So, everybody has made a list or two that is just a couple points too big. Does your group agree to a grace number, or no? How big is it?

In my local group it's okay to have 3 points over the allotted value, although if you do, your opponent goes first.

My group doesn't , but I would not care if someone was a little over.

And no I have never made a list over. If the point value is say 2000 then my list is 2000 or less. I've never understood the going over. If most of the people can do it then every one can do it.

 The Internet is for Khorn wrote:
Does your group agree to a grace number, or no? .

What would be the point?

If you have a 'hard' limit as to how far over the limit you can go, why not just keep the actual points limit as that hard limit?

We usually don't do grace points, helps reduce confusion or arguing when different groups mix at the store or at local events since there is a relatively nearby store the one in my city cross promotes events with.

While it would be nice to help people who are new to get used to making lists, I would rather just get them off to a start using the normal rules.

No, because there is always a 5 or 10 point upgrade you can remove to get back under the point limit. 2000 means UP TO 2000 points. If you're at 2003, take the storm bolter off your land raider and just like that you're at 1998. It's not that hard to make a list that doesn't go over.

Zero. If the extra points aren't a big deal then why do you need to have them in your list?

I always stay at or below the limit, but I don't make a fuss if my opponent is a few points over (5 or less).

Five points either way, as long as there's no Melta Bombs or other 5pt upgrades. It's not an excuse for free upgrades, but I'm not going to force someone to play at 1239 when I'm at 1250. I'd rather they be at 1255 than under the points limit.

I personally don't go over as it defeats the 'point'. :3

However in a friendly/casual occurence I've allowed opponents to be over points, as long as it's nothing more than 2-4pts (I would never allow anything more than 4pts, as 5pts can get you stuff like melta-bombs, and allowing that has bit me before )

Our club generally has the policy of no grace points, but I find quite a few guys will go over by a few points and then match up to make it fair. (For example if player A had a 1503pts list then player B would let it slide as long as he could also add 3pts to his 1500pts list.)

I just stick to the values, it's easier and fairer, also the bulk of the time my lists come out at like 1498-1499 and I can't find anywhere to spend so few excess points.

A limit is a limit. If you want to play a 1852 point game say so beforehand.

It usually doesn't matter to me. I'd even allow up to 5% of the list value over without really worrying about it.

Edit: in a friendly game. In a tournament, the point limit is a hard limit.

I don't and wouldn't. Like others have said, there is always some upgrade you can knock off for a couple points. That is the whole point of there being a limit in the first place. I will admit that it is frustrating when you build the list exactly the way you want but come up three points above, but that's the brakes.

 insaniak wrote:

 The Internet is for Khorn wrote:
Does your group agree to a grace number, or no? .

What would be the point?

If you have a 'hard' limit as to how far over the limit you can go, why not just keep the actual points limit as that hard limit?

Or just increase the limit

Anyways, while I don't personally care, it seems puzzling to me that someone would *intentionally* go over. I'm pretty darn good at muh maths, and I've caught some people with bad math. I'm not talking about 2 points, either. I've run into people nearly 40 points over, lol. I just chalk it up to an innocent mistake rather than an intentional cheating , and gently point it out, even if I discover it mid-game.

I've also run into people who have lists where it says X points for Y squad with A, B, C upgrades, and if you're familiar with the army, you'd know that base + A + B + C doesn't ad up to X hehehe. People are generally pretty impressed and are actually, or pretend to be puzzled when I'm playing SM and point out that the cyclic ion blaster is a 15 point, not a 10 point option

I have also occasionally seen people add up points incorrectly to their disadvantage, and if I catch it before the game, I'll always point it out. They usually pick something totally useless to fill up the points anyways

My group generally would play at or below the point limit for army lists made ahead of time. If you're throwing something together quickly before a game, especially if you have limited models on hand, we would usually allow 5-10 points of leeway, but ONLY if there was no way to remove points without violating WYSIWYG. 40k is such a 'style over substance' game anyway, and pretty much all our armies were fully painted to a high standard, so we played "armed as shown" very strictly. In other words, add or remove melta bombs or extra armor as you wish, but your guy with a powerfist can't have a chainsword instead. If one guy was over by a few points, the other guy would generally just add points as necessary to make up for it, no big deal.

My opponent is allowed to to be as many points under the limit we set as they want. That's the reason for a point limit after all.

I will let anything up to 20 points go in most games, and ask if I can just add some meltabombs or teleport homers or whatever to make up the difference.

Once we hit 3000 points and/or have multiple players involved, up to around 100 points over is fine by me. People buy this stuff, I'd rather they get to use it that make them leave something off.

I do, provided I am allowed the same points over (if I am able to take them).

I've always played under and up to the limit, never over. Figured it was decent courtesy to keep to an agreed point limit.

Besides, half the fun of list building is trying to fit it all in without going over.

I don't see the point. If I am going to play a 2000 points game and my opponent wants 2005 points, I'll agree and add an extra meltabomb in there myself somewhere, effectively making it a 2005 point game... and then you may as well make it 2005 to begin with!

A teacher states that homework must be submitted on Tuesday. A child says they need a little more time, so the teacher gives in and adds another day to the deadline.

Repeat a few times, the child learns that it can push the deadline back in future because it will get away with it, which results in them being lazy with time management.



Apply to points limit - it makes for sloppy, unrefined lists and players who think they can fudge things and get away with it. So if it works for the points rule, perhaps it'll work for other rules too?

6 inch movement? Well, I'll still be 0.3 of an inch too short, so I'll fudge the extra 0.3' so I can get in range

For anything formal - none. The points value is 'up to but not exceeding'.

That said, If someone really couldn't, I would probably be more open-minded about ten-twenty points in a pick-up game in 7th edition than I was before - especially if we're talking about something which didn't really exist before: Formation-based armies.

Whilst a Combined Arms Detachment, or any of its various equivalents (Realspace Raiding Force, Nemesis Strike Force, etc, etc) can and should rearrange models and wargear to get themselves back under their points limit, armies built around fixed formations may not be able to do the same.

Many of them have fixed compositions, up to and including mandating the number of models in said formation - so getting them to fit exactly in a points limit is harder. If someone were to say "this is a 2020 point army - and the only way I can remove more than 20 points is to drop a 250+ point formation", then I'd say go with it - I can always bolt on the odd item of wargear myself to make up for it.

I’m personally strict with my lists; I never go over. If you know you have a game a few days in advance, I expect you to also keep under the limit. If you are tossing a list together at the table, I’m a lot more lenient. I’d rather get playing then wait half an hour for you to rejigger your list.

Sometimes it’s not as simple as adding/subtracting a melta bomb. To get under the points, sometimes I swap out whole units, reallocating where my army’s AV firepower is based, changing my HQ around, etc. If I had the extra 5 points, I might be playing a totally different list. Just tossing a melta bomb that probably not going to get used does not make things OK.

That said, I’d play anyway. I get in few enough games I can’t turn away the ones that I can fit into my schedule. But when my opponent asks if it’s OK that he’s over 5 points, he’s going to get a look and a sigh when I tell him that it’s alright.

Maybe if someone had an army of very few models and the game had an odd size of points, forcing them to play a 1100pts army in a 1200pts game ,because their codex doesn't have any units costing less then 300+pts unupgraded.

I would not care if someone went over by a few. It's not a big deal.

If the next best option is for them to be 13 pts under, I'll give a few points leeway and take the points as well. They usually go towards lesser daemon upgrades (5 pts) or an extra troop model so they get used.

Since I only play with friends, it's easy to text someone the day before a game and say "my list is 3 points over and it makes for perfect fluff so take an extra 3 points". Therefore it's usually a non issue since we just play at 1503 pts.

We will allow 20-50 points (On 2000 point games)

You make a list number so you go on or under that number. If someone was one or two points over, it wouldn't really bother me, though I don't understand why you need to go over the set amount.

I can't see getting bent out of shape over a few points, especially if you're ok with your opponent being under by a much larger margin than you're ok with them being over. You're not worried about playing a game where both are on equal ground. You're just worried about yourself being at a disadvantage, no matter how slight. It seems symptomatic of an individual overly concerned with winning and whom I'd not enjoy playing against anyway. If you think you really need that extra 3 points to make your list work, go right ahead. I can't imagine that someone could think that less than a half of one percent disadvantage in points would make or break a game which has many random factors and isn't super balanced anyway.

 MordorMiniatures wrote:
We will allow 20-50 points (On 2000 point games)

I'm not trying to be facetious or troll you or other folks that play in groups with this mechanic, but seriously -- why not just make the point limit 2050? Then both sides could be "over" the same amount? Is it that you're afraid of point creep? I mean, then that people will try to play with 2100, etc.

JubbJubbz wrote:
I can't see getting bent out of shape over a few points, especially if you're ok with your opponent being under by a much larger margin than you're ok with them being over.

They're not at all the same thing.

It's the player's own choice to write a list that uses less points than they have available. But given that the points limit is the maximum number of points you have to spend, the moment you go over you have broken a rule.


If you 'can't see getting bent out of shape over a few points', well, that applies both ways. It always seems in these discussions like a large number of people think that a few points being 'unimportant' should automatically mean that it should be ok to go over. If those few points are so unimportant, why can't you just remove them from your list?

You're just worried about yourself being at a disadvantage, no matter how slight.

Or you're interested in playing a game using the rules you both agreed to at the beginning...

I can't imagine that someone could think that less than a half of one percent disadvantage in points would make or break a game which has many random factors and isn't super balanced anyway.

So why not just remove that less than a half of one percent from the list, and save everybody the argument?

It's the first, most basic rule that is stated before the game even starts. If my opponentcan't comply with the first rule of the game what hope do I have that he will comply with any of the other rules.

If it was a new player I might say yeah whatever, but really it's as easy as dropping a single upgrade or removing one guy from a squad.

I find it more than a little annoying when people arrive with lists that are over the point limit.

Yes, I'm sure you don't want to drop that 5pt upgrade. Well, guess what, there were upgrades I didn't want to drop either.

But I did drop them to keep to the point limit, and I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the same courtesy.

Depends on whether they had prepared the list earlier or not. If it was just a pick up game and they had thrown the list together in front of me I would be cool with up to 4 points over (5 point upgrades are so common and easy to drop) as I'd rather just play the game than wait for them to sort out their army.
But if they had a prewritten list I would want to be on the points limit or under.

We play 2500 point games. I often make 2000 or 2250 point lists to try and make the game more competitive. However, I don't feel bad if I run less than 100 points over.

If they run over, I'm not going to allow it, neither does our club.

For myself, I am almost OCD Levels of making sure I reach the exact points.
If my opponent though is a few points over I am usually ok with it as long at it is within a few points [1-3%].
We also tend to play 2k, so 2-6 points is not that bad.

Generally 3 points, as any more can be remedied by dropping upgrades. This is strictly when we play in my basement, though. I would never go to a LGS expecting a couple free points.

JubbJubbz wrote:
I can't see getting bent out of shape over a few points, especially if you're ok with your opponent being under by a much larger margin than you're ok with them being over.

Awesome. Since you're fine with me moving my tac marines 5.5 inches in the movement phase, you're not going to mind me moving them 6.5 either.

It's called a limit for a reason. I don't go over it, and I expect my opponents to extend me the same courtesy.

 unfassbarnathan wrote:
Depends on whether they had prepared the list earlier or not. If it was just a pick up game and they had thrown the list together in front of me I would be cool with up to 4 points over (5 point upgrades are so common and easy to drop) as I'd rather just play the game than wait for them to sort out their army.
But if they had a prewritten list I would want to be on the points limit or under.

