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.

It seems to me that some people equate modifying the game to being cheaters. That is simply not the case in every situation. It would be if a person modifying the rules of the game intentionally didn't discuss the modification with their opponent before the game starts or even partway through the game.

However, if communicated as an option providing a choice for the other player to go with the modification or not before the game begins, it is not cheating, it is modifying. Maybe I just have a different perspective on it coming from the PC gaming world and Battletech where modifying the game is a pretty common occurrence.

 Crimson wrote:
Calling people cheaters is beyond the pale. That is literally a flat out lie. You may not like people playing at 2004 points, but as long as both players agree that is playing perfectly by the rules.

Also, Slayer, stop talking about your Pokémon cards, no one cares. I'm sure there's a forum for those somewhere where you can go be rude to people.

It's cheating to do it in the first place, and then you have to go out of your way to make your opponent feel bad by calling them too strict and crap like that.
So it's cheating and then a bad attitude.

Also I'm creating parallels to other hobbies to help prove a point. I could've gone with a golf example but most people but me hate gold so...

"How about we change the limit so I can take extra stuff" is not really modifying the game, it's just approving an act of breaking the rules to benefit one player.

Blackie wrote: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.

Not sure why you say that, when SM have been proven a very tournament capable army and have just gone nowhere but upwards since CA.

The limit is there so that you HAVE to make choices on the smaller stuff once you cap out at 2k, and can't take absolutely everything. When you have to imply someone has some sort of problem, just for wanting both players to adhere to same set of rules, then I'd say the issue is with you. I'm not interested in playing someone with the sort of mentality that has them already trying to bend the rules before the game has started anyway.

Karol wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:


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

Not being able to fit draigo or NDK. I can imagine armies with flexible troops and HQ don't have such problems, but 5pts is sometimes the difference between taking a unit and being forced to do some odd stuff with the list. Specially if the points played are not 2000pts

That's not what I was asking, I'm well aware it's a punishment on the strength of the list already. He said that it's not allowed at his local, so I'm wondering what they do if someone shows up to play with less more than 1% worth of points missing from his list. I understand not playing someone for going over, but do they refuse to play someone for having LESS points than they should? It's a club rule, so do they get a warning or infraction or something for it? Or was it really just aimed at people going over?

 Peregrine wrote:
"How about we change the limit so I can take extra stuff" is not really modifying the game, it's just approving an act of breaking the rules to benefit one player.

Why do you assume it only benefits one player? If neither player is against the act, and it makes one player happier and more outgoing, it will most likely increase the fun experienced by both players. Again, the issue seems to be that you have no conception of modes of play outside your own very narrow bubble.

And how is the addition of points to a weaker list going to give the player with the weaker list plus four points an advantage over someone with a strong list? How can you even pretend the point of such a game is a challenge of skill for supremacy? (instead of two players enjoying seeing what happens when the dice are rolled?)

I really wish I could convey the view from over here, outside your perspective. You seem to thrive on debating people in the hopes of broadening their minds, so it would be a shame not to attempt to broaden yours.

Peregrine wrote:"How about we change the limit so I can take extra stuff" is not really modifying the game, it's just approving an act of breaking the rules to benefit one player.

False. Points limits are always set by the game organizers. There is no point limit that can be the only set amount taken no matter what format you are playing in. A tournament can be played at 4000 points or 500 points, nothing is set in stone that they are all at 2000 points (only when they announce the specific tournament's rules). This is even less when you are NOT playing at a tournament. If you initially agree to 2000 points, but then they come back and say that their model collection only works with 2004 or 1980 (for whatever reason), then you can modify your agreement to adjust accordingly.

Since there is no specifically set point amount for a non-tournament game, it cannot be breaking the rules to change the amount you are going to play with, provided it is communicated before gameplay starts and adjustments can be made. It only gets to "breaking the rules" when one player fields an army in excess to the agreed upon amount without informing their opponent.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
"How about we change the limit so I can take extra stuff" is not really modifying the game, it's just approving an act of breaking the rules to benefit one player.

