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.

asmith wrote:Wait are you knowingly picking things that cost points less than they should compared to their in game effectiveness? I think this is an intent to cheat there pal.

Please sir explain how reading the rules & playing by them is intent to cheat? Where am I breaking any rules. To facilitate this challenge I will send you $10.00 via paypal if you can find a worthy example** of how using cost-effective units (according to the rules in the codex & BRB) is cheating. Keep in mind you must still abide by ALL other rules (FoC / Points limit / Wargear & unit size restrictions ect.) the only thing you may do is select legal units & legal options, one will just be more effective than the other.

**Worthy example shall be defined by the dakka community, i will create a poll showing your example & ask if it is cheating or not. The poll will decide the fate.

Besides the fact that I even went back and added a wink (thus indicating that it was a joke) more aimed at kirsanth then you, you still decide to make an issue of it. Even though you are perfectly illustrating one of my points. Point costs are not created equal in the first place so why worry over a few % point deviation?

*insert_pun_here* wrote:Like it's been said, in a competitive battle, the limit is the absolute limit.

However, in a friendly match purely for fun, depending on what they are running I let people go as far as 20 points over. If there is no way of lowering the points without A) ruining the army and b) running under points by more than 10-20 (eg. sanguine guard army) than I think it's ok. But if you can lower the total without doing either of those, than do it.

And in a themed game, it's dictated by the theme. If I was re-enacting the first companies last stand on macragge for example, the nids would have maybe a thousand or more points more than me.

In the old Warhammer Siege book they have the stats and layout of Fort Macragge so you can play out the battle. The forces aren't mentioned, but nids would have around double the points and the marines get an awesome fortress that's pimped out by those rules.

I thought it was funny.

A bit misguided (see my post on page 3), but funny nonetheless.

I try anyway...

asmith wrote:@ imweasel: No probably it would not have that much effect (about 3%). Even so that is about a 600% greater effect on the outcome than if we were talking about 8 points over in a 1500 pt game. If you wanted to make a fair comparison it would be if you needed to roll 199d6, but rolled 200d6 instead. In fact while counting this many dice you probably would expect about that much error.

Actually, it would take 3 sets of rolls between the two samples to statistically guarantee 1 more wound (assuming 3's to hit and 4's to wound) or 4 sets assuming 4's to hit and 4's to wound, but whatever.

However, this whole discussion is pot meet kettle.

Hi, I'm Mr. Pot! It was nice to meet you Mr. Kettle!

I was being more simplistic than that, about 3% more rolls vs about .5% more points. Neither seems to me worth stressing over. I wonder how many games you would have to play for that 8 pts to change the outcome?

One. A melta is 5 points more than a flamer. Enemy drives up the rhino w/ the melta and pops open your land raider or even immobilizes it. The TH/SS terminators now have to footslog across the board all the while taking fire & having the enemy outrun them.

I wish there was a method to effectively sigh and shake your head over the internet.

As do I when I read some of your "arguments".

There's a middle ground between:

1) We play at 1500pts and not a single point over.

and

2) We play at 1504 pts, and not a single point over.

That middle ground is known as "good cause." Basically, if somebody is a few points over because of a high priced or essential upgrade, than allowing them to play is good cause. If there is an upgrade that can be removed without making the list dramatically under pointed or causing a unit to lose a key element, than there is no just cause.

So, adding a melta bomb to a 1497pt list isn't good cause. Adding Bladestorm (IIRC 15pts) to a 1487pt list could be seen as good cause.

Basically, a lot of players understand that there are sometimes reasons for a person to be over the points limit.

Of course the argument against that is that listbuilding isn't necessarily linear and you don't have to remove a key element just because it was the last thing added. You'd just remove something else instead right?

asmith wrote:Of course the argument against that is that listbuilding isn't necessarily linear and you don't have to remove a key element just because it was the last thing added. You'd just remove something else instead right?

It's conceivable that there are no low cost, no-essential items in a list, especailly with something like eldar. Not worth arguing over in a friendly game, at least.

You should never be more then 1 or 2 points over. It really isn't that hard to just play by the rules. And if you aren't concerned about the total points that much why don't you just use less points instead of more? If your argument that being 5 or 10 points over won't make a difference then you would need to agree that the opposite argument holds true. So again if you don't care about being strict on the points why don't you just come with less points?

asmith wrote:I was being more simplistic than that, about 3% more rolls vs about .5% more points. Neither seems to me worth stressing over. I wonder how many games you would have to play for that 8 pts to change the outcome?

Your point being?

We arbitrarily draw a line. So do you. You are simply here telling us that yours is a 'superior' point to draw the line at while we are all 'stressing' about following the rules.

brettz123 wrote: So again if you don't care about being strict on the points why don't you just come with less points?

Because having more models/toys/abilities is more fun than having fewer?

I don't think anybody is arguing that everybody should always allow people to play a few points over. But there are times when it's just more fun to play than watch somebody eliminated three points in a list.

Polonius wrote:

It's conceivable that there are no low cost, no-essential items in a list, especailly with something like eldar. Not worth arguing over in a friendly game, at least.

I agree with what you are saying in principle, I was just pointing out an obvious flaw.

asmith wrote:

Polonius wrote:

It's conceivable that there are no low cost, no-essential items in a list, especailly with something like eldar. Not worth arguing over in a friendly game, at least.

I agree with what you are saying in principle, I was just pointing out an obvious flaw.

