Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Scott-S6 wrote:

Grakmar wrote:Although, in some playgroups, this is considered perfectly acceptable and both sides can tweak lists based on opponent's army. But, that's a different discussion.

How is it possible for both people to do that? At some point one of you is going to have a finished list while the other is tweaking to match.

Or do you show lists, both go away and tweak and then show lists again?

Well, you typically don't get to see lists, but do know what army you're going against. So, you can tweak your Guard army knowing you're against Demons, but you won't know exactly what choices will be showing up.

ph34r wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:In a friendly game there is no reason to go slightly over either.

If the slight increase in points doesn't have a significant effect on the game, why go over in the first place?

Nobody is bitching. What would you do if I in a calm (perhaps low) voice kindly (perhaps even timidly) pointed out that I would be more comfortable if the lists were not above the point-value? Answer this, please.

Because guess who is the bitching WAAC power gamer now? There is no reason why you request to go over the value has more positive weight attached to it, than my request to please stay within the point-limit.

Actually there is, sometimes it's the difference between an organized, fluffy, themed list, and one that is perfectly balanced except one tac squad has 9 members for some reason.
If you asked me that I would probably say, "why, do you think that my one tac marine which puts me 1 point over will change the course of the game significantly? You would rather me be 15 points under with an unbalanced and unfluffy list than be 1 point over?"
In this case nobody would be a bitching WAAC power gamer, but if one person had to be it, it'd definitely be you.

Or you could have the 10 man squad and drop a weapons upgrade. That point can make a difference. That's the whole point of points (pun intended).

Scott-S6 wrote:

What if the melta bombs are modelled?

Simple, buy another model, and don't give it melta-bombs.

If you can afford to play this hobby, you can afford ONE model (assuming you don't already have one) that would keep you within the point limit.

snakel wrote:

While i was still under the false asumption i thought just for a general feel i would ask what people thougth about being over points .

I have myself only been over points a few times and that was when i started playing

Also i knew if my list was over my normal gaming friends would have had no problem with it .

While the general tone of the thread has been "If you are over, you are cheating" I think it is safe to imply that you would only be "Over" and "Cheating" if you did not INFORM your opponent of the "Overage" ahead of time.

If you do notify your opponent, and they agree that it is alright, you are no longer cheating as you and your opponent have agreed to play the "New" point value game, which would be a "X" point game (where X is that HIGHEST point cost of the two ((or more in the case of 'multi-detachment games)) armies present) so you are well within the rules.

When it comes to tournaments however, the "right to determine game type/points" is removed by the players and is instead something decided by the TO, whom you SHOULD inform BEFORE the tournament to see if the TO would be willing to accommodate (and thus extend the 'new point limit" to all other players in the tournament to ensure fairness) the higher point cost. If they would not be willing to accommodate, then according to the rules, you MUST drop points to be UNDER or AT the specified point limit, any OVER would constitute a violation of the rules.

Otherwise, it would be like if you "Agreed" with your opponent to do a 'spear-head' deployment type (or you rolled it on the table) and then decided that you wanted to deploy in a "Pitched battle" style. If you don't have your opponent's consent(or the TOs, but I doubt the TO would permit this) deploying outside of the current games "Rules for deployment" would be just as much cheating as being 1 (or more) points over the games point limit.

Does that help?

~DAR

All the time you've been spending reading and replying could have been spent rewriting your list to fit the agreed on point limit, as your opponent(s) already did. What makes you so special? Did you get Special Dispensation from Games Workshop?

For friendly games I allow a slight overage of points, even if I labored to be at or under the set limit. Of course my usual opponents are just as happy to let me be over occasionally. IMO the determining factor of a game is not the points limit but the fun involved. YMMV.

The only time I think this is acceptable is if you're at your club or FLGS, and someone asks for a pick up game, to start in the next 10 minutes, at a points level you don't usually play or when you don't have your usual list there.