If someone has shown up for a game and doesn't have a list already written up, I'm going to go find someone else to play who actually did their homework first.

 insaniak wrote:
If someone has shown up for a game and doesn't have a list already written up, I'm going to go find someone else to play who actually did their homework first.

To be fair, there are a lot of stores/groups where there isn't a standard point level, and someone might ask to play a game at a point level you weren't expecting. In that situation I can understand being a bit careless with the point limit just to get the game started as quickly as possible instead of trying to optimize a legal list that also works with the models you brought that day.

We allow it in our group, 5 points is an easy Meltabombs/Carapace Armour upgrade. If the opponent goes over the points limit then said player gets to look at their list to adjust to match the new points total. I like to call it the overcharge fee in list building.

SYKOJAK wrote:
We allow it in our group, 5 points is an easy Meltabombs/Carapace Armour upgrade.

I really hate this argument. If you've brought a 2005 point list to a 2000 point game and can't easily cut it down to 2000 points or less it means that you're getting something significant out of those extra points. On the other hand, adding a melta bomb to a random sergeant is unlikely to accomplish anything in my list because that sergeant isn't expecting to charge any vehicles. So you get extra power, I get extra clutter. The only way I'd agree to this kind of thing is if I get way more points than you exceed the limit by, so I can make major upgrades with them. For example, I think it would be fair to have a rule that for every 1 point you exceed the limit by I get to add 100 points to my list, and I don't have to keep everything WYSIWYG.

We also have come with a way for those who are constantly running over (we all have one of those in our group), for every 5 points they are over they give up a Victory Point.

SYKOJAK wrote:
5 points is an easy Meltabombs/Carapace Armour upgrade. .

In which case, they can just remove that upgrade, and suddenly their list is legal...

 Peregrine wrote:

SYKOJAK wrote:
We allow it in our group, 5 points is an easy Meltabombs/Carapace Armour upgrade.

I really hate this argument. If you've brought a 2005 point list to a 2000 point game and can't easily cut it down to 2000 points or less it means that you're getting something significant out of those extra points. On the other hand, adding a melta bomb to a random sergeant is unlikely to accomplish anything in my list because that sergeant isn't expecting to charge any vehicles. So you get extra power, I get extra clutter. The only way I'd agree to this kind of thing is if I get way more points than you exceed the limit by, so I can make major upgrades with them. For example, I think it would be fair to have a rule that for every 1 point you exceed the limit by I get to add 100 points to my list, and I don't have to keep everything WYSIWYG.

To be honest, most folks in our group can keep to the agreed points list. But there is always 1 guy in every group, that tries to take a little more. For him we do, stick the total to him. I am only stating the occasional over on points, which is alright. No sense in getting all worked up over to what amounts to a .25% points advantage at 2000 points. Then again, we are all real life friends who know each other's children and like to keep things friendly yet, competitive. So you can take that for what it is worth.

SYKOJAK wrote:
No sense in getting all worked up over to what amounts to a .25% points advantage at 2000 points.

Exactly, since it's such a trivial thing there is no reason to ever exceed the point limit when you have time to prepare a list.

Plus, it's not about the in-game advantage that is obtained, it's about the entitled attitude that allows a person to say "the rules don't apply to me because I want this extra thing in my army". I guess it's possible in theory that someone could break the point limit and then play an enjoyable game, but it's really not a very good first impression.

If anything, since I play all friendly games anyway, I allow usually a max of 10 points over. I may allow more if the model/formation they brought looks badass and I wanna fight in!

I allow indefinite grace points below the point limit, but zero above.

Got 2001? Take out a Space Marine, swap a melta gun for a bolter....do what you gotta do, and lets play.

You gotta draw the line somewhere. I think the actual line is a good place.

insaniak wrote:
It's the player's own choice to write a list that uses less points than they have available. But given that the points limit is the maximum number of points you have to spend, the moment you go over you have broken a rule.

I guess this is the major disconnect between us. I'm mostly after a fun and fair game. You're enjoyment of the game seems to require unerring adherence to rules regardless of whats fair. Yes equal points is most fair but you emphasize that your opponent can have as many points as you or less. Thus saying you're okay if the game is unfair, just if its unfair in your advantage. Why wouldn't you get bent out of shape if you're opponent brought 10% less points and you slaughtered him?

If you 'can't see getting bent out of shape over a few points', well, that applies both ways. It always seems in these discussions like a large number of people think that a few points being 'unimportant' should automatically mean that it should be ok to go over. If those few points are so unimportant, why can't you just remove them from your list?

As other people have mentioned its often very non trivial to remove anything from a list. Often the cheapest upgrade in some lists is 10pts. Removing a meltagun may remove an AT unit which may be one of only a couple so now your list is ill-equipped for vehicles. You seem like you're fine with gimping you're opponents list to adhere to rules but I'd rather let my opponent have a couple extra points so he can play the strategy he wants.

Or you're interested in playing a game using the rules you both agreed to at the beginning...

I'm always willing to sacrifice any rules if it means for a more enjoyable game for both parties. They're really more like guidelines anyway. I wouldn't want to force my opponent to rejigger his list, probably destroy his careful plan for the roles and interaction of his units, just to say 'the rules must be followed'.

So why not just remove that less than a half of one percent from the list, and save everybody the argument?

Again, as myself and others have mentioned removing just a couple points will often mean writing an entirely different list. Its much easier/quicker/friendlier just to allow it. Also, it wouldn't save any real arguments as I've never found someone in person who was curmudgeonly enough to care about such trivial point differences in friendly games.

Bookwrack wrote:
Awesome. Since you're fine with me moving my tac marines 5.5 inches in the movement phase, you're not going to mind me moving them 6.5 either.
It's called a limit for a reason. I don't go over it, and I expect my opponents to extend me the same courtesy.

I suppose you've never gone even a tiny fraction over the speed limit either? It too is, as you say, called a limit for a reason. Regardless you seem to entirely miss the point. I will gladly bend the rules for my opponent or myself to make a more enjoyable game for the both of us. If I thought for an instant someone was taking advantage of my easy going nature just to game the system to win rather than play the list they wanted, not only would I not allow it but I probably wouldn't play them at all. Playing people who put winning above enjoyment is rarely enjoyable.

It never ceases to amaze me how different the internet community is than every single person I've ever played 40k with.

I remember quite a few WD battle reports back in the day that were a few points over/under, sometimes as much as 10.

Well depends on size but normally a weapon you can downgrade or upgrade to lose here or there.
After a certain level you get little things like melta bombs, grenade upgrades, dropping a sniper rifle or such.

"Grace point," to me, means that you're playing against someone who has a full army, you're making an agreed-upon game, and so-on. Therefore, one of the agreements is that the game stay at it's exact point value.

If I were to be playing against a beginner or someone with just a few units and it's obvious it's more about learning, I don't care if they go 100 points over! But when it's a set game, the point limit is important to adhere to.

JubbJubbz wrote:
You're enjoyment of the game seems to require unerring adherence to rules regardless of whats fair.

Then you have misunderstood.

What I disagree with is simply a player assuming that a rule should be ignored just because they don't want to follow it. If we're agreeing to play a game, then it should be talen as writ that the rules of the game will be followed unless specifically discussed otherwise. Because that's what's 'fair' to both players.

Yes equal points is most fair but you emphasize that your opponent can have as many points as you or less. Thus saying you're okay if the game is unfair, just if its unfair in your advantage.

It's not 'unfair' at all. Both players have the same amount of points available. I didn't force my opponent to use fewer than he could.

Is the game 'unfair' if my opponent chooses to only move a unit 5 inches instead of 6? Am I being unfair if I don't let him move that unit 7 inches on the next turn?

Why wouldn't you get bent out of shape if you're opponent brought 10% less points and you slaughtered him?

Because it was his choice to bring fewer points. Just like it was his choice to not shoot on turn 3. Or to deploy that unit in the open.

As other people have mentioned its often very non trivial to remove anything from a list.

Sure. And sometimes it's 'non trivial' to not be able to shoot at a specific enemy unit. You're ok if we just ignore the LOS rules in that case, right? Because, you know, not being able to do what I want makes the game unfair?

I wouldn't want to force my opponent to rejigger his list, probably destroy his careful plan for the roles and interaction of his units, just to say 'the rules must be followed'.

But that's exactly the point of the points limit.

If you want to build a specific army to suit a particular strategy, and it doesn't fit into the points limit, then that strategy needs to be adjusted. You're supposed to build your army around the available points.

Unless it's a tournament, I'm fine with a spillover of 3-4 points. 5 is my hard limit, at that point you should just get rid of an upgrade. Most friendly games I don't really bother to check points limits, though.

JubbJubbz wrote:

As other people have mentioned its often very non trivial to remove anything from a list. Often the cheapest upgrade in some lists is 10pts. Removing a meltagun may remove an AT unit which may be one of only a couple so now your list is ill-equipped for vehicles. You seem like you're fine with gimping you're opponents list to adhere to rules but I'd rather let my opponent have a couple extra points so he can play the strategy he wants.

But that's the thing - why assume that it was trivial for me to knock things off my list?

Yeah, I'm sure I would have liked that extra meltagun too. However, it put me over he limit so I had the decency to knock it off my list anyway.

I don't see why it's so unreasonable to expect my opponent to do the same.

Yea, couldnt care less, 1 or 20 points over.

When I was new I allowed that, and asked for it, but now that i'm better at list building, and I actually make the list they day before or hours before I meet at the LGS for a game, I don't really have the problem of going over on points, and my opponents haven't asked for it either.

I wouldn't really enforce it anyways, especially against someone starting out.

Limit is a limit. Abide by it. It's part of the strategery of the game.

My compatriots and I borrow a rule from another game (can't remember which one.. Warzone maybe?) which was that you could go over by up to half the value of the cheapest model in the army.

I'm open to going over because GW was fine with it when I got into gaming, the first game I was really into was Space Marine 1st edition which had a rule that you could go over, but you had to dice for it to potentially lose a unit.

 Gashrog wrote:
My compatriots and I borrow a rule from another game (can't remember which one.. Warzone maybe?) which was that you could go over by up to half the value of the cheapest model in the army.

Sounds like an awesome rule for Knights players...

I'm surprised so many people are hardline about this, given how relaxed my local meta is.

Personally I'm totally comfortable with 9 points over, 10 would be where I slap an upgrade on somewhere to even it.

Marginally higher personal standards: I'll go about 3 points under to 5 points over unless one of my upgrades actually costs 5 points. Most Necron ones don't.

An exception was actually only two weeks ago when I said to a Grey Knights player "Hang on a sec, I'm stripping down from a 2000 point list to 1500 and working out where to cut the last 25 points" and he replied "Just roll with it, this is my tournament list and the guy I was going to play didn't show up, something you've just tossed together will be weaker anyway and I'd rather just get started."

He won massively. Dang invisible Paladins...

Its not about being hardlines, or hardcore, or demanding, or anything.

Really, its just courtesy. Don't force your opponent to have to make a call if your inability to meet the limit is acceptable or not.

I don't mind if it takes a little longer to work out a list, but do everyone a favour and clock in at or below the limit. If its not a big deal to be over, it likewise shouldn't be a big deal to be under.

 Blacksails wrote:
If its not a big deal to be over, it likewise shouldn't be a big deal to be under.

And if it being trivial cuts both ways, it being trivial cuts both ways.

The points values are an extremely rough guideline in the first place anyhow. Every codex has things that are blatantly under or overcosted, and things that work better or worse in synergy than they do in a vacuum. I figure that in the stores and clubs I've been to, the reason nobody cares about pinpointing it is because they know all that.