Why do you assume it only benefits one player? If neither player is against the act, and it makes one player happier and more outgoing, it will most likely increase the fun experienced by both players. Again, the issue seems to be that you have no conception of modes of play outside your own very narrow bubble.

And how is the addition of points to a weaker list going to give the player with the weaker list plus four points an advantage over someone with a strong list? How can you even pretend the point of such a game is a challenge of skill for supremacy? (instead of two players enjoying seeing what happens when the dice are rolled?)

I really wish I could convey the view from over here, outside your perspective. You seem to thrive on debating people in the hopes of broadening their minds, so it would be a shame not to attempt to broaden yours.

If both players want to do it, it's obviously fine. If one wants to adhere to the rules set down for how the game is designed to be played, that doesn't make them some sort of TFG, as is being implied or outright stated by a few in here. If you can't handle the answer of "no" without casting judgement on someone, then you're not really just asking.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Why do you assume it only benefits one player?

Because one player is showing up with the extra points and saying "can I break the point limit to bring more stuff". This isn't like, say, changing the terrain rules so that ruins block LOS. That's a rule change that applies to everyone equally, it has no particular bias and can be considered a good change regardless of the player or army. Saying "can I have +4 points" is a personal buff that the other player gets nothing out of and has no game design merits of its own.

And how is the addition of points to a weaker list going to give the player with the weaker list plus four points an advantage over someone with a strong list?

I don't know, ask the person who really insists on having it. This goes right back to what I've been saying from the beginning: if the extra points are so meaningless that nobody should object to taking them then it shouldn't be a big deal to just leave them out and play a legal list. If you're going to argue that they're very important, that you can't cut any units/upgrades to make your list legal, etc, then clearly you're getting a lot out of those extra points and it isn't fair to claim them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:
False. Points limits are always set by the game organizers. There is no point limit that can be the only set amount taken no matter what format you are playing in. A tournament can be played at 4000 points or 500 points, nothing is set in stone that they are all at 2000 points (only when they announce the specific tournament's rules). This is even less when you are NOT playing at a tournament. If you initially agree to 2000 points, but then they come back and say that their model collection only works with 2004 or 1980 (for whatever reason), then you can modify your agreement to adjust accordingly.

There is a huge difference between saying "let's play at 1000 points instead of 2000, I don't have much time today" and "let's play at 2004 points instead of 2000 points, I want to take an extra power fist that I can't afford in a normal 2000 point game". One is using the standard point levels that are player-neutral and chosen because they're round numbers, once is lobbying for a point level specifically tailored to be effectively the same as a standard point level except that it gives one player an extra advantage they want. It may not technically be cheating by the strictest definition of RAW, but if you're response to having a 1980 point list in a 2000 point game is "can we make it 2004 points so I can bring more stuff" instead of accepting that you have a legal 2000 point list and playing the game then you should be asking some questions about your motives.

PS: the average competitive tournament player's response to being at 1980 out of 2000 would be to shrug and play the legal 2000 point list even though it's 20 points short, they wouldn't even consider asking to change the rules so they could add more stuff to their list. So who exactly is the "casual" player here?

 SHUPPET wrote:

Blackie wrote: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.

Not sure why you say that, when SM have been proven a very tournament capable army and have just gone nowhere but upwards since CA.

The limit is there so that you HAVE to make choices on the smaller stuff once you cap out at 2k, and can't take absolutely everything. When you have to imply someone has some sort of problem, just for wanting both players to adhere to same set of rules, then I'd say the issue is with you. I'm not interested in playing someone with the sort of mentality that has them already trying to bend the rules before the game has started anyway.

There are people that just want a balanced 40k game, they don't need to prove anything on the battlefield. There are people that enjoy the WYSIWYG concept more than fielding powerful combos and maybe they don't have the models to change their list without ruining a unit. Note that playing casual games doesn't mean playing with units and wargear that make no sense and lack any possible synergy, there's always some sort of optimization, but it's related to the models the player actually own and maybe a playstyle he wants to use. I'd rather play a full WYSIWYG 2004 points list than another one that is full of proxies because it's chasing the flavours of the month but respects the budget. I don't play with proxies if I use my armies. Learn to magnetize and buy the models if you want to bring the flavours of the month.