In any other situation, you've had more than enough time to calculate everything, add it up, etc. As people have already said; it is rarely a single one point upgrade. It could be the difference between fielding 3 squads of troops or two; it could be the difference between a lascannon and a mortar, or a razorback to a landraider, between having toxin sacs or not.

snakel wrote:1 Tournements were not mentioned since i thought it was obvious they were played to win and not really for fun (dont tell me there are for fun they may be fun, put the be all and end all is winning )

Nor were they specifically excluded. Specifying the situation goes a long way in people being able to gauge their response, but since this is YMDC and not just the discussion forum, you're going to get arguments based on RAW, which says that 1501 in a 1500 point game is over points and against the rules.

2 Its not about being able to count since stating my list is 1501 or 1490 would suggest i could count

I'll try to put this in a way that isn't flaming... it's not about counting, it's about being able to add several numbers together accurately. We all make mistakes once in a while, but it helps to double-check your math sometimes.

3 Its about playing a game for fun and accepting the odd point here and there instead of a flat no your cheating

Methinks you missed the point: If you're over, it's not about expecting the other player to bend over and take it. The fact of the matter is that, RAW, it's cheating, and your opponent is well within his rights to tell you to trim it.

4 As for moving 8" and 6" that is cheating with intent , to say hey my list is 1505pts not 1500 that ok or do you want me to lose somthing ? with you saying nah its no biggy , is not since i or my oponent was happy to accept it

Try this at a tourney, and you'll be asked to trim it or GTFO, if you're lucky. If it's a friendly game, you and your opponent are free to renegotiate the terms of the game to your heart's content, but any TO worth his salt would certainly raise hell about it.

5 if it was all the time and they could never hit the limit then, yes you would say at some point hey come on you,ve had your leeway now your pushing it

So where's the line? I'm not saying I would have an issue with it, as I've been sure to clear everything with my opponent beforehand. Extra points are not generally a problem in a casual setting with people you know if you already know they'll be cool with it, but assuming that you'll be allowed to do so with everyone is bound to earn you a bad rep in your local spot to play.

Ok to the original post it was asking what people feelings were regarding this and from the answers i got ,it was clear most people are unable to give any slack suggesting that they cant play the game when they think they might lose due to an extra melta and what not .

Wrong forum if you think you're gonna get any touchy-feely responses to a subjective, possibly hypothetical question. YMDC is about hard rules interpretations, not soft, ambiguous points about the ethical state of the game. A 1500 point game is a game played at a value of 1500 points or less. Whatever you close negotiations with your opponent for is a different story, but that's a discussion for another thread in another forum.

I make my lists and like i said 99% they hit the target on the odd few times they dont i would be happy drop somthing if It caused trouble but i would also not have a problem with somone being over

Again, this is a point of negotiation with your opponent. If you think these are stringent, try WM tournies, where you have to be at no less than -1 to the max limit and no more than +0 over, but since you're not a competitive player (nor am I, I don't play tournies, i just run them), you don't really have much to worry about, since you can negotiate your game for as long as you like before starting.

Maybe its me but i was thinking the general opinion would be sure as long as it was not all the time 1 point no biggy but instead it was a flat no 1500 =1500 not 1501

Again, wrong forum for touchy-feely judgement calls. YMDC is the home of strict RAW translations on Dakka.

This is a forum not a live chat ,you can only read what is written and the replies were worded in a way as to say never, oh no you can do that , or hey your cheating

because, in order, those responses are correct, merely conditional, assuming you've renegotiated to a points limit outside of the aforementioned 1500, and correct once more.

But still i love a good argument everynow and then and this has been a good one so thanks all for your input and however you view it, it only matters if the people you play view it differently

Except this is YMDC... how you view it can, in many cases, be contrary to how it's actually meant to be played.

Mentat wrote:Downgrade a meltagun to a flamer.

Zero effort answer, 1/10 points

BearersOfSalvation wrote:I would like for you to post a list where this happens in the Army List forum.

