Hey guys

When building a list I always seem to come to like 1503 points when I'm done and then it's a struggle to find those unnecessary couple of points.
Often my mate and I say that if it's 3 or less points over its chilled. How do other guys feel about this small infraction? Is it absolutely not allowed or is it a small enough number as to not really affect the game?

Regards Ub

Zero points over is the limit. If those points above the limit will really have no significant effect on the game then you shouldn't care so much about keeping them. Take something out until you have a legal list.

Zero points over. Setting the points limit is already a basic social contract you agree to with your opponent and if you can't follow something as simple as that its pretty pathetic.

Also here was the last thread on the subject. As you can see and majority of players also disallow grace points

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/625473.page

If your opponent is cool about it (assuming you have informed them of course) then that is between you and them. Obviously for some kind of league or tourney that wouldn't fly though.

Also voting for 0 points.
It's easy for most armies to take away a minor upgrade like a melta bomb or something.

OK cool thanks guys just wanted to get an idea on the rest of the community, from now on all games will be 0 points or under.

You can be the total number of point -1 under but 0 over.
A 1,5k game is a game with armies ranging from 1 - 1500 points. But you will generally like to bring an army that is closer to 1,5k in a 1,5k game then to 1 point.

Up to 3 points I won't complain.
Sometimes the points are stupidly designed and I'd rather be my opponent have that half melta bomb than being UNDER the limit.
Cause honestly, what difference will those 3 points make?
If I need that 20pt upgrade but it puts me 2 pts above the limit and I don't have a auspex/melta bomb to ditch I'd rather be 2 pts above than fill my list with useless 5pts upgrades.

We used to let 1% over, but we noticed we started building with the total points in mind, instead of only using this 'fat' for the extra 1-2 p as you're asking for.

I'd go with extra 2-3, nothing more.

I can go up to 50 points
i always love a challange

3 pts here to. Against close mates 10 pts has been done before. Sure 0pts in a tourny.

For my own lists it's always 0 points over. For a friend of mine I've allowed him to play 4 points over. 5 or more points could have a real impact on the game already, there's no way I'd allow that.

If you're a few points under and can't figure out how to bridge the gap, then good. You used every option you had available to you. 5 points can mean a difference. If you have spent 1847 out of 1850, then you're pretty optimized. The limit is the limit. Coming in under is okay. Coming in over is not.

im for no points over but then again im starting to try non-rounded point totals. instead of 1500, use 1504, 1850 becomes 1857.

Pretty much point totals that the last digit almost doesn't matter and can be difficult to fully use.

People going over always annoys me - not least because I don't want to feel like the bad guy if I say 'no'. Especially when there's some gear they could easily remove to get back under the limit.

Yes, I'm sure you want that gear. Guess what? There was also gear that I wanted, but I didn't take it because it would have put me over the limit. I expect you to show the same courtesy.

 vipoid wrote:
People going over always annoys me - not least because I don't want to feel like the bad guy if I say 'no'. Especially when there's some gear they could easily remove to get back under the limit.

Yes, I'm sure you want that gear. Guess what? There was also gear that I wanted, but I didn't take it because it would have put me over the limit. I expect you to show the same courtesy.

This.

Now for the same old tired debate about people who actually want to follow the rules of the game being WAAC cheesers or something.

I don't see a problem with any extra points in casual games among friends, as long as the other guys are cool with it. As long as they don't get an extra 50+ point unit, that's fine. Upgrades, little drones, an extra troop in one squad or the other are okay as long as it doesn't bother anyone.

 Thairne wrote:
Cause honestly, what difference will those 3 points make?

Apparently quite a bit because you're asking to take them. If they genuinely make no difference then why can't you just cut them from your list?

Zero points over. You have to draw the line somewhere, and the actual line is as good a place as any.

 Ubl1k wrote:
Hey guys

When building a list I always seem to come to like 1503 points when I'm done and then it's a struggle to find those unnecessary couple of points.
Often my mate and I say that if it's 3 or less points over its chilled. How do other guys feel about this small infraction? Is it absolutely not allowed or is it a small enough number as to not really affect the game?

Regards Ub

None. Never go over. Always under or on the money. For new players, I might give a pass as it's usually a "learn to play" type game.

I hope that helps!

I'm fine with 4 points over, but a 5 pt upgrade can change the game. Alternatively, I can match the points my opponent went over as long as it isn't too much as to make the game last way longer than planned.

I've shown up expecting a 1500 and ended up playing a 2500 before, if it's a friendly game and you have the time, why not match his points rather than demand he cut from his list?

 Thairne wrote:

If I need that 20pt upgrade but it puts me 2 pts above the limit and I don't have a auspex/melta bomb to ditch I'd rather be 2 pts above than fill my list with useless 5pts upgrades.

This exactly why people shouldn't allow limits to be exceeded - you've got a 20 point upgrade that you "need". Presumably that's pretty important? You should not have it.

So of course you'd rather be 2pts over - you're getting a valuable upgrade that you shouldn't have been getting.

 Thairne wrote:

Cause honestly, what difference will those 3 points make?

Apparently it makes the difference between you getting a valuable 20pt upgrade or not - so quite a bit of difference.

AncientSkarbrand wrote:
I'm fine with 4 points over, but a 5 pt upgrade can change the game. Alternatively, I can match the points my opponent went over as long as it isn't too much as to make the game last way longer than planned.

This is the thing - that 4 points could be a whole extra squad that he shouldn't have been able to squeeze in.

 Thairne wrote:
If I need that 20pt upgrade but it puts me 2 pts above the limit and I don't have a auspex/melta bomb to ditch I'd rather be 2 pts above than fill my list with useless 5pts upgrades.

But that's the point - list building is about making hard decisions. If you really want that 20pt item, rearrange your list so that you can have it without exceeding the point limit.

If you don't have a minor upgrade to ditch or it would hinder you from playing wysiwyg to drop something then you can have up to 5 points but as we make the lists right before the game anyway the other person can add the points to his list too.
But I'm not playing pick-up games so it's probably not very representative .

Sometime those 5 points can make a difference, taking that extra meltabomb for example.

But this is noting when you compare it with those new formations that give hundreds of points away for free.

In this age of hundreds of free points formations I thought there would be more tolerance of a point or two over in list writing.

You just Ninjad my edit

 Eldarain wrote:
In this age of hundreds of free points formations I thought there would be more tolerance of a point or two over in list writing.

By the same token, isn't that all the more reason to be strict?

I mean, if a marine player is using a double Gladius with several hundred points of free transports, and then has the gall to still be over the limit, then frankly he deserves to have a rulebook thrown at his head.

 Eldarain wrote:
In this age of hundreds of free points formations I thought there would be more tolerance of a point or two over in list writing.

When a couple of points means you don't get to take a unit which then means that you can't select that detachment/formation and get all of your free stuff surely it's more important?

With all of the mandatory units you're forced to take for detachments a few points can make a huge difference.

Zero points in a tourney, up to 5 in a friendly game. Those extra points generally don't have an effect on mine/my opponent's list.

Zero.

We agreed to a limit. If you had wanted to play at 1503, you should have said that before we made armies.

Zero is the "correct" answer.

For a casual group/setting I usually rule as "half the cost of a base guy" or as close as possible without compromising their list. Like, if they are 8-10 points over and their cheapest removable unit is 50 points, I'll let it go.

 Eldarain wrote:
In this age of hundreds of free points formations I thought there would be more tolerance of a point or two over in list writing.

say those 5 points allowed another squad of marines in a gladius. Suddenly those extra 5 points became 40 extra points, because of the free rhino. That just compounds the problem and makes an already broken thing worse. In my war convocation I HAVE no wargear to drop and my 2k points list is so close that the difference between 2k points and 2005 points is switching my knights melta cannon to the the far superior rapid fire battle cannon. Does that sound like a minor matter?

My philosophy: Better five points under than one point over.

Depends on the situation, for me.

If we're throwing army lists together on the fly, then close enough is good enough... We'll usually point out the extra and check that the opponent is ok with it, to allow them to tweak their list to match if they want.

If it's a pre-arranged game, then no, there is no excuse for not taking the time to build your list properly.

Our rule is "you can take less than five, then your opponent gets 5."

I am fairly lenient: up yo 8 points. Because everything else that I face invariably comes with several hundred points worth of tacked on formation bonuses.

It's just a few points who really cares.

Colehkxix wrote:
It's just a few points who really cares.

Apparently the person who needs the extra points instead of sticking to the agreed upon amount.

I'm not all that fussed, because I generally find that both my opponents and I forget half the upgrades we pay for every game anyway, so whilst I always stay at or under the points limit, I'm happy enough to let them have a few extra if it makes life easier. If there is an upgrade I can take to make up or they can lose to balance it, then I might ask the question, but I wouldn't push it, it's just a game.

Sometimes people have army collections that don't have small models or upgrades they can remove. I'd rather my opponent had 1503 pts than say 1400, for a 1500 pt game because the only unit they had available to fill the gap comes in at 103 points. The 3 points over makes less of a difference than the 100 pts under.

Ace Rimmer wrote:
I'm not all that fussed, because I generally find that both my opponents and I forget half the upgrades we pay for every game anyway, so whilst I always stay at or under the points limit, I'm happy enough to let them have a few extra if it makes life easier. If there is an upgrade I can take to make up or they can lose to balance it, then I might ask the question, but I wouldn't push it, it's just a game.

Sometimes people have army collections that don't have small models or upgrades they can remove. I'd rather my opponent had 1503 pts than say 1400, for a 1500 pt game because the only unit they had available to fill the gap comes in at 103 points. The 3 points over makes less of a difference than the 100 pts under.

How many armies have no options under 100 points available to them?

This thread seems to be getting combative really fast xD its a game, chill out. If its a tourny or event sure, and if the person doing these extra points is assuming you will give it to them okay, but that's more about conduct then actual game balance.

For me I don't mind oddball numbers, just tell me and I'll quickly add something. Oh you are 20pts over but you wanted to use X thing this game? Okay cool, I'll just throw a multimelta on my vehicle. Exact point values don't matter, as long as they are similar in value. It's why I tend to avoid Daemon summoning spam in my army unless I'm playing daemons or am facing a army that gives free junk with no penalty.

Sorry, perhaps a poor example on my part. How about instead we say a nid player with MSU naked everything at 1400 and the only models he has left is 3 tyranid warriors with say deathspitters or 2 naked and one of them has boneswords. It's 105 either way. I wouldn't quibble over the 5 points.

Ace Rimmer wrote:
Sorry, perhaps a poor example on my part. How about instead we say a nid player with MSU naked everything at 1400 and the only models he has left is 3 tyranid warriors with say deathspitters or 2 naked and one of them has boneswords. It's 105 either way. I wouldn't quibble over the 5 points.

While I wouldn't mind the extra points so long as he discussed it prior, and as a one-off, it's ultimately up to players to ensure they're building legal armies. If you can't make a 1500 point army with the models you have, the obvious answer would be to not arrange to play 1500 point games.

I only play with friends so 5 points generally. Though you can sometimes go over if the opponent also can (but only up to like 10 points)

We allow a couple (1-4) points over due to GWs horrible non-rounded point cost system. My 1250 Tau list has two Firewarrior squads that comes to 266 points which makes my total 1251. Models costing 7 points and some upgrades costing 8 and so on makes its hard to come up with a rounded 0 or 5 number.

Well it seems like quite a rift between people some are vehement at 0 points over and other guys are chilled with a few over so in future i think in casual games ill just let the guy know long beforehand whats happening. tourneys obviously its 0 though.

 Ruberu wrote:
We allow a couple (1-4) points over due to GWs horrible non-rounded point cost system. My 1250 Tau list has two Firewarrior squads that comes to 266 points which makes my total 1251. Models costing 7 points and some upgrades costing 8 and so on makes its hard to come up with a rounded 0 or 5 number.

Then remove a model or upgrade and play below 1250. If your two squads are a total of 266 points then you have things to cut and no excuse for breaking the point limit.

Colehkxix wrote:
It's just a few points who really cares.

So it'd be no problem to just drop those points and get under the total then?

To be honest, I don't understand how this is even something to be considered.

If you're a couple of points over because of something inconsequential then just remove it.

If you're a couple of points over because you're squeezing in something significant then you're cheating.

Colehkxix wrote:
It's just a few points who really cares.

a big problem with 'a few points' is that you say it is for minor upgrade A while it could also be for giant MC/GC B

Oberron wrote:

Colehkxix wrote:
It's just a few points who really cares.

a big problem with 'a few points' is that you say it is for minor upgrade A while it could also be for giant MC/GC B

This is always my take on "free points", it could allow something silly into the list.

0 points over for me, even 1pt = illegal list, go rebuild please.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Colehkxix wrote:
It's just a few points who really cares.

So it'd be no problem to just drop those points and get under the total then?

To be honest, I don't understand how this is even something to be considered.

If you're a couple of points over because of something inconsequential then just remove it.

If you're a couple of points over because you're squeezing in something significant then you're cheating.

Couldn't have said it better myself. If you don't care going over the agreed limit by a few points, why care so much playing with a few points under it?

Answer: People do really care but tend to justify their side and break agreements as long as it benefits them.

It would depend on the list for me. I haven't run into it in a while but back in 3rd and 4th edition, I would occasionally make lists that were 1 or 2 points over but the only way to get them under was to drop a 42 point model. And sometimes that model would put me below the minimum unit size so it would mean removing a 200 point unit.

Sometimes the math just isn't on your side and I have no problem with little things like that. But for clarity, my gaming group at the time had a general understanding that those types of circumstances were allowed. There was a core group of 8 or 9 of us that played each other every Saturday and ran other games throughout the week though, so it wasn't like we were walking into a new group with an over-pointed list looking for games.

Now if you had a 3 point grenade upgrade on your hq and you were 2 points over, you would probably be asked to remove it in a tournament, not in friendly games though. I find as a rule, my house, my rules is a good mantra to live by in these situations. And if you aren't in your own house, you should ask the owner what their rules are before playing.

Zero.

If you're going to play a, say, 1500 points game, it means you're agreeing to play a game where both sides can only bring up to 1500 points. 1500. Not 1501, nor 1503. If you willingly go over the limit, you're breaching the agreement, and it isn't less of an issue if both players do it.

I usually take a pretty lenient and friendly attitude towards gaming, but this is one of the few things where either you adhere to the rules, or you don't. No middle ground, and no "a couple free points cuz it's not important". If it's not important and it won't make a difference, why going over the limit in the first place?

As long as everyone is singing from the same sheet I don't think it matters. If you and your opponent want to make that allowance, of course it's fine as long as you both know. Don't let anyone here discourage you from playing how you and your opponent wish to play.

If you're playing against someone you haven't played before though (or at a tournament), definitely stay under the limit. That extra meltabomb can really make a difference and if it's a competitive environment it could quite rightly tick someone off.

autumnlotus wrote:
This thread seems to be getting combative really fast xD its a game, chill out.

This. Whether your stance is zero or a couple points, no reason to make personal attacks/take someone's opinion as such.

Crow splat I played in all of third and fourth. There is zero armies where you would have had to be that under. You MAY have had to drop a 25 point power fist or some such that you really wanted, but there was never a situation like your describing. I played hundreds of games I'm 3rd back in my college free time, and not on person ever had to go below 30, which was never game breaking. And this was a GW where you saw every army regularly, even sisters.

For a pick up game or whatever games sure be 20 points over. Really its not a big deal either way to me. If you are 5 points over then one of my units will now have meltabombs or something. Great!

In a tournament environment 0 points over. I don't police people but if I were a TO it would be strict nothing over. I would also require a whole UNIT be removed not just a single item if found after play has started. There is nothing serious about this game to me so im quite laxed about said rules. Im usually the first to d6 rules questions because in the end its a game.

Like 3 points over or so. I get it, sometimes that combi weapon that costs 7 pts doesn't finish out smoothly

If youre not going to use the points system dont play a point system game. Vote for 0

Maybe check out Age of Sigmar?

 Orock wrote:
Crow splat I played in all of third and fourth. There is zero armies where you would have had to be that under. You MAY have had to drop a 25 point power fist or some such that you really wanted, but there was never a situation like your describing. I played hundreds of games I'm 3rd back in my college free time, and not on person ever had to go below 30, which was never game breaking. And this was a GW where you saw every army regularly, even sisters.

One should be wary of making definitive statements like never. But using your logic, it would be impossible to ever go over points because if you went over points and had to remove a 200 point unit then didn't NEED that unit because you could have chosen a cheaper unit or added a few guys to another squad.

Hell, we don't even NEED to play the game so let's just stop posting and shut this site down because we don't NEED it. We just want it.

