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.

Personally i would rather play under points than over points.
If i cant come up with a list that is within the point limit , thats my own problem. Why would i ask my opponent for special allowance?
I mean sure ,a power fist might be better than a power sword and more expensive , but it doesnt fit the points then i'll just take the sword.

Polonius wrote: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).

The more I read this, the more it irritates me.

This could entirely be simply because you are correct.
Noted.

At the risk of devolving to ridiculous hyperbole, my general thought on this has been "This is the first rule we agreed to, and they are breaking it."
Should I continue with the game assuming the person, who already broke an agreement with me personally, in the hope that this was an anomaly?

Someone so entitled that they assume rules can be bent to their whim is NOT someone I think should be entertained.


So I guess, I am not just a rules-lawyer, elitist, and bound by ethics, but TFG for thinking you are willing to do what you said.

OK!

kirsanth wrote:

Polonius wrote: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).

The more I read this, the more it irritates me.

This could entirely be simply because you are correct.
Noted.

At the risk of devolving to ridiculous hyperbole, my general thought on this has been "This is the first rule we agreed to, and they are breaking it."
Should I continue with the game assuming the person, who already broke an agreement with me personally, in the hope that this was an anomaly?

Someone so entitled that they assume rules can be bent to their whim is NOT someone I think should be entertained.


So I guess, I am not just a rules-lawyer, elitist, and bound by ethics, but TFG for thinking you are willing to do what you said.

OK!

Except again, I think most people here would be annoyed if the game was set up ahead of time, or part of league, campaign, or tournament play. Some people (like myself) don't care much even in those situations, but the bulk of support for being over seems to be in situations of hastily drafted lists, or with newer players, or under some sort of extenuating circumstances.

It's also a matter of mind set. You are looking at in very strict terms: somebody is either legal or illegal. Others look at it terms of relative bloat: 5 extra points in 1850 is less than 1% of the game total.

Also, if it's accepted practice in a group to not make a big deal of going over a few points, than by definition it's not breaking a rule. If it's understood that "1500 pt games" really mean "1500pts, or as close to it as you can get while building the list that you like", than it's ok to take that wiggle room. And before you ask, the reason they don't simply say "1510 pt games" is because most systems with wiggle room still respect the original limit, with ramifications if it's abused.

My rent is due the 5th of every month. I've regularly turned it in a few days late, and once while studying for the bar exam I completely forgot a month and me and my landlord spent a few days figuring out if I had paid. By my contract, I owed him a pretty hearty late fee, which he waived. Now, my rent was late, but he didn't mind. Because I'm a good tenant, and I've always paid my rent, and I don't cause trouble, he's willing to extend a courtesy. Now, this is a legal agreement in which my primary obligation is to pay him monthly. Yet he waived his due late fee, and even gave me a nice price on a bigger unit that opened up a year later.

The analogy is this: i'm willing to look the other way if somebody is over because it doesn't hurt me in any appreciable way and I have no reason to suspect that they're going to take advantage of it.

I have repeatedly stated and made apparent I am not discussing prior agreements to vague totals-- about 2k? Nor am I referencing odd numbers, 1500 vs 2000.

Neither am I talking about times we sit and make lists together.
Simply pre-agreed values.

You said you would bring 53983 points? Put 53983 points or less down.

kirsanth wrote:I have repeatedly stated and made apparent I am not discussing prior agreements to vague totals-- about 2k? Nor am I referencing odd numbers, 1500 vs 2000.

Neither am I talking about times we sit and make lists together.
Simply pre-agreed values.

You said you would bring 53983 points? Put 53983 points or less down.

Ok. Hey, I think it's a douchey thing to ask a lot of the time, precisely because some people seem to take it more seriously than others. I explicitly don't care, and will offer it gladly, but I'd never ask for permission to be a few points over.

I don't think anybody that draws a hard line in the sand is being TFG, but I do think they're assigning a moral dimension to the situation that I wouldn't, to a strictness that i wouldn't.

Polonius wrote:Ok. Hey, I think it's a douchey thing to ask a lot of the time, precisely because some people seem to take it more seriously than others.

This is the disagreement then.

When playing with folks this may come up with and no other constraints? "A lot of the time" is ever, otherwise when do you count?
How many times do you have to break you word to be considered a liar and a cheat?

To entirely take things out of reference and place them in a way that does not matter, I once had a shoplifter tell me he wasn't a thief.
How many times do you need to steal to be a thief?

