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.

 Just Tony wrote:
Our club's rule of thumb is +/-1% which isn't game changing at all. It usually allows you to get that one model shy that you are without breaking the game.

IOW, you should always have 2020 points in a 2000 point game and 2020 is the new point limit. And since everyone is bringing 2020 points why is it a big deal if someone brings 2040 points? After all, that's only 1% more than everyone else, and you've already said that 1% is not a problem. And so on forever.

Or you could just play a 2000 point game with a hard limit, and if you can't fit that one extra model then too bad, you don't get to take that model.

 Just Tony wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I played a game today. A 2,000 point game.

I was at 2,004 points. I asked my opponent "Mind if I'm 4 points over?"

He said that was fine.

Shockingly, competitive players aren't inherently dicks.

Our club's rule of thumb is +/-1% which isn't game changing at all. It usually allows you to get that one model shy that you are without breaking the game.

-1% though?

what's the punishment for taking a 1950pt list to a 2k game?

 SHUPPET wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I played a game today. A 2,000 point game.

I was at 2,004 points. I asked my opponent "Mind if I'm 4 points over?"

He said that was fine.

Shockingly, competitive players aren't inherently dicks.

Our club's rule of thumb is +/-1% which isn't game changing at all. It usually allows you to get that one model shy that you are without breaking the game.

-1% though?

what's the punishment for taking a 1950pt list to a 2k game?

Burning on a stake for heresy. I guess that's how i would handle such terrible people

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Why are you threatened by the possibility of people playing loose with the rules? Are you that afraid they might have some insurmountable advantage you can't defeat? You've gone on long rants that the rules are crap and written by idiots. So why are the rules also sacrosanct if they are garbage?

They're scared of the Games Workshop Sturmtruppen and loose rule concentration camps.
Or worse they might lose street cred within their groups of stiff collared unimaginative "friends"

These people would be eaten alive if they ever dare step out of their pathetic GW sheltered lives.
Heck they must be terrified of campaigns or recreating scensrios where points would never matter.

ValentineGames wrote:
They're scared of the Games Workshop Sturmtruppen and loose rule concentration camps.
Or worse they might lose street cred within their groups of stiff collared unimaginative "friends"

These people would be eaten alive if they ever dare step out of their pathetic GW sheltered lives.
Heck they must be terrified of campaigns or recreating scensrios where points would never matter.

Nice job demonstrating my point better than I could ever describe it.

ValentineGames wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Why are you threatened by the possibility of people playing loose with the rules? Are you that afraid they might have some insurmountable advantage you can't defeat? You've gone on long rants that the rules are crap and written by idiots. So why are the rules also sacrosanct if they are garbage?

They're scared of the Games Workshop Sturmtruppen and loose rule concentration camps.
Or worse they might lose street cred within their groups of stiff collared unimaginative "friends"

These people would be eaten alive if they ever dare step out of their pathetic GW sheltered lives.
Heck they must be terrified of campaigns or recreating scensrios where points would never matter.

AAAAANNNDDDDD this is excactly how you should not be in this hobby.

Also Sturmtruppen means assult squads, they were a WW1 development. What you meant to say is Schutzstaffel, which roughly translates to Security detachment.

ValentineGames wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Why are you threatened by the possibility of people playing loose with the rules? Are you that afraid they might have some insurmountable advantage you can't defeat? You've gone on long rants that the rules are crap and written by idiots. So why are the rules also sacrosanct if they are garbage?

They're scared of the Games Workshop Sturmtruppen and loose rule concentration camps.
Or worse they might lose street cred within their groups of stiff collared unimaginative "friends"

These people would be eaten alive if they ever dare step out of their pathetic GW sheltered lives.
Heck they must be terrified of campaigns or recreating scensrios where points would never matter.

oh my bod you've solved all of my Play to Win habits with your wisdom

errr no, hmm wait, that's why I have all those board games and RPG books

There's nothing wrong with wanting to play by the rules. But Warhammer has always had a sort of loose rather than strict desire to abide by it. GW almost always had battle reports that were over by a couple of points and it was never a big deal, even if it technically wasn't "legal'.