The point is that it is possible to make a list where you can not remove anything without compromising the integrity of the list, where any change would result in some pretty significant changes in gameplay.

CrowSplat wrote:
The point is that it is possible to make a list where you can not remove anything without compromising the integrity of the list, where any change would result in some pretty significant changes in gameplay.

But, if that's the case, then you're trying to use a list that shouldn't be possible at the points you're playing.

 vipoid wrote:

CrowSplat wrote:
The point is that it is possible to make a list where you can not remove anything without compromising the integrity of the list, where any change would result in some pretty significant changes in gameplay.

But, if that's the case, then you're trying to use a list that shouldn't be possible at the points you're playing.

Shouldn't according to whom? There is no official printed rule that says in a 1500 point game you can use up to 1500 points and no more. So you cannot say according to GW. They have even put battle reports in white dwarf where one side or both have gone over by a few points.

So now we are talking about personal preference, which varies from person to person and goes back to my original post of "My house, my rules. Your house, your rules."

CrowSplat wrote:
Shouldn't according to whom?

Basic math.

CrowSplat wrote:
There is no official printed rule that says in a 1500 point game you can use up to 1500 points and no more.

Yes there is - that's literally the entire purpose of a point limit.

If you're using more than 1500pts, then you're not playing a 1500pt game.

In a competitive event, I will not only refuse to play the person, I will ask for their disqualification.

In a casual game, I so don't care. Just so long as I know how big a deficit I'm at, we can go up to a 3-2 points differential and I won't care.

CrowSplat wrote:

Shouldn't according to whom? There is no official printed rule that says in a 1500 point game you can use up to 1500 points and no more.

.

The Rulebook wrote:
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.

Acting as a limit is pretty much exactly what a limit is for...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CrowSplat wrote:

The point is that it is possible to make a list where you can not remove anything without compromising the integrity of the list, where any change would result in some pretty significant changes in gameplay.

Yes, that's true.

It's exactly the reason for the points limit.

 insaniak wrote:

CrowSplat wrote:

Shouldn't according to whom? There is no official printed rule that says in a 1500 point game you can use up to 1500 points and no more.

.

The Rulebook wrote:
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.

Acting as a limit is pretty much exactly what a limit is for...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CrowSplat wrote:

The point is that it is possible to make a list where you can not remove anything without compromising the integrity of the list, where any change would result in some pretty significant changes in gameplay.

Yes, that's true.

It's exactly the reason for the points limit.

Quotes rulebook without giving citation.... Color me unimpressed.

So you are honestly telling me that if Joe Newbro shoes up to wherever you game with a 1851 point list and asks to play a friendly game at 1850 you would refuse? That kind of behaviour would get you laughed out of where I play. And if you came back, you would get ignored. Actually, the store owner banned a guy from even entering the store for any reason because he was constantly complaining about things like this, or some guys marines were missing bolters on the model so they shouldn't be able to shoot, or a guy was using flamers as proxies for plasma and they should be used as flamers.

Go back and read all of my posts and take into consideration the context in which I am defending going slightly over points. Not once have I advocated it in a competitive environment, even though I have played in tournaments that have allowed it.

In a friendly game I can see a few points over not being an issue, in a tournament it should be zero points, as often times 1-5 points over doesn't actually mean 1-5 points extra, but rather more since you're utilizing points you'd otherwise be locked out of. As in if you're at 1845, and took a Fire Warrior you'd only be 4 points over at 1854, but you didn't gain just 4 points, you gained 9.

I usually make an effort to stay at or just under the points limit that's set in my games. I'm fine with it if someone is a few points over though, although if they're more than 5 points over I'm usually going to talk to them about it.

CrowSplat wrote:
So you are honestly telling me that if Joe Newbro shoes up to wherever you game with a 1851 point list and asks to play a friendly game at 1850 you would refuse?

Yes, I would refuse. Since my hypothetical opponent is willing to cheat to give themselves an advantage before the game even begins I can expect the game to have more incidents of cheating and/or attempting to bend the rules in their favor. Models moving just a little bit of extra distance to get into range, cover saves always being determined in their favor, etc. There's no reason for their list to be 1851 points besides a refusal to follow basic rules of the game.

or a guy was using flamers as proxies for plasma and they should be used as flamers.

You do realize that WYSIWYG is a thing, right? Honestly, if I played in that store I'd be glad to be done with them. If a store is kicking people out for trying to play by the rules of the game then it sounds like a pretty unpleasant place to play.

CrowSplat wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

CrowSplat wrote:

Shouldn't according to whom? There is no official printed rule that says in a 1500 point game you can use up to 1500 points and no more.

.

The Rulebook wrote:
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.

Acting as a limit is pretty much exactly what a limit is for...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CrowSplat wrote:

The point is that it is possible to make a list where you can not remove anything without compromising the integrity of the list, where any change would result in some pretty significant changes in gameplay.

Yes, that's true.

It's exactly the reason for the points limit.

Quotes rulebook without giving citation.... Color me unimpressed.

So you are honestly telling me that if Joe Newbro shoes up to wherever you game with a 1851 point list and asks to play a friendly game at 1850 you would refuse? That kind of behaviour would get you laughed out of where I play. And if you came back, you would get ignored. Actually, the store owner banned a guy from even entering the store for any reason because he was constantly complaining about things like this, or some guys marines were missing bolters on the model so they shouldn't be able to shoot, or a guy was using flamers as proxies for plasma and they should be used as flamers.

Go back and read all of my posts and take into consideration the context in which I am defending going slightly over points. Not once have I advocated it in a competitive environment, even though I have played in tournaments that have allowed it.

So where you play, its more important to take those few extra points than it is to honor your agreements. Gotcha. If Joe Newbro knows his list is 1,851 points, then why is he asking for a 1,850 points game if not to cause problems?

And as for your 'citation', page 116 under the heading 'Army Selection Methods':

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.

In a competitive environment I wouldn't allow it.

But in a friendly three points makes no difference to me, and forcing you to remove elements of your list for just 3 points is a bit tedious.

Yknow normally I can't see how people think dakkadakka is a negative place full of angry veterens. It confuses me how being accurate to deficancies in codex discussion makes you bitter, or hating a model for its lack of options despite its quality. But this thread right here makes me see at least part of that angry TFG side of the forum.

Will agree on pushing these sorts of people out of groups: encouraging WYSIWYG is fair, as is balanced point limits. But being a obnoxious person and demanding things of others to satisfy what you think is "right" in a non-tournament setting makes you a toxic component to the community. If someone is trying to jam in a couple points and lie about the point total fine, bring it up and have a discussion. Maybe buy a melta bomb, or ask your oponent to get rid of that flamer in his squad. But to just drop a game, and talk down to a player like some elitist individual is rude, period.

autumnlotus wrote:
Will agree on pushing these sorts of people out of groups: encouraging WYSIWYG is fair, as is balanced point limits. But being a obnoxious person and demanding things of others to satisfy what you think is "right" in a non-tournament setting makes you a toxic component to the community. If someone is trying to jam in a couple points and lie about the point total fine, bring it up and have a discussion. Maybe buy a melta bomb, or ask your oponent to get rid of that flamer in his squad. But to just drop a game, and talk down to a player like some elitist individual is rude, period.

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that asking a player to follow the rules of the game was considered offensive. Do you also consider it offensive to point out that your opponent just moved their models 7" instead of 6" to get into range? Would you still rant about people "demanding things of others" if they refused to grant the extra inch of movement?

I don't really care if people are like 3pts over or something, this typically doesn't bother me.

For organized events, one must stick to the limit, that's just something that must be accepted, cut whatever points you need to in order to get under that limit.

Aside from that however, I don't really care if someone is a small number of points over

Particularly in 7th, where the points are...increasingly meaningless and people are seemingly perfectly happy to play their 1850pt armies against 2500pt armies as long as GW apparently says those extra points don't count because formations have no explicit costs...

 Peregrine wrote:


I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that asking a player to follow the rules of the game was considered offensive. Do you also consider it offensive to point out that your opponent just moved their models 7" instead of 6" to get into range? Would you still rant about people "demanding things of others" if they refused to grant the extra inch of movement?

If someone pointed out a mistake? Of course not, I would thank them for correcting me. The same if someone counted my army up and said I was over by 10 points, I would apologize and take a model or item off the board. The context here is a firm and condescending attitude to those who think 1-4 points is somehow worth arguing over, and potentially dropping a game. That is the toxic attitude, that this rules lawyer-esque opinion that is more important then the game itself. I know that my group can talk to eachother kindly because we all know this is a game that is meant to be about fun and not strict rules. So if someone comes in that's new and demands this that and all of these exact rules be followed, being rude and talking down to others, yes we would ignore them until the corrected that behavior or left

autumnlotus wrote:
The context here is a firm and condescending attitude to those who think 1-4 points is somehow worth arguing over, and potentially dropping a game.

If it isn't worth arguing over then cut things out of your list until you are following the rules of the game. You can't have it both ways, if the points are no big deal then you shouldn't care if you don't get to have them.

That is the toxic attitude, that this rules lawyer-esque opinion that is more important then the game itself.

It isn't rules lawyering, the rules are perfectly clear. The fact that certain players want to give themselves an advantage by breaking the rules does not make their critics rules lawyers.

I know that my group can talk to eachother kindly because we all know this is a game that is meant to be about fun and not strict rules. So if someone comes in that's new and demands this that and all of these exact rules be followed, being rude and talking down to others, yes we would ignore them until the corrected that behavior or left

IOW, "let us cheat or you're not welcome here".

Or its simply people being laid back , and those that push harder and harder about exact points is being a "stop having fun and play my way" sort of person. It's a rule, I am not disputing that. Having exactly X point count is great to have, but to everyone around here its no a make it break situation. If you asked politely to change it I would do it, but if it requires me to go below I would ask if we could work out a way to be even even if it means playing 1495 or 1502 together. And if its a competitive event yes it should be assumed that exact value is important. But this attitude right here, in or out of the context of this discussion? Is not going to make anyone friends and should be smothered out of store or group

autumnlotus wrote:
Or its simply people being laid back

No it isn't. If you are genuinely laid back about it you would just play a 1497 point list in a 1500 point game if you can't add anything else without going over 1500. What you are actually doing is acting like you're entitled to those extra points and making a huge deal about any suggestion that you stop breaking the rules to give yourself an advantage.

I would ask if we could work out a way to be even even if it means playing 1495 or 1502 together.

IOW, "I would ask if we could work out a way where I get to keep my advantage and you get nothing". If I build a 1500 point list there probably isn't any simple change I can make to change it by +/- 5 points, at least without just throwing in a useless melta bomb. So why should I have to adjust my list to play at a non-standard point level just because you didn't do a good job of optimizing yours?

Because it's a game. If you need to obsess over the exact amount of points, it leads to conclusions on how you act while playing. I bet if you counted out an army that was 15 points under, you wouldn't be complaining. It's a desire to be Right, not a desire for perfect balance. Because if that was the case you wouldn't be playing 40k in general. If an army was made competitively I could understand wanting to avoid point scrounging, but most in the community are just random or fluffy games for fun. I'm not saying we should go full AoS (as that is the path of insanity), but given we play a game where I have to pay a points tax to play chaos while space marines get free vehicles, don't be surprised when this balance argument doesn't reach my ears

To complement what I wrote earlier: if it's so hard to avoid going over the points limit, surely that just means you have to get better at list crafting to points are used more optimally?

autumnlotus wrote:
Because it's a game. If you need to obsess over the exact amount of points, it leads to conclusions on how you act while playing.

Similarly, I could argue that stubbornly insisting on breaking the rules to grant yourself an advantage leads to conclusions on how you will act while playing.

I bet if you counted out an army that was 15 points under, you wouldn't be complaining.

You're right, I wouldn't, because that's a legal list. We both had 1500 points to spend, and we both made legal lists. The fact that you felt that your 1485 point list was better than an alternative 1500 point list you could have made instead is not my problem.

but most in the community are just random or fluffy games for fun.

If it's just a game for fun then why do you need to keep the extra points in your list? Surely if you're just playing for fluff and fun then it doesn't matter if you spend fewer points than your opponent, since winning doesn't really matter.

This is an assumption I never agreed to: I don't insist on keeping the points in for extra. The first time you ask me I'll do it, and try to be more exact if possible. But constantly asking "is that list following the rules?" At the start of every game will make me less interested in playing with you. Rules for rules sake is a very short sighted way of seeing things, and just because a list is legal does not mean it is fair. If I was 15 points less then the listed amount, and I ask you to lower your list, is that fair?

This conversation, at least in my part, is nothing about following the rules. It's about respect for your opponent before the exact rules. It's why someone that starts argueing about three or four rules a game is considered TFG. They aren't exploiting rules, they are just being inconsiderate and mean spirited

autumnlotus wrote:
But constantly asking "is that list following the rules?" At the start of every game will make me less interested in playing with you.

I see. So you're not interested in playing with people who actually verify your list and pay attention to what you're taking? I don't understand how you can even play the game like that. Every time I play a game I bring a written list with all of the point totals clearly marked (along with all unit upgrades, etc). Even a casual glance at my written list will tell you how many points I have spent.

Also, YOU have an obligation to announce the fact that your list is over the agreed-on point limit, even if I never ask. Failure to do so is blatant cheating.

If I was 15 points less then the listed amount, and I ask you to lower your list, is that fair?

No, because it's not my fault that you didn't spend your last 1500 points. We agreed on 1500 points, we both had the same resources available. You don't get to change the point level and force me to cut stuff just because you decided that your 1485 point list was stronger than an alternative 1500 point list.

It's why someone that starts argueing about three or four rules a game is considered TFG.

You have a very strange definition of TFG. If your opponent makes 3-4 rules mistakes a game then it is reasonable to argue about 3-4 rules a game. There is no obligation to let your opponent benefit from rule "mistakes" just because you've already reached your quota of rule arguments.

I think I see the problem here. Your local meta sounds like your local meta is very similar to a tournament with expectations to have everything to be in written form and every rule being done to the letter. In mine we don't review eachothers lists before a game, we simply play. If we are over points we tell the person, and they usually don't mind or politely ask to lower it or add something if it would require major tinkering to the list to fit better. It's not quite "beer & pretzels", but there is a level of trust even with pickup games unless that trust is broken that's fine, but there is a reason we avoid direct stubborn people about rules. It can easily reach levels where a player will talk down to their opponent, be condescending and brutish with expressing rules corrections, and generally being unpleasant to play with. That's not you, as far as I'm concerned, but this general demanding attitude for the rules to " just be so" makes a lot of people here feel unwelcome. So yes those sorts of people have been asked to leave, after multiple requests to be more respectful, and nobody is upset about them being gone. Usually they go to a store in the town neighboring ours with a more competitive scene, known for being full of WAAC players and money reward tournaments. More power to them, but that's not the default playstyle or attitude

autumnlotus wrote:
In mine we don't review eachothers lists before a game, we simply play.

Why would you ever want to do this? Even in the most casual of games I always show my list and ask my opponent to go through theirs. That way there's no ambiguity about what each model on the table represents, and no awkward moment late in the game where someone says "but I thought that was a flamer squad, not a melta squad!".

That's not you, as far as I'm concerned, but this general demanding attitude for the rules to " just be so" makes a lot of people here feel unwelcome.

If people feel unwelcome because they don't like being asked to follow the rules instead of breaking them to gain an advantage (AKA cheating) then I want them to feel unwelcome. I want that kind of person out of the community so that I don't have to constantly watch every move they make or worry that some poor newbie is going to be taken advantage of. What you're describing isn't casual "beer and pretzels" gaming, it's blatant cheating.

What in describing is a game that is most if the time equal, and sometimes off by a few points one way or another. There is nobody bringing an extra 50pts to a game, nor is anyone disguising units and lying about loadouts. Granted, sometimes lists end up surprising people. I have had one situation on fighting an all hellhound squadren with nothing but Cultists and sorcerers frantically summoning anti-armor. Was that a mistake on ignoring list reading at the start? Sure, it was a mistake and was a lil annoying, but it was still amusing. What we don't have is confusion on the board. We go through our lists on a general basis before a game, and into further detail if someone is confused. For newbies I will show them my list and explain how list building works there is very little cheating over here, and the few people who do are called out on it, so I would prefer you to keep your imflamitory phrases to yourself.

Except going over in points IS cheating because the BRB said so. He even quoted it.

If you agree to a points limit, it is where the limit is set. You know this ahead of time and should be able to build a list under it, I have done this before and have even play a tournament 200 points down when I forgot a unit.