Is it really that hard or bad for an army list to have the person just remove say... 1 ork boy so it wont be over the points? doesnt seem to be a big deal

1-4. Unless he has some upgrade in that list that's within that range, or he allows me to up my list.

kirsanth wrote:

Polonius wrote:Ok. Hey, I think it's a douchey thing to ask a lot of the time, precisely because some people seem to take it more seriously than others.

This is the disagreement then.

When playing with folks this may come up with and no other constraints? "A lot of the time" is ever, otherwise when do you count?
How many times do you have to break you word to be considered a liar and a cheat?

To entirely take things out of reference and place them in a way that does not matter, I once had a shoplifter tell me he wasn't a thief.
How many times do you need to steal to be a thief?

Ok, this is where you're losing me. Instead of reading what I'm writing, you seem to be wanting to repeat "liar" as many times as possible.

As I stated in an earlier post, if a group of people have an understanding that you can be a few points over, it's not douchey to ask.

Shoplifters are clearly thieves. Am I a thief for taking some of my roommates food, when he has plenty, and we have an understanding that we'll just replace what we take?

Apologies for useless repetition, it related more to the last part than the first.

As you said, when a group knows that, for example, 2000 means 2005 or even 6000 that is fine and undeniably out of scope of the discussion.

When you take something that may or may not matter from a roommate/opponent you are outside your rights.

If you are really asking if taking* a little that someone might not care about is stealing, yes. I think it is.

editing:
*I wrote stealing. That is too literal and out of scope. Yes stealing is stealing. Oddly, people thinks taking is not stealing despite a lack of permission.

kirsanth wrote:Apologies for useless repetition, it related more to the last part than the first.

As you said, when a group knows that, for example, 2000 means 2005 or even 6000 that is fine and undeniably out of scope of the discussion.

When you take something that may or may not matter from a roommate/opponent you are outside your rights.

If you are really asking if taking* a little that someone might not care about is stealing, yes. I think it is.

editing:
*I wrote stealing. That is too literal and out of scope. Yes stealing is stealing. Oddly, people thinks taking is not stealing despite a lack of permission.

So, even if my roommate and I have an understanding that if he has plenty of something, I can take some and replace it, I'd be outside my rights to do so? So, if he has eight cans of soup, and I take one and eat it, and replace it long before he needs it, and he's ok with it, I was still outside my rights?

That's interesting. It seems to me that you're not allowing people to develop moral codes distinct from your own. If my roommate uses some of my food, i don't consider it theft because I've done the same dozens of times. It's quasi-community property.

The same applies for points values. If a group doesn't care if somebody is a few points over because they dont' want to gimp themselves, and it's understood by all that it's ok as long as they dont' abuse it... then how it violating the rule? Are you simply uncomfortable with any rule that's not black and white?

Polonius wrote:
So, even if my roommate and I have an understanding

That is where you lost context.

Editing to add:
My stating "may or may not matter" actually meant that. If there is no doubt, there is no question.

So, if there is no doubt that people wont' be bothered by being a few points over the limit due to vagaries of list construction, but it's also understood that trying to stay under the points limit is still preferable, is it a problem?

13

Polonius wrote:So, if there is no doubt that people wont' be bothered by being a few points over the limit due to vagaries of list construction, but it's also understood that trying to stay under the points limit is still preferable, is it a problem?

I don't think it would be a problem for most people, but you really have to ask why that guy can't just remove an extra hormagaunt or guardsman or something strange like that. Typically if you're going over you have squads that are bulked up past the starting allocation and trimming a single model down shouldn't be a huge deal either. If the opponent's army is min/maxed to the point where he can't drop a single model but wants to spend another 5 points on a meltagun or something then he's probably trying to squeak out a pretty decent relative gain for going above his points limit. Maybe if he has peculiar squad sizes that are making him tend to be 3-4 points over then it's a good example of the just cause you were talking about - he's not really trying to break anything, his army book just wasn't designed lego-brick style like the new ones.

You raise some really excellent points, and it's an interesting discussion - after all, 3 points really isn't a big deal, but neither is removing a single random model from a squad. Who's "not a big deal" matters more? I suppose it's the consensus of the gaming group at that point.

Polonius wrote:So, if there is no doubt that people wont' be bothered by being a few points over the limit due to vagaries of list construction, but it's also understood that trying to stay under the points limit is still preferable, is it a problem?

If there is an understanding that exceptions are . . . normal and not exceptions, and "limit" means "roughly" or somesuch, sure.


When people agree to a game that is "about" xxx points that is something entirely different than when people know the game is xxx points or less, as the rule have us agree.
Or perhaps entirely the same.
Would you assume when I said "play me with 2000 points or less" is the same as "play me with roughly 2000 points?"
Again the first rule we agree to is point cost. If we agree to a floating value, we agree.
If you agree, and then play something else, there is issue.