I've mentioned a non optimized SM list which is not tournament capable at all. I understand how you feel, you probably have the typical mentality of those guys that go to the club eager to prove how skillful they are on the battlefield. Not everyone (thankfully) has this kind of approach in the game.

A casual list with +4points above the budget can be a more balanced opponent than a full optimized one that respected the points budget. That's all that matters if both players agree to start the game. I that extra power fist doesn't make the opponent's list cheesy but it's still at the same level than mine, if not worse, why should I refuse to play against it?

I also don't get why allowing that +4points is heresy as it's bending the rules while the same people always play with house rules, which means they're bending the rules themselves and they're ok with that. Like using the ITC format but non only that.

 Blackie wrote:
There are people that enjoy the WYSIWYG concept more than fielding powerful combos and maybe they don't have the models to change their list without ruining a unit.

Why does WYSIWYG require you to break the point limit? Outside of weird edge-case scenarios that don't exist in reality ("let's play a 50 point game, battle-forged armies required") everyone is capable of playing a legal army without breaking the point limit. It may be less powerful or optimized than one that breaks the point limit, but supposedly winning is not important for these people and the extra points aren't making a meaningful difference in the outcome.

A casual list with +4points above the budget can be a more balanced opponent than a full optimized one that respected the points budget.

It does not, however, show an equal level of respect for the rules or for the other player. A "casual" player who insists on getting extra points and declares anyone who refuses to be "not fun" or "WAAC TFG" or whatever is probably the sort of person who is going to nudge their models a bit closer because failing charge rolls is "not fun", insist on rounding a clear measurement of 24.5" down to 24" because being out of range to shoot is "not fun", etc. The attitude of "just take a little extra because you're entitled to it" is a not a fun one to deal with.

I that extra power fist doesn't make the opponent's list cheesy but it's still at the same level than mine, if not worse, why should I refuse to play against it?

Because your opponent has demonstrated that they're the sort of person who will ask for a free power fist in the first place?

I also don't get why allowing that +4points is heresy as it's bending the rules while the same people always play with house rules, which means they're bending the rules themselves and they're ok with that. Like using the ITC format but non only that.

See above. There is a difference between a player-neutral change that applies to all games/armies/etc equally and is lobbied for because it is better game design and a player-specific change like "I should be able to have an extra power fist because it's 'more fun' if my army has it".

I love watching Peregrine smack people down.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Why do you assume it only benefits one player?

Because one player is showing up with the extra points and saying "can I break the point limit to bring more stuff". This isn't like, say, changing the terrain rules so that ruins block LOS. That's a rule change that applies to everyone equally, it has no particular bias and can be considered a good change regardless of the player or army. Saying "can I have +4 points" is a personal buff that the other player gets nothing out of and has no game design merits of its own.

And how is the addition of points to a weaker list going to give the player with the weaker list plus four points an advantage over someone with a strong list?

I don't know, ask the person who really insists on having it. This goes right back to what I've been saying from the beginning: if the extra points are so meaningless that nobody should object to taking them then it shouldn't be a big deal to just leave them out and play a legal list. If you're going to argue that they're very important, that you can't cut any units/upgrades to make your list legal, etc, then clearly you're getting a lot out of those extra points and it isn't fair to claim them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:
False. Points limits are always set by the game organizers. There is no point limit that can be the only set amount taken no matter what format you are playing in. A tournament can be played at 4000 points or 500 points, nothing is set in stone that they are all at 2000 points (only when they announce the specific tournament's rules). This is even less when you are NOT playing at a tournament. If you initially agree to 2000 points, but then they come back and say that their model collection only works with 2004 or 1980 (for whatever reason), then you can modify your agreement to adjust accordingly.