If you are asking to go over, You have chosen to ask if you can cheat. Both players should know the points when building a list.
You can choose to put down what ever you want as a group, but turning up after the other player has put together there list. Pulled out models and got ready is showing disrespect, it's showing how little you care when you could have ask for more at first.
Unless they are a new player there is no excuse for this, if it's just a few points. Drop it.

There seems to be a certain amount of hypocrisy going on with several of the people advocating live and let live with extra points.

There's this constant argument that a few points don't matter and that you should be more laid back about that sort of thing. However, if those few points don't matter, then why don't you be the 'laid back' one and take them out of your list? According to you, they don't matter - hence you have no attachment to them or any need to keep them. So, why not do the polite thing and remove them? Then you can congratulate yourself for being laid back, and never have to trouble your opponent at all.

 vipoid wrote:
There seems to be a certain amount of hypocrisy going on with several of the people advocating live and let live with extra points.

There's this constant argument that a few points don't matter and that you should be more laid back about that sort of thing. However, if those few points don't matter, then why don't you be the 'laid back' one and take them out of your list? According to you, they don't matter - hence you have no attachment to them or any need to keep them. So, why not do the polite thing and remove them? Then you can congratulate yourself for being laid back, and never have to trouble your opponent at all.

At least Crowsplat was honest and said that the extra few points was important and let him take an army that wouldn't be possible without them.

Doesn't make it more acceptable but it's less annoying than "the extra few points don't matter".

Most of the time I'm 1 or 2 points over and I ask to keep them it's because I made the list on the spot and it's easier to have 1 point over than rewrite the list and people would rather play the game. It seems much easier to say "sure 2 points is ok" than "no change the list".

 Ubl1k wrote:
OK cool thanks guys just wanted to get an idea on the rest of the community, from now on all games will be 0 points or under.

Why? Who cares what other people say. It's YOU and YOUR FRIEND who is playing. What is next? All your minis need to be painted with over 3 colours and based? You can't play Unbound and have to have restriction when you play? Oh look your army is not WYSIWYG, it's not legal you can't play it. Oh your Ultramarines are the wrong blue, they are not Ultramarines so you can't use UM rules now.

Play how you will. If you and your friends say 3 points over is no big deal then WHO CARES how others play.

*edit* didn't realize there was 4 pages finally read them all. I am curious for all the people who can't go over zero points, filed formations that give free units or units that don't cost anything when coming back from the dead. This is more than 3 points. So do you guys refuse to play formations that do this?

My Dark Angels have free transports but I do not use them, nothing comes back from the dead in my army, and I don't summon Daemons. I still don't like when people go over but sometimes will let it slide for others, I never go over myself.

I do have a Tervigon in my Tyranids, but I don't really use it ever(because I don' want to paint more gaunts).

 TheAvengingKnee wrote:
My Dark Angels have free transports but I do not use them, nothing comes back from the dead in my army, and I don't summon Daemons.

Nothing comes back from the dead? Is that... unusual?

 vipoid wrote:

 TheAvengingKnee wrote:
My Dark Angels have free transports but I do not use them, nothing comes back from the dead in my army, and I don't summon Daemons.

Nothing comes back from the dead? Is that... unusual?

I believe he knew what I ment. Like Tyranids Without Number rule. Units removed/dead have a 50/50 chance of coming back next turn. So hence more free units

I got what you were saying, I think there is also that spore field formation for Tyrnaids that keeps re-spawning thee different spore units when they die on a 4+

Ah, okay.

Davor wrote:
*edit* didn't realize there was 4 pages finally read them all. I am curious for all the people who can't go over zero points, filed formations that give free units or units that don't cost anything when coming back from the dead. This is more than 3 points. So do you guys refuse to play formations that do this?

No, formations are fine. People ignoring both the rules and the agreed points between the two players to take something extra for themselves is completely different.

The formations actually make it worse - if those few points are the difference between taking that extra minimal squad in order to qualify for the formation bonuses and not taking it and not getting the bonuses then it's a huge deal.

I don't know why it's such a problem for some people to put together a legal army list. I've seen people quit events because after multiple attempts they couldn't put together an army list that didn't violate the rules of army construction in some way (over points, didn't fit the force org, not following codex unit restrictions (e.g. IG SWS without PCS and PIS, etc.) best one was the guy that subtracted the cost of character's standard equipment before adding the cost of the upgrade equipment...). Baffles me. I can only assume that they were completely used to building lists outside the rules and trusting that no-one would verify it.

CrowSplat wrote:

Quotes rulebook without giving citation.... Color me unimpressed.

My bad. Was posting from my phone, which makes posting quotes awkward.

Ghaz has posted the page reference. It's (rather unsurprisingly) from the section of the book that covers putting together your army.

So you are honestly telling me that if Joe Newbro shoes up to wherever you game with a 1851 point list and asks to play a friendly game at 1850 you would refuse?

So long as he pointed out up front that his list was 1851, no, I would have no problem with that... because we wouldn't be agreeing to play an 1850-point game. We would be agreeing to play an 1851-point game.



That's ultimately the crux of it - If you agree to a specific points limit, then that is the points limit.

Frankly, I've never really understood why so many people seem to think that expecting an opponent to stick to that limit is unreasonable. If I've agreed to a 1500-point game, I wouldn't dream of showing up with a list that has more than 1500 points, any more than I would expect to be able to move my infantry more than 6", or fire my bolters further than 24".

CrowSplat wrote:

 Orock wrote:
Crow splat I played in all of third and fourth. There is zero armies where you would have had to be that under. You MAY have had to drop a 25 point power fist or some such that you really wanted, but there was never a situation like your describing. I played hundreds of games I'm 3rd back in my college free time, and not on person ever had to go below 30, which was never game breaking. And this was a GW where you saw every army regularly, even sisters.

One should be wary of making definitive statements like never. But using your logic, it would be impossible to ever go over points because if you went over points and had to remove a 200 point unit then didn't NEED that unit because you could have chosen a cheaper unit or added a few guys to another squad.

Hell, we don't even NEED to play the game so let's just stop posting and shut this site down because we don't NEED it. We just want it.

The point is that it is possible to make a list where you can not remove anything without compromising the integrity of the list, where any change would result in some pretty significant changes in gameplay.

Nah I'm confident never applies here. There has NEVER been a situation where you are playing any army that existed in 3rd or 4th where if you doesn't get to play at 1505, you would have to drop 200 points minimum to make it under. That no other possible changes could be made that MIGHT leave you 30 under. Please feel free to prove me wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You COULD show up with only the models you built your army with, thus intending to cheat from the beginning. Or you might only own 1505 points and can't build it any other way. But in that case both players should compromise if they really want to play and maybe... I dunno.... Drop down to 1250? Then no cheating occurs! And the points can be fair.

Again in my war convocation with no warfare Costs to deduct, the difference between 1500 and 1505 is upgrading my knight to the battlecanon, a HUGE benefit not many would dispute as overall superior.

So far there seem to be two broad categories of opinions:

1. People who value the rules more than a fair game.

2. People who value a fair game more than the rules.

People in category 1 are totally okay with playing against people whose armies get hundreds of points worth of extra potency without paying the points one would normally pay for that power, when the rules explicitly allow it. But they're not okay with anyone getting even one percent of that extra potency when the rules don't allow it.

People in category 2 are okay with people getting a few points worth of extra potency, when those few points imbalance the game by less than half of a percent. They're more concerned that the rules allow a very large imbalance via formations than they are with a relatively tiny deviation that the rule don't allow. They also generally seem to acknowledge that in a competitive environment like a tournament, they would never expect or allow that tiny deviation.

Zero.

Its quite simple really. Show some respect to your opponent and meet your end of the deal. If its no big deal to play over, then its no big deal to play under.

There's no good argument to play over the agreed upon limit.

 Pouncey wrote:
People in category 2 are okay with people getting a few points worth of extra potency, when those few points imbalance the game by less than half of a percent. They're more concerned that the rules allow a very large imbalance via formations than they are with a relatively tiny deviation that the rule don't allow. They also generally seem to acknowledge that in a competitive environment like a tournament, they would never expect or allow that tiny deviation.

If those extra points imbalance the game by less than half of a percent then why is it so important to be allowed to include them? Just take that extra 0.5% out of your list and play a legal list.

 Pouncey wrote:
So far there seem to be two broad categories of opinions:

1. People who value the rules more than a fair game.

2. People who value a fair game more than the rules.

People in category 1 are totally okay with playing against people whose armies get hundreds of points worth of extra potency without paying the points one would normally pay for that power, when the rules explicitly allow it. But they're not okay with anyone getting even one percent of that extra potency when the rules don't allow it.

People in category 2 are okay with people getting a few points worth of extra potency, when those few points imbalance the game by less than half of a percent. They're more concerned that the rules allow a very large imbalance via formations than they are with a relatively tiny deviation that the rule don't allow. They also generally seem to acknowledge that in a competitive environment like a tournament, they would never expect or allow that tiny deviation.

Speaking personally, I'm most certainly not "totally okay" with people getting hundreds of free points from formations or other such nonsense.

The difference is, if I object to that, then *I'm* the one going against the rules, since my opponent is doing nothing illegal. I'd rather not face crap like that, but (unlike going over the agreed point limit) I have no leg to stand on rulewise.

 Pouncey wrote:
So far there seem to be two broad categories of opinions:

1. People who value the rules more than a fair game.

2. People who value a fair game more than the rules.

People in category 1 are totally okay with playing against people whose armies get hundreds of points worth of extra potency without paying the points one would normally pay for that power, when the rules explicitly allow it. But they're not okay with anyone getting even one percent of that extra potency when the rules don't allow it.

People in category 2 are okay with people getting a few points worth of extra potency, when those few points imbalance the game by less than half of a percent. They're more concerned that the rules allow a very large imbalance via formations than they are with a relatively tiny deviation that the rule don't allow. They also generally seem to acknowledge that in a competitive environment like a tournament, they would never expect or allow that tiny deviation.

Well that's just complete and utterly misreading the opinions then...


What did I say?

 Grimtuff wrote:


Now for the same old tired debate about people who actually want to follow the rules of the game being WAAC cheesers or something.

Yup.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
People in category 2 are okay with people getting a few points worth of extra potency, when those few points imbalance the game by less than half of a percent. They're more concerned that the rules allow a very large imbalance via formations than they are with a relatively tiny deviation that the rule don't allow. They also generally seem to acknowledge that in a competitive environment like a tournament, they would never expect or allow that tiny deviation.

If those extra points imbalance the game by less than half of a percent then why is it so important to be allowed to include them? Just take that extra 0.5% out of your list and play a legal list.

I was more observing the general opinions in the hope of bringing understanding to both sides than taking a stance myself, particularly since I often fall on both sides myself - sometimes I want to take a list exactly within the specified points limit, other times I find myself at 1503 points after getting my list together and in order to make the points fit I'd have to do something like swap a Superior's Power Weapon to a Stormbolter or drop a Flamer or change a Heavy Flamer to a Flamer, or drop a Superior's Melta Bombs, which annoys me since I prefer to have my squads fairly consistent with each other (and in the case of the Melta Bombs would make it hard to tell which squad leader does not have melta bombs and which does).

But, I do think that it's up to each gaming group to figure out which way they want to do things themselves, because house rules are a thing and even Chess has a number of variant rules which are either used or ignored as the players prefer. If all parties directly involved have agreed that a few points over are okay, then that's fine for them. If not all parties have agreed that that house rule is okay, then it's not okay.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
So far there seem to be two broad categories of opinions:

1. People who value the rules more than a fair game.

2. People who value a fair game more than the rules.

People in category 1 are totally okay with playing against people whose armies get hundreds of points worth of extra potency without paying the points one would normally pay for that power, when the rules explicitly allow it. But they're not okay with anyone getting even one percent of that extra potency when the rules don't allow it.

People in category 2 are okay with people getting a few points worth of extra potency, when those few points imbalance the game by less than half of a percent. They're more concerned that the rules allow a very large imbalance via formations than they are with a relatively tiny deviation that the rule don't allow. They also generally seem to acknowledge that in a competitive environment like a tournament, they would never expect or allow that tiny deviation.

Well that's just complete and utterly misreading the opinions then...


What did I say?

 Grimtuff wrote:


Now for the same old tired debate about people who actually want to follow the rules of the game being WAAC cheesers or something.

Yup.

I never called you a "Win-At-All-Costs Cheeser."

 Pouncey wrote:
So far there seem to be two broad categories of opinions:

1. People who value the rules more than a fair game.

2. People who value a fair game more than the rules.

People in category 1 are totally okay with playing against people whose armies get hundreds of points worth of extra potency without paying the points one would normally pay for that power, when the rules explicitly allow it. But they're not okay with anyone getting even one percent of that extra potency when the rules don't allow it.

People in category 2 are okay with people getting a few points worth of extra potency, when those few points imbalance the game by less than half of a percent. They're more concerned that the rules allow a very large imbalance via formations than they are with a relatively tiny deviation that the rule don't allow. They also generally seem to acknowledge that in a competitive environment like a tournament, they would never expect or allow that tiny deviation.

Way to generalize. Maybe people are OK with "free points" formations because many come with weaker unit choice lists than could have been optamized with the same points.

Because let me tell you something. You would BEG to only play say war convocation in a game if it meant the alternative list was 9 flesh tearer drop pods with 90 vanguard, 50 of them coming in turn one with plasma and arc weapons, all at BS 7.

 Pouncey wrote:
So far there seem to be two broad categories of opinions:

1. People who value the rules more than a fair game.

2. People who value a fair game more than the rules..

You missed out 3. People who value following the rules as the best way to ensure a fair game.

An extra 5 points in a 1500 point list is, in most cases, going to have a minimal effect on the balance of the two armies.

The reason people object to 1505 points being fielded when the agreement was for 1500 points isn't because they're worried about having to play a fairer game. It's because the agreement was for a 1500 point game, and if one player sticks to the points limit, the fair thing is for their opponent to do the same.

 Pouncey wrote:

1. People who value the rules more than a fair game.
2. People who value a fair game more than the rules..

Violating the agreed upon points limit is fair?
And having everyone abide by the agreed upon points limit is unfair?

 Pouncey wrote:

People in category 1 are totally okay with playing against people whose armies get hundreds of points worth of extra potency without paying the points one would normally pay for that power, when the rules explicitly allow it. But they're not okay with anyone getting even one percent of that extra potency when the rules don't allow it.

I'm really not sure what you're trying to say with this. Some formation and some units give you more for the points than others. Does that entitle players to take more points than agreed upon because they feel that the opponent's army is too good / too points efficient / cheese / whatever?

 Pouncey wrote:

I was more observing the general opinions

Except that you didn't do anything of the sort. You just concocted a ridiculous strawman argument against everyone who said people should stick to the point limit.

 vipoid wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

I was more observing the general opinions

Except that you didn't do anything of the sort. You just concocted a ridiculous strawman argument against everyone who said people should stick to the point limit.

Which is exactly what I said would happen in this thread.

You did indeed inform us thusly.

A lot of opinions are going on the idea that everyone prepares their army in advance, rather than coming to the store and coming up with a list on the spot. Two players agree on a a point amount to create an army, and they both create their lists accordingly. However in come cases they may end up wanting something in their army that puts their points just above the limit.

They then speak with the other player and try to agree. Instead of having 1000 points in my army, may I have 1012 points in my army? I can say no sure, whatever. But I want to be a nice guy and let the other guy/gal take the thing they want to make it 1012 points. We have made an agreement. Nobody is like, cheating or anything it's a mutual thing. If I wanted to I could quickly add an upgrade to something to bring my points closer to 1012. We just like, agree on that on the spot. Nobody says the points agreement can't just, change. I don't know where anyone gets this wild idea that we must stick to strict points brackets.

I could say no, could you please remove a section of your army to make the points at or below the limit we agreed upon before. Sure. But that takes more time and the guy/gal needs to work out what they want to remove. and this disappoints them because I am making them take away a thing they want. It's not that big of a deal to me and letting them keep it means they're happier and they think I am a more reasonable, fun person to play with.

With the game as broken as it is anyway, I personally don't care about these 12 points. You guys can sure. It's all about making an agreement with the other player. The rules are as strict as you make them. It's all about having a fun game and making agreements with other players okay.

Some people seem to joke about letting guys move more than 6 inches or whatever. In my last game I let someone's dreadnought go through a wall. An entire squad of guys got destroyed as a result. But I thought "It's a stone wall. I think that Dreadnought could just, walk through it. I'll let that happen." Because that's what we mutually decided made the game better for both of us. The rules are just a framework and we agree on what's okay and what's not okay outside of these rules.

There's even sections in the rulebook about this, but I suppose they're often ignored.

 insaniak wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
So far there seem to be two broad categories of opinions:

1. People who value the rules more than a fair game.

2. People who value a fair game more than the rules..

You missed out 3. People who value following the rules as the best way to ensure a fair game.

