because, imperfect as they are, they are the guide that we have. Without them, we would just be throwing whatever models we have on the table and hoping for the best.
It is no more unfair for me to ask for 1 point than it is for you to ask me to play at -8 points.
Infantry models in 40K can move up to 6". Is it as fair for me to move my guys 7" on my turn as for you to choose to only move 3" on yours?
It appears that many people on here have quite a bit of free time to go over a list. I don't, and all my lists are made on the fly so to speak, as I never know when I will get a game in.
It doesn't take that long to write up a list... and if you do it in an army builder program or excel, it's even quicker to take an existing list and tweak it. When I'm going somewhere for a pick up game, it's then just a matter of printing off a couple of different lists at the most commonly played points limits.
It's people showing up for a pick-up game without a pre-made list that puzzle me. That's valuable gaming time we're wasting while I stand around waiting for you to throw a list together... and that list is more likely to contain errors due to being done in a rush
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Happyjew wrote: extremefreak-regarding example 1, what if those were the only models he has and the the store has a strict WYSIWYG guideline?
Should he be forced to only play 375 point games?
It's down to how he approaches it. Showing up and saying: 'These are the only models I have, they come to 505 points. How about a game?' would be perfectly fine. Just showing up to a pre-arranged 500 point game and expecting to use that list? Not so much.
Happyjew wrote: extremefreak-regarding example 1, what if those were the only models he has and the the store has a strict WYSIWYG guideline?
Should he be forced to only play 375 point games?
Not at all. He can play 505 point games.
I am not trying to be TFG here, but if he needs play at 505 points, why would you you agree to a 500 point limit? I would let him play his 505, up the game to a 505 limit, and just add a 5 point upgrade to my own list. As long as it is agreed upon, the point limit can be any value.
It only becomes a problem when the person who is over the limit causes a fus about not being able to field their illegal list at that point level.
It appears that many people on here have quite a bit of free time to go over a list. I don't, and all my lists are made on the fly so to speak, as I never know when I will get a game in.
It doesn't take that long to write up a list... and if you do it in an army builder program or excel, it's even quicker to take an existing list and tweak it. When I'm going somewhere for a pick up game, it's then just a matter of printing off a couple of different lists at the most commonly played points limits.
I try to keep a notebook with pre-made lists in them at different points levels myself. this way, I can just go to the section with the correct number and pull out a random one or a thmed one that I wanna play just for giggles.
I think that a lot of the ones who "make them up on the fly do so in order to tailor. of course, that is only an observation I have made fter invariably seeing them just happen to have the counter for everything in thier opponent's army when they are done so treat that as only an observation from what I have seen over the years.
Chances are,if someone only ons 505 points of models, they are most likely a rookie and in need of "training games. As i said earlier, these sorts of games, i make the exception for and do my best to coach the rookie on nuances, tactics, tips and explain WHY i am doing what i am or WHY i would do something they did differently as well as answer questions about 'what to get next" with the caviot that they shouldnt take what i suggest to heart on my word alone and suggest ways to convert models to make different units chaper in terms of $. the things any good gamer would be happy to do in that situation.
Selym wrote: Is the CSM player being a WAAC cheat, or is the +5 pts acceptable?
Cheating. Drop Abaddon to a generic HQ with the same equipment to keep it WYSIWYG.
Is the CSM player being WAAC cheat, or is the +5 pts acceptable?
Cheating. The CSM player had plenty of time to make a legal 500 point list, and there's no point in trying out something that isn't legal.
Is the CSM player being WAAC cheat, or is the +5 pts acceptable?
Cheating. The CSM player can easily bring a legal list and has deliberately chosen to go over the limit.
I am of the opinion that being slightly over the limit is acceptable if you're not just grabbing at the chance to get more stuff
Except that's what all cases of going over the limit are. You have a limited number of points to spend, if you try to spend more then you're just grabbing at the chance to get more stuff. I mean, what else do you call it when you take a legal list and insist on breaking the rules to add something to it?
EVIL INC wrote: Breaking the rules is breaking the rules. GW produced a rulebook for a reason.
Yes, they probably also put those sentences that inform you about the spirit of a game there for a reason.
To toss it out the window because you dont want to follow the rules that are in it and still apply those rules to your opponent is not acceptable to me.
Absolutely no one is doing that. Obviously anyone who thinks that it is OK to go few points over extend that same courtesy to their opponent as well.
To pick and choose what rules you want to apply to which player based on what you think is more likely to get you a win is also not acceptable.
Luckily no one is doing that.
The rules are there for a reason, to be followed.This particuler rule is one of the ones that is plain and simple without the need for a FAQ at all.
The rule is clear. So is the spirit of the game. Why you care about one but not about the other?
EVIL INC wrote: Breaking the rules is breaking the rules. GW produced a rulebook for a reason.
Yes, they probably also put those sentences that inform you about the spirit of a game there for a reason.
the editor put those sentances in as an aside for how he would play it. Most players would rather the rule just be followed.
To toss it out the window because you dont want to follow the rules that are in it and still apply those rules to your opponent is not acceptable to me.
Absolutely no one is doing that. Obviously anyone who thinks that it is OK to go few points over extend that same courtesy to their opponent as well.
Each and every person posting that it is ok to break the rules by taking illegal lists is doing JUST that.
To pick and choose what rules you want to apply to which player based on what you think is more likely to get you a win is also not acceptable.
Luckily no one is doing that.
Each and every person posting that it is ok to break the rules by taking illegal lists is doing JUST that.
The rules are there for a reason, to be followed.This particuler rule is one of the ones that is plain and simple without the need for a FAQ at all.
The rule is clear. So is the spirit of the game. Why you care about one but not about the other?
Actually, the spiret of the game is to have fun and treat one another with respect and enjoy the hobby. Following the rules is showing and demonstrating that the spiret of the game is being followed. It is not until someone decides to break the rules, disrespect their opponant and outright cheat to get an advantage over the other player that the spirit of the game is being broken. We are not breaking the spirt of the game by asking you to follow the rules. you are breaking the spirit of the game by asking us to ignore the rules so that you can get an edge.
megatrons2nd wrote: So why are people so adamant about being 1 point over being so evil?
Because it reveals the player's attitude. A player that is so obsessed with winning that they're willing to take a blatantly illegal list and try to badger me into accepting it is likely to try to badger their way into other advantages later.
It is no more unfair for me to ask for 1 point than it is for you to ask me to play at -8 points.
I'm not asking you to play at -8 points, you are making a choice that a list that is at -8 points is better than one that reaches the limit exactly. All I'm refusing to allow is a list that goes over the limit.
It appears that many people on here have quite a bit of free time to go over a list. I don't, and all my lists are made on the fly so to speak, as I never know when I will get a game in.
Actually making up lists in advance saves time. If you invest a bit of effort up front in making lists for standard point values you can show up on game night and get straight to playing instead of having to come up with a new list. And once you've made those lists you can keep them around indefinitely, saving you time every time you want to play.
Yes, you can make those lists while watching a tv show you have already seen before (come on, we ALL do it lol). We have seen in a different thread that there are some who have hours of free time a day to do nothing but numbers crunching or math to min/max their armies while at work. heck, you can put spare lists together while between games at a shop or even while your "dropping the kids off at the pool". Just put these lists in a folder or notebook and save them. if your really into it, get page protecters for them so they last better.
the editor put those sentances in as an aside for how he would play it. Most players would rather the rule just be followed.
That can't be right. The rulebook told me that most players are OK with going few point over and the rulebook is always right!
Each and every person posting that it is ok to break the rules by taking illegal lists is doing JUST that.
No, they apply the same rules to each player.
Each and every person posting that it is ok to break the rules by taking illegal lists is doing JUST that.
No, now you're assuming their reasons, while you can't know them. Probably it is not because they are trying to win. It is more likely building a list by eayeballing, coming two points over, and instead of spending half an hour rewriting the list, they just ask their opponents whether they mind those two extra points.
Actually, the spiret of the game is to have fun and treat one another with respect and enjoy the hobby. Following the rules is showing and demonstrating that the spiret of the game is being followed. It is not until someone decides to break the rules, disrespect their opponant and outright cheat to get an advantage over the other player that the spirit of the game is being broken. We are not breaking the spirt of the game by asking you to follow the rules. you are breaking the spirit of the game by asking us to ignore the rules so that you can get an edge.
So are you saying that the writers of the rulebook have misunderstood the spirit of the game, or perhaps they're trolling the players by including intentionally misleading verbiage? It is absolutely possible to follow the rules to the letter and still break the spirit of the game. Look, I'm not advocating going over the limit, but I absolutely don't understand why some people react so strongly. The people who wrote the rulebook didn't think it's a big deal and I agree with them.
Surely it would be in the spirit of the game to stick to the points limit that you previously agreed to, no?
Particularly when your opponent has already done so.
Thing is, the rulebook contains this sentence: "...sometimes it's just impossible to spend every last point. Indeed, to get around this, most players are happy to let their opponent go a few points over the agreed total - after all, a few points here or there are unlikely to upset the battle's course..."
So the writers of the rulebook don't seem to think that the exact point limit is a big deal. Personally I'd prefer if my opponent informed me beforehand if they were going to go over the limit (and I would certainly do so myself), but realistically, if it is just few points, I'm not going to care.
Crimson wrote: That can't be right. The rulebook told me that most players are OK with going few point over and the rulebook is always right!
You know there's a difference between rules and commentary, right?
It is more likely building a list by eayeballing, coming two points over, and instead of spending half an hour rewriting the list, they just ask their opponents whether they mind those two extra points.
It doesn't take half an hour to remove a few points from a list. It only takes that long if you're determined to optimize every possible advantage from your list, which pretty well disproves the idea that these are just "casual" players who don't take the game seriously enough to make a legal list.
So are you saying that the writers of the rulebook have misunderstood the spirit of the game
Even if the spirit of the game is "it's no big deal" it is certainly not the spirit of the game if you're deliberately using that casualness to gain an advantage for yourself. It's like showing up to a newbie tournament with a screamerstar list. Do you really care so much about winning that you have to do it?
You know there's a difference between rules and commentary, right?
Yes, I just found it hilarious that Evil Inc claimed exactly the opposite about what 'most players' think as the rulebook does. I don't believe either has done an extensive survey on the matter.
It doesn't take half an hour to remove a few points from a list. It only takes that long if you're determined to optimize every possible advantage from your list, which pretty well disproves the idea that these are just "casual" players who don't take the game seriously enough to make a legal list.
It depends on how extensive your collection is. Sometimes there's a simple upgrade you can drop, sometimes you have to rethink the whole thing.
Even if the spirit of the game is "it's no big deal" it is certainly not the spirit of the game if you're deliberately using that casualness to gain an advantage for yourself.
And here I actually agree. I just don't think that most players who go over the limit do it to gain an advantage (but then again, I haven't done an extensive survey either.)
Crimson wrote: I just don't think that most players who go over the limit do it to gain an advantage
But yet, 100% of the players who go over the limit *are* gaining an advantage.
If it wasn't an advantage, there would be no reason to go over the point limit and being under would be equally acceptable as going over in the impact it has to the game.
You only go over for the advantage, there is no other reason for it and that is the result of going over regardless how you twist your intentions.
insaniak wrote: By 'worth' I simply meant 'what it costs to take it'. Whether or not those costs are accurately balanced is a separate can of worms entirely.
Than why bother with points at all? The points are obviously wrong. So why are people so adamant about being 1 point over being so evil? Obviously, a point has a margin of error in it.
It is no more unfair for me to ask for 1 point than it is for you to ask me to play at -8 points.
It appears that many people on here have quite a bit of free time to go over a list. I don't, and all my lists are made on the fly so to speak, as I never know when I will get a game in.
Luckily every person I've asked has allowed a couple points.
No one is asking you to play 8 points under, that is a self imposed condition and no one else is at fault for it. I'm at times 5-10 points under myself and there's always another cheap upgrade I could take but don't and I would never beg for 'charity points' from my opponent. I spend time on my lists, optimizing and streamlining them. Entire lists I make get scrapped or shelved until a higher point game because I can't get to or under the point limit with the essential components of the idea. I'll sometimes spend hours deliberating over it making sure everything is just right.
Then we meet to play...
If my opponent where at that point to say 'Oh, by the way, I couldn't get my list down to 1500 points, it's a 1510 point army. Is that okay?'
I would know:
-he is lying, he could have and simply did not.
-that he is not very considerate.
-that he is either to lazy to make a proper list or is seeking advantage.
-that he is not overly concerned about keeping his end of a deal or agreement.
Essentially, they didn't care to honer the agreement. That is why it is disrespectful. If they have shown up to a gathering with set point limits whether it's official, casual or otherwise they have also not shown respect for the proprietors of the event.
A 10 point difference when deciding on your last unit, say 190pts vs 200pts, is the difference between Trygon and no Trygon. Which can make a pretty big difference. Or 120 vs 130 points, which could mean Doom of Malatai in a pod or no Doom of Malatai in a pod. 10 points cannot simply be taken at face value as it can change the overall capabilities of the list.
Now what about 1 point over? Same principles apply. Expecting people not to stand on principles is expressing that you think they have none. Honer the agreed limit and don't debase yourself by expecting charity. Victory without honer meaningless.
But yet, 100% of the players who go over the limit *are* gaining an advantage.
Negligible one, yes.
If it wasn't an advantage, there would be no reason to go over the point limit and being under would be equally acceptable as going over in the impact it has to the game.
You only go over for the advantage, there is no other reason for it and that is the result of going over regardless how you twist your intentions.
Most people rather go under than over. Going under is preferable and you should aim for that. But sometimes it is a choice between going 12 points under or two over. I wouldn't force my opponent to go twelve points under.
Most people rather go under than over. Going under is preferable and you should aim for that. But sometimes it is a choice between going 12 points under or two over. I wouldn't force my opponent to go twelve points under.
You are not forcing them, they should be a good sport and choose to go 12 points under or revise their list. There are always choices which can be made. I am going to start including a deffkopta and say 'Gee willkaers, if you don't let me add a whole deffkopa, you are forcing me to go 12 points under and that is unfair! And a 35+ point model is my only choice!
Every codex has options, it is not hard to figure out. Showing up with your points over is not your opponents problem, it is yours. Resolve your issues and don't burden others with your issues. Figure out how to build lists which maximize your codex without going over.
Crimson wrote: So the writers of the rulebook don't seem to think that the exact point limit is a big deal.
More specifically, that quote suggests that the writers of the rulebook think that most players don't think that the exact points limit is a big deal.
Why they think that is anybody's guess.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson wrote: But sometimes it is a choice between going 12 points under or two over.
At which point, they are not 'forced' to go 12 points under... they can choose instead to change something else in their list to squeeze in those extra two points.
Most people rather go under than over. Going under is preferable and you should aim for that. But sometimes it is a choice between going 12 points under or two over. I wouldn't force my opponent to go twelve points under.
You shouldn't need to force your opponent to be 12 points under. Every army is more then capable of writing lists that is at worse 3-4 points under a point limit (sometimes it just takes some more work then just dropping an upgrade).
That why going over the point limit is stupid in my opinion. If you can't write a list that doesn't go over the point value and is very close to the limit then you just aren't trying to write one that does
I'd probably start to question my opponent at around 20+ points over the limit. Up to that point is fine by me. Going way over does take the piss, but saying that going a few points over is 'disrespectful' to your opponent or cheating is just silly. It's a game!
Having said that, personally I always go under rather than over. One of the most enjoyable parts of the game for me is trying to squeeze as much as I can out of the points limit. I almost prefer list building to actually playing
I agree there is a conflicting message from GW - as already stated the BRB says that a few points either way is fine. Also, the battle reports in White Dwarf often encourage players to ignore the FOC and also to not focus too much on how many points are on each side [I'm thinking the Dark Angel vs. Chaos 'battle report' off the top of my head]. I can understand how someone who reads White Dwarf would have a somewhat cavalier approach to list building.
Lastly, just make it easy on yourself and get the Quartermaster app. Truly amazing.
More specifically, that quote suggests that the writers of the rulebook think that most players don't think that the exact points limit is a big deal.
Why they think that is anybody's guess.
I think it is pretty safe assumption that it is because they themselves play like that.
At which point, they are not 'forced' to go 12 points under... they can choose instead to change something else in their list to squeeze in those extra two points.
Yes, they could. Or we could just play the game game with those extra points on the list. As I said earlier, I myself try to stay within the agreed limit, but if someone is few points over, I just couldn't care less.
However. The OP DID post the question in YMDC. In this particular forum section, the answer always boils down the RAW, the law of the rules. How we would play it, thoughts of fairness and so forth are irrelevent here. You will notice that this exact same question posted in the 40k general forum got answers that were not based on the rules near so much but which were more opinion based. here is a link that may help us to address the OPs question and should be kept in mind when replying to it.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253892.page
This opinion goes against the very tenants that you link to in your post! Click on the link, and read #4. Then stop saying that YMDC is only for RAW. It is not. The OP asked for HIWPI, and that's what people should (mostly) give him.
You shouldn't need to force your opponent to be 12 points under. Every army is more then capable of writing lists that is at worse 3-4 points under a point limit (sometimes it just takes some more work then just dropping an upgrade).
That why going over the point limit is stupid in my opinion. If you can't write a list that doesn't go over the point value and is very close to the limit then you just aren't trying to write one that does
Yes, and for tournaments and such you absolutely need to do that. But sometimes people just want to try certain units or just can't be arsed to trim their lists to perfection. And I think that in a casual game that's absolutely fine.
If 'going over' is no big deal (and up to 20 points is no big deal) then why not simply 'go under'?
If it really has such little impact and is no big deal, then why not go under and call it a day?
Oh... because these people who hide behind the shield of 'casual gamer' want an advantage... And will spend more time defending that advantage than just making their list equal or under the limit. If 'a little over' is not a big deal, why not 'a little under'? If you are so casual, why do you feel the need to demand an exception and an undeserved advantage?
Crimson wrote: But sometimes people just want to try certain units or just can't be arsed to trim their lists to perfection.
Great, then this shouldn't be an issue at all. If you just want to try some stuff then you will have no problem following the rules. There's only an "issue" if you're taking the game so seriously that you have to build the perfect list and the thought of playing with anything less than a perfectly optimized list is just too horrible to face. If you're really playing a casual game then you'll just cut some random stuff until you're under the point limit, and play the game.
My friends and i just go "want a game around 800 points?" The we set up and play. Always good fun and we have about a 100 points over tops ish limit. for example the nids guy can go over if he wants but the necron guy we tend to make sure he is closer to the limit. We just trust each other to make lists that will work despite balance and points etc.
Its only a big deal if you make it one really. Otherwise you will probably hardly notice.
tyrannosaurus wrote: ...as already stated the BRB says that a few points either way is fine
Again, the rulebook doesn't say this at all.
CBA to check it, took the word of other posters tbh. What I am certain of is that White Dwarf, the 'voice' of Games Workshop, actively encourages people to have a very loose approach to, or entirely ignore, both points limits and the FOC.
Therefore I completely understand why some gamers might have a loose approach to points limits based upon the instruction they are given by GW.
You shouldn't need to force your opponent to be 12 points under. Every army is more then capable of writing lists that is at worse 3-4 points under a point limit (sometimes it just takes some more work then just dropping an upgrade).
That why going over the point limit is stupid in my opinion. If you can't write a list that doesn't go over the point value and is very close to the limit then you just aren't trying to write one that does
Yes, and for tournaments and such you absolutely need to do that. But sometimes people just want to try certain units or just can't be arsed to trim their lists to perfection. And I think that in a casual game that's absolutely fine.
If its a casual game, why can't you just drop a single model or upgrade to be a few point under?
If its a casual game, why can't you just drop a single model or upgrade to be a few point under?
Because it is an approach entirely inconsistent with GW's advice/instruction to its playerbase.
That line about being a few point over is neither advice, an instruction, or a rule. It is merely a comment about what some players may do
I'm not just talking about the line in the rule book, I'm also talking about the approach to battles espoused in White Dwarf. They frequently ignore FOC and points limits in favour of fun and cinematic games. In fact I can't remember the last battle report that actually rigidly stuck to a points limit.
You might rigidly follow points limits and FOC, Games Workshop doesn't think they are important.
If its a casual game, why can't you just drop a single model or upgrade to be a few point under?
Because it is an approach entirely inconsistent with GW's advice/instruction to its playerbase.
That line about being a few point over is neither advice, an instruction, or a rule. It is merely a comment about what some players may do
I'm not just talking about the line in the rule book, I'm also talking about the approach to battles espoused in White Dwarf. They frequently ignore FOC and points limits in favour of fun and cinematic games. In fact I can't remember the last battle report that actually rigidly stuck to a points limit.
You might rigidly follow points limits and FOC, Games Workshop doesn't think they are important.
The battle reports in white dwarf aren't them playing a game of warhammer, is them selling you an army.
If GW actually didn't think points limit were important, they wouldn't have made a rule for it
tyrannosaurus wrote: What I am certain of is that White Dwarf, the 'voice' of Games Workshop, actively encourages people to have a very loose approach to, or entirely ignore, both points limits and the FOC.
