Stupid question tbh, and im not talking about strict tournaments, but my armies at 2003pts for a 2k friendly; will people mind? I dont know them, so ill probably ask, and see what they say, and adjust accordingly . If you guys have any notion of what you would do please advise
I say 1 point is to much unless it's a 500 point game(at so low in points you may need 3 just to build a list)
Drop a melta bomb or other small upgrade
There's strong opinions about that on this site, and a thread not so long about that subject, but for me, a casual game, 3 points over is fine imo, provided there isn't a 3-point upgrade somewhere in your army.
Because, sometimes the points just work out that way, and I'd prefer my opponent be 3 points over and happy than me force him to axe a marine and be 15 point under, or something like that.
Still, there's almost always 5 points you can cut somewhere, if you opponent insists.
For me, it's not a big deal to be over by 5 or fewer points - sometimes it's hard to cut that down.
for example - last weekend I played a game, and I was 3 points over. I mentioned it to my opponent, who said it was fine, but then I realized I was bringing non-minimum squads of grots, so I just axed a grot and was golden. Sometimes it's not that easy, and that's fine with me.
I'm in the camp where you agree to a limit and that's a hard limit lol. Several of my lists end up being 1-4 points under. If it's really an issue just talk to your opponent, and have a way to change the list quickly if they take issue with it. Such as dropping a small upgrade, as Oldmike says.
If you don't believe that it matters, why ask the question?
And, IMO, a point limit is just that; a limit. While I won't pack up over it, the point limit is supposed to be arbitrary. if you want to play without them, play fantasy. . .
oldzoggy wrote: It has been 1 for years
But all that free stuff from formations kinda makes it moot.
If that couple of points lets you take the last unit you need to qualify for the formation and get all of the free stuff then it's even more important.
1 point over is too much... That allows some upgrade or model somewhere in your army that should not be there. You're bringing more points than have been agreed.... If I agreed to play 2000 pts with someone and they said- "hey I'm 3 points over, why don't you take an extra 5 pts?" I would say- "why don't you drop some points and play at the level we agreed?"
If someone other than my gaming buddies says X points I'll assume that it means X points, no more.
My mates and I however borrow a rule from another game (I forget which, warzone maybe?) that you can go over by up to half the cost of the cheapest model in the army.
I think that so long as both players are happy with the actual number of points being brought by both sides, it doesn't really matter.
Ask your opponent. Mention that you'd be happy to take something out if it's an issue. Make them feel that they're not the bad guy for wanting to stick within the precise points limits and can feel free to say no. Because they're not the bad guy. And if they do say no, accept that as the answer immediately, don't push it further, and find something in your list you can drop to be under the points limit.
That said, if it's a random game against someone you've never met before, stay within the points limits. Period. Some people really don't like deviating from the standard points value, but would never let you know because of the social pressures to avoid a possible argument. And ultimately this game is about fun for all involved players. No one ever dislikes it when their opponent is within the limits though.
Of course, 1 point over is too far, it is the limit, after all. BUT, there is absolutely nothing wrong with asking your opponent about it anyway as long as you are completely willing to accept their answer without complaint or comment.
I say just ask. It gets the topic open and the persons playing against you might've assumed 3-5 over is fine also. 99% of the time asking means people won't care much (as long as you're not tfg) and it'll build trust for your honesty.
I'm in the camp of go under, never over. There has to something to drop as people said. Pouncey pretty much summed my group up. We play 1850 and I doubt anyone isn't 1-5 under.
Gashrog wrote: My mates and I however borrow a rule from another game (I forget which, warzone maybe?) that you can go over by up to half the cost of the cheapest model in the army.
That's not really the same thing as the OP was asking, since all of your mates know that when you agree to a 1,000 points game you're really agreeing to a 1,000+x points game.
Also, if it's a game being arranged well in advance with someone you already know, don't ask them if it's okay right before the game. Ask them at least a day in advance, the earlier the better, so there's less pressure to get the game going as soon as possible and avoid delays. Also gives you more time to do some fine-tuning if they do want to stay entirely within the points limit and you need to tinker with your list.
In casual games, 2 or 3 points over is no big deal, but if you're are 499 points in a 500 point game and you purchase a 3 point upgrade to put you over to 402, that's not OK. So a couple of points over is fine, but if you're that close to the points limit, leave it. Better to be under by a point than over by a point.
In less casual and competitive games (e.g. competitions at your FLGS or tournaments), strictly less than or equal to the points limit is a must. 1 point over is 1 point too many for these games.
If we set a point limit ahead of time 0 points slack. I keep under the limit, and made sacrifices and trades in what I wanted to get there. You can do the same.
If you are tossing a quick list together at the tableside, 5ish points. I’d rather get playing then wait half an hour for you to tweak your list.
Without points limits you might as well be playing AOS. If your list is 3 points over, time to drop a piece of wargear to get under.
In the old days where wargear and units had oddish point values it was easier to do. But in todays world of round numbers to get under points you might find yourself running 1486 in 1500 points because there just isn't anything avialable to drop under 15 points.
But those are the breaks and why you play with limits, so you have to play inside the game.
Jayden63 wrote: Without points limits you might as well be playing AOS. If your list is 3 points over, time to drop a piece of wargear to get under.
In the old days where wargear and units had oddish point values it was easier to do. But in todays world of round numbers to get under points you might find yourself running 1486 in 1500 points because there just isn't anything avialable to drop under 15 points.
But those are the breaks and why you play with limits, so you have to play inside the game.
To be fair, I blatantly break the game's rules every time I bring an Exorcist to the tabletop. Because according to the proper rules regarding vehicle weapon firing arcs and line of sight, the Exorcist is only allowed to shoot at targets in a 45 degree cone straight up. Everyone who lets it shoot at targets in any other direction are, at best, playing with a house rule, and at worst, blatantly cheating to gain a huge in-game advantage. Also there's a large number of 40k players who are completely unaware of this, including numerous Sisters of Battle players who regularly use Exorcists. Even GW, when this was brought up in an FAQ some years ago, didn't quite seem to grasp the fact that RAW prevented the Exorcist from shooting at anything at all unless Titans or Flyers were involved at point-blank range, as the response to the question effectively confirmed that yes, that is the case, in a way that suggested that GW was unaware of the actual question being asked.
The thing about house rules though is that all players involved have to agree to them. If one or both players don't want to play with a house rule that lets both sides go a little bit over the points limit with their opponent's permission, then they revert to the standard rules. Some people are okay with going a little bit over though, and if both players agree and are happy with the situation, there's really nothing wrong with that. One of the huge advantages that tabletop games have over computer games is that the rules are easier to modify to the players' preference.
Nevelon wrote: If you are tossing a quick list together at the tableside, 5ish points. I’d rather get playing then wait half an hour for you to tweak your list.
This, with the addition that I'm OK with that 5ish points if it keeps your army WYSIWYG. There's nothing worse than having 2 or 3 squads, and having to remember did I not give melta bombs to squad A, B, or C. IMO, allowing a couple points to keep redundant squads actually redundant saves from later, potentially game altering "cheating" (whether it was intended or not)
I have no problem with going over the limit as long as both players know about it and agree to allow it. If my friend goes over by 5 points I am ok with that as long as he tells me and let's me add 5 points to my list. I would have no problem doing that with anyone.
Zero points over is the limit. Why is it so hard to build a legal list?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pouncey wrote: To be fair, I blatantly break the game's rules every time I bring an Exorcist to the tabletop. Because according to the proper rules regarding vehicle weapon firing arcs and line of sight, the Exorcist is only allowed to shoot at targets in a 45 degree cone straight up. Everyone who lets it shoot at targets in any other direction are, at best, playing with a house rule, and at worst, blatantly cheating to gain a huge in-game advantage. Also there's a large number of 40k players who are completely unaware of this, including numerous Sisters of Battle players who regularly use Exorcists. Even GW, when this was brought up in an FAQ some years ago, didn't quite seem to grasp the fact that RAW prevented the Exorcist from shooting at anything at all unless Titans or Flyers were involved at point-blank range, as the response to the question effectively confirmed that yes, that is the case, in a way that suggested that GW was unaware of the actual question being asked.
The difference is that the Exorcist situation was a clear case of RAW being stupid and unplayable, much like the old "models with helmets have no eyes to draw LOS from and can't shoot or charge" RAW stupidity. So technically it's a house rule by RAW, but it's one that everyone understands is necessary and merely a case of fixing GW's mistakes. But there's no such justification for breaking the point limit rule. There's nothing inherently absurd about playing a 1500 point game that needs to be fixed, it just might not let you bring all of the units and upgrades you want to take. Nor is there any compelling reason to accept a "I want to bring extra points" house rule.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kap'n Krump wrote: For me, it's not a big deal to be over by 5 or fewer points - sometimes it's hard to cut that down.
No, it's never hard to cut it down. Remove an upgrade, or remove an entire unit if you have to. What you actually mean is that sometimes it's difficult to make a legal list without sacrificing anything you want to take or making your army less powerful than you want it to be. And that's an argument I have no sympathy at all for.
I'm fine with being over up to 5 points, even in as low as 500 points. This is because I know a lot of codexes have that dreaded "not a multiple of 5 in points, and starts in units not a multiple of 5". Units like that leads you into doing tax-evasion style number crunching to get them in line with the points, and can often deny you the use of another unit simply because of a 2 point shortage (and I'm talking about the difference of having 33 extra points but the cheapest thing you can buy is a 35 point model).
And for those that think that the opponent might simply get a huge amount of bonuses for those 2 points due to formations and whatnot, I see it the other way; the weird-ass point system instead screwed them out of what should have been a viable formation build in that points allotment. Especially when some unit has an extra point tacked on for no apparent reason. Chaos Terminators being one; I don't see much of a difference for them to cost 30 points instead of 31, but they do, and it's maddenly difficult because they ALSO come in squads of 3 that DOES add up to 95 points, so a normal squad of 5 ends up being 157. And that's not even getting into upgrades...
HuskyWarhammer wrote: I say just ask. It gets the topic open and the persons playing against you might've assumed 3-5 over is fine also. 99% of the time asking means people won't care much (as long as you're not tfg) and it'll build trust for your honesty.
The other side of that is that there's social pressure to be the nice guy and say "oh, sure, it's no big deal" instead of starting an argument over it. By bringing the extra points and asking your opponent to decline them you put them in an awkward position where they're likely to concede the extra points just to avoid having you complain about how much of a WAACTFG they are. The right thing to do is to bring a legal list and avoid the situation entirely.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: (and I'm talking about the difference of having 33 extra points but the cheapest thing you can buy is a 35 point model)
I fail to see the problem with this. If there's genuinely nothing else you can add to your list then you play the game at 33 points below the limit.
And for those that think that the opponent might simply get a huge amount of bonuses for those 2 points due to formations and whatnot, I see it the other way; the weird-ass point system instead screwed them out of what should have been a viable formation build in that points allotment. Especially when some unit has an extra point tacked on for no apparent reason. Chaos Terminators being one; I don't see much of a difference for them to cost 30 points instead of 31, but they do, and it's maddenly difficult because they ALSO come in squads of 3 that DOES add up to 95 points, so a normal squad of 5 ends up being 157. And that's not even getting into upgrades...
So is it ok for me to move my models an extra 1"? After all, I think they should be faster than what GW printed, so let's just play it that way because it makes it easier for me.
In a game as poorly pointed as 40k I don't really care if you're a point or 5 over. If a Land Raider with some upgrades is "'worth" nearly as much as a Wraithknight who gives a gak?
Eldarain wrote: In a game as poorly pointed as 40k I don't really care if you're a point or 5 over. If a Land Raider with some upgrades is "'worth" nearly as much as a Wraithknight who gives a gak?
I care because it says a lot about your attitude towards the game. If you're willing to cheat and bring an illegal list then I can pretty reasonably expect you to rules lawyer every possible ambiguous rule to your advantage, move your models extra distance if I'm not watching carefully, etc. After all, who gives a if you just take your extra 5% wherever you can?
Peregrine wrote:I fail to see the problem with this. If there's genuinely nothing else you can add to your list then you play the game at 33 points below the limit.
The purpose of the points system is to effect equality between starting forces. A 33 point difference is greater than a 2 point difference.
I don't think that he should take his 2 additional points without asking. That said, if he legitimately has no other options, he should ask his opponent for the additional 2 points. 2 points is less than half of a melta bomb.
You'll likely disagree with me on this, of course.
Eldarain wrote: In a game as poorly pointed as 40k I don't really care if you're a point or 5 over. If a Land Raider with some upgrades is "'worth" nearly as much as a Wraithknight who gives a gak?
I care because it says a lot about your attitude towards the game. If you're willing to cheat and bring an illegal list then I can pretty reasonably expect you to rules lawyer every possible ambiguous rule to your advantage, move your models extra distance if I'm not watching carefully, etc. After all, who gives a if you just take your extra 5% wherever you can?
Let's see if I remember that quote correctly. What was it again...
"Just bring the most powerful options in the codex, paint it well and then make up the fluff to suit your needs."
Something like that?
Is that about right?
A leniency of 2-5 points would not cause me to suspect that someone is a rules lawyer who will garner every possible advantage for himself.
Eldarain wrote: In a game as poorly pointed as 40k I don't really care if you're a point or 5 over. If a Land Raider with some upgrades is "'worth" nearly as much as a Wraithknight who gives a gak?
I care because it says a lot about your attitude towards the game. If you're willing to cheat and bring an illegal list then I can pretty reasonably expect you to rules lawyer every possible ambiguous rule to your advantage, move your models extra distance if I'm not watching carefully, etc. After all, who gives a if you just take your extra 5% wherever you can?
I agree it reflects on my attitude toward the game, though I reach a far different conclusion than you have leapt to (Though something tells me from your attention to your models and your less antagonistic posts that Peregrine at the table is a far different fellow than Peregrine sparing on Dakka) I feel 40k is in such dire shape that most of my games look far more like P&P RPG with minis than a competitive event between two equally matched forces. I am far more likely to argue for you to get some unheralded free reinforcements than any kind of rules lawyering for my own advantage. But again I don't see the value in the current ruleset as a test of skill and generalship.
Eldarain wrote:(Though something tells me from your attention to your models and your less antagonistic posts that Peregrine at the table is a far different fellow than Peregrine sparing on Dakka)
"Bring the most powerful options in your codex, paint them well and then make up the fluff to suit your needs."
Pouncey wrote: To be fair, I blatantly break the game's rules every time I bring an Exorcist to the tabletop. Because according to the proper rules regarding vehicle weapon firing arcs and line of sight, the Exorcist is only allowed to shoot at targets in a 45 degree cone straight up. Everyone who lets it shoot at targets in any other direction are, at best, playing with a house rule, and at worst, blatantly cheating to gain a huge in-game advantage. Also there's a large number of 40k players who are completely unaware of this, including numerous Sisters of Battle players who regularly use Exorcists. Even GW, when this was brought up in an FAQ some years ago, didn't quite seem to grasp the fact that RAW prevented the Exorcist from shooting at anything at all unless Titans or Flyers were involved at point-blank range, as the response to the question effectively confirmed that yes, that is the case, in a way that suggested that GW was unaware of the actual question being asked.
The difference is that the Exorcist situation was a clear case of RAW being stupid and unplayable, much like the old "models with helmets have no eyes to draw LOS from and can't shoot or charge" RAW stupidity. So technically it's a house rule by RAW, but it's one that everyone understands is necessary and merely a case of fixing GW's mistakes. But there's no such justification for breaking the point limit rule. There's nothing inherently absurd about playing a 1500 point game that needs to be fixed, it just might not let you bring all of the units and upgrades you want to take. Nor is there any compelling reason to accept a "I want to bring extra points" house rule.
You make a good point, and I absolutely don't think your opponents should be allowed to go any points over the limit if you don't explicitly agree.
Some people don't care about strict adherence to points limits though, especially now that numerous formations exist that grant hundreds of points of free units and rules for zero extra point cost. They view the damage to the point-balancing system done by those formations as being far, far worse than their opponent taking three points extra to upgrade a flamer to a meltagun, and find it absurd that people would disallow the latter but completely accept the former and then complain about a few extra points being able to fit in an extra unit or model. And if two of those people get together to play a game, and they both don't care if one or the other or both is over by a few points, why shouldn't they be allowed to do it?
If my opponent is a few points over on his list then I generally won't care all that much. I'm not going to refuse a game because my opponent is a few points over. If you can drop an upgrade to get you below the points limit, then I'd ask you to do so. If; however, such a thing is not really possible (for whatever reason) I won't sweat it too much. I'd much rather play 40k with that slight points disparity then refuse a game to satisfy my desire to have an "equal" game in regards to points.
To me it smacks of laziness. There is a minor points reduction you were too lazy to find, or you thought up your list without considering points ahead of time and it just came out a few points over and you were again lazy and just said "sure, whatever". I think it's good gamesmanship to abide by the limit and if you can't create a perfect list at that points cost, you should be under the limit and not over (even if this means going under by 10-15-20 points).