That mindset is what seems to cause the most problems: That it's okay to let your opponent be a couple points over, or let them use something that isn't technically allowed because it's a cool conversion or whatnot (paying the points for it as normal (e.g. taking a powerfist on a model that can't normally take one). That mindset isn't CAAC, it's remembering that the game is meant ot be a fun, social experience not a cutthroat "everything by the book all the time" game at it's very core.

Are you wrong for wanting to stick to the rules? No, of course not. But you're equally not wrong if you feel it's okay to slightly deviate in the name of having a fun game.

I strongly suspect a lot of the "rules always, no deviations!" crowd either play exclusively in tournaments and/or random pickup games with people (potentially people they aren't friendly with who just happened to also decide to turn up at the FLGS looking for a game) and never themed or campaign games where strictly adhering to the rules takes a backseat to "Okay sure that sounds cool". If you have followed GW for any length of time you'll know that's typically how they approach their own games in the studio. They usually do not begrudge an opponent some slight deviation because A) they are friends and B) Having a fun game is more important than following the rules to the letter.

If you ask me, while there's nothing wrong with either crowd I'd much rather play in the style the GW studio does than the opposite. For casual games, of course. A tournament is another story entirely.

There are three types of people who play with modified rules:

1) Those who are part of a group with an established group who prefer a mod of the game to suit them. They tell you what those changes are and ask if it is okay to use them to someone outside the group.

2) Those who are part of a group with an established group who prefer a mod of the game to suit them. They forget to tell you what those changes are and you find out in middle of the game, but are quick to walk them back till an agreement can be had.

3) Those who are part of a group with an established group who prefer a mod of the game to suit them. They never tell you what those changes are and treat you as the cheater for not following them.

Seriously, there is nothing wrong about modding the game so long as you are communicative before the game starts and make sure everyone is on board with the changes. GW rules are not very cohesive in the first place and often rely on personal interpretation, which leads to rule modification, if only to have a clear standard on which to operate. WAAC players will take every advantage they can, that's where the "At All Costs" comes in.

Peregrine wrote:You could drop a tactical squad to 9 men and still be WYSIWYG. And, as you said, those few points don't matter so it shouldn't be a big deal to lose a model. But instead you expect to be allowed to break the rules to get that "no big deal" 10th model, and act like you're the only one playing "for fun".

But I'm taking fluffy 10 man Tactical Squads. Why is Squad Vandar only at 9 men?

If you agree that "those few points don't matter", then surely that's not going to be a problem for you, is it?

Either the points DO matter, and you're more bothered by the principle of being over (which I think you are), or they don't, and you'd be fine with me going over.

Again, my idea of fun seems to be very different from yours. Going over by 4 points is hardly "breaking the rules" in my community. Maybe not so in yours.

Peregrine wrote:"Hey, if I shame you into approving my cheating it isn't cheating anymore."

It's only shame if you can't stand up for yourself. You don't want to play with something using those 4 points? Cool, stand up for yourself and decline the game. If that's not how you want to play, don't play it. I wouldn't force or shame you into it.

2000 points is a standard level,

"A" standard level, not "the" standard level. Different people have different standards, and to some, that standard could be 2000+/- X%. Don't hold your personal standards at some kind of universal one.

If you say "2000 point game" and then ask to change it so you can fit another upgrade you're breaking the rule and asking to get it approved. If you ask for a 2004 point game because it benefits your army is not technically cheating, but it sure is poor behavior and much more aligned with WAAC attitudes than anything that deserves to be called "casual".

It's casual in that you don't have to stick to the limit so rigidly that upgrades you like for fun can't be taken. The fact you simply cannot understand that some people want to take options because of non-gameplay reasons explains exactly why you assume that any attempt to do so must be cheating.

If compromising fun for the sake of adhering to some arbitrary limit you've set up because it's merely a round number is how you want people to play, I'm glad I don't play you.

Peregrine wrote:IOW, you should always have 2020 points in a 2000 point game and 2020 is the new point limit. And since everyone is bringing 2020 points why is it a big deal if someone brings 2040 points? After all, that's only 1% more than everyone else, and you've already said that 1% is not a problem. And so on forever.

And here is the further elaboration on the previous point.