WD also encourages you to just line up your toy soldiers, take some pictures of them, and then write a story about it. They openly admit that they aren't really playing a game (re-rolling any events that aren't dramatic enough, etc), but I don't see many people arguing that, say, the IG player should just re-roll their "explodes" result against a Land Raider because no mere anonymous guardsman should be able to destroy such a mighty war machine of the sacred space marines.
tyrannosaurus wrote: You might rigidly follow points limits and FOC, Games Workshop doesn't think they are important.
Totally unimportant. If they thought it was important they'd have written rules surrounding them.
Oh. Wait.
And would ensure that these rules are followed in their official magazine to reinforce how important they are, and also reinforce how important they are in their core rulebook. Oh. Wait.
tyrannosaurus wrote: And would ensure that these rules are followed in their official magazine to reinforce how important they are, and also reinforce how important they are in their core rulebook. Oh. Wait.
You're assuming that WD is a serious magazine rather than a glorified catalog that you have to pay money for. WD "battle reports" aren't about real gameplay and strategy, they're about presenting you with cool ideas about what could happen in a game so that you rush out and buy the newest models.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tyrannosaurus wrote: You might rigidly follow points limits and FOC, Games Workshop doesn't think they are important.
Then why is it so important that you get as close as possible to the point limit and never be significantly under it? If the point limits aren't meant to be important then why are you so reluctant to play a 1200 point army in a 1500 point game?
tyrannosaurus wrote: You might rigidly follow points limits and FOC, Games Workshop doesn't think they are important.
Totally unimportant. If they thought it was important they'd have written rules surrounding them.
Oh. Wait.
And would ensure that these rules are followed in their official magazine to reinforce how important they are, and also reinforce how important they are in their core rulebook. Oh. Wait.
Considering White Dwarf battle reports do what's cinematic significantly more often than they follow the rules, no - no they wouldn't.
Is there really any difference between going over points (deliberately) and moving a unit an extra inch?
I don't see one.
rigeld2 wrote: Is there really any difference between going over points (deliberately) and moving a unit an extra inch?
And note that moving an extra inch to get into range is something that the WD "battle report" authors wouldn't even hesitate to do if they thought it would be "cinematic" for the unit to get to shoot/charge that turn instead of being idle out of range.
(Needless to say, if it's the big new release for that month it will probably get much more than an extra inch if it needs it.)
tyrannosaurus wrote: And would ensure that these rules are followed in their official magazine to reinforce how important they are, and also reinforce how important they are in their core rulebook. Oh. Wait.
You're assuming that WD is a serious magazine rather than a glorified catalog that you have to pay money for. WD "battle reports" aren't about real gameplay and strategy, they're about presenting you with cool ideas about what could happen in a game so that you rush out and buy the newest models.
Entirely your own opinion about White Dwarf. As the official magazine of Games Workshop, for me it represents their approach to gaming and how they feel their customers should approach the game. They wouldn't allow anything that contradicts this to appear in their official magazine.
tyrannosaurus wrote: You might rigidly follow points limits and FOC, Games Workshop doesn't think they are important.
Then why is it so important that you get as close as possible to the point limit and never be significantly under it? If the point limits aren't meant to be important then why are you so reluctant to play a 1200 point army in a 1500 point game?
If you read my original reply I stated that I personally would always go under rather than over the points limit. However I would have a small amount of flexibility in regard to my opponent.
My point is that I completely understand if players have a loose attitude towards both points limits and FOCs because Games Workshop encourages this in its publications. Yet to hear a convincing argument that it doesn't have this attitude.
tyrannosaurus wrote: Entirely your own opinion about White Dwarf. As the official magazine of Games Workshop, for me it represents their approach to gaming and how they feel their customers should approach the game. They wouldn't allow anything that contradicts this to appear in their official magazine.
You're assuming that GW have any overall "approach to gaming" beyond "buy lots of our products". They don't.
My point is that I completely understand if players have a loose attitude towards both points limits and FOCs because Games Workshop encourages this in its publications. Yet to hear a convincing argument that it doesn't have this attitude.
I have no doubt that they do have this attitude. GW doesn't care if you break the rules because the rules only exist to sell models. GW know perfectly well that most of their customers never play the game and all they really need to sell the models is the idea of a game. Emphasizing "do whatever you want" just makes it less likely that people will question why they're paying so much money for such poor rules and stop buying.
Of course none of that has anything to do with the published rules of the game, which are quite clear about point limits.
the editor put those sentances in as an aside for how he would play it. Most players would rather the rule just be followed.
That can't be right. The rulebook told me that most players are OK with going few point over and the rulebook is always right!
Was that an aside note that was added by the editor or was it part of the actual rules that are to be followed? No need to answer, we both already know the answer.
Each and every person posting that it is ok to break the rules by taking illegal lists is doing JUST that.
No, they apply the same rules to each player.
"Your army is at 1500? thats the agreed upon limit that we had right? Ok, I think I will just add another 35 points to my limit". That is not applying t same rules to each other at all.
Each and every person posting that it is ok to break the rules by taking illegal lists is doing JUST that.
No, now you're assuming their reasons, while you can't know them. Probably it is not because they are trying to win. It is more likely building a list by eayeballing, coming two points over, and instead of spending half an hour rewriting the list, they just ask their opponents whether they mind those two extra points.
Reasoning is irrelevant. Cheating is cheating. Period. There is no excuse for it. It is JUST as easy to stay at the limit as to go over it.
Actually, the spiret of the game is to have fun and treat one another with respect and enjoy the hobby. Following the rules is showing and demonstrating that the spiret of the game is being followed. It is not until someone decides to break the rules, disrespect their opponant and outright cheat to get an advantage over the other player that the spirit of the game is being broken. We are not breaking the spirt of the game by asking you to follow the rules. you are breaking the spirit of the game by asking us to ignore the rules so that you can get an edge.
So are you saying that the writers of the rulebook have misunderstood the spirit of the game, or perhaps they're trolling the players by including intentionally misleading verbiage? It is absolutely possible to follow the rules to the letter and still break the spirit of the game. Look, I'm not advocating going over the limit, but I absolutely don't understand why some people react so strongly. The people who wrote the rulebook didn't think it's a big deal and I agree with them.
No, That is a straweman argument. i am saying that there are rules and they are there for a reason. No grey area at all. A far far better way to follow the spirit of the game is to actually follow the rules, not cheat and treat your opponent with respect. Tossing the rules out the window and cheating is just not the way to do that. Going by YOUR reasoning, a few points arent going to make that big a difference. if that is the case, why add in a bunch of points to purposely go over the limit (cheat) when you simply do not have to and have a perfectly competative list (going by your own statement) without going to those lengths.
You know there's a difference between rules and commentary, right?
Yes, I just found it hilarious that Evil Inc claimed exactly the opposite about what 'most players' think as the rulebook does. I don't believe either has done an extensive survey on the matter.
I based my statement on the fact that in this (and every other thred i have seen online about it over the years) has far more people supporting the rules than advocating breaking them. there is also the fact that i have never EVER spoken to a player that advocated someone cheating against them. There may be some out there, i just have not found them. you may find it hilarious to think that people mind being cheated against. I disagree and feel that it is not funny at all. Different viewpoints on that.
It doesn't take half an hour to remove a few points from a list. It only takes that long if you're determined to optimize every possible advantage from your list, which pretty well disproves the idea that these are just "casual" players who don't take the game seriously enough to make a legal list.
It depends on how extensive your collection is. Sometimes there's a simple upgrade you can drop, sometimes you have to rethink the whole thing.
then you redo the whole thing. You have plenty of time to build lists in advance. as a matter of fact, Lets do a little math here (forgive my horrible math as i dont have a PHD but even I can do this lol). How many hours over the last few days alone have you spend reading, editing and posting on this very thread? Ignore any other threads, just this one. If it was even one hour, that is more than enough time to build 2 1500 point lists. A good start towards your supply-o pre-made army lists.
Even if the spirit of the game is "it's no big deal" it is certainly not the spirit of the game if you're deliberately using that casualness to gain an advantage for yourself.
And here I actually agree. I just don't think that most players who go over the limit do it to gain an advantage (but then again, I haven't done an extensive survey either.)
again reasoning is irrelevent. Cheating is cheating. period.
However. The OP DID post the question in YMDC. In this particular forum section, the answer always boils down the RAW, the law of the rules. How we would play it, thoughts of fairness and so forth are irrelevent here. You will notice that this exact same question posted in the 40k general forum got answers that were not based on the rules near so much but which were more opinion based. here is a link that may help us to address the OPs question and should be kept in mind when replying to it.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253892.page
This opinion goes against the very tenants that you link to in your post! Click on the link, and read #4. Then stop saying that YMDC is only for RAW. It is not. The OP asked for HIWPI, and that's what people should (mostly) give him.
From the looks of it, Allowing the cheat would fall under "how would you play it" while following the rules wouldbe closer to RAW. Hope that helps you out with whatever your question was.
One guy plays an ABG, takes a CCT with a couple of upgrades (200 pts), and 2 LRBT's (150 each) totalling a clean 500 pts.
The other guy plays CSM and brings:
Both players have only just met in a GW store, and the CSM player only has these models on him, and has all the wargear glued on and in WYSIWYG condition.
Is the CSM player being a WAAC cheat, or is the +5 pts acceptable?
Cheat. Why would you make the choice bring only the right combination models to play a 505 list in the first place?
He could have been there painting, or had only just bought into the game.
Not all cases of being over the limit are cases of cheating.
One guy plays an ABG, takes a CCT with a couple of upgrades (200 pts), and 2 LRBT's (150 each) totalling a clean 500 pts.
The other guy plays CSM and brings:
Both players have only just met in a GW store, and the CSM player only has these models on him, and has all the wargear glued on and in WYSIWYG condition.
Is the CSM player being a WAAC cheat, or is the +5 pts acceptable?
Cheat. Why would you make the choice bring only the right combination models to play a 505 list in the first place?
He could have been there painting, or had only just bought into the game.
Not all cases of being over the limit are cases of cheating.
It is usually fairly easy to tell the newcomers. heck, they will usually flat outtell you. i treat this as a teaching moment to guage their grasp of the mechanics and so forth as well as further encourage them about the hobby. if it is all they have, You explain list building and possible ways to help them out or solidify the concept of the limits. For example, if their wysiwyg list is 5 over and they have a plasma gun. i would explain tha as that is all they have, I wold give them the suggestion to proxy the plasma gun as a melta gun since my list is tank heavy. it would work for them better and get them back to the points. That way, when their marines pop out of a drop pod next to my russ, they would have a greater chance of popping it. Making me more likely to lose but teaching him more aboutthe game and the points limits not to mention giving him the ego boost of popping my russ on turn one before i get to even fire it. you'll notice though that rookies are an exception I make and this is one of the ways i address those exceptions.
Selym wrote: Is the CSM player being a WAAC cheat, or is the +5 pts acceptable?
Cheating. Drop Abaddon to a generic HQ with the same equipment to keep it WYSIWYG.
You can't with the abby model. There's no such wargear in the codex.
it may not be possible to exactly match the abbaddon wargear, but you can come fairly close and use the extra points to boost him with something elseor boost one of the other squads. personally, if I HAVE to choose between points limits and WYSIWYG, I choose the to follow the points limits first.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Abandon wrote: If you don't want to adhere to limits then do not set them. Say about 1500 points not up to 1500 points.
I think this is probably where I get my opinion from.
We've always gone with "Let's play 1500 points" as meaning "get as close to 1500 points as possible, because that's more balanced than 1475 vs 1500"
That I can understand. if your going into it with that attitude and understanding from the start.You can do that in a close knit group of players where you have spent years developing trust. Wewould do that in my 3 player group I grew up with although even then, even if they werent spot on, i always was. Over the decades, i have found that going out into the "real world" and meeting and playing with strangers, it is ALWAYS best to strictly folow the rules and the 'around 1500' kinda goes outthe window. Especially when you play in tournaments and come across more competative players.
This might not be a great comparison, but to me its kinda like when I used to tell day care centers that i would inspect (along with all the other establishments. I would find violations and they would complain because DHHR didnt find everything I found as a violation as one and some of the stuff DHHR would find as a violation, i wouldnt. I would tell them to hold themselves to the strictest standards of BOTH ofus. that way, they would be covered no matter which of us showed up to inspect. This is how I do myself. I hold myself to the strictest to be SURE i am "correct and legal", that way, I am "ready' fr either a strict or a lax gaming environment.
.
You can't with the abby model. There's no such wargear in the codex.
Then don't take Abbadon, use him as a standard chaos lord for less points. Almost all Special characters can be used as a less powerful/expensive version of themselves. In a 500pt battle, it is unreasonable to even take abbadon. If you take cheaper HQs, you can deal with the points issue easier. Again.. if it is casual, then why is there all this fiercely defending an advantage like taking a grossly overpowered SC in a low point game or being 5 points over? Boys before Toys...
There simply is no excuse, if the eprson claiming to go over is using 'casualness' or 'it doesn't impact anything' as justification, then why can't they simply go under? Why are you trying to find fictional situations like your 505 chaos list to justify all points going over? 'If one player can go over due to abbadon, then everyone can go over, it is ok! advantage mine!'
One guy plays an ABG, takes a CCT with a couple of upgrades (200 pts), and 2 LRBT's (150 each) totalling a clean 500 pts.
The other guy plays CSM and brings:
Both players have only just met in a GW store, and the CSM player only has these models on him, and has all the wargear glued on and in WYSIWYG condition.
Is the CSM player being a WAAC cheat, or is the +5 pts acceptable?
Cheat. Why would you make the choice bring only the right combination models to play a 505 list in the first place?
He could have been there painting, or had only just bought into the game.
Not all cases of being over the limit are cases of cheating.
They are. Instead, this person should play a 505 point game or proxy Abby as a Lord with a lightning claw, terminator armor, and the murder sword and spend the leftover points on other things.
You can't with the abby model. There's no such wargear in the codex.
Lightning Claw, Murder Sword, Terminator Armor.
That wasn't so hard, was it?
If my buddy let me play 1501 points, when we initially agreed upon 1500 points game, and I get called a Waac and TFG on this forum, because I broke a rule. What would the person be calling himself, when he found out it was against the rules on this forum to call people names? I might be a TFG for breaking a rule, but no one on this forum is allowed to call me that, even if they are right.
Britneyfan12 wrote: If my buddy let me play 1501 points, when we initially agreed upon 1500 points game, and I get called a Waac and TFG on this forum, because I broke a rule. What would the person be calling himself, when he found out it was against the rules on this forum to call people names? I might be a TFG for breaking a rule, but no one on this forum is allowed to call me that, even if they are right.
You make an interesting point, one which I had not figured out how to put into words until now. (Not about name calling though).
Let's say I allow my opponent to play a 1500 pts game with a 1501 army. Would you consider this unacceptable? Is there a fundamental law that says that I must reject the 1501 army? Are we in the wron for playing like this?
And lets say that the position is reversed the next day, and I end up being the player with the 1501 army, and my opponent from the previous game had brought a 1500 army. Is this also unaccetable? Are we being WAAC cheaters?
I say no.
Being slightly over the point limit in no way ever means that that player is "WAAC" or "TFG" or "cheating". I and my regular opponents often play matches where one playeer or another is over the limit, and we've never had a problem.
The bending and/or breaking of one rule (and it's a debatable one at that) noes not have to foreshadow the breaking of subsequent rules - such as is show in our legal system in the UK, where all defendants are innocent until proven guilty regardless of previous offences.
In casual games it should matter not if one player is over the limit, as long as both are able to have fun. Bending and/or breaking a rule does not preclude the havings of the fun.
There are, however, times where someone has intentionally gone over the limit, such as finding his army at the 1500 level, and then adding in a CSM unit for +75 pts. That is cheating. But being 12 pts under, and then adding a 13 point CSM model is notTFG/WAAC/Cheating behaviour. If anything, it adds to the balance.
Even though i think overspending is wrong i let newer players do it during their early small games, the models they have to choose from are so limited that they can't usually finagle the list to fit properly.
Whenever this discussion comes up it never ceases to amaze me. If its a small tight knit gaming group, then the decision should be made regarding points limits among those players. If this was the scenario the OP was describing (playing with a friend) then they need to sit down and have a discussion regarding where they would like to go from that point. The game is a social contract and if one person is upset by what is going on they need to figure it out together. Personally, I have of the same opinion as a lot of players, that is to keep your list under or at the points limit. If your gaming group is ok with 1-2 point overages, no one has a right to say that you are playing wrong, and I do not think that people in the no overages are arguing that (I cannot speak for everyone, but I know I am not saying that).
Where the thread has gone however, is into the realm of playing strangers (or acquaintances). This is where I agree with the camp of 1 point over is bad form. If you organize a pick up game with someone in advance, and still come over the points limit then you need to realize the imposition you may have now put the other player in. I say may as some players may not be bothered. The issue is that no one likes to be thought of as difficult. If you just assume that it is ok to come in at 1 or 2 points over (as opposed to a little under) and the other person is bothered by this, then the person who created this situation is the person who brought the list that was 1-2 points over. You cannot assume the person you will be playing will be ok with 1-2 points and then get upset if they are not ok with it. The sheer number of players on this forum and other forums that are on the side of the camp of no overage should tell you that alone.
I have had to cut things from my lists many times when playing as they did not fit into the limit. Other times I have simply asked to play a larger game (larger points then what I wanted to field and I will make up the difference with other models) just so I could test out the units I wanted. Players need to take responsibility for themselves first and foremost.
Well, for friendly games with my friends, we try not to exceed the points values of possible, I never go over, but I'd allow up to 5 points over if there's some expensive upgrade (NOT a 5 point upgrade, though) or because points costs for Necron warriors and immortals are pretty awkward. I wouldn't let 10 points over slide, I'd say just remove a warrior and let's get to the game.
My philosophy is that if we're already playing with a bunch of plastic soldiers, we shouldn't make it worse by arguing over them .
Lehnsherr wrote: Whenever this discussion comes up it never ceases to amaze me. If its a small tight knit gaming group, then the decision should be made regarding points limits among those players. If this was the scenario the OP was describing (playing with a friend) then they need to sit down and have a discussion regarding where they would like to go from that point. The game is a social contract and if one person is upset by what is going on they need to figure it out together. Personally, I have of the same opinion as a lot of players, that is to keep your list under or at the points limit. If your gaming group is ok with 1-2 point overages, no one has a right to say that you are playing wrong, and I do not think that people in the no overages are arguing that (I cannot speak for everyone, but I know I am not saying that).
Where the thread has gone however, is into the realm of playing strangers (or acquaintances). This is where I agree with the camp of 1 point over is bad form. If you organize a pick up game with someone in advance, and still come over the points limit then you need to realize the imposition you may have now put the other player in. I say may as some players may not be bothered. The issue is that no one likes to be thought of as difficult. If you just assume that it is ok to come in at 1 or 2 points over (as opposed to a little under) and the other person is bothered by this, then the person who created this situation is the person who brought the list that was 1-2 points over. You cannot assume the person you will be playing will be ok with 1-2 points and then get upset if they are not ok with it. The sheer number of players on this forum and other forums that are on the side of the camp of no overage should tell you that alone.
I have had to cut things from my lists many times when playing as they did not fit into the limit. Other times I have simply asked to play a larger game (larger points then what I wanted to field and I will make up the difference with other models) just so I could test out the units I wanted. Players need to take responsibility for themselves first and foremost.
Exactly this. If I let my buddy bum a smoke off of me every time we take a smoke break it doesn't mean I want every stranger passing by to ask if they can bum one.
Was that an aside note that was added by the editor or was it part of the actual rules that are to be followed? No need to answer, we both already know the answer.
Yes, we all know what the rule is. I'm just wondering why you trust the BRB with rules if you don't trust it with the spirit of the game.
"Your army is at 1500? thats the agreed upon limit that we had right? Ok, I think I will just add another 35 points to my limit". That is not applying t same rules to each other at all.
But that's not really not what anyone is arguing for. We are talking about a situation where a person ask their opponent if they mind two points extra, and would allow same leniency to their opponent if the situation was reversed.
Reasoning is irrelevant. Cheating is cheating. Period. There is no excuse for it. It is JUST as easy to stay at the limit as to go over it.
It is not cheating if the opponent is okay with it. I'm just wondering why you're not. You don't need to be, it's your right, but I'm not understanding why.
I based my statement on the fact that in this (and every other thred i have seen online about it over the years) has far more people supporting the rules than advocating breaking them. there is also the fact that i have never EVER spoken to a player that advocated someone cheating against them. There may be some out there, i just have not found them. you may find it hilarious to think that people mind being cheated against. I disagree and feel that it is not funny at all. Different viewpoints on that.
No one likes cheating. But it is not cheating if the opponent approves.
then you redo the whole thing. You have plenty of time to build lists in advance. as a matter of fact, Lets do a little math here (forgive my horrible math as i dont have a PHD but even I can do this lol). How many hours over the last few days alone have you spend reading, editing and posting on this very thread? Ignore any other threads, just this one. If it was even one hour, that is more than enough time to build 2 1500 point lists. A good start towards your supply-o pre-made army lists.