Traditio wrote: The purpose of the points system is to effect equality between starting forces.
No, the purpose of the point system is to give both players equal resources to build their forces from. If we play a 1500 point game we each have 1500 points to spend as we like, including not spending some of those points. If I feel that taking a list of stuff that adds up to 1450 points is a better strategy than an alternative list that adds up to 1495 then that's the choice I've made. I don't get to say I'm going to take the stronger list but also ask for an extra 5 points so I can throw in 50 points more. We're no longer playing an equal game if I have to make sacrifices to fit everything within the 1500 point limit while you get to treat the point limit as a rough approximation that can be bent whenever you feel like adding more stuff to your army.
And I'll also point out that this seems to be an issue that only comes up in 40k and its toxic "casual at all costs" community. X-Wing, for example, is a game where fitting awkward point costs together within the point limit is even harder than in 40k and yet I've never heard of anyone asking to take extra points. It's universally understood that if you aren't under the point limit you just don't get to take that combination of ships and upgrades. I can't even count the number of times I've thrown out potential list ideas because they were significantly under the point limit but not quite by enough to bring an additional ship, or where I can't quite fit the upgrades I want.
HuskyWarhammer wrote: I say just ask. It gets the topic open and the persons playing against you might've assumed 3-5 over is fine also. 99% of the time asking means people won't care much (as long as you're not tfg) and it'll build trust for your honesty.
The other side of that is that there's social pressure to be the nice guy and say "oh, sure, it's no big deal" instead of starting an argument over it. By bringing the extra points and asking your opponent to decline them you put them in an awkward position where they're likely to concede the extra points just to avoid having you complain about how much of a WAACTFG they are. The right thing to do is to bring a legal list and avoid the situation entirely.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: (and I'm talking about the difference of having 33 extra points but the cheapest thing you can buy is a 35 point model)
I fail to see the problem with this. If there's genuinely nothing else you can add to your list then you play the game at 33 points below the limit.
And for those that think that the opponent might simply get a huge amount of bonuses for those 2 points due to formations and whatnot, I see it the other way; the weird-ass point system instead screwed them out of what should have been a viable formation build in that points allotment. Especially when some unit has an extra point tacked on for no apparent reason. Chaos Terminators being one; I don't see much of a difference for them to cost 30 points instead of 31, but they do, and it's maddenly difficult because they ALSO come in squads of 3 that DOES add up to 95 points, so a normal squad of 5 ends up being 157. And that's not even getting into upgrades...
So is it ok for me to move my models an extra 1"? After all, I think they should be faster than what GW printed, so let's just play it that way because it makes it easier for me.
To the first one addressing me: It's either coming in 33 points under or buying 30 points of useless upgrades (like Power Weapons on a few champions) that might as well never get used. This means your opponent is playing with a 33 point advantage over you, which diminishes his victory as much as it diminishes your fun. I can't speak for anyone else but I personally feel like I'm the cheating one if I forced someone into a 33 point handicap just because the codex didn't let him add up his numbers nicely (which a well designed codex should, I mean it's not hard, even GW and Ward did it for a full edition).
To the second one: If a sarcastic hyperbole is your only rebuttal then there will be no meaningful discussion. At the end of the day, it's still a game, and like my point above I refuse to force anyone into a handicap worse than one I would experience because of something trivial. Plus, I specifically said 5 points or under for a reason; I have never heard of a match won by an extra melta bomb or a Storm Bolter turned into a combi-melta. If someone is so nitpicky about a meager 5 point difference (which even in a 500 point game is only a 1% difference, in a game system where you stand to lose 20% of your entire army just because you went second) then I shudder at what kind of rule lawyering would be pulled in the actual game.
Note that I would never come in with a list over the points limit; there's a difference between allowing someone to do so and doing so yourself with the expectation that others would accept you. If I would go over (which I never have) then I would always ask the opponent if he's ok, and accept any handicap if he is not.
Traditio wrote: "Just bring the most powerful options in the codex, paint it well and then make up the fluff to suit your needs."
...
A leniency of 2-5 points would not cause me to suspect that someone is a rules lawyer who will garner every possible advantage for himself.
The above mentioned quote would, however.
Do you understand the difference between "take a legal list with good strategic choices" and "break the rules to your advantage", and why the latter is much more of a sign of a dishonest player than the former?
Peregrine wrote: So is it ok for me to move my models an extra 1"? After all, I think they should be faster than what GW printed, so let's just play it that way because it makes it easier for me.
If you want to extend all movement speeds by 1" and your opponent agrees, then yes, absolutely. Play it that way.
Frankly, many of your opponents will be getting extra movement and range anyways because the human eye is imperfect, terrain exists, and getting a bird's eye view while leaning over three feet of table you can't actually lean on is not particularly feasible. Also if you use Games Workshop or Chessex dice you're going to be rolling a lot more 1s than you really should be, because those dice are terribly-balanced but generally roll a lot more 1s than they should. Sometimes up to double the number of 1s they should.
I can be one point over in my own lists and not bat an eye... I definitely try to avoid it though. 1 point under is preferred. Even Steven is always a keeper list for me.
List building is a part of the game too. So I would expect the same back. 1 pt. 2 pt. Or just write a bigger list.
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: To the first one addressing me: It's either coming in 33 points under or buying 30 points of useless upgrades (like Power Weapons on a few champions) that might as well never get used. This means your opponent is playing with a 33 point advantage over you, which diminishes his victory as much as it diminishes your fun. I can't speak for anyone else but I personally feel like I'm the cheating one if I forced someone into a 33 point handicap just because the codex didn't let him add up his numbers nicely (which a well designed codex should, I mean it's not hard, even GW and Ward did it for a full edition).
Again, I fail to see the problem here. We both had the same points to spend, so why is it a problem if you feel like the list 33 points below the limit is better than an alternative which is closer to the limit? Part of list building skill is deciding when to scrap a list and start over, and when to accept that falling short of the limit is better than the alternative. Complaining about playing at a 33 point disadvantage because you didn't spend all of your points makes no more sense than complaining about playing at a 1" movement speed disadvantage because you only move your infantry 5" each turn.
And no, I don't see why you think that the numbers should add up nicely. Point costs should accurately reflect the power of the unit or upgrade, not a rough approximation that is biased in one direction or the other for the sake of making stuff add up to even numbers. Would you really be happier if that 33 point model cost 35 points instead?
To the second one: If a sarcastic hyperbole is your only rebuttal then there will be no meaningful discussion.
There is no hyperbole at all. Taking extra points is cheating, just like moving your models extra distance. The rule is perfectly clear, you just feel entitled to break it and give yourself an advantage that you want.
Plus, I specifically said 5 points or under for a reason; I have never heard of a match won by an extra melta bomb or a Storm Bolter turned into a combi-melta.
Perhaps you haven't heard of that, but it's pretty dishonest of you to pretend that an extra melta bomb is the only thing we're talking about when you've already said this:
Units like that leads you into doing tax-evasion style number crunching to get them in line with the points, and can often deny you the use of another unit simply because of a 2 point shortage (and I'm talking about the difference of having 33 extra points but the cheapest thing you can buy is a 35 point model).
Nightlord1987 wrote: I can be one point over in my own lists and not bat an eye... I definitely try to avoid it though. 1 point under is preferred. Even Steven is always a keeper list for me.
List building is a part of the game too. So I would expect the same back. 1 pt. 2 pt. Or just write a bigger list.
No.
No.
No.
If you haven't asked your opponent for the additional 1 point, you are cheating, and you should bat an eye at that.
Traditio wrote: I disagree. The italicized only has instrumental value to the goal that I set (i.e., equality of starting forces).
No, because I reject your principle of equality of starting forces entirely. If you spend your points badly then you do not have an equal starting force, and that's exactly how it should be. Building your force out of the points you are given to spend is part of being good at the game.
There you have it, Eldarain! Games shouldn't be casual. That's just heresy.
Are you incapable of participating in a discussion without posting ridiculous straw man arguments? "Casual at all costs" has nothing at all to do with any conventional concept of "casual". It's stuff like the CAAC player screaming at their opponent for spamming too many copies of an overpowered unit and being a WAACTFG. Or, relevant to this thread, people cheating by taking illegal lists and using "play casually" as a weapon to pressure their opponent into letting them get away with it.
Peregrine wrote:Do you understand the difference between "take a legal list with good strategic choices" and "break the rules to your advantage", and why the latter is much more of a sign of a dishonest player than the former?
You say "with good strategic choices." I say "that exploits a poorly balanced game system."
At any rate, no, you, Peregrine, not the person who brings the additional point, are the one that I'm going to be expecting to rules lawyer up a storm. You are the one that I'm going to be expecting to try to use preferred enemy (orks) to allow you to reroll gets hot on your plasma cannons (prior to the FAQ), even though I'm playing marines. You are the one that I'm going to expect to be using BS 5 to reroll scatter dice. You are the one that I'm going to expect to exploit every ambiguous rule to your advantage.
Not the ork player with the extra point in his army.
Wow, a lot of hard asses on here when it comes to this eh? When I used to play LoTR a lot it was never taken as an issue to show up to a 500pt game with 501. Happened to me and my opponents loads of times and it was never an issue with any of us.
Admittedly I've never had it come up in 40K, but these days how much do the points matter anyway? Is 1500 points worth of CSM equivalent to 1500 points of Eldar Jetbikes and Wraith Knights? On paper, sure. On the table?
1 point over the limit is too far. That is why it is a limit. There is ALWAYS something that can be removed to fit under the points limit. If that means taking one less Marine in a squad to fit, then so be it.
5 points over may not seem like much, but as a somewhat extreme example what if they were pushed 5 points over the total to stuff in a second wraithknight or something like that. Playing to a point limit is an agreement to try to give the game at least some aspect of balance between both sides.
Traditio wrote: I disagree. The italicized only has instrumental value to the goal that I set (i.e., equality of starting forces).
No, because I reject your principle of equality of starting forces entirely. If you spend your points badly then you do not have an equal starting force, and that's exactly how it should be. Building your force out of the points you are given to spend is part of being good at the game.
There you have it, Eldarain! Games shouldn't be casual. That's just heresy.
Are you incapable of participating in a discussion without posting ridiculous straw man arguments? "Casual at all costs" has nothing at all to do with any conventional concept of "casual". It's stuff like the CAAC player screaming at their opponent for spamming too many copies of an overpowered unit and being a WAACTFG. Or, relevant to this thread, people cheating by taking illegal lists and using "play casually" as a weapon to pressure their opponent into letting them get away with it.
I think the problem is more that you're saying nobody should be allowed to go over even if both parties agree and already know they agree that it's fine.
Also most of us who don't particularly care about a few points do agree that games against people who you're not already sure are on-board with a few extra points should be kept within the limits, period, because no one likes social pressure to do something you're not comfortable with and it's best to avoid that situation entirely.
The OP in particular is talking about a friendly game that he seems to be arranging with one of his friends.
Also, just, consider this. You're worried about social pressure making you feel the need to agree to a few extra points so you don't seem like the bad guy. Yet I don't think you'd worry about feeling like the bad guy if you said no to your opponent asking if infantry can move 7 inches in open terrain instead of 6, before the game actually starts, or if they wanted their lascannons to be strength 10 instead of 9. Doesn't the difference there kinda tell you that a few points are such a minor problem in 40k, even to you, as to be nearly insignificant?
Traditio wrote: You say "with good strategic choices." I say "that exploits a poorly balanced game system."
Yes, we all know that you think anyone who brings an army that can consistently beat yours (along with every Tau player) is a WAACTFG exploiting bad rules and should be ashamed of your behavior. But you're pretty much alone in that absurd belief.
At any rate, no, you, Peregrine, not the person who brings the additional point, are the one that I'm going to be expecting to rules lawyer up a storm. You are the one that I'm going to be expecting to try to use preferred enemy (orks) to allow you to reroll gets hot on your plasma cannons (prior to the FAQ), even though I'm playing marines. You are the one that I'm going to expect to be using BS 5 to reroll scatter dice. You are the one that I'm going to expect to exploit every ambiguous rule to your advantage.
Man, it must really suck to play against straw-Peregrine. You should play against the real Peregrine instead, who pretty clearly believes that both of those things do not work that way. And you should certainly stop using straw-Peregrine to back up your arguments about how people can be expected to rules lawyer stuff.
But really, it says a lot that you expect people who bring legal lists that beat yours to be rules lawyers, while people who openly cheat are not suspicious at all.
Traditio wrote: I disagree. The italicized only has instrumental value to the goal that I set (i.e., equality of starting forces).
No, because I reject your principle of equality of starting forces entirely. If you spend your points badly then you do not have an equal starting force, and that's exactly how it should be. Building your force out of the points you are given to spend is part of being good at the game.
There you have it, Eldarain! Games shouldn't be casual. That's just heresy.
Are you incapable of participating in a discussion without posting ridiculous straw man arguments? "Casual at all costs" has nothing at all to do with any conventional concept of "casual". It's stuff like the CAAC player screaming at their opponent for spamming too many copies of an overpowered unit and being a WAACTFG. Or, relevant to this thread, people cheating by taking illegal lists and using "play casually" as a weapon to pressure their opponent into letting them get away with it.
Some people just seem to subscribe to the idea that more wheels make the bike faster so refuse to remove the training wheels for anything.
Pouncey wrote: I think the problem is more that you're saying nobody should be allowed to go over even if both parties agree and already know they agree that it's fine.
Obviously if both players agree they can do it. But it's pretty bad behavior if you ask for the extra points, unless you know before you ask that your opponent shares your "a few extra is fine" belief.
Also most of us who don't particularly care about a few points do agree that games against people who you're not already sure are on-board with a few extra points should be kept within the limits, period, because no one likes social pressure to do something you're not comfortable with and it's best to avoid that situation entirely.
I'm not really convinced of this, given how many people seem to treat those few extra points as something they should be entitled to by default and think that anyone who won't let them have the extra points is a bad person. I think a lot of people do ask for extra points in pickup games against strangers, and don't care one bit about the social pressure issue (if they're even aware that it could be a thing).
Also, just, consider this. You're worried about social pressure making you feel the need to agree to a few extra points so you don't seem like the bad guy. Yet I don't think you'd worry about feeling like the bad guy if you said no to your opponent asking if infantry can move 7 inches in open terrain instead of 6, before the game actually starts, or if they wanted their lascannons to be strength 10 instead of 9. Doesn't the difference there kinda tell you that a few points are such a minor problem in 40k, even to you, as to be nearly insignificant?
It's different, but not in that way. The main difference between the those examples is that things like "my lascannons are STR 10" don't have support from the toxic "CASUAL AT ALL COSTS" element of the community, so it's much more likely that anyone asking for STR 10 lascannons is going to find themselves completely lacking in support if they get upset about having their request denied. And it's a lot less believable that such an argument would happen at all.
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: To the first one addressing me: It's either coming in 33 points under or buying 30 points of useless upgrades (like Power Weapons on a few champions) that might as well never get used. This means your opponent is playing with a 33 point advantage over you, which diminishes his victory as much as it diminishes your fun. I can't speak for anyone else but I personally feel like I'm the cheating one if I forced someone into a 33 point handicap just because the codex didn't let him add up his numbers nicely (which a well designed codex should, I mean it's not hard, even GW and Ward did it for a full edition).
Again, I fail to see the problem here. We both had the same points to spend, so why is it a problem if you feel like the list 33 points below the limit is better than an alternative which is closer to the limit? Part of list building skill is deciding when to scrap a list and start over, and when to accept that falling short of the limit is better than the alternative. Complaining about playing at a 33 point disadvantage because you didn't spend all of your points makes no more sense than complaining about playing at a 1" movement speed disadvantage because you only move your infantry 5" each turn.
And no, I don't see why you think that the numbers should add up nicely. Point costs should accurately reflect the power of the unit or upgrade, not a rough approximation that is biased in one direction or the other for the sake of making stuff add up to even numbers. Would you really be happier if that 33 point model cost 35 points instead?
To the second one: If a sarcastic hyperbole is your only rebuttal then there will be no meaningful discussion.
There is no hyperbole at all. Taking extra points is cheating, just like moving your models extra distance. The rule is perfectly clear, you just feel entitled to break it and give yourself an advantage that you want.
Plus, I specifically said 5 points or under for a reason; I have never heard of a match won by an extra melta bomb or a Storm Bolter turned into a combi-melta.
Perhaps you haven't heard of that, but it's pretty dishonest of you to pretend that an extra melta bomb is the only thing we're talking about when you've already said this:
Units like that leads you into doing tax-evasion style number crunching to get them in line with the points, and can often deny you the use of another unit simply because of a 2 point shortage (and I'm talking about the difference of having 33 extra points but the cheapest thing you can buy is a 35 point model).