It's only at a tournament where half the players are trying to win before they hit the table with fine-tuned broken lists that it makes sense to cull potential arguments by setting it in stone. (Though even then, it would honestly make more sense to make a narrow error margin bracket such as 1997-2003 you're not above or below than a cutoff, if it's about ensuring everyone has the same value).

The difference with the 'cuts both ways' argument is that being under the limit is holding on to an agreement. Its being courteous and polite. Neither you nor your opponent has to have a discussion about how many points over are acceptable.

Being over means you've made some sort of conscious decision to exceed the limit due to whatever list building reason you come up with. Now you've placed a burden on your opponent to either let it slide, or ask you to rejig your list to make it legal according to the agreed upon limit. At that point, your action is not a little rude. If its not a big deal to be over, it shouldn't be a big deal to be under, which oddly enough, happens to fit the agreed upon limit.

A limit is just that. If you and your opponent have agreed to it, make the effort to stick to it.

 Blacksails wrote:
The difference with the 'cuts both ways' argument is that being under the limit is holding on to an agreement. Its being courteous and polite. Neither you nor your opponent has to have a discussion about how many points over are acceptable.

Being over means you've made some sort of conscious decision to exceed the limit due to whatever list building reason you come up with. Now you've placed a burden on your opponent to either let it slide, or ask you to rejig your list to make it legal according to the agreed upon limit. At that point, your action is not a little rude. If its not a big deal to be over, it shouldn't be a big deal to be under, which oddly enough, happens to fit the agreed upon limit.

A limit is just that. If you and your opponent have agreed to it, make the effort to stick to it.

Or the area has a relaxed, unspoken agreement that it really doesn't matter all that much, and nobody is being rude.

And I'm quite serious about not being able to use the cuts both ways thing to cut only one way. If you were just saying "A limit is a limit", that's one thing. But by going to the length of making a statment to the effect of "It doesn't matter if you're a little off, except that it actually does and I don't actually mean that.", then you should drop the pretence of superficial agreement and be ensuring that both armies must be exactly identical in points.

By saying you think Points are that critical but that you don't care if the opponent is under, you send the message "I don't care if the fight is fair or not as long as it's unfair in my favour". Again, it's not so much the insistence on the limit as the added rhetoric sending the wrong signals.

 Blacksails wrote:
The difference with the 'cuts both ways' argument is that being under the limit is holding on to an agreement. Its being courteous and polite. Neither you nor your opponent has to have a discussion about how many points over are acceptable.

Being over means you've made some sort of conscious decision to exceed the limit due to whatever list building reason you come up with. Now you've placed a burden on your opponent to either let it slide, or ask you to rejig your list to make it legal according to the agreed upon limit. At that point, your action is not a little rude. If its not a big deal to be over, it shouldn't be a big deal to be under, which oddly enough, happens to fit the agreed upon limit.

A limit is just that. If you and your opponent have agreed to it, make the effort to stick to it.

The cuts both ways argument is true though. Often times, one picks a few upgrades for no reason other than to fill up points. Maybe it will come in handy, maybe not, but it's unlikely to be game-deciding -- this is why I don't really care if someone is reasonably close.

Now, this is not to say that I disagree with anything you say, Blacksails -- I do agree that 1,850 does not mean 1,865 or 1,851, and fundamentally, there I can't think of any good reason to purposely go over. There's gotta be an upgrade that you can sacrifice, right? It's unlikely to be game-deciding, but isn't very courteous as you put it, and may possibly cause squabbling which is a massive waste of time.

I suppose the only time I would really understand it is if someone wanted to play themetic "all death company" squads or something, a the difference between a few points was a whole squad (because each squad is to be identical) or a major unit.

changemod wrote:


Or the area has a relaxed, unspoken agreement that it really doesn't matter all that much, and nobody is being rude.

And I'm quite serious about not being able to use the cuts both ways thing to cut only one way. If you were just saying "A limit is a limit", that's one thing. But by going to the length of making a statment to the effect of "It doesn't matter if you're a little off, except that it actually does and I don't actually mean that.", then you should drop the pretence of superficial agreement and be ensuring that both armies must be exactly identical in points.

By saying you think Points are that critical but that you don't care if the opponent is under, you send the message "I don't care if the fight is fair or not as long as it's unfair in my favour". Again, it's not so much the insistence on the limit as the added rhetoric sending the wrong signals.

If your group is that relaxed and those are the expectations set for everyone, then who am I to tell you otherwise.

In a purely theoretical discussion though, there are very few good reasons to enforce anything other than a strict limit. The exceptions would include things like beginners, last minute changes with WYSIWYG armies, and other rarities. Otherwise, showing up to an agreed upon game with anything over the limit strikes me as being rude. When you show up with a list exceeding the limit, you're telling me I'm not important enough to follow the rules.

By expecting my opponent to be at or under the limits does not in any way send a message about whether or not its fair or in my favour. Its entirely to do with being a polite opponent who respects your opponent. Being at or under the limit was the agreement when you set the point level; being over was not apart of that unless it was already agreed upon. In which case it begs the question of why not set the point value at whatever limit you can both build exactly to.

The point I'm trying to make is that it should be courtesy to build your list up to the point limit, but never over. Don't put your opponent in the less than desirable situation of having to either agree to your illegal list, or asking you to re-do it to fit within the agreed upon limit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Talys wrote:


The cuts both ways argument is true though. Often times, one picks a few upgrades for no reason other than to fill up points. Maybe it will come in handy, maybe not, but it's unlikely to be game-deciding -- this is why I don't really care if someone is reasonably close.

Now, this is not to say that I disagree with anything you say, Blacksails -- I do agree that 1,850 does not mean 1,865 or 1,851, and fundamentally, there I can't think of any good reason to purposely go over. There's gotta be an upgrade that you can sacrifice, right? It's unlikely to be game-deciding, but isn't very courteous as you put it, and may possibly cause squabbling which is a massive waste of time.

I suppose the only time I would really understand it is if someone wanted to play themetic "all death company" squads or something, a the difference between a few points was a whole squad (because each squad is to be identical) or a major unit.

The difference with the 'cuts both ways' argument is that being under is still within the agreed upon limit; being over is not. Therefore, given the two scenarios, the former is significantly preferred over the latter.

The entire point of list building is trying to fit all you can within the limit. Being over by 1 points may mean the difference between what kind of Leman Russ you brought, or if your vets have plasma guns or melta guns. These things matter, and its part of the challenge.

 Blacksails wrote:

changemod wrote:


Or the area has a relaxed, unspoken agreement that it really doesn't matter all that much, and nobody is being rude.

And I'm quite serious about not being able to use the cuts both ways thing to cut only one way. If you were just saying "A limit is a limit", that's one thing. But by going to the length of making a statment to the effect of "It doesn't matter if you're a little off, except that it actually does and I don't actually mean that.", then you should drop the pretence of superficial agreement and be ensuring that both armies must be exactly identical in points.

By saying you think Points are that critical but that you don't care if the opponent is under, you send the message "I don't care if the fight is fair or not as long as it's unfair in my favour". Again, it's not so much the insistence on the limit as the added rhetoric sending the wrong signals.

If your group is that relaxed and those are the expectations set for everyone, then who am I to tell you otherwise.

In a purely theoretical discussion though, there are very few good reasons to enforce anything other than a strict limit. The exceptions would include things like beginners, last minute changes with WYSIWYG armies, and other rarities. Otherwise, showing up to an agreed upon game with anything over the limit strikes me as being rude. When you show up with a list exceeding the limit, you're telling me I'm not important enough to follow the rules.

By expecting my opponent to be at or under the limits does not in any way send a message about whether or not its fair or in my favour. Its entirely to do with being a polite opponent who respects your opponent. Being at or under the limit was the agreement when you set the point level; being over was not apart of that unless it was already agreed upon. In which case it begs the question of why not set the point value at whatever limit you can both build exactly to.

The point I'm trying to make is that it should be courtesy to build your list up to the point limit, but never over. Don't put your opponent in the less than desirable situation of having to either agree to your illegal list, or asking you to re-do it to fit within the agreed upon limit.

I tried to make the core point of my reply as clear as I could, but since you haven't directly adressed it I'll assume it was missed.

In your initial reply to me, you used a specific point of rhetoric that sends entirely the wrong signals, and since your own core point is an opinion on politeness, it should probably be brought to your attention.

You said, direct quote: "If its not a big deal to be over, it likewise shouldn't be a big deal to be under."

This sends the signal "I think that this standard of fairness is of critical importance, and should not be violated. However, if you choose to violate it in my favour, I no longer care."

I don't read this to be your actual intention, but it is actually a bit rude in and of itself to declase something to be important when it happens to be out of your favour then immediately say they can go the other way if they like. Regardless of the underlying intent.

Therefore, whilst it's fine to defend something you consider an inviolable standard, you should phrase your arguments in favour of the standard itself, not in terms of turning your oponent's logic against them without considering the full implications of what that just made you say.

Right, and the whole point of that being that if its seen to be not a big deal either way, why be over when being under is the much more amicable solution for all involved?

 Blacksails wrote:
Right, and the whole point of that being that if its seen to be not a big deal either way, why be over when being under is the much more amicable solution for all involved?

This is looking worryingly close to the sentiment being more sincere than I realised.

I'll try again: "As you have the more relaxed attitude, wouldn't things be easier if you immediately capitulated to my demands?", is an easily percieved undertone to what you just said there. That is less likely to get someone to agree than just saying "This standard is important to me and I'd prefer if we observed it as the rules suggest."

You say it's a matter of politeness, then use subtly insulting rhetoric. It doesn't really make sense.

There's nothing insulting about it, nor is it about capitulating to demands.

Do you honestly think its in anyway unreasonable to expect someone to show up with a list that meets the expectations set earlier? I find it hard to believe you're twisting this into something it really isn't.

We agree on a 1500pts game. You have up to and including 1500pts to make a list. Not a point more. If you can't make a specific army with that point allocation, it isn't meant for that game. Simple.

Showing up with up to and including the agreed upon point value should be seen and understood as the correct and polite way to participate in a game. Going over should be reserved for rare circumstances where that isn't feasible given time and model restraints at that moment. Otherwise, given sufficient time, I fully expect my opponent to bring a list at or under the given point value.

I know I'm going to do that, and I expect the same.

Super simple stuff. I don't know what's insulting about any of that. It'd be like asking your mate to show up at a certain time to eat at a restaurant, or watch a movie. I expect my friend to arrive at or before the given time, unless some unforeseen circumstance holds them up. Same goes for a point limit in 40k. Be at or below the value unless some other circumstance prevents that within reason.

I don't think any of that is unreasonable or rude or insulting. Part of the challenge of building a list is doing it within constraints. Otherwise I could just build a 1500pts list up to 1515 in order to get that last plasma gun to round out my vet squad.

 Blacksails wrote:
There's nothing insulting about it, nor is it about capitulating to demands.

It's entirely a demand to do things your way by appealing to it being "simpler" and "better for both parties" in a context where it could easily reverse the 1-4 point advantage, that you just indicated you consider important, in your favour.

Do you honestly think its in anyway unreasonable to expect someone to show up with a list that meets the expectations set earlier? I find it hard to believe you're twisting this into something it really isn't.

We agree on a 1500pts game. You have up to and including 1500pts to make a list. Not a point more. If you can't make a specific army with that point allocation, it isn't meant for that game. Simple.

Showing up with up to and including the agreed upon point value should be seen and understood as the correct and polite way to participate in a game. Going over should be reserved for rare circumstances where that isn't feasible given time and model restraints at that moment. Otherwise, given sufficient time, I fully expect my opponent to bring a list at or under the given point value.