An extra 5 points in a 1500 point list is, in most cases, going to have a minimal effect on the balance of the two armies.

The reason people object to 1505 points being fielded when the agreement was for 1500 points isn't because they're worried about having to play a fairer game. It's because the agreement was for a 1500 point game, and if one player sticks to the points limit, the fair thing is for their opponent to do the same.

Going by that, how is it a fair game now when formations give out free points out? Either by having units return once they are killed/removed from the board or get extra free unit for example not paying for vehicles.

You are following the rules, but how is that a fair game? This is even worse than going over by 5 points.

its easy ernought o drop a minor upgrade, melta bomb, maybe a storm bolter or something.

that or just give the other side some extra like the same above and leave it at that.

decent people can sort things out without having to argue. everyone makes mistakes, and you just come up with a quick fix.

 jhe90 wrote:
its easy ernought o drop a minor upgrade, melta bomb, maybe a storm bolter or something.

that or just give the other side some extra like the same above and leave it at that.

decent people can sort things out without having to argue. everyone makes mistakes, and you just come up with a quick fix.

So what is the quick fix against formations that give out free points? Again I find it funny people think it's so easy, people say drop this or that, but it's ok to get 100s of points for free just because you field a formation and either get units for free or abilities for free without paying for them.

So again, going 5 points over in 7th edition is not a big deal anymore. Unless the person who says don't go over ZERO points over the limit and doesn't field these free points formations are would be correct, but if you say not to go over the point limit but do field these formations is nothing but a hypocrite.

Davor wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
its easy ernought o drop a minor upgrade, melta bomb, maybe a storm bolter or something.

that or just give the other side some extra like the same above and leave it at that.

decent people can sort things out without having to argue. everyone makes mistakes, and you just come up with a quick fix.

So what is the quick fix against formations that give out free points? Again I find it funny people think it's so easy, people say drop this or that, but it's ok to get 100s of points for free just because you field a formation and either get units for free or abilities for free without paying for them.

So again, going 5 points over in 7th edition is not a big deal anymore. Unless the person who says don't go over ZERO points over the limit and doesn't field these free points formations are would be correct, but if you say not to go over the point limit but do field these formations is nothing but a hypocrite.

That is a far bigger problem, but some people don't have time for you to sit and rewrite a entire list and re plan your entire army round to a new organisation.

sometimes you just have to level it off, quick bodge and get playing.

again a game of agreement, don't like free razorbacks, don't play them, its a two person situation, thats a game design issue, and a player issue. but no ones forcing you to play them,. there is no quick fix for formations, there part of the game, and like it or not there there. you don't have to play them if you do not want but there not going away.
back to topic, a few points out is easy to fix and most armies carry many little upgrades you can adjust.

Davor wrote:

So what is the quick fix against formations that give out free points?

You tell us.

Davor wrote:
Again I find it funny people think it's so easy, people say drop this or that, but it's ok to get 100s of points for free just because you field a formation and either get units for free or abilities for free without paying for them.

I've yet to see a single person in the '0pts over the limit' camp say that these formations that give free points are okay. Please either quote someone who has and direct your complaint specifically to them, or else sod off and stop putting words in our mouths.

Davor wrote:
Unless the person who says don't go over ZERO points over the limit and doesn't field these free points formations are would be correct

Many of us don't even have the option of fielding those formations, let alone the inclination to do so.

Colehkxix wrote:
A lot of opinions are going on the idea that everyone prepares their army in advance, rather than coming to the store and coming up with a list on the spot. Two players agree on a a point amount to create an army, and they both create their lists accordingly. However in come cases they may end up wanting something in their army that puts their points just above the limit.

Well, yeah actually. Most people should have list(s) available. If you've been playing there long enough you should know what the common points costs are in your local meta. It even does not have to be local as the sizes of games that are preferred to play (1000, 1500, 1750, 1850, 2000) are pretty much the same globally.

The only time this changes really is if you have someone new to the area and either their meta was different (so things have to be trimmed down from what they have on them) or they've got a brand new army and/or are a complete newbie and that is literally all they have and just want to take it for a spin. In both of those cases (though in the latter you would just be agreeing to a weird-pointed game. "Hey! Who wants a 823pt game?") you let off a little slack but I'd expect them (newbie excepted) to have a proper list for next time.

 vipoid wrote:

Davor wrote:
Again I find it funny people think it's so easy, people say drop this or that, but it's ok to get 100s of points for free just because you field a formation and either get units for free or abilities for free without paying for them.

I've yet to see a single person in the '0pts over the limit' camp say that these formations that give free points are okay. Please either quote someone who has and direct your complaint specifically to them, or else sod off and stop putting words in our mouths.

Yup. I think the formations in their current, erm... form are daft. They should have been handled like the old Apocalypse ones that had a points cost on top of the contents of the formation. But that there is a whole 'nother topic.

Davor wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
its easy ernought o drop a minor upgrade, melta bomb, maybe a storm bolter or something.

that or just give the other side some extra like the same above and leave it at that.

decent people can sort things out without having to argue. everyone makes mistakes, and you just come up with a quick fix.

So what is the quick fix against formations that give out free points? Again I find it funny people think it's so easy, people say drop this or that, but it's ok to get 100s of points for free just because you field a formation and either get units for free or abilities for free without paying for them.

So again, going 5 points over in 7th edition is not a big deal anymore. Unless the person who says don't go over ZERO points over the limit and doesn't field these free points formations are would be correct, but if you say not to go over the point limit but do field these formations is nothing but a hypocrite.

There IS no quick fix, because they're legal lists so long as they hit the point limit

What YOU want to do is break the BRB.

Just because something is legal does not make it right. If the rules said that, when I play eldar, I get a free wraithknight for every 500 points in a list, would that be fair? Could that same list's player then talk trash to a player 3 points over the list limit? Where is the deciding limit on balance and fairness?

Have you heard of the six stages of moral development? This is the xheif difference of opinion: you are in the stage of law/order (the rules are the rules because they are, follow them), while the other side is established as the stage of moral consciousness (the rules are there to help others, and are secondary to the benefit of the people). So while in your mind anyone who goes over the limit is a cheater and to be looked down on, the other side sees that point of view as to far straightfoward and narrow minded when it encourages undeeded strain on a fundamentally social activity meant to be fun and relaxed. Obviously some people find fun in a balanced game, which if the person over the list understands would volunteer to lower it. But it cannot be demanded, because there is no deciding factor or mediator on what is truly fair. The rulebook is ultimately just a guide to "forge the Narrative", to encourage fun. If one side is not enjoying the experience, both " rules lawyer" or "cheater", then the game should not go further and the two should be avoiding eachother for games that don't have hard coded rules and regulations (I.e. videogames where you can't finaggle rules). If a whole community is one of the two, then the other should avoid it and find another or start their own.

autumnlotus wrote:
Just because something is legal does not make it right. If the rules said that, when I play eldar, I get a free wraithknight for every 500 points in a list, would that be fair? Could that same list's player then talk trash to a player 3 points over the list limit? Where is the deciding limit on balance and fairness?

Would it be too much to ask for you guys to use an argument that isn't just a massive strawman?

Also, if you think free points are so unfair, why not start a separate thread about that, as opposed to hijacking this one?

Because the argument going on is nonsensical with nobody arguing against the point being made. Yes adding points and expecting it to be okay by default is obnoxious and cheating. But making a list before a game and asking if the list as is would be okay is not cheating. Cheating implies deception and trying to get a leg up unfairly, which I can only assume most people don't try to do since the only thing someone gets for being WAAC is feeding their own ego. You don't like the extextra points? That's fine, its your opinion and it is valuable as being part of the fanbase. But the same is true for people who have a couple extra points just like those with free points in formations abilities or summoning. It's all about different playstyles.

And strawmans are hard not to make when someone only states one point over and over, in this case calling someone a cheater repeatedly. Yes if you come to the store I frequent with that attitude and name calling you would be told to leave, just like if someone was running 1530 pts in a 1500 and refused to change it and was acting rude and loud. It's the attitude that is the issue, not the actual desire for a balanced list in points

Back in my day, it was always < 10, preferably < 5. I even recall seeing the occasional White Dwarf battle report where someone had say 1503 points instead of 1500, I think once I saw as much as 9 points over.

WayneTheGame wrote:
Back in my day, it was always < 10, preferably < 5. I even recall seeing the occasional White Dwarf battle report where someone had say 1503 points instead of 1500, I think once I saw as much as 9 points over.

This is accurate. WD was known to do loose game rules, often making up scenarios and missions that were uneven. Like the ultramarine fight where there were nest building terrains on the field that randomly rolled for tyranids to pour out until they were destroyed. Definitely unbalanced, but still interesting.

Davor wrote:
So what is the quick fix against formations that give out free points?

I fix it by just not using formations at all.

They're another one of the current edition's pile of 'Great idea, poorly executed' things.

White dwarf also redid important shooting rounds and combat to pimp their newer toys if say the new big bad marines were losing to vile Xenos. Or in other words they cheated alot and didn't care.

autumnlotus wrote:
Just because something is legal does not make it right. If the rules said that, when I play eldar, I get a free wraithknight for every 500 points in a list, would that be fair? Could that same list's player then talk trash to a player 3 points over the list limit? Where is the deciding limit on balance and fairness?

Yes they could because they're using the rules to make the best army they can, and you want to actually break core rules from, ya know, the BRB.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

autumnlotus wrote:
You don't like the extextra points? That's fine, its your opinion

For the last time it isn't opinion. People cited the BRB.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

autumnlotus wrote:
Just because something is legal does not make it right. If the rules said that, when I play eldar, I get a free wraithknight for every 500 points in a list, would that be fair? Could that same list's player then talk trash to a player 3 points over the list limit? Where is the deciding limit on balance and fairness?

Yes they could because they're using the rules to make the best army they can, and you want to actually break core rules from, ya know, the BRB.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

autumnlotus wrote:
You don't like the extextra points? That's fine, its your opinion

For the last time it isn't opinion. People cited the BRB.

What core rules.

The ones that say that your army can't exceed the agreed points limit.


But, honestly, the idea that the rules should actually need to spell that out is a bit crazy. A limit is a limit.

autumnlotus wrote:
Because the argument going on is nonsensical with nobody arguing against the point being made.

I'm well aware that you're not arguing against the points we've made.

autumnlotus wrote:
But making a list before a game and asking if the list as is would be okay is not cheating.

But why go over at all? Why not just show some courteously to your opponent and stick to the agreed point limit?

There seems to be this sense of entitlement whereby you think you're the only one with any difficult decisions to make. Please bear in mind that your opponent also had difficult decisions to make, but he made them so as not to exceed the agreed limit. Do the polite thing and arrive with a list that isn't over the limit.

What I'm arguing is not about the point limit as the focus. When I make a list I aim for 10 points lower then the actual number to make sure that any overlap can be soaked up by the 10. What I'm arguing is that if someone comes up, in the case here having made the list after agreeing to a point amount a moment before, and tells the other player that they are over the limit by x amount and it would be more effort then changing a number (3 points over, but no choices that amount or a little more), I would like to think both players can agree and be civil about a small difference or work out a way to increase or lower the amount to be closer.

The thing that makes this an argument is the other side, with the mindset some of the people here seem to have, is to ignore the above problem solving solutions I listed and instead demand the person fix their list while they do nothing. It's a question of civility. I don't disagree with that desire for balance, merely the disrespect and tone behind the statements

autumnlotus wrote:
The thing that makes this an argument is the other side, with the mindset some of the people here seem to have, is to ignore the above problem solving solutions I listed and instead demand the person fix their list while they do nothing.

Why should they do something? They've done nothing wrong. It's the other player who's violated the points agreement.

What baffles me is people like you demonizing people for the crime of following the rules, whilst acting as if the people breaking the point agreement are the ones in the right somehow.

autumnlotus wrote:
What I'm arguing is that if someone comes up, in the case here having made the list after agreeing to a point amount a moment before, and tells the other player that they are over the limit by x amount and it would be more effort then changing a number (3 points over, but no choices that amount or a little more), I would like to think both players can agree and be civil about a small difference or work out a way to increase or lower the amount to be closer.

Or, the player with the illegal list can choose to be civil and never ask to cheat in the first place. They're putting their opponent in an awkward position where they're pressured to say "ok, you can have the extra points" with the threat of being shunned from the group if they don't. The decent thing to do is just accept that you have X points available to spend, and make a legal list. Doing otherwise is no better than moving your infantry 6.5" to get into range and then asking your opponent to let you have it.

The thing that makes this an argument is the other side, with the mindset some of the people here seem to have, is to ignore the above problem solving solutions I listed and instead demand the person fix their list while they do nothing.

Well yes, when one player attempts to cheat the solution is for that player to stop cheating, not for their opponent to work to accommodate them.

By the time it took the player to go and ask his opponent if he can break their agreement and give all the reasons why he should be able to do so, he would have had more than enough time to rewrite his list so it was legal according to the agreed points limit.

The other aspect is that 99% of the time it's not a matter of 'can't' it's a matter of 'don't want to'. As in, the person has a lot of gear or other stuff that they could easily drop, but don't want to drop *any* of it.

And, they'd much rather just play with too many points than actually have to make a hard decision.

Liked the old epic 'over the top' rule, take the number of points you are over, divide by ten, round up, now roll higher than that on a d6, if so you got away with it - if not you must remove a whole unit to bring you back under the total.

So you can, with a risk.

Worked very nicely, except for lists with units costing 50 points or less where you may as well give it a try.

Because not every group has a astrocizing mindset to people wanting to talk about altering agreed upon list counts. But this is a cyclical debate, and I'm tired of being ignored and having words put into my mouth. If none of you are capable of understanding that this is a Group game, requiring discussion and understanding, rather then a all-competetive all-the-time game where everyone is required to follow rules to the letter no matter what, then I am glad those types have left my area ages ago to have screaming matches over warmachine.

autumnlotus wrote:
What I'm arguing is not about the point limit as the focus. When I make a list I aim for 10 points lower then the actual number to make sure that any overlap can be soaked up by the 10. What I'm arguing is that if someone comes up, in the case here having made the list after agreeing to a point amount a moment before, and tells the other player that they are over the limit by x amount and it would be more effort then changing a number (3 points over, but no choices that amount or a little more), I would like to think both players can agree and be civil about a small difference or work out a way to increase or lower the amount to be closer.

In that situation, in the interests of just getting on with the game, I would generally just go with it.

Having said that, If I've shown up somewhere for a game and a potential opponent wants to sit down and write up an army list on the spot, I'll generally just go and find a different opponent who has already done their homework...



And having said that, this:

... with the mindset some of the people here seem to have, is to ignore the above problem solving solutions I listed and instead demand the person fix their list while they do nothing.

There isn't really anything that the second player has to do. Just as they don't have to agree that your guys should be able to move 7" instead of 6...

It's certainly nice if the other player doesn't have a problem with the extra points... but it shouldn't just be expected.

It is, indeed, a matter of civility. Just not the way you're suggesting. The polite thing is to attempt to abide by the agreed points limit. Asking your opponent to allow you to go over is perfectly acceptable. Just expecting that they should allow it is not.

autumnlotus wrote:
Because not every group has a astrocizing mindset to people wanting to talk about altering agreed upon list counts. But this is a cyclical debate, and I'm tired of being ignored and having words put into my mouth. If none of you are capable of understanding that this is a Group game, requiring discussion and understanding, rather then a all-competetive all-the-time game where everyone is required to follow rules to the letter no matter what, then I am glad those types have left my area ages ago to have screaming matches over warmachine.

Yet you're trying to ostracize the player who wants to stick to the agreed points limit. That's the pot calling the kettle black.

autumnlotus wrote:
If none of you are capable of understanding that this is a Group game, requiring discussion and understanding, rather then a all-competetive all-the-time game where everyone is required to follow rules to the letter no matter what, then I am glad those types have left my area ages ago to have screaming matches over warmachine.

The point you're missing here is that there is no discussion required. There's a point limit, and you bring a legal list that fits within the point limit. If there's a "screaming match" as a result of your list construction choices then you have only yourself to blame, for trying to gain an advantage by breaking the rules and then guilt your opponent into letting you have it.

And, again, if I moved my infantry an extra 1" to get into range to kill your unit would you believe that you have an obligation to negotiate a way to let me have it?

I don't expect it though: I just ask for a discussion and civility to it all. It's the same if someone else is the one with a few extra points. It's not about "cheating", its about not being a rude person to your partner

autumnlotus wrote:
Because not every group has a astrocizing mindset to people wanting to talk about altering agreed upon list counts. But this is a cyclical debate, and I'm tired of being ignored and having words put into my mouth. If none of you are capable of understanding that this is a Group game, requiring discussion and understanding, rather then a all-competetive all-the-time game where everyone is required to follow rules to the letter no matter what, then I am glad those types have left my area ages ago to have screaming matches over warmachine.