Like I said, there can be no meaningful discussion as you are cherry picking my quotes apart to demonize me. You've accused me of cheating when I said that I simply allow my opponent to go over, even after stating I have never done so and never will do so. It is no longer cheating for him if I simply agree to change the points from 2000 to 2005, which is exactly what you suggested, and then come in 5 points short of the new limit myself. And the Melta Bomb reference is a reference to what MY list would be missing; the 35 point example is the one referring to limiting my opponent. And yes, I would be happy if the 33 point model cost 35 points, just as I would be more than happy to have someone (functionally) change a SINGLE 35 point model into a 33 point one to fit the game. I would be even more happy if all point costs in the book ended up ending in 5 or 0, making listbuilding a lot easier so this wouldn't be an issue anymore (which sadly isn't at all likely, due to the way the points system works).
Note that in all cases, I expect my opponent to come up to me and ask me of this with dignity; if he had concealed it THEN it would be no different than cheating, an exceptionally stupid way of cheating as well considering all he had to do was ask.
I simply want to advocate a more understanding and accepting atmosphere.
Pouncey wrote: I think the problem is more that you're saying nobody should be allowed to go over even if both parties agree and already know they agree that it's fine.
Obviously if both players agree they can do it. But it's pretty bad behavior if you ask for the extra points, unless you know before you ask that your opponent shares your "a few extra is fine" belief.
Preferably it should be discussed well in advance of the game and preferably in a more general context. Instead of just asking your upcoming opponent totally out of the blue, "Hey, mind if my list is two points over?" instead ask what they think of those people who go a few points over in their lists. If they say they don't really care about a few extra points and it doesn't bother them, THEN ask about your list in particular. If they say anything that indicates they don't like it when people do that, then don't even ask and just modify your list before the game so it's legally within points limits.
At least, that'd be the ideal way to go about finding out if your buddy is okay with extra points. Some of us have a tendency to blurt things out without thinking.
Also most of us who don't particularly care about a few points do agree that games against people who you're not already sure are on-board with a few extra points should be kept within the limits, period, because no one likes social pressure to do something you're not comfortable with and it's best to avoid that situation entirely.
I'm not really convinced of this, given how many people seem to treat those few extra points as something they should be entitled to by default and think that anyone who won't let them have the extra points is a bad person. I think a lot of people do ask for extra points in pickup games against strangers, and don't care one bit about the social pressure issue (if they're even aware that it could be a thing).
That's a fair point. I might be a bit more sensitive to the social pressure thing than some of the other casual gamers (though in video games I'm a bizarre casual-hardcore mix in that I play games a hell of a lot but never really want to progress beyond the easy modes and try truly challenging stuff) due to my social anxiety and tendency to be very, very polite and non-pushy with strangers in real life. If I did manage to solve my anxiety problem and start playing at a local store, I'd never turn up for a game with a list that's even 1 point over the maximum. I like to write lists in Battlescribe, and it's always strangely satisfying to make a list that includes a bit of everything I want to take and is exactly at the points limit.
Also, just, consider this. You're worried about social pressure making you feel the need to agree to a few extra points so you don't seem like the bad guy. Yet I don't think you'd worry about feeling like the bad guy if you said no to your opponent asking if infantry can move 7 inches in open terrain instead of 6, before the game actually starts, or if they wanted their lascannons to be strength 10 instead of 9. Doesn't the difference there kinda tell you that a few points are such a minor problem in 40k, even to you, as to be nearly insignificant?
It's different, but not in that way. The main difference between the those examples is that things like "my lascannons are STR 10" don't have support from the toxic "CASUAL AT ALL COSTS" element of the community, so it's much more likely that anyone asking for STR 10 lascannons is going to find themselves completely lacking in support if they get upset about having their request denied. And it's a lot less believable that such an argument would happen at all.
Makes sense. I guess you're right, the difference is that the social pressure gets worse the larger the group is that's pushing.
The limit is the limit, don't go over it. That's my opinion.
If if you're throwing together a quick list on the tableside, it's rarely necessary to go over, the easiest way is usually just to drop a model or two.
If I'm making a list on the spot and can't fit what I want in, I'll just ask my opponent "hey, mind if we add an extra 100pts?" or something like that.
If I'm not making it on the spot, I'll just make it fit the limit even if it means not taking everything I want, I expect my opponent to be polite enough to do the same.
Yeah, a limit is a limit, that's the point - I cut my teeth making lists with Necrons back when they were so limited that it was pretty to easy to go from 12 points under to 16 points over with just one needed model (yeah, I remember the cost of Immortals well).
The movement comparison is pretty good. Especially in a casual game, your opponent might be willing to give you that extra quarter inch your charge fell short by, but you'd also be a colossal dick if you got upset that they didn't.
Griddlelol wrote: Or just ditch that 5 point upgrade you so badly needed to make your whole army work. It's clearly necessary if you need to go over the limit.
This kind of demonstrates the paradox of the extra points: the extra upgrade/unit/whatever they pay for is simultaneously so essential that taking it out would be a huge burden, and so trivial that it's not a big deal at all if they go over the limit to have it. I'd say "make up your mind", but picking either of the two values would mean admitting that there's no justification for exceeding the point limit.
See... I sometimes end up 7 points under just because that's the way it works out.. Close as possible without going over... Now you come 2 points over... There's a 9 point difference... I could of added that extra pink horror for an additional body and warp charge and we would have the exact same points.. But I didn't bring that 1 more model for an extra advantage because we had agreed to a set point limit. A point limit is just that.. A LIMIT... That's your max.. Come in a few under if you have to.
Griddlelol wrote: Or just ditch that 5 point upgrade you so badly needed to make your whole army work. It's clearly necessary if you need to go over the limit.
This kind of demonstrates the paradox of the extra points: the extra upgrade/unit/whatever they pay for is simultaneously so essential that taking it out would be a huge burden, and so trivial that it's not a big deal at all if they go over the limit to have it. I'd say "make up your mind", but picking either of the two values would mean admitting that there's no justification for exceeding the point limit.
Indeed, it's kind of ridiculous. I wish any codex I used had 5 or 10 point upgrades that could make or break a list.
Griddlelol wrote: Or just ditch that 5 point upgrade you so badly needed to make your whole army work. It's clearly necessary if you need to go over the limit.
This kind of demonstrates the paradox of the extra points: the extra upgrade/unit/whatever they pay for is simultaneously so essential that taking it out would be a huge burden, and so trivial that it's not a big deal at all if they go over the limit to have it. I'd say "make up your mind", but picking either of the two values would mean admitting that there's no justification for exceeding the point limit.
Ehh, sometimes when I end up dithering on what to spend my last few points on, and I have all the actual stuff I want, I consider things like giving my squad leaders melta bombs in case their squad ends up in position to melee a vehicle.
Sometimes the squads that compose my army don't lend themselves well to the number of melta bombs I can buy, so I occasionally end up in a situation where if I don't go over the points limit at all, but buy just enough melta bombs to be exactly at the points limit, I'm going to end up in the situation with two or more identically-composed squads where one has an invisible melta bomb upgrade on the leader and the other doesn't. And I really want to avoid situations where it's impossible to remember which squad has it and which doesn't and it actually matters. Because there's no chance of my memory not being biased right then and there.
But I still want to use up those points to be at the points limit instead of being under.
Obviously the correct solution is to realize that I'm happy with my army without the melta bombs and just sit 5-20 points under the limit, but it's not always that easy when I'm actually building the list.
Usually my solution is to remember that I have an HQ who can take melta bombs in addition to the squad leaders, which almost always solves that problem right there.
Griddlelol wrote: Or just ditch that 5 point upgrade you so badly needed to make your whole army work. It's clearly necessary if you need to go over the limit.
This kind of demonstrates the paradox of the extra points: the extra upgrade/unit/whatever they pay for is simultaneously so essential that taking it out would be a huge burden, and so trivial that it's not a big deal at all if they go over the limit to have it. I'd say "make up your mind", but picking either of the two values would mean admitting that there's no justification for exceeding the point limit.
Indeed, it's kind of ridiculous. I wish any codex I used had 5 or 10 point upgrades that could make or break a list.
<.<
I mainly played Sisters of Battle. My infantry are all metal and monopose with weapons that are beyond my modeling skill to swap. Many of the squad leaders I have have bizarre loadouts like power weapons paired with boltguns. It kinda made it tough to make cheap squad leaders until I realized that squad leaders can take stormbolters and I have almost a half-dozen of those that are never used.
It's not so much that taking out an upgrade would've been a loss to my army's power level before I figured out what to do with those stormbolters, it's that I simply did not have the ability to take out that power weapon, as it would make telling who the squad leader is impossible as they would've been replaced with a standard boltgun-wielding model.
Griddlelol wrote: Or just ditch that 5 point upgrade you so badly needed to make your whole army work. It's clearly necessary if you need to go over the limit.
This kind of demonstrates the paradox of the extra points: the extra upgrade/unit/whatever they pay for is simultaneously so essential that taking it out would be a huge burden, and so trivial that it's not a big deal at all if they go over the limit to have it. I'd say "make up your mind", but picking either of the two values would mean admitting that there's no justification for exceeding the point limit.
Whatabout where not taking upgrade means ripping piece of model to stay wysiwyg or drop entire model that might be 100pts+?
tneva82 wrote:Whatabout where not taking upgrade means ripping piece of model to stay wysiwyg or drop entire model that might be 100pts+?
Simply indicate to your opponent, prior to the start of the game, what the model actually has equipped. "I know that my wraithknight LOOKS like it has two shoulder mounted scatter lasers. In fact, for all in game purposes, he does not. Ignore them scatter lasers."
Before, I always thought two points because if you're rounding, two would round down but three would round up.
Now with where 40k is with points some things are so screwy you can't just accept points at face value. You have to say "I don't want to play against 400pts of unaccounted vehicles or upgrades."
tneva82 wrote: Whatabout where not taking upgrade means ripping piece of model to stay wysiwyg or drop entire model that might be 100pts+?
Maybe I would let you get away with it. However, if you even attempt to make this argument you'd better have an army that is 100% WYSIWYG and 100% painted and no alternative models available that could replace something in your list and bring it below the point limit without going below by 100+ points. Needless to say I don't think this happens very often outside of hypothetical questions.
tneva82 wrote:Whatabout where not taking upgrade means ripping piece of model to stay wysiwyg or drop entire model that might be 100pts+?
Simply indicate to your opponent, prior to the start of the game, what the model actually has equipped. "I know that my wraithknight LOOKS like it has two shoulder mounted scatter lasers. In fact, for all in game purposes, he does not. Ignore them scatter lasers."
You know some people like to play WYSIWYG?
As it is I don't generally microtailor lists anyway. We have bunch of pre-made units with pre-made kit with the squad leaders etc and their stories. Forget nameless nobz with identical kits. Enter Dufffug Ugstuf with his marine killing 'uge choppa and his trusty deth skull boyz.
Bunch of those and done.
Makes army building also easier when you have bunch of unit cards to pick up rather than have to go through codex and start calculating units from scratch every time.
If one army is slightly off the nominal point list who cares. It's unlikely to be deciding factor anyway and it's story that's more important than the result anyway.
If you're going to be deadset on WYSIWYG at all costs, and have such a limited model count that you HAVE to use the 100 pt model, you have no one but yourself to blame. Ask your opponent to field it as having different wargear, or suck it up and don't use it.
Waaaaaay back in the day, the store I played at had the house rule... I forget what it was, but it tended to work out that the wiggle room was 25 points at 1500.
Wanna guess how many lists came in at 1500, and how many were 1525?
Bookwrack wrote: If you're going to be deadset on WYSIWYG at all costs, and have such a limited model count that you HAVE to use the 100 pt model, you have no one but yourself to blame. Ask your opponent to field it as having different wargear, or suck it up and don't use it.
Limited? 4000 pts orks(well more like 5000-6000 with 2nd ed rules likely. Haven't counted exact count yet).
But you know units don't tend to cost like 12 pts or 16 pts. More like 252, 293, 196.
Adding up those so it's precicely 1500 isn't that easy.
Tinkering to such a micromanagement isn't even going to be fun, interesting or even have notable effect on getting interesting story out of the game. It's "who cares" thing. It's much more important that the sergeant Nehemiah from Dark Angels gets to lead his assault marines in an attempt to vindicate his honour after getting beaten back last time by lowly grots(true story!) rather than drop the squad just to fit into some point limit.
Griddlelol wrote: Basically the arguments put forth are now "I'm too lazy to remember which model has what/I can't be bothered to make everything WYSIWYG.
It's not that I'm too lazy to remember which of the two identically-equipped squads has a melta bomb on the Superior. It's that once the game starts going and it actually ends up being relevant information for once, unless I've been keeping a marker with the squad as a constant reminder (not a bad idea but I never thought of it before just now), I really can't be trusted to be completely objective and there'd always be the suspicion that I fudged it.
I mean, let's say you're facing my Sororitas army. It has two squads that look identical when it comes to wargear and numbers. One of them has a melta bomb, the other does not. Are you REALLY going to want to rely on my memory of which squad has the melta bomb and which does not when you decide to charge a Dreadnought into one of those squads?
The marker you use is the melta-bomb she's carrying or has slung to her back. That way you and your opponent can immediately tell who's a threat to their tanks in melee, and who's not.
Neither are particularly hard to model, even on metal figures. I mean we all used metal captains/sergeants back in the day and never had a problem with WYSIWYG.
You argument is essentially "Instead sticking to an agreed limit, I made it so all my infantry squads are a threat to tanks in melee, that way I don't have to remember or make any decisions about which squads to place where."
Griddlelol wrote: The marker you use is the melta-bomb she's carrying or has slung to her back. That way you and your opponent can immediately tell who's a threat to their tanks in melee, and who's not.
Neither are particularly hard to model, even on metal figures. I mean we all used metal captains/sergeants back in the day and never had a problem with WYSIWYG.
You argument is essentially "Instead sticking to an agreed limit, I made it so all my infantry squads are a threat to tanks in melee, that way I don't have to remember or make any decisions about which squads to place where."
No, my argument is that I wanted to avoid any confusion and didn't want to glue on a melta bomb that gets swapped in and out of existence on my lists multiple times a day as I tinker, so I gave it to my Commander instead and avoided that whole issue of trying to remember which squad had it.
Limited? 4000 pts orks(well more like 5000-6000 with 2nd ed rules likely. Haven't counted exact count yet).
But you know units don't tend to cost like 12 pts or 16 pts. More like 252, 293, 196.
Adding up those so it's precicely 1500 isn't that easy.
Tinkering to such a micromanagement isn't even going to be fun, interesting or even have notable effect on getting interesting story out of the game. It's "who cares" thing. It's much more important that the sergeant Nehemiah from Dark Angels gets to lead his assault marines in an attempt to vindicate his honour after getting beaten back last time by lowly grots(true story!) rather than drop the squad just to fit into some point limit.
I'm with you on this one. In a competitive sense, I can see that points values are important, but my friends and I have always been very loose with points values, allowing up to a 100pt difference betwen armies at times.
My units are equipped with certain things and are WYSIWIG. I'm not going to drop a power fist to go under the points limit, because chances are we'll forget I droppped it and I'll end up using it in battle anyway.
And the storytelling and visual aspects are so important that looking at someone with a power fist and trying to pretend it's not there would be really annoying.
In my Bloodstorm army, there are several units of khorne berzerkers, and one of them is equipped with two-handed chainaxes. I have equipped them in the rules with chainaxes, even though 90% of the time they are facing space marines and the chainaxes have no effect.
I see the rules as a way of assigning points to things that are on the model. Obviously, some things aren't used in this way, such as psychic powers, ichor blood or other such upgrades, but if a model has a flamer, it has a flamer, and that is 5pts, and that's why I tend to prefer to be looser with the points limits for games. It don't think the standard of play I'm used to is such that 100points makes that much difference.
This is one of those, It depends moments for me. If they are one point over because they tried to squeeze something like a grav canon in the list, or laz pred, Nah fam, you gotta reorganize.
But if its like 5 points because he wanted a special on his tack squad and no matter which one he picked he would put him over by like a point, then i would let him take the flamer, (cheapest SM special weapon you can take)
jreilly89 wrote: who will equate going 1 point over with literally being Satan.
Haha!
40k is such a large community, and there are so many ways to play this game that there are bound to be many people at each end of the spectrum. I think that's part of what makes it such an interesting hobby.
If you were a point over, I wouldn't call you Satan. There are all manner of lesser imps and demons, jrelly89, but the great Satan hisself is red and scaly with a bifurcated tail, and he carries a hay fork. He probably plays Magic: the Gathering, anyway.
For the OP, if you agreed to a point limit, play up to, but not over that limit.
If you want the extra 5 points, then call the other players before hand, and don't wait until the day of. Give them the same opportunity to think about their list that you're assuming for yourself.
If you were a point over, I wouldn't call you Satan. There are all manner of lesser imps and demons, jrelly89, but the great Satan hisself is red and scaly with a bifurcated tail, and he carries a hay fork. He probably plays Magic: the Gathering, anyway.
For the OP, if you agreed to a point limit, play up to, but not over that limit.
If you want the extra 5 points, then call the other players before hand, and don't wait until the day of. Give them the same opportunity to think about their list that you're assuming for yourself.