It doesn't have to be marines. It doesn't have to be all units with nice even points costs. There could be a list where it just isn't the same without that 1 point over. Maybe it's a mech guard list with all full squads with matching wargear, that needs the 1 point for the last chimera, with no frivilous upgrades. It could be any number of things, but I think it is quite obvious that the guy saying "no i will not play you you are 1 point over in a 2000 point game" is quite clearly a dick. I wouldn't play against that guy, points over or not. It's just a kind of "would I enjoy actually hanging out with you/having a conversation with you" thing. If you are going to be a douchebag over an army being overcosted 0.05%, I don't want to associate with you anyway.

I think the guy who is trying to go over points and is making a lame excuse about a 'fluffy, themed' list is clearly the WAAC guy. If the theme of your list is 'be one point over', or your fluff is made up just to let you take a specific list, your opponent is not the one being unreasonable. I don't see how you're genuinely getting a list that is 1 point over and has no option other than removing a tac marine to be legitimate.

See above and understand why you are wrong.

don_mondo wrote:Or you could have the 10 man squad and drop a weapons upgrade. That point can make a difference. That's the whole point of points (pun intended).

See above to be directed to see further above.

ph34r wrote:
It doesn't have to be marines. It doesn't have to be all units with nice even points costs. There could be a list where it just isn't the same without that 1 point over. Maybe it's a mech guard list with all full squads with matching wargear, that needs the 1 point for the last chimera, with no frivilous upgrades. It could be any number of things,

From a 3rd party perspective it sounds to me like you are saying

"What if you are too OCD to allow one of your squads to not have matching wargear (to be under, instead of over in points) but not OCD enough to stay within the point limit"

Just sayin...

ph34r wrote:It doesn't have to be marines. It doesn't have to be all units with nice even points costs.

It does have to be marines, because you talked about dropping "a tactical marine". Armies other than marines don't have "tactical marines", except maybe for DH and WH allies, but they have lots of stuff that costs less than 16 points. Don't use an example then try to say 'oh, well it's not about the thing I talked about' - you picked the example, not me. It's pretty telling that a little investigation into your example shows that it could never happen

There could be a list where it just isn't the same without that 1 point over. Maybe it's a mech guard list with all full squads with matching wargear, that needs the 1 point for the last chimera, with no frivilous upgrades.

The point of a points limit is that you don't always get to have everything you want; if you can't build the army that you want on the points list given, then modify your army to fit it. Most adults understand that in life you sometimes make choices and can't get everything you want. And as I thought, it's about having efficient units with 'no frivilous upgrades', it's not about fitting into the background - which isn't really suprising, because there's no background in 40k that is so tight that an entire list could have no single piece of wargear that could be downgraded. It's very telling that you changed from a 'fluffy, themed list' to 'a list spamming lots of identical units with an effective makeup', something which is regarded as WAAC behaviour in every comp scoring system I've seen.

It could be any number of things, but I think it is quite obvious that the guy saying "no i will not play you you are 1 point over in a 2000 point game" is quite clearly a dick. I wouldn't play against that guy, points over or not. It's just a kind of "would I enjoy actually hanging out with you/having a conversation with you" thing. If you are going to be a douchebag over an army being overcosted 0.05%, I don't want to associate with you anyway.

I think it's obvious that the guy saying "I know we agreed to a set of rules, but I'm going to break them because I want this stuff even though I could easily follow them, but you're a dick if you want the game to be fair" is quite clearly a dick, and hypocritical at that. I don't like playing against people who try to ignore the rules but paint the guy who follows the rules as a terrible person, especially since (as we've seen from people posting in this thread) they often don't give others the same consideration. Insisting that you get to break the rules because you want to spam identical units is being a douchbag, the guy who had to cut out something he wanted from his list to fit the points limit and wants you to do the same isn't.