There is a huge difference between saying "let's play at 1000 points instead of 2000, I don't have much time today" and "let's play at 2004 points instead of 2000 points, I want to take an extra power fist that I can't afford in a normal 2000 point game". One is using the standard point levels that are player-neutral and chosen because they're round numbers, once is lobbying for a point level specifically tailored to be effectively the same as a standard point level except that it gives one player an extra advantage they want. It may not technically be cheating by the strictest definition of RAW, but if you're response to having a 1980 point list in a 2000 point game is "can we make it 2004 points so I can bring more stuff" instead of accepting that you have a legal 2000 point list and playing the game then you should be asking some questions about your motives.

PS: the average competitive tournament player's response to being at 1980 out of 2000 would be to shrug and play the legal 2000 point list even though it's 20 points short, they wouldn't even consider asking to change the rules so they could add more stuff to their list. So who exactly is the "casual" player here?

Nah, it's still cheating. It's just asking permission to cheat.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I love watching Peregrine smack people down.

Yeah it's certainly a change of pace from the usual smackdowns that he is generally on the receiving end of, for poorly thought out opinions that he's unable to defend and generally that generally just see him abandoning the thread. You know he feels confident when he makes this many posts on a topic.

All I see in this thread are people having a silly argument about their games of plastic soldiers, over a thing that entirely comes down to personal opinion on the issue and how people like to play the game/ how stringently they follow the rules. Plus it's pretty much degraded into less of a conversation and more of a "prove the other person wrong any way I can" contest.

Needless to say, it's a thread to read with a bucket of popcorn in hand.

 Charistoph wrote:
It seems to me that some people equate modifying the game to being cheaters.

But isn't modifying, adding, creating one of games workshops main guiding principles?
It was always in the books written somewhere.

 Javadog wrote:
All I see in this thread are people having a silly argument about their games of plastic soldiers, over a thing that entirely comes down to personal opinion on the issue and how people like to play the game/ how stringently they follow the rules. Plus it's pretty much degraded into less of a conversation and more of a "prove the other person wrong any way I can" contest.

Needless to say, it's a thread to read with a bucket of popcorn in hand.

Yeah, its disappointing to see that so many will condemn someone just for wishing to play by the rules.

Peregrine wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Why SHOULD I have lists ready to play?

Because it saves a lot of setup time before the game. Having lists ready to go is just basic courtesy.

No, that's A courtesy, but not a basic one. A basic one would be things like "not cheating, respecting one another, discussing any issues you have, ensuring that the game is as enjoyable for all as possible".
Saving a few minutes before the game by having a pre-written list is hardly a basic courtesy of the hobby.

And yes, you're entitled to be wrong about narrative play. We wont throw you in jail over it. But you're still wrong.

So very close! You're absolutely right, save for three little words at the end - "in my opinion".

There, fixed!

Peregrine wrote:"How about we change the limit so I can take extra stuff" is not really modifying the game, it's just approving an act of breaking the rules to benefit one player.

If both players agree to it, then it's not just to one person's benefit, is it?

Id absolutely agree that going over the points limit is cheating - when done without the consent of your opponent. If they consent, then you're essentially just changing the points limit.

ValentineGames wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
It seems to me that some people equate modifying the game to being cheaters.

But isn't modifying, adding, creating one of games workshops main guiding principles?
It was always in the books written somewhere.

It's actually in 8th too, in the Battle Primer. You know, the booklet which has the core rules of the game, and don't actually mention Matched Play, Open Play or Narrative play in them at all.

I don't think it's a mistake that GW seem to value people having fun over if their game is watertight and finely balanced. It just seems that some people have forgotten that 40k can be played for fun, and that if both parties find something that differs from the rules to be more fun, they can disregard those rules.

 Peregrine wrote:


Why does WYSIWYG require you to break the point limit? Outside of weird edge-case scenarios that don't exist in reality ("let's play a 50 point game, battle-forged armies required") everyone is capable of playing a legal army without breaking the point limit. It may be less powerful or optimized than one that breaks the point limit, but supposedly winning is not important for these people and the extra points aren't making a meaningful difference in the outcome.