I'm one of those, "if 10 points over don't matter then 10 points under shouldn't matter to you either". That said, I am not one to nitpick and I won't force that belief on others.
If someone comes to me and asks me if I'm okay with 10 points over I tell them: "I'd rather you not go over the points limit, but if that's how you want to play your army I won't stop you."
I'm a CSM player and it's not the 10 extra points my opponent brings that's going to make me lose.
DaPino wrote: I'm one of those, "if 10 points over don't matter then 10 points under shouldn't matter to you either". That said, I am not one to nitpick and I won't force that belief on others.
If someone comes to me and asks me if I'm okay with 10 points over I tell them: "I'd rather you not go over the points limit, but if that's how you want to play your army I won't stop you."
I'm a CSM player and it's not the 10 extra points my opponent brings that's going to make me lose.
It would if the ten points were spent upgrading a power sword to a power fist and it was used to kill your warlord, thus turning a draw into a loss.
You agreed to a specific point, so no points over.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Of course, 1 point over is too far, it is the limit, after all. BUT, there is absolutely nothing wrong with asking your opponent about it anyway as long as you are completely willing to accept their answer without complaint or comment.
This.
If you want to play a 2003 points game, that is 100% fine, give me five minutes and I will change my army list a bit.
I'm happy to be flexable, on the other hand it also depends on your army and list. a space marine taking a Gladius battle company (and thus is getting free transports) has ZERO sympathy, he plays at or under ther points agreement. an eldar spamming Wraithknightsyet again should be held to the points list HARD. (WKs being universally agreed to be under costed) a guy running Chaos Marines however? meh an extra 3 points isn't gonna mean much
DaPino wrote: I'm one of those, "if 10 points over don't matter then 10 points under shouldn't matter to you either". That said, I am not one to nitpick and I won't force that belief on others.
If someone comes to me and asks me if I'm okay with 10 points over I tell them: "I'd rather you not go over the points limit, but if that's how you want to play your army I won't stop you."
I'm a CSM player and it's not the 10 extra points my opponent brings that's going to make me lose.
It would if the ten points were spent upgrading a power sword to a power fist and it was used to kill your warlord, thus turning a draw into a loss.
You agreed to a specific point, so no points over.
What if those ten points under prevented him from turning a power sword into a power fist, and he thus was able to deal the last wound to your Warlord instead of not being able to go at all (due to the Warlord killing him before I1), turning a draw into a loss anyway?
I'm dirty and include up to 11 points over at my worst though ususally I'm around 3-6 points because I find having everything be idenacle is worth more than going 3-6 points over. God forbid you and your opponent need to keep count of which broadside has skyfire and which one doesn't, of which crisis squad has only 2 guys with interceptor. That being said I'd never pull this shtick in a Tournie.
I know I'm evil tho, and this is me being lazy, but whatever.
There definitely are some strong hard viewpoints on this from what I've read.
In my personal experience, I agree with a post above that stated its fine, provided there is no 3 point upgrade you can remove to level the limit.
If my opponent approaches me and says hey man, im at 1003 but the closest thing I can do is drop a marine at 13(or whatever) points , ill be completely fine with it.
But if I find out he had 1000 points then intentionally purchased a 3 point upgrade, that's where I get iffy.
If you literally will sell your army short by a noticeable amount then by all means go ahead, but if its a matter of greed wanting extra, nope.
I have before approached my opponent and explained I was 2 points over, nearest upgrade I could remove was 8 pts, and he was completely fine with it, and so I asked him if he had anything he wanted to add ( as he was slightly under by like 2 or 3 points ).
Every person is different and should certainly be discussed with, but ultimately the points limit is a set limit which the other player has every right to demand it is met or under (Strictly speaking).
DaPino wrote: I'm one of those, "if 10 points over don't matter then 10 points under shouldn't matter to you either". That said, I am not one to nitpick and I won't force that belief on others.
If someone comes to me and asks me if I'm okay with 10 points over I tell them: "I'd rather you not go over the points limit, but if that's how you want to play your army I won't stop you."
I'm a CSM player and it's not the 10 extra points my opponent brings that's going to make me lose.
It would if the ten points were spent upgrading a power sword to a power fist and it was used to kill your warlord, thus turning a draw into a loss.
You agreed to a specific point, so no points over.
What if those ten points under prevented him from turning a power sword into a power fist, and he thus was able to deal the last wound to your Warlord instead of not being able to go at all (due to the Warlord killing him before I1), turning a draw into a loss anyway?
What if they failed a charge by one inch, turning a draw into a loss?
DaPino wrote: I'm one of those, "if 10 points over don't matter then 10 points under shouldn't matter to you either". That said, I am not one to nitpick and I won't force that belief on others.
If someone comes to me and asks me if I'm okay with 10 points over I tell them: "I'd rather you not go over the points limit, but if that's how you want to play your army I won't stop you."
I'm a CSM player and it's not the 10 extra points my opponent brings that's going to make me lose.
It would if the ten points were spent upgrading a power sword to a power fist and it was used to kill your warlord, thus turning a draw into a loss.
You agreed to a specific point, so no points over.
What if those ten points under prevented him from turning a power sword into a power fist, and he thus was able to deal the last wound to your Warlord instead of not being able to go at all (due to the Warlord killing him before I1), turning a draw into a loss anyway?
What if they failed a charge by one inch, turning a draw into a loss?
Then that'd be a result of the dice, not being over the points limit due to upgrading a weapon.
I would much rather play against an opponent in a casual game that was three points over than ten points under. It's one reason I'm a big fan of my army, because tiny points costs and cheap upgrades mean I can get very flexible with my list building. Need to drop 2 points? Drop a three point renegade, buy a one point upgrade. Points now perfect. Maybe it won't matter, but I have a bit of an obsession with being exact. I don't expect my opponent to share my views.
Q:Why do we have points limits at all?
A: To give players a force of similar power/size and equal chance to win (in theory)
Q: Does it work?
A: Not really. The codexes are so heinously imbalanced that X points spent in one codex would buy you troops costing X+50 points elsewhere. Free USR's change units so thoroughly that they may as well be different units. Within the same codex, chapter tactics add very different values to units- an otherwise identical force may find itself outmatched by a better chapter tactic.
Formations grant units for free- allowing more points to be spent on other upgrades like heavy weapons.
Q: In a game that is hardly razor balanced, will a few points make a difference?
A: Probably. 5 points is the difference between a meltagun and plasmagun. The plasmagun will be firing earlier and more often, unless it explodes.
I suppose the polite thing to do, and what I have always seen done is to let the opponent know you are over and invite him to add some other upgrade to his force to 'even back up'. A teleport homer, meltabomb or even master crafting a weapon.
He may decide to not add anything.
In any case, the forces are roughly similar in combat ability, which is the same result when you use exact points.
We usually allow less then half of any given upgrade. 3 points over for a meltabomb? Drop it, unless your opponent agrees its ok.Cheapest upgrade 10pts, and 4 over? You're good. Really, no whole upgrades.
This only applies to 40k and BFG. When we play Warmachine its points and nothing more. BUT Warmachine plays at smaller points (greater total %), is actually balanced to a decent degree, and makes it easy to get round points limits. 40K, none of those things, and BFG is just awkward. If you'll be playing 60 points down because your cheapest ship is 75, its just stupid.
I'd play 10 pts either side of the line as long as there aren't any 10pt or less unnecessary upgrades you've taken. And I'd also like to see their list and for them to tell me before the game starts.
=Angel= wrote: I suppose the polite thing to do, and what I have always seen done is to let the opponent know you are over and invite him to add some other upgrade to his force to 'even back up'. A teleport homer, meltabomb or even master crafting a weapon.
I'm not at all a fan of this argument. One player gets to go over the limit with essential units and upgrades that they have to have for their army to function properly (otherwise they'd just remove something and not care about it), one player gets a random upgrade they didn't value enough to put in their original list and may or may not be able to use. A melta bomb on a random unit that will probably never use it does not offset whatever really important thing the other player is getting.
DaPino wrote: I'm one of those, "if 10 points over don't matter then 10 points under shouldn't matter to you either". That said, I am not one to nitpick and I won't force that belief on others.
If someone comes to me and asks me if I'm okay with 10 points over I tell them: "I'd rather you not go over the points limit, but if that's how you want to play your army I won't stop you."
I'm a CSM player and it's not the 10 extra points my opponent brings that's going to make me lose.
It would if the ten points were spent upgrading a power sword to a power fist and it was used to kill your warlord, thus turning a draw into a loss.
You agreed to a specific point, so no points over.
What if those ten points under prevented him from turning a power sword into a power fist, and he thus was able to deal the last wound to your Warlord instead of not being able to go at all (due to the Warlord killing him before I1), turning a draw into a loss anyway?
Then at least I lost to a list that was legal per our agreement (the points limit). Perception, bro.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I honestly feel like people are assuming what always happens is someone gets within 3 of the point limit but wants a 5 point upgrade. Maybe that is how it always happens, seems to be what happens for me pretty often. But that's because I add my big units first. I put my wraithknight in right away, because I know when I've put nothing else in the list, I have room for it.
What if I put everything else in there first, then had 290 points left, and said to myself "But you know what, I really wanted to play my WK." So I plop that bad boy in the list (295 points) and suddenly I'm 5 points over. "It's only 5 points." I see something inherently wrong with this. I built a list to within 290 points of the limit, then selected a unit purposefully that costs (at base) 295 points.
My point is, you can't prove that you actually built your list to within 3 points then added melta bombs to one squad or something seemingly mostly irrelevant. Your opponent doesn't know you didn't actually just put all the small units in and then realize you're so close but just a bit over by putting in your bigger, elite things. So just stick to the social contract of considering a limit an actual limit, unless you're in a group/club that explicitly allows this, like some of you seem to be.
How players in my community deal with being a few points over the limit is, if you're over the point limit your opponent gets to choose who goes first or second. Its a pretty big deal, and I rarely see people over the point limit because of it
Tbh me and my mates often wait to see who actually turns up and then agree game sizes.
We do agree points in advance but it often falls apart if we have to do a 2v1 when or 2v2 when we originally agreed on different games. So generally speaking 5 points over is okay with us seeing sometimes it can be hard to make a spot on list with the models you have. But if we agreed 1850 points and the games for the day stayed as planned, we would only go over if there was a good reason for it.
In games balanced for fun pick up and play games, I would say 0 to 10 depending on game and opponent.
However, as Jervis said in 5th ed that he believed 40k was balanced to give no greater advantage than 20% from PV allocation.(He does not actually know as they never play test everything in a codex .)
(This was before GW allowed people to use detachments and formations and get a bunch of free stuff on top of the PV paid.)
Just to put this into context Jervis thinks in 5th ed 2000 pt game one side may have 2200pts of stuff and the other 1800 pts of stuff in the worst case scenario.
That 400 pts difference between the most cost effective list and the the least cost effective list in 40k, that the lead game developer admitted too 2 editions ago, before GW completely gave up on game balance and left it to the players to sort out.
As GW can not be bothered to get game balance closer than a few HUNDRED points either way in a 2000 pt game. Why are people bothered about 1 to 10 pts?
40k has very little in the way of game balance.
Do not pretend the points allocation in current 40k is anything other than guess work, and sales department influence.Because it is not.
Lanrak wrote: Why are people bothered about 1 to 10 pts?
40k has very little in the way of game balance. Do not pretend the points allocation in current 40k is anything other than guess work, and sales department influence.Because it is not.
To me, it has nothing to do with game balance whatsoever.
If you agreed with me that we were going to play a 2000pt limit game, then bring a 2000pt or less army. It's just common courtesy to do the thing you agreed to do.
If you want to play a 2200pt vs 2000pt game because you think it'd be more fun for whatever reason, I'm happy to discuss the possibility of doing that. I've played plenty of games over the decades where we just eyeballed what we thought would be a fun game rather than adding up points. Just don't show up to a game we agreed to be 2000pts with a 2005pt army, it's rude.
Then I revert to the first line of my post.If I was playing you I would go 0 point over.
I was trying to address those who believe the point values in 40k are good enough to provide a balanced game.And going over by more than 5 or 10 points would 'upset the game balance'.When this is clearly not true.
I always check with my opponent beforehand, on what they feel is appropriate over spend.
If the 5pts over doesn't affect balance in any meaningful way, then I'm sure 5pts under wouldn't affect it either, so just be under.
While I agree with you that slight point variations don't actually affect balance, that's not really the issue. The issue is we set a limit, just stick to the limit. If you want to increase the limit, OK we'll play 1750 instead of 1500.
For me it's more the principle of the matter than any meaningful game play difference caused by a discrepancy in points.
We agreed to an X points game, not an X+a bit points game.
If you allow any points over that, why not allow the same number of points over that limit, then the same number of points over that limit, etc.
This^
Between friends agree to whatever you want. But when going to a game with a stranger/without discussing such things where a point limit has been set why would anyone expect it to be otherwise. Because if you feel you can slip in that extra 5 or 10 points for something and don't think it is a big deal what is the limit? I play nids with only the codex rules (I stopped buying after the lousy 6th ed nid dex and only recently started 7th and am awaiting either a new nid dex, serious nid errata, etc before buying anything more from GW) - if I play against Tau, Eldar, Necrons or SM maybe I feel a 2000pt list for them means I can bring an extra 500 points. Why not? I'll still likely be at a disadvantage. A point limit is set for both players. With many odd pointed upgrades I can often be a few points under the set limit for the game and would be annoyed if my opponent arbitrarily decided he could take an extra 5 points or so to add that extra weapon upgrade.
For me, if it is a friendly game it depends. If there is literally like one unit that doesn't have a melta bomb or a plasma gun I will just give it to them so I don't have to keep track of that one freaking unit. Nothing over that though, and they better be at 1 to 4 points under for me to do that. So, essentially no more than 14 points over depending on the situation. Unless you my local ork player who I often will go against with him having 150 to 200 points more (he brings fun, non competitive fluffy lists and is a genuine joy to play against). He is already getting a huge advantage so he can't go over.
It's an easy decision for me as soon as I see the army. If it's fluffy/casual, I really don't care if you're as many as 10 points over. If it's a competitive list, you should be at or below the points limit. Personally, I'll probably still let it a few points slide. It's not as though 2,000 points of my best 'Nids are going to be equivalent to 2,000 points of someone's best Eldar. It's not the extra three points that's going to kill me.
All that said, the biggest determinant is personality. If you're a pleasant person that clearly isn't WAAC, your 2,010 can play my 2,000 any day of the week. If you're a rules-lawyering jerk with a stick up your butt I'm not going to waste my time in the first place.
For a pick up game: 0
For a tournament game: 0
Playing with a friend: 0*
I'll usually give them a point or two if there is no easy cuts, but if it's a melta bomb that can be dropped, the melta bomb gets dropped. Points limits are part of the game.
=Angel= wrote: I suppose the polite thing to do, and what I have always seen done is to let the opponent know you are over and invite him to add some other upgrade to his force to 'even back up'. A teleport homer, meltabomb or even master crafting a weapon.
I'm not at all a fan of this argument. One player gets to go over the limit with essential units and upgrades that they have to have for their army to function properly (otherwise they'd just remove something and not care about it), one player gets a random upgrade they didn't value enough to put in their original list and may or may not be able to use. A melta bomb on a random unit that will probably never use it does not offset whatever really important thing the other player is getting.
Exactly. You get the last tactical squad that you need to qualify for 10 free razorbacks and I get a melta bomb that I didn't really want. Terrific.
It's interesting in that the two other point based systems I play, X-wing and Warmahordes, doesn't have this problem. I wonder if it's because of how fiddly GW's armies are in comparison. If you're playing a 50pt X-Wing game and you have one point left over, but three points would get you a really good Elite Pilot Trait, it's really apparent the kind of advantage you're getting for breaking the limit.
WM is kinda the same way, where generally you're paying X for min squad, Y for max, and there's much less fiddliness in equipping characters. Along with the point system using totals much smaller than GW's, there's also the 'if I just go over by two points, I can get a max squad/another warmachine' that makes the consequences much more consequential.
=Angel= wrote: I suppose the polite thing to do, and what I have always seen done is to let the opponent know you are over and invite him to add some other upgrade to his force to 'even back up'. A teleport homer, meltabomb or even master crafting a weapon.
I'm not at all a fan of this argument. One player gets to go over the limit with essential units and upgrades that they have to have for their army to function properly (otherwise they'd just remove something and not care about it), one player gets a random upgrade they didn't value enough to put in their original list and may or may not be able to use. A melta bomb on a random unit that will probably never use it does not offset whatever really important thing the other player is getting.
A point is a point, no? The relative balance should end up the same.
Well, this is assuming that 1 point = 1 point. In 40k, it naturally is nowhere near that, but then why bother with having the same points to begin with?
=Angel= wrote: I suppose the polite thing to do, and what I have always seen done is to let the opponent know you are over and invite him to add some other upgrade to his force to 'even back up'. A teleport homer, meltabomb or even master crafting a weapon.