You keep spouting this drivel, but apparently don't even read what you write.

Yes, it's a group game, hence why you should be civil and stick to the agreed point limit - as opposed to putting their opponent in an unpleasant situation.

What's worse is that you act like the people breaching the agreement are somehow the injured party. No, sorry, they're the ones in the wrong.

autumnlotus wrote:
I don't expect it though: I just ask for a discussion and civility to it all. It's the same if someone else is the one with a few extra points. It's not about "cheating", its about not being a rude person to your partner

Yet again, why do you think its rude to hold someone to their agreements? I find its rude if I can't trust somebody's word.

My standards vary depending on context, and they are not always the same for myself as for others.

I never build over the limit that I design my list for. If it's a 2k list, then it is 2k points or less. Period, no matter what.

In pickup games, tournaments and the like, I expect the same from my opponent.

In a more casual context, I'd be fine with someone I know beforehand making up a more rough list. Especially so if their army is weak against mine. If my Ork buddy did a 1020 point army against my 998 point army because he wants to fit in his snazzy new battlewagon or whatever, I am not really too fussed.

That said, if you are designing a 1500 point list, design it as 1500 - don't go in with the mindset that 1505 is your limit.

My usual solution to someone wanting to go 5 points over is accepting it, with the caveat that I also get 5 additional points to spend. An extra meltabomb never hurt anyone, after all, and I can always fit one more in there.

Mostly because I don't do pre-established lists and game ideas. I pop over to the store, talk to my friends and family, and see what they want to play. Someone says 2000 points? Okay cool, I make a list at 1998 and my friend makes 2003. I see this and I either a) add a dumb lil item to balance it, b) ask them to drop a model or upgrade to fit my count, or c) play it as is. Nobody is upset, nobody is quoting rules at me like its a sermon, and nobody is being rude. Is that hard to understand? Being zero points over is the goal but it isn't required to have a fun time. I will take 100 fights with slightly unbalanced games over 1 fight where I'm talked down to and rules lawyered by a angry neckbeard.

You and your friends doing that is fine.

Demonizing others for being more strict with points - especially in prearranged games (where both players have plenty of time to write a legal list) - is not fine.

autumnlotus wrote:
I don't expect it though: I just ask for a discussion and civility to it all. It's the same if someone else is the one with a few extra points. It's not about "cheating", its about not being a rude person to your partner

Ok so you ask me a question: "Hey, I've got X amount of points above the limit, is that ok?" but apparently the only viable answer is yes, because answering no makes me a dick (even though you're "not expecting me to say yes"). Which leaves me with the question: Why did you even bother asking me? And why didn't I bring 100 points above the agreed limit since, apparently, it doesn't matter because the game is all about fun and I think it's fun to give all my daemons greater rewards but I don't want to drop a extra squad of pink horrors because I also think they're fun.

autumnlotus wrote:
I don't expect it though: I just ask for a discussion and civility to it all.

Then I will tell you, with complete civility, that your list is illegal and you need to change it. If the situation escalates from there then it's entirely your fault.

It's not about "cheating", its about not being a rude person to your partner

Sure it is. You're breaking the rules to gain an advantage for yourself. If that's not cheating then I don't know what is.

autumnlotus wrote:
Mostly because I don't do pre-established lists and game ideas. I pop over to the store, talk to my friends and family, and see what they want to play. Someone says 2000 points? Okay cool, I make a list at 1998 and my friend makes 2003. I see this and I either a) add a dumb lil item to balance it, b) ask them to drop a model or upgrade to fit my count, or c) play it as is. Nobody is upset, nobody is quoting rules at me like its a sermon, and nobody is being rude. Is that hard to understand? Being zero points over is the goal but it isn't required to have a fun time. I will take 100 fights with slightly unbalanced games over 1 fight where I'm talked down to and rules lawyered by a angry neckbeard.

I think the problem here is that you're imbuing the responses in this thread with a lot more emotion than is actually there.

People saying that they would expect an opponent to stay under the points limit aren't frothing at the mouth and dragging people out to the parking lot over it. In the vast majority of cases, they're just going to point out that the list isn't legal, and ask the prospective opponent to alter it.

No sermonising. No 'angry neckbeards'. Just two gamers putting together a game at an agreed-upon points limit.

This discussion reminds of the joke with two people discussing how much money it would take for them to sleep with a stranger. So it's not a discussion of their character, it's merely haggling on their price.

In other words, being over on agreed upon points is wrong no matter the amount. If both sides are amenable to it that's fine, but don't put the onus the player who is wronged.

The moment you bring up ",illegal" and "cheating", it becomes uncivil. It's the same logic as going to a barbeque and someone says they will bring x amount if food, but only comes with x-2 amount. They said one thing and brought another. Does that warrent calling them a liar? To call them out and be a mean spirited person? No not really, and people will look at you funny for treating another person like that.

So if you asked me to take off those extra points I would, but if you say I'm a cheater, liar, thief, etc I will drop the game and call you out on the behavior

autumnlotus wrote:
The moment you bring up ",illegal" and "cheating", it becomes uncivil.

Sorry if the truth hurts. If you break a rule to give yourself a benefit then it's cheating.

 insaniak wrote:

autumnlotus wrote:
Mostly because I don't do pre-established lists and game ideas. I pop over to the store, talk to my friends and family, and see what they want to play. Someone says 2000 points? Okay cool, I make a list at 1998 and my friend makes 2003. I see this and I either a) add a dumb lil item to balance it, b) ask them to drop a model or upgrade to fit my count, or c) play it as is. Nobody is upset, nobody is quoting rules at me like its a sermon, and nobody is being rude. Is that hard to understand? Being zero points over is the goal but it isn't required to have a fun time. I will take 100 fights with slightly unbalanced games over 1 fight where I'm talked down to and rules lawyered by a angry neckbeard.

I think the problem here is that you're imbuing the responses in this thread with a lot more emotion than is actually there.

People saying that they would expect an opponent to stay under the points limit aren't frothing at the mouth and dragging people out to the parking lot over it. In the vast majority of cases, they're just going to point out that the list isn't legal, and ask the prospective opponent to alter it.

No sermonising. No 'angry neckbeards'. Just two gamers putting together a game at an agreed-upon points limit.

The main reason its a big deal to me is the use of the word "cheater". It's a very imflamitory word that is more often then not an open insult. So when someone calls someone that over asking openly if something is okay, then the accusor comes off as a antisocial, angry individual. It's like if someone was playing chess and added an additional pawn to the table after asking if it is okay. If they gave consent its not cheating, and if its not allowed its not cheating to have asked in the first place

autumnlotus wrote:
It's a very imflamitory word that is more often then not an open insult.

And in this case it's accurate. If the rules allow you to bring 1500 points then bringing 1501 points is cheating. The fact that you ask for permission to cheat does not change the fact that it's cheating.

It's like if someone was playing chess and added an additional pawn to the table after asking if it is okay.

And you shouldn't do that. You know it's against the rules of the game, and you're blatantly hoping that your opponent will feel social pressure to not be "TFG" and let you get away with it. This is really bad behavior.

 Peregrine wrote:
The fact that you ask for permission to cheat does not change the fact that it's cheating.

Er... yes it does.

The moment you enter a dialogue with the other player, it becomes a discussion about changing the rules, rather than cheating.

Cheating is something done without the opponent's consent.

 insaniak wrote:
The moment you enter a dialogue with the other player, it becomes a discussion about changing the rules, rather than cheating.

IMO that depends greatly on what you're asking for. If you're saying "let's play 1750 instead of 1500" then that's a rule discussion that is fair for both players. Asking "can we give me a free advantage" isn't really the same thing, especially when this is apparently a group where there's a ton of social pressure to agree to the request or be shunned from the group.

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

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

I would be totally ok with him asking. So long as he's totally ok with me saying no.

It's a game, after all. Asking to change the rules really isn't a big deal.

 insaniak wrote:

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

I would be totally ok with him asking. So long as he's totally ok with me saying no.

It's a game, after all. Asking to change the rules really isn't a big deal.

See my edited post above.

 insaniak wrote:

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

I would be totally ok with him asking. So long as he's totally ok with me saying no.

It's a game, after all. Asking to change the rules really isn't a big deal.

Exactly what I have been (trying to) say. We don't hate on people for not giving us our way here, its the feelings behind some of these comments that causes that action. If someone is rude once or twice I'll talk to them about it, if its a pattern I tell the manager and they talk to them. Continue the problem and you get booted

If it's a case that 5 or 10 points were stopping someone using a desired formation or certain units, I'd just tell them to go ahead. The disparity of 10 points in 1000 is fiarly inconsequential considering the imbalances the disparity in the effectiveness:points ratios across various units. But if it was a case of a player being competitive and trying to get the most bang for their buck, I'd tell them to get rid of a few combi-weapons, vehicle upgrades or other cheap things to balance their points.

Say no to "extra points".
Or it becomes this:

Sounds picky but if you do not follow rules or try your best you are playing an entirely different game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I have to add it is precisely being that couple points short that forces hard decisions, I see no real benefit of allowing an overdraft on points... would your opponent get access to double what you needed?

autumnlotus wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

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

I would be totally ok with him asking. So long as he's totally ok with me saying no.

It's a game, after all. Asking to change the rules really isn't a big deal.

Exactly what I have been (trying to) say. We don't hate on people for not giving us our way here, its the feelings behind some of these comments that causes that action. If someone is rude once or twice I'll talk to them about it, if its a pattern I tell the manager and they talk to them. Continue the problem and you get booted

No. The problem is you made an agreement, and when it comes time to keep that agreement you don't want to. Instead of taking responsibility because you couldn't keep your agreement, you're trying to blame the other person who's holding you to your word.

 Ghaz wrote:

See my edited post above.

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

Unless you're not finding out about the extra points until after the game, that's not really what's happening, though.

An opponent asking you pre-game if you mind them being a few points over is no different to them asking pre-game if you would agree to change any other rule.

 insaniak wrote:
An opponent asking you pre-game if you mind them being a few points over is no different to them asking pre-game if you would agree to change any other rule.

I think there's a significant difference between asking to change a rule that applies to everyone and asking to change a rule in a way that is blatantly to your advantage, especially in the context of a group where there's significant pressure to grant the change or be shunned from the group.

 insaniak wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

See my edited post above.

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

Unless you're not finding out about the extra points until after the game, that's not really what's happening, though.

An opponent asking you pre-game if you mind them being a few points over is no different to them asking pre-game if you would agree to change any other rule.

Its not really that different. Its still a part of the rules, even if its pre-game. The points value for the game has already been set and agreed to by both players. If he wanted to, he could have agreed to a ballpark figure rather than an exact points value. He's still going back on his agreement and is trying to make his opponent out as the bad guy if he won't let him when it is entirely his own fault.

 Ghaz wrote:
He's still going back on his agreement and is trying to make his opponent out as the bad guy if he won't let him when it is entirely his own fault.

At which point, you discover before the game even starts that you're probably not going to enjoy playing this guy because you have very different viewpoints on what the game should be, and can go and find a more suitable opponent, rather than finding out 2 turns in and having a far less enjoyable couple of hours pushing models around a board against someone you'd rather not be playing against. Win/win.

 Orock wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
So far there seem to be two broad categories of opinions:

1. People who value the rules more than a fair game.

2. People who value a fair game more than the rules.

People in category 1 are totally okay with playing against people whose armies get hundreds of points worth of extra potency without paying the points one would normally pay for that power, when the rules explicitly allow it. But they're not okay with anyone getting even one percent of that extra potency when the rules don't allow it.

People in category 2 are okay with people getting a few points worth of extra potency, when those few points imbalance the game by less than half of a percent. They're more concerned that the rules allow a very large imbalance via formations than they are with a relatively tiny deviation that the rule don't allow. They also generally seem to acknowledge that in a competitive environment like a tournament, they would never expect or allow that tiny deviation.

Way to generalize. Maybe people are OK with "free points" formations because many come with weaker unit choice lists than could have been optamized with the same points.

Because let me tell you something. You would BEG to only play say war convocation in a game if it meant the alternative list was 9 flesh tearer drop pods with 90 vanguard, 50 of them coming in turn one with plasma and arc weapons, all at BS 7.

I'll take your word for it, because I don't know what a war convocation is and last time I heard about vanguard veterans they were considered underpowered and overpriced.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

I was more observing the general opinions

Except that you didn't do anything of the sort. You just concocted a ridiculous strawman argument against everyone who said people should stick to the point limit.

Well, then it appears I failed to make both options sound reasonable. For that, I apologize and I'll stop pushing it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

1. People who value the rules more than a fair game.
2. People who value a fair game more than the rules..

Violating the agreed upon points limit is fair?
And having everyone abide by the agreed upon points limit is unfair?

 Pouncey wrote:

People in category 1 are totally okay with playing against people whose armies get hundreds of points worth of extra potency without paying the points one would normally pay for that power, when the rules explicitly allow it. But they're not okay with anyone getting even one percent of that extra potency when the rules don't allow it.

I'm really not sure what you're trying to say with this. Some formation and some units give you more for the points than others. Does that entitle players to take more points than agreed upon because they feel that the opponent's army is too good / too points efficient / cheese / whatever?

I'd noticed that the side argument about formations offering extra stuff for no cost generally had the people who don't allow any extra points saying that it's okay because it's legal, and the people who allow extra points were generally the ones saying that formations allowing extra points is worse, if you were wondering where that came from.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
The moment you enter a dialogue with the other player, it becomes a discussion about changing the rules, rather than cheating.

IMO that depends greatly on what you're asking for. If you're saying "let's play 1750 instead of 1500" then that's a rule discussion that is fair for both players. Asking "can we give me a free advantage" isn't really the same thing, especially when this is apparently a group where there's a ton of social pressure to agree to the request or be shunned from the group.

So what if, instead of saying, "Is if okay if I'm 5 points over?" they said, "Is it okay if we play 1505pts instead of 1500pts?"

I ask because generally the people arguing in favor of allowing a few points, seem to also be okay with their opponent adding something to their list to make it equal.

I haven't seen one halfway decent defense for being even three points over knowingly. You can remove SOMETHING. All I have seen are dudebros saying "come on man. Everyone is doing it. Your a nerd if you won't let us. My dad runs this game store. Keep up the poor attitude and you ain't coming back. " Good. Stores that kick players out for unreasonable reasons like "failing to let my homies run it like they wanna " soon get a rep and fail. And wanting to follow the rules is not rude. Why don't you go up and say "hey bro, wanna play a 1505 point game Tuesday? I have a specific list in mind and points are super tight" just don't be a dingus and show up with 1508.

 Pouncey wrote:
So what if, instead of saying, "Is if okay if I'm 5 points over?" they said, "Is it okay if we play 1505pts instead of 1500pts?"

I would be very skeptical of this because asking for a non-standard point total usually means "I have this perfect combo that I want to win with, and you'll probably just throw a meaningless upgrade into your 1500 point list". You know that you're going to get more out of the non-standard point total than your opponent, and that's kind of bending the rules a bit even if it's technically fair. Just make a normal 1500 point list like everyone else.

 Orock wrote:
I haven't seen one halfway decent defense for being even three points over knowingly. You can remove SOMETHING. All I have seen are dudebros saying "come on man. Everyone is doing it. Your a nerd if you won't let us. My dad runs this game store. Keep up the poor attitude and you ain't coming back. " Good. Stores that kick players out for unreasonable reasons like "failing to let my homies run it like they wanna " soon get a rep and fail. And wanting to follow the rules is not rude. Why don't you go up and say "hey bro, wanna play a 1505 point game Tuesday? I have a specific list in mind and points are super tight" just don't be a dingus and show up with 1508.

Because there is no defence possible. The rules say that both players must agree to a points limit, which is a finite maximum that must be met exactly or less.

What people are arguing is that it's possible to modify the rules if both parties agree it's okay. I've heard one such modification (or cheating, as you prefer) this edition is almost universally-accepted - that objective cards which are impossible to fulfill are discarded and another is drawn.

And yes, following the rules is not rude. But there's a difference between saying, "No, you can't go above the agreed points limit," and saying, "What? You want to go above the agreed points limit? You cheater. I'll bet you also try to break every rule in the game to your advantage." Most people don't enjoy being called a cheater, and it's a rather heavily-charged word in gaming.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
So what if, instead of saying, "Is if okay if I'm 5 points over?" they said, "Is it okay if we play 1505pts instead of 1500pts?"