Well, many armies have easy ways to lose a few points. Drop a hormagant, take off a melta bomb, whatever.

Others aren't a fine toothed. Look at eldar. Or Dark Angels.

Other armies have cascading upgrades: taking off the 10th man in a space marine squad loses a special and a flamer. Taking off the 30th boy makes you lose a big shoota.

I actually agree in principle, certainly at larger point values that experienced players shouldn't run over. It's gauche to ask, and puts people in the awkward situation of either allowing a slight not tangible advantage or looking like a tool.

I just feel that most of the time, a guy a few points over is just a dude that doesn't take the game very seriously and accidentally ran over. I don't feel like he's a bad guy, or a liar, or a cheater. Maybe it's because I work in the legal field, where the term "harmless error" comes up a lot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirsanth wrote:Would you assume when I said "play me with 2000 points or less" is the same as "play me with roughly 2000 points?"
Again the first rule we agree to is point cost. If we agree to a floating value, we agree.
If you agree, and then play something else, there is issue.

I think part of my issue here is that I'm a lawyer, and in the legal world, 99% of the time "2000pts or less" really means "roughly 2000pts."

Polonius wrote:I think part of my issue here is that I'm a lawyer, and in the legal world, 99% of the time "2000pts or less" really means "roughly 2000pts."

I understand, but as a producer when someone says xxx 'points' or less, they are held to that or held accountable.

The details about why are 100% worthless. You should have started with the assumption that your word on point total matters.

People are welcome to disagree. Really.
But people are more likely to find a game when they are capable of honoring their word, even when their word is about space barbies.

I wouldn't personally judge someone's character from bringing a list that's a few points over, but in our group we definitely don't allow any wiggle room. I can see the wisdom in not caring too much about it but that's the way we choose to play it. I wouldn't really fault anyone for doing it either way.

An interesting facet of the thing is usually all of these declarations come with the unstated caveat "Unless, of course, we were in a tournament" <- if you feel that's correct, and that tournaments, supposedly a more ''legitimate'' environment for this sort of thing, are where you wouldn't allow this sort of behavior, why is it ok in other types of game? Would someone be ok with a tournament that allowed you to be ''a few'' points over?

kirsanth wrote:

Polonius wrote:I think part of my issue here is that I'm a lawyer, and in the legal world, 99% of the time "2000pts or less" really means "roughly 2000pts."

I understand, but as a producer when someone says xxx 'points' or less, they are held to that or held accountable.

The details about why are 100% worthless. You should have started with the assumption that your word on point total matters.

People are welcome to disagree. Really.
But people are more likely to find a game when they are capable of honoring their word, even when their word is about space barbies.

Honestly, it's hard not to giggle a little when a few points is considered a manner of honor. I guess I feel that as a matter of gentlemanly conduct, I forgive a man a minor fault.

Polonius wrote:Honestly, it's hard not to giggle a little when a few points is considered a manner of honor. I guess I feel that as a matter of gentlemanly conduct, I forgive a man a minor fault.

But that only goes one way? In the favor of the guy breaking the previous agreement?!?!?

MikeMcSomething wrote:I wouldn't personally judge someone's character from bringing a list that's a few points over, but in our group we definitely don't allow any wiggle room. I can see the wisdom in not caring too much about it but that's the way we choose to play it. I wouldn't really fault anyone for doing it either way.

An interesting facet of the thing is usually all of these declarations come with the unstated caveat "Unless, of course, we were in a tournament" <- if you feel that's correct, and that tournaments, supposedly a more ''legitimate'' environment for this sort of thing, are where you wouldn't allow this sort of behavior, why is it ok in other types of game? Would someone be ok with a tournament that allowed you to be ''a few'' points over?

Tournaments are planned in advance, so there is no real excuse for not having a legal list. Casual play can often result in quickly compiled lists. I think that's the big difference.

Casual play often includes more breaches of rules. Mulligans are allowed, as are backtracking a phase (moving a unit in the shooting phase, for example).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirsanth wrote:

Polonius wrote:Honestly, it's hard not to giggle a little when a few points is considered a manner of honor. I guess I feel that as a matter of gentlemanly conduct, I forgive a man a minor fault.

But that only goes one way? In the favor of the guy breaking the previous agreement?!?!?

Well, the standard I hold myself to are my own. I consider the material part of the agreement playing a game of 40k, usually in preparation for a tournament or to allow me to try out a new list. If I'm prepping an 1850 tournament list, I don't care if he's got 1860pts, especially since my casual play competition runs a little weaker. I don't care because it literally does not hurt me in any way.