I know I'm going to do that, and I expect the same.

This is neither relevant to what I was saying, nor is it objectionable. I might not agree entirely, but I don't consider your tone or expectations in this regard unreasonable, merely not entirely necessary.

Super simple stuff. I don't know what's insulting about any of that. It'd be like asking your mate to show up at a certain time to eat at a restaurant, or watch a movie. I expect my friend to arrive at or before the given time, unless some unforeseen circumstance holds them up. Same goes for a point limit in 40k. Be at or below the value unless some other circumstance prevents that within reason.I don't think any of that is unreasonable or rude or insulting. Part of the challenge of building a list is doing it within constraints. Otherwise I could just build a 1500pts list up to 1515 in order to get that last plasma gun to round out my vet squad.

And it's fine that you're this rigorous, (regardless of the fact that I'd consider it to not matter in the slightest that my friend was within five minutes or so late in the same position.)

But again, not actually relevant. You're just padding out the argument here by assuming I'm trying to prove you wrong on a point purely because I don't agree with you.

I singled out part of your reply as having a mildly condescending tone, which mattered to me becuase you mentioned at length the importance of politeness and failed to apply it consistently, regardless of whether doing so was accidental. If politeness is important to you, then pointing out where you would accidentally lapse were you to say that ought to be something you would encourage.

Consider the following if we were to play a game:

I might say something to the effect of: "Okay, I put together my list. It's three points over, but that shouldn't be a problem." Likely, as I don't normally play the same list twice in a row.

You would then point out you consider the guideline important.

I'd explain that I don't have any upgrades cheaper than ten points or models cheaper than 15 points in my list, and there's no point in me holding things up by taking time to micromanage a closer value.

If you followed up by saying that if it doesn't matter, it shouldn't matter I'm under... I'll probably not manage to entirely hide my annoyance at your phrasing, but will give up anyway.

Does that matter much? Not really, but I'm going to view your following actions in a more negativive light and if this kind of thing comes up enough times, be considerably less interested in playing you again.

Aaaaand that's all. If I haven't managed to make you see what I'm saying by this stage, I'm clearly not going to manage at all. This'll be my last word on the subject.

changemod wrote:


It's entirely a demand to do things your way by appealing to it being "simpler" and "better for both parties" in a context where it could easily reverse the 1-4 point advantage, that you just indicated you consider important, in your favour.

Why is it acceptable then to be over the limit? Why would consider yourself more important that you deem it acceptable to be over the limit agreed upon?

Once more, being at or under the point limit ensures neither party is more important than the other. Going over shows a disregard to that agreement.

This is neither relevant to what I was saying, nor is it objectionable. I might not agree entirely, but I don't consider your tone or expectations in this regard unreasonable, merely not entirely necessary.

I honestly don't know what about my tone is bothering you. Text based medium always has some sort of problems, as the sublteties of conversation often don't show through, like tone. In this case, I'd encourage you to read everything I'm saying as though I'm six beers deep.

Because I am.

And it's fine that you're this rigorous, (regardless of the fact that I'd consider it to not matter in the slightest that my friend was within five minutes or so late in the same position.)

But again, not actually relevant. You're just padding out the argument here by assuming I'm trying to prove you wrong on a point purely because I don't agree with you.

I singled out part of your reply as having a mildly condescending tone, which mattered to me becuase you mentioned at length the importance of politeness and failed to apply it consistently, regardless of whether doing so was accidental. If politeness is important to you, then pointing out where you would accidentally lapse were you to say that ought to be something you would encourage.

Consider the following if we were to play a game:

I might say something to the effect of: "Okay, I put together my list. It's three points over, but that shouldn't be a problem." Likely, as I don't normally play the same list twice in a row.

You would then point out you consider the guideline important.

I'd explain that I don't have any upgrades cheaper than ten points or models cheaper than 15 points in my list, and there's no point in me holding things up by taking time to micromanage a closer value.

If you followed up by saying that if it doesn't matter, it shouldn't matter I'm under... I'll probably not manage to entirely hide my annoyance at your phrasing, but will give up anyway.

Does that matter much? Not really, but I'm going to view your following actions in a more negativive light and if this kind of thing comes up enough times, be considerably less interested in playing you again.

Aaaaand that's all. If I haven't managed to make you see what I'm saying by this stage, I'm clearly not going to manage at all. This'll be my last word on the subject.

I believe I already covered scenarios in which is may be considered acceptable to break the limit. In all other scenarios, especially given ample time, there's no real reason why anyone should knowingly build a list in excess of the agreed upon point value.

Once more, if you feel I've been condescending, it hasn't been my intention. Understand also that you may not be equally faultless and a degree of leeway should be given in internet discussions.

I agree with Blacksails. The limit is the limit. If you go over that limit, you are making an imposition on your opponent.

If you have 1501, and your cheapest thing on the board is 50 points, suck it up and play with 1451.

 Blacksails wrote:
Why is it acceptable then to be over the limit? Why would consider yourself more important that you deem it acceptable to be over the limit agreed upon?

Once more, being at or under the point limit ensures neither party is more important than the other. Going over shows a disregard to that agreement.

Well, the assumption you draw here is that the person is considering themselves more important than their opponent, rather than merely considering the points value a target value with a narrow error margin. Seems more like a difference in attitude, similar to a group of friends considering a meetup at 6pm to be a target value time they can be five minutes late or early for whilst you and your friends would apparently consider it an fixed appointment to be early for.

Neither attitude is outright wrong, merely conflicting when they clash into one another.

Once more, if you feel I've been condescending, it hasn't been my intention. Understand also that you may not be equally faultless and a degree of leeway should be given in internet discussions.

Well, I haven't claimed to be faultless. If you see a contradiction between my stated worldview and specific points I've made, feel free to point it out and ideally I'll welcome the correction to my flawed reasoning.

As I've said before, my read of your intentions didn't find a problem, I just felt that you had accidentally used wording that implied it was okay to flip the tables on a problem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:
I agree with Blacksails. The limit is the limit. If you go over that limit, you are making an imposition on your opponent.

If you have 1501, and your cheapest thing on the board is 50 points, suck it up and play with 1451.

This though, I'd outright disagree with. Far too extreme an example.

So long as you understand your assumption is that a point limit is anything other than a limit. As I stated earlier, if you and your friends all agree on a way of handling these things, who am I to tell you otherwise?

In any other situation, the most reasonable and sensible option is simply to build a list under or up to the agreed upon limit. That way, there's no misunderstanding or grey area of what constitutes an acceptable amount over the limit. Is 5 okay? What about 10? How about 15? Perhaps 20? The advantage of a limit is that it's definable and clearly understood by all involved. There's no ambiguity to saying 1500 post limit when everyone understands there's no going over.

Once more, if my posts have struck you as being condescending, it hasn't been my intention and I ask you to read it another way. Personally I feel like nothing I've said is noteworthy of being read that way, but I'll let others decide.

 Blacksails wrote:
So long as you understand your assumption is that a point limit is anything other than a limit. As I stated earlier, if you and your friends all agree on a way of handling these things, who am I to tell you otherwise?

In any other situation, the most reasonable and sensible option is simply to build a list under or up to the agreed upon limit. That way, there's no misunderstanding or grey area of what constitutes an acceptable amount over the limit. Is 5 okay? What about 10? How about 15? Perhaps 20? The advantage of a limit is that it's definable and clearly understood by all involved. There's no ambiguity to saying 1500 post limit when everyone understands there's no going over.

I think I see the difference here, and it roots back to my local GW's attitude when introducing the game to people, I think.

See: It was introduced to me as a guideline rather than a literal and precise limit. And it will have been introduced to everyone else who got their starter kits or first army box at the same GW store in the same way, over the past few years at least. The manager has a statue indicating he's been an employee for over a decade on display, so I suspect at least that long.

So yes, the climate in this town in general doesn't see it as all that important because nobody ever said to us it should be.

Once more, if my posts have struck you as being condescending, it hasn't been my intention and I ask you to read it another way. Personally I feel like nothing I've said is noteworthy of being read that way, but I'll let others decide.

Ah, sorry if I gave you the impression you had to apologise. I did type the post where I resolved to stop explaining the inconsistency between a single point and your overall tone whilst a little annoyed, but all that pushed me to do was to make the resolution to drop it. No harm.

I keep my list at or under that limit, but I don't care if someones a couple points over (cap at about 5)

changemod wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
Why is it acceptable then to be over the limit? Why would consider yourself more important that you deem it acceptable to be over the limit agreed upon?

Once more, being at or under the point limit ensures neither party is more important than the other. Going over shows a disregard to that agreement.

Well, the assumption you draw here is that the person is considering themselves more important than their opponent, rather than merely considering the points value a target value with a narrow error margin.

What you have is someone who's considering the game more important than the agreement he made with the other player. There's no good reason that a game is more important than an agreement that you've made with your opponent.

JubbJubbz wrote:
I can't see getting bent out of shape over a few points, especially if you're ok with your opponent being under by a much larger margin than you're ok with them being over. You're not worried about playing a game where both are on equal ground. You're just worried about yourself being at a disadvantage, no matter how slight. It seems symptomatic of an individual overly concerned with winning and whom I'd not enjoy playing against anyway. If you think you really need that extra 3 points to make your list work, go right ahead. I can't imagine that someone could think that less than a half of one percent disadvantage in points would make or break a game which has many random factors and isn't super balanced anyway.

This is TFG logic that basically shames people for disallowing soft cheating.

If points aren't a big deal, then abide by the rules that we decide upon when we decide to play a game at X points.

changemod wrote:
See: It was introduced to me as a guideline rather than a literal and precise limit. And it will have been introduced to everyone else who got their starter kits or first army box at the same GW store in the same way, over the past few years at least. The manager has a statue indicating he's been an employee for over a decade on display, so I suspect at least that long.

The thing is, there is no such reference to it merely being a 'guideline' in the actual rules. Nor should there need to be. If you agree to a limit, then you shouldn't expect to be able to break that limit.


A lot of it, from my experience, is simply down to people's approach. If you show up for a pick up game and you have a 1505 point list, and you say to someone 'Hey, I have a 1505 point list, wanna game?' nobody is going to have a problem with it.

It's only if you agree to a specific limit and then decide to break it, and just assume that your opponent should be ok with it, that you run into problems. He built his list within the agreed points limit, why the hell shouldn't you have to as well?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

changemod wrote:
By saying you think Points are that critical but that you don't care if the opponent is under, you send the message "I don't care if the fight is fair or not as long as it's unfair in my favour". .

Except that's not it at all.

If you choose to make the battle an 'unfair' one, you only have the right to do so by handicapping your own force. It's unreasonable for you to just expect that your opponent won't have a problem with you making your force larger than it should be within the agreed limit.

40k games are rarely played between exactly matched forces. Most of my lists come in 1-3 points under the limit, some more. It's not at all uncommon for an opponent to not have exactly the same points count. That's not the issue, though, no matter how much you try to make it so.

The issue is simply that if you agree to a points limit, then that is the points limit.

While it's certainly not a problem for you to ask your opponent if he minds you going over, it shouldn't be an issue if he says no. Because you agreed to a specific limit.

Usually I don't allow any grace points because past 5pts -something- can be cut to make the proper count. Some equipment option, one model, a weapon, whatever - it can be made to work, so no reason to let someone give himself extra option for free.

I'm not sure if I understand how two people agree to a certain points limit, and then one thinks it's okay to go over, even by one point.

I mean, if you agree to 'about 1850', then sure, but if you have agreed to an 1850 points limit, I don't see how you can NOT be violating the agreement with 1851.