You simply lack the abilities to understand that some people don't play the game to reach it's limits, some people don't play the game to maximise all their potential and squeeze out every drop of power from the options available.
The very fact you ONLY see the points limit as a hard cap, as something to reach and eke out every last drop of combat and strategic potential from it explains why you fail to even understand that someone could see it as a guideline, as a target you can ultimately shoot past and still have a fun and enjoyable game. Sure, if your opponent refuses to let you go over that limit, then you should do what they say. At the same time, declining to play your opponent because they took a fraction more points than you, for a presumably minor addition to their list, does make you look rather anally retentive and hardline.
There's nothing WRONG with being that way, but that can definitely turn people off, and they're entitled to that too.

Or you could just play a 2000 point game with a hard limit, and if you can't fit that one extra model then too bad, you don't get to take that model.

Or, you could see the points as more of a guideline, and realise that some people might find it more fun to have a more relaxed game. Of course, if you don't like that, don't play that way.

That extra 4 points means you fit in a Plasma Gun.

If you want your Tactical Marine squad at 10 dudes, you should've built your list to include that at the limit of the game. It isn't my fault you lack even basic list making skills I had when I was as young as 12.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
That extra 4 points means you fit in a Plasma Gun.

But I've not taken a plasma gun.

Besides, I don't really know how many points a plasma gun costs any more.

If you want your Tactical Marine squad at 10 dudes, you should've built your list to include that at the limit of the game.

Or, if my opponent is okay with it, I don't have to.

It isn't my fault you lack even basic list making skills I had when I was as young as 12.

Look, I think you fail to understand something about me. I've played 40k for years. I played all through entire editions trying to fit into the attitude that yourself, Peregrine, and others embody have. I built all my lists to the limit, I cut where I had to, and sacrificed my personal "fun" to comply with the ubercompetitive-"if an option isn't the best one, you're nerfing yourself and that's all that matters"-approach. And I don't like that any more.

It's not a case of I can't cut things from my list. It's a case of why should I sacrifice me having fun with aesthetic and cool fluffy models and armies just to fit into an arbitrary limit? If my opponent doesn't want to change that arbitrary limit, or thinks that the single storm bolter in an army of Whirlwinds, ten man Tactical Squads and Terminators is just too OP and would make my list unplayably better against his Castellan/Slamguinius/Cadian army, then I wouldn't play them.
Simple as.

You can't handle 4 points? Cool, play against someone else who can play the game how you want to. I'll stick with my way.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:


You can't handle 4 points? Cool, play against someone else who can play the game how you want to. I'll stick with my way.

Personally I've always just generally agreed with people before a game what the point limit for the match is and if we will or wont' use any deviation from that value. Once the point value is set then I consider it a mark of respect toward my opponent that I build an army that fits that point value without going over.

It's just good manners and etiquette in gaming.

After that its all about having fun and if you want a more casual approach that is perfectly fine so long as your opponent agrees to that before the match and is fine with it.



It is no more correct nor right to follow the rules than it is to not follow any of them at all. The important and correct point is that you and your opponent go into a game with the same limits and broad expectations of the match to be played. It's all about the pre-game setup. Online this tends to get either assumed or forgotten and debates tend to end up with the polar opposites arguing agianst each other about what is the right way to play, in their view.

Without expressing or realising that both sides are correct for their given game and conditions. Plus without respecting that in the real world we are all adaptive. I'm sure many who are hard core strict to the rules play casual games that don't follow the rules; and that casual players might well also play strict to the rules games. We do not game in a world where one can take only one singular approach.

The whole over points thing is a bit of a courtesy. Look at WFB where 2 points over will be the difference between you getting a rank bonus or not. Will that rank bonus break the game? Doubtful, but at the same time it falls under "If you wouldn't want it done to you, don't do it to someone else". This also avoids the ginchy stuff like shooting antennae tips through windows and the like.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Peregrine wrote:You could drop a tactical squad to 9 men and still be WYSIWYG. And, as you said, those few points don't matter so it shouldn't be a big deal to lose a model. But instead you expect to be allowed to break the rules to get that "no big deal" 10th model, and act like you're the only one playing "for fun".

But I'm taking fluffy 10 man Tactical Squads. Why is Squad Vandar only at 9 men?

To be fair, the answer to this is easy: Squand Vandar lost a marine in their last battle and a replacement hasn't arrived yet, or one of the squad is still recovering from a nasty injury and hasn't been cleared to return to battle just yet.

If you agree that "those few points don't matter", then surely that's not going to be a problem for you, is it?