Polonius wrote:Tournaments are planned in advance, so there is no real excuse for not having a legal list.

I think this is where you may be taking me out of context.

I am not saying that every game needs to be 100% nit-picked.

Simply that if we agree to a point value, no one will violate that.
In the same manner that assuming a 6" move is 6" or less, not "about 6 inches."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:If I'm prepping an 1850 tournament list, I don't care if he's got 1860pts, especially since my casual play competition runs a little weaker.

Then we are disagreeing for no reason.

I pretty much entirely agree with what Polonius has said here.

My problem is not whether or not anyone agrees to allow someone to go over points.

My problem is the assumption that what your gaming group accepts as standard play must be the standard play in every gaming group, and anyone who doesn't play the way you do is morally inferior, i.e. a liar and a cheater. It's attaching moral judgments to how someone plays with dolls.

Polonius wrote:I think part of my issue here is that I'm a lawyer, and in the legal world, 99% of the time "2000pts or less" really means "roughly 2000pts."

Well this here's your problem.

Roughly?

So if I am supposed to move 6" I can move 6.75". That's 'roughly' 6".

imweasel wrote:

Polonius wrote:I think part of my issue here is that I'm a lawyer, and in the legal world, 99% of the time "2000pts or less" really means "roughly 2000pts."

Well this here's your problem.

Roughly?

So if I am supposed to move 6" I can move 6.75". That's 'roughly' 6".

Yes. Because it's widely known that people willing to make exceptions to rules do so without any regard to the magnitude of the exception.

By the very nature of people willing to overlook small infractions because they are, in fact, small, they'll also keep track of when an infraction is not small. Being less 1% off point wise is pretty easy to distinguish from being 10% over while measuring. 1% of 6" is very roughly 1/16". Do you make a big deal of somebody being 1/16" over?

There is also context. Being a handful of points over before a game begins when not even the mission is known is very different from taking an extra inch of movement at a potentially pivotal moment.

My comment about legal contracts is that nobody goes to court over minor discrepencies. If we sign a contract where you pay me $50 for 100lbs of scrap, and I deliver 99.9lbs of scrap, no court in the land is going to make me pay 50 cents. (Unless of course a specification is exact for reasons that are integral to the contract, such as high precision work.)

I mean, I know you're just trying to make noise, which is why you keep repeating a fairly tired strawman, but there is a notable difference between your examples that shows a lack of insight into the situation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JOHIRA wrote:I pretty much entirely agree with what Polonius has said here.

My problem is not whether or not anyone agrees to allow someone to go over points.

My problem is the assumption that what your gaming group accepts as standard play must be the standard play in every gaming group, and anyone who doesn't play the way you do is morally inferior, i.e. a liar and a cheater. It's attaching moral judgments to how someone plays with dolls.

there is a trend you see in 40k rules discussions online, where it's clear that many of the people are arguing from a point of distrust. It seems to stem from a thought that anybody breaking a rule or playing differently from them is trying to gain an unfair advantage. It's closely linked, but not always tied, to the accusations of "cheater" that seem to imply a malice that there is no real evidence of.

The hobby is a big place, and paranoia isn't just about tin foil hats. Just realize that there are people that aren't just being academic about concerns of unfair advantage.

Polonius wrote:Yes. Because it's widely known that people willing to make exceptions to rules do so without any regard to the magnitude of the exception.

By the very nature of people willing to overlook small infractions because they are, in fact, small, they'll also keep track of when an infraction is not small. Being less 1% off point wise is pretty easy to distinguish from being 10% over while measuring. 1% of 6" is very roughly 1/16". Do you make a big deal of somebody being 1/16" over?

There is also context. Being a handful of points over before a game begins when not even the mission is known is very different from taking an extra inch of movement at a potentially pivotal moment.

My comment about legal contracts is that nobody goes to court over minor discrepencies. If we sign a contract where you pay me $50 for 100lbs of scrap, and I deliver 99.9lbs of scrap, no court in the land is going to make me pay 50 cents. (Unless of course a specification is exact for reasons that are integral to the contract, such as high precision work.)

I mean, I know you're just trying to make noise, which is why you keep repeating a fairly tired strawman, but there is a notable difference between your examples that shows a lack of insight into the situation.

And once again, here is someone telling us his version is superior because the line he draws is better than the line someone else has drawn.

No, that's not what he said. I think that was a rather rude misinterpretation.

And while I think Polonius and Kirsanth have done an admirable job elucidating their positions while staying polite, the whole discussion is beginning to go 'round in circles, so I'm shutting it down.