If I agree to pay you $5.00, and hand you $4.99, it might be trivial to you, but it seems like a violation of the agreement on my part.

Now, if "everybody in your group always agrees to a few points over", then that's your agreement. But, if, as people keep on saying, you agree to a points limit, then that's the points limit you just agreed to. It might not matter in any way, shape, or form. It might be totally irrelevant to the actual game outcome. But it's what you agreed on.

If you're not planning on ensuring you don't violate the points limit, that should have been part of the 'agreement process'.

"Let's play 1850, give or take a few points, okay?".

Agreeing to a specific points limit, then indicating later that your agreement actually meant something else, isn't cool. Let me illustrate:

We agree to 1850.

You show up with an 1850 list. I inform you that I meant that we would not go to 1850 in points. Thus, your list is now 1 point over, and you need to cut something from your list.

I'm assuming that you won't get worked up over a 1 point difference between what we agreed upon and what we are actually doing, right? It's the same one point that I was assuming by showing up with an 1851 point list to our 1850 point game. I sure seem like a jerk, though, don't I?

We agreed to something specific. We could have agreed to something less specific, but we didn't.

Is this cool? The dispute is still just about one point.

I think tournaments need to stick to exact points or below... but for friendly games with humans that can actually speak and communicate to each other it works like this:

"I'm 2 points over, do you want to add 2 points to yours or should I change my list, or just leave it?" ..."nah who cares / sure I'll add 2 / just fix it dude".

What if you army doesn't have a 2 pts upgrade or has no 2 pts upgrade you want and for your opponent going over points ment and extra melta or plasm. Making his army work better by breaking the points limit , while yours even with the 2 extra points won't.

Makumba wrote:
What if you army doesn't have a 2 pts upgrade or has no 2 pts upgrade you want and for your opponent going over points ment and extra melta or plasm. Making his army work better by breaking the points limit , while yours even with the 2 extra points won't.

Hah well that's not a problem for me, neither is *gasp* occasionally loosing a game. I was just answering the question, "Do you allow extra grace points?".

0 grace points. The limit is already an arbitrary number set by both players. If you're going to go over it then you should have just set the points limit higher in the first place so that you don't have to go over.

Also it says a lot about a player who isn't willing to take the time or effort to follow a simple agreement between both players.

 Gunzhard wrote:

Makumba wrote:
What if you army doesn't have a 2 pts upgrade or has no 2 pts upgrade you want and for your opponent going over points ment and extra melta or plasm. Making his army work better by breaking the points limit , while yours even with the 2 extra points won't.

Hah well that's not a problem for me, neither is *gasp* occasionally loosing a game. I was just answering the question, "Do you allow extra grace points?".

I like the part where you think people who do not allow their opponent to go over the points LIMIT are deathly afraid of losing.

"Why won't you let me cheat? Are you afraid of losing? Stop being such a TFG and just let me cheat."

I would ask whats the point of having army-specific rules in the first place? But 7th edition.

changemod wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
I agree with Blacksails. The limit is the limit. If you go over that limit, you are making an imposition on your opponent.

If you have 1501, and your cheapest thing on the board is 50 points, suck it up and play with 1451.

This though, I'd outright disagree with. Far too extreme an example.

I don't begrudge your right to an opinion, but in the above scenario, don't pretend that I'd be the one introducing a problem. How hard is it to come up with a list at or under 1500 points?

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

Makumba wrote:
What if you army doesn't have a 2 pts upgrade or has no 2 pts upgrade you want and for your opponent going over points ment and extra melta or plasm. Making his army work better by breaking the points limit , while yours even with the 2 extra points won't.

Hah well that's not a problem for me, neither is *gasp* occasionally loosing a game. I was just answering the question, "Do you allow extra grace points?".

I like the part where you think people who do not allow their opponent to go over the points LIMIT are deathly afraid of losing.

Hah wow "deathly afraid"... did I say all that? Wait, no, I didn't. What are you getting so bent out of shape for? The question was do 'you' allow...; I do. This stuff isn't life or death it's a game,
there's no reason to be "deathly afraid" of your opponent having 2 extra points.

If it means that much to you, when the two of us play we can use exact points ok?

Does a football game go 60 minutes and 3 seconds when a team is trying to come back and runs out of time outs? Does a race last an extra lap because one of the drivers had a bad pit stop? The points limit is there for a reason and I can't think of a codex that doesn't have a common 5-10 point upgrade that could be eliminated to get under the points LIMIT. To those of you making the argument "what if it would change the whole complexion of a unit to remove a few points?" That's a piss poor excuse. These are things you need to consider when making a list. You aren't special and you don't get to ignore the most basic rule of the game just because you can't build a proper list that actually sticks to the point limit. I have lists from 500 to 2500 saved in battle scribe. A lot of them are 1-4 points under the limit. Would I like another melta or melta bomb? Of course, but that would put me over the points limit so I had to drop it. Plenty of tournaments have been won with 1846-1849 point lists so stop acting like it's some giant handicap that would cripple your army if you weren't allowed to go 5 points over. Trying to squeeze in as many points as possible without going over and taking everything you need is the majority of the strategy of the game. If you're going to ignore that you might as well dice off to see who wins.

Makumba wrote:
What if you army doesn't have a 2 pts upgrade or has no 2 pts upgrade you want and for your opponent going over points ment and extra melta or plasm. Making his army work better by breaking the points limit , while yours even with the 2 extra points won't.

You can replace some weapon option or equipment piece with a cheaper one. Better be 3 points under the limit than 2 above (difference of 5 points). If that breaks your army, you're doing it wrong. As marines you can replace that relic blade with a power weapon. Or get a melta instead of plasma(5 points saving). There really -are- ways to cut down on points by taking different options. If it means downgrading your fancy 1003pt list, then it means that this particular list is not meant for this point bracket, as simple as that. If you can't fit in 1000, try 1200 or 1250 and so on.

Noone is stupid enough to be unable to make a valid list that fits in the agreed bracket. It can all be worked around. :-)

I understand that some people like to defend stuff in a way of countering the vile dogpiles, but there's a limit as to how much you can defend someone's stubbornness in sticking to a list that goes over the limit rather than actually honouring the agreed terms of battle. Just remember that some armies have 2-5 point options, so grace points can be used for outright cheating, no matter how little the change.

 Klerych wrote:
You can replace some weapon option or equipment piece with a cheaper one. Better be 3 points under the limit than 2 above (difference of 5 points). If that breaks your army, you're doing it wrong. As marines you can replace that relic blade with a power weapon. Or get a melta instead of plasma(5 points saving). There really -are- ways to cut down on points by taking different options. If it means downgrading your fancy 1003pt list, then it means that this particular list is not meant for this point bracket, as simple as that. If you can't fit in 1000, try 1200 or 1250 and so on.

You misunderstood there. He wasn't saying it's hard to cut stuff, he was saying that "just add 2 points to your list to match" is a pretty weak offer to your opponent because they very often won't have anything useful to add with those "extra" points. So what the offer really means is that one player gets to play the 1502 point list they wanted, while the other player is stuck with a 1500 point list that happens to have a couple points wasted on upgrades they didn't want to take.

Yeah, I agree.

However, I wish that GW would stop producing codexes with units that have weird points values that never exactly hit a points limit, unless you play 2,5 boxes of them (like Beasts of Nurgle).

In my casual games though, I allow a 1% variation, as long as both players agree (As most armies (like, virtually all imperial armies) can always do something with 5pts).

As a question, to those who are fine with going over the limit, why not just change the limit?

I mean, if you're allowing 5pts over the limit, when why not just play 1505pts?

Some of the comments in this thread have really wound me up about how inflexible people are. I play the game for fun and if someone is a couple of points over I don't care. It's not ruining my day. If it's a tournament then fair enough, stick to the points limit, don't go over. A friendly game being point or so over who cares. What if it is someone who wants to try out that unit for the first time in a game and puts it at a few points over? Friendly games are for friendly attitude and a lot of people here are not showing that. Suck it up.

(No, my armies are all under or on the points limit. Just in case someone is thinking here is one of those guys who always want a few points over.)

 Azza007 wrote:
Some of the comments in this thread have really wound me up about how inflexible people are.

Indeed - like those people who refuse to cut anything from their list.

 Azza007 wrote:
A friendly game being point or so over who cares. What if it is someone who wants to try out that unit for the first time in a game and puts it at a few points over?

Well, here's an idea - if they want to try a unit for the first time, how about adding it *first* and building their army around that. That seems more sensible than trying to cram it into a list, and calling everyone TFG because they can't be bothered cutting anything to actually keep to the limit.

Yes.

I use points as a ~ guide to the size of game I wanna play. I wouldn't be too anal about the exact, specific value.

I hope GW's next edition of the game gives "no specific points" a bit more official recognition, just as unbound did for "no FOC", to get more people to think about these sort of restrictions as "tools to be used/adapted/experimented with" and less as "scripture written in stone".

Wonderwolf wrote:
I hope GW's next edition of the game gives "no specific points" a bit more official recognition, just as unbound did for "no FOC", to get more people to think about these sort of restrictions as "tools to be used/adapted/experimented with" and less as "scripture written in stone".

Making that legal seems... dubious, to say the least. I mean, we'd basically throwing away the last remnant of the game's failing attempts at balance.

If they were going to do that, it seems like it would be easier to just remove point costs from units and call it a day. Just tell players to 'bring whatever they think is reasonable'.

Honestly, I'd much prefer some 'uneven' missions - along the lines of the ones in the 3rd edition rulebook. Where the players have different missions, and (where necessary) different point limits to account for this.

I'm fine with people gong under or over by whatever they see fit. Points are just a general guideline as far as I'm concerned.

 vipoid wrote:

 Azza007 wrote:
Some of the comments in this thread have really wound me up about how inflexible people are.

Indeed - like those people who refuse to cut anything from their list.

 Azza007 wrote:
A friendly game being point or so over who cares. What if it is someone who wants to try out that unit for the first time in a game and puts it at a few points over?

Well, here's an idea - if they want to try a unit for the first time, how about adding it *first* and building their army around that. That seems more sensible than trying to cram it into a list, and calling everyone TFG because they can't be bothered cutting anything to actually keep to the limit.

Quoted for truth. Why do we have to endorse and help the development of bad habits when we (as those who discourage/disallow that) are called the inflexible while it's those people who would argue to be able to exceed the agreed points who are inflexible. Let's look at the available options:

- If you want just an army list, you can make something else. Most armies can swap out a unit or weapon for another without being rendered unplayable;
- If you want to try out some particular unit setup you can start with it AND THEN build the rest of the army while respecting the agreed amount of points;
- You can just agree to raise the limit by those few points, but then you can't exceed it too;
- You can both agree to play on bigger points if your conception of army doesn't fit it (Imho bigger army proxies are better than grace points).

But yeah, my main argument is that it really is a bad habit and calling someone inflexible for not letting one exceed the limit is very bad of that person - that should never be encouraged. It's pretty much expecting someone to agree for you to abuse it while making him feel bad for just sticking to agreed rules. It is worse of that player that he doesn't feel like cutting the points, even if it makes his army a little bit less powerful. As I said - it's expected of people to play with few points under the limit rather than a few over, especially that it's easy to add/remove one weapon/equipment option to meet the point bracket requirement.

I'm really understanding, but I am still sure that it can be worked with. It's sad that some people are just too lazy to think harder on a proper list and expect others to just deal with it.

I never said it was very bad, I said I thought it inflexible how people wouldn't let that one or two points go in a FRIENDLY game. I did point out that a competitive setting then be within the points limit, no excuse.