I'm not at all a fan of this argument. One player gets to go over the limit with essential units and upgrades that they have to have for their army to function properly (otherwise they'd just remove something and not care about it), one player gets a random upgrade they didn't value enough to put in their original list and may or may not be able to use. A melta bomb on a random unit that will probably never use it does not offset whatever really important thing the other player is getting.
A point is a point, no? The relative balance should end up the same.
Well, this is assuming that 1 point = 1 point. In 40k, it naturally is nowhere near that, but then why bother with having the same points to begin with?
That's very clearly and obviously not true. An army is more than simply the sum of it's components.
A 5pt upgrade that brings a badly needed capability is much more valuable than a 5pt upgrade that gives you something you already have plenty of elsewhere. E.G. A teleport homer is very useful if I have deep strikers. A 4th teleport homer on a squad that's not very mobile is not especially useful.
If I have a list that's strong on anti infantry but weak on anti-tank and the anti-tank unit I need takes me 5 points over that's a big difference when compared to replacing it with a 95 point anti-infantry unit.
If I - due to the vagaries of minimum unit sizes, my available models and the like - find myself having to choose between 503 points or 440 points, I will write both lists and ask you if it is acceptable to play 503 points (and give you the opportunity to rewrite your list as you desire to the new points limit should you accept). You are not required to accept, and me suggesting a change of the points limit is not an attack on your person.
Well this is 5 pages of people saying the same thing thanks, the game went well. I asked and they said it was fine
Automatically Appended Next Post: Incase for some reason you're wondering why i didnt just drop 5 points, the smallest upgrade in my army is 12 points.
Skalathrax8 wrote: Well this is 5 pages of people saying the same thing thanks, the game went well. I asked and they said it was fine
Automatically Appended Next Post: Incase for some reason you're wondering why i didnt just drop 5 points, the smallest upgrade in my army is 12 points.
You can't think of list building like that. You don't just drop the cheapest upgrade. YOu think how how the slot in. You do things like drop 55 points to get a 50 point unit or something like that
Ashiraya wrote: A point is a point, no? The relative balance should end up the same.
Well, this is assuming that 1 point = 1 point. In 40k, it naturally is nowhere near that, but then why bother with having the same points to begin with?
No. Even if you assume that the game is perfectly balanced it isn't going to work that way because not all combinations of choices are equally effective. Option A and option B might be equally powerful in theory, but maybe A works best in a melee-heavy army while B works best in a shooting-heavy army. For example, consider a LR Exterminator (autocannon LRBT): generally its role is mass mid-strength shooting and it takes heavy bolter sponsons, and you don't want to upgrade to multimelta sponsons. But those multimelta sponsons are great on a LR Punisher that has to get up within 24" anyway. But because the LRBT unit entry gives you the freedom to pick any combination of weapons for the turret + hull gun + sponsons both LRBT variants can buy multimeltas. Part of having the freedom to choose is that it's possible to pick combinations of units/upgrades that have conflicting purposes and don't work well together.
So now we start the game, and you say "just add 5-10 points". Well, I could "upgrade" those heavy bolters to multimeltas, but that would be making my tank less effective! Or maybe I could buy a melta bomb for a squad that I plan to have camping a back-table objective for the entire game (the same squad in your army might be an aggressive offensive unit that could use a melta bomb, so this isn't a balance issue). Or maybe I actually have an upgrade that I would've liked to take but didn't because of the point limit, and we both get something relevant. But it isn't necessarily true that adding any random X points to my army is a meaningful upgrade.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Skalathrax8 wrote: Incase for some reason you're wondering why i didnt just drop 5 points, the smallest upgrade in my army is 12 points.
Then you play at 7 points under the limit and have a legal army. It's not that hard to figure it out.
I like the challenge of list building so it annoys me if I can't keep my list under the agreed upon amount. I'll cut war gear or units until I'm under.
However, I have decidedly lax standards for opponents. I work days, nights and every second weekend and most of my fellow gamers either work normal hours or are only available during the shop's trading hours. If letting them have a couple of extra points nets me a game I have no issue with it.
Even in tournaments I'm not going to be the guy who forces an opponent to bow out for being a couple of points over, however, I am going to be the smug jerk who asks where the extra points were spent if I take the win.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Don't forget the sheer laziness it shows in your list building if you go over the limit.
In my opponent's defense I usually make THEM go over because of MY laziness in not wanting to remember which of the units DOESN'T have the melta bomb/plasma gun so I give it to them. With my local ork player it is intentional. I am getting free tanks usually least I can do is give him a 100 to 150 extra points of stuff.
Skalathrax8 wrote: Well this is 5 pages of people saying the same thing thanks, the game went well. I asked and they said it was fine
Automatically Appended Next Post: Incase for some reason you're wondering why i didnt just drop 5 points, the smallest upgrade in my army is 12 points.
You can't think of list building like that. You don't just drop the cheapest upgrade. YOu think how how the slot in. You do things like drop 55 points to get a 50 point unit or something like that
Which can then lead to non-WYSIWYG(bad) or destroy theme of the whole army(bad).
You know that there are people who don't play competively(whole idea which is joke in 40k anyway. You are hard pressed to come up with game LESS suited for competive game) but rather story?
point here or there doesn't make big difference effect wise. But it can hurt the story of the game. Story>>>result.
Skalathrax8 wrote: Well this is 5 pages of people saying the same thing thanks, the game went well. I asked and they said it was fine
Automatically Appended Next Post: Incase for some reason you're wondering why i didnt just drop 5 points, the smallest upgrade in my army is 12 points.
You can't think of list building like that. You don't just drop the cheapest upgrade. YOu think how how the slot in. You do things like drop 55 points to get a 50 point unit or something like that
Which can then lead to non-WYSIWYG(bad) or destroy theme of the whole army(bad).
I'm sorry but I've heard this come up a few times and I just can't help but think if you can't manage it and remain WYSIWYG or keep your army's theme then you just really suck at putting together a list.
Drop a model if you have to, if you're running all units at minimum, consolidate some of them in to larger units so you can drop a model.
For those of us who do keep our armies within the points limits, these are the sorts of things we do and thus why we see it as impolite when other people don't make a similar effort.
A havoc launcher; and i did offer to remove stuff, but they really didnt look bothered. Id imagine the extra 3 points didnt make the game horribly unbalanced aha!
Skalathrax8 wrote: Well this is 5 pages of people saying the same thing thanks, the game went well. I asked and they said it was fine
Automatically Appended Next Post: Incase for some reason you're wondering why i didnt just drop 5 points, the smallest upgrade in my army is 12 points.
You can't think of list building like that. You don't just drop the cheapest upgrade. YOu think how how the slot in. You do things like drop 55 points to get a 50 point unit or something like that
Which can then lead to non-WYSIWYG(bad) or destroy theme of the whole army(bad).
Which means you didn't prepare your army to be wysiwyg at the given point level which is a you-problem and not a me-problem. If wysiwyg is your end-all be-all of listbuilding, don't agree to limits you can't commit to.
Just a reminder that we have an automatic language filter to substitute various rude words. If you use some unusual spekking to get a pseudo swear through this filre, it can be held as a contravention of forum rules.
The same if you post a picture with a sweary word in the image.
Anything up to 10 is fine. If you're going to really rules-lawyer on the limit then you're going to be some sort of hard-ass to deal with.
If 5 points over means a plasma gun for your dude rather than a lasgun or something, go wild, no one cares, unless you're at a tournament. It's a game, and 10 points doesn't matter, it's a rounding error.
It's like when people at the store will say the models are illegal because the models are painted except for the guns or something. Seriously, no one cares. It's a game. Nothing is on the line.
Twiqbal wrote: Anything up to 10 is fine. If you're going to really rules-lawyer on the limit then you're going to be some sort of hard-ass to deal with.
I can flip that around. If your unable to follow the simplest rule rule in the game, creating an army roster of X points or lower, then how loose to the rules is the guy going to be for the rest of the game. Is 6 and a 1/4 inches of movement just fine since its so difficult to be exact while using a tape measure? If a guy cant follow the simplest of rules, using basic math, how many fights are we going to have about LOS or other stuff that gets a little more murky? I'm not sure just how much fun this soft-ass loosy goosy guy is going to be much fun to play with either.
Yes, the above example is somewhat extreme, but if you assume that someone who wants to follow the most simplest of rules is a hard-ass, then well... the door can swing both ways.
Twiqbal wrote: Anything up to 10 is fine. If you're going to really rules-lawyer on the limit then you're going to be some sort of hard-ass to deal with.
I can flip that around. If your unable to follow the simplest rule rule in the game, creating an army roster of X points or lower, then how loose to the rules is the guy going to be for the rest of the game. Is 6 and a 1/4 inches of movement just fine since its so difficult to be exact while using a tape measure? If a guy cant follow the simplest of rules, using basic math, how many fights are we going to have about LOS or other stuff that gets a little more murky? I'm not sure just how much fun this soft-ass loosy goosy guy is going to be much fun to play with either.
Yes, the above example is somewhat extreme, but if you assume that someone who wants to follow the most simplest of rules is a hard-ass, then well... the door can swing both ways.
My experience is that the dude going 3 points over is way less likely to cheat than the dude at 1,500 points exactly, or is at least way less likely to start a fight about LOS. You might be right, my anecdotal experience is that the lazy player is generally more amiable to work with and more likely to look for a consensual and quick resolution of an issue, instead of Commander Rules Lawyer who will fething fight you on how to measure with a ruler.
Again, it's a game. If we're talking about things that are basically rounding errors in good faith, then it doesn't really matter. Changes in a tourny, but in a game among friends or even on a lazy Sunday afternoon at the store, I'm not gonna begrudge the player their meltagun just because it puts them 4 points over. Let them have the gun and I'll have the moral highground when we come to an issue later.
Twiqbal wrote: If we're talking about things that are basically rounding errors in good faith, then it doesn't really matter.
It isn't an error in good faith at all. You know that when you total up your list and it says 1503 points for a 1500 point game you have an illegal list. This isn't a case of "oops, I had no idea that was 3 points over", it's a deliberate decision to break the rules to gain an advantage.
Let them have the gun and I'll have the moral highground when we come to an issue later.
And that would be rather poor behavior. If you're going to accept the illegal list then you accept it, you don't hold that over them later when it's convenient for you to do so.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Twiqbal wrote: If you're going to really rules-lawyer on the limit then you're going to be some sort of hard-ass to deal with.
You have a very strange definition of "rules lawyer". The point limit is not ambiguous and there is nothing to argue about. You either have a legal list or you don't. Rules lawyering is about exploiting vague rules to gain an advantage, not saying "hey, I think we should play by the rules instead of cheating". If anything the rules lawyer is the person bringing the extra points and trying to get their opponent to bend the rules in their favor.
Twiqbal wrote: If we're talking about things that are basically rounding errors in good faith, then it doesn't really matter.
It isn't an error in good faith at all. You know that when you total up your list and it says 1503 points for a 1500 point game you have an illegal list. This isn't a case of "oops, I had no idea that was 3 points over", it's a deliberate decision to break the rules to gain an advantage.
You've never seen a situation where someone miscalculated?
And that would be rather poor behavior. If you're going to accept the illegal list then you accept it, you don't hold that over them later when it's convenient for you to do so..
Nah, it's negotiation. You give them some rope, but you just did them a solid, so when you all are arguing over whether the captain can see through the trees or not, they're more likely to give you the benefit. More sugar than salt.
The point limit is not ambiguous and there is nothing to argue about. You either have a legal list or you don't.
And I'm saying it doesn't really matter. it's a game, and 3 points out of 1,500 is literally less than 1%, in other words, a rounding error. Pieces will be moved more or less than the specified distance, maybe accidentally 12.10 inches or 11.8 inches, again, it's margins that simply aren't material. When I buy a coffee and the cashier owes me 4 cents after I give them $2 for $1.96, and they give me a nickel because a nickel is less hassle than counting 4 pennies, we all recognize it doesn't really matter.
Twiqbal wrote: You've never seen a situation where someone miscalculated?
Of course I have, but that's not what we're talking about here. Saying "I'm 5 points over, is that ok" is not an accidental miscalculation. You know that your list is illegal, you just want to take it anyway.
And I'm saying it doesn't really matter. it's a game, and 3 points out of 1,500 is literally less than 1%, in other words, a rounding error. Pieces will be moved more or less than the specified distance, maybe accidentally 12.10 inches or 11.8 inches, again, it's margins that simply aren't material. When I buy a coffee and the cashier owes me 4 cents after I give them $2 for $1.96, and they give me a nickel because a nickel is less hassle than counting 4 pennies, we all recognize it doesn't really matter.
You know, it's funny that you say the people who insist on a strict limit are being rules lawyers when you've just provided a pretty good example of rules lawyering: breaking the rules to gain an advantage for yourself and then claiming "it's too small to matter" to justify it. This is exactly what I mean about how bringing an illegal list demonstrates your attitude towards the game even if it has very little practical impact on the outcome of the game. If you're willing to start the game by cheating and defend it with "I'm only cheating a little bit, so you should let me do it" then you're not the kind of person I really want to play against.
I think we also have to bear in mind that this forum is not a good representation of the hobby. I think you all represent a very serious player base ) My list wasnt a result of a miscalculation, i knew it was 3 points over, as the alternative would be to drop a whole unit of the limited models i have. It was a friendly game; i know tournaments would not allow this list, but in the 3 V 3 battle i played, everyone was within 5 points under to 5 over! I dont know whether you all put in mouthguards before you go and play a casual game of WH40K, but i like to see it as a game. Hence why every 2 weeks i agree to play a Tau supremacy battle suit list with an infrantry heavy CSM army. All in the name of fun!
Skalathrax8 wrote: I think we also have to bear in mind that this forum is not a good representation of the hobby.
I think you should consider that maybe some people are pissed off when you go 5 pts over but are too polite to say anything in real life because they also don't want to be impolite, but on the internet they'll be more inclined to speak their minds..
That's why I talk about it being rude or impolite to go over on points. Just because it doesn't get a response doesn't mean your opponent doesn't find it irksome. It's just not nice to put it back on your opponent to have to either accept it or turn it down.
I don't like it when my opponent goes 5pts over because I always make sure I'm within the points, even if it means I have to completely reshuffle my army because I don't have any wargear I can easily drop off..... but I'm still not going to make a dick of myself whinging about it at the local store when someone rocks up with an army that's 5pts over.
The internet is the place I can whinge about it annoying me without it affecting my actual social life because I can just close the window when I've had enough of all you bastards
Maybe I'm just odd but my thinking is that if I can't overcome letting someone have their five point upgrade then I'm probably not going to beat them when their list is right on the money.
Honestly i dont think they cared one bit haha! They proceeded to pull out their unbalanced resin battlesuits, which one could simply refuse to play. I think eventually this all comes down to how strict the match is and who the people are. I did ask several times as i was deploying for them to qualify that they were happy. I dont think it affected the quality of the game they had, nor how quickly they won XD
Twiqbal wrote: You've never seen a situation where someone miscalculated?
Of course I have, but that's not what we're talking about here. Saying "I'm 5 points over, is that ok" is not an accidental miscalculation. You know that your list is illegal, you just want to take it anyway.
Illegal? What rules has he broken? You're not at a tournament. You agreed to play 1500 and he would now like to play 1503.
And I'm saying it doesn't really matter. it's a game, and 3 points out of 1,500 is literally less than 1%, in other words, a rounding error. Pieces will be moved more or less than the specified distance, maybe accidentally 12.10 inches or 11.8 inches, again, it's margins that simply aren't material. When I buy a coffee and the cashier owes me 4 cents after I give them $2 for $1.96, and they give me a nickel because a nickel is less hassle than counting 4 pennies, we all recognize it doesn't really matter.
Peregrine wrote: You know, it's funny that you say the people who insist on a strict limit are being rules lawyers when you've just provided a pretty good example of rules lawyering: breaking the rules to gain an advantage for yourself and then claiming "it's too small to matter" to justify it. This is exactly what I mean about how bringing an illegal list demonstrates your attitude towards the game even if it has very little practical impact on the outcome of the game. If you're willing to start the game by cheating and defend it with "I'm only cheating a little bit, so you should let me do it" then you're not the kind of person I really want to play against.
But it isn't rules lawyering? We aren't robots- and inevitably something will get pushed slightly too far or not enough. Simple parallax will make certain that your scatter dice rolls are never 100% accurately applied.
It's played with human eyeballs and tape measures on homemade boards, not drafting tables. The point was that the kind of player who'd get their panties in a twist over 3 points would also rage at the smallest human error on the table- breaking out the micrometers to double check their movements.
Peregrine wrote: you're not the kind of person I really want to play against.
If your a new player then it can waved, but after a month you should be accurate.
If a player wants to play over points then they should inform there opponent as soon as possible, not as the game is being set up.
It's simply being rude, ask for a realistic points rise.
And ask as soon as you know, if you are always over points then inform them when you set up the game.
A lot of players won't hit exactly the right points, and will stay under.