I'm quite capable of making legal lists, thank you very much.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
EVIL INC wrote: For example, if their wysiwyg list is 5 over and they have a plasma gun. i would explain tha as that is all they have, I wold give them the suggestion to proxy the plasma gun as a melta gun since my list is tank heavy.[/b]
Oh god, please no, don't teach the newbies to proxy; it is way more annoying than being few points over!
PS. Please learn to use quotes properly, your posts are rather annoying to read.
So you're saying that it is totally unacceptable for my group to agree to play a 1500 pts game and then for one of our group to go over by any amount?
Yes
If you're going to allow people to go over the limit, then just set the limit higher so they won't go over the limit in the first place
But this is absurd. Saying OK to a 1502 point list is effectively agreeing that the point limit is now 1502 instead of 1500, even though it was done five minutes before the game begins.
toxic_wisdom wrote: Lists should never exceed the point level being played, period.
So you're saying that it is totally unacceptable for my group to agree to play a 1500 pts game and then for one of our group to go over by any amount?
Yes
If you're going to allow people to go over the limit, then just set the limit higher so they won't go over the limit in the first place
Looks like my group is going to have a good laugh when we next play
Your group is your group, you are free to set your own house rules. However, this is a rules discussion forum, debating the answer to the question: "is going over the point limit legal?" This was answered on page 1, with a simple, "no, it is not legal per the BRB."
Since that point, a debate has started concerning whether or not a few points over justifies the label: CHEATER.
Personally, I'm in the camp that believes knowingly going over a set limit does break both the rules and the social contract agreed upon by the respective parties involved. But that's just me; your mileage may very, and if your group plays it a different way, well the is HYWPI, not RAW.
If i play someone and agree 1500, but they draft up an army to have 1510, that's ok. Because we just drafted it.
If the same player, on the next game, gets to 1512, i will probably ask kindly for him to remove some points.
Now, and this is what the OP wrote: If my opponent now Refuses and "is offended" by the reducing of points, then we indeed have an issue, and the whole "cheating" idea starts to pop up.
Most of the people i play with would take down those points and i've never had an issue.
Last time, it was 1 kill point for every point over.
That would solve it pretty quick. For me personally I don't mind if they are a little over within reason. Anything above say 10 pts over I wouldn't allow but I'm laid back when it comes to that aspect.
A game wherein it is both rude and acceptable to spam the cheesiest thing possible, but the second anyone goes even one point above the limit, the rule nazis start raging.
Tamwulf wrote: I like to take them out back and beat the $%#! out of them for going over. Even by one point.
When a friend calls you up for a friendly game and accidentally ends up a couple of points over the limit, do you really think it's a good thing to just verbally or physically beat them down over such a small thing in a meaningless game?
Really?
Does any one of you remember The Golden Rule?
(It's to have fun, btw)
Let me ask you this- let's say we agree on a 1500 point game, and I show up with a 3000 point army. Is that OK? I know I'll have a ton of fun wiping you off the table. I'd probably giggle like a little school girl the entire time. Oh, you mean the point is for BOTH of us to have fun? So at what limit do you start not having fun over a game of little toy soldiers? When your opponent is 10 points over? 20? 50? 100? You both agreed to play a 1500 point game, but he/she/it has decided that 1500 isn't good enough, and so they go over the limit rather then under. It's just as easy to be under the points value than go over the points value. A conscious decision was made to violate the contract made between you and your opponent to go over the points value. At what point does the social contract of this hobby and game break down and one or the other players stop having fun?
Isn't it more fun to abide by the "Golden Rule" and play the game at the agreed upon points value?
A game wherein it is both rude and acceptable to spam the cheesiest thing possible, but the second anyone goes even one point above the limit, the rule nazis start raging.
Tamwulf wrote: I like to take them out back and beat the $%#! out of them for going over. Even by one point.
When a friend calls you up for a friendly game and accidentally ends up a couple of points over the limit, do you really think it's a good thing to just verbally or physically beat them down over such a small thing in a meaningless game?
Really?
Does any one of you remember The Golden Rule?
(It's to have fun, btw)
Let me ask you this- let's say we agree on a 1500 point game, and I show up with a 3000 point army. Is that OK? I know I'll have a ton of fun wiping you off the table. I'd probably giggle like a little school girl the entire time. Oh, you mean the point is for BOTH of us to have fun? So at what limit do you start not having fun over a game of little toy soldiers? When your opponent is 10 points over? 20? 50? 100? You both agreed to play a 1500 point game, but he/she/it has decided that 1500 isn't good enough, and so they go over the limit rather then under. It's just as easy to be under the points value than go over the points value. A conscious decision was made to violate the contract made between you and your opponent to go over the points value. At what point does the social contract of this hobby and game break down and one or the other players stop having fun?
Isn't it more fun to abide by the "Golden Rule" and play the game at the agreed upon points value?
Golden rule: Do on to others as you want they do on to you.
I play by the rules and do not go over the limit, and I do not want others to go over the limit against me.
I wasn't aware playing by the rules or calling someone out on trying to break the rules "verbally or physically beat them down"... And if it is such a 'meaningless thing' then why not be under the point limit? Why must you (or they) insist on defending such a worthless advantage when we can simply both play by the limit and have an equal playing field?
Basically you condone cheating and pre-emptively calling anyone who calls you out on cheating a TFG.
Britneyfan12 wrote: If my buddy let me play 1501 points, when we initially agreed upon 1500 points game, and I get called a Waac and TFG on this forum, because I broke a rule. What would the person be calling himself, when he found out it was against the rules on this forum to call people names? I might be a TFG for breaking a rule, but no one on this forum is allowed to call me that, even if they are right.
You have a point. As a counselor, i learned early on to address behaviors rather than the person exhibiting them. You will notice that any time i address a person here, I address the behavior instead of the person. This way, thereis no name calling or rudeness. some may call it rules lawyering or some other nonsense but it is one of the basics that you learn right off. it demonstrates no ill will or judgement of the person and thus treats them with the utmost respect and dignity.
However, if you feel someone is outright calling you names, let the admins and mods deal with it. I have been called all sorts of names since being here and each time, I just let the mods hande it as it is their duty to address it, not mine.
Selym, You will notice that I agreed with you. If your group has that understanding, then it is not cheating while playing amongst your group. It does not become cheating until you do it to someone outside of your group that is not part of that understanding. At that point the situation has changed considerably.
Was that an aside note that was added by the editor or was it part of the actual rules that are to be followed? No need to answer, we both already know the answer.
Yes, we all know what the rule is. I'm just wondering why you trust the BRB with rules if you don't trust it with the spirit of the game.
Side commentary of how the editor himself does it is not the spirit of the game. To "some' the spirit of the game is win at all costs even if it means adding an extra 35 points to your army for an advantage. To blatantly break any rule they like at whim and totally be rude and disrespectful to anyone else involved in the hobby. Personally, I feel that the spirit of the game is to enjoy yourself in a friendly atmosphere, following the rules and treating one another wth dignity and respect. i fail to understan why so many here are purposely advocating the former and claiming the book told them to do it.
"Your army is at 1500? thats the agreed upon limit that we had right? Ok, I think I will just add another 35 points to my limit". That is not applying t same rules to each other at all.
But that's not really not what anyone is arguing for. We are talking about a situation where a person ask their opponent if they mind two points extra, and would allow same leniency to their opponent if the situation was reversed.
That is EXACTLY what is being argued for. if you are instead, advocating a house rule where you trade back and forth and o on, that is a totally different and unrelated question. Maybe start a seperate thread on it so it does not become confused with the topic we are actually talking about here.
Reasoning is irrelevant. Cheating is cheating. Period. There is no excuse for it. It is JUST as easy to stay at the limit as to go over it.
It is not cheating if the opponent is okay with it. I'm just wondering why you're not. You don't need to be, it's your right, but I'm not understanding why.
Bullying or putting pressure on an opponent to agree with something that may notbe is indeed cheatig. Making the assumption beforehand that they will and showing up and saying "this is what i have, take it or leave it"is indeed cheating It is against the spirit of the game to force opponents to make the decision to let "you" cheat or not play at all. this is especially so when it is so EASY for you to just follow the rules to begin with.
I based my statement on the fact that in this (and every other thred i have seen online about it over the years) has far more people supporting the rules than advocating breaking them. there is also the fact that i have never EVER spoken to a player that advocated someone cheating against them. There may be some out there, i just have not found them. you may find it hilarious to think that people mind being cheated against. I disagree and feel that it is not funny at all. Different viewpoints on that.
No one likes cheating. But it is not cheating if the opponent approves.
See above. it is indeed cheatng if that 'approval" is coerced or pressured against their wishes. again, when it is just as easy to play a legal list to begin with. They teated you with enough respect to bring a legal list after all.
then you redo the whole thing. You have plenty of time to build lists in advance. as a matter of fact, Lets do a little math here (forgive my horrible math as i dont have a PHD but even I can do this lol). How many hours over the last few days alone have you spend reading, editing and posting on this very thread? Ignore any other threads, just this one. If it was even one hour, that is more than enough time to build 2 1500 point lists. A good start towards your supply-o pre-made army lists.
I'm quite capable of making legal lists, thank you very much.
If you are going above the agreed upon points they are not legal.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
EVIL INC wrote: For example, if their wysiwyg list is 5 over and they have a plasma gun. i would explain tha as that is all they have, I wold give them the suggestion to proxy the plasma gun as a melta gun since my list is tank heavy.[/b]
Oh god, please no, don't teach the newbies to proxy; it is way more annoying than being few points over!
having an opponent who actually follows the rules, plays by the spirit of the game where fun is had by BOTH players and treating others with respect and dignity be 'annoying to a player says much more about the "annoyed player' than it does about the players doing it correctly.
PS. Please learn to use quotes properly, your posts are rather annoying to read.
Then dont read them.
If i play someone and agree 1500, but they draft up an army to have 1510, that's ok. Because we just drafted it.
If the same player, on the next game, gets to 1512, i will probably ask kindly for him to remove some points.
Now, and this is what the OP wrote: If my opponent now Refuses and "is offended" by the reducing of points, then we indeed have an issue, and the whole "cheating" idea starts to pop up.
Most of the people i play with would take down those points and i've never had an issue. thats where we are in this thread. We have one side "refusing' to make a legal list.
Selym wrote: Let's say I allow my opponent to play a 1500 pts game with a 1501 army. Would you consider this unacceptable? Is there a fundamental law that says that I must reject the 1501 army? Are we in the wron for playing like this?
Why would what you choose to allow an opponent to do in your games matter in the slightest to anyone else?
If you allow you opponent to field an illegal list, then of course that's acceptable. Just as it's acceptable if you allow your opponent to give a model a weapon it shouldn't have, or allow them to move extra distance, or any other rule that you and your opponent agree to change or ignore.
toxic_wisdom wrote: Lists should never exceed the point level being played, period.
So you're saying that it is totally unacceptable for my group to agree to play a 1500 pts game and then for one of our group to go over by any amount?
I was answering the OP's question = The question: What sort of overspending limits do you play with? How would you handle it if your opponent was over or asked you to trim your list? Being that I have no tournament experience, how do tournaments handle it?Â
Even with the revised point total, that brought the army's closer to parity, I didn't even have a chance.
Then why did you need to change the point limit to accommodate the more efficient list you wanted to bring? Why couldn't you just play within the point limit with a less-efficient list? If you don't have a chance anyway then why was it so important to make the change?
It wasn't a matter of making a more efficent list, it was a matter of 6 players representing 5 armies, with skill levels ranging from first time player to one person playing for a couple of decades. To assist the new people, it was decided that every played army lists, should be within a 20 pt window, and it would be stricly WYSIWYG. I was playing Necrons ( at the time the only army that I knew anything about ), which was totally barrowed from a collection that amounted to ~900 points, and were glued. The others were using armies that came from collections that went over 2500, a couple of the armies came from collections of over 3500 pts, and as such the other players had much more flexibility in building their lists from the available models.
You are making an unwarranted assumption, that everyone has the same resources access available.
No I am not. If it's a 1500 point game then both players have 1500 points to spend. You don't get to insist on getting extra points just because a legal list wouldn't be as effective at winning.
As shown above, just because something is available in a codex, it doesn't follow that it's available as a resourse to draw on - especially when dealing with WYSIWYG and a fairly limited model availability.
Britneyfan12 wrote: So if both players have agreed on a 1500 pts game, and one of them asks the other one, 15 min before gamestart: hey, Cornelius. can we agree on a 1501 pts game instead? as thats what my list is now, I´ll let you have a bite of my snickers then.
If Cornelius agrees, they are both going 100% RAW and noone is cheating or deserving of a beating out back. right?
If no, is a player always a cheater if he kindly requests another point limit for the upcoming game? what if he said: Dude, I like totally forgot my tanks at home, can we make it a 1000 pts game instead of 1500?
Or: Yeah I know we agreed on 1500 on the phone, but I just got this sweet deal on 3 fully painted Mega-dreads, would you mind we upped the game to 2K?
How long time in advance is a player allowed to kindly request a different point level than the original agreed upon, without being branded cheater and TFG? 3 days? 15min? after the other guy has deployed ½ his army?
Some of it is going to depend on the player who is being asked to do changing and how many points are involved.
For me, if it's just 5-10 points, 5 or 10 minutes should be plenty of time - heck I might even say, "Fine with me, let's start the game".
If it's ~100 points, I would like an hour to think about my options - if it's more than 150 or 200 points, I would like at least a couple of days.
Essentially the more points, the more time.
That being said, I have a buddy that can deal with a 300 point change in about 20-30 minutes, simply because he has been playing for a couple of decades ( and it seams like he lives, eats, and breaths 40K ). Sure, he might spend another 2-3 hours to fine tune his new list, but it's not something he has to do.
Infantry models in 40K can move up to 6". Is it as fair for me to move my guys 7" on my turn as for you to choose to only move 3" on yours?
No one is saying that if someone wants an extra 3-4 or even 15 points of overage, you can't have the same number of points - but that is exactly what you are implying with your example.
Let's flip your example around to show you what we are trying to say.
You want to move your guys 7" - as long as I can also move my guys 7" that is fine.
It doesn't take that long to write up a list... and if you do it in an army builder program or excel, it's even quicker to take an existing list and tweak it. When I'm going somewhere for a pick up game, it's then just a matter of printing off a couple of different lists at the most commonly played points limits.
Not everyone has those programs or knows how to use them, I still do not know of any that are actually worth the money that are being asked for them. I have tried one of those army building apps for my phone, it's not very good, in fact it's so poor that sitting down with a piece of paper and the codex is more accurate, even if it takes much much longer.
Let me ask you this- let's say we agree on a 1500 point game, and I show up with a 3000 point army.
If you are showing up to a 1500 pt game with a 3000 pt army, your not even trying to keep it down to 1500 pts. Up to about 10-15 points over, not to much of an issue - above that is another issue, but in either case, as long as I am allowed those same points, it's nothing to worry about it.
Infantry models in 40K can move up to 6". Is it as fair for me to move my guys 7" on my turn as for you to choose to only move 3" on yours?
No one is saying that if someone wants an extra 3-4 or even 15 points of overage, you can't have the same number of points - but that is exactly what you are implying with your example.
No, that's not what I'm implying at all. You claimed that being under the points limit is no different to being over it. My point in response was that choosing to not utilise the full potential available to you, and choosing to exceed your allowed limit are not at all the thing.
No, that's exactly what it was. The only reason you didn't just play at 450 out of 500 points (or even lower) is that you wanted a better chance of winning.
As shown above, just because something is available in a codex, it doesn't follow that it's available as a resourse to draw on - especially when dealing with WYSIWYG and a fairly limited model availability.
But those are factors outside of the game. Why should you get extra points just because you don't have the perfect list available?
For me, if it's just 5-10 points, 5 or 10 minutes should be plenty of time - heck I might even say, "Fine with me, let's start the game".
If it's ~100 points, I would like an hour to think about my options - if it's more than 150 or 200 points, I would like at least a couple of days.
Sorry, but this is just ridiculous and thoroughly disproves your claim that going over the point limit is all about "playing casually". If you're playing a casual game you shouldn't need more than a minute or two to change a list. Take something expensive out and replace it with a cheaper alternative, drop a heavy weapon from a squad, etc. If you need an hour to think about a 100 point modification then you're clearly taking winning very seriously, probably more seriously than the average "competitive" player in that situation.
Let's flip your example around to show you what we are trying to say.
You want to move your guys 7" - as long as I can also move my guys 7" that is fine.
Except that's not what you're doing. You aren't just agreeing on a new rule, you're pressuring your opponent to accept your new rule by accusing them of WAAC behavior if they don't let you cheat. It's the equivalent of moving your assault army an extra 1" to get into range and forcing your gunline opponent to accept it because they know that if they don't you'll whine and cry about how unfair it all is until they give you what you want.
If you are showing up to a 1500 pt game with a 3000 pt army, your not even trying to keep it down to 1500 pts.
And the same is true about showing up with a 1501 point army. If you are over the point limit in a game that you arranged in advance then you are not even trying to make a legal list.
Even with the revised point total, that brought the army's closer to parity, I didn't even have a chance.
Then why did you need to change the point limit to accommodate the more efficient list you wanted to bring? Why couldn't you just play within the point limit with a less-efficient list? If you don't have a chance anyway then why was it so important to make the change?
It wasn't a matter of making a more efficent list, it was a matter of 6 players representing 5 armies, with skill levels ranging from first time player to one person playing for a couple of decades. To assist the new people, it was decided that every played army lists, should be within a 20 pt window, and it would be stricly WYSIWYG. I was playing Necrons ( at the time the only army that I knew anything about ), which was totally barrowed from a collection that amounted to ~900 points, and were glued. The others were using armies that came from collections that went over 2500, a couple of the armies came from collections of over 3500 pts, and as such the other players had much more flexibility in building their lists from the available models.
now, you are purposely throwing in additional aspects that change the story about. You are comparing apples to oranges. However, even in your sceneareo, the players with the larger collections can "loan" the odd one extra models or even overlook WYSIWYG for that game. till VERY easy to have all players have competative and legal lists.
You are making an unwarranted assumption, that everyone has the same resources access available.
No I am not. If it's a 1500 point game then both players have 1500 points to spend. You don't get to insist on getting extra points just because a legal list wouldn't be as effective at winning.
As shown above, just because something is available in a codex, it doesn't follow that it's available as a resourse to draw on - especially when dealing with WYSIWYG and a fairly limited model availability.
So what you are saying is that not a single codex has representation of models? I call BS on this. Give any one of the available codices and i can create a list ranging from 500, 1000,1500,1850, 2000, 3000 points and go to the GW website and show you models that are available. if I want to use units that do not have current models, I can show you ways to convert them or point you to websites (like this very one"gasp"), that can give ideas on converting.
Britneyfan12 wrote: So if both players have agreed on a 1500 pts game, and one of them asks the other one, 15 min before gamestart: hey, Cornelius. can we agree on a 1501 pts game instead? as thats what my list is now, I´ll let you have a bite of my snickers then.
If Cornelius agrees, they are both going 100% RAW and noone is cheating or deserving of a beating out back. right?
If no, is a player always a cheater if he kindly requests another point limit for the upcoming game? what if he said: Dude, I like totally forgot my tanks at home, can we make it a 1000 pts game instead of 1500?
Or: Yeah I know we agreed on 1500 on the phone, but I just got this sweet deal on 3 fully painted Mega-dreads, would you mind we upped the game to 2K?
How long time in advance is a player allowed to kindly request a different point level than the original agreed upon, without being branded cheater and TFG? 3 days? 15min? after the other guy has deployed ½ his army?
Some of it is going to depend on the player who is being asked to do changing and how many points are involved.
For me, if it's just 5-10 points, 5 or 10 minutes should be plenty of time - heck I might even say, "Fine with me, let's start the game".
If it's ~100 points, I would like an hour to think about my options - if it's more than 150 or 200 points, I would like at least a couple of days.
Essentially the more points, the more time.
That being said, I have a buddy that can deal with a 300 point change in about 20-30 minutes, simply because he has been playing for a couple of decades ( and it seams like he lives, eats, and breaths 40K ). Sure, he might spend another 2-3 hours to fine tune his new list, but it's not something he has to do.
Of course, they could just bring a legal list to begin with instead of assuming they would be able to bulldoze their opponent into letting them cheat.
Infantry models in 40K can move up to 6". Is it as fair for me to move my guys 7" on my turn as for you to choose to only move 3" on yours?
No one is saying that if someone wants an extra 3-4 or even 15 points of overage, you can't have the same number of points - but that is exactly what you are implying with your example.
Let's flip your example around to show you what we are trying to say.
You want to move your guys 7" - as long as I can also move my guys 7" that is fine.
That is exactly what you are not only implying but outright saying. If I show up with the agreed on amount of points and you show up over the limit. You are first and formost, assuming I will let you cheat and just go ahead and play. Secondarily, you might say somthing like "yeah, toss on a few extra points forcing me to search my codex to just toss something in while you stand there tapping your foot impatiently forcing me to make a fast brab at something useless while yourown list is still maxed out cheese where there are no useless items. Besides saying 'you can cheat as well if you let me first" is not considered a valid argument. Especially when it was actually easier for everyone for you to just bring a legal list to begin with.