The way people are coming across, to me, is inflexible, and the whole not giving a point or two in friendly games is laughable. It seems to make the spirit of the game disappear as people are getting upset over something so small. Again I stress this is in my opinion. I am not going to begrudge someone a couple of points in a friendly setting. Am I really supposed to be turning someone down for a game because they are over by 3pts. Such a big rule break. If they do that then they are obviously going to cheat and break loads of rules in the game...

 Klerych wrote:

Quoted for truth. Why do we have to endorse and help the development of bad habits when we (as those who discourage/disallow that) are called the inflexible while it's those people who would argue to be able to exceed the agreed points who are inflexible. Let's look at the available options:

Being cool and getting on with playing the game isn't a bad habit.

Getting your panties in a twist over a few points here and there, however, is. So I'd recommend you start working on losing that bad habit and not encourage other to follow your bad example by being an old miser about point values. online or at the table.

I don't think people are going to turn down games over a few points over. I imagine they'll politely ask their opponent to remove something to bring it under the limit.

I don't find that to be inflexible. If its inflexible to not accept going over, surely it must be inflexible to not remove something to come under the limit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wonderwolf wrote:


Getting your panties in a twist over a few points here and there, however, is. So I'd recommend you start working on losing that bad habit and not encourage other to follow your bad example by being an old miser about point values. online or at the table.

Firstly, I don't think anyone is getting any panties in a twist.

Secondly, why is it a bad habit to ask that your opponent comes under or at the point limit? Why is it a bad example? Wouldn't it be the best example to meet the agreement two people agreed upon?

If it is possible to do it then go ahead, however I would rather play someone a couple of points over if they can't than play someone who has had to go under a lot more points (10-15 say) .

 Blacksails wrote:


Secondly, why is it a bad habit to ask that your opponent comes under or at the point limit? Why is it a bad example? Wouldn't it be the best example to meet the agreement two people agreed upon?

Why is it a bad habit to not care? Why is it a bad habit to just briefly ask of your opponent is fine with 5 points extra, rather than making him (or her) wait unnecessarily and bore yourself with the most stupid part of playing the game, the list, instead of throwing down some dice and getting the most out of your free-time?

Also, if I agree to the extra points, two people did agree on it. What's the problem?

I encourage people to use the right number of points, but I'm not so anal about it that I can't accept people going slightly over-- unless they make a habit of it.

Wonderwolf wrote:

Why is it a bad habit to not care? Why is it a bad habit to just briefly ask of your opponent is fine with 5 points extra, rather than making him (or her) wait unnecessarily and bore yourself with the most stupid part of playing the game, the list, instead of throwing down some dice and getting the most out of your free-time?

Which all begs the question of why bother showing up with a list over the original agreed upon limit? Why put your opponent in the less than desirable situation of either having to agree or ask to change the list?

Also, if I agree to the extra points, two people did agree on it. What's the problem?

Because that wasn't the original agreement. If they both agree to any changes, fine. However, that's not the issue being discussed here.

I will allow up to 5 points extra, but only if removing the smallest amount possible brings them more than 30 points under.

I'm usually within 5 points. If I can't make it work for 1 or 2 points over I'll be under by 5-8 points. I should probably juts suck it up and stay under the limit.

 Blacksails wrote:


Which all begs the question of why bother showing up with a list over the original agreed upon limit?

To be fair, I usually don't. I just bring my models and deploy what I guesstimate would be around the size of game we're playing. ~1000 pts,, 1500 pts, etc..

Are you saying you don't bring a list? At all? With points, wargear options, and other details?

If that's how you play, then I completely understand where you're coming from.

Wonderwolf wrote:


To be fair, I usually don't. I just bring my models and deploy what I guesstimate would be around the size of game we're playing. ~1000 pts,, 1500 pts, etc..

I....

I... have no words.

If I build an army to a specific amount of points, I expect my opponent to do the same. I have in the past had games which were specified as "2000-2010 pts". Though that obviously just shifts the hard limit from 2000pts to 2010pts, so I'm not really sure what the point was (maybe they felt by specifying a range instead of a single limit it'd stop people from going over?)

If my opponent does show up with an army that's a bit over, I have been known to offer to simply up the limit by say 100 or 200pts so I can just take the extra unit I wanted to take but didn't because I was sticking to the limit.

 Azza007 wrote:
Some of the comments in this thread have really wound me up about how inflexible people are. I play the game for fun and if someone is a couple of points over I don't care.

Obviously your opponent doesn't share your sentiments, because if he was just playing the game for fun he would stick to the agreed points limit.

From 'Army Selection Method' in the Warhammer 40,000 7th edition rulebook:

To use points limits, you will need to reference each unit's points value, which you can find in its Army List Entry. Simply add up the points values of all the units in your army, and make sure that the total does not exceed the limit agreed upon for the game.

 Azza007 wrote:
Am I really supposed to be turning someone down for a game because they are over by 3pts.

No. Ideally, they would have the courtesy to bring a list within the agreed points limit so as to not put you in that position to begin with.

Wonderwolf wrote:
Why is it a bad habit to just briefly ask of your opponent is fine with 5 points extra, rather than making him (or her) wait unnecessarily and bore yourself with the most stupid part of playing the game, the list, instead of throwing down some dice and getting the most out of your free-time?

Also, if I agree to the extra points, two people did agree on it. What's the problem?

I am befuddled.
I don't think that "the list" - or rather the process of building one - is the most stupid part of the game. Rather, it is a part of the strategic planning.

For the part (in a later post) about just bringing models, an option is that of preparing some lists in various sizes (500, 750, 1000, 1500, 1750, 1850, 2000 etc), for casual friendly games.

Friendly pre-arranged games give much time to build a list...

But, staying within the point limit is not inflexibility, but rather also a form of respect towards the opponents.

Depends on the game and who I'm playing. If it is a tourney or something like that, no. Friendly games....it depends. An experienced player, I frown on it and let them know I disaprove. A new player learning, I allow it and explain why it is bad form to go over.
Myself? Never ever do I go over.

If someone can't get the points right in a list they have all the time they need to make, how can they count how many dice passed a roll why playing the game. Just play some one else unstead, that way you don't have to count their dice for them.


I like to think the people I play games with that have a heavy focus on numbers and math, have you know passed math class.

I just play casual games, so I sometimes go 1-2 points over in a 1500 game, but I always check with them first if they'd still like to play. Sometimes I just tell my opponent that we're playing a 1502pt game.

"Grace points"?

Oh, you are talking about cheating by not following the agreed-upon rules......no, we don't allow that.

In any format other than a casual/narrative game between friends, you're being TFG if you ask for extra points.

You may think you're not, but what TFG doesn't?

NuggzTheNinja wrote:
This is TFG logic that basically shames people for disallowing soft cheating. .

Yah "TFG" for being easy going and allowing my opponent to play with whatever even if it puts him at an advantage. I know they probably aren't cheating because anyone who cares enough about winning to cheat in a friendly game isn't someone I would enjoy playing anyway. Not everyone enjoys spending over an hour on lists like I do (Often times at work O_o ) so whatever he slaps together is fine whether he had more time or not.

If points aren't a big deal, then abide by the rules that we decide upon when we decide to play a game at X points.

So to paraphrase, "If point limits aren't a big deal, then abide by them precisely and without error as if they mattered a great deal" ... ???

vipoid wrote:As a question, to those who are fine with going over the limit, why not just change the limit?
I mean, if you're allowing 5pts over the limit, when why not just play 1505pts?

That's a thought, but I think the end result is more or less the same, you're putting it on the other guy to change his list to match yours.

Azza007 wrote:If it is possible to do it then go ahead, however I would rather play someone a couple of points over if they can't than play someone who has had to go under a lot more points (10-15 say) .

This guy gets it, the spirit of the game. +1

 Blacksails wrote:

...It'd be like asking your mate to show up at a certain time to eat at a restaurant, or watch a movie. I expect my friend to arrive at or before the given time, unless some unforeseen circumstance holds them up. Same goes for a point limit in 40k. Be at or below the value unless some other circumstance prevents that within reason...

I think this really highlights the difference in opinion between the two sides. If my mate was 3 minutes late I would not care one iota, despite the agreed upon time. This is especially true in light of how points, unlike time, comes in chunks. Like others have said they think it would be better if you played down 50 points rather than up by 1 because that's the rules. This is analogous to your friend who rides the bus that only comes once every 50 minutes. You ask to meet somewhere at 5:00, he agrees and takes the bus that would get him there 1 minute late. A single minute. In this analogous situation you expect him to take the bus that gets him there 49 minutes early and wait for you. Id rather wait 1 minute than make my friend wait 49 just like I'd rather play 1 point down than 49 points up. He could've written a better list sure, just like he could've ridden his bike instead of the bus and shown up exactly on time, but either way I don't really care.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Depends on the game and who I'm playing. If it is a tourney or something like that, no. Friendly games....it depends. An experienced player, I frown on it and let them know I disaprove. A new player learning, I allow it and explain why it is bad form to go over.
Myself? Never ever do I go over.

this sums up my sentiment on this issues perfectly.

 Lobukia wrote:
In any format other than a casual/narrative game between friends, you're being TFG if you ask for extra points.

You may think you're not, but what TFG doesn't?

I wouldn't even mind it if we were doing a 1750 point game and my opponent asked if we could go to 1850 so he could field a unit he really wants to field. I would consider that just fine as hes not telling me hes going to go over and asking permission to change the agreed upon size for both players in a manner that gives both players something.

JubbJubbz wrote:
Not everyone enjoys spending over an hour on lists like I do (Often times at work O_o ) so whatever he slaps together is fine whether he had more time or not.

You don't have to spend an hour fine-tuning a list to be under the point limit. Just remove stuff until you're under the limit. If you truly don't care about list optimization then it shouldn't take you more than a minute to make the necessary changes.

So to paraphrase, "If point limits aren't a big deal, then abide by them precisely and without error as if they mattered a great deal" ... ???

No, you're missing the point here. The limit itself is important, the thing that supposedly "isn't a big deal" is the extra points. The person with an illegal list will frequently claim that the extra points "don't really matter", so it's unreasonable to complain about their illegal list. Ok, fine, those extra points aren't that important, so just remove them from your list. After all, if they aren't important then you won't miss them.

This guy gets it, the spirit of the game. +1

So the spirit of the game is "blatant cheating is ok, as long as you can figure out a way to call your opponent TFG if they don't let you cheat"?

 Peregrine wrote:
No, you're missing the point here. The limit itself is important, the thing that supposedly "isn't a big deal" is the extra points. The person with an illegal list will frequently claim that the extra points "don't really matter", so it's unreasonable to complain about their illegal list. Ok, fine, those extra points aren't that important, so just remove them from your list. After all, if they aren't important then you won't miss them.

I agree -- either they matter or they don't. If they don't really matter, don't make an issue of it, and remove it If they do matter, be honest about it, and deal with it however way your opponent agrees to.

 Peregrine wrote:

This guy gets it, the spirit of the game. +1

So the spirit of the game is "blatant cheating is ok, as long as you can figure out a way to call your opponent TFG if they don't let you cheat"?

Well, yes and no. The original sprit of the game thing was saying, "I'd rather my opponent be 2 points over than 15 points under." I do understand the point.

 TheAvengingKnee wrote:

I wouldn't even mind it if we were doing a 1750 point game and my opponent asked if we could go to 1850 so he could field a unit he really wants to field. I would consider that just fine as hes not telling me hes going to go over and asking permission to change the agreed upon size for both players in a manner that gives both players something.