There's no require of course. Just a courtesy in a specific case. That single power fist doesn't have a real impact on the game but it's more fun to play. Winning is not important, having fun is. For some people fielding their real models in a semi-optimized list is more fun than proxying or cutting down a model because they are slightly out of budget.

 Peregrine wrote:

It does not, however, show an equal level of respect for the rules or for the other player. A "casual" player who insists on getting extra points and declares anyone who refuses to be "not fun" or "WAAC TFG" or whatever is probably the sort of person who is going to nudge their models a bit closer because failing charge rolls is "not fun", insist on rounding a clear measurement of 24.5" down to 24" because being out of range to shoot is "not fun", etc. The attitude of "just take a little extra because you're entitled to it" is a not a fun one to deal with.

That's why the poster asked permission.

It may be entirely subjective but I'd rather play against a casual 2004 points list than a supercheesy 2000 points one.

 Peregrine wrote:

Because your opponent has demonstrated that they're the sort of person who will ask for a free power fist in the first place?

And what's the problem in that? If he has a friendly attitude during the game and the game itself comes out fairly balanced it's a win win for everyone. I'd rather play against him that someone that brings his nasty castellan to casual games.

 Peregrine wrote:

See above. There is a difference between a player-neutral change that applies to all games/armies/etc equally and is lobbied for because it is better game design and a player-specific change like "I should be able to have an extra power fist because it's 'more fun' if my army has it".

Yes there is a difference. But it shouldn't affect how you enjoy the game. We're talking about friendly games with non optimized lists. There's nothing to prove, it's just a game with toy soldiers between two adults, nothing more actually.

Seriously for many people all that matters is enojoying a fairly balanced game. Some legal armies are full of undercosted stuff which make them perform like they were 2400 points. What's the fun in playing against an army like that if you don't have the tools to compete? But apparently since the army is legal that player has the right to bully every table. What happens in many clubs that are not strictly oriented in practising for tournaments is that ultra competitive player doesn't get a single game because everyone refuses to play with him.

Yeah that guy that wanted to play a 2004 points list has a tiny advantage rule-wise, but maybe his army is still worse than mine or maybe at the same level. If that's the case, the game should be fun to play. A balanced game with a tiny concession to one player is definitely more fun that a clash between two legal lists with one of them winning the game in turn 1 or 2.

But of course if you aim to prove yourself how amazing you are on a table or in rules lawyering none of this makes sense, I understand and respect that. It's just a different attitude. I want to play with my entire collection of models, sometimes it means that I can field tournament level lists, sometimes they're very far from that level. But I'd never play with a tournament oriented list against a casual one, I just don't see any point in doing that. I don't want to outperform the opponent, I just want a balanced game. Most of the times it involves some talking, concessions, and list tailoring before the game starts. I'm willing to accept any compromise to make the game more enjoyable. And of course people are entitled to have fun in their own way, as I said I respect that, never forget that we're talking about a game. For many people a hobby actually.

 SHUPPET wrote:

 Javadog wrote:
All I see in this thread are people having a silly argument about their games of plastic soldiers, over a thing that entirely comes down to personal opinion on the issue and how people like to play the game/ how stringently they follow the rules. Plus it's pretty much degraded into less of a conversation and more of a "prove the other person wrong any way I can" contest.

Needless to say, it's a thread to read with a bucket of popcorn in hand.

Yeah, its disappointing to see that so many will condemn someone just for wishing to play by the rules.

I don't think anyone's condemning anyone for playing by the rules. No-one's saying "if you play by the rules, you're a bad person".
However, when said people are incapable of accepting when consenting players decide that they want to change those rules, that's condemnation.

No-one has said that wanting to play by the rules is wrong. What people HAVE been saying is "not wanting to stick to the rules, and discussing that with your opponent, is wrong" - and frankly, I disagree with that. Hell, Games Workshop disagree with that. It shouldn't be this big taboo to have a mature conversation with your opponent and ask to alter the game so you have more enjoyment playing it.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
So very close! You're absolutely right, save for three little words at the end - "in my opinion".