It doesn't take that long to write up a list... and if you do it in an army builder program or excel, it's even quicker to take an existing list and tweak it. When I'm going somewhere for a pick up game, it's then just a matter of printing off a couple of different lists at the most commonly played points limits.
Not everyone has those programs or knows how to use them, I still do not know of any that are actually worth the money that are being asked for them. I have tried one of those army building apps for my phone, it's not very good, in fact it's so poor that sitting down with a piece of paper and the codex is more accurate, even if it takes much much longer.
I use paper and pen and a codex myself. I have no problem showing up with a legal list. I also have no problem maintaining a notebokk full of lists at different points levels. You dont need a program to follow the rules.
Let me ask you this- let's say we agree on a 1500 point game, and I show up with a 3000 point army.
If you are showing up to a 1500 pt game with a 3000 pt army, your not even trying to keep it down to 1500 pts. Up to about 10-15 points over, not to much of an issue - above that is another issue, but in either case, as long as I am allowed those same points, it's nothing to worry about it.
Already debunked
Changing the point limit at the last minute undermines the effort the other player put into fine tuning their list. Consider this:
Player A and player B have agreed to play with a 1500 point limit.
Player A has a family and a full time job and does not have much in the way of free time. He has an idea for a really fun list but after several attempts to create, rearrange, recreate, etc he realizes the minimum essentials for his idea are going to add up to at least 1510 points. He sleeps on it and the next day realizes how he could cut some points with only a slight change and goes back to it. After several other revisions though he realizes it's not going to help like he thought it would. It's now game day and he still can't get it to work and so he scraps it and puts together a fairly standard list and then spends another half hour fine tuning it. It ends up at 1495 points. He then gathers the required models for his army, prints out the list and heads out.
They meet at the usual place (friends garage, gaming store, where ever) and player B shortly informs him he brought a list and the models for a 1510 point army, that he could not get it lower then that and requests a 10 point leeway. Player A who was looking forward to a fun game even if he thinks his list is boring is now understandably offended as he would have gladly agreed to change the limit in advance but now has only the models for his current list. Player A expresses as much but player B refuses to acknowledge any cause for offense or imposition and says, 'hey it's just a casual game, no reason to get all WAAC on me, it's just 10 points'... Player A rages inside...
Player A went out of his way to show respect to the agreed limit.
Player B did not and in so doing showed no regard for the other players efforts and wasted his valuable time.
Please do this to you friend. If your group plays with estimates instead of limits, fine. However, if you agree to a limit then that's it, do not go over it. The other player my very well have put forth an effort, even sacrificing things from the list he just couldn't squeeze in under the limit. Showing complete disregard for the other players efforts is disrespectful. In a casual game, it is casually disrespectful which is honestly even more offensive IMO.
It wasn't a matter of making a more efficent list, it was a matter of 6 players representing 5 armies, with skill levels ranging from first time player to one person playing for a couple of decades. To assist the new people, it was decided that every played army lists, should be within a 20 pt window, and it would be stricly WYSIWYG. I was playing Necrons ( at the time the only army that I knew anything about ), which was totally barrowed from a collection that amounted to ~900 points, and were glued. The others were using armies that came from collections that went over 2500, a couple of the armies came from collections of over 3500 pts, and as such the other players had much more flexibility in building their lists from the available models.
now, you are purposely throwing in additional aspects that change the story about. You are comparing apples to oranges. However, even in your sceneareo, the players with the larger collections can "loan" the odd one extra models or even overlook WYSIWYG for that game. till VERY easy to have all players have competative and legal lists.
Not changing - simply expanding on and clarifying the situation for someone who wasn't there.
Two of the players ( including myself ) played on nothing but barrowed models. We considered overlooking the WYSIWYG, and had it just been 1 vs. 1 ( or even the 2 vs. 2, 1 HQ and 1 squad training game, that was originally intended ) we would have done just that, but in the 3 vs. 3 it became, it would have quickly devolved into " What is that? It's a......., Wait, I thought it was a ....., If I have remembered that, I wouldn't have done ...... " situation, and things had already gotten confusing enough.
Why is player A getting offended? If going 10 points over the limit would be enough to offend a friend or otherwise I'm not sure I would want to play with them.
Also, would you prefer proxies or WYSIWYG? I ran an Inquisition list yesterday but didn't have acolyte models so used Vostroyans. Acolytes come with laspistols, Vostroyans have lasguns. Making them lasguns would have taken me over the limit. I can imagine it's quite hard to get a list on/just under if your opponent insists on WYSIWYG.
Finally, still no-one has addressed the fact that Game Workshop, in White Dwarf [it's official magazine], encourages players to ignore points limits and FOCs and instead focus on the 'narrative'. It also mentions that this might be an approach in rulebooks. I completely understand why a fairly new player who reads White Dwarf and the main rulebooks [but doesn't spend their time trawling thorough internet forums] would approach the game with a very loose implementation of points limits and FOCs. Those who think points limits are important are in opposition to the way that GW wants you to play.
I personally think sticking close to agreed points limits is important [+20 is ok], but that is not consistent with the message that GW is sending to its playerbase.
Abandon wrote: Changing the point limit at the last minute undermines the effort the other player put into fine tuning their list. Consider this:
Player A and player B have agreed to play with a 1500 point limit.
Player A has a family and a full time job and does not have much in the way of free time. He has an idea for a really fun list but after several attempts to create, rearrange, recreate, etc he realizes the minimum essentials for his idea are going to add up to at least 1510 points. He sleeps on it and the next day realizes how he could cut some points with only a slight change and goes back to it. After several other revisions though he realizes it's not going to help like he thought it would. It's now game day and he still can't get it to work and so he scraps it and puts together a fairly standard list and then spends another half hour fine tuning it. It ends up at 1495 points. He then gathers the required models for his army, prints out the list and heads out.
They meet at the usual place (friends garage, gaming store, where ever) and player B shortly informs him he brought a list and the models for a 1510 point army, that he could not get it lower then that and requests a 10 point leeway. Player A who was looking forward to a fun game even if he thinks his list is boring is now understandably offended as he would have gladly agreed to change the limit in advance but now has only the models for his current list. Player A expresses as much but player B refuses to acknowledge any cause for offense or imposition and says, 'hey it's just a casual game, no reason to get all WAAC on me, it's just 10 points'... Player A rages inside...
Player A went out of his way to show respect to the agreed limit.
Player B did not and in so doing showed no regard for the other players efforts and wasted his valuable time.
Please do this to you friend. If your group plays with estimates instead of limits, fine. However, if you agree to a limit then that's it, do not go over it. The other player my very well have put forth an effort, even sacrificing things from the list he just couldn't squeeze in under the limit. Showing complete disregard for the other players efforts is disrespectful. In a casual game, it is casually disrespectful which is honestly even more offensive IMO.
That's why I keep saying to talk to the other player ( or players ) in the days before the game. That way, Player A, wouldn't have had to worry about staying under 1500 points, and saved himself a day and half of effort and could still play his original list.
We live in a world of technology, pick up a phone, send a text or e-mail - no real reason not to talk to your opponent.
Because player B is acting disrespectful and entitled by bringing a list they know perfectly well is illegal and trying to pressure player A into accepting it.
Also, would you prefer proxies or WYSIWYG? I ran an Inquisition list yesterday but didn't have acolyte models so used Vostroyans. Acolytes come with laspistols, Vostroyans have lasguns. Making them lasguns would have taken me over the limit. I can imagine it's quite hard to get a list on/just under if your opponent insists on WYSIWYG.
I prefer a legal list that is also WYSIWYG. Pay the points for lasguns, take fewer acolytes.
Finally, still no-one has addressed the fact that Game Workshop, in White Dwarf [it's official magazine], encourages players to ignore points limits and FOCs and instead focus on the 'narrative'.
Actually we did address it. WD "battle reports" are awful, and they openly admit that they just make stuff up and re-roll anything that isn't "interesting enough" if they bother to play a game at all. That isn't a game, it's some catalog pictures with a "story" attached so you can imagine how cool the new releases will be in your own games.
It also mentions that this might be an approach in rulebooks.
It does, however it is incredibly poor sportsmanship to deliberately exploit that approach to increase your chances of winning. The intent of the statement is that if you're both trying to make new lists before a game some people may prefer to just get roughly the right number of points and start playing instead of spending extra time making a legal list, not that you should deliberately add extra points to your list and demand that your opponent let you have them.
That's why I keep saying to talk to the other player ( or players ) in the days before the game. That way, Player A, wouldn't have had to worry about staying under 1500 points, and saved himself a day and half of effort and could still play his original list.
We live in a world of technology, pick up a phone, send a text or e-mail - no real reason not to talk to your opponent.
On this we agree. Revising the agreed limit in advance is not a problem.
I'm just pointing out that 10 points might mean more than just a 10 point change in the list. Adding on a cheap upgrade at the last minute is generally of small consequence but removing a unit of two zoanthropes and adding the DoM in a spore pod (10 point difference) changes the tactical situation your list creates. Ideally you would then need to re-examine the rest of your list and tailor it, if needed, to take advantage of the new situation. You might in fact end up with a entirely different list.
Also demonstrating the impertinence of breaking an agreement and then trying to make the other person seem rude if they're not ok with it.
It wasn't a matter of making a more efficent list, it was a matter of 6 players representing 5 armies, with skill levels ranging from first time player to one person playing for a couple of decades. To assist the new people, it was decided that every played army lists, should be within a 20 pt window, and it would be stricly WYSIWYG. I was playing Necrons ( at the time the only army that I knew anything about ), which was totally barrowed from a collection that amounted to ~900 points, and were glued. The others were using armies that came from collections that went over 2500, a couple of the armies came from collections of over 3500 pts, and as such the other players had much more flexibility in building their lists from the available models.
now, you are purposely throwing in additional aspects that change the story about. You are comparing apples to oranges. However, even in your sceneareo, the players with the larger collections can "loan" the odd one extra models or even overlook WYSIWYG for that game. till VERY easy to have all players have competative and legal lists.
Not changing - simply expanding on and clarifying the situation for someone who wasn't there.
Two of the players ( including myself ) played on nothing but barrowed models. We considered overlooking the WYSIWYG, and had it just been 1 vs. 1 ( or even the 2 vs. 2, 1 HQ and 1 squad training game, that was originally intended ) we would have done just that, but in the 3 vs. 3 it became, it would have quickly devolved into " What is that? It's a......., Wait, I thought it was a ....., If I have remembered that, I wouldn't have done ...... " situation, and things had already gotten confusing enough.
For clarification - is " counts as" in the BRB?
If you have all previously agreed upon points limit, there is not a single thing stopping you from sticking to it. We are not talking about counts as thats a different thread discussion. We are talking about points limits and sticking to them.
Abandon wrote: Changing the point limit at the last minute undermines the effort the other player put into fine tuning their list. Consider this:
Player A and player B have agreed to play with a 1500 point limit.
Player A has a family and a full time job and does not have much in the way of free time. He has an idea for a really fun list but after several attempts to create, rearrange, recreate, etc he realizes the minimum essentials for his idea are going to add up to at least 1510 points. He sleeps on it and the next day realizes how he could cut some points with only a slight change and goes back to it. After several other revisions though he realizes it's not going to help like he thought it would. It's now game day and he still can't get it to work and so he scraps it and puts together a fairly standard list and then spends another half hour fine tuning it. It ends up at 1495 points. He then gathers the required models for his army, prints out the list and heads out.
They meet at the usual place (friends garage, gaming store, where ever) and player B shortly informs him he brought a list and the models for a 1510 point army, that he could not get it lower then that and requests a 10 point leeway. Player A who was looking forward to a fun game even if he thinks his list is boring is now understandably offended as he would have gladly agreed to change the limit in advance but now has only the models for his current list. Player A expresses as much but player B refuses to acknowledge any cause for offense or imposition and says, 'hey it's just a casual game, no reason to get all WAAC on me, it's just 10 points'... Player A rages inside...
Player A went out of his way to show respect to the agreed limit.
Player B did not and in so doing showed no regard for the other players efforts and wasted his valuable time.
Please do this to you friend. If your group plays with estimates instead of limits, fine. However, if you agree to a limit then that's it, do not go over it. The other player my very well have put forth an effort, even sacrificing things from the list he just couldn't squeeze in under the limit. Showing complete disregard for the other players efforts is disrespectful. In a casual game, it is casually disrespectful which is honestly even more offensive IMO.
That's why I keep saying to talk to the other player ( or players ) in the days before the game. That way, Player A, wouldn't have had to worry about staying under 1500 points, and saved himself a day and half of effort and could still play his original list.
We live in a world of technology, pick up a phone, send a text or e-mail - no real reason not to talk to your opponent.
It is a matter of personal honor. If I agreed upon a limit, I am sticking to the limit. I'm not going to blow up my opponents phone (provided I even have their number) trying to change the game after the original agreement. neither do I want an opponent blowing up my phone saying can we go to 1510?, then an hour later "how bout 1515"?, Then an hour before the game while I'm packing "never mind, im cool with 1505".
That's why I keep saying to talk to the other player ( or players ) in the days before the game. That way, Player A, wouldn't have had to worry about staying under 1500 points, and saved himself a day and half of effort and could still play his original list.
We live in a world of technology, pick up a phone, send a text or e-mail - no real reason not to talk to your opponent.
I'm guessing you don't play a lot of pick up games.
Point limit at out FLGS is set at 1750. You never now who will turn up so you can't make those kind of arrangements in advance.
Where do you stand on going over under these circumstances?
Personally I'm very easy when it comes to rules. For instance: If an opponent needs 7" to make it to cover I'll let him move 7".
The only rule I strictly enforce is the point limit, because going over it is something that a player decides by himself without consulting his opponent and that's just bad etiquete.
No, that's exactly what it was. The only reason you didn't just play at 450 out of 500 points (or even lower) is that you wanted a better chance of winning.
As shown above, just because something is available in a codex, it doesn't follow that it's available as a resourse to draw on - especially when dealing with WYSIWYG and a fairly limited model availability.
But those are factors outside of the game. Why should you get extra points just because you don't have the perfect list available?
That is where you are dreaming.
Those were not factors outside the game, but the factors that the game was based on, without them there would have been no game.
For me, if it's just 5-10 points, 5 or 10 minutes should be plenty of time - heck I might even say, "Fine with me, let's start the game".
If it's ~100 points, I would like an hour to think about my options - if it's more than 150 or 200 points, I would like at least a couple of days.
Sorry, but this is just ridiculous and thoroughly disproves your claim that going over the point limit is all about "playing casually". If you're playing a casual game you shouldn't need more than a minute or two to change a list. Take something expensive out and replace it with a cheaper alternative, drop a heavy weapon from a squad, etc. If you need an hour to think about a 100 point modification then you're clearly taking winning very seriously, probably more seriously than the average "competitive" player in that situation.
You are assuming that I have the same amount of game experience and understanding of the rules as you do - and nothing could be further than the truth.
Contrary to the fact that your claim that it "disproves my claim", it does the exact opposite - it simply proves that I do not eat, breath, or sleep 40K ( I know that some will claim this as heresy ). I have played less than 100 games, and as such, unlike my buddy ( and apparently you as well ), who can deal with a 300 point change in 30 min ( because he has been playing for a couple of decades ), I still have to refer back to the codex and BRB, to find out which weapons/abilities/models do what, and to figure out if it is going to conflict with any of the other weapon/abilities/models I already have on the list.
If it's something as simple as adding a single model to each of my squads, no problem, I'll be done in 5-10 minutes - but if it's adding a new model or special power, or it's an army that I'm not familiar with, it going to take longer just to make sure it's not in conflict with the other thing on my list.
How is it that it didn't occur to you that inexperience would be the reason, it might take so long?
As it was, my inexperience and 3 very seasoned players, is the reason I said that I didn't have a chance even with the point boost - heck they could have spotted me 150 points, and it wouldn't have made any difference, even if I had 3 years to tweak my list to the Nth degree.
Let's flip your example around to show you what we are trying to say.
You want to move your guys 7" - as long as I can also move my guys 7" that is fine.
Except that's not what you're doing. You aren't just agreeing on a new rule, you're pressuring your opponent to accept your new rule by accusing them of WAAC behavior if they don't let you cheat. It's the equivalent of moving your assault army an extra 1" to get into range and forcing your gunline opponent to accept it because they know that if they don't you'll whine and cry about how unfair it all is until they give you what you want.
Now, you are not just dreaming, you are grasping at straws as well.
You are so wrapped up in, denying even a 1 pt overage, that you are not even paying attention to what was said.
I very specifically pointed out that I was told to go ahead as take the 26 pt overage, and not worry about it. I also pointed out that I made it clear that we should stick to the near parity in points of the various armies.
In case it is not clear to you, what this means is that despite your claim, I pressured no one - quite the opposite I asked for help. The point increase came about when I sat down with the other players ( as that point we didn't know who was going to be on the teams ) and showed them the hard time I was having, matching up the available models with the available points. Ideas were tossed back and forth ( like my taking the 26 pt overage ), and someone suggested a point increase.
The points couldn't match the available models - what else was to be done?
I am just curious. as you are fighting SO hard. scraping at every possible twist and turn in a herculean effort to convince us all that breaking the rules is perfectly ok. why is it so hard to understand that adhering to the rules is just as ok (even more so), especially when it is actually EASIER to stick to the rules.
nothing personal or against you. i just find it hard to understand why someone would fight so hard to justify cheating with no concept of playing honestly even being an option.
Chopper Greg wrote: Those were not factors outside the game, but the factors that the game was based on, without them there would have been no game.
No, there would be a game where you'd have fewer than the maximum available points. The fact that you don't have the models to make a perfectly optimized 1500 point list doesn't mean that you're entitled to play a 1505 point list, it just means that you play a legal list that might not be quite as good. And if that means playing a 1490 point list then that's just what you have to do.
Contrary to the fact that your claim that it "disproves my claim", it does the exact opposite - it simply proves that I do not eat, breath, or sleep 40K ( I know that some will claim this as heresy ).
Sorry, but that's just nonsense. It's not about dedicating your entire life to 40k, it's about having basic math skills. You have a written list of everything in your army, including its point costs, in front of you and a codex with point costs of any new additions you might want to make. Fixing a list should never take you more than a minute or two, drop a heavy/special weapon from a squad, flip through the codex to see if there's a cheaper option you might want to take, and play the game.
I still have to refer back to the codex and BRB, to find out which weapons/abilities/models do what, and to figure out if it is going to conflict with any of the other weapon/abilities/models I already have on the list.
And this is the proof that it's not about "play casual", it's about gaining an advantage for yourself. You claim to "need" extra time to fine-tune your new list/strategy, which shows that you care about winning. If it was really all about "being casual" you'd just cut a random unit or upgrade and play the game without worrying about whether you have the perfect strategy or not.
The points couldn't match the available models - what else was to be done?
Play the game at or below the point limit, even significantly below the point limit if that's all you can do with the available models. You don't get to go over the point limit just because the alternative is playing a 450 point army in a 500 point game. Unless you're playing some kind of ridiculous low-point game where the point limit is set to less than the minimum legal army you can play (and in that case you shouldn't be playing 200 point games) you can always bring a legal army with the models you have available.
This is entirely separate from the question of your opponents offering you extra points to balance out a difference in player skill. If that's really what your example was about then it isn't at all relevant to this discussion and you shouldn't include it anymore.
EVIL INC wrote: If you have all previously agreed upon points limit, there is not a single thing stopping you from sticking to it. We are not talking about counts as thats a different thread discussion. We are talking about points limits and sticking to them.
The group I play with, doesn't worry about a point ceiling that can never be violated - if we say 300, 750, or 1000, it's a general target, if you are under that's fine, if you are over ( and not being absurd about it ) that's fine too. We just try to keep less than 30 points ( or so ), of disparity between the highest and lowest point army.
If we are talking about breaking or not breaking rules, and what is / is not cheating, then the "counts as" issue is a factor, if "counts as" is being held up as 'a way' to avoid breaking any point limit rule.
In the BRB, GW makes some allowance for some overages of the point limit. I have yet to see any allowance permitted with WYSIWYG, thus any suggestion that you can use 'counts as' ( as a way to get around any overage when dealing with a strictly limited model supply ), is by definition breaking a rule that has no allowance do to so. Thus to keep from breaking the rule with flexibility, we are told to break the other rule, that doesn't have flexibility? DNC.
That's why I keep saying to talk to the other player ( or players ) in the days before the game. That way, Player A, wouldn't have had to worry about staying under 1500 points, and saved himself a day and half of effort and could still play his original list.
We live in a world of technology, pick up a phone, send a text or e-mail - no real reason not to talk to your opponent.
I'm guessing you don't play a lot of pick up games.
Point limit at out FLGS is set at 1750. You never now who will turn up so you can't make those kind of arrangements in advance.
Where do you stand on going over under these circumstances?
Few, and almost none at the local store.