I would be very skeptical of this because asking for a non-standard point total usually means "I have this perfect combo that I want to win with, and you'll probably just throw a meaningless upgrade into your 1500 point list". You know that you're going to get more out of the non-standard point total than your opponent, and that's kind of bending the rules a bit even if it's technically fair. Just make a normal 1500 point list like everyone else.

The points exist to keep things balanced and fair, in theory.

So their 1505 points should theoretically be just as potent as the opponent's 1505 points, barring absurd situations like one person taking no anti-vehicle stuff and their opponent bringing an IG tank list.

 Pouncey wrote:
I've heard one such modification (or cheating, as you prefer) this edition is almost universally-accepted - that objective cards which are impossible to fulfill are discarded and another is drawn.

The difference is that this is a change that is meant to apply to every player and every army, and improve the game universally. Changing the point limit to make your special snowflake list work without removing anything is an attempt to gain an advantage for yourself.

So their 1505 points should theoretically be just as potent as the opponent's 1505 points, barring absurd situations like one person taking no anti-vehicle stuff and their opponent bringing an IG tank list.

Yes, but most people have standard 1250/1500/1750/etc lists created already and aren't going to spend time trying to make an efficient 1505 point list. They're just going to take their 1500 point list and throw in a melta bomb or something that they'll probably never use. And they might not even bother to do that.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
I've heard one such modification (or cheating, as you prefer) this edition is almost universally-accepted - that objective cards which are impossible to fulfill are discarded and another is drawn.

The difference is that this is a change that is meant to apply to every player and every army, and improve the game universally. Changing the point limit to make your special snowflake list work without removing anything is an attempt to gain an advantage for yourself.

So their 1505 points should theoretically be just as potent as the opponent's 1505 points, barring absurd situations like one person taking no anti-vehicle stuff and their opponent bringing an IG tank list.

Yes, but most people have standard 1250/1500/1750/etc lists created already and aren't going to spend time trying to make an efficient 1505 point list. They're just going to take their 1500 point list and throw in a melta bomb or something that they'll probably never use. And they might not even bother to do that.

After trying and failing to come up with a counter-argument for a bit, I happened to read your signature.

Have you really played hundreds of thousands of WH40k games? O.o

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

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

 Peregrine wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
An opponent asking you pre-game if you mind them being a few points over is no different to them asking pre-game if you would agree to change any other rule.

I think there's a significant difference between asking to change a rule that applies to everyone and asking to change a rule in a way that is blatantly to your advantage, especially in the context of a group where there's significant pressure to grant the change or be shunned from the group.

Advantage how. Are you assuming that the other player would not then check to see if they can add something to their army to bring them closer to the renegotiated points limit? (Furthermore: Do you think that the points system in this game is perfectly balanced? The game feels pretty broken as it is, without players using a miniscule difference of points.)

If there's significant pressure and you can be shunned from the group. Is that really the group of people you'd even want to be hanging out with.

Colehkxix wrote:
Advantage how. Are you assuming that the other player would not then check to see if they can add something to their army to bring them closer to the renegotiated points limit?

It's an advantage because you very often don't have a simple +5 point change to make. If I've built a 1500 point list it probably has all of its units configured the way I want them. So, either I make a useless change just to spend the points (a melta bomb on a random sergeant, for example) or I spend a bunch of time re-configuring my list to see if I can make a significant change. And I may or may not have the models available to make that change. My opponent, on the other hand, is getting access to something important with those extra points. So that's an advantage in their favor.

(Furthermore: Do you think that the points system in this game is perfectly balanced? The game feels pretty broken as it is, without players using a miniscule difference of points.)

No, of course the game isn't perfectly balanced, but that's not the point. The issue is not the uneven points, it's the lack of respect for the rules. Trying to break the point limit says that you're the kind of person who is willing to bend or even break the rules in your favor, and I can expect more of the same once we start playing the game. If you can't even respect the integrity of the game enough to bring a legal army then how can I trust you not to grab an extra 1" of movement when you need to get into range and think I'm not looking?

If there's significant pressure and you can be shunned from the group. Is that really the group of people you'd even want to be hanging out with.

No, but "those people suck and I don't want to spend time with them" is hardly a compelling defense of the policy.

I have a 1850 point Decurion that has 16 points left to spare. Due to WYSIWYG, I cannot lose a Shadowloom on one of my Tomb Blades.
So you're telling me you'd be perfectly fine with me bringing another Immortal, putting me at 1851?

 Peregrine wrote:

Colehkxix wrote:
Advantage how. Are you assuming that the other player would not then check to see if they can add something to their army to bring them closer to the renegotiated points limit?

It's an advantage because you very often don't have a simple +5 point change to make. If I've built a 1500 point list it probably has all of its units configured the way I want them. So, either I make a useless change just to spend the points (a melta bomb on a random sergeant, for example) or I spend a bunch of time re-configuring my list to see if I can make a significant change. And I may or may not have the models available to make that change. My opponent, on the other hand, is getting access to something important with those extra points. So that's an advantage in their favor.

(Furthermore: Do you think that the points system in this game is perfectly balanced? The game feels pretty broken as it is, without players using a miniscule difference of points.)

No, of course the game isn't perfectly balanced, but that's not the point. The issue is not the uneven points, it's the lack of respect for the rules. Trying to break the point limit says that you're the kind of person who is willing to bend or even break the rules in your favor, and I can expect more of the same once we start playing the game. If you can't even respect the integrity of the game enough to bring a legal army then how can I trust you not to grab an extra 1" of movement when you need to get into range and think I'm not looking?

If there's significant pressure and you can be shunned from the group. Is that really the group of people you'd even want to be hanging out with.

No, but "those people suck and I don't want to spend time with them" is hardly a compelling defense of the policy.

Very often I have found that people are able to make those changes. I have my units configured how I want, and removing a melta bomb from one of them would be pretty sad. I have to remember which one didn't have the melta bomb.

I don't see how attempting to renegotiate the rules amount is disrespecting the rules, or trying to 'break' anything. It's not reasonable to assume that, if someone wants to do that, they are the kind of player who will cheat.

I'm not necessarily saying they're bad people. Just not the kind of players for you?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I have a 1850 point Decurion that has 16 points left to spare. Due to WYSIWYG, I cannot lose a Shadowloom on one of my Tomb Blades.
So you're telling me you'd be perfectly fine with me bringing another Immortal, putting me at 1851?

Yes.

Colehkxix wrote:

I have my units configured how I want, and removing a melta bomb from one of them would be pretty sad. I have to remember which one didn't have the melta bomb.

Hmm, what was it I said yesterday? Oh yes:

 vipoid wrote:
The other aspect is that 99% of the time it's not a matter of 'can't' it's a matter of 'don't want to'. As in, the person has a lot of gear or other stuff that they could easily drop, but don't want to drop *any* of it.

And, they'd much rather just play with too many points than actually have to make a hard decision.

Grimtuff, can I borrow your 'I informed you thusly' meme?

 vipoid wrote:

Colehkxix wrote:

I have my units configured how I want, and removing a melta bomb from one of them would be pretty sad. I have to remember which one didn't have the melta bomb.

Hmm, what was it I said yesterday? Oh yes:

 vipoid wrote:
The other aspect is that 99% of the time it's not a matter of 'can't' it's a matter of 'don't want to'. As in, the person has a lot of gear or other stuff that they could easily drop, but don't want to drop *any* of it.

And, they'd much rather just play with too many points than actually have to make a hard decision.

Grimtuff, can I borrow your 'I informed you thusly' meme?

So in this scenario, you'd rather play against someone who has multiple squads where the Sergeant has melta bombs, but in one particular identical squad the Sergeant does not have a melta bomb, with no differentiating characteristics on the models to figure it out because almost no one actually models melta bombs because they're either included or not on an almost random basis?

I mean, myself, I'd choose to build my list within the points values and find a way to equip my squads to avoid that, but I use Battlescribe for my list-writing (and later type up that info into a shorter form with a word processor), but apparently that isn't always the case for everyone.

Colehkxix wrote:
A lot of opinions are going on the idea that everyone prepares their army in advance, rather than coming to the store and coming up with a list on the spot. Two players agree on a a point amount to create an army, and they both create their lists accordingly. However in come cases they may end up wanting something in their army that puts their points just above the limit.

Why wouldn't you have a selection of lists already prepared unless you're list tailoring against your opponent? I mean, if you've got 1500/1750/1850/2000 then you've covered all of the common game sizes.

Why waste time when you could be prepared?
"Do you want a game?"
"Sure, just give me 15 minutes to scrawl indecipherable hieroglyphics on a piece of scrap paper."

And, far too often, this is accompanied by "So what army are you playing? Can I see your list?" before they make theirs...

 Scott-S6 wrote:
Why waste time when you could be prepared?
"Do you want a game?"
"Sure, just give me 15 minutes to scrawl indecipherable hieroglyphics on a piece of scrap paper."

Do people still write in cursive these days?

 Pouncey wrote:

So in this scenario, you'd rather play against someone who has multiple squads where the Sergeant has melta bombs, but in one particular identical squad the Sergeant does not have a melta bomb, with no differentiating characteristics on the models to figure it out because almost no one actually models melta bombs because they're either included or not on an almost random basis?

I'd have no objection to that whatsoever. Just let me know which squad doesn't have melta bombs during deployment, and I'll keep it in mind.

To be honest, I doubt I'd even notice the melta bombs on the sergeants one way or the other. Not unless I specifically picked them up and scrutinised them. But, when they're on the other side of the table I can barely make out different guns, let alone whether or not they're carrying tiny grenades.

 vipoid wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

So in this scenario, you'd rather play against someone who has multiple squads where the Sergeant has melta bombs, but in one particular identical squad the Sergeant does not have a melta bomb, with no differentiating characteristics on the models to figure it out because almost no one actually models melta bombs because they're either included or not on an almost random basis?

I'd have no objection to that whatsoever. Just let me know which squad doesn't have melta bombs during deployment, and I'll keep it in mind.

To be honest, I doubt I'd even notice the melta bombs on the sergeants one way or the other. Not unless I specifically picked them up and scrutinised them. But, when they're on the other side of the table I can barely make out different guns, let alone whether or not they're carrying tiny grenades.

Sorry, I'm used to people generally not liking stuff like that... Usually in a thread about proxies people complain about being expected to remember which of their opponent's identically-equipped models actually have which wargear throughout the course of the game.

No worries. My group is pretty laid back about stuff like WISIWIG and proxies.

I think our mentality could be summed up as 'do what you want with your models and it would be peachy if that occasionally coincided with their actual wargear'.

That's funny, WYSIWYG is one of the few rules we do bother with. Our armies are uncompetitive and shoddily painted (the few that are painted at all), the size of your army and the version of your codex is no big deal... but a plasma gunner is a plasma gunner!

(That said, a big shoota boy who is 'out of ammo' is definitely legit. )

 Ashiraya wrote:
That's funny, WYSIWYG is one of the few rules we do bother with. Our armies are uncompetitive and shoddily painted (the few that are painted at all), the size of your army and the version of your codex is no big deal... but a plasma gunner is a plasma gunner!

(That said, a big shoota boy who is 'out of ammo' is definitely legit. )

What about models that don't exist? Like a Lascannon on Legion of the Damned?

It hasn't come up yet. Our SM player doesn't run LotD.

I imagine he'd make a simple arm or weapon swap for that one. Child's play for him.

 Ashiraya wrote:
It hasn't come up yet. Our SM player doesn't run LotD.

I imagine he'd make a simple arm or weapon swap for that one. Child's play for him.

Fair enough. Does your rule apply to relics as well?

It depends on the nature of the relic. Something like the Burning Brand? Yes, the model needs a flamer or equivalent, though if equipped on a Sorcerer it'd be feasible that it's simply psychic flames. Something like the Dimensional Key could easily be argued to fit into one of the model's pouches, though.

Made me think of this:

I'd play that. Clever. I'd rather play one that is painted in active camouflage colours of course, but that is clever.

I agree that it does put pressure on an opponent to ask for another 5 points.
It is only a measly 5 points right??
If it is so measly, why can't you just make it fit the standard point size?
That is the real question to be asked.

Then "oh you could spend more too" works out to the good old melta-bomb to throw on some guy that may not get used (and forgotten since it typically was not modeled on the figure as pointed out).
I agree with what was mentioned earlier: that extra couple points tends to make the extra needed upgrade and results usually in a "meh" upgrade for the opponent.

If we cannot agree to keep to the points cost rule, we have no hope in dealing with less clear-cut rules in the game.
You try this madness in X-wing and you would get a sound smack-down.

It is a game, I would suggest if it makes the game more fun to pack in that bit more: just ask your opponent for a next-standard-size point game if you want to play with more and feel you cannot do without.

Colehkxix wrote:

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

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

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

If your opponent is ok with it in a friendly game, I don't see why it would be a problem. Tournaments would be a no-no, and as a rule of thumb you should try to hit your limit with out going over always.

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

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

CrowSplat wrote:


The point is that it is possible to make a list where you can not remove anything without compromising the integrity of the list, where any change would result in some pretty significant changes in gameplay.

If your list is over on points, then, by definition, it lacks integrity.

 Ashiraya wrote:
I'd play that. Clever. I'd rather play one that is painted in active camouflage colours of course, but that is clever.

What about a 3D-printed one with clear plastic as the material? Maybe with some weaponsfire effects coming from the gun that's the only thing painted? : D


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vash108 wrote:
If your opponent is ok with it in a friendly game, I don't see why it would be a problem. Tournaments would be a no-no, and as a rule of thumb you should try to hit your limit with out going over always.

A big part of the problem of even asking for it is that saying no to such a small difference (that admittedly can be significant in a lot of situations) makes the person saying no feel like the bad guy. Few people like to feel like the bad guy, and doubly so when playing a friendly game.

So probably, before you even ask, it's best to know that your opponent is okay with it to begin with, and if you know they're not, or if you don't know one way or the other, it's best not to even ask and just stick to the points limit.

So after 7 pages, what it seems like is that if you ever want to make people on Dakka lose their gak, don't bring up TLoS, Blasts hitting different levels, any of the other ludicrous rules. No, bring up bringing 1503 points to a 1500 point game.

 jreilly89 wrote:
So after 7 pages, what it seems like is that if you ever want to make people on Dakka lose their gak, don't bring up TLoS, Blasts hitting different levels, any of the other ludicrous rules. No, bring up bringing 1503 points to a 1500 point game.

Yup, it's weird that such a thing is so polarizing and sparks a huge argument/debate, but there's actually a math problem that, if posed to a forum, invariably causes intense flame wars for some bizarre reason. It's actually considered trolling just to post it, because of the intense rage it always, always causes from nearly everyone involved. Doesn't matter what forum it is, it always causes a flame war. It seems like such an innocuous thing, too, as it's just a bunch of numbers and math symbols.

 Pouncey wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
So after 7 pages, what it seems like is that if you ever want to make people on Dakka lose their gak, don't bring up TLoS, Blasts hitting different levels, any of the other ludicrous rules. No, bring up bringing 1503 points to a 1500 point game.

Yup, it's weird that such a thing is so polarizing and sparks a huge argument/debate, but there's actually a math problem that, if posed to a forum, invariably causes intense flame wars for some bizarre reason. It's actually considered trolling just to post it, because of the intense rage it always, always causes from nearly everyone involved. Doesn't matter what forum it is, it always causes a flame war. It seems like such an innocuous thing, too, as it's just a bunch of numbers and math symbols.

Okay, now I have to ask - what's the math problem?

(If you don't want to post it, could you at least pm me it or send me a link?)

 vipoid wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
So after 7 pages, what it seems like is that if you ever want to make people on Dakka lose their gak, don't bring up TLoS, Blasts hitting different levels, any of the other ludicrous rules. No, bring up bringing 1503 points to a 1500 point game.

Yup, it's weird that such a thing is so polarizing and sparks a huge argument/debate, but there's actually a math problem that, if posed to a forum, invariably causes intense flame wars for some bizarre reason. It's actually considered trolling just to post it, because of the intense rage it always, always causes from nearly everyone involved. Doesn't matter what forum it is, it always causes a flame war. It seems like such an innocuous thing, too, as it's just a bunch of numbers and math symbols.

Okay, now I have to ask - what's the math problem?

(If you don't want to post it, could you at least pm me it or send me a link?)

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/48293

Apparently Know Your Meme is aware of it.

Hah! I can see how that would cause problems.

Thanks for the link.

I think it's time someone posted that in the general discussion!

The main rulebook does cover this however, under 'Multiple Modifiers' in the Models & Units section of the rulebook. The problem occurs when there's a disagreement over what is a modifier.