I'd much rather play against an honest WAAC player than a guy who plays like a WAAC but also tries to get exemptions from the rules, and accuses the other guy of being "a dick" and "a doucebag" for expecting you to do what you agreed to do. It's pretty telling that all of the 'dick', 'douchebag', and 'TFG' labels are starting off from the 'I want this, let me have it or you're a bad person' crowd.

ph34r wrote:

Mentat wrote:Downgrade a meltagun to a flamer.

Zero effort answer, 1/10 points

And thats exactly my point. It takes very little effort to bring your points equal or below the actual points limit.

And an extra meltagun instead of a flamer can make all the difference.

Until recently I primarily played pure Deathwing, and with certain builds I would be 10 or even 15 points under. I could go 5 points over and have twin linked lascannons on one of my dreads instead of another assault cannon. 5 points over in that case would make a significant difference in my army, which has very few options for good AT.

In my local gaming group, nobody shows up with a list over the points limit, even in friendly games. I can't remember the last time it happened. I don't really care about someone being a couple of points over from the perspective of winning/losing a game. It's just rude to show up with an over pointed list and then force the other player to have to call you on it. Treating him like he is being a dick about it makes it twice as bad. If you asked me "I'm 3 points over, do you mind" I wouldn't mind unless you did it every time (or most of the time) I played you. But if you are showing up more than on the rare occasion with an overpointed list, giving a weak justification (fluff), and throwing a fit if someone calls you on it, then you are just being TFG .

ph34r wrote:

Mentat wrote:Downgrade a meltagun to a flamer.

Zero effort answer, 1/10 points

Yup, it makes sense, is a simple solution, and paves the way to resolution.

ph34r wrote:

BearersOfSalvation wrote:I would like for you to post a list where this happens in the Army List forum.

It doesn't have to be marines. It doesn't have to be all units with nice even points costs. There could be a list where it just isn't the same without that 1 point over. Maybe it's a mech guard list with all full squads with matching wargear, that needs the 1 point for the last chimera, with no frivilous upgrades. It could be any number of things, but I think it is quite obvious that the guy saying "no i will not play you you are 1 point over in a 2000 point game" is quite clearly a dick. I wouldn't play against that guy, points over or not. It's just a kind of "would I enjoy actually hanging out with you/having a conversation with you" thing. If you are going to be a douchebag over an army being overcosted 0.05%, I don't want to associate with you anyway.

It should be marines, because that is your example, and like it or not, the majority of players are playing space marines. Here is why it matters: at 9 marines, you have 9 marines, but at 10 marines, you now have a squad capable of getting a free flamer and a free HB, ML, or MM. Not to mention the ability to combat squad. Amazing what all that insignificant 1 point will do. Also, mech guard will almost never be over by 1 point either. The best chance you'd have that I can think of is either tossing an strange number of storm troopers out there, or adding a bolt pistol/bolter, but even then, that would put you 2 points over. If you're going to allow 2 points, why not slippery slope it and say 5?

EDIT: As a matter of integrity, I feel I should mention that, after checking, you could get just one point over due to stormtroopers.

Poking holes in specific examples aside, it's a question of good faith. We've gathered together and we're attempting to play a game. We've agreed to a number of points and the set of rules. We've discussed how we're handling house-ruleable situations. We have a social contract. There are expectations of how each other will act and respond. We exchange lists, and now all of a sudden I witness that you've violated the first term of that contract before we've even began. Now granted, it was a minor slight. Perhaps even an honest oversight, but you've already started out disregarding the conditions by which we've conceded to playing this game. 'Now,' one starts to wonder, 'how else is this gentleman going to disregard our contract? Measuring 6.05" where there was supposed to be 6"? Making up rules? Arguing LOS?' I dislike playing against people who try stuff like that, and I think it's usually human nature to lump it together. And if nothing else, it's simply bad manners.

I thought the battle report was funny in WD from when the Eldar codex was new. In one of the sidebars, Jervis Johnson pointed out the Phil's list was like 3 points over the limit and the statement was that Phil muttered something about "spirit of the game" and the primary rule.