For me, with one car for the family, games have to be planned out in advance.
My buddy's place is 5 minutes away, and the FLGS is probably 4 times that - not exactly local. Add in larger game tables, food, and lack of 'closing time' and my buddy's place beats the GS.
You avoided answering the question.Exactly why are you adamant about cheating or not following the rules. Instead of giving us page after page of justifications and excuses for breaking them. give us just one explaining why you think following them is so bad. i am sure that we are all curious about that.
Chopper Greg wrote: If we are talking about breaking or not breaking rules, and what is / is not cheating, then the "counts as" issue is a factor, if "counts as" is being held up as 'a way' to avoid breaking any point limit rule.
No, it's completely irrelevant. A group of players can have house rules that allow counts-as/proxy models but not have house rules about allowing you to exceed the point limit. If you want to argue about the legality of non-WYSIWYG models then please start a separate thread about it.
For me, with one car for the family, games have to be planned out in advance.
Great, so you should have absolutely no problem making a list that is at or under the agreed-on point limit, and you shouldn't need to ask to play at some weird non-standard point level so you can get "permission" to break the point limit. If that's your situation then you certainly don't have the excuse of hurrying to make a list because you didn't know what game you were going to be playing until you got to the store.
No, there would be a game where you'd have fewer than the maximum available points. The fact that you don't have the models to make a perfectly optimized 1500 point list doesn't mean that you're entitled to play a 1505 point list, it just means that you play a legal list that might not be quite as good. And if that means playing a 1490 point list then that's just what you have to do.
Sorry, but that's just nonsense. It's not about dedicating your entire life to 40k, it's about having basic math skills. You have a written list of everything in your army, including its point costs, in front of you and a codex with point costs of any new additions you might want to make. Fixing a list should never take you more than a minute or two, drop a heavy/special weapon from a squad, flip through the codex to see if there's a cheaper option you might want to take, and play the game.
And this is the proof that it's not about "play casual", it's about gaining an advantage for yourself. You claim to "need" extra time to fine-tune your new list/strategy, which shows that you care about winning. If it was really all about "being casual" you'd just cut a random unit or upgrade and play the game without worrying about whether you have the perfect strategy or not.
Play the game at or below the point limit, even significantly below the point limit if that's all you can do with the available models. You don't get to go over the point limit just because the alternative is playing a 450 point army in a 500 point game. Unless you're playing some kind of ridiculous low-point game where the point limit is set to less than the minimum legal army you can play (and in that case you shouldn't be playing 200 point games) you can always bring a legal army with the models you have available.
You prove that you don't care to pay attention to the basic setup of the game that was played, but only about mixing and matching bits and pieces of someone's post to make your own point.
That game did not allow for a parity of greater than 20 points of difference between the army's - if one person is 38 points low, and everyone else is within 15 points +/- of the target, and all you have to choose from is a limited set of a WYSIWYG models, something has to change.
Any other alternative, means that everyone else has to now revamp their lists, because the new point target has effectively been dropped, simply because there was an inadequate model supply.
I asked for help, and after WE talked about the alternatives, it was suggested that WE raise to target point, and that was what WE chose to do.
I do not understand how you are failing to grasp those parts.
Conditions of the game as decided by the entire group (even before the point target was decided on ):
- A parity of no greater than 20 points of difference between the lists.
- A limited set of a WYSIWYG models.
Thus if someone can't meet those two conditions, there would have been no game.
I fail to see, what part of that, you can't understand.
You say play at -38 points, yet you have never bothered to explain how ( or why ) anyone would want to play at both -40 points and inexperience handicap and call it fun - - - heck how is anyone even supposed to actually learn how to play, when such a combined disadvantage means that you don't even last to round 3. Ether one alone would be enough to deal with, but both? That goes well past wanting to eat, breath, and sleep the game, that kind of play at all costs, mind set is fanatical - likely even psychologically insane.
Again I did not force anyone into anything, I just asked for some help with my list, when I ran into an issue with the limited model supply, and the others figured that raising the point target by 50 would be easier than everyone else revising their lists to a lower point target. If you don't like it, to bad, you were not there and was not a part of the group that was, nor were you playing under the same game limitations.
EVIL INC wrote: You avoided answering the question.Exactly why are you adamant about cheating or not following the rules. Instead of giving us page after page of justifications and excuses for breaking them. give us just one explaining why you think following them is so bad. i am sure that we are all curious about that.
And as I have explained before, Pg 108, allows an overage of a few points, thus it is not cheating to allow someone a minor overage. If you don't agree, take it up with GW for putting it in the BRB.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: No, it's completely irrelevant. A group of players can have house rules that allow counts-as/proxy models but not have house rules about allowing you to exceed the point limit.
Pg. 108 of the BRB says you are wrong. Overage of a few points is allowable - it might not be desirable, but it's not precluded.
If you don't like it, take the issue up with GW for the way they print and edit their books.
Chopper Greg wrote: - A parity of no greater than 20 points of difference between the lists.
So why are we even talking about this then? The "problem" is entirely caused by this house rule. Get rid of it and just play a 1470 point list in a 1500 point game and you don't have anymore problems.
You say play at -38 points, yet you have never bothered to explain how ( or why ) anyone would want to play at both -40 points and inexperience handicap and call it fun
I thought we were talking about "casual" games? Why should playing a 1462 point list in a 1500 point game be a problem? Sure, it hurts your chances of winning, but I thought this is a "casual" game where winning isn't a big deal?
heck how is anyone even supposed to actually learn how to play, when such a combined disadvantage means that you don't even last to round 3.
Let's not exaggerate here. Playing 40 points down is a disadvantage, it doesn't mean that you're going to be tabled before the third turn.
And I would ask you a similar question: how is anyone supposed to learn how to play when they are never required to learn all the fine-tuning required to make a good list without breaking the rules?
That goes well past wanting to eat, breath, and sleep the game, that kind of play at all costs, mind set is fanatical - likely even psychologically insane.
Yeah, let's just lose all perspective here. I'm sure that "no, you can't have that extra lascannon/squad member/whatever because it puts you over the point limit" is really a case of being insane...
And as I have explained before, Pg 108, allows an overage of a few points, thus it is not cheating to allow someone a minor overage. If you don't agree, take it up with GW for putting it in the BRB.
And as we've explained before, that is commentary, not rules. The fact that GW (probably correctly) states that many people don't care about going a few points over doesn't mean that it isn't against the rules, or that you should deliberately take advantage of that trend and accuse your opponent of WAAC behavior if they don't let you have those extra points.
40 pts was about 10% of the point target for each army, and just slightly less than a 5 man squad of Warriors.
Please don't tell me that no one is ever going to be tabled before turn 3 - even with the revision of the point target by 50 points, by the end of turn 2, I was toast.
During setup, both of my teammates kind of boxed me in the middle, Both the CSM and NID players ( 2 of the 3 experienced players at the game ), rushed across together and took me out. Just as guess, I would say perhaps 1/2 of the entire opposing team, rushed 3 of my Necron squads, while the semi-experienced player played dealt with the totally green player on my team, and remainder of the Nids and CSM's just played a slow holding action against the only experienced player on my team. I kid you not when I say that in that round, each of my models took at least 3 hits each from a minimum of 8 attacks each.
By the start of turn 3, all I had left was 4 models from one squad that I had sent swinging wide to try and support the totally green Tau player that the opposing SM had brought into HtH, and they were sandwiched between the Nid / CSM horde and some of the SM's - I couldn't even move them, as they were pinned between the proverbial 'rock and a hard place'. Quite simply, by the end my second turn, I had ceased to exist as a player, and had become just an observer ( oh ..... loads of fun ).
The rules about WYSIWYG and near parity of each of the lists, was to help the new people, so they wouldn't have to try and remember what each of the weapons across 6 different army's were and didn't have to worry about fine tuning their list to the Nth degree.
There is a very real difference between taking everything you can get, up to the point target ( and then asking for quite a bit more ) and coming up 10 points short and asking to add a single model to a squad - with Necrons the first case would amount to an extra 30 points for a Praetorian and in the second case it would amount to an overage of 3 points for a Warrior and 7 points for an Immortal, and where a single Praetorian could be a game changer, an extra Warrior or Immortal is not even going to be noticed.
As to whether the part on Pg 108 is commentary, there is nothing that I see that says it is not a rule or an exception to a rule.
Chopper Greg wrote: 40 pts was about 10% of the point target for each army, and just slightly less than a 5 man squad of Warriors.
Again, what's your point? A 10% difference shouldn't matter if this is all about being "casual", just play the game. That difference only matters if you start worrying about your chances of winning, which proves what I said originally: this is really about getting extra points to improve your chances of winning.
Please don't tell me that no one is ever going to be tabled before turn 3 - even with the revision of the point target by 50 points, by the end of turn 2, I was toast.
That's not what I said. I said that a 40 point difference isn't an automatic tabling, not that you can never be tabled that fast. If you don't even make it to the third turn there's something a lot bigger than a 40 point difference happening.
During setup, both of my teammates kind of boxed me in the middle, Both the CSM and NID players ( 2 of the 3 experienced players at the game ), rushed across together and took me out.
Oh, I see, so this was a team game, which has nothing to do with the normal rules of the game. Maybe the problem here is playing a 3v3 with the most experienced players on one side and nothing to prevent them from focusing on one player and taking them out ASAP, not whether or not you got a few extra points.
There is a very real difference between taking everything you can get, up to the point target ( and then asking for quite a bit more ) and coming up 10 points short and asking to add a single model to a squad
No there isn't. If you want to add an extra model to a squad then you are taking more than you're allowed to have, and that's cheating. I can't think of any reason why you need that extra model so badly that you have to cheat to get it, and the fact that you even mention it proves that this isn't about "playing casually". If it was you'd just play 10 points short and not having the extra model wouldn't matter.
an extra Warrior or Immortal is not even going to be noticed.
So why is it so important that you have it? This is the fundamental problem here, you keep insisting simultaneously that the extra points are too trivial to matter, but that you also really need them and it's TFG behavior to refuse to let you take them.
As to whether the part on Pg 108 is commentary, there is nothing that I see that says it is not a rule or an exception to a rule.
You can tell it isn't a rule because it says "most people don't care", not "you can exceed the point limit by X amount".
I love how this has devolved into "if you don't let your poor opponent go a few points over what is obviously an arbitrary and silly limit based on a gentleman's agreement, you're a monstrous WAAC player" versus "if you go a single point over our previously agreed limit - THAT WE AGREED TO - you're a liar and a cheat and you might even smash my models."
j31c3n wrote: I love how this has devolved into "if you don't let your poor opponent go a few points over what is obviously an arbitrary and silly limit based on a gentleman's agreement, you're a monstrous WAAC player" versus "if you go a single point over our previously agreed limit - THAT WE AGREED TO - you're a liar and a cheat and you might even smash my models."
I love how you can come into this thread and make such a non-constructive post.
j31c3n wrote: I love how this has devolved into "if you don't let your poor opponent go a few points over what is obviously an arbitrary and silly limit based on a gentleman's agreement, you're a monstrous WAAC player" versus "if you go a single point over our previously agreed limit - THAT WE AGREED TO - you're a liar and a cheat and you might even smash my models."
I love how you can come into this thread and make such a non-constructive post.
Hey, I'm just trying to stay on-topic and in line with the rest of the responses. Each side is accusing the other of being rules-lawyering WAACTFG monsters. There are no constructive posts here.
I am just amazed how games in general can bring out the unreasonable douche in people. You agree on 1500 points, not on 1535 or 1501, it is that easy. You show up at work on time, not 5 minutes late.
You measure your charge range and you don't add an inch so you make your charge. How hard is that stuff?
It is a matter of personal honor. If I agreed upon a limit, I am sticking to the limit. I'm not going to blow up my opponents phone (provided I even have their number) trying to change the game after the original agreement. neither do I want an opponent blowing up my phone saying can we go to 1510?, then an hour later "how bout 1515"?, Then an hour before the game while I'm packing "never mind, im cool with 1505".
With random people you don't know well it is obviously better to just stick to the limit, but with a friend you know well you might as well change the point limit. It was arbitrary number you decided on anyway, there is no reason you cannot decide on another arbitrary number instead if it allows you to field list you actually wanted.
Chopper Greg wrote: Some of it is going to depend on the player who is being asked to do changing and how many points are involved.
For me, if it's just 5-10 points, 5 or 10 minutes should be plenty of time - heck I might even say, "Fine with me, let's start the game".
If it's ~100 points, I would like an hour to think about my options - if it's more than 150 or 200 points, I would like at least a couple of days.
Essentially the more points, the more time.
That being said, I have a buddy that can deal with a 300 point change in about 20-30 minutes, simply because he has been playing for a couple of decades ( and it seams like he lives, eats, and breaths 40K ). Sure, he might spend another 2-3 hours to fine tune his new list, but it's not something he has to do.
This is probably another factor that gave me my opinion - in my group we all seem to have list protocols - we already know what we want to put into a list with almost any given 250 pts increments. Even when caught unexpected, we tend to be able to throw together a reasonable list in under 15 mins.
I realize this won't be the same for everybody, ofc, but that's where my gaming experience has been since 2007.
@EVIL INC Sure that would be annoying, but if you accepted his point proposal, it would still be a perfectly RAW legal game. The dude could even show up at the table, having agreed on the 1505 points on the phone with you not 5 minutes ago AND bring an eldar titan and while saying "yeah, so I know you likely didnt bring 3000 pts, but I did. And this titan is super sweet, can we play escalation instead?" If you were to agree (which you shoulndt imho) it would still be a perfectly legal RAW game (and maybe the last one with that guy).
@Peregrine Sure I could build a list staying on/under the agreed points limit, but if I end up above that limit, even if it was to purely gain an advantage, it would still be a legal game, if the opponent agreed to it. The second he agrees to my 1525 points list (lets say it was 1500 sharp, but in the last minute I decided to give my deffkopta a buzzsaw) my point limit changes to 1525 (as both players agreed on that, even though one of them did it reluctantly ) and I am no longer "above the limit". I could whine all I wanted, like the opponent in the original post, if he sighed and said "yeah, sure you baby go ahead with that buzzsaw" it would be a RAW legal game. As even games with whining WAAC gamers can be legal.
@Tamwulf If you showed up with 3000pts to a 1500 pts game, and I somehow agreed on that, then yes it would be perfectly legal, if I didnt agree on it, then no you couldnt use those extra 1500. Bad sportsmanship? doesnt prevent the game from being legal, neither would it, if I had a horrible body odour and you couldnt concentrate on your strategy.
My understanding of the rules:
If on the other hand, both players had agreed on 1500 points, and I got turned down on my extra Buzzsaw, I wouldnt be allowed to take it.
Nor would the game be legal if we had agreed on 1500, but I neglect to inform and ask for acceptance of playing a list above 1500. Be it 1501 or 1525.
Ps: I dont condone that tactic myself, but this is YMDC and we are discussing the legality of "going over the agreed point limit" and I say yes you can, if opponent agrees
What I want to know is: How is it that people can take the time to surf a game's forum, keep up with an 8 page thread, pick out quotes that they'd like to rebut from multiple posts, but can't find the time to build a list that adhere's to a point limit?
Pg. 108 of the BRB says you are wrong. Overage of a few points is allowable - it might not be desirable, but it's not precluded.
If you don't like it, take the issue up with GW for the way they print and edit their books.
I have page 108 open in front of me right now. at no point on there does it say that you are free to break the rules by agreeing with your opponent on a points level and then showing up with an illegal army whose points are as far above as you like.
As a matter of fact, it is VERY specific in saying that the points value is the "Maximum" you may spend. So I call BS on your statement. And dont givie us the malarky about some aside commentary from an editor that have no bearing on the actual rules in order to fill up page space as it has no bearing. Cite something inthe ACTUAL rules making your point. We have.
Of course, if YOU dont like it, you are free to take up the issue with GW in the way they write the rules. You also have yet to tell us why you are fighting SO hard to justify breaking the rules ad cheating and why you think actually following the rules is such a bad thing to do.
I find it hilarious how boldface hypocritical people who are defending their points over advantage are...
*Points over is 'minimal impact' but 'points under' is the fine line between life and being tabled.
*They are 'casual' but take hours to compile a list and modifying that list takes even more hours.
*They seem to play nothing but unoptimized 500 point fictional games to justify thier going over in real games which are 1500+ where this idea of 'I can't take anything smaller' doesn't apply.
*They choose one line out of context to follow but ignore the line right next to it.
*The goalposts move constantly... Some are trying to defend a 100 point advantage, and then it shrinks down to 1 point as they get called out, and then they move the goal posts again because they apparently play a codex which has a 41 point model as the minimum troop so removing a single model means they go from 1 point over to 40 points under.
If it is 'so minor' then why go over? If it is a drastic disadvantage to have a point disparity, then how does your opponent feel when you show up and say 'yeah, too bad, I went over... you are a TFG if you question it.'
Which is it?
*Not a Big deal: So being under by a few points is not a big deal.
*It is unfair to have a point disparity: so going over the point limit is unfair to your opponent.
Can't have it both ways and only be 'unfair' when you are under the limit but ok when you are over. That is 'baby tantrum on the ground' levels of absurdity.
nkelsch wrote: I find it hilarious how boldface hypocritical people who are defending their points over advantage are...
*Points over is 'minimal impact' but 'points under' is the fine line between life and being tabled.
No. Part of the argument is whether it is acceptable to be over. One side claims it is WAAC cheating, the other claims that it is not. nobody has been going so far as that yet.
*They are 'casual' but take hours to compile a list and modifying that list takes even more hours.
Where did you get this from?
*They seem to play nothing but unoptimized 500 point fictional games to justify thier going over in real games which are 1500+ where this idea of 'I can't take anything smaller' doesn't apply.
I used a 500 point game as an example, because it's awkward to construct a 1500 point list that gets my point across. Low point games are also where a single point matters more, as it's 1/500th of the limit, rather than 1/1500th of the limit. So, really, the 500 point examples are more efficient.
*They choose one line out of context to follow but ignore the line right next to it.
The sidee that argues that the points limit is acceptable has recognized the entire entry, and has not been going out of context. Rather, that side has been taking even more things into account, such as GW's publicized attitude towards how they believe 40k should be played.
*The goalposts move constantly... Some are trying to defend a 100 point advantage, and then it shrinks down to 1 point as they get called out, and then they move the goal posts again because they apparently play a codex which has a 41 point model as the minimum troop so removing a single model means they go from 1 point over to 40 points under.
Lol nope. The original argument was for a 35 pts overage, which most of us held the belief was rather pushing the whole concept of a points leeway. Then when the argument got a bit more intensive, we began arguing over an overage of 1 point, as that is where the crux of the matter lies. One person then extended the reasoning of allowing an overage to say that by our logic, he could bring a 3000 pts army to a 1500 pts game. This was them pretty much shown as not an acceptable overage margin unless the other player decided it would either be fun, or would just double his limit too. The only mention of a 100 points overage was mine, which I was using as an example of how little the points values actually matter.
If it is 'so minor' then why go over? If it is a drastic disadvantage to have a point disparity, then how does your opponent feel when you show up and say 'yeah, too bad, I went over... you are a TFG if you question it.'Because, like in my "Example 1", sometimes you're just stuck with it. Especially when there are WYSIWYG enforcements. I and a few others, I'm sure, would much rather allow a small overage than having to play a proxy/counts-as army.
Which is it?
*Not a Big deal: So being under by a few points is not a big deal.
*It is unfair to have a point disparity: so going over the point limit is unfair to your opponent.
Both. These points are not mutually exclusive. The main argument, however, seems to have evolved into "It is never socially acceptable to bring an overage" vs "It is acceptable, as long as either there is an agreement, or there is a concession to the other player."
Can't have it both ways and only be 'unfair' when you are under the limit but ok when you are over. That is 'baby tantrum on the ground' levels of absurdity.
Le wut?
But isn't the problem here not that the two agreed to change the pts by consent but what actually happened to the OP was that some guy spends way* over his allocated points valuie AND then gets upset when asked not to - not consent just someone trying to cheat it seems to me.
I thnk the natural assumption - as we play at our club, is that you set a points value and abide by it - you might say do you mind if I go a point over but there should be no pressure for the other person to say yes as seems to be the case here.
Mr Morden wrote: But isn't the problem here not that the two agreed to change the pts by consent but what actually happened to the OP was that some guy spends way* over his allocated points valuie AND then gets upset when asked not to - not consent just someone trying to cheat it seems to me.
I thnk the natural assumption - as we play at our club, is that you set a points value and abide by it - you might say do you mind if I go a point over but there should be no pressure for the other person to say yes as seems to be the case here.
* and i am sorry but 35 points over is huge,
Well, the original argument was that, yes. Really, anyone who ends up with being 35 points over and then isn't willing to allow any adaption one way or another probably is trying to cheat.
Around where I am, the points limit is taken as a goal, rather than a maximum as we don't see any fairness in one army being a good number of points over the other. We aim to get as close to it as we can with the models we have, so we'll see games of:
1497 vs 1502
1500 vs 1503
1510 vs 1511
And we never really see it as a big deal as long as both sides state their points total, and allow a few minutes for last minute list edits. So hardly cheating there.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
rigeld2 wrote: It seems like the "it's okay" side are treating the point value for a game as "the minimum" instead of "the maximum".