If my opponent asked me that, I'd certainly raise an eyebrow.

Um,,, what unit is so massive that you can't even fit it into a 1750pt list?

On games up to 2000 points: zero allowance for going over.

On games that are either just thrown together or above the 2k number: points really don't matter too much anymore. Honestly, on larger games a 5 or 10% point difference is unlikely to translate into real issues over the course of 6 turns.

 vipoid wrote:

 TheAvengingKnee wrote:

I wouldn't even mind it if we were doing a 1750 point game and my opponent asked if we could go to 1850 so he could field a unit he really wants to field. I would consider that just fine as hes not telling me hes going to go over and asking permission to change the agreed upon size for both players in a manner that gives both players something.

If my opponent asked me that, I'd certainly raise an eyebrow.

Um,,, what unit is so massive that you can't even fit it into a 1750pt list?

TWO revenant titans?

My group has a law of 7 points over, as long as a single upgrade does not do it.

Wonderwolf wrote:

 Klerych wrote:

Quoted for truth. Why do we have to endorse and help the development of bad habits when we (as those who discourage/disallow that) are called the inflexible while it's those people who would argue to be able to exceed the agreed points who are inflexible. Let's look at the available options:

Being cool and getting on with playing the game isn't a bad habit.

Getting your panties in a twist over a few points here and there, however, is. So I'd recommend you start working on losing that bad habit and not encourage other to follow your bad example by being an old miser about point values. online or at the table.

Well, I really wish you would also comment on the rest of that post of mine, because I clearly explained how is that a bad habit. Saying "Being cool and getting on with playing the game isn't a bad habit." is really twisting the whole subject. I never said that it's a bad habit. I said that -expecting- someone to allow you that, instead of trying a bit harder and using a bit more of your brain while making a list is a bad habit.

Of course I could write up another post full of examples, but I've already said that once or even twice. The golden rule is to put more effort yourself rather than expect someone to just cope with your sloppy work - that applies to everything in our lives. It's a bad habit to expect someone to do that and a good habit to work a bit harder yourself. Sure, it's nice if he's cool with that and allows it, but you have no right to demand that nor try to make him feel bad for not doing it - he should not be expected to do that, it's up to him.

Also no panties twisting, I'm a very understanding person but I also like when the agreed rules are followed. If someone says he has to be 5pts over the limit I ask if he can't swap out some equipment option for one few points cheaper or drop something(a model, upgrade, whatever) to meet the required limit as I have.

When me and my friends/brother play, we allow grace points. we normally play 4th and 5th ed and there are some wierd point units that will not end up in a sum of 5. I really don't care if someone is 1, 2, 3 or 4 points over, if someone is 5 over I will just add 5 points of wargear. I've had several weird point cost games where we use a 1525 point games list because we wanted to fit in one more man, I'm ok with that.

 vipoid wrote:

 TheAvengingKnee wrote:

I wouldn't even mind it if we were doing a 1750 point game and my opponent asked if we could go to 1850 so he could field a unit he really wants to field. I would consider that just fine as hes not telling me hes going to go over and asking permission to change the agreed upon size for both players in a manner that gives both players something.

If my opponent asked me that, I'd certainly raise an eyebrow.

Um,,, what unit is so massive that you can't even fit it into a 1750pt list?

i was just using it as an example it would rarely come up in that size game.

 TheAvengingKnee wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 TheAvengingKnee wrote:

I wouldn't even mind it if we were doing a 1750 point game and my opponent asked if we could go to 1850 so he could field a unit he really wants to field. I would consider that just fine as hes not telling me hes going to go over and asking permission to change the agreed upon size for both players in a manner that gives both players something.

If my opponent asked me that, I'd certainly raise an eyebrow.

Um,,, what unit is so massive that you can't even fit it into a 1750pt list?

i was just using it as an example it would rarely come up in that size game.

Well, sure. Proportionately, 100 points (which is a lot... lol) is less than 6% of 1750, but going from 500 -> 600 is a huge jump. The debate was more generally about a few points (like, single digits), I think.

That being said, 1850 is a point limit for a game that isn't meant to last too long. Besides, then I could field both my Revenant Titans, and have 50 points left over. But could I go over by 1 point, please, so that I can have a bike squad (51 points)?

In case anyone misconstrues it, I'm joking about my two revenant titans. Sadly, I don't even own one. :(

I don't have a problem with it, and that's because people pay tons of money to play this game. A 2,000 point army is usually going to cost at least 1,000$ - that's a pretty penny just to play a game.

People talk about "just switch something around" but it's often not that simple. If they're not a couple points over because of a melta-bomb, but because they crammed another unit in there? Telling a player without a whole ton of models to lose those 1-2 points could mean losing some crucial upgrade (klaw on a Warboss for example), or even an entire unit depending on what they have. Lots of players don't have the funds to get the spare models to make it as simple as "turn that lascannon into a missle-launcher", they might just have to take the entire devastator unit out and be at a huge disadvantage.

So, in short, I've no problem with people going slightly over, I'll generally just attribute it to being the best they can do. If I lose a game because of a 1-20 point disadvantage, then I simply could've won via playing better or (and this is much less likely) the dice gods really showed me what for.

The whole point of having a limit is so that you have to make those hard choices about what's critical and what isn't.

Telling a player without a whole ton of models to lose those 1-2 points could mean losing some crucial upgrade (klaw on a Warboss for example), or even an entire unit depending on what they have.

That would only be true, if someone bought models at random and then tried to build a list out of them.Normal people make a list of what ever points are played localy and then buy models after testing the list. If someone is stupid enough buy stuff at random, then the only way to make him unlearn acting like that, is making him feel how it is to spend 50+$ and not being able to use the unit or model.

 Blacksails wrote:
The whole point of having a limit is so that you have to make those hard choices about what's critical and what isn't.

You miss the point. Many players (especially those below 30 years) may not have a choice to make. If they can't run all lascannons on their devastator squad, they can't take the squad at all. They don't have enough literal income to afford the extra models, so if you crack down on them being a couple of points over the limit.. They dont have any replacements. They're down an entire squad - which could very well be a critical one.

I got into 40k when I was 12 years old, so I'm speaking from experience here. I remember games from back then when I had to run over 100 points below the points limit because I didn't have anything to substitute, and marines cost way more points back then and my opponent wouldn't give me an inch - they'd prefer I just knee-cap myself. I remember some older players griping because my tac squad sergeants had a power sword / chain sword and bolt pistol modeled, but I just ran them with a bolter to meet the points requirement. The dudes I put on the table were the only models I could afford, but they were upset that a 13 year old kid couldn't shell out the 30$ on the spot to buy another box of tactical marines JUST to make a sergeant with a bolter to switch back and forth.

This game costs money and lots of it - people may not have many (or any) more models than what you see on the table, so what are you going to do in that case? If you're not willing to give them a few points of leeway, or some WYSIYG leeway, you'll be taking a literal dump on their experience. Believe it or not new players are important, and not everyone jumping into the hobby has the $$$$ to shell out for a well planned force with plenty of options on the outset.
on

Makumba wrote:

Telling a player without a whole ton of models to lose those 1-2 points could mean losing some crucial upgrade (klaw on a Warboss for example), or even an entire unit depending on what they have.

That would only be true, if someone bought models at random and then tried to build a list out of them.Normal people make a list of what ever points are played localy and then buy models after testing the list. If someone is stupid enough buy stuff at random, then the only way to make him unlearn acting like that, is making him feel how it is to spend 50+$ and not being able to use the unit or model.

Or if someone had models bought for them, and had to use everything to hit the points limit.

Or if a new codex dropped and shook up the points costs for various things on a player that doesn't have a lot of spare models.

Or if, heaven forbid, someone just getting into the hobby decided to buy what they thought looked / sounded awesome, as opposed to sitting down for a few hours to read multiple books, then going online to do research, and finally busting out a calculator to add stuff up before purchasing any models.

Don't be a donkey-cave, there are several legitimate reasons why someone could be in this situation. A hobby like ours should be friendly and greet new players with open arms, not scold them for failing to understand the system immediately and make them play with assinine disadvantages as punishment until they sink more money into an already expensive pass-time.

Frankly, I'm disappointed in a lot of what I'm seeing here. There's a distinct difference between encouraging bad habits amongst the player base, and simply corn-holing players who are new or don't have the kind of money thrown at this hobby that you do. New players are the life blood of our hobby, and anyone should be welcome regardless of disposable income. For shame, Dakka. For shame.

Makumba wrote:

Telling a player without a whole ton of models to lose those 1-2 points could mean losing some crucial upgrade (klaw on a Warboss for example), or even an entire unit depending on what they have.

That would only be true, if someone bought models at random and then tried to build a list out of them.Normal people make a list of what ever points are played localy and then buy models after testing the list. If someone is stupid enough buy stuff at random, then the only way to make him unlearn acting like that, is making him feel how it is to spend 50+$ and not being able to use the unit or model.

This is surely the intelligent thing to do, and with limited funds (and time) to build one army to play, that makes sense. However, two reasonable situations arise when it isn't so anymore.

First, people don't usually buy 1850 points at once or even collect towards that. Instead they buy stuff in bits and make it work as they go along.

Second, I often collect an army and model it long before I turn it into a fighting force. Therefore, for the first few months that I play it, the army will not be optimized (plus, I mag try different things or change my mind).

 morganfreeman wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
The whole point of having a limit is so that you have to make those hard choices about what's critical and what isn't.

You miss the point. Many players (especially those below 30 years) may not have a choice to make. If they can't run all lascannons on their devastator squad, they can't take the squad at all. They don't have enough literal income to afford the extra models, so if you crack down on them being a couple of points over the limit.. They dont have any replacements. They're down an entire squad - which could very well be a critical one.

I got into 40k when I was 12 years old, so I'm speaking from experience here. I remember games from back then when I had to run over 100 points below the points limit because I didn't have anything to substitute, and marines cost way more points back then and my opponent wouldn't give me an inch - they'd prefer I just knee-cap myself. I remember some older players griping because my tac squad sergeants had a power sword / chain sword and bolt pistol modeled, but I just ran them with a bolter to meet the points requirement. The dudes I put on the table were the only models I could afford, but they were upset that a 13 year old kid couldn't shell out the 30$ on the spot to buy another box of tactical marines JUST to make a sergeant with a bolter to switch back and forth.

This game costs money and lots of it - people may not have many (or any) more models than what you see on the table, so what are you going to do in that case? If you're not willing to give them a few points of leeway, or some WYSIYG leeway, you'll be taking a literal dump on their experience. Believe it or not new players are important, and not everyone jumping into the hobby has the $$$$ to shell out for a well planned force with plenty of options on the outset.

Proxy . No one s has said you need to be 100% WYSIYG.

 morganfreeman wrote:
If they can't run all lascannons on their devastator squad, they can't take the squad at all.

Nonsense. The devastator squad box doesn't come with all lascannons, so if you're running an all-lascannon squad it's because you've invested in extra models beyond the bare minimum. Also, a devastator squad doesn't have to take the maximum number of heavy weapons. You can always just drop a heavy weapon entirely and replace it with a bolter marine. So what "I can't take the squad at all" really means is "I can't take the perfectly-optimized squad that I really want to take".

Noir wrote:

 morganfreeman wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
The whole point of having a limit is so that you have to make those hard choices about what's critical and what isn't.

You miss the point. Many players (especially those below 30 years) may not have a choice to make. If they can't run all lascannons on their devastator squad, they can't take the squad at all. They don't have enough literal income to afford the extra models, so if you crack down on them being a couple of points over the limit.. They dont have any replacements. They're down an entire squad - which could very well be a critical one.