There, fixed!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gu8u2SxarEE

It doesn't need to be stated at the end of every sentence that it's his opinion. When weighing in on a subjective topic, the implication is that it's an opinion. He would have to state that what he's saying is an objective fact for the opposite to be the case.

EDIT: nevermind, I see he's responded to your post by saying exactly that. Lol.

 Blackie wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:


Why does WYSIWYG require you to break the point limit? Outside of weird edge-case scenarios that don't exist in reality ("let's play a 50 point game, battle-forged armies required") everyone is capable of playing a legal army without breaking the point limit. It may be less powerful or optimized than one that breaks the point limit, but supposedly winning is not important for these people and the extra points aren't making a meaningful difference in the outcome.

There's no require of course. Just a courtesy in a specific case. That single power fist doesn't have a real impact on the game but it's more fun to play. Winning is not important, having fun is. For some people fielding their real models in a semi-optimized list is more fun than proxying or cutting down a model because they are slightly out of budget.

 Peregrine wrote:

It does not, however, show an equal level of respect for the rules or for the other player. A "casual" player who insists on getting extra points and declares anyone who refuses to be "not fun" or "WAAC TFG" or whatever is probably the sort of person who is going to nudge their models a bit closer because failing charge rolls is "not fun", insist on rounding a clear measurement of 24.5" down to 24" because being out of range to shoot is "not fun", etc. The attitude of "just take a little extra because you're entitled to it" is a not a fun one to deal with.

That's why the poster asked permission.

It may be entirely subjective but I'd rather play against a casual 2004 points list than a supercheesy 2000 points one.

 Peregrine wrote:

Because your opponent has demonstrated that they're the sort of person who will ask for a free power fist in the first place?

And what's the problem in that? If he has a friendly attitude during the game and the game itself comes out fairly balanced it's a win win for everyone. I'd rather play against him that someone that brings his nasty castellan to casual games.

 Peregrine wrote:

See above. There is a difference between a player-neutral change that applies to all games/armies/etc equally and is lobbied for because it is better game design and a player-specific change like "I should be able to have an extra power fist because it's 'more fun' if my army has it".

Yes there is a difference. But it shouldn't affect how you enjoy the game. We're talking about friendly games with non optimized lists. There's nothing to prove, it's just a game with toy soldiers between two adults, nothing more actually.

Seriously for many people all that matters is enojoying a fairly balanced game. Some legal armies are full of undercosted stuff which make them perform like they were 2400 points. What's the fun in playing against an army like that if you don't have the tools to compete? But apparently since the army is legal that player has the right to bully every table. What happens in many clubs that are not strictly oriented in practising for tournaments is that ultra competitive player doesn't get a single game because everyone refuses to play with him.

Yeah that guy that wanted to play a 2004 points list has a tiny advantage rule-wise, but maybe his army is still worse than mine or maybe at the same level. If that's the case, the game should be fun to play. A balanced game with a tiny concession to one player is definitely more fun that a clash between two legal lists with one of them winning the game in turn 1 or 2.

But of course if you aim to prove yourself how amazing you are on a table or in rules lawyering none of this makes sense, I understand and respect that. It's just a different attitude. I want to play with my entire collection of models, sometimes it means that I can field tournament level lists, sometimes they're very far from that level. But I'd never play with a tournament oriented list against a casual one, I just don't see any point in doing that. I don't want to outperform the opponent, I just want a balanced game. Most of the times it involves some talking, concessions, and list tailoring before the game starts. I'm willing to accept any compromise to make the game more enjoyable. And of course people are entitled to have fun in their own way, as I said I respect that, never forget that we're talking about a game. For many people a hobby actually.

Well worded. Exactly what I want to say.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

 Javadog wrote:
All I see in this thread are people having a silly argument about their games of plastic soldiers, over a thing that entirely comes down to personal opinion on the issue and how people like to play the game/ how stringently they follow the rules. Plus it's pretty much degraded into less of a conversation and more of a "prove the other person wrong any way I can" contest.

Needless to say, it's a thread to read with a bucket of popcorn in hand.