What? No.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I like this quote from another thread:
MadmanMSU wrote: As far as I can tell, GW are actively trying to create a system that does not use rules. Like, at all. We're moving closer and closer to a hardcore RPG game every edition. Armies? Pah, use Allies and mix-n-match everything. FOC? Merely a suggestion. Forging a narrative is more important!
The rules are a framework for a mutually enjoyable game rather than an absolute - that's been the case for a long time, it's nothing new.
And we never really see it as a big deal as long as both sides state their points total, and allow a few minutes for last minute list edits. So hardly cheating there.
And if you say "Hi, I have 1510 points" and your opponent is "I have 1497 because I followed the rules and would rather you not exceed the point limit"
Any response other than "ok, not a problem, I will reduce my list immediately." is cheating. If you try to argue, quanitfy, jjustify, brow-beat, complain, anything to defend your advantage and why rules do not or should not apply to you, then you are cheating.
If it is not a big deal, why not simply follow the rules? If it is a big deal, then why do you deserve a 10 point advantage?
I have never cared for a handful of points, say up to 5. More than that and it's a bit much but if you are at let's say 1502 points, it's not a big deal to me. If it's something you can easily drop to get at or below the points value then do that (e.g drop melta bombs from a character) but if you can't easily drop something and are a handful of points over, no biggie IMO.
And we never really see it as a big deal as long as both sides state their points total, and allow a few minutes for last minute list edits. So hardly cheating there.
And if you say "Hi, I have 1510 points" and your opponent is "I have 1497 because I followed the rules and would rather you not exceed the point limit"
Any response other than "ok, not a problem, I will reduce my list immediately." is cheating. If you try to argue, quanitfy, jjustify, brow-beat, complain, anything to defend your advantage and why rules do not or should not apply to you, then you are cheating.
If it is not a big deal, why not simply follow the rules? If it is a big deal, then why do you deserve a 10 point advantage?
Selym wrote: and allow a few minutes for last minute list edits.
WayneTheGame wrote: I have never cared for a handful of points, say up to 5. More than that and it's a bit much but if you are at let's say 1502 points, it's not a big deal to me. If it's something you can easily drop to get at or below the points value then do that (e.g drop melta bombs from a character) but if you can't easily drop something and are a handful of points over, no biggie IMO.
There is a difference between:
"I don't care if opponents <X>" and "Opponents shouldn't care and allow me to <X>"
One is you allowing someone to do something, the other is burdening and demanding that they let you do something. At all times, to be a good sport, you should try to hold yourself within the rules. If you are constantly demanding exceptions or placing burdens on your opponents, then you will find you are someone people do not wish to play against. 100% of the games I play, I will never be the burden. If I choose to let my opponent burden me, so be it, but it is my choice, if I do not agree to the burden, it is the person asking for the exception or placing the burden who is the root of the issue.
WayneTheGame wrote: I have never cared for a handful of points, say up to 5. More than that and it's a bit much but if you are at let's say 1502 points, it's not a big deal to me. If it's something you can easily drop to get at or below the points value then do that (e.g drop melta bombs from a character) but if you can't easily drop something and are a handful of points over, no biggie IMO.
There is a difference between:
"I don't care if opponents <X>" and "Opponents shouldn't care and allow me to <X>"
One is you allowing someone to do something, the other is burdening and demanding that they let you do something. At all times, to be a good sport, you should try to hold yourself within the rules. If you are constantly demanding exceptions or placing burdens on your opponents, then you will find you are someone people do not wish to play against. 100% of the games I play, I will never be the burden. If I choose to let my opponent burden me, so be it, but it is my choice, if I do not agree to the burden, it is the person asking for the exception or placing the burden who is the root of the issue.
The thing that WayneTheGame proves, however is that it is not always seen as a "burden" by other players.
"I don't care if opponents <X>" and "Opponents shouldn't care and allow me to <X>"
True.
One is you allowing someone to do something, the other is burdening and demanding that they let you do something. At all times, to be a good sport, you should try to hold yourself within the rules. If you are constantly demanding exceptions or placing burdens on your opponents, then you will find you are someone people do not wish to play against. 100% of the games I play, I will never be the burden. If I choose to let my opponent burden me, so be it, but it is my choice, if I do not agree to the burden, it is the person asking for the exception or placing the burden who is the root of the issue.
Agreed, however, many people really don't see the opponent being few points over as a burden and that's really what we are discussing here. I'm pretty sure that last time I went over the limit was when 3rd edition was current, so it is not like I have a habit of doing it. I just don't understand why some people are so adamant about it. If a friend said "Sorry, I made the list in hurry and it's two points over, do you mind?" I cannot fathom the sort of mentality that would find that insulting or to be any kind of a burden.
"I don't care if opponents <X>" and "Opponents shouldn't care and allow me to <X>"
True.
One is you allowing someone to do something, the other is burdening and demanding that they let you do something. At all times, to be a good sport, you should try to hold yourself within the rules. If you are constantly demanding exceptions or placing burdens on your opponents, then you will find you are someone people do not wish to play against. 100% of the games I play, I will never be the burden. If I choose to let my opponent burden me, so be it, but it is my choice, if I do not agree to the burden, it is the person asking for the exception or placing the burden who is the root of the issue.
Agreed, however, many people really don't see the opponent being few points over as a burden and that's really what we are discussing here. I'm pretty sure that last time I went over the limit was when 3rd edition was current, so it is not like I have a habit of doing it. I just don't understand why some people are so adamant about it. If a friend said "Sorry, I made the list in hurry and it's two points over, do you mind?" I cannot fathom the sort of mentality that would find that insulting or to be any kind of a burden.
The thing that WayneTheGame proves, however is that it is not always seen as a "burden" by other players.
But you don't get to decide if it is a burden or not. Same with Proxies, paper stand-ins, coke-can carnifex. You may not mind but you don't get to decide for opponents. You come to a game unprepared and can ask for an exception but should not get angry or demand your opponent do anything if they do not agree.
If you never want to have an issue, follow the rules, never ask for exceptions, never burden opponents. Don't insult, berate and trivialize them in order to secure your advantage at their expense.
The thing that WayneTheGame proves, however is that it is not always seen as a "burden" by other players.
But you don't get to decide if it is a burden or not. Same with Proxies, paper stand-ins, coke-can carnifex. You may not mind but you don't get to decide for opponents. You come to a game unprepared and can ask for an exception but should not get angry or demand your opponent do anything if they do not agree.
If you never want to have an issue, follow the rules, never ask for exceptions, never burden opponents. Don't insult, berate and trivialize them in order to secure your advantage at their expense.
What advantage am I getting if I hold this opinion true for all players, not just myself?
I don't build lists with an intentional overage, I build lists in an attempt to get to the limit. If a rushed attempt happens to go over by a few, what does it matter?
The thing that WayneTheGame proves, however is that it is not always seen as a "burden" by other players.
But you don't get to decide if it is a burden or not. Same with Proxies, paper stand-ins, coke-can carnifex. You may not mind but you don't get to decide for opponents. You come to a game unprepared and can ask for an exception but should not get angry or demand your opponent do anything if they do not agree.
If you never want to have an issue, follow the rules, never ask for exceptions, never burden opponents. Don't insult, berate and trivialize them in order to secure your advantage at their expense.
What advantage am I getting if I hold this opinion true for all players, not just myself?
I don't build lists with an intentional overage, I build lists in an attempt to get to the limit. If a rushed attempt happens to go over by a few, what does it matter?
If it doesn't matter, then why not drop something to be within the limit?
Just because you will allow everyone to go over doesn't mean that view is supported by everyone, and it shows that the game will be fraught with peril as you are someone who doesn't follow rules you don't like or you apply rules loosely for personal advantage, that says a lot about you. If you were a few points over and playing Necron air, I can almost guarantee we would be heading for a liberally applied vertical arc of fire with the argument of 'why does it matter? it is not a big deal'?
If it doesn't matter... why not follow the rules?
From what you have posted, this is how playing a game with you would go down:
You: "Sorry, I am 10 points over, that is not a big deal right?"
me: "Sorry, I would rather play with the point limit agreed upon."
You: "I can't drop anything! It would take 45 minutes to figure out what to do! It was an accident, How can you not agree? Everyone I ever playw ith knows it is not a big deal.
me: "Ok, then my list is 1498, I am going to add 5 more grots to this unit so my list totals 1513, No big deal?"
You: "You did that on purpose which makes it unacceptable, I did it by accident so I deserve my 10 points. You should play with your 1498 and just accept it is not a big deal."
The thing that WayneTheGame proves, however is that it is not always seen as a "burden" by other players.
But you don't get to decide if it is a burden or not. Same with Proxies, paper stand-ins, coke-can carnifex. You may not mind but you don't get to decide for opponents. You come to a game unprepared and can ask for an exception but should not get angry or demand your opponent do anything if they do not agree.
If you never want to have an issue, follow the rules, never ask for exceptions, never burden opponents. Don't insult, berate and trivialize them in order to secure your advantage at their expense.
What advantage am I getting if I hold this opinion true for all players, not just myself?
I don't build lists with an intentional overage, I build lists in an attempt to get to the limit. If a rushed attempt happens to go over by a few, what does it matter?
If it doesn't matter, then why not drop something to be within the limit?
Just because you will allow everyone to go over doesn't mean that view is supported by everyone, and it shows that the game will be fraught with peril as you are someone who doesn't follow rules you don't like or you apply rules loosely for personal advantage, that says a lot about you. If you were a few points over and playing Necron air, I can almost guarantee we would be heading for a liberally applied vertical arc of fire with the argument of 'why does it matter? it is not a big deal'?
If it doesn't matter... why not follow the rules?
From what you have posted, this is how playing a game with you would go down:
You: "Sorry, I am 10 points over, that is not a big deal right?"
me: "Sorry, I would rather play with the point limit agreed upon."
You: "I can't drop anything! It would take 45 minutes to figure out what to do! It was an accident, How can you not agree? Everyone I ever playw ith knows it is not a big deal.
me: "Ok, then my list is 1498, I am going to add 5 more grots to this unit so my list totals 1513, No big deal?"
You: "You did that on purpose which makes it unacceptable, I did it by accident so I deserve my 10 points. You should play with your 1498 and just accept it is not a big deal."
That is nowhere near my attitude.
I'm arguing for the sake of the attitude, not the conceived advantage.
How on earth would my posts make you think that that is how I would act?
Let's review, shall we?
Being slightly over the point limit in no way ever means that that player is "WAAC" or "TFG" or "cheating". I and my regular opponents often play matches where one player or another is over the limit, and we've never had a problem.
There are, however, times where someone has intentionally gone over the limit, such as finding his army at the 1500 level, and then adding in a CSM unit for +75 pts. That is cheating. But being 12 pts under, and then adding a 13 point CSM model is notTFG/WAAC/Cheating behaviour. If anything, it adds to the balance.
Mr Morden wrote: I assume no one going over has a problem with their opponent taking a few minutes to add the same to their list if they agree?
No problem at all.
I'd even have no problem with them being allowed a number of points over my list that I had over the initial limit.
So if the game was at 1500 pts, and I took 1505, I'd happily allow my opponent to take 1510 pts.
Yup. I'm definitely a WAACTFG Cheater.
.
Crimson wrote: I just don't understand why some people are so adamant about it. If a friend said "Sorry, I made the list in hurry and it's two points over, do you mind?" I cannot fathom the sort of mentality that would find that insulting or to be any kind of a burden.
Crimson wrote: If a friend said "Sorry, I made the list in hurry and it's two points over, do you mind?" I cannot fathom the sort of mentality that would find that insulting or to be any kind of a burden.
99% of this is about scheduled games. Making a list in a hurry isn't an excuse when you knew in advance what the limit was.
Yes, I mind. I might allow to get the game going, but that doesn't mean it's okay. It's rude to agree to something in advance, then procrastinate until you have to "make the list in a hurry" and then beg for exceptions to what you agreed to.
I can't fathom the sort if mentality that finds that okay.
Your friends birthday party. You put off buying a gift or card until you're on the way there. Because of that you can't wrap the gift. It's "okay" to just show up and hand him the unwrapped gift (with the price tag still on it) because you were in a hurry?
Your friends birthday party. You put off buying a gift or card until you're on the way there. Because of that you can't wrap the gift. It's "okay" to just show up and hand him the unwrapped gift (with the price tag still on it) because you were in a hurry?
Yes it absolutely is! Sometimes people actually have more important stuff to do than micromanage warhammer lists or wrap gifts, and I can respect that.
Crimson wrote: If a friend said "Sorry, I made the list in hurry and it's two points over, do you mind?" I cannot fathom the sort of mentality that would find that insulting or to be any kind of a burden.
99% of this is about scheduled games.
I was under the impression it was both.
What with GW store games being debated 'n' all...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
rigeld2 wrote: Your friends birthday party. You put off buying a gift or card until you're on the way there. Because of that you can't wrap the gift. It's "okay" to just show up and hand him the unwrapped gift (with the price tag still on it) because you were in a hurry?
Yes. Happened to me plenty of times.
And on that subject, these things are a privilege not a right. (Presents and points limits). Just be thankful that either exist at all.
Your friends birthday party. You put off buying a gift or card until you're on the way there. Because of that you can't wrap the gift. It's "okay" to just show up and hand him the unwrapped gift (with the price tag still on it) because you were in a hurry?
Yes it absolutely is! Sometimes people actually have more important stuff to do than micromanage warhammer lists or wrap gifts, and I can respect that.
Crimson wrote: If a friend said "Sorry, I made the list in hurry and it's two points over, do you mind?" I cannot fathom the sort of mentality that would find that insulting or to be any kind of a burden.
99% of this is about scheduled games.
I was under the impression it was both.
What with GW store games being debated 'n' all...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
rigeld2 wrote: Your friends birthday party. You put off buying a gift or card until you're on the way there. Because of that you can't wrap the gift. It's "okay" to just show up and hand him the unwrapped gift (with the price tag still on it) because you were in a hurry?
Yes. Happened to me plenty of times.
It's happened to you plenty of times that you failed to prepare for something you knew about well in advance and you expected - or demanded - for the person you made plans with to just be okay with your procrastination?
You don't consider that rude?
I'm not asking to be insulting - did you also do a lot of last minute papers in school?
Yes, I mind. I might allow to get the game going, but that doesn't mean it's okay. It's rude to agree to something in advance, then procrastinate until you have to "make the list in a hurry" and then beg for exceptions to what you agreed to.
I can't fathom the sort if mentality that finds that okay.
A selfish mentality which doesn't think about how their actions impact others (or doesn't care). It shows a general lack of respect to opponents and exposes an attitude which will probably mean an unenjoyable game fraught with issues.
And on that subject, these things are a privilege not a right. (Presents and points limits). Just be thankful that either exist at all.
Yes, they're a privilege. (Although points would be debated) a privilege that carries certain social obligations - that if you know about something in advance, you prepare yourself for it.
And on that subject, these things are a privilege not a right. (Presents and points limits). Just be thankful that either exist at all.
Yes, they're a privilege. (Although points would be debated) a privilege that carries certain social obligations - that if you know about something in advance, you prepare yourself for it.
Ha... So for the privilege of playing a game of 40k with some people, I am obligated to let them bend or break rules or be unprepared out of gratitude that I get the privilege of playing them?
That is a new one.
I agree with you Rigeld2, this is about not being a rude ass and showing respect to opponents by being prepared. Not having to ask to use an illegal list is the best thing you can do.
It's happened to you plenty of times that you failed to prepare for something you knew about well in advance and you expected - or demanded - for the person you made plans with to just be okay with your procrastination?
You don't consider that rude?
I'm not asking to be insulting - did you also do a lot of last minute papers in school?
I have never demanded anything of the other player. That is an assumption you have made yourself,
And yes, I've had some preparation failures, as have you, most probably.
By "Happened to me" I meant receiving a last minute gift. The way you're reacting makes it seem like you're the kind of person who would receive such a gift, and then get angry at the giver for not having had the time to get you a better one.
And on that subject, these things are a privilege not a right. (Presents and points limits). Just be thankful that either exist at all.
Yes, they're a privilege. (Although points would be debated) a privilege that carries certain social obligations - that if you know about something in advance, you prepare yourself for it.
Actually, privileges rarely need to have social implications. There are entire religions that do not give presents on birthdays. Even I find the concept of a birthday somewhat strange.
And not everybody can be bothered to waste all day trying to perfect a list. You're lucky I even bothered to think one up for a game at all, let alone one which is at or below the limit.
We still have the people who are all for ignoring points limits virtually fighting to the death to defend their right to break the rules clutching desperately at every straw the strawman has in his body and every excuse and justification they can possibly manufacture to tell use why it is such a good thing to ignore the limits and actual rules in the rulebook.
Yet every time, they are confronted with the simple question of why they are so adamant that following the rules, treating the other player with respect and following the spirit of the game is a bad thing (especially when following the rules is actually easier), they gloss over that question. I wonder why that is? Hmmmmmmm.
I think the difference as I said is how many points and what you can drop to get under. In all my prior years playing Fantasy and 40k I only had one person who was an ass about points even 1 or 2 points over, and they weren't a good person to play against anyways and would cheese everything they could.
WayneTheGame wrote: I think the difference as I said is how many points and what you can drop to get under. In all my prior years playing Fantasy and 40k I only had one person who was an ass about points even 1 or 2 points over, and they weren't a good person to play against anyways and would cheese everything they could.
Sounds like anything but complete and unquestioning 'acceptance' of your going over is going to be labeled 'an ass' by you. And tolerance of it doesn't mean people are happy or accepting of it. And how many of those people walked away and said 'That person was an ass for asking to go over the limit and wasn't a good person to play against and was cheesing everything they could'.
Boils down to 'if I don't get my way, you are TFG.'
it is much more reasonable to just follow the rules and not burden your opponent or start off a social event with a rude action from the get go.
I'm amazed such a simple topic like this creates such controversy for some people.
I don't play tournaments, but our group of friends has always had a longstanding rule about point values which has always worked for us in the past.
If your point value is over the point limit by more than the cost of one of the basic troops in your army, you need to trim it down until it's no longer above that level.
So for example, with Orks your basic Ork is 6 points. If I'm running at 1510, I can take an Ork away from that, and trim it down to 1504, which would be acceptable. If I'm playing Space Marines, your basic Space Marine is 14 points. So you can keep your 1510. Even at 1510 though, usually someone in our group of friends would remove a piece of wargear or something to bring it back down to 1500.
Obviously we're all buddies and we don't use this to exploit each other.
Murrdox wrote: I'm amazed such a simple topic like this creates such controversy for some people.
I don't play tournaments, but our group of friends has always had a longstanding rule about point values which has always worked for us in the past.
If your point value is over the point limit by more than the cost of one of the basic troops in your army, you need to trim it down until it's no longer above that level.
So for example, with Orks your basic Ork is 6 points. If I'm running at 1510, I can take an Ork away from that, and trim it down to 1504, which would be acceptable. If I'm playing Space Marines, your basic Space Marine is 14 points. So you can keep your 1510. Even at 1510 though, usually someone in our group of friends would remove a piece of wargear or something to bring it back down to 1500.
Obviously we're all buddies and we don't use this to exploit each other.
Thats perfectly fine. Your small tight knit group has that arrangement as part of your normal game set up. Where it is understood and agreed upon by all members equally. Now, we have the others here who are not proposing any sort of premade agreements such as that where they feel the desire to go to any game, anywhere, at any time as far above the points level as they please and coerce the opponents, TO, whoever, to let them.
I am sure, that when you or other members of your group go outside of the group to play strangers or participate in a tourney, you are much more careful and just stick to te agreed upon (or tourney mandated) limit to begin with. The others here feel that it is somehow a BAD thing to follow the rules and that allowing them to break them is somehow mandated as a requirement to play the game.
Pretty much. If I showed up to a friendly game at a FLGS and the guy I was playing had 1520 or even 1515, I'd sort of raise an eyebrow and casually suggest that he remove a piece of wargear from something, unless I was already planning on asking permission to run a 1510 list or something like that.
Farseer Pef wrote: I believe this belongs in YMDC. This is a HYWPI question.
The scenario: About to play a 1500 point game with a friend. He says his list is 1535 points. I ask him to trim it down a bit since 35 points over can be a few models. He gets upset by this.
The question: What sort of overspending limits do you play with? How would you handle it if your opponent was over or asked you to trim your list? Being that I have no tournament experience, how do tournaments handle it?
Appreciate any feedback (and hope it remains civil ).
35 points is WAY over the limit of your agreed to points. I generally always try to keep my list as close to the agreed point value as possible.
For me, personally, if it is within 10 points or so i'm ok with it. But damn, 35 points is WAY too much. I agree with most saying that you can just upgrade your list to that level, or ask him to trim. Whatever works for you and your opponent that limits drama and gets the game started. Still, it's bad manners to do that to agreed to points. 35 points is not a small discrepancy. It's something they wanted to fit in and didn't bother to make the cuts needed. 35 points for me (Tau) is a M3S and a CnC (ignore cover and re-roll misses). An almost extra piranha. ten points shy of Longstrike. 3 extra drones, 4 firewarriors, 7 kroot...you get the idea.