In future to solve this as Apple fox suggested, i will request to play at 2005 points to still be able to use that list, BEFORE i arrive That way its not a surprise to my opponents
I have a Necron list I play that's 1837 points. I bring it to 1850 point games. I don't want to bring another Warrior because I want to mount the Warriors in their Arks.
So you'd be okay with me blatantly breaking the rules and just adding an Immortal and go 4 points over? That's stupid.
Also I've literally only miscalculated ONCE near the beginning of the hobby. I use Army Builder, Battle Scribe, AND write very thing down and have lists of varying point levels ready to go when I step into the LGS.
I probably wouldn't care, but I always go under rather than spilling over; there's always something you can drop.
If I had to set a limit, it'd probably be 1 less than the cheapest item on your list (so if you've got a 2 point additional weapon/object, you'd only be allowed to go over by 1).
So you'd be okay with me blatantly breaking the rules and just adding an Immortal and go 4 points over? That's stupid.
Well. Yes. It's just 4 points and if there's no upgrade of 5 points or whatever that you can remove then it doesn't really matter. If a tournament has a hard rule of up to 2000 points exactly or you want to add 40 then that's another thing but if someone says 1500 points and we bring lists that are 1499 and 1502 my reaction is *shrug*
Dakka Wolf wrote: Maybe I'm just odd but my thinking is that if I can't overcome letting someone have their five point upgrade then I'm probably not going to beat them when their list is right on the money.
Five points is a lucky roll.
Im sure its a LOT less you letting them play than it is just a window into the opponents character if they cant be arsed to double check the math, or at least try and fix it.
its an agreement between two people to play at 1500 points not 1500+. there is basically no situation i can think of where its cool to do so.
Twiqbal wrote: You've never seen a situation where someone miscalculated?
Of course I have, but that's not what we're talking about here. Saying "I'm 5 points over, is that ok" is not an accidental miscalculation. You know that your list is illegal, you just want to take it anyway.
Illegal? What rules has he broken? You're not at a tournament. You agreed to play 1500 and he would now like to play 1503.
....soooooo Peregrine has every right to not play the guy then right? since he doesn't have to agree to the additional 3 points.
Going one point over is cheating. If you want to make an army that is 1501, then you may as well go 1850 or 2000 then.
The way I see it, if you can make an army at 1501 points you can make an army at 1500 points. I guess I am basing this on from what I read on the internet and the donkey caves here. While yes that 1 point is only giving an extra grenade or what ever by not allowing this the person might not be able to filed the Star Knight now because that would change his troop choice since taking that one point away would mean he can't take his troops. So now instead of taking his Star Knight he will have to take something else less powering. I said StarKnight because it can be that over powering unit that the donkey cave would take and is only taking it because it will be easier for him to win so that 1 point is a cheat. That being said I know not everyone is a Donkey Cave but since we are going off by the internet, that is how I view it. If it's in real life, it all depends on the person and circumstances you are playing since a lot of factors can factor into the decision.
As others have said if you agreed to a 1500 point game, then say you want to play a 1501 or a 1503 point game instead. Right away when you say you need to go "over a bit" you are already cheating. Say right from the beginning when you are asking for how many points to play. If it's 1503 and you don't want to be TFG who asks for it and then making your opponent TFG for refusing "a lousy 3 points" you in fact are the Donkey Cave.
The point people make is that a person who is sloppy with their list making will likely cut corners in gameplay. Ranges will be assumed or models will be moved in excess. And that person isn't worth playing.
You either follow the rules or you do not.
Sounds like a Yoda quote.
1 point over is according to the rules: cheating - end-stop.
The reason why so many rules in games say "with your opponent's permission" is because a game is only a game when you both agree to the terms and rules.
If you both agree to play 5 points more, that is fine.
You just do not get to decide for him.
Anyone who decides to play different from the rules and not inform their opponent is by definition: a cheater.
Davor wrote: Going one point over is cheating. If you want to make an army that is 1501, then you may as well go 1850 or 2000 then.
The way I see it, if you can make an army at 1501 points you can make an army at 1500 points. I guess I am basing this on from what I read on the internet and the donkey caves here. While yes that 1 point is only giving an extra grenade or what ever by not allowing this the person might not be able to filed the Star Knight now because that would change his troop choice since taking that one point away would mean he can't take his troops. So now instead of taking his Star Knight he will have to take something else less powering. I said StarKnight because it can be that over powering unit that the donkey cave would take and is only taking it because it will be easier for him to win so that 1 point is a cheat. That being said I know not everyone is a Donkey Cave but since we are going off by the internet, that is how I view it. If it's in real life, it all depends on the person and circumstances you are playing since a lot of factors can factor into the decision.
As others have said if you agreed to a 1500 point game, then say you want to play a 1501 or a 1503 point game instead. Right away when you say you need to go "over a bit" you are already cheating. Say right from the beginning when you are asking for how many points to play. If it's 1503 and you don't want to be TFG who asks for it and then making your opponent TFG for refusing "a lousy 3 points" you in fact are the Donkey Cave.
"If you go 1 point over, you are to be tried and executed for unsportsmanlike conduct"-Davor
Ton of TFGs in this thread. Really hope none of you have ever gone 5 mph over the speed limit.
At the end of the day, 3 points over doesn't hurt. If your friend asks if you mind, you're well within your rights to say no, but no reason to get righteous about it.
You have every right not to play me haha. When i played this game, if anyone hadnt looked happy i would have just taken out a unit and played at 1950. If you dont want me to play a casual game 3 points over, dont be all sour over it, just tell me and ill make adjustments!!!! I won't make you feel bad over it, well just carry on and have a great game!!!!
Desubot wrote: ....soooooo Peregrine has every right to not play the guy then right? since he doesn't have to agree to the additional 3 points.
Is there any situation where you are not 100% allowed to say, "I don't want to play this game with you," and not play? Yes, he's totally allowed to just not play the guy if he so chooses, for any reason he sees fit, and ideally he should be completely free to say no to the new points limit and insist on the original agreement. I think you could probably refuse to play a game in a tournament too, it'd probably just count as a forfeit or the most severe category of loss. I suppose maybe if you were playing the game as part of your job you might be required to play a game or else risk being fired.
Twiqbal wrote: Ton of TFGs in this thread. Really hope none of you have ever gone 5 mph over the speed limit.
At the end of the day, 3 points over doesn't hurt. If your friend asks if you mind, you're well within your rights to say no, but no reason to get righteous about it.
If it doesn't hurt me for you being 3 points over, then it won't hurt you to drop whatever is making you 3 points over and then be under the points?
Or you can hang around while I make a new list at the new 1503 point limit.
Twiqbal wrote: Ton of TFGs in this thread. Really hope none of you have ever gone 5 mph over the speed limit.
At the end of the day, 3 points over doesn't hurt. If your friend asks if you mind, you're well within your rights to say no, but no reason to get righteous about it.
If it doesn't hurt me for you being 3 points over, then it won't hurt you to drop whatever is making you 3 points over and then be under the points?
Or you can hang around while I make a new list at the new 1503 point limit.
Twiqbal wrote: Ton of TFGs in this thread. Really hope none of you have ever gone 5 mph over the speed limit.
At the end of the day, 3 points over doesn't hurt. If your friend asks if you mind, you're well within your rights to say no, but no reason to get righteous about it.
Interesting determination of TFG: Those who prefer to work within the rules.
I will bite on the "straw man": an officer is well within their rights to pull you over for the 5mph over but typically decides it is not worth their time.
"3 points does not hurt" so that can easily apply in the other direction and stay below that much.
We have a rule for the limit but not how much "extra" you wish to go when the rules are inconvenient so guess which one makes more sense?
I tend to get "righteous about it" if nothing is said and people take the extra points as a matter of course without even a "by your leave".
When players decide to change a little rule here and there and feel it is not worth mentioning, you are by definition playing a different game than your opponent agreed to.
It is a "breach of trust", I would say feeling entitled to whatever you wish is more of a TFG behavior than anyone being strict about the rules would you not agree?
<edit> There are so many times I wanted that extra melta-bomb and had to forgo it due to being at 1998 out of 2000 pts and needed it later... it DOES make a big difference.
So yes, I can with clear conscience tell you to suck it up and do without.
Twiqbal wrote: Ton of TFGs in this thread. Really hope none of you have ever gone 5 mph over the speed limit.
At the end of the day, 3 points over doesn't hurt. If your friend asks if you mind, you're well within your rights to say no, but no reason to get righteous about it.
Interesting determination of TFG: Those who prefer to work within the rules.
I will bite on the "straw man": an officer is well within their rights to pull you over for the 5mph over but typically decides it is not worth their time.
"3 points does not hurt" so that can easily apply in the other direction and stay below that much.
We have a rule for the limit but not how much "extra" you wish to go when the rules are inconvenient so guess which one makes more sense?
I tend to get "righteous about it" if nothing is said and people take the extra points as a matter of course without even a "by your leave".
When players decide to change a little rule here and there and feel it is not worth mentioning, you are by definition playing a different game than your opponent agreed to.
It is a "breach of trust", I would say feeling entitled to whatever you wish is more of a TFG behavior than anyone being strict about the rules would you not agree?
<edit> There are so many times I wanted that extra melta-bomb and had to forgo it due to being at 1998 out of 2000 pts and needed it later... it DOES make a big difference.
So yes, I can with clear conscience tell you to suck it up and do without.
Incase you havent seen my previous posts...i did 100000% ask!!!! If i needed one more melta bomb, i would have totally asked: hey guys can i go 3 points over? If they said no, then never mind! As i have said repeatedly i should have messaged them before and said: can we make the limit 2005k please?
<edit> There are so many times I wanted that extra melta-bomb and had to forgo it due to being at 1998 out of 2000 pts and needed it later... it DOES make a big difference.
So yes, I can with clear conscience tell you to suck it up and do without.
That's a case of there being a 5-point upgrade you can remove to get under the limit, tho. There usually is something in the single-digits that can get the boot but if there isn't then it's just a few points over. It's a silly hill to die on, for sure.
When I agree to play someone at, we'll say, 2000 points, I expect that the armies will cost up to, but not over, 2000 points.
If someone wants to go over, I say, "Hey, no worries. Since you're going over, do you mind if I go over a bit?". If they were at 2003, I'll pick a 5 point upgrade... give someone a meltabomb or something. If they say ok, I know they're decent sports who just couldn't quite fit the list in the allotted points. If they say something to the effect of "but I'm only over by 3 points... you want to take 5 extra", then I know that sportsmanship isn't a priority. I generally embrace the former and walk away from the latter.
Drop an upgrade or a unit champ or something. Or trim that character down.
If I Agree to 2000 pts that's what i bring not 2001 or more. Often times I end up at 1990/2000 or sometimes even less. One game I played I was 23pts shy, all my units were maxed, formations etc, but adding even a minimum size unit would take me over by 20 or more. So I played 23 short. (And won). The only time I would accept an overage is notify me before the game. If you just CANT make it fit - and need 2005 - tell me. That way I can check my list and maybe get to the same mark. If I can't then fine, we are playing 2005 pts and lets roll. I've been in games that agreed to a pts lvl then at the end the other guy either brushes off his win or loss by going "well I was 15 pts over, so that may have been the factor" or some gak. Can't stand that. Makes the inner rage thirster in me get all green and grumpy.
When I agree to play someone at, we'll say, 2000 points, I expect that the armies will cost up to, but not over, 2000 points.
If someone wants to go over, I say, "Hey, no worries. Since you're going over, do you mind if I go over a bit?". If they were at 2003, I'll pick a 5 point upgrade... give someone a meltabomb or something. If they say ok, I know they're decent sports who just couldn't quite fit the list in the allotted points. If they say something to the effect of "but I'm only over by 3 points... you want to take 5 extra", then I know that sportsmanship isn't a priority. I generally embrace the former and walk away from the latter.
Thats effectively what happened; he added an upgrade all sorted
1-5. with some odd point upgrades, I have little issue with going over the point limits in my opponents lists, however, if you KNOW you could get 'legal' by dropping one melta bomb, just drop the melta bomb. IF you have to rework a good portion of your list becuase the 5 man squad came out to 536 points instead of 531, then whatever.
Skalathrax8 wrote: Incase you havent seen my previous posts...i did 100000% ask!!!! If i needed one more melta bomb, i would have totally asked: hey guys can i go 3 points over? If they said no, then never mind! As i have said repeatedly i should have messaged them before and said: can we make the limit 2005k please?
The big long post was not aimed at you so no worries.
Asking is the important part so no harm, no foul.
I guy I used to play with would go INSANE if someone went over the limit and he found out later.
It is a courtesy to be polite and follow the rules, anything else is a "presumption" and can be shunned as bad as eating with your mouth open at the table...
"If you go 1 point over, you are to be tried and executed for unsportsmanlike conduct"-Davor
Twiqbal wrote:Ton of TFGs in this thread.
So that makes me TFG? How come it doesn't make you TFG for getting more points in and cheating? Isn't that the definition of TFG who cheats and tries to take as much or stretch as much as he/she can? What makes you so special that you are not TFG unless you are talking about yourself as TFG then for being a person who has to go over the point limit.
Really hope none of you have ever gone 5 mph over the speed limit.
Ok two totally different things, one we are playing a game, the second we are talking about peoples lives and people who actually died because of speeding. But lets go by your analogy. Most people go over 20Km/H. That is acceptable but still breaking the law. So since a lot of people go over 20Km/H now we have a few people who do 30Km/H or even more than that as "normal" speed. When do we put a stop to it. Now let's bring it back to 40K. So what is wrong with 3 points over. How about 5? Maybe 10? How about 100? When do you put a stop to it? Once you put a stop to it you have just become TFG by your definition. Hell some people will say going over 100 points is not a big deal. So if it's not a big deal to them, I guess it shouldn't be a big deal to you now.
At the end of the day, 3 points over doesn't hurt. If your friend asks if you mind, you're well within your rights to say no, but no reason to get righteous about it.
At the end of the day going over 1000 points is not a big deal either. Then again are you getting righteous right now because of 3 points?
Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
Twiqbal wrote: Ton of TFGs in this thread. Really hope none of you have ever gone 5 mph over the speed limit.
At the end of the day, 3 points over doesn't hurt. If your friend asks if you mind, you're well within your rights to say no, but no reason to get righteous about it.
If it doesn't hurt me for you being 3 points over, then it won't hurt you to drop whatever is making you 3 points over and then be under the points?
Or you can hang around while I make a new list at the new 1503 point limit.
Exactly. if 3 points over is not a big deal then playing at 1500 points is not a big deal. Hell since 3 points is not a big deal now how about you play at 1497 points while someone plays at 1500. I am sure if the game was set for 1497 points, I will bet you anything that person will be able to make an army at 1500 now. Still be going over 3 points but at 1500 now.
By the way, if you were ever going to play me, in most cases I wouldn't make an issue out of it. I just play to have fun. Never won a game yet in 40K. So it's not an issue for me, but this being the internet and seeing how people love making excuses I like being the devils advocate and choosing to say why it's not ok.
So that makes me TFG? How come it doesn't make you TFG for getting more points in and cheating? Isn't that the definition of TFG who cheats and tries to take as much or stretch as much as he/she can? What makes you so special that you are not TFG unless you are talking about yourself as TFG then for being a person who has to go over the point limit.
TFG can be as much about attitude as it can be about cheating. Calling people cheaters for asking to change the points limit of the game slightly is kinda an overreaction, and a lot of the people arguing against it seem very angry about a points difference that is 1/300th of the total points limit, particularly considering how ridiculously unbalanced a game Warhammer 40k is even with perfectly equal points values. There's also nothing that makes the game more balanced at round points limits.
Really hope none of you have ever gone 5 mph over the speed limit.
Ok two totally different things, one we are playing a game, the second we are talking about peoples lives and people who actually died because of speeding. But lets go by your analogy. Most people go over 20Km/H. That is acceptable but still breaking the law. So since a lot of people go over 20Km/H now we have a few people who do 30Km/H or even more than that as "normal" speed. When do we put a stop to it. Now let's bring it back to 40K. So what is wrong with 3 points over. How about 5? Maybe 10? How about 100? When do you put a stop to it? Once you put a stop to it you have just become TFG by your definition. Hell some people will say going over 100 points is not a big deal. So if it's not a big deal to them, I guess it shouldn't be a big deal to you now.
People going 20 km/h over the speed limit really shouldn't be the norm.
Also, anyone who goes over the points limit and doesn't let you also go over the new points limit by the same amount is just wrong.
Also also, in Apocalypse, a points difference of 100 points wouldn't even be enough to grant an extra strategic asset.
At the end of the day, 3 points over doesn't hurt. If your friend asks if you mind, you're well within your rights to say no, but no reason to get righteous about it.
At the end of the day going over 1000 points is not a big deal either. Then again are you getting righteous right now because of 3 points?
They're getting upset about it because numerous people are calling anyone who asks for a slightly higher points limit a cheater, a TFG, the worst kind of scum in gaming and the like. It's hard not to take offense when you say, "Is it okay if we play a 2005 points game instead of a 2000 points game? I couldn't make my list fit quite exactly." and dozens of people shout "CHEATER!" "SCUM!" "TFG!"
Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
Twiqbal wrote: Ton of TFGs in this thread. Really hope none of you have ever gone 5 mph over the speed limit.
At the end of the day, 3 points over doesn't hurt. If your friend asks if you mind, you're well within your rights to say no, but no reason to get righteous about it.
If it doesn't hurt me for you being 3 points over, then it won't hurt you to drop whatever is making you 3 points over and then be under the points?
Some people's collections are more of a collection of squads rather than a collection of individual models to be organized into squads when writing the list. Dropping to the next-cheapest squad they don't already have in their list may put them much, much below the points value, with no way to make up the difference. A 30 points difference is way more than a 3 points difference, and if the complaint is about the extra power that 3 points affords them, then the 30 point deficit is going to skew the battle 30 points in the other direction. If it's about a slavish adherence to the exact rules with fairness not being a part of it, then frankly they should hate Sisters of Battle players for cheating in every game they use an Exorcist in in 6th and 7th edition, due to the exact, proper rules not allowing that tank to shoot at anything that's not directly overhead. There's no ambiguity about it, you don't have to interpret the rules in a special or skewed way to see it that way. If you're gonna argue that that's just an absurd situation and RAW shouldn't be followed because it makes no sense, then clearly you care more about fairness than RAW and should care more about the imbalance that would come from an opponent having to be 30 points under than 3 points over.
Or you can hang around while I make a new list at the new 1503 point limit.
Anyone who wants to be over the points limit and doesn't want to let you adjust your list to suit the new points limit is a jerk.
I feel like some of you may be overreacting to various perception of overreactions.
No one cares about people that actual ask to increase points value. especially in a pick up game. its a social interaction between two people that should agree first in the first place.
sure its a bit meh when one person works really hard to tune a list to exactly what was agreed with and another person comes in with a list he just absolutely cannot alter.
it absolutely matters when they dont bother saying anything. it shows a level of lazyness as others have pointed out.
its also messed to do so in a Tourny setting. but that should be obvious and caught by TO anyway
Pouncey wrote: There's also nothing that makes the game more balanced at round points limits.
No, but most people tend to build lists for round point limits. If I have a 1500 point list then bumping the point limit up to 1505 usually means that you get the extra 5 points that are very important to you, while I get some random upgrade I probably won't get much out of (otherwise I would have included it already). When you ask for that non-standard point limit what you're saying is "I gain an advantage at this weird point level, let's use it". It's not cheating, but it's kind of dishonest and rules lawyery.
They're getting upset about it because numerous people are calling anyone who asks for a slightly higher points limit a cheater, a TFG, the worst kind of scum in gaming and the like.
Nobody is calling them "the worst kind of scum in gaming". Please don't make straw man arguments.
It's hard not to take offense when you say, "Is it okay if we play a 2005 points game instead of a 2000 points game? I couldn't make my list fit quite exactly." and dozens of people shout "CHEATER!" "SCUM!" "TFG!"
Except you CAN make your list fit without any problems at all. You don't WANT to make your list fit, because it would mean having a less powerful list. That is not the same thing at all.
Some people's collections are more of a collection of squads rather than a collection of individual models to be organized into squads when writing the list.
So? Why is it so important that your models be organized into the correct squads and never mixed? Just swap some models like everyone else. Or at least, if it's so important to keep everything together, make some standard 1000/1500/1750/etc lists where all the squads are perfectly organized and make sure that they're legal when you choose how to build/paint your collection.
If it's about a slavish adherence to the exact rules with fairness not being a part of it, then frankly they should hate Sisters of Battle players for cheating in every game they use an Exorcist in in 6th and 7th edition, due to the exact, proper rules not allowing that tank to shoot at anything that's not directly overhead. There's no ambiguity about it, you don't have to interpret the rules in a special or skewed way to see it that way. If you're gonna argue that that's just an absurd situation and RAW shouldn't be followed because it makes no sense, then clearly you care more about fairness than RAW and should care more about the imbalance that would come from an opponent having to be 30 points under than 3 points over.
I've already explained why this analogy is a terrible one. The Exorcist example was a clear case of RAW being broken and not matching RAI. Obviously the Exorcist is supposed to be able to shoot at stuff, and it is just missing a "hull-mounted" description on its missile launcher. The point limit is a case where RAW and RAI line up just fine and there is no reason to suspect that the rules aren't working as intended. The rules make perfect sense, they just don't allow you to gain an advantage that you want.
Pouncey wrote: There's also nothing that makes the game more balanced at round points limits.
No, but most people tend to build lists for round point limits. If I have a 1500 point list then bumping the point limit up to 1505 usually means that you get the extra 5 points that are very important to you, while I get some random upgrade I probably won't get much out of (otherwise I would have included it already). When you ask for that non-standard point limit what you're saying is "I gain an advantage at this weird point level, let's use it". It's not cheating, but it's kind of dishonest and rules lawyery.
I can't speak for other people, but when I end up with a list that's around 5 points over it usually means that I wrote a list full of models I like with squads that are nearly identical, and if I absolutely had to sacrifice something I'd swap a Battle Sisters Squad's melta to a flamer or drop their flamer entirely. Which is the same difference to my army's overall effectiveness as my Space Marine opponent upgrading a Tactical Squad's flamer to a meltagun, or meltagun to a plasma gun. The 5 points are only important to my sense of symmetry in having all my Battle Sisters Squads equipped the same, and frankly my lists aren't powerful enough to not get tabled by footslogging Orks.
They're getting upset about it because numerous people are calling anyone who asks for a slightly higher points limit a cheater, a TFG, the worst kind of scum in gaming and the like.
Nobody is calling them "the worst kind of scum in gaming". Please don't make straw man arguments.
TFG is code for that.
It's hard not to take offense when you say, "Is it okay if we play a 2005 points game instead of a 2000 points game? I couldn't make my list fit quite exactly." and dozens of people shout "CHEATER!" "SCUM!" "TFG!"
Except you CAN make your list fit without any problems at all. You don't WANT to make your list fit, because it would mean having a less powerful list. That is not the same thing at all.
Again, I don't design my lists for maximum power.
Some people's collections are more of a collection of squads rather than a collection of individual models to be organized into squads when writing the list.
So? Why is it so important that your models be organized into the correct squads and never mixed? Just swap some models like everyone else. Or at least, if it's so important to keep everything together, make some standard 1000/1500/1750/etc lists where all the squads are perfectly organized and make sure that they're legal when you choose how to build/paint your collection.
To be clear, I'm not one of those players. Those players tend to be the ones who have a name and at least a paragraph of backstory for every model in their army.
If it's about a slavish adherence to the exact rules with fairness not being a part of it, then frankly they should hate Sisters of Battle players for cheating in every game they use an Exorcist in in 6th and 7th edition, due to the exact, proper rules not allowing that tank to shoot at anything that's not directly overhead. There's no ambiguity about it, you don't have to interpret the rules in a special or skewed way to see it that way. If you're gonna argue that that's just an absurd situation and RAW shouldn't be followed because it makes no sense, then clearly you care more about fairness than RAW and should care more about the imbalance that would come from an opponent having to be 30 points under than 3 points over.
I've already explained why this analogy is a terrible one. The Exorcist example was a clear case of RAW being broken and not matching RAI. Obviously the Exorcist is supposed to be able to shoot at stuff, and it is just missing a "hull-mounted" description on its missile launcher. The point limit is a case where RAW and RAI line up just fine and there is no reason to suspect that the rules aren't working as intended. The rules make perfect sense, they just don't allow you to gain an advantage that you want.
It's still ignoring the rules. It's just that everyone agrees it's the right way to play that unit.
Also, how would it being a hull-mounted weapon let it shoot properly?
Pouncey wrote: Which is the same difference to my army's overall effectiveness as my Space Marine opponent upgrading a Tactical Squad's flamer to a meltagun, or meltagun to a plasma gun.
Except, as I said earlier, this is not true. Upgrading a melta gun to a plasma gun might actually be downgrading the weapon if I want to use that tactical squad as an anti-tank unit. If that's the case then I'm not going to take the "upgrade", even if spending the extra 5 points would put me at the same 1503 as your list. You can't just assume that adding a random 5-10 points to a list is going to be a meaningful upgrade.
Again, I don't design my lists for maximum power.
Then it shouldn't be a problem to drop units/upgrades until you have a legal list. If the power level of your list isn't relevant then playing even 50 points below the point limit shouldn't be a problem for you.
It's still ignoring the rules. It's just that everyone agrees it's the right way to play that unit.
It's only "ignoring" the rules in the sense that it's ignoring an obvious mistake. There is no legitimate argument that the Exorcist is intended to function by RAW. But no such issue exists with point limits. This is not a situation where your list is 1503 points in a 1500 point game because there's an obvious typo in your codex where an upgrade is 3 points more than it is supposed to be. You simply want to take more stuff than the rules allow you to take.
Also, how would it being a hull-mounted weapon let it shoot properly?
Because then it would clarify that it can shoot in a 45* arc directly ahead of the tank.
Davor wrote: Exactly. if 3 points over is not a big deal then playing at 1500 points is not a big deal. Hell since 3 points is not a big deal now how about you play at 1497 points while someone plays at 1500. I am sure if the game was set for 1497 points, I will bet you anything that person will be able to make an army at 1500 now. Still be going over 3 points but at 1500 now.
By the way, if you were ever going to play me, in most cases I wouldn't make an issue out of it. I just play to have fun. Never won a game yet in 40K. So it's not an issue for me, but this being the internet and seeing how people love making excuses I like being the devils advocate and choosing to say why it's not ok.
This is all I'm getting at. You shouldn't go over, but if you do, let your opponent know. It's not a big deal.
Davor wrote: Exactly. if 3 points over is not a big deal then playing at 1500 points is not a big deal. Hell since 3 points is not a big deal now how about you play at 1497 points while someone plays at 1500. I am sure if the game was set for 1497 points, I will bet you anything that person will be able to make an army at 1500 now. Still be going over 3 points but at 1500 now.
By the way, if you were ever going to play me, in most cases I wouldn't make an issue out of it. I just play to have fun. Never won a game yet in 40K. So it's not an issue for me, but this being the internet and seeing how people love making excuses I like being the devils advocate and choosing to say why it's not ok.
This is all I'm getting at. You shouldn't go over, but if you do, let your opponent know. It's not a big deal.
It's not a big deal either way. The thing I am seeing is some Pro Camp are saying "its not a big deal to go over" and the Against Camp says "it's not a big deal to be at max" and the Against Camp agree with the Pro Camp it's not a big deal BUT the Pro Camp are saying the Against Camp are wrong. That is where most of the Against Camp I believe are having issues with. How come it's ok to be over but not ok not to go over max? To me that is TFG. Saying "no problem being over 3 points, but it's an absolute problem playing at max."
Pouncey wrote: Which is the same difference to my army's overall effectiveness as my Space Marine opponent upgrading a Tactical Squad's flamer to a meltagun, or meltagun to a plasma gun.
Except, as I said earlier, this is not true. Upgrading a melta gun to a plasma gun might actually be downgrading the weapon if I want to use that tactical squad as an anti-tank unit. If that's the case then I'm not going to take the "upgrade", even if spending the extra 5 points would put me at the same 1503 as your list. You can't just assume that adding a random 5-10 points to a list is going to be a meaningful upgrade.
So, spending more points doesn't automatically make a unit more powerful or useful?
Again, I don't design my lists for maximum power.
Then it shouldn't be a problem to drop units/upgrades until you have a legal list. If the power level of your list isn't relevant then playing even 50 points below the point limit shouldn't be a problem for you.
You're right, it shouldn't be a problem for me. I could always drop a flamer for a bolter and it'd have minimal effect on how powerful my army is. It might even make it a bit more killy due to how rarely I get to use flamers versus how often I get to use bolters. My only opponent and I both view small points differences as insignificant though, so we give each other permission to be a few points over. If I end up with a list that's a few points over, my mom usually adds an Ammo Runt to her Big Mek with Shokk Attack Gun.
It's still ignoring the rules. It's just that everyone agrees it's the right way to play that unit.
It's only "ignoring" the rules in the sense that it's ignoring an obvious mistake. There is no legitimate argument that the Exorcist is intended to function by RAW. But no such issue exists with point limits. This is not a situation where your list is 1503 points in a 1500 point game because there's an obvious typo in your codex where an upgrade is 3 points more than it is supposed to be. You simply want to take more stuff than the rules allow you to take.
Erm, the rules let players set their own points limits for games. If two people decide they want to play a 1005pt game, that's completely within the rules. There's no actual rule that dictates that all points values for games must be a multiple of 50, and there's also a part of the 7th edition rulebook that says that two players can set uneven points limits if they choose to (i.e. one army being allowed to have a higher or lower point limit than the other)
Also, how would it being a hull-mounted weapon let it shoot properly?
Because then it would clarify that it can shoot in a 45* arc directly ahead of the tank.
No one's ever mentioned this before in discussions about the Exorcist. Yes, that'd be a simple fix.
Pouncey wrote: So, spending more points doesn't automatically make a unit more powerful or useful?
No, of course not. I already addressed this earlier.
Erm, the rules let players set their own points limits for games. If two people decide they want to play a 1005pt game, that's completely within the rules. There's no actual rule that dictates that all points values for games must be a multiple of 50, and there's also a part of the 7th edition rulebook that says that two players can set uneven points limits if they choose to (i.e. one army being allowed to have a higher or lower point limit than the other)
No, of course you can play a 1005 point game, but that's not the same as agreeing to a 1000 point game and then saying "but can I cheat and bring an extra 5 points".
Though, as I already pointed out, there are conventions about playing games with even point increments. And it's rather poor behavior to try to set the point limit for the game at some weird non-standard amount that just conveniently happens to favor your exact list. A 1005 point game isn't something people normally build lists for, it's just a 1000 point game with an extra 5 points added that only one player is likely to benefit from. And if you're requesting a 1005 point game it's pretty clear that what you really want is a 1000 point game where you get an extra 5 points, but with my agreement instead of just breaking the 1000 point limit.
Peregrine wrote: No, of course you can play a 1005 point game, but that's not the same as agreeing to a 1000 point game and then saying "but can I cheat and bring an extra 5 points".
Though, as I already pointed out, there are conventions about playing games with even point increments. And it's rather poor behavior to try to set the point limit for the game at some weird non-standard amount that just conveniently happens to favor your exact list. A 1005 point game isn't something people normally build lists for, it's just a 1000 point game with an extra 5 points added that only one player is likely to benefit from. And if you're requesting a 1005 point game it's pretty clear that what you really want is a 1000 point game where you get an extra 5 points, but with my agreement instead of just breaking the 1000 point limit.
To me, asking if it's okay if I'm a few points over the limit is effectively the same thing as asking if my opponent wants to modify the points limit slightly. I have no objection if my opponent wants to modify their list to match. I also bring it up with my opponent before I even print up my roster, which is usually well in advance of the game, so they have ample time to add or change things to fit. They've always been okay with it.
I dunno. Back when I played at a club, I always made sure my armies were at or under the points limit. If I were ever to go back to doing that, I'd always make sure my lists were within the points limit. And as a result of seeing how many people are against it in any way, shape or form, I've been tending more and more to keep myself at or under the points limit, even in games that are just against my mom.
Peregrine wrote: No, of course you can play a 1005 point game, but that's not the same as agreeing to a 1000 point game and then saying "but can I cheat and bring an extra 5 points".
Though, as I already pointed out, there are conventions about playing games with even point increments. And it's rather poor behavior to try to set the point limit for the game at some weird non-standard amount that just conveniently happens to favor your exact list. A 1005 point game isn't something people normally build lists for, it's just a 1000 point game with an extra 5 points added that only one player is likely to benefit from. And if you're requesting a 1005 point game it's pretty clear that what you really want is a 1000 point game where you get an extra 5 points, but with my agreement instead of just breaking the 1000 point limit.
To me, asking if it's okay if I'm a few points over the limit is effectively the same thing as asking if my opponent wants to modify the points limit slightly. I have no objection if my opponent wants to modify their list to match. I also bring it up with my opponent before I even print up my roster, which is usually well in advance of the game, so they have ample time to add or change things to fit. They've always been okay with it.
I dunno. Back when I played at a club, I always made sure my armies were at or under the points limit. If I were ever to go back to doing that, I'd always make sure my lists were within the points limit. And as a result of seeing how many people are against it in any way, shape or form, I've been tending more and more to keep myself at or under the points limit, even in games that are just against my mom.
The difference is, for you, you see the extra 5 points right before the game and decide it's okay and throw a power weapon on a sergeant or something. They might have engineered their army to drop a few upgrades here and there that wouldn't have done anything to squeeze an extra squad in which just happened to bring them 5pts over.
Peregrine wrote: No, of course you can play a 1005 point game, but that's not the same as agreeing to a 1000 point game and then saying "but can I cheat and bring an extra 5 points".