Homer

BearersOfSalvation wrote:

It could be any number of things, but I think it is quite obvious that the guy saying "no i will not play you you are 1 point over in a 2000 point game" is quite clearly a dick. I wouldn't play against that guy, points over or not. It's just a kind of "would I enjoy actually hanging out with you/having a conversation with you" thing. If you are going to be a douchebag over an army being overcosted 0.05%, I don't want to associate with you anyway.

I think it's obvious that the guy saying "I know we agreed to a set of rules, but I'm going to break them because I want this stuff even though I could easily follow them, but you're a dick if you want the game to be fair" is quite clearly a dick, and hypocritical at that. I don't like playing against people who try to ignore the rules but paint the guy who follows the rules as a terrible person, especially since (as we've seen from people posting in this thread) they often don't give others the same consideration. Insisting that you get to break the rules because you want to spam identical units is being a douchbag, the guy who had to cut out something he wanted from his list to fit the points limit and wants you to do the same isn't.

I'd much rather play against an honest WAAC player than a guy who plays like a WAAC but also tries to get exemptions from the rules, and accuses the other guy of being "a dick" and "a doucebag" for expecting you to do what you agreed to do. It's pretty telling that all of the 'dick', 'douchebag', and 'TFG' labels are starting off from the 'I want this, let me have it or you're a bad person' crowd.

It's a GAME. If you think that your "enemy" has an "unfair and unfun advantage" by going 0.05% over the points limit, then I'm sorry. You are a dick. You are a douchebag. Why would 1 more point out of 2000 matter to you? Because uh oh, it's you that is the WAAC.
You think that going 1 point over makes the game unfair? That's laughable. Completely nuts.

For all the points given above: yes, 1 point can be a BIG difference to a list.

ph34r wrote:t's a GAME. If you think that your "enemy" has an "unfair and unfun advantage" by going 0.05% over the points limit, then I'm sorry. You are a dick. You are a douchebag. Why would 1 more point out of 2000 matter to you? Because uh oh, it's you that is the WAAC.
You think that going 1 point over makes the game unfair? That's laughable. Completely nuts.

That cuts both ways. Its a game, yet you feel you need to insult the other player because he won't let you go one point above the agreed upon points value for the game. That's nuts and laughable too.

How is this thread still going on?

If you agree to a point limit, then those are the rules.

Asking to break the point limit is the same as me asking if all my troops can move an extra inch. Its just 1, right? Surely the number 1 is too small to make an impact.

The rules are clear, a "1500 point game" means the maximum total of either army is 1500. There is no point in arguing about the rules here

Etiquette may be a different matter, but really neither this thread nor this forum are the place to argue about etiquette IMO.

This should be locked IMO.

ph34r wrote:It's a GAME. If you think that your "enemy" has an "unfair and unfun advantage" by going 0.05% over the points limit, then I'm sorry. You are a dick. You are a douchebag. Why would 1 more point out of 2000 matter to you? Because uh oh, it's you that is the WAAC.
You think that going 1 point over makes the game unfair? That's laughable. Completely nuts.

Can we please dial the hysteria back a few notches?

As has been pointed out numerous times over this thread, the 'why does 1 point matter?' idea works both ways.


If you have agreed to a 1500-point game, then the limit is 1500 points. The points limit is one of the balancing factors of the game, and exceeding it does alter how the army works. Insisting that your opponent stick to that limit no more makes you a 'waac' player than insisting that your opponent let you break it.

Discussion is the key here. If you wish to alter the rules of the game, discuss it with your opponent. If you can not reach an agreement on how it should be played, that doesn't automatically make either of you a WAAC player or a douchebag. It just makes you two people with different ideas on how the game should be played.

Woah, whoa, whoa, wths with the attitude?
Well it all depends what that 1 point is attached too.
if its attached to a 1 point upgrade or a 3rd dreadnought (base)

ph34r wrote:It's a GAME.

Absolutely. And a GAME is played by following RULES. And when someone breaks the RULES for personal gain, they're the one being a DICK and DOUCHEBAG, not the person who did follow the rules.

