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.

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?

Q: How many points over a point limit is too far?

A: >=1

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.