Well there is always the simple rule of asking your partner, and if no agreement can be made just roll off on it high or low. Usually it's not a satisfying answer, but it speeds a game along then it can be doublecheckes in a rulebook afterwards. Like an argument about whether or not a maulerfiend can climb levels in the game given that it's both a vehicle and a beast

 Ghaz wrote:

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

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

Then stick to the agreed amount. I have had friends making list as we decide what to play and go over by a point or 2. Personally I would never let anyone go over 3 or 4.

Normally this isn't a problem with me if this is a group of us making a list on the fly. But if someone comes to a game with an agreed upon point limit beforehand and they just went over that isn't cool, because they had PLENTY of time to make it work.

autumnlotus wrote:
Well there is always the simple rule of asking your partner, and if no agreement can be made just roll off on it high or low. Usually it's not a satisfying answer, but it speeds a game along then it can be doublecheckes in a rulebook afterwards. Like an argument about whether or not a maulerfiend can climb levels in the game given that it's both a vehicle and a beast

I think this is the kind of thing that would require the opponent's permission, since the rules are very clear on what having a points limit means and points limits aren't at all unique to WH40k and are pretty much identically-defined across every game system that uses them.

If you can go five points over, then you can go five points under just as well.

The limit is the limit.

 jreilly89 wrote:
So after 7 pages, what it seems like is that if you ever want to make people on Dakka lose their gak, don't bring up TLoS, Blasts hitting different levels, any of the other ludicrous rules. No, bring up bringing 1503 points to a 1500 point game.

It's hardly exclusive to Dakka. The discussion would go fairly similarly in any large discussion group.

 Tamwulf wrote:
If you can go five points over, then you can go five points under just as well.

The limit is the limit.

Generally the times when I find my list a few points over and have trouble finding something to drop, it's because of my lack of Superiors with standard weaponry. Which means that yes, I'd love to swap out that Power Weapon for a Bolt Pistol (I go WYSIWYG and all my Superior models with power weapons also have boltguns for some messed-up reason), but I only have one Superior with a Bolt Pistol/Boltgun weapon combo, and she's always used with my Retributor squad since giving her a power weapon or plasma pistol is pointless.

Of course, then I figured I could just equip my Superiors with Stormbolters and use my Stormbolter-equipped Special Weapon models as Superiors, since a Stormbolter is always a terrible choice for the squad to take over a flamer, heavy flamer or meltagun, so there wouldn't ever be confusion over which stormbolter is the Superior (it's always the Superior). And that pretty much solved all of those problems. : D

Oh we ask eachother permission for inconsistencies in points before starting a game. And if someone is under by like 10 and they are alright with it usually we let them choose the mission type. Really most of the people playing here are newbies or are vets who are unfamiliar with the new rules. I played to early 4th edition and stopped till 7th when a friend offered to buy me the book. So basically we have to guess at some rules, especially things not used often like pile in rules and Psychic powers in vehicles. We look em up afterwards, but still xD


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Tamwulf wrote:
If you can go five points over, then you can go five points under just as well.

The limit is the limit.

Generally the times when I find my list a few points over and have trouble finding something to drop, it's because of my lack of Superiors with standard weaponry. Which means that yes, I'd love to swap out that Power Weapon for a Bolt Pistol (I go WYSIWYG and all my Superior models with power weapons also have boltguns for some messed-up reason), but I only have one Superior with a Bolt Pistol/Boltgun weapon combo, and she's always used with my Retributor squad since giving her a power weapon or plasma pistol is pointless.

Of course, then I figured I could just equip my Superiors with Stormbolters and use my Stormbolter-equipped Special Weapon models as Superiors, since a Stormbolter is always a terrible choice for the squad to take over a flamer, heavy flamer or meltagun, so there wouldn't ever be confusion over which stormbolter is the Superior (it's always the Superior). And that pretty much solved all of those problems. : D

Oh the pain of being a sisters player xD honestly I have giving up on my models being accurate besides special weapons, especially for my black Templar. The terminators replace their thunderhammers with grey knight termie power swords and the dumb storm shields with 3rd party kite shields. My tactical/initiate marines are all chainsword/pistol men, and all neophytes with shotguns and knifes. They aren't always that way in the list, and I make sure to inform my opponent what is what on the board, I just dislike using models that I find ugly looking. Like Grav cannons: they look so ugly

 Pouncey wrote:

autumnlotus wrote:
Well there is always the simple rule of asking your partner, and if no agreement can be made just roll off on it high or low. Usually it's not a satisfying answer, but it speeds a game along then it can be doublecheckes in a rulebook afterwards. Like an argument about whether or not a maulerfiend can climb levels in the game given that it's both a vehicle and a beast

I think this is the kind of thing that would require the opponent's permission, since the rules are very clear on what having a points limit means and points limits aren't at all unique to WH40k and are pretty much identically-defined across every game system that uses them.

I really hope that autumnlotus was talking about the maths problem. (because invoking TMIR on an utterly unambiguous rule just to get your way half of the time is extremely high on the douchebaggery index)

I was talking about rule disagreements and confusion in general. The extra points, while something that can be discussed before a game, is impossible to be confused by. 1500=/1502

autumnlotus wrote:
I was talking about rule disagreements and confusion in general. The extra points, while something that can be discussed before a game, is impossible to be confused by. 1500=/1502

Now we're actually playing a game of 1502pts. Mind if I go 5pts over?

Now we're actually playing a game of 1507pts. Mind if I go 5pts over?

Now we're actually playing a game of 1512pts. Mind if I go 5pts over?

Where does this end?

A limit is a limit for a reason.

The limit is whatever the game players put it down as. If its a planned game of 1500 then follow that rule unless it's agreed to be changed. But if its a random game with no planning then the points are not set in stone until lists are reviewed. Granted this is from a store group where a third party can pop over with a 100pt unit and screw with the game, so balance is not a issue unless it's an event or tournament.

So really: unless it is not fun, rules for a group are just guidelines. We follow the rules 99% of the time, but if we feel like doing something else we will. Especially for games like killteam or planetstrike: we alter rules as would be fun

 Grimtuff wrote:

autumnlotus wrote:
I was talking about rule disagreements and confusion in general. The extra points, while something that can be discussed before a game, is impossible to be confused by. 1500=/1502

Now we're actually playing a game of 1502pts. Mind if I go 5pts over?

Now we're actually playing a game of 1507pts. Mind if I go 5pts over?

Now we're actually playing a game of 1512pts. Mind if I go 5pts over?

Where does this end?

A limit is a limit for a reason.

Well, in that situation, both players would be okay with going over, since presumably after obtaining permission from their opponent to go 2 points over, they won't add a 5-point upgrade and ask again, so it'd be their opponent re-writing their list and finding something they like that's 5 points more than the new points limit, and then back and forth.

I imagine eventually someone would come up with a list that they're comfortable with that's within the points limit. Either that or they run out of time and both players go home without actually having played a game.

autumnlotus wrote:
But if its a random game with no planning then the points are not set in stone until lists are reviewed.

That's not true. The points are set when the two players agree to a points limit, before you build your lists.

3 or 4 if you're playing against friends, zero if in a tournament.

 Ghaz wrote:

autumnlotus wrote:
But if its a random game with no planning then the points are not set in stone until lists are reviewed.

That's not true. The points are set when the two players agree to a points limit, before you build your lists.

So the rules are more important then both players enjoyment and their option to work out a pt amount as they build their lists? This sounds less about rules, and more about you demanding that players play your way or not play at all

autumnlotus wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

autumnlotus wrote:
But if its a random game with no planning then the points are not set in stone until lists are reviewed.

That's not true. The points are set when the two players agree to a points limit, before you build your lists.

So the rules are more important then both players enjoyment and their option to work out a pt amount as they build their lists? This sounds less about rules, and more about you demanding that players play your way or not play at all

You mean use the rules presented in the rulebook?

For. feths. Sake.

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

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

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

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

I've established that the other players here don't mind it, so you aren't defending anyone but your own opinion. I get that the rules are there for a reason, and a standard game is still exactly the same point count for both sides or less if it cant be helped. What I'm saying is that there are a lot of ways to play, and calling them against player enjoyment is short sighted and rude. If it was you as one of the players here the rule would be followed no problem. What concerns me is if you would be one of the people that walk over to other tables and yelling at people for being "cheaters" for daring to not following the rules. Exception being to events and tournaments where the winner of that fight would impact other games.

autumnlotus wrote:
What concerns me is if you would be one of the people that walk over to other tables and yelling at people for being "cheaters" for daring to not following the rules.

I have no idea where you are getting this absurd idea from. I think the fact that you'd say something like this says way more about you than it does about me.

It comes from people repeatedly pointing out that the rules are the rules, follow them, when I have pointed out dozens of times people here are friendly enough to just allow one or two points extra to make it convenient for the other player. There is no hard pressure to allow it, and if I have a new person wanting to follow the rules exactly I'll do just that.

This concept of us vs them came from my comment of the group here pushing out bad apples, taken as us hating people who follow the rules, and has perpetuated into a strawman to attack as people ignore my comments. So yeah, I take these comments and picture angry individuals that will start screaming matches in games they aren't playing, because those are the two people we have ignored and had managers ban from a store. If that is incorrect then I apologize. If you don't want point deviance in your games that's fine, just don't tell others how they play is wrong seeing as how the point of the game is to have fun...which is what's happening here

autumnlotus wrote:
It comes from people repeatedly pointing out that the rules are the rules, follow them, when I have pointed out dozens of times people here are friendly enough to just allow one or two points extra to make it convenient for the other player. There is no hard pressure to allow it, and if I have a new person wanting to follow the rules exactly I'll do just that.

And where have we said at any point we'd butt in on someone else's game flailing our arms and shouting "UR PLAYING IT WRONG!"?

Go on, I'll wait.

 Grimtuff wrote:

autumnlotus wrote:
It comes from people repeatedly pointing out that the rules are the rules, follow them, when I have pointed out dozens of times people here are friendly enough to just allow one or two points extra to make it convenient for the other player. There is no hard pressure to allow it, and if I have a new person wanting to follow the rules exactly I'll do just that.

And where have we said at any point we'd butt in on someone else's game flailing our arms and shouting "UR PLAYING IT WRONG!"?

Go on, I'll wait.

The same place where I said I would pressure others to let me have extra points, apparently.

But seriously: everytime I mention people here don't mind it, someone chimes in and says we should follow the rules or are cheaters. Is that a productive way of looking at things? If its you playing its different which I have mentioned, so What are you arguing against? People not playing the way you want when you aren't involved?

 Tamwulf wrote:
If you can go five points over, then you can go five points under just as well.
The limit is the limit.

Yep, that right there.
Why people "lose their gak" is because you are taking liberties, making lite of it but if it means so little then use less points to the point limit!
<edit>Think of it as both an etiquette question and a rules question combined. Use more points = rude.

If my space marine needs a 3+ for a save and rolls a 2, that is close enough right?
If I shoot a lascannon at a Landraider and roll a 4, that is good enough correct?
Can that cop pull you over for driving 5 over the limit? Sure he can, but you would think he is a jerk.
Spending 2-3 points over on your army list is ok but 3 or more is getting to be a bit much?

We each have our opinion on what we think strikes the right balance that is why we have rules written down to avoid limit creep.

 Talizvar wrote:

 Tamwulf wrote:
If you can go five points over, then you can go five points under just as well.
The limit is the limit.

Yep, that right there.
Why people "lose their gak" is because you are taking liberties, making lite of it but if it means so little then use less points to the point limit!
<edit>Think of it as both an etiquette question and a rules question combined. Use more points = rude.

If my space marine needs a 3+ for a save and rolls a 2, that is close enough right?
If I shoot a lascannon at a Landraider and roll a 4, that is good enough correct?
Can that cop pull you over for driving 5 over the limit? Sure he can, but you would think he is a jerk.
Spending 2-3 points over on your army list is ok but 3 or more is getting to be a bit much?

We each have our opinion on what we think strikes the right balance that is why we have rules written down to avoid limit creep.

Actually, I don't drive, but both of my parents stay within the speed limit, treating it as the maximum it is. Much to the annoyance of the people behind them who want to go 60 in a residential area with frequent signs stating the speed limit of 40.

The issue here is people judging others based on what limit they consider adequate. Nobody should be involved in judgement calls for a game besides the ones playing. So yeah if someone told me they dislike lists that aren't exactly x limit, no higher no lower, then I would do my best to accommodate that default way of playing. No pressuring them to give me that extra point, no name calling, no anger. It's the same situation I have with rules in general. I have a right to refuse games if I find them not to my taste. It's what I do when I see baneblades in three digit pts lists, or what I do when a second wraithknight touches the field. Is it legal? Definitely. I just want to play it and that decision is supported by the rules. Same goes for my opponent if they don't like the look of my chaos knight or wants me to limit my summoning.

autumnlotus wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

autumnlotus wrote:
It comes from people repeatedly pointing out that the rules are the rules, follow them, when I have pointed out dozens of times people here are friendly enough to just allow one or two points extra to make it convenient for the other player. There is no hard pressure to allow it, and if I have a new person wanting to follow the rules exactly I'll do just that.

And where have we said at any point we'd butt in on someone else's game flailing our arms and shouting "UR PLAYING IT WRONG!"?

Go on, I'll wait.

The same place where I said I would pressure others to let me have extra points, apparently.

But seriously: everytime I mention people here don't mind it, someone chimes in and says we should follow the rules or are cheaters. Is that a productive way of looking at things? If its you playing its different which I have mentioned, so What are you arguing against? People not playing the way you want when you aren't involved?

A lot of people feel socially pressured to just say yes, because there's a perception that saying no to a few extra points makes them the bad guy in that situation.

As someone with social anxiety, I totally get not wanting to be put in a similar situation.

I get that, I have an aspect of that when it comes to strangers and a worry I'm being judged with everything I do. I am accommodating to those people though, to all new people who visit to see the scene here. Definitely not the spokeswoman, that would be the owner of the store, but I do help people get used to playing the game and try new things. First thing explained to them is the point system is there to have a sense of balance in the game, and should have their armies built in traditional sets of 1000, 1500, 2000, and 2500 and change them from there depending on what people feel like playing. At that point, with all the assistance I can give, someone still feels pressured by the dynamic here, then they should speak up to a friend or the manager to set up something more their style. It's how the first tournament here was started, and nobody shunned the idea.

It is awesome that some players are sensitive to things and want to get along.

The problem is that some like to push the limit and like taking "liberties"... makes them feel rough, tough and hard to diaper.

Been bullied in the past, learned how to get physical in a few different styles and developed a strong intolerance and confidence in dealing with bullies or rudeness.

It really is surprising how often people confuse "nice" = "weak"... very far from the truth.

Stick up for your wishes and what you feel is right.

Yeah, this extra points thing DOES open a can of worms, I always figured it was a no-brainer and then keep finding people trying to sneak in those extra points... I really would have liked to add extra armor to that Rhino of mine... no, you do not get more free-bie points, I had to make a difficult decision and you can too!

autumnlotus wrote:
I've established that the other players here don't mind it, so you aren't defending anyone but your own opinion.

And all you are doing is defending your own position, with the addition of trying to paint the players who want to abide by the rules as the 'bad guys' for not allowing your house rules. You are just as guilty as judging the player who wants to play by the rules as you claim we are for not allowing them to ignore the rules.

 Talizvar wrote:
It is awesome that some players are sensitive to things and want to get along.

The problem is that some like to push the limit and like taking "liberties"... makes them feel rough, tough and hard to diaper.

Been bullied in the past, learned how to get physical in a few different styles and developed a strong intolerance and confidence in dealing with bullies or rudeness.

It really is surprising how often people confuse "nice" = "weak"... very far from the truth.

Stick up for your wishes and what you feel is right.

Yeah, this extra points thing DOES open a can of worms, I always figured it was a no-brainer and then keep finding people trying to sneak in those extra points... I really would have liked to add extra armor to that Rhino of mine... no, you do not get more free-bie points, I had to make a difficult decision and you can too!

Nice.

As an aside, sometimes I find that Battlescribe is very, very wrong.

Like when it included the cost of the Boy in a Nob's points, but didn't include the Nob in the unit's size when determining how many heavy weapons were allowed. So in order to take 2 heavy weapons in a mob of Boyz with a Nob, you had to pay for 21 Boyz - if you only paid for 20, it would say that you hadn't taken enough Boyz to be allowed that second weapon.

I bring it up because sometimes I wonder if there are other errors in the Battlescribe data that I haven't noticed, but might get called on and accused of cheating if I posted a list here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:

autumnlotus wrote:
I've established that the other players here don't mind it, so you aren't defending anyone but your own opinion.