Well, yeah. I think most people would request an opponent drop a plasma pistol or melta bomb or other "luxury" upgrade to get under points. It's things like upgrading a dreadnought storm bolter to heavy flamer, or adding a combi-melta to a tactical sgt, that are considered more "core" upgrades.

imweasel wrote:

asmith wrote:I was being more simplistic than that, about 3% more rolls vs about .5% more points. Neither seems to me worth stressing over. I wonder how many games you would have to play for that 8 pts to change the outcome?

Your point being?

We arbitrarily draw a line. So do you. You are simply here telling us that yours is a 'superior' point to draw the line at while we are all 'stressing' about following the rules.

Now we are getting to the heart of the matter, I'm not talking about drawing an arbitrary line, if you are after a balanced game then at what level does a point imbalance start to really matter? At the level of balance in this game the question is not answerable. In the end it's all about two people agreeing to play regardless of the point total. Why be such a stickler on this particular point when you aren't about anything else?

And if they can't agree to the new point value?

Do they then stick to the previously agreed upon value?

No.

The most obvious example of that being done correctly was posted.

Player 1 asks if player 2 wants to play a 2000 point game.
Player 2 agrees.
Player 2 brings 2002 point list and asks if it is ok.
Player 1 says sure, if I can have 2050.
Player 2 agrees.
Player 2 brings 2111 point list and asks if it is ok.
Player 1 says sure, if I can have 2550.

etc.

This is at least as acceptable as anything else, apparently.

It makes me really happy to play games with the people I do, actually.

Polonius wrote:

brettz123 wrote: So again if you don't care about being strict on the points why don't you just come with less points?

Because having more models/toys/abilities is more fun than having fewer?

I don't think anybody is arguing that everybody should always allow people to play a few points over. But there are times when it's just more fun to play than watch somebody eliminated three points in a list.

Sure more is fun but if you want more stuff on the table just play more points, no? That is my point if you both have agreed to a mutually agreeable point total then it isn't very hard or to much to ask for both people to stick to it. Personally I don't care if someone is a couple points over because I feel like I can beat them anyway. But having said that as you start to get closer to being 5 - 10 points over I start to think you are actually just trying to cheat by getting something in the game that you wouldn't normally be able to have.

asmith wrote:Now we are getting to the heart of the matter, I'm not talking about drawing an arbitrary line, if you are after a balanced game then at what level does a point imbalance start to really matter? At the level of balance in this game the question is not answerable. In the end it's all about two people agreeing to play regardless of the point total. Why be such a stickler on this particular point when you aren't about anything else?

So why be a stickler about anything? Why not just let people do whatever they want however they want?

Where do you draw the line? If the question is not answerable, why draw ANY lines at all? 50pts? No big deal. 100pts? No big deal.

Like I said, you just think you are superior and that we are just nit picky.

Kinda Dr. Seussish but I thought up this little rhyme:

You cannot be over by one point at all,
A rule is a rule no matter how small.

There are several variations of the rhyme but the fact of the matter is I consider being over cheating. I mean read the top right paragraph on page 86 of the BGB. Spells it out very clearly that the point cost must come to X or less, where X is the agreed upon value.

imweasel wrote:

JOHIRA wrote:Indeed. Why not?

If you bring 2k I should be able to bring 2100.

After all, why not?

Depending on the set-up, scenario, and who you are, I could agree to that.

JOHIRA wrote:

imweasel wrote:

JOHIRA wrote:Indeed. Why not?

If you bring 2k I should be able to bring 2100.

After all, why not?

Depending on the set-up, scenario, and who you are, I could agree to that.

And then bring 5k points?

Shas'O Dorian wrote:Side A: If you claim that 5 points is no big deal, can't you simply go without it and come in at or under the points limit

You're making the mistake of assuming that I have no problem with people going slightly over the limit in order to help myself. When I started learning the game I used to go over the limit and likewise allowed my opponent to do so. However for the last several years I've never gone over, and yet I still have no problem with my opponent being a few points over. It's not to get me an advantage, it's just because I don't see it as a big deal.

kirsanth wrote:As I have said, I do not worry. I know the folks I play with are honest and can count.

This is the sentiment I'm arguing against- the notion that not playing with dollies the same way you guys who are strict on points do makes someone bad as a person. Playing with dollies incorrectly is a character flaw, apparently to be scorned and criticized for several pages.

JOHIRA wrote:the notion that not playing with dollies the same way you guys who are strict on points do makes someone bad as a person.

This is where you misunderstand then. Your dollies do not matter more than mine.

Apparently my word matters more than yours.


That is meant as annoying as it sounds, being that I am simply saying that I am willing to keep my word over my dollies and you are arguing that your word does not matter because it involves your dollies.

kirsanth wrote:

JOHIRA wrote:the notion that not playing with dollies the same way you guys who are strict on points do makes someone bad as a person.

This is where you misunderstand then. Your dollies do not matter more than mine.

Apparently my word matters more than yours.


That is meant as annoying as it sounds, being that I am simply saying that I am willing to keep my word over my dollies and you are arguing that your word does not matter because it involves your dollies.

Actually, what most people are saying is that they don't care to hold others to their word as strictly as you would want to hold others (or be yourself held).

It's similar to the way in which if I pick up a lunch order for somebody, and it was $10.17, I'll just ask for ten bucks.

Polonius wrote:It's similar to the way in which if I pick up a lunch order for somebody, and it was $10.17, I'll just ask for ten bucks.

That is a more polite way of putting it. Cheers.


That said, it is the last bit that makes me disagree. Asking for ten bucks means you get 10 bucks. Otherwise I entirely assume I owe $10.17 and would not be suprised or passive agressive if it was also assumed of me.