Though, as I already pointed out, there are conventions about playing games with even point increments. And it's rather poor behavior to try to set the point limit for the game at some weird non-standard amount that just conveniently happens to favor your exact list. A 1005 point game isn't something people normally build lists for, it's just a 1000 point game with an extra 5 points added that only one player is likely to benefit from. And if you're requesting a 1005 point game it's pretty clear that what you really want is a 1000 point game where you get an extra 5 points, but with my agreement instead of just breaking the 1000 point limit.
To me, asking if it's okay if I'm a few points over the limit is effectively the same thing as asking if my opponent wants to modify the points limit slightly. I have no objection if my opponent wants to modify their list to match. I also bring it up with my opponent before I even print up my roster, which is usually well in advance of the game, so they have ample time to add or change things to fit. They've always been okay with it.
I dunno. Back when I played at a club, I always made sure my armies were at or under the points limit. If I were ever to go back to doing that, I'd always make sure my lists were within the points limit. And as a result of seeing how many people are against it in any way, shape or form, I've been tending more and more to keep myself at or under the points limit, even in games that are just against my mom.
The difference is, for you, you see the extra 5 points right before the game and decide it's okay and throw a power weapon on a sergeant or something. They might have engineered their army to drop a few upgrades here and there that wouldn't have done anything to squeeze an extra squad in which just happened to bring them 5pts over.
I don't really view that as a problem, to be honest.
To me, the entire points system is a way of balancing armies by assigning a points value to the effectiveness of a particular unit or upgrade. A properly built 1,000 points army should have a fair chance against any other properly built 1,000 points army. A 5-point difference to the total power level of the army is a difference of only half a percent, which is not particularly huge.
While yes, they would be able to fit in an extra unit that costs a couple hundred points, all but five of those points are power that their army would've had anyway had they redesigned it to be exactly at the points limit. It's not like they're filling out their points limit and then getting an entire extra unit on top of that. They're only getting an extra 5 points of effectiveness out of their overall army by including it.
Yeah I think people might be annoyed, I play very casual and let some rules slip here and there in the name of narrative / gameplay. but a point limit is a point limit, its part of the challenge to come up with a list that is that number or below.
I'm fairly stubborn when it comes to points values. Under, never over although I am flexible and as an adult am able to negotiate things.
Really though I just ask to increase my l own limit accordingly. funnily enough most times I have said this my opponent has made a quick revision to their list. It generally catches out the opportunist when they try and explain that its then not fair for me to be over the limit.
Some people's collections are more of a collection of squads rather than a collection of individual models to be organized into squads when writing the list. Dropping to the next-cheapest squad they don't already have in their list may put them much, much below the points value, with no way to make up the difference. A 30 points difference is way more than a 3 points difference, and if the complaint is about the extra power that 3 points affords them, then the 30 point deficit is going to skew the battle 30 points in the other direction.
All of my models are WYSIWYG and organized into squads. I also like squads to be 5 or 10 models, I dislike odd squad sizes. Sometimes I can't squeeze every point out of a list but I am always under points.
A points limit is still a limit and an agreement to show up to a game with a list that is at or under X points is still that.
I don't expect any accommodation for my self-imposed limitations.
As a rule, I suggest you give yourself 10% wiggle room. Meaning if you want to build a 500 point list, reserve 50 points for upgrades you may need, or to throw in a few extra models as a unit or make them join an already existing unit.
Hmm... Just to throw a little more fuel onto the flames:
So some people are happy going 5 points over and asking just before the game if that's ok. Would those same people be happy if the opponent says "Fine, I presume you don't mind me upgrading this power weapon on my tank-hunting unit to a powerfist? It will take me 5 points over your list, of course"
That would add a meaningful upgrade to the list and would just swing the points advantage the other way.
Lionheart713 wrote: As a rule, I suggest you give yourself 10% wiggle room. Meaning if you want to build a 500 point list, reserve 50 points for upgrades you may need, or to throw in a few extra models as a unit or make them join an already existing unit.
It helps keep your army legal points-wise.
10% is a huge amount of points! 50pts in a 500pts game is almost enough for another chimera, enough for a rhino and a power weapon, enough for multiple extra models in a unit.
10% is 150 points, that's another squad of Grey Hunters I just added to my 1500 point list, since now we're playing 1650pts.
I can understand the arguments for ignoring 1-10pts (despite disagreeing with them), but 10% is just ridiculous.
Lionheart713 wrote: As a rule, I suggest you give yourself 10% wiggle room. Meaning if you want to build a 500 point list, reserve 50 points for upgrades you may need, or to throw in a few extra models as a unit or make them join an already existing unit.
It helps keep your army legal points-wise.
10% is a huge amount of points! 50pts in a 500pts game is almost enough for another chimera, enough for a rhino and a power weapon, enough for multiple extra models in a unit.
10% is 150 points, that's another squad of Grey Hunters I just added to my 1500 point list, since now we're playing 1650pts.
I can understand the arguments for ignoring 1-10pts (despite disagreeing with them), but 10% is just ridiculous.
Look at it this way: You bring in your core units and formations in the 1500 point game, keeping them 10% below the point limit. You're standing at 1350 points now, and have 150 points to add your Grey Hunters squad along with a few cheap upgrades. All set.
I think the final 10% allows you to get a little creative.
master of ordinance wrote:I am fine with my opponents being a few points over. About 10 at the most.
Well that is nice of you for doing that but once someone goes 11 points over and you refuse, you have just become TFG now. After all it's only going 1 point over the limit.
See what I mean for the pro camp. Hasn't been addressed. When does it stop when you allow someone to go over the point limit. As soon as you say No you become TFG going by your standards. So when is enough is enough? Just like the quote above he is only going over 1 point over the limit. After all the Pro Camp is basically saying a 1500 point game is 1505 points. So going 1508 points or even in the quote above 1515 points over is perfectly fine because it's on 3-10 points over your set limit. Since the set limit is 1503 points someone bringing in 1506 points is perfectly fine going by your logic.
Mostly when I hear the 3 point over the limit request it's a piece of war gear that they're trying out and have just strapped on to an existing list.
Why couldn't something else be dropped, it'll have to be dropped in any kind of official setting...dunno, sometimes it's just easier to judge which one gets dropped when they're all at work together and one just doesn't seem to pull its weight or the other two have great synergy and the remaining one just doesn't work quite so well.
40k isn't a short game unless it's a real mis-match so most people don't really get to or want to try things again and again and again to figure out what works, they use the quicker option of strap it on and try it out. Usually when I'm hunting for a game on the day I find the people who have multiple armies to be the most willing to have another game and they always seem to want to swap armies regardless of how their first one performed in the match they were just playing. They don't want to do multiple tests, they just want to have some fun and try to out some new stuff. Not everyone is a list builder same as not everyone is a painter or a kit-basher.
If it helps them decide what stays and what goes I'm still fine with having to deal with the extra points against me.
master of ordinance wrote:I am fine with my opponents being a few points over. About 10 at the most.
Well that is nice of you for doing that but once someone goes 11 points over and you refuse, you have just become TFG now. After all it's only going 1 point over the limit.
See what I mean for the pro camp. Hasn't been addressed. When does it stop when you allow someone to go over the point limit. As soon as you say No you become TFG going by your standards. So when is enough is enough? Just like the quote above he is only going over 1 point over the limit. After all the Pro Camp is basically saying a 1500 point game is 1505 points. So going 1508 points or even in the quote above 1515 points over is perfectly fine because it's on 3-10 points over your set limit. Since the set limit is 1503 points someone bringing in 1506 points is perfectly fine going by your logic.
10 points is a cheap weapon upgrade or something similar. Once it starts getting over that though it does start taking the micky.
WobblyGoblin wrote: Hmm... Just to throw a little more fuel onto the flames:
So some people are happy going 5 points over and asking just before the game if that's ok. Would those same people be happy if the opponent says "Fine, I presume you don't mind me upgrading this power weapon on my tank-hunting unit to a powerfist? It will take me 5 points over your list, of course"
That would add a meaningful upgrade to the list and would just swing the points advantage the other way.
That'd be fine with me, personally. Though I might ask if I can put melta bombs on someone to make it even, or take a flamer in a squad that previously couldn't afford a flamer.
Also I might wonder silently why you put a standard power weapon on a dedicated tankhunting unit to begin with, but then I'd just figure you wanted to have some defence in case they end up in melee against infantry.
Well that is nice of you for doing that but once someone goes 11 points over and you refuse, you have just become TFG now. After all it's only going 1 point over the limit.
See what I mean for the pro camp. Hasn't been addressed. When does it stop when you allow someone to go over the point limit. As soon as you say No you become TFG going by your standards. So when is enough is enough? Just like the quote above he is only going over 1 point over the limit. After all the Pro Camp is basically saying a 1500 point game is 1505 points. So going 1508 points or even in the quote above 1515 points over is perfectly fine because it's on 3-10 points over your set limit. Since the set limit is 1503 points someone bringing in 1506 points is perfectly fine going by your logic.
To be clear, I don't think anyone's a TFG for saying no when asked to change the points limit slightly. If you did say no, I wouldn't argue or try to persuade you or guilt you, I'd just say okie dokie, take out a flamer or downgrade a meltagun to a flamer, and just ignore the part of my brain that likes having my similar squads be symmetrically equipped. I also used to design Dungeon floor layouts in D&D symmetrically, much to some people's annoyance.
I think you become a jerk on this topic when you accuse people who even ask if it's okay to up the points limit a bit of being cheaters, and assume they violate the rules in every way they think they can get away with.
WobblyGoblin wrote: Hmm... Just to throw a little more fuel onto the flames:
I think you become a jerk on this topic when you accuse people who even ask if it's okay to up the points limit a bit of being cheaters, and assume they violate the rules in every way they think they can get away with.
I honestly feel like if I showed up to a pick up game and my opponent was like "Oh hey I'm 5 points over is that okay?" my first question would be "You want to just add 50 points to the limit?" Because then we could both add potentially meaningful upgrades/changes to our lists in a short amount of time. I feel like this is a solid compromise, because then I'm not forced to take some small upgrade that I don't care about just so my opponent can feel better about going over our agreed-upon limit. I would prefer not to get into a habit of allowing the points limit to be fluid, but I could see myself allowing my friends to do so once in a while. At the same time, I don't foresee them even thinking about asking to do so.
If my opponent says no to increasing the limit, then the originally agreed-upon limit is the limit. If they say "I don't have extra models" or "Everything is fully upgraded already and I don't have extra models" then the originally agreed-upon limit is the limit. Time to drop a small upgrade. I feel like it's a respect problem if my opponent were to push the issue and would probably just call the game and do something else. So good on y'all for asking and accepting your opponent's decision.
Well, what's better (for the sense of a balanced game) Assuming all other things equal:
Your opponent has a list, and the 'only' 2 ways he can play it (roll with it, I know it's not perfect) is either 25 points under, or 5 points over. It's just the way his list happens to play out. Which one is more fair?
BossJakadakk wrote: I honestly feel like if I showed up to a pick up game and my opponent was like "Oh hey I'm 5 points over is that okay?" my first question would be "You want to just add 50 points to the limit?" Because then we could both add potentially meaningful upgrades/changes to our lists in a short amount of time. I feel like this is a solid compromise, because then I'm not forced to take some small upgrade that I don't care about just so my opponent can feel better about going over our agreed-upon limit. I would prefer not to get into a habit of allowing the points limit to be fluid, but I could see myself allowing my friends to do so once in a while. At the same time, I don't foresee them even thinking about asking to do so.
If my opponent says no to increasing the limit, then the originally agreed-upon limit is the limit. If they say "I don't have extra models" or "Everything is fully upgraded already and I don't have extra models" then the originally agreed-upon limit is the limit. Time to drop a small upgrade. I feel like it's a respect problem if my opponent were to push the issue and would probably just call the game and do something else. So good on y'all for asking and accepting your opponent's decision.
Asking to go up by 50 points instead of 5 seems like a very reasonable compromise, and my reluctance to say I'd always immediately agree to that is making me consider that maybe I'm wrong to defend going over the points limit at all.
I also want to mention that in pick-up games, I would write the lists I bring to the store or club to be within the standard points limits, not going over by even a single point, because it's clear that a lot of people feel social pressure to just acquiesce even though they wouldn't be happy about it, so even though they might say yes, doing so could make the experience less fun for them. My comfort with asking my opponent if it's okay or not comes from having played exclusively against my mom (who is a board gaming nerd, a fact to which I owe my existence because it's how she got together with my dad) during the past decade, due to my inability to play at a club/store anymore because of some moderate psychiatric issues I developed in my early to mid teens.
The rules are the rules. Plain and simple. I don't think someone is TFG for wanting to stick to those rules and enforce that. The rules for the game exist so that everyone playing has a standard baseline of what they can expect to happen and to provide knowledge of what they can and cannot do. Over the limit IS over the limit. Plain and simple. Even if it's 1 pt. that said - most people I've played outside of a tournament don't care about the 1-4 pt overage, it's often not worth the extra discussion or time needed to list edit. But the expectation is that if you are over - ask before the game. If the guy says no, fix your list - WITHOUT GETTING PISSY. (Cause that makes you TFG) - in my area I've almost never seen an issue where a guy had a small overage the other guy said no and guy 1 throws the perverbial s*** fit.
And yes. Going 5kph over the limit IS speeding, and the cops are fully within rights to ticket you or issue a violation. Thankfully most allow for margin of error (I think due to paperwork) and I myself have gone that 5 or so over the limit. Not intentionally, just keeping pace with traffic, but it's a somewhat "established meta" that in my city police won't ticket for less then 10 over. - but it doesn't mean you aren't speeding, or breaking the rule. You are. And therefore entirely responsible if a cop decides to enforce that rule.
If your local group had a pre established rule of "allowed points overages" then that's fine - but cut down to basic - rule is rule. If I am told to make a 2000 pt list that's what I make. Not 2001 or 2005. If it turns out I need the pts (and have on occasion) I check with the opponent as soon as I realize the situation, and go from there.
Brennonjw wrote: Well, what's better (for the sense of a balanced game) Assuming all other things equal:
Your opponent has a list, and the 'only' 2 ways he can play it (roll with it, I know it's not perfect) is either 25 points under, or 5 points over. It's just the way his list happens to play out. Which one is more fair?
The 25 points under option is more fair, because it involves both players having legal armies built from the same available resources instead of one player getting extra points to spend. The fact that one player possibly made a bad decision in list construction is not a fairness issue.
WobblyGoblin wrote: So some people are happy going 5 points over and asking just before the game if that's ok. Would those same people be happy if the opponent says "Fine, I presume you don't mind me upgrading this power weapon on my tank-hunting unit to a powerfist? It will take me 5 points over your list, of course"
I like this, but I'd make one minor change: make it a bigger point difference. For every point you want to exceed the limit by I get to add 100 points to my army. Is it absolutely essential that you have those extra 3 points? Great, that's another pair of LRBTs for me. I hope those 3 points were the best thing ever for you.
Peregrine wrote: I like this, but I'd make one minor change: make it a bigger point difference. For every point you want to exceed the limit by I get to add 100 points to my army. Is it absolutely essential that you have those extra 3 points? Great, that's another pair of LRBTs for me. I hope those 3 points were the best thing ever for you.
At that point, you're not really testing whether they'd be okay being the one whose opponent goes over, and more discouraging them from even asking. You might as well just politely say, "No, let's just stick to the original points limit."
I find this incredibly hard line approach of no points over the limit to be incrediblely foreign to me. I think my personal record of being over is 17 points.
When preparing lists in advance there's no excuse to be over. You had ample time. That being said I rarely have more than a vague idea of what I want to play before I show up. The list that I then create will then vary greatly depending on my opponents guesstimated skill level and what units I'm in the mood to bring. I've been playing for a long time, have a strong grasp over the tactics of this game, and do a lot of independent research about the game. A lot of people I play against aren't that. So if they're over the limit I really don't care as long as they're up front and honest about it. In fact, if they asked for it, I'd likely allow most newer players upwards of a 500 point handicap over me (in a 2000 point game). I'd very likely lose that game, but I can guarantee we'd both enjoy it.
On my side of things I don't minmax my army to my codex's most ideally slaughter point, because those games have a tendancy to be extremely boring unless you're playing against someone with the same mindset (which sadly few in my area do). So if I'm taking a CAD with 3 sunsharks, 2 full squads of stealth suits, while my crisis suits all have burst cannons instead of plasma and I'm at 2009 points instead of 2000 because I want to have a squad of 12 firewarriors instead of 11 in my devilfish, I don't really care that I'm over the set point limit. I could cut that 1 firewarrior and be at 2000 points, but I won't because being at that point limit means much less to me than avoiding my OCD by having a devilish at max capacity instead of just shy of max capacity. If you lose because of the insurmountable advantage that extra firewarrior gave me, than let me tell you something. That's not why you lost.
The better my opponents are though, the less leeway I give us both.
. If you guys have any notion of what you would do please advise 
if you just take your extra 5% wherever you can?
.)