I got into 40k when I was 12 years old, so I'm speaking from experience here. I remember games from back then when I had to run over 100 points below the points limit because I didn't have anything to substitute, and marines cost way more points back then and my opponent wouldn't give me an inch - they'd prefer I just knee-cap myself. I remember some older players griping because my tac squad sergeants had a power sword / chain sword and bolt pistol modeled, but I just ran them with a bolter to meet the points requirement. The dudes I put on the table were the only models I could afford, but they were upset that a 13 year old kid couldn't shell out the 30$ on the spot to buy another box of tactical marines JUST to make a sergeant with a bolter to switch back and forth.

This game costs money and lots of it - people may not have many (or any) more models than what you see on the table, so what are you going to do in that case? If you're not willing to give them a few points of leeway, or some WYSIYG leeway, you'll be taking a literal dump on their experience. Believe it or not new players are important, and not everyone jumping into the hobby has the $$$$ to shell out for a well planned force with plenty of options on the outset.

Proxy . No one s has said you need to be 100% WYSIYG.

exactly, if my oppnent had to trim some points and had to change the las dev squad to some other cheaper weapon to come in under points then thats fine if he proxies them for a game. most people I know will just take out stuff even if it is something they wanted to field because they agreed to the point level and decided to abide by the point limit without even thinking of asking to get grace points.

I allow up to 5 points over the limit, personally, but I'd be less inclined at a tournament or some such.

For my own lists, I'd rather be three or four points under the limit then over it by any margin.

 morganfreeman wrote:

You miss the point. Many players (especially those below 30 years) may not have a choice to make. If they can't run all lascannons on their devastator squad, they can't take the squad at all. They don't have enough literal income to afford the extra models, so if you crack down on them being a couple of points over the limit.. They dont have any replacements. They're down an entire squad - which could very well be a critical one.

I got into 40k when I was 12 years old, so I'm speaking from experience here. I remember games from back then when I had to run over 100 points below the points limit because I didn't have anything to substitute, and marines cost way more points back then and my opponent wouldn't give me an inch - they'd prefer I just knee-cap myself. I remember some older players griping because my tac squad sergeants had a power sword / chain sword and bolt pistol modeled, but I just ran them with a bolter to meet the points requirement. The dudes I put on the table were the only models I could afford, but they were upset that a 13 year old kid couldn't shell out the 30$ on the spot to buy another box of tactical marines JUST to make a sergeant with a bolter to switch back and forth.

This game costs money and lots of it - people may not have many (or any) more models than what you see on the table, so what are you going to do in that case? If you're not willing to give them a few points of leeway, or some WYSIYG leeway, you'll be taking a literal dump on their experience. Believe it or not new players are important, and not everyone jumping into the hobby has the $$$$ to shell out for a well planned force with plenty of options on the outset.
on

I'm not missing the point at all.

If you cannot build a list that's under an agreed upon point limit, and do not have absolutely any alternative models to bring it below the point level, maybe try playing another point level.

Ignoring the incredibly small chance someone has an exact 2005pts list that in no way can be altered, and refuse to play anything other than 100% WYSIWYG.

Again, the challenge of building a list is figuring out what's important to you and what's not.

A single point of anecdotal evidence about a very specific case does not convince that holding your opponent to an agreement is anything but the right and reasonable thing to, with some exceptions. In a case as oddly specific as you mentioned against a 12 year old with little to no money, I'd probably let it slide. Alternatively, I'd just suggest playing a lower point level where you have more options.

 morganfreeman wrote:
Telling a player without a whole ton of models to lose those 1-2 points could mean losing some crucial upgrade (klaw on a Warboss for example), or even an entire unit depending on what they have.

But that's entirely the point.

The points limit limits what you can fit into your army. That's a totally intentional side-effect of the points system. If you need to move stuff around or drop stuff in order to fit that extra power klaw in, or you just can't make it fit because you absolutely need to have some other option in there instead, well, that's the points system working as intended.

If my friends were to ask first, I would probably be okay with any amount of "grace" points. We typically play pretty casually though. Playing the game with a newcomer to 40k, I am only concerned with them having a good time and remaining engaged. Take 200 points!

 insaniak wrote:

 morganfreeman wrote:
Telling a player without a whole ton of models to lose those 1-2 points could mean losing some crucial upgrade (klaw on a Warboss for example), or even an entire unit depending on what they have.

But that's entirely the point.

The points limit limits what you can fit into your army. That's a totally intentional side-effect of the points system. If you need to move stuff around or drop stuff in order to fit that extra power klaw in, or you just can't make it fit because you absolutely need to have some other option in there instead, well, that's the points system working as intended.

This reminds me of how 5th edition was the best example of why courteous players always obeyed the points limit, when we had a thread in the army list sub forum where somebody shrilly complained to people pointing out his 1.5k or whatever list was over the limit, "but it HAS to X points over. The only thing I can drop is that tenth tac marine, and if I do that, I don't get the free flamer and... (multi-melta? Missile launcher?) I forget what the free heavy weapon upgrade was.'

I think that everyone here has their opinion as to whether they allow grace points or not. Everyone's opinion on the matter is an individual decision. Some folks view it to be as a legally binding verbal agreement. Other folks view it as a more open negotiation. In the end, it all turns out to be a verbal agreement between two opposing parties.

I personally make each and every list to the agreed points value. I take it as a matter of pride of being able to discern the units that I will need for the upcoming battle. With that being said, I do allow for grace points to allow other players the ability to expand their growing collection withouut having to sacrifice their style of play. I do not condemn those folks who choose not to allow grace points.

I would also state that I prefer to play WYSIWYG. Yet, I also recognize that some folks can not do a complete list using WYSIWYG. Rarely does GW make codexes, that allow for a competant list without a degree in accounting, especially so if your club plays WYSIWYG.

So in turn, I either let the opponent have a small 5 point grace window for WYSIWYG or let them proxy for the exact amount. I think that is the compromise that suits the best of both worlds.

 morganfreeman wrote:
I don't have a problem with it, and that's because people pay tons of money to play this game. A 2,000 point army is usually going to cost at least 1,000$ - that's a pretty penny just to play a game.

Not sure how is that an argument, to be honest. Unless it was some rhetorical statement.

 morganfreeman wrote:
People talk about "just switch something around" but it's often not that simple. If they're not a couple points over because of a melta-bomb, but because they crammed another unit in there?

I know I might sound a bit rude, but one really should think and use their brain while building a list. Using common sense - if that unit doesn't fit points-wise in your army at this bracket, then either it's the army's concept that's not fitting or that unit not being suitable for this point bracket. If you really need that one, then replace some other unit with another one. Imho if you can't squeeze it in legally, you should just drop it or switch to higher point bracket. Or -start- with that unit and build around it.

 morganfreeman wrote:
Telling a player without a whole ton of models to lose those 1-2 points could mean losing some crucial upgrade (klaw on a Warboss for example), or even an entire unit depending on what they have. Lots of players don't have the funds to get the spare models to make it as simple as "turn that lascannon into a missle-launcher", they might just have to take the entire devastator unit out and be at a huge disadvantage.

As I said - it can be worked around by weapon/equipment swaps - take one skorcha/big shoota less, don't get the upgraded gun on that vehicle or do it another way and remove one model but fill the points with gear. OR just admit that it can't legally work in this bracket. That happens. In WarmaHordes the Trollblood brick tactic doesn't play under 35pts because it's support-heavy. In 40k a mech vet Guard army won't work below 1000pts, to give an example that 40k players can relate to. As for models - I'd rather let someone proxy a rocket launcher with one of the lascan guys rather than have him insist on me dealing with that he couldn't bother thinking harder to make a legal list.

 morganfreeman wrote:
So, in short, I've no problem with people going slightly over, I'll generally just attribute it to being the best they can do. If I lose a game because of a 1-20 point disadvantage, then I simply could've won via playing better or (and this is much less likely) the dice gods really showed me what for.

But then again why would you justify their screw-up with that instead of taking the exact same mindset you just presented and say "If they lose a game because of a 1-20 point disadvantage, then they simply could've won via playing better despite lacking those few odd points as they could be compensated with effort". Not to mention paying more attention at the army building step.

To be honest I am fairly sure that if anyone came up with an example of an army that has to be over the points because there are no options there would be at least one good proposition as to how they could fix it. That's why noone of the 'defenders' brings any examples in this thread, they know it's just a matter of thinking a bit harder instead of mashing together a list on your knee on the way to the store.

I'll be boring and say for me it depends.

In a friendly setting I wouldn't mind at all if someone were a few points off as it "only" changes my chance of winning the game, not how fun it is to play. After all, who wouldn't rather spend time at the gaming table than at the desk doing math...

In a tournament on the other hand, part of the challenge is to come up with a hard list given certain limitations. In this setting going even a point over budget would be unacceptable.

How is the limiting factor (on your army list) of the points any less important than other limiting factors?

How about the limits of the FOC (which, I'll admit, has become less and less relevant) or the limits of your movement or the limits on how many times you can shoot?

"I am going to move my Assault Squad 7". I mean its just an inch. Don't be such a TFG"

 morganfreeman wrote:
People talk about "just switch something around" but it's often not that simple. If they're not a couple points over because of a melta-bomb, but because they crammed another unit in there?

In which case, perhaps they shouldn't have crammed an extra unit in?

 morganfreeman wrote:
Telling a player without a whole ton of models to lose those 1-2 points could mean losing some crucial upgrade (klaw on a Warboss for example), or even an entire unit depending on what they have.

You mean like the unit they added when they didn't have the points for said unit?

 morganfreeman wrote:
Lots of players don't have the funds to get the spare models to make it as simple as "turn that lascannon into a missle-launcher", they might just have to take the entire devastator unit out and be at a huge disadvantage.

Eh? Who cares whether they have the right model or not?

"Ok, just count that lascannon as a missile launcher for this game"

There, problem solved.

 goblinking201 wrote:
My group has a law of 7 points over, as long as a single upgrade does not do it.

So how exactly do you know where these 7 pts have come from?

In general no, always better to be under then over, i have been flexible with newer players though, who do not have a big enough army yet to switch in and out units for different battles to get as close as possible to the points limit.

Nah, I would rather be 3 pts under than have to ask my opponent if it was ok if I were 3 pts over. Just doesn't seem classy to me.

It's just as easy to be under points than over points. So no, I don't allow my player to be over in points. The limit is the limit. Life is full of hard decisions and choices. Not that 40K, a game of little toy soldiers, should ever be used as a metaphor for real life...

Can go over by no more than 5 points, and must let your opponent know in advance so he/she can add 5 points worth of wargear to their list of they so choose.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:


Eh? Who cares whether they have the right model or not?

"Ok, just count that lascannon as a missile launcher for this game"

There, problem solved.

B-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-but WYSIWYG!

 Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote:
Can go over by no more than 5 points, and must let your opponent know in advance so he/she can add 5 points worth of wargear to their list of they so choose.

Or, you know, just drop those 5pts. It's really not that difficult and I fail to see why your opponent should accomadate you going over.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote:
Can go over by no more than 5 points, and must let your opponent know in advance so he/she can add 5 points worth of wargear to their list of they so choose.

Or, you know, just drop those 5pts. It's really not that difficult and I fail to see why your opponent should accomadate you going over.

Ok...? That would be your take on it. I was answering the question. Could care only slightly less how you would do it if you were me.

I used to allow grace points, but someone on this forum said something that stuck with me a while ago.

It was something along the line of:
If that upgrade which takes you 1 point over the limit really 'doesn't make that much of a difference', why not just drop it and play an army that is within our agreed points limit.