Either the points DO matter, and you're more bothered by the principle of being over (which I think you are), or they don't, and you'd be fine with me going over.

Again, my idea of fun seems to be very different from yours. Going over by 4 points is hardly "breaking the rules" in my community. Maybe not so in yours.

Agree with this 100%. Unless it's a tournament game or a tournament prep game, some leeway is never a bad thing.

Peregrine wrote:"Hey, if I shame you into approving my cheating it isn't cheating anymore."

It's only shame if you can't stand up for yourself. You don't want to play with something using those 4 points? Cool, stand up for yourself and decline the game. If that's not how you want to play, don't play it. I wouldn't force or shame you into it.

2000 points is a standard level,

"A" standard level, not "the" standard level. Different people have different standards, and to some, that standard could be 2000+/- X%. Don't hold your personal standards at some kind of universal one.

Also agree, but let's be clear here that Peregrine is not necessarily wrong in this. 2000 is "the" standard level in most cases, but not set it stone.

If you say "2000 point game" and then ask to change it so you can fit another upgrade you're breaking the rule and asking to get it approved. If you ask for a 2004 point game because it benefits your army is not technically cheating, but it sure is poor behavior and much more aligned with WAAC attitudes than anything that deserves to be called "casual".

It's casual in that you don't have to stick to the limit so rigidly that upgrades you like for fun can't be taken. The fact you simply cannot understand that some people want to take options because of non-gameplay reasons explains exactly why you assume that any attempt to do so must be cheating.

If compromising fun for the sake of adhering to some arbitrary limit you've set up because it's merely a round number is how you want people to play, I'm glad I don't play you.

Agreed in theory, but it's important to state there is nothing wrong with wanting 2000 to mean 2000 and not 2001. I'm more in your camp, but that doesn't mean Peregrine is wrong.

Peregrine wrote:IOW, you should always have 2020 points in a 2000 point game and 2020 is the new point limit. And since everyone is bringing 2020 points why is it a big deal if someone brings 2040 points? After all, that's only 1% more than everyone else, and you've already said that 1% is not a problem. And so on forever.

And here is the further elaboration on the previous point.

You simply lack the abilities to understand that some people don't play the game to reach it's limits, some people don't play the game to maximise all their potential and squeeze out every drop of power from the options available.
The very fact you ONLY see the points limit as a hard cap, as something to reach and eke out every last drop of combat and strategic potential from it explains why you fail to even understand that someone could see it as a guideline, as a target you can ultimately shoot past and still have a fun and enjoyable game. Sure, if your opponent refuses to let you go over that limit, then you should do what they say. At the same time, declining to play your opponent because they took a fraction more points than you, for a presumably minor addition to their list, does make you look rather anally retentive and hardline.
There's nothing WRONG with being that way, but that can definitely turn people off, and they're entitled to that too.

This I agree with, and this completely depends upon the group. Some groups adhere closer to the rules than others who play more loose. Neither is wrong, neither is right. Peregrine and, presumably, his gaming group want the rules to mean the rules. Yours are more laid back. Nothing wrong with either of those approaches.

Or you could just play a 2000 point game with a hard limit, and if you can't fit that one extra model then too bad, you don't get to take that model.

Or, you could see the points as more of a guideline, and realise that some people might find it more fun to have a more relaxed game. Of course, if you don't like that, don't play that way.

Exactly. This goes all the way back to the old "play with like-minded people" adage.

 SHUPPET wrote:


Our club's rule of thumb is +/-1% which isn't game changing at all. It usually allows you to get that one model shy that you are without breaking the game.

-1% though?

what's the punishment for taking a 1950pt list to a 2k game?

Karol wrote:

Agree with this 100%. Unless it's a tournament game or a tournament prep game, some leeway is never a bad thing.

Why? When you play football or some other games do you let people cheat too?

That's a false comparison. 40k is about the spectacle and having a fun game, not nitpicking the letter of the rules. There's nothing wrong with being looser with the rules in the name of having an entertaining game. It's not a sport.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
Our club's rule of thumb is +/-1% which isn't game changing at all. It usually allows you to get that one model shy that you are without breaking the game.

IOW, you should always have 2020 points in a 2000 point game and 2020 is the new point limit. And since everyone is bringing 2020 points why is it a big deal if someone brings 2040 points? After all, that's only 1% more than everyone else, and you've already said that 1% is not a problem. And so on forever.