Selym wrote: And not everybody can be bothered to waste all day trying to perfect a list.
So? We're asking for a legal list, not a perfect list. And unless you're going to abandon the whole "it's just casual and I can't bother to make a perfect list" thing making a legal list shouldn't take any longer than making an illegal list. It only takes more time if you care so much about winning that you need a perfect optimized legal list and won't cut anything that hurts your chances of winning.
You're lucky I even bothered to think one up for a game at all, let alone one which is at or below the limit.
Seriously? You really expect your opponents to be so thankful for the chance to play you (a privilege of rather questionable value given your attitude here) that they should let you cheat just to keep you happy? What's next, insisting that you get to re-roll failed armor saves because your opponent should be thankful that you bothered to roll those saves at all?
If your opponent is struggling to make a list, or is bad with math and or numbers, a really handy list builder called "Battlescribe" is a pretty much must have for list making. I use it on my computer and iphone to come up with lists on the daily. It's extremely handy. It even has a print out feature so you can print out the list + any relevant rules and where to find them in the BRB!
I play Dark Angels. I play mostly Ravenwing when I want to win, because I feel like it's our best option. However, someone at GW is bad at math and made it more expensive to add 3 bikers to a squad than to simply take another squad of 3 guys.
Frequently, my lists come out to "1501" or "1752", or basically lots of things with 1 or 2 at the end depending on how many complete ravenwing squads I field. If there was no Force Organization limit, or I wasn't forced into bringing 3 extra dudes in order to also bring a landspeeder with them, this wouldn't really be an issue as I'd just jam dudes into another troops slot, but it frequently ends up being a limiting factor.
So, I always tell people this before the game. I've had some that won't let me do it, but the vast majority of people are totally okay with that one or two extra points floating around because I'm able to explain where it comes from and why it exists.
Because of this, my friends I play with and I have basically made it a hard rule you have 4 floating points over in any given list, because the only way you're going to be over by less than 5 is due to someone at GW sucking at math. The reason we don't go 5 or more beyond is because that's always another melta bomb. It's another potential piece of wargear, which is always potentially game-changing.
SRSFACE wrote: Frequently, my lists come out to "1501" or "1752", or basically lots of things with 1 or 2 at the end depending on how many complete ravenwing squads I field. If there was no Force Organization limit, or I wasn't forced into bringing 3 extra dudes in order to also bring a landspeeder with them, this wouldn't really be an issue as I'd just jam dudes into another troops slot, but it frequently ends up being a limiting factor.
How is this any different than my list being 70 points over because I wanted to take six melta guns (instead of just three) in my IG veteran squad and the only way to do it was to add a whole additional veteran squad? Or being 5 points over because my plasma gun costs 5 points more than it should in my opinion? The fact that everything doesn't cost exactly what you want it to for your perfect list doesn't mean you get to cheat to bring that perfect list anyway.
And the simple fact here is that you could just as easily play 1496 or 1747 point lists by dropping a 5-point upgrade somewhere else to make your bikes work.
Because of this, my friends I play with and I have basically made it a hard rule you have 4 floating points over in any given list, because the only way you're going to be over by less than 5 is due to someone at GW sucking at math.
Since when is "my upgrades aren't all done in 5-point increments" the same as "GW sucking at math". If an upgrade is worth 4 points, costs 4 points, and you only take one of them (and no other "uneven" upgrades) then yes, your list will not get exactly to an "even" point limit. But I fail to see how this is a case of GW sucking at math, or why you should be allowed to cheat just to take all of the upgrades you want to take.
Thanks for being TFG and calling me a cheater, Peregrine. Welcome to my ignore list. I didn't think I'd have to add someone to it this fast, but I guess the internet never ceases to amaze me.
Last I checked, this was a "What would you do?" style thread, and I simply offered my 2 cents about how we handle it in my area. There's no reason to be a dick about it.
The reason I say "GW sucks at math" is because it's not an upgrade I'm talking about. Upgrades are one thing, spending points on men is another. If 3 bikers costs 80 points, another 3 bikers should cost 80 points, not 81 points. If they wanted every last biker to be 27 points, make the initial cost of the squad 81 points. I would have no problem with that. Disagree if you want. That's fine. However, I have only ever presented this as a personal How-I-Think-It-Should-Be thought process.
I also said I always check with my opponent first. Always. Without question. Even a single point, I am not going to cheat the guy I'm playing of out of the knowledge that's the case because that's rude and unsporting. If my opponent has an issue with it, I will straight up remove an entire Land Speeder or something if I have to and just totally gimp myself out of a sizable chunk of points, because I'm generally pretty easy going.
I will also add I'd never deem to bring up this point of view in a tournament setting. Our little store had an 1850 tournament a couple of months ago and because I kept running into the issue of my biker units throwing off my unit making so I ended up just making a different list out-right.
But seriously, though, you should be ashamed of yourself for calling me a cheater for presenting a point of view you disagree with. Seriously, dude. That is shameful. Grow up.
SRSFACE wrote: If they wanted every last biker to be 27 points, make the initial cost of the squad 81 points. I would have no problem with that.
So let me get this straight: GW lowered the price on the initial squad from 81 points to 80 points, and because the initial squad is cheaper you need extra points to make up for it? That doesn't make any sense at all. There's no connection between having a cheaper initial squad and having to play 1501 points in a 1500 point game.
I also said I always check with my opponent first.
The problem is that this "checking" often goes along with an assumption that you're being rude if you "take the game too seriously" and force your opponent to change their list. And so people who don't really like the idea of the extra points will agree to it just to avoid having an awkward confrontation. What you should be doing if you consider yourself a fair player with good sportsmanship is just building a legal list and avoiding the issue entirely.
But seriously, though, you should be ashamed of yourself for calling me a cheater for presenting a point of view you disagree with.
Sorry, but that's just how it is. Playing a 1501 point list in a 1500 point game is cheating, just like moving your models an extra 1" to get them into range.
I am just going to post this here, from the sticky thread:
"5. Stick to discussing the rules, not the poster. Phrases like "Rules Lawyer", "Cheater" and "TFG" have no place in rules discussions. Don't depart from rules discussions by attaching value judgments to different interpretations. "
I did wrong by responding the way I did earlier, but in my own defense, I was called a cheater first, simply for offering my opinion on the topic at hand.
And now to not forget to click the ignore button before logging off. Because just wow. At least I know DakkaDakka is a place where you're not allowed to have opinions without being called a cheat. Thanks for letting a new guy know that sooner rather than later.
I'm just going to post this here, from a PM titled "you are literally the worst kind of person" sent to me by SRSFACE, just in case anyone was tempted to have sympathy for them:
People like you are why the hobby is dying. How dare you attack me. How fething dare you.
So, apparently expecting people to follow the rules is TFG behavior, but sending someone a PM full of verbal abuse is just polite discussion.
As for this:
At least I know DakkaDakka is a place where you're not allowed to have opinions without being called a cheat.
Nobody called anyone a cheat for having an opinion. Having an opinion is not the same thing as taking a 1501 point list in a 1500 point game. One is a personal opinion, the other is a deliberate violation of the rules for personal gain, just like if you moved your models 7" instead of 6" so you could get into shooting range. There's no debate over what the rules say, just the simple act of violating them.
It's happened to you plenty of times that you failed to prepare for something you knew about well in advance and you expected - or demanded - for the person you made plans with to just be okay with your procrastination?
You don't consider that rude?
I'm not asking to be insulting - did you also do a lot of last minute papers in school?
I have never demanded anything of the other player. That is an assumption you have made yourself,
And yes, I've had some preparation failures, as have you, most probably.
And when I fail to prepare I never expect the person whom I've failed to give me any slack. Ever. Failing to prepare and then having an illegal list is simply rude
By "Happened to me" I meant receiving a last minute gift. The way you're reacting makes it seem like you're the kind of person who would receive such a gift, and then get angry at the giver for not having had the time to get you a better one.
If they actually say "I didn't have time to wrap it." I'd know that was a lie. They had time - they chose to do other things. Simple fact.
At this point, you sound like a TFG.
I'm sorry you think so. There's no reason to think so.
And on that subject, these things are a privilege not a right. (Presents and points limits). Just be thankful that either exist at all.
Yes, they're a privilege. (Although points would be debated) a privilege that carries certain social obligations - that if you know about something in advance, you prepare yourself for it.
Actually, privileges rarely need to have social implications. There are entire religions that do not give presents on birthdays. Even I find the concept of a birthday somewhat strange.
And yet - if you're participating in a custom, you think it's okay for you to do a half ass job because you couldn't be bothered to be polite?
And not everybody can be bothered to waste all day trying to perfect a list. You're lucky I even bothered to think one up for a game at all, let alone one which is at or below the limit.
... The game in which you pre-arranged and I'm lucky you have a list?
And that's a polite statement in your mind?
While I think that going over the limit by few points now and then isn't a big deal, it becomes somewhat less fine if it is the same person constantly doing it, especially with the exact same list. A random list you just made up, or an experimental list with new units you just had no time to polish being few points over? That's fine. A list you've been playing months and it still is over the limit? Not so much.
Peregrine wrote: I'm just going to post this here, from a PM titled "you are literally the worst kind of person" sent to me by SRSFACE, just in case anyone was tempted to have sympathy for them:
People like you are why the hobby is dying. How dare you attack me. How fething dare you.
So, apparently expecting people to follow the rules is TFG behavior, but sending someone a PM full of verbal abuse is just polite discussion.
As for this:
At least I know DakkaDakka is a place where you're not allowed to have opinions without being called a cheat.
Nobody called anyone a cheat for having an opinion. Having an opinion is not the same thing as taking a 1501 point list in a 1500 point game. One is a personal opinion, the other is a deliberate violation of the rules for personal gain, just like if you moved your models 7" instead of 6" so you could get into shooting range. There's no debate over what the rules say, just the simple act of violating them.
... The game in which you pre-arranged and I'm lucky you have a list?
Firstly, I just want to say you make a lot of good points. I just wanted to touch on this one thing.
It might not seem like it to you, but, yes in fact you are lucky the other guy has a list. I read awhile ago a great article about the 3 resources in gaming, in general. It applies to Warhammer, Magic the Gathering, Dota 2, and even sports. I think I actually read it on the Daily MTG blog like a year ago, but I can't seem to track it down so I apologize this will all simply be interpreted through what I took out of it.
The 3 great resources are time, money, and players. It's assume if you're playing 40k, you have the time and money to invest. That means the greatest and most treasured resource we as players have to cultivate in order to keep our particular game of choice alive is other players. The article was relating it all back to Magic the Gathering terms talking about deck types in multiplayer matches, and how building some unbeatable deck for casual play with friends is a great way to kill the desire of anyone from wanting to ever play with you anymore.
It applies double fold into 40k, if you ask me. The monetary investment into the game is pretty steep and keeps the player base relatively low, and the time it takes to assemble and ready an army to bring is also pretty steep, limiting the players even more. Finding people to play against IS the biggest challenge of the hobby, for quite a large number of people. Would you rather simply have no one to play against, or a guy who built a list that's a single point or two over because some of the math in building army lists is wonky?
What people find rude differs from person to person. I personally think it's more rude to flip your lid and call someone a cheater for being a single point over due to bad math at GW than it is for someone to be a little sloppy with list building. If they are notorious for intentionally trying to job people through twisting rules wording to their advantage, then that's one thing, but I guess I'm the type who'd rather give someone the benefit of the doubt.
It is good that you mention players as being one ofthe few commodities needed in order to play 40k.
Just as it might be a great way to lose opponents by "flipping your lid" which actually, not a single person has done in this thread yet on the side of politely asking people to follow the rules.
It is ALSO a great way to lose opponents by not following the rules. There have been a few points brought up throughout, I will remind you of...
1. Different gaming groups come up with house rules to address the issue. These house rules, may be used at a particular shop, but VERY rarely as shops stick to RAW to keep it easier for them and to make playing and buying there more welcoming and easy. The house rules are usually done at "home" in small tight knit gaming groups. Often, these groups will play at a shop and use their house rules when playing each other there as well. This is perfectly ok and not considered cheating as it is an understood addition to the rules that is understood and agreed on by all members beforehand. Some of them I have seen are actually quite good and I will introduce them to my buddies if the need arises. It needs to be remembered that these ARE house rules and are no way enforceable outside of that group as they have no actual basis in the rules themselves.
Where you run into problems with this is is when you play someone outside of that tight knit group or tourney. The outsider will have no knowledge of your groups understanding and will have a lit that is spot on. When you show up 5 or 35 points over because without buying an upgrade you cant get your land speeder you like to use or because you think a plasma gun is more effective than a melta gun or whatever, it is indeed rude to assume that they will be ok with it. You may disagree with me on this but this is something I wont budge on, it IS rude. Telling them to just pop on a few points forces him to just add on some useless upgrade that has no effect on the game at all while your own gives your entire army a whole different dynamic.This does indeed put the other players on the spot where they either let you do it, or just pop on something useless which equates to just letting you do it or ask you to field a legal list (going above the points limit is indeed a form of cheating just as moving your models aboe the movement limit is a form of cheating or putting an extra ace in a deck of cards is a form of cheating), knowing that if they ask you to field a legal list, they will be the ones branded as TFG by the peron who is actually exhibiting the behavior of one. So what you end up with is a "situation" Often the player honestly doesnt care but MUCH more often than you think, they DO care but let you anyway to avoid a hassle. this makes them notwant to play you and you are actually getting rid of the resource known as players for yourself.
2.List building- You know, this is something I actually enjoy doing. Not because I crunch numbers to calculate exact likelihoods of rolling hits and woulnd of units with different weapons and all that crap. I leave the mathhammer to those who cant use tactics and dont want to actually have fun. I'm talking about building lists with themes and using different units that I THINK will dowell or because I think they are cool and so forth. it is something I can do by myself if I ambored
It is also fun to work on this with yourbuddies when you dont have the time or arent playing (being 6'11", sometimes, my back will have me in serious pain after a game and I'm just not up for a 2nd one). You can discuss with them the pros and cons of differet units and how they look together, how particuler models usually fare (I can NEVER kll that vampire, you oughtta make it a special character and name it, as one of my buddies used to tell me in fantasy) and so on and so forth. In this way, you can fill a notebook to the point of bursting with army lists for a variety of points levels where you have all the time in the world with no hurry to finagle to to maximum effectiveness at the exact point limit without going over (this actually helps you become a more effective player as well).. To be honest, this could even give your gaming group a new variation of the game known as surprise. Say for example you have 20 lists made up for 1500 points and your opponent does too, you can stack them on the table and each roll a D20. After seeing the results, you count down sheets till you get to the number and thats the list you use..
3. It boils down to a few things. A. The rules. When playing a stranger, sticking with them just makes it easier. B. the spirit of the game. Knowingly going above the limit is just rude when playing strangers and starts the game off on the wrong foot and can ruin a gaming experience. C. by sticking to the rules and being polite, you are FAR more likely to get a 2nd game from that stranger if the occasion arrises again.
SRSFACE wrote: What people find rude differs from person to person. I personally think it's more rude to flip your lid and call someone a cheater for being a single point over due to bad math at GW...
... The game in which you pre-arranged and I'm lucky you have a list?
Firstly, I just want to say you make a lot of good points. I just wanted to touch on this one thing.
It might not seem like it to you, but, yes in fact you are lucky the other guy has a list. I read awhile ago a great article about the 3 resources in gaming, in general. It applies to Warhammer, Magic the Gathering, Dota 2, and even sports. I think I actually read it on the Daily MTG blog like a year ago, but I can't seem to track it down so I apologize this will all simply be interpreted through what I took out of it.
The 3 great resources are time, money, and players. It's assume if you're playing 40k, you have the time and money to invest. That means the greatest and most treasured resource we as players have to cultivate in order to keep our particular game of choice alive is other players. The article was relating it all back to Magic the Gathering terms talking about deck types in multiplayer matches, and how building some unbeatable deck for casual play with friends is a great way to kill the desire of anyone from wanting to ever play with you anymore.
It applies double fold into 40k, if you ask me. The monetary investment into the game is pretty steep and keeps the player base relatively low, and the time it takes to assemble and ready an army to bring is also pretty steep, limiting the players even more. Finding people to play against IS the biggest challenge of the hobby, for quite a large number of people. Would you rather simply have no one to play against, or a guy who built a list that's a single point or two over because some of the math in building army lists is wonky?
What people find rude differs from person to person. I personally think it's more rude to flip your lid and call someone a cheater for being a single point over due to bad math at GW than it is for someone to be a little sloppy with list building. If they are notorious for intentionally trying to job people through twisting rules wording to their advantage, then that's one thing, but I guess I'm the type who'd rather give someone the benefit of the doubt.
I find myself giving quad exalts to your posts, SRSFACE. Thank you
extra points aren't allowed, simple as. so when we have tournaments we always add 5 points onto our total, i.e. never 1500 but always 1505.
casual
I just stick some extra stuff on if he is over, after all its an agreed points limit so providing both players can reach that limit im fine,
had a chaos player who lacked the correct models to field 1500 point army so played 1363 in a 1505 point tournament, without fail everyone who played him knocked a squad off there list to keep it fair
Bad math at GW? Now I have heard it all. I knew young people today were wordless and never took responsibility for their own actions but "GW is bad at math" is one of the more ignorant, self-serving excuses I have ever heard.
Nothing done by GW and the points they set per unit and weapon option forces you to build an illegal list. To try to justify an advantage and refusal to drop below the legal limit because "gw is bad at math" is patronizing bullcrap.
SRSFACE wrote: Would you rather simply have no one to play against, or a guy who built a list that's a single point or two over because some of the math in building army lists is wonky?
I would rather not play the person who is too lazy to make a legal list for a pre-arranged game, no matter how many people that means I don't play against.
You can apply that to pretty much any situation - if you chose to come to something that you helped in arranging unprepared, that's on you. You should not expect the other person to just be a nice guy about everything. He's politely made sure that he has everything he needs to show up and play, while you - through your choice, remember - have delayed the game for up to an hour (apparently that's how long it takes to make a list) because you couldn't be bothered to make your list beforehand.
And how is it GWs fault that you failed to make a legal list? I'd love to hear this.
SRSFACE wrote: Would you rather simply have no one to play against, or a guy who built a list that's a single point or two over because some of the math in building army lists is wonky?
I would rather not play the person who is too lazy to make a legal list for a pre-arranged game, no matter how many people that means I don't play against.
If that's your stance on this matter, fine. But don't expect other people to have to do as you do. Some of us do not find it particularly bothersome if a player is slightly over the limit, and see no reason to get so worked up about it.
EDIT: And the next time I see someone accusing another of being a "cheat" or "WAAC" or "TFG" just for thinking that a margin of error is acceptable, I'll be clicking that report button.
Selym wrote: If that's your stance on this matter, fine. But don't expect other people to have to do as you do. Some of us do not find it particularly bothersome if a player is slightly over the limit, and see no reason to get so worked up about it.
So no more justification for laziness?
EDIT: And the next time I see someone accusing another of being a "cheat" or "WAAC" or "TFG" just for thinking that a margin of error is acceptable, I'll be clicking that report button.
SRSFACE wrote: I am just going to post this here, from the sticky thread:
"5. Stick to discussing the rules, not the poster. Phrases like "Rules Lawyer", "Cheater" and "TFG" have no place in rules discussions. Don't depart from rules discussions by attaching value judgments to different interpretations. "
I did wrong by responding the way I did earlier, but in my own defense, I was called a cheater first, simply for offering my opinion on the topic at hand.
And now to not forget to click the ignore button before logging off. Because just wow. At least I know DakkaDakka is a place where you're not allowed to have opinions without being called a cheat. Thanks for letting a new guy know that sooner rather than later.
SRSFACE, you need to realize you walked into a thread consisting of 9 pages of bickering, verbal abuse, overly beating a dead horse (on both sides) and basically just playing "ring around the ridiculous." You probably wouldn't have gotten such a harsh criticism of your reply if you'd have thrown those 2cents in on the first page, but at this point, peoples panties are in a BUNCH.
(Also, the ignore button....really??)
Having said all that, if you're telling us that your friends have had to make a special house rule to allow you to do something....anything....maybe you should re-evaluate what it is you're doing. At the very least, you should concede that if house rules are being formed to allow you to do something, you may not be playing by the edicts most others play by.
As for the now 10 pages of what this thread has become. Everyone who keeps saying that they don't have the time, resources, or will to make a list that adhere's to a given point limit: Just stop already. The fact that you're posting on a 40k forum shows us that you're interested enough in the game to take it seriously. Stop telling everyone that legal lists are hard to come by or conceive. It's a ridiculous stance to take when the forum you're debating on has a ARMY LIST section where you could be inspired (or just copy a list completely if you'd like).