If you think that your "enemy" has an "unfair and unfun advantage" by going 0.05% over the points limit, then I'm sorry. You are a dick. You are a douchebag. Why would 1 more point out of 2000 matter to you? Because uh oh, it's you that is the WAAC.

It is not fun to me if I remove things that I would like to have from my list to meet the points limit and my opponent tries to exempt himself from doing the same. Wanting basic fairness, like both players being subject to the same restrictions, is not WAAC behavior, and certainly is not being a 'dick' or 'douchebag' to anyone who acts like an adult. It doesn't even have anything to do with WINNING the game, just with creating a level playing field. What is WAAC behavior, and really is beyond what's normally meant by WAAC, is trying to get your side (but not the other) exempted from the rules of the game, and especially doing so by insulting the other player and/or throwing a tantrum if they don't let you have the advantage you want.

It's also fascinating that you keep going on and on about how the 1 point is insignificant, yet you're willing to insult people and are clearly getting angry over it. Why not just ditch one upgrade and play slightly under if it's really so insignificant? People don't get furious and call others 'dicks' and 'douchebags' if they really think something is insignificant, your actions simply don't fit your words.

You think that going 1 point over makes the game unfair? That's laughable. Completely nuts.

I think that exempting one player but not the other from following the rules is unfair. How exactly is that 'laughable' or 'completely nuts'? It's practically a dictionary example of 'unfair'. The fact that you're unwilling to give your opponent the advantage you keep calling insignificant, and call the other guy a 'dick' and 'douchebag' for not giving you the advantage is what's laughable - if the points were so insignificant, you'd drop one thing to go slightly under without resorting to name calling.

I agree lock it and i started it

lets all be nice, the whole thing has gone south and lost the plot

It was never about rules lawyers and cheating it was purley ment as a simple would you allow it or not .

The reason you would allow it or not was never a question.

Heres the simple way to see it if you play and allow the odd point over then you most likely play people of the same mind ,if you play with no leeway at all ,and all lists should be exact ,then you will most likely play people of the same mind.

In the end calling anyone anything in this thread is irrelivant since the chances of you playing them are 0.

While i do not agree with many of the opinions in this thread, since i asked the question i accept their view no matter what it is .

For whatever reason you allow it or not you cant expect others to agree with you all the time

So agian thanks all ,this has been a blast but i think its time it ended

snakel wrote:Ok just a question on how you guys see this .

I have a 1500 points BA list but its actualy 1501 pts

So the question is allow me to play or say sorry thats too many points?#

Thanks

Before it gets locked, for anyone referencing this thread in terms of game rules (the point of the forum) let me hopefully clarify a few things.

If you agree on a 1500 point game, and you take a list with 1501 points, you are in violation of the rules.

The only ways you would be able to agree on a 1500 point game and take a list of 1501 (or more) would be if you knew you were in excess and did not tell your opponent, or you did not know that you were over (due to misreading a codex or something) and both instances would still be a violation of the rules ("gnorance of the law is not excuse" and such)

If you told your opponent you were over, and they did not mind, you are no longer playing a 1500 point game, but a X point game (where X is the greatest amount of the two lists) which is entirely within the rules. (However, this may alter the required victory points to obtain a "Moral Victory" if you so play by them)

tl;dr: Tell your opponent when you may be over the previously agreed point limit, no matter how much (big or small), if they "Agree" to allow your overage, they've just "Agreed" to the new point limit, and no rules violation is present. (Tournaments are different. And are entirely based on how the TO wishes to organize things)

~DAR

Fluff really.

If it's fluff you would be playing that army list in all were up come games, if not you made the fluff up to just get that extra point. Becouse if you change your army for the next army you face, you should beable to keep under the points total, so there no need for the extra point or two, becouse its not fluff anymore, it's min-maxing and cheat by going over.

Now if it is albout fluff, and you really need to play that list. Then your really playing 1501 point games and you should let the other guy know ahead of time, so he can change his list if he wants, otherwise your just cheating.