Or you could just play a 2000 point game with a hard limit, and if you can't fit that one extra model then too bad, you don't get to take that model.

Edit: I'm really glad I don't have your perspective.

I don't think I've ever had issues over exact point counts. But for me and the people I game with, the game exists as a stimulus for social interaction and not vice versa. I can't imagine spending an hour or two trying to have fun with someone who views all games as things to be ...gamed.

Karol wrote:

Why? When you play football or some other games do you let people cheat too?

Not that I understand anything about sports, but I'd assume that when just kicking the ball with some friends, most people don't exactly follow all the rules up to the FIFA standard.

Wayniac wrote:To be fair, the answer to this is easy: Squand Vandar lost a marine in their last battle and a replacement hasn't arrived yet, or one of the squad is still recovering from a nasty injury and hasn't been cleared to return to battle just yet.

That's a good response, but what if this battle is the first engagement of the campaign?

Also agree, but let's be clear here that Peregrine is not necessarily wrong in this. 2000 is "the" standard level in most cases, but not set it stone.

In a lot of cases, but then, it does all depend on who you play, what kind of games, and where. To say that 2000 is "the" standard overall is exactly the kind of thinking that creates things like a stifled environment.

Agreed in theory, but it's important to state there is nothing wrong with wanting 2000 to mean 2000 and not 2001. I'm more in your camp, but that doesn't mean Peregrine is wrong.

As I have said, I have nothing wrong with Peregrine, or anyone, having those views. However, when people assert that those views are the only "correct" ones, that's a bit problematic.

Some groups adhere closer to the rules than others who play more loose. Neither is wrong, neither is right. Peregrine and, presumably, his gaming group want the rules to mean the rules. Yours are more laid back. Nothing wrong with either of those approaches.

Exactly. You do you, but you shouldn't act like your way is the ONLY right way for everyone.

Karol wrote:Why? When you play football or some other games do you let people cheat too?

When I used to play football, we ignored the offside rule because it creates more arguments than it does fix the game. Rush goalie is a thing too.

Cheating isn't what I'd use to describe it. It's more changing the rules with consent of your opponent to better facilitate an enjoyable game for the pair of you. If one person doesn't think it will make a better game, then it won't go ahead.

People that wouldn't allow that +4pts on a non optimized SM list in a casual friendly game have some problems IMHO. Especially if their list is a tournament oriented one.

Cheating isn't what I'd use to describe it. It's more changing the rules with consent of your opponent to better facilitate an enjoyable game for the pair of you. If one person doesn't think it will make a better game, then it won't go ahead.

I have no idea how that could work. I mean, I can imagine that if you play vs the little brother of a guy who has your models in commision painting and he can accidently "lose" them or get "late" for the big event your gunning for, that then you have to play the way he wants. But at all other times, no one is going to give even an inch from the official rule, otherwise the next guy will want you to do the same for him, and you may not want to let him have the rule change. Rules are there to be obeyed, not to be changed. If you let people break the rules all the time, then they can think they can do it in real life too. And this at best means it makes it very tough for people with autism to interact with the world. At worse you end up with GoldmanSachs.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
When I used to play football, we ignored the offside rule because it creates more arguments than it does fix the game. Rush goalie is a thing too.

Cheating isn't what I'd use to describe it. It's more changing the rules with consent of your opponent to better facilitate an enjoyable game for the pair of you. If one person doesn't think it will make a better game, then it won't go ahead.

To be honest, it's impossible to use all the actual football rules if you play with friends, and no one uses offside unless it's an official game. You'd need a referee.

Karol wrote:

Cheating isn't what I'd use to describe it. It's more changing the rules with consent of your opponent to better facilitate an enjoyable game for the pair of you. If one person doesn't think it will make a better game, then it won't go ahead.

I have no idea how that could work. I mean, I can imagine that if you play vs the little brother of a guy who has your models in commision painting and he can accidently "lose" them or get "late" for the big event your gunning for, that then you have to play the way he wants. But at all other times, no one is going to give even an inch from the official rule, otherwise the next guy will want you to do the same for him, and you may not want to let him have the rule change. Rules are there to be obeyed, not to be changed. If you let people break the rules all the time, then they can think they can do it in real life too. And this at best means it makes it very tough for people with autism to interact with the world. At worse you end up with GoldmanSachs.