Voidwraith wrote: Everyone who keeps saying that they don't have the time, resources, or will to make a list that adhere's to a given point limit: Just stop already. The fact that you're posting on a 40k forum shows us that you're interested enough in the game to take it seriously. Stop telling everyone that legal lists are hard to come by or conceive. It's a ridiculous stance to take when the forum you're debating on has a ARMY LIST section where you could be inspired (or just copy a list completely if you'd like).
Where am I stating that I don't make legal lists?
I know this is a general comment, and not just specific to me, but I'm going to try to get this point across anyway.
At least two of us, including me, are arguing not just to allow us to be a small amount over the limit, but to try to make you lot see reason when it comes to all the other players in 40k who end up with a slightly over pointed list. I'm arguing to try to make you realise that just because a player is slightly over, it does not mean that they are being intentionally rude or cheating, or any of the other accusations your side have made.
You lot are being yourselves rude and unfair on a great many casual players and groups who do not see any reason to get angry over a spare couple of points.
Side 1: It's respectful to come prepared with a legal list.
Side 2: It's not a big deal to have a few points over the list.
Any questions? Since some aren't even debating the other person's points any more in favour of ad hominem personal comments and repetition of the only relevant points which were raised about 9-10 pages ago now.
In short, this is the rule:
Neorealist wrote:from the Size of Game rules on page 108: "...if you decide to play a 2,000-point game, then neither player can spend more than 2,000 points on their army..." that said, it also indicates: "...sometimes it's just impossible to spend every last point. Indeed, to get around this, most players are happy to let their opponent go a few points over the agreed total - after all, a few points here or there are unlikely to upset the battle's course..."
Given the above, GW clearly indicates that you should not go over by a single point, but also recommends not sweating the small stuff because of the often-times awkward point costs associated with certain things.
What this means is to have a legal list you need to play under the points agreed upon: regardless of how awkward you may personally find the point values or how difficult you think it is to create a list on the fly.
That said, it is not worth getting emotionally involved in another players decision to not do so. If you think you will still have fun even with that? play on. If not? don't.
Try to be excellent to each other folks, not snide.
SRSFACE wrote: Would you rather simply have no one to play against, or a guy who built a list that's a single point or two over because some of the math in building army lists is wonky?
I would rather not play the person who is too lazy to make a legal list for a pre-arranged game, no matter how many people that means I don't play against.
If that's your stance on this matter, fine. But don't expect other people to have to do as you do. Some of us do not find it particularly bothersome if a player is slightly over the limit, and see no reason to get so worked up about it. "But don't expect other people to have to do as you do", Likewise, if your tight close knit group allows whatever points overages you like you games within that circle, dont expect total strangers to do as you do. Give them the same respect and show up to play them with a legal list. it is actually easier to do this.
EDIT: And the next time I see someone accusing another of being a "cheat" or "WAAC" or "TFG" just for thinking that a margin of error is acceptable, I'll be clicking that report button You will notice that many of us do not actually call the other person TFG, we say it is the behavior is a TFG, saying someone is cheating is not calling someone a cheater and WAAC is an attitude to call someone a WAAC does not eve make sense. To say they are a WAAC player is different from saying they are acting like a WAAC player or behavior of a person. addressing these behaviors is not insulting it is pointing out an issue. Now, if we were to say the words 'you are a cheater, you are TFG, THEN it may actually be a direct insult and thus report-able. These are VERY important things to know when addressing such things. That is why we have not clicked the report button on you for doing the exact same thing you are threatening to report others for. you have not come right out and called us those names. You might also note a slight difference here in something else.. Look at the top of this post where i agreed with you 100%. That was a direct insult directed at a specific peron. It was calling that person in particular that To make a generalization of lets say for example...... "Someone who is going above the limits is a cheater" (although, you will notice we dont say that, we say they are cheating, two totally separate statements), is a generalization that is not calling any specific person a cheater. Thus not an insult or being rude to anyone in particular at all. If you feel it is an insult, then it would not be because the poster intended it as one, it would be you yourself having a guilty conscience and feeling that you were one on your own accord.
There's a reason why I don't often post on these forums, and I think this thread exemplifies it.
Posters who I had previously thought were modest, intelligent and overall nice are now..well...less so.
but eh, opinions, whatya gonna do about them.
My personal opinion is: I don't play the game to win, I play it to have fun and waste the fleeting hours of my life. If someone came to me for a casual, friendly game I would have no problem if they were an odd number of points over the limit. Getting bogged down on stuff like TFG and WAAC cheater, from both sides of the argument just makes it a bit less fun for all involved.
(Personally, I play crons and greenwing, so i'm never really over the limit with those lovely flat 5s and 10s at the end of every unit)
Voidwraith wrote: Everyone who keeps saying that they don't have the time, resources, or will to make a list that adhere's to a given point limit: Just stop already. The fact that you're posting on a 40k forum shows us that you're interested enough in the game to take it seriously. Stop telling everyone that legal lists are hard to come by or conceive. It's a ridiculous stance to take when the forum you're debating on has a ARMY LIST section where you could be inspired (or just copy a list completely if you'd like).
Where am I stating that I don't make legal lists?
I know this is a general comment, and not just specific to me, but I'm going to try to get this point across anyway.
At least two of us, including me, are arguing not just to allow us to be a small amount over the limit, but to try to make you lot see reason when it comes to all the other players in 40k who end up with a slightly over pointed list. I'm arguing to try to make you realise that just because a player is slightly over, it does not mean that they are being intentionally rude or cheating, or any of the other accusations your side have made.
You lot are being yourselves rude and unfair on a great many casual players and groups who do not see any reason to get angry over a spare couple of points.
And I'm trying to say - even if you don't think it's rude (I absolutely do) - there's still no justification for it.
1-2 points don't matter? Then why do you need them?
It takes too long? Do you throw your lists away after every game? Why are you preparing them at the table?
There's a rule with a maximum point value. You're arguing for intentionally breaking it. Correct?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Inky wrote: If someone came to me for a casual, friendly game I would have no problem if they were an odd number of points over the limit.
Neorealist wrote: Side 1: It's respectful to come prepared with a legal list.
Side 2: It's not a big deal to have a few points over the list.
Any questions? Since some aren't even debating the other person's points any more in favour of ad hominem personal comments and repetition of the only relevant points which were raised about 9-10 pages ago now.
In short, this is the rule:
Neorealist wrote:from the Size of Game rules on page 108: "...if you decide to play a 2,000-point game, then neither player can spend more than 2,000 points on their army..." that said, it also indicates: "...sometimes it's just impossible to spend every last point. Indeed, to get around this, most players are happy to let their opponent go a few points over the agreed total - after all, a few points here or there are unlikely to upset the battle's course..."
Given the above, GW clearly indicates that you should not go over by a single point, but also recommends not sweating the small stuff because of the often-times awkward point costs associated with certain things.
What this means is to have a legal list you need to play under the points agreed upon: regardless of how awkward you may personally find the point values or how difficult you think it is to create a list on the fly.
That said, it is not worth getting emotionally involved in another players decision to not do so. If you think you will still have fun even with that? play on. If not? don't.
Try to be excellent to each other folks, not snide.
I agree with you, and I feel that this post kinda settles the entire argument for me.
I'll be unsubscribing from this thread, in the interest of not becoming overly stressed for something so small.
For me personally, I am strict about over-limit: 3 points. Nothing more. Unless, however, both my opponent and I can agree to simply set the limit higher; then we usually go with that instead because it's almost never more than 50 points anyway and with the armies usually played at our store this is seldomly more than a few models.
I think on pg1 of this thread I said that when I first started, I let a friend come in a few points over the point limit, but now I have no issues telling someone they should stick to the limit, as I always do. (Don't get hung up on if you think this is right or wrong...just please let me finish)
Well, that friend is the guy that got me started playing 40k. We used to play AD&D (2nd edition ftw) back in the day and as soon as he started buying his ork models, he pulled me into the 40k circle. That was 4ish years ago, I believe. Fast Forward to now, and 40k is the only real hobby I have left (kids) and that buddy barely plays anymore. When he does play, he almost never has a list made at game time and quickly (or sometimes not so quickly) cobbles something together with the models he has on hand. It almost always comes out 3ish points over the limit.
Because I know his 40k mentality (he doesn't really play or think about it anymore) and he's one of my old gaming buddies, I let it slide. However, I don't like it. I'd never let him know that, but...I just do not like it one bit. We play. We have fun. Those points may or may not have been a factor, but I just do not like the idea that he knew we were going to play (usually days in advance) and couldn't force himself to spend the 15 minutes required to make a list at the agreed upon point limit prior to me arriving on his doorstep. I consider it rude and poor etiquette. Either way, he's a dear old friend, so I just internalize it and we go upon our merry way.
The reason I bring this up is that just because you and your friends may have come to some sort of understanding when it comes to points limits doesn't mean everyone is happy about it. They are your friends, or at least the group of people you play with, so it's more than possible that they're just giving in to something they don't like just to get past it and get on with having fun.
If you're willing, here's a test for those who have been saying their gaming group is fine with points levels being over the target limit: The next game night, set the point level to a lesser number than what you would otherwise be used to playing (for example, if you normally play 1850, tell everyone to bring 1750). The lower number will force your mates to make a new list, but will not require them to purchase or add units that may otherwise not be built or painted. When everyone shows up, take note of their point levels. If everyone is at or below the agreed upon point total, then maybe, just MAYBE they're not as interested in playing above the agreed upon limits as you think. If they all show up and a decent number of them are a few points over, then I guess you've found a group of like minded individuals and good games will be had by all. Huzzah!
Farseer Pef wrote: I believe this belongs in YMDC. This is a HYWPI question.
The scenario: About to play a 1500 point game with a friend. He says his list is 1535 points. I ask him to trim it down a bit since 35 points over can be a few models. He gets upset by this.
The question: What sort of overspending limits do you play with? How would you handle it if your opponent was over or asked you to trim your list? Being that I have no tournament experience, how do tournaments handle it?
Appreciate any feedback (and hope it remains civil ).
That guy would have pissed me off for being upset that he had that many points over. In casual games we usually give 7 points over as the lee way. In tournaments its nothing over max points you can be under if you want and you need to have your list written out and if you do cheat you get disqualified.
I already tried to explain what I meant by bad math, so I guess I'll try again.
I've long been of the opinion the guys at GW don't actually make a good game. I define good game as something that is fair and balanced for all sides, and all the rules are well thought out to go toward that end.
One of the core tenants of that is simply points costs are standard across the board. If a unit costs 14 points in one codex, and another codex has access to that literal exact same unit, that unit in the other codex should also be 14 points. Likewise, if you already have a way to include units in your army, it should always cost the same amount of points to include that many more of that unit. Therefore if it costs 80 points to take 3 bikers, it should not cost 81 points to add 3 more bikers. Hence, bad math.
I get that a lot of people disagree, and I'm aware I'm in the minority in my opinion. However, I am still entitled to that as an opinion, and calling me a cheater (fyi telling someone they are cheating is the exact same thing as calling them a cheater) for offering what our personal group does AND AGAIN MIND YOU only for casual play, well that's exceptionally rude. Then taking offense a guy tells you to just not be that guy when YOU'RE THE ONE TELLING A GUY OFFERING AN OPINION HE'S A CHEATER, that's... I don't have words, man. That is not acceptable behavior where I am from.
The reason we all agreed on 4 points is precisely to avoid bicker fests like this thread has degenerated into. And again, the reason why 4 points is because just about every codex in the game has some sort of upgrade for just 5 points. I should also throw in, if you have the capabilities of removing just 5 points to get down to, say, 1499 in a 1500 game, that's encouraged. If you can fit a whole 'nother model in for 4 points (like say an unmarked Chaos Cultist) then obviously, you pull one out. It's not like we tell people to bring points over. It's just that we're cool if someone is just barely over because 40k has some points idiosyncrasies. I know I'd rather play an opponent who's 1 point over than 5 points under, but maybe that IS just me and I'm okay with that.
I stand by my opinion 40k is an ill-conceived and poorly-ruled game. That's why I mostly just stick to modeling and painting. I play games to have fun, and I don't think it's terribly fun when there are rules in place that don't make sense. If GW is lazy with their rules constructions, sorry, I do not feel guilty about being kind of lazy with my list building. If someone doesn't want to play that list and feels it's rude I even deigned to bring it, I have already said, several times, that I always bring a back up list.
As Neorealist said, try to be excellent to each other.
But that's not balanced. A unit in one codex is not worth exactly the same in another codex.
Termagants in the Space Marine codex would be worthless at 6 points.
And that doesn't change the fact that "GW being bad at math" isn't an excuse to ignore the rules - which you're demonstrably doing.
SRSFACE wrote: I already tried to explain what I meant by bad math, so I guess I'll try again.
I've long been of the opinion the guys at GW don't actually make a good game. I define good game as something that is fair and balanced for all sides, and all the rules are well thought out to go toward that end.
One of the core tenants of that is simply points costs are standard across the board. If a unit costs 14 points in one codex, and another codex has access to that literal exact same unit, that unit in the other codex should also be 14 points. Likewise, if you already have a way to include units in your army, it should always cost the same amount of points to include that many more of that unit. Therefore if it costs 80 points to take 3 bikers, it should not cost 81 points to add 3 more bikers. Hence, bad math.
That's not bad math. That's you disagreeing with the way GW assign points costs.
Points costs in 40K are not solely a product of the unit's statline. The type of army that the unit fits into affects how powerful the unit is on the table (an assault-oriented unit has a different level of usefulness in an army designed primarily for gunlines than in one designed to get in close, for a really basic example). Unit size can also affect how powerful the individual models in it are. It's not as simple as 'this model costs 'x', so another otherwise identical model should also cost 'x'.
How good GW is at considering all of the relevant variables is certainly a matter of debate, and if you think that the balance of the game is sufficiently out of whack that points costs shouldn't be taken too seriously, then that's a valid point of view. But you would have been better of presenting it like that from the start, rather than just dismissing it as 'GW suck at maths'...
SRSFACE wrote: herefore if it costs 80 points to take 3 bikers, it should not cost 81 points to add 3 more bikers. Hence, bad math.
But what does this have to do with going over the point limit? If GW had made biker squads cost 81 points for the first three then your 1501 point list would be over the limit by even more points. So I really don't see how the fact that you're benefiting from GW rounding down the point cost of the initial three bikers to 80 points means that you're now entitled to take even more advantages by exceeding the point limit.
The reason we all agreed on 4 points is precisely to avoid bicker fests like this thread has degenerated into.
You know what also avoids "bicker fests"? Following the rules of the game, including the point limit. You only have a "bicker fest" if someone insists that they're entitled to break the rules just because they want to take a more powerful list.
I should also throw in, if you have the capabilities of removing just 5 points to get down to, say, 1499 in a 1500 game, that's encouraged.
But why only 5 points? Why not 10? Or 20? You can always remove something to get below the point limit, and if it's a casual game you shouldn't be obsessing over not being able to take the perfect list.
I know I'd rather play an opponent who's 1 point over than 5 points under, but maybe that IS just me and I'm okay with that.
I'd rather play the opponent who is 5 points under, because it's a sign that they respect the rules of the game and aren't as likely to try to badger me into accepting more rule violations later in the game.
If GW is lazy with their rules constructions, sorry, I do not feel guilty about being kind of lazy with my list building.
You're not being lazy with your list building, you're being greedy with your list building. Making a legal list isn't any more difficult than making an illegal one, the only reason you insist on taking the illegal one is that you don't want to give up that extra upgrade/model/whatever that you want to have.
If it was 35 over Id tell him to go ahead he might as well take 135. If he refuses to take the extra points would drop 100 out of my list. Either way he feels guilty if wins because hes way over the point limit and if he loses he feels like an idiot because he can't even win with a pointed up list. I've only had to do this once. He brings legal lists now.
I don't think this happens often with experienced players just the new ones that don't quite understand the term LIMIT yet.
I kind of agree with SRSFACE on one point, I don't think GW always gets the individual model cost to extra model cost correct.
Not sure about any other armies, but Chaos Daemons are spot on for individual model/extra model cost for everything EXCEPT Chaos Furies. It's weird, Furies are 35pts for the first five, but extras cost 6pts.
I did the math: Bloodletters, Pink Horrors, Plaguebearers, Daemonettes, Nurglings, Bloodcrushers, Flamers, Beasts, Fiends, Flesh Hounds, Screamers, Plague Drones and Seekers are all fine, individual model vs extra model match perfectly. Furies are -1 point.
Which means the initial unit cost should be 30pts, or extras should be 7pts.
Think of it this way; if you win a game of 40K while being over points, you didn't really win. You handicapped your opponent.
Also, this goes for Apocalypse as well. The designers suggest points are more arbitrary in Apocalypse, but I have played a lot of Apoc and completely disagree.
The points are what they are and should be absolutely respected. You can always remove something from your list to get at points or below.
When I play with my friends, we usually make lists on the fly before we play. As such we allow (points limit) + 1%, with the understanding that the 1% is to allow us to play faster by not having to completely redo a list that is 1503 points. Since as I have said they are friends and do not abuse it, it works for us. Our lists are just as often under by 10 points or so.
If I were playing Little Johnny I Don't Know You, then I would not allow extra points; or would bulk my list to match (or more accurately, to reach the new point limit) - whichever was faster. I'd consider it in poor taste though.
If you turn up at a tournament with a list that is over, I would consider you to have forfeited the game.
Well, it IS one of THE most basic and important parts of the rules. One that comes into play before movements and ranges or any rollings of any dice. One that is so basic and simple, it does not even need a FAQ on it.
The book specifically states that that is the maximum amount of points you can spend. there is no grey areas or ambiguity on that.
this does not mean that gaming groups cant come up with house rules to alter the game to suit their preferences.
it does not also mean that under very specific circumstances you cant use a mistake to teach or give a handicap to yourself when playing a rookie.
What it DOES mean is that by showing up to a game over the limit against someone who does not have a preset agreement with you beforehand in terms of overages, it is one of the absolute most rude and insulting things you can do to them. Cheating on the most blatant and basic level. To some, this is not a big deal, but to others, undermining every facet of the game and game play along with all rules of social etiquette can ruin a gaming experience.
SRSFACE wrote: Thanks for being TFG and calling me a cheater, Peregrine. Welcome to my ignore list. I didn't think I'd have to add someone to it this fast, but I guess the internet never ceases to amaze me.
...
But seriously, though, you should be ashamed of yourself for calling me a cheater for presenting a point of view you disagree with. Seriously, dude. That is shameful. Grow up.
Think of this as an etiquette thing: you should not put your opponent into the position where he has to accept you running over in points.
Paragrine gets quite upset when people "ignore the rules" because the 40k rule set is loosy goosy as it is, it does not need further "stretching" of rules.
Really by specifically ignoring a rule, it is cheating, Marriam-Webster:" to break a rule or law usually to gain an advantage at something."
Come up with house rules with your buddies and all is well, but asking for forgiveness rather than permission is a bit of disrespect.
Part of the "fun" is to take that extra melta bomb for a sgt or something to use up those last couple points and actually seeing if the guy uses it.
It is the idea of the "slippery slope" of how many things can you bend the rules on until it is an irritant and you then cross the line of being TFG
Farseer Pef wrote: I believe this belongs in YMDC. This is a HYWPI question.
The scenario: About to play a 1500 point game with a friend. He says his list is 1535 points. I ask him to trim it down a bit since 35 points over can be a few models. He gets upset by this.
The question: What sort of overspending limits do you play with? How would you handle it if your opponent was over or asked you to trim your list? Being that I have no tournament experience, how do tournaments handle it?
Appreciate any feedback (and hope it remains civil ).
As you've hopefully gathered by now, civility and YMDC don't mix.... at all.
HIWPI: 1 to 2 points in a non-tourney game? No issues. 35 points? Well, we've gone way past the 1500 point limit. If I had about 35 points of models or stuff I could easily add to my list then I'd do that and even it up. If not, then I'd ask my opponent to trim his. If he didn't want to then I'd find a new opponent.
Tournament game? No way I'd allow even a single point over.
Automatically Appended Next Post: However, you did say this was a friend. Presumably you play then pretty often. Maybe instead of trying to force them into a "standard" 1500 point game you guys just agree to play your games at 1535. That would certainly be a far easier approach.
2-3 points over and not having any easy upgrades or such that can put him on the mark, no biggie for a friendly game. 10+ points over, will ask them nicely to trim down. Find out that they were over and hid/lied about it, get some extra use out of my old metal Dreadnought.
i don't understand how people can take point limits so seriously. I'm pretty easy around 5 points over, i'd probably be easy above that as long as my opponent told me before time and i could add something to my army to make up the points. Honestly if i was, say, 5 points over in my list and i was playing someone who took it seriously, i'd probably just lie and say i was spot on
xruslanx wrote: i don't understand how people can take point limits so seriously. I'm pretty easy around 5 points over, i'd probably be easy above that as long as my opponent told me before time and i could add something to my army to make up the points. Honestly if i was, say, 5 points over in my list and i was playing someone who took it seriously, i'd probably just lie and say i was spot on
Sounds like a good way to run out of opponents quickly.
Bad enough you disrespect other players by not sticking to the agreed points limit, but lying about it is akin to a slap in the face.
).
).