It called RESPECT, or go ahead and show the other guy how little you think of them.

I never make a list to be over, always under or equal to the points limit. With that being said, at my FLGS we mostly play pickup games of whoever with whatever, so pre-made lists don't always work. Then there are people that want to test a certain list and an opponent needs to make one up on the spot. Although I may be strict on myself, for friendly pickup games like that, I'll let a few points slide on my opponent's behalf. If, however, I were to play an arranged point limit game or most certainly in a tournament, I would insist everyone sticks to the points limit. I do realize that allowing just even 1 point over a limit can, and sometimes does, lead to a slippery slope of what else may be allowed for the sake of "fun" but for the most part people in my area don't abuse that leeway. In an ideal world with ideal games and match-ups, there would never be any going over on points. I do not hold other people to the same standard I do to myself with list building, but that's just me.

Evil Lamp 6 wrote:....With that being said, at my FLGS we mostly play pickup games of whoever with whatever, so pre-made lists don't always work.

(I realize this is beyond the scope of the original intention of the thread and moving into List Tailoring, but here we go)

I am curious.

Wouldn't a premade list be the very definition of a perfect list in "a pick-up game of whoever with whatever"?

I guess what I am asking is; "do you list-tailor"?

ph34r wrote:

BearersOfSalvation wrote:

It could be any number of things, but I think it is quite obvious that the guy saying "no i will not play you you are 1 point over in a 2000 point game" is quite clearly a dick. I wouldn't play against that guy, points over or not. It's just a kind of "would I enjoy actually hanging out with you/having a conversation with you" thing. If you are going to be a douchebag over an army being overcosted 0.05%, I don't want to associate with you anyway.

I think it's obvious that the guy saying "I know we agreed to a set of rules, but I'm going to break them because I want this stuff even though I could easily follow them, but you're a dick if you want the game to be fair" is quite clearly a dick, and hypocritical at that. I don't like playing against people who try to ignore the rules but paint the guy who follows the rules as a terrible person, especially since (as we've seen from people posting in this thread) they often don't give others the same consideration. Insisting that you get to break the rules because you want to spam identical units is being a douchbag, the guy who had to cut out something he wanted from his list to fit the points limit and wants you to do the same isn't.

I'd much rather play against an honest WAAC player than a guy who plays like a WAAC but also tries to get exemptions from the rules, and accuses the other guy of being "a dick" and "a doucebag" for expecting you to do what you agreed to do. It's pretty telling that all of the 'dick', 'douchebag', and 'TFG' labels are starting off from the 'I want this, let me have it or you're a bad person' crowd.

It's a GAME. If you think that your "enemy" has an "unfair and unfun advantage" by going 0.05% over the points limit, then I'm sorry. You are a dick. You are a douchebag. Why would 1 more point out of 2000 matter to you? Because uh oh, it's you that is the WAAC.
You think that going 1 point over makes the game unfair? That's laughable. Completely nuts.

Edited by moderator. Dialing the hysteria back means laying off the personal nonsense and behaving like grown-ups

It is not about the 1 point that puts you over the agreed to limit.

That extra tactical marine that holds up an assault one more turn is the problem. That extra melta gun that gets into 2d6 range is the problem. That extra chimera that contests an objective on the last turn is the problem.

Steelmage99 wrote:

(I realize this is beyond the scope of the original intention of the thread and moving into List Tailoring, but here we go)

I am curious.

Wouldn't a premade list be the very definition of a perfect list in "a pick-up game of whoever with whatever"?

I guess what I am asking is; "do you list-tailor"?