Yes, did you hear that people! You might think that those four points are not a big deal, but you think otherwise when your lax attitude to the Warhammer causes a global financial crisis! Is that you want? Are those four points really worth all the lost jobs, countless lives ruined, untold suffering? Think about that!

I find it difficult like the above that some people would have a huge issue with 4 point overspend on a non top tier army, and then be the exact same people that game the wording of anything slightly ambiguous away from rules as intended to something totally exploited.

I've said before a million times, wargaming with up priced toys is not where you guys would get your kicks, get into some sports, where that ultra competitive mind set will be expected, and you can get some actual validation and respect for your talents.

I just love how everyday we get topics and the same exact people are the first to chime in how points don't work.
Points are unbalanced.
The points only allow basic fairness.
You must play exactly 2000pts.
You can't do maths. I was better than you at 6.
Blah blah blah.

Then the same people react like you've just kicked their dog because you're extra points over bought you 1 more cultist or a plasma gun. And now the game that was already bs for balance is now so broken it's unplayable and you are Hitler.

 SHUPPET wrote:

what's the punishment for taking a 1950pt list to a 2k game?

Public shaming on DakkaDakka for not playing exactly 2000pts

 Blackie wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
When I used to play football, we ignored the offside rule because it creates more arguments than it does fix the game. Rush goalie is a thing too.

Cheating isn't what I'd use to describe it. It's more changing the rules with consent of your opponent to better facilitate an enjoyable game for the pair of you. If one person doesn't think it will make a better game, then it won't go ahead.

To be honest, it's impossible to use all the actual football rules if you play with friends, and no one uses offside unless it's an official game. You'd need a referee.

You'd need more than just a referee, you need at least 3x officials, but I'm being pedantic here as I completely agree with the point made. In fact, offside does not exist in most formats of football below 11 a side.

ValentineGames wrote:
I just love how everyday we get topics and the same exact people are the first to chime in how points don't work.
Points are unbalanced.
The points only allow basic fairness.
You must play exactly 2000pts.
You can't do maths. I was better than you at 6.
Blah blah blah.

Then the same people react like you've just kicked their dog because you're extra points over bought you 1 more cultist or a plasma gun. And now the game that was already bs for balance is now so broken it's unplayable and you are Hitler.

To be fair to Peregrine, if she conceded that +4 points didn't matter. She would be giving legitimacy indirectly to Power Level, which she views as an existential threat.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

ValentineGames wrote:
I just love how everyday we get topics and the same exact people are the first to chime in how points don't work.
Points are unbalanced.
The points only allow basic fairness.
You must play exactly 2000pts.
You can't do maths. I was better than you at 6.
Blah blah blah.

Then the same people react like you've just kicked their dog because you're extra points over bought you 1 more cultist or a plasma gun. And now the game that was already bs for balance is now so broken it's unplayable and you are Hitler.

To be fair to Peregrine, if she conceded that +4 points didn't matter. She would be giving legitimacy indirectly to Power Level, which she views as an existential threat.

Heaven forbid!...Though I prefer power level

 SHUPPET wrote:

what's the punishment for taking a 1950pt list to a 2k game?

Well, let's just rewind through some previous iterations of similar discussions with the same crowd of posters. Apparently bringing 1950 pts to a 2000pts match is utterly disrespectfull for your opponent, as you willingly handicap yourself by game braking 50pts and because you do not bring your best possible list (by definition of not having exactly 2000pts... 1998 pts might, just might be tolerated ) you are deliberately wasting your opponents time that he could otherwise spend on a serious game with another sane person.

Some of those same posters will endlessly argue, that rolling for GW made missions is intorelably imbalanced, that entire point ballance of 40K is a joke and some legal builds are worth ar least 500pts more than 2000pts, having asymmetrical terrain on the table is always gamebrakingly unfair and has no place in serious 40k, games are always won by alpha strike so the only important dice roll is who goes first and generally GW rules are dumpster fire and anyone ever playing 40K is a GW fanboy and should feel bad... Take your pick, whatever inconsistent argument one can come up with about this topic, it has most certainly been posted by someone previously.

And yet entire fairness of the game apparently hinges on those 4 points. In all seriousness, that must be the biggest compliment about the quality of GWs point balance I have ever seen written on this board