And all you are doing is defending your own position, with the addition of trying to paint the players who want to abide by the rules as the 'bad guys' for not allowing your house rules. You are just as guilty as judging the player who wants to play by the rules as you claim we are for not allowing them to ignore the rules.

Um, I'm the one who keeps bringing up the term "bad guy" and I only use it to refer to how people feel when they say no (after some other people already brought it up earlier in the thread). I didn't mean that they actually were bad people, just that they feel like the antagonists. Because how things actually are can be different from how people feel.

And their problem with those particular players, if I understood right, was that they would repeatedly walk up to games they weren't even participating in, and start lecturing the players about following point limits, when everyone who was actually playing that particular game had no problem with it. That's what got them booted out, not just wanting to follow the points limits. They've said multiple times that they don't push the extra few points on anyone who's not okay with it.

Their problem with this particular thread, is that every time they say that their local group generally doesn't have a problem with it, someone pipes up to tell them they're playing the game wrong, and calling them cheaters.

 Pouncey wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
So after 7 pages, what it seems like is that if you ever want to make people on Dakka lose their gak, don't bring up TLoS, Blasts hitting different levels, any of the other ludicrous rules. No, bring up bringing 1503 points to a 1500 point game.

Yup, it's weird that such a thing is so polarizing and sparks a huge argument/debate, but there's actually a math problem that, if posed to a forum, invariably causes intense flame wars for some bizarre reason. It's actually considered trolling just to post it, because of the intense rage it always, always causes from nearly everyone involved. Doesn't matter what forum it is, it always causes a flame war. It seems like such an innocuous thing, too, as it's just a bunch of numbers and math symbols.

Okay, now I have to ask - what's the math problem?

(If you don't want to post it, could you at least pm me it or send me a link?)

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/48293

Apparently Know Your Meme is aware of it.

Slightly off topic, but isn't that covered by bodmas (or pemdas if you're american)? http://www.purplemath.com/modules/orderops.htm I can fully appreciate it causing heated flame wars on the internet, but the rules for resolving it are pretty simple. Likewise, if you've agreed to a X points limit game, then going over it is breaking that agreement. Especially if you've had advanced notice to make up your list beforehand.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pouncey wrote:

Do people still write in cursive these days?

Most people speak in cursive these days.

Yeah, that math problem is solvable. I don't know why anyone would think it isn't.

There are certainly math problems with more than one answer (certain formulas often give multiple answers, especially if they involve plotting certain graphs and finding certain features) but answers are attainable.

 vipoid wrote:

Colehkxix wrote:

I have my units configured how I want, and removing a melta bomb from one of them would be pretty sad. I have to remember which one didn't have the melta bomb.

Hmm, what was it I said yesterday? Oh yes:

 vipoid wrote:
The other aspect is that 99% of the time it's not a matter of 'can't' it's a matter of 'don't want to'. As in, the person has a lot of gear or other stuff that they could easily drop, but don't want to drop *any* of it.

And, they'd much rather just play with too many points than actually have to make a hard decision.

Grimtuff, can I borrow your 'I informed you thusly' meme?

What are you trying to prove with this?

The entire thread is about what people do or don't want to do. Not what they can or can't do.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Colehkxix wrote:
A lot of opinions are going on the idea that everyone prepares their army in advance, rather than coming to the store and coming up with a list on the spot. Two players agree on a a point amount to create an army, and they both create their lists accordingly. However in come cases they may end up wanting something in their army that puts their points just above the limit.

Why wouldn't you have a selection of lists already prepared unless you're list tailoring against your opponent? I mean, if you've got 1500/1750/1850/2000 then you've covered all of the common game sizes.

Why waste time when you could be prepared?
"Do you want a game?"
"Sure, just give me 15 minutes to scrawl indecipherable hieroglyphics on a piece of scrap paper."

And, far too often, this is accompanied by "So what army are you playing? Can I see your list?" before they make theirs...

They want a game with more points than I am able to. I ask them for a lower points amount. They negotiate. "How many points can you do?" They say. "Maybe 1200?" I respond. From then on, we make our new revised lists as both players have not prepared such a list in advance. Having standard loadouts for my squads, I know that my Infantry Squads are 71 and so on. It doesn't take much time at all. Infact players with prepared lists seem to take longer setting up their armies than I do making a list out of nowhere and setting up mine.

 Ghaz wrote:

Colehkxix wrote:

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

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

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

Uh... I'm not sure how to respond to this. It isn't rude? It's not that big of a deal? It's unreasonable to think that if someone wants to renegotiate a points amount with you, that they are untrustworthy?? (I am struggling to understand how you came to that conclusion.)

I think we'll just have to disagree on this one.

 jreilly89 wrote:
So after 7 pages, what it seems like is that if you ever want to make people on Dakka lose their gak, don't bring up TLoS, Blasts hitting different levels, any of the other ludicrous rules. No, bring up bringing 1503 points to a 1500 point game.

It's been surprising civil for a thread that ballooned into 8 pages in about a day, actually.

Yes, it is rude. If you're not sure how many points your list s going to be, then have the common courtesy to tell me so beforehand instead of expecting me to let you change the agreed points limit. And if its not a big deal, then why not stick to the agreed points limit? If they continually do this time after time then they've proven that this is their nature and everything a person does reflects on them.

 Ghaz wrote:
Yes, it is rude. If you're not sure how many points your list s going to be, then have the common courtesy to tell me so beforehand instead of expecting me to let you change the agreed points limit. And if its not a big deal, then why not stick to the agreed points limit? If they continually do this time after time then they've proven that this is their nature and everything a person does reflects on them.

Do you run into this a lot, Ghaz?

No I don't, but that wouldn't change how I would feel about it. Treat me with the same courtesy I'm showing you.

A person's actions shows their personality. If you have a player that's been caught cheating a couple of times, then you either don't play that person or if you do you're more vigilant to ensure he doesn't cheat. This is the same situation. You either have to put up with him always wanting a few points more in pick-up games or you don't play him because you don't want to deal with his BS.

It is all about the courtesy we extend to each other. Hats off to you Ghaz.

 Ghaz wrote:
Yes, it is rude. If you're not sure how many points your list s going to be, then have the common courtesy to tell me so beforehand instead of expecting me to let you change the agreed points limit. And if its not a big deal, then why not stick to the agreed points limit? If they continually do this time after time then they've proven that this is their nature and everything a person does reflects on them.

Exalted for the truth.

Akiasura wrote:
Yeah, that math problem is solvable. I don't know why anyone would think it isn't.

There are certainly math problems with more than one answer (certain formulas often give multiple answers, especially if they involve plotting certain graphs and finding certain features) but answers are attainable.

It is solvable. It's just that depending on what particulars of math you apply to it, you come up with one of two different answers. And for some reason, the disagreement on which answer is actually correct tends to get very, very heated.

The question of points limits is exactly that, it is a point limit agreed upon by two people. It is an implicit agreement to play at that level.

Then asking to be allowed some extra points defeats the original limit imposed.

To look at it another way, if you agree a game with no FW units, and then your opponent turns up with FW would you not feel aggrieved and feel entitled to ask for their removal?

Same thing with the excess points.

Cheers

Andrew

I think we can all just agree that if its a friendly game youre allowed to be flexible with points, as long as both sides agree. Tournaments should be 0 points over of course. ex I only play with friends, so going over by maybe 5 points is generally ok as long as they say so beforehand because we are just trying to have fun.

If one side doesnt agree the the other going over, then that person just has to deal with it and take something out to get under the limit.

 Billagio wrote:
I think we can all just agree that if its a friendly game youre allowed to be flexible with points, as long as both sides agree.

The problem is the one side expects to be given that right regardless, just because its a 'friendly' game. If its 'friendly', you don't need the extra points. Stick to your agreement.

I have never played competitively so this has never been a problem for me. Like I said earlier, we allow grace points because we don't really care how the game turns out. If that 1 point extra kills the rest of my x amount of points, so be it. The Persians had way more points than the Greeks at the Battle of Thermopylae but King Leonidas still held Xerxes back for seven days before Ephialtes cheated and told the Persians how to get past the Spartans.

My group is ok with it, because fun is fun. If I ever manage to play in a tournament then you can bet my list will be on the dot or below the point limit, because rules are rules.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Billagio wrote:
I think we can all just agree that if its a friendly game youre allowed to be flexible with points, as long as both sides agree.

The problem is the one side expects to be given that right regardless, just because its a 'friendly' game. If its 'friendly', you don't need the extra points. Stick to your agreement.

No, not necessarily. If I dont want to let my opponent have the extra points then ill say so. Ive never had someone get upset because its a "friendly" game and I denied them the extra

 Billagio wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 Billagio wrote:
I think we can all just agree that if its a friendly game youre allowed to be flexible with points, as long as both sides agree.

The problem is the one side expects to be given that right regardless, just because its a 'friendly' game. If its 'friendly', you don't need the extra points. Stick to your agreement.

No, not necessarily. If I dont want to let my opponent have the extra points then ill say so. Ive never had someone get upset because its a "friendly" game and I denied them the extra

Read this thread and you'll see quite a few people who seem to think they're entitled to the extra points in a 'friendly' game.

Always follow the points limit. I don't understand why people wouldn't follow the points limit, it's just common courtesy. Even if your opponent doesn't care, you can't know that beforehand so you just do the courteous thing and follow the points limit.

Your opponent may have wanted to take that 20pt item that pushed them 2 points over the limit but chose not to do so in order to keep to the points limit... you should offer the same respect and also not take the 20pt item.

Unless you discuss it prior to the game and decide that it's going to be a 1990 to 2010 pt game rather than a 2000pt game I see no reason why you should go over.

 Pouncey wrote:

Akiasura wrote:
Yeah, that math problem is solvable. I don't know why anyone would think it isn't.

There are certainly math problems with more than one answer (certain formulas often give multiple answers, especially if they involve plotting certain graphs and finding certain features) but answers are attainable.

It is solvable. It's just that depending on what particulars of math you apply to it, you come up with one of two different answers. And for some reason, the disagreement on which answer is actually correct tends to get very, very heated.

It's because as far as I'm aware there's no standard as to whether multiplication takes precedence or division takes precedence, so it's not clear whether the part in brackets is in the numerator or the denominator.

I've never understood why it would get heated though. Anyone who uses maths regularly would use more clear notation to avoid confusion. If one of my students wrote like that I'd comment that they need to use clear notation instead of writing it like a 3rd grader.

The same thing happens in English when people don't know how to use semicolons and instead overuse commas, leading to the potential for multiple interpretations. You can argue about which interpretation is correct or you can just whack people over the head and tell them to use a semicolon so the meaning is clear.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Billagio wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 Billagio wrote:
I think we can all just agree that if its a friendly game youre allowed to be flexible with points, as long as both sides agree.

The problem is the one side expects to be given that right regardless, just because its a 'friendly' game. If its 'friendly', you don't need the extra points. Stick to your agreement.

No, not necessarily. If I dont want to let my opponent have the extra points then ill say so. Ive never had someone get upset because its a "friendly" game and I denied them the extra

Read this thread and you'll see quite a few people who seem to think they're entitled to the extra points in a 'friendly' game.

Then theyre certainly wrong. But if you also read the thread there seems to be people who think that someone allowing extra points should be shot.

 Billagio wrote:
Then theyre certainly wrong. But if you also read the thread there seems to be people who think that someone allowing extra points should be shot.

Things get blown out of proportion on the internet. People are usually more amiable in real life so even if it might piss them off that their opponent was 3pts over they won't get up in arms about it.

On the internet we don't think it's going to hurt the other person's feelings (or simply don't care if it does) so people are more direct about the fact it annoys them that their opponent shows up with a list that's 3pts over.

 Ghaz wrote:
Yes, it is rude. If you're not sure how many points your list s going to be, then have the common courtesy to tell me so beforehand instead of expecting me to let you change the agreed points limit. And if its not a big deal, then why not stick to the agreed points limit? If they continually do this time after time then they've proven that this is their nature and everything a person does reflects on them.

 Ghaz wrote:
No I don't, but that wouldn't change how I would feel about it. Treat me with the same courtesy I'm showing you.

A person's actions shows their personality. If you have a player that's been caught cheating a couple of times, then you either don't play that person or if you do you're more vigilant to ensure he doesn't cheat. This is the same situation. You either have to put up with him always wanting a few points more in pick-up games or you don't play him because you don't want to deal with his BS.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Billagio wrote:
I think we can all just agree that if its a friendly game youre allowed to be flexible with points, as long as both sides agree.

The problem is the one side expects to be given that right regardless, just because its a 'friendly' game. If its 'friendly', you don't need the extra points. Stick to your agreement.

Who said they can't stick to the previously agreed points limit? Who said that there is an expected right? Who said they didn't tell you beforehand? Who says they will always want more points? How does attempting to renegotiate a points amount lead to you thinking that they are the kind of person who is WAAC and cheats at games? Simply asking "Can I be X points over?" does not lead to the conclusions you seem to have.

You say no. They say "Okay I'll take something out." Or you say yes. Or you say "Yes but I want to add something in." It's just a normal conversation. Not a big deal. Nobody is being rude. Carry on. Have a good game.

It would help if you could explain to me how you think things work instead of just stating how you think things are.

 Ruberu wrote:
I have never played competitively so this has never been a problem for me. Like I said earlier, we allow grace points because we don't really care how the game turns out. If that 1 point extra kills the rest of my x amount of points, so be it. The Persians had way more points than the Greeks at the Battle of Thermopylae but King Leonidas still held Xerxes back for seven days before Ephialtes cheated and told the Persians how to get past the Spartans.

My group is ok with it, because fun is fun. If I ever manage to play in a tournament then you can bet my list will be on the dot or below the point limit, because rules are rules.

Or they played with the same amount of points and Spartans were just considerably worth more than Persian infantry, like Space Marines vs Guardsmen.

I honestly don't think a worse comparison could've been made.

Colehkxix wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
Yes, it is rude. If you're not sure how many points your list s going to be, then have the common courtesy to tell me so beforehand instead of expecting me to let you change the agreed points limit. And if its not a big deal, then why not stick to the agreed points limit? If they continually do this time after time then they've proven that this is their nature and everything a person does reflects on them.

 Ghaz wrote:
No I don't, but that wouldn't change how I would feel about it. Treat me with the same courtesy I'm showing you.

A person's actions shows their personality. If you have a player that's been caught cheating a couple of times, then you either don't play that person or if you do you're more vigilant to ensure he doesn't cheat. This is the same situation. You either have to put up with him always wanting a few points more in pick-up games or you don't play him because you don't want to deal with his BS.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Billagio wrote:
I think we can all just agree that if its a friendly game youre allowed to be flexible with points, as long as both sides agree.

The problem is the one side expects to be given that right regardless, just because its a 'friendly' game. If its 'friendly', you don't need the extra points. Stick to your agreement.

Who said they can't stick to the previously agreed points limit? Who said that there is an expected right? Who said they didn't tell you beforehand? Who says they will always want more points? How does attempting to renegotiate a points amount lead to you thinking that they are the kind of person who is WAAC and cheats at games? Simply asking "Can I be X points over?" does not lead to the conclusions you seem to have.

You say no. They say "Okay I'll take something out." Or you say yes. Or you say "Yes but I want to add something in." It's just a normal conversation. Not a big deal. Nobody is being rude. Carry on. Have a good game.

It would help if you could explain to me how you think things work instead of just stating how you think things are.

So you're so desperate to defend those who can't stick to an agreed points limit that you've missed the entire point of this thread?

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
It is solvable. It's just that depending on what particulars of math you apply to it, you come up with one of two different answers. And for some reason, the disagreement on which answer is actually correct tends to get very, very heated.

It's because as far as I'm aware there's no standard as to whether multiplication takes precedence or division takes precedence, so it's not clear whether the part in brackets is in the numerator or the denominator.

I've never understood why it would get heated though. Anyone who uses maths regularly would use more clear notation to avoid confusion. If one of my students wrote like that I'd comment that they need to use clear notation instead of writing it like a 3rd grader.

The same thing happens in English when people don't know how to use semicolons and instead overuse commas, leading to the potential for multiple interpretations. You can argue about which interpretation is correct or you can just whack people over the head and tell them to use a semicolon so the meaning is clear.

This "debate" always amuses me.

It's not a complicated answer, in that a points limit is a limit.

Now, plenty of times you have units you like or limited models, and the 1503 list is a lot more appealing than the 1497. That just happens.

What is interesting to me is sheer passion and paranoia people show in demanding adherence to the rule. I've seen the words "social contract " in this thread with no apparent irony. The idea is that a person three points over could be a malevolent mastermind that will cheat every chance they get. That is, of course, ridiculous.