Ah, I see with what I said how it could mean that. No, I do not "list-tailor". What I meant by pick-up games is where two (or more) players don't have a specific list in mind so points are agreed upon and lists made right there and then. It could also mean that one person has a specific points list and someone (like myself) doesn't has any points in mind, so they can be quite flexible in what they play, but not to the point of "list-tailoring". For example, I have a tentative game today, Saturday, with a new player who's just starting out Black Templar. It will be 500 points or whatever he has, whichever is greater. I have no set list in mind to play against him, mostly because I'm going to leave it up to him as to which of my armies I will play. I suppose I may be in the minority in that I do bring most of my collection with me when I go to go play at my FLGS so that not only do I have a choice, but so do my opponents. If given the option, I do not like to know what I'm facing ahead of time so that I cannot make a list to play against one army or another as opposed to a take all comers list. I hope that my rant makes some sense.

I think that the whole "we just made a list at last second so it might be over a few points" is just an excuse.

I don't even take this game that serious and I find myself making lists in my head or on paper in my free time to try out the next time I game. From kill team crap all the way up to next years Ard Boyz. It is the nature of gamers to "listcraft" all the time. Given a situation where a pickup game presents itself at any point value, the vast vast majority of us already have a list built for that point value in our heads.

Evil Lamp 6 wrote:I never make a list to be over, always under or equal to the points limit. With that being said, at my FLGS we mostly play pickup games of whoever with whatever, so pre-made lists don't always work. Then there are people that want to test a certain list and an opponent needs to make one up on the spot. Although I may be strict on myself, for friendly pickup games like that, I'll let a few points slide on my opponent's behalf.

I think it's important to note that most of the objections are not to letting points slide on your opponents behalf, it's about demanding your opponent let you play over (if you ask but call the guy a douchebag if he says no, it's a demand). My experience is that the conversation starts with "Hey, I'm 3 points over, do you mind if I keep it?" and I respond "Yeah, that's fine I just put this 5pt piece of wargear back in place". Now, if the guy really considered the points insignificant, he'd say 'cool, lets play'. But instead i get either "Hold on, let me find something worth 2 points to buy" or "Man you are so nitpicky, trying to squeeze any advantage out of the game" - indicating that HE doesn't really consider the points insignificant, and that he's not willing to play under the handicap he gave me.

In my experience, it's ALWAYS someone asking "Hey, I'm a point over, can I run with more points than you" and never "Hey I'm a point over, can we just call it a 1505 game?". The point itself probably doesn't have a lot of effect on the game, but the fact that the person isn't willing to give their opponent a similar or slightly larger advantage but always insists they be the one ahead is simply disrespectful.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:
I think it's important to note that most of the objections are not to letting points slide on your opponents behalf, it's about demanding your opponent let you play over (if you ask but call the guy a douchebag if he says no, it's a demand). My experience is that the conversation starts with "Hey, I'm 3 points over, do you mind if I keep it?" and I respond "Yeah, that's fine I just put this 5pt piece of wargear back in place". Now, if the guy really considered the points insignificant, he'd say 'cool, lets play'. But instead i get either "Hold on, let me find something worth 2 points to buy" or "Man you are so nitpicky, trying to squeeze any advantage out of the game" - indicating that HE doesn't really consider the points insignificant, and that he's not willing to play under the handicap he gave me.

In my experience, it's ALWAYS someone asking "Hey, I'm a point over, can I run with more points than you" and never "Hey I'm a point over, can we just call it a 1505 game?". The point itself probably doesn't have a lot of effect on the game, but the fact that the person isn't willing to give their opponent a similar or slightly larger advantage but always insists they be the one ahead is simply disrespectful.

In regards to this, I cannot think of a single time where the guy over on points has demanded that he be allowed to be over. It is always a question asked and in a polite manner in my experience. If my opponent were to demand to be over points as if it were their God given right to be over, then I would have more of a problem with it on a matter of principle. Rarely have I seen the point level of the game increased to accommodate one player or another. I guess for me it comes more down to manners and simple decency when asking about being over a point limit. I suppose that is the issue I have, people should ask if it is ok to be over, never demand it to be so. I would imagine a player that demanded to be over on points would soon find himself without someone to play with or would accept the fact that they should be equal to or under the agreed upon point limit.