Yeah, its disappointing to see that so many will condemn someone just for wishing to play by the rules.

I don't think anyone's condemning anyone for playing by the rules. No-one's saying "if you play by the rules, you're a bad person".
However, when said people are incapable of accepting when consenting players decide that they want to change those rules, that's condemnation.

Well, you're wrong, because that's exactly what some people are doing. First example right here, there's more too if you care to go through it:

 Blackie wrote:
People that wouldn't allow that +4pts on a non optimized SM list in a casual friendly game have some problems IMHO.

 SHUPPET wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
So very close! You're absolutely right, save for three little words at the end - "in my opinion".

There, fixed!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gu8u2SxarEE

It doesn't need to be stated at the end of every sentence that it's his opinion. When weighing in on a subjective topic, the implication is that it's an opinion. He would have to state that what he's saying is an objective fact for the opposite to be the case.

To be fair, "you're still wrong" sounds a lot like stating an objective fact in that context.
While I'd like to agree with you, and know that any rational person would have said that and known it was just their opinion, Peregrine has explicitly stated that it's more than just their opinion, it IS fact.

So yes, I absolutely agree with you - it shouldn't need to be stated that it's his opinion, because it should be clear it's an opinion. However, this is Peregrine, who believes this isn't just an opinion, but fact instead.

Unless of course, Peregrine, if you'd like to prove me wrong, as I know you enjoy to do - is that your opinion, or is it a fact?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SHUPPET wrote:
Well, you're wrong, because that's exactly what some people are doing. First example right here, there's more too if you care to go through it:

 Blackie wrote:
People that wouldn't allow that +4pts on a non optimized SM list in a casual friendly game have some problems IMHO.

Let's be honest - is that anywhere close to the kind of things people have been saying about the inverse? To me?

Because I can tell you, some people (not all) on one side of this discussion has been consistently rude, disrespectful, and far more explicit than the example you've given there. Two wrongs don't make right, but surely you can see that there's a very big difference between that and:
"That's honestly pathetic"
"You'd be a terrible person to even play a boardgame with if that's your attitude towards life."
"I'm not respecting any Flat Earther coming from this forum" (this one is doubly strange in the fact that Flat Earther comes out of simply nowhere, so I can't even add context in to that)
"You're still wrong"
"You really need to be ashamed of yourself."

And that's just from two pages.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
No, that's A courtesy, but not a basic one. A basic one would be things like "not cheating, respecting one another, discussing any issues you have, ensuring that the game is as enjoyable for all as possible".
Saving a few minutes before the game by having a pre-written list is hardly a basic courtesy of the hobby.

You clearly have low standards then. Being prepared and having a list ready is on the level of having dice, it's a basic expectation and there's really no good reason for failing to do it. It's extremely rude to make your opponent sit there waiting while you do something you should have done at home.

So very close! You're absolutely right, save for three little words at the end - "in my opinion".

There, fixed!

It's not my opinion, it's fact. Narrative play as presented by GW is a joke. It has very very few story elements involved, and the primary difference between "narrative" and normal games is that in "narrative" games you use a less-accurate point system. And "the game is less balanced" is not a reasonable definition of focusing on the story. FFS, it took us until the second CA book to get something as basic as having rules for creating characters.

If both players agree to it, then it's not just to one person's benefit, is it?

Of course it is. One player is getting the extra thing they want, the other player is probably using their standard list and getting nothing*. At best maybe they get a weak upgrade, like a melta bomb on a random sergeant that will probably never get to use it, that they already considered and didn't believe was valuable enough to take. And the motive for making the request is 100% selfish. A 2004 point game is not inherently a better experience than a 2000 point game, the sole reason for asking to play a 2004 point game is to get to add an extra thing to your list.

*For example, someone with your level of obsessive adherence to their fluff probably wouldn't be able to change anything since all of their units have a fixed configuration and any model swaps are unacceptable.

Id absolutely agree that going over the points limit is cheating - when done without the consent of your opponent. If they consent, then you're essentially just changing the points limit.

Cheating does not cease to be cheating just because you persuade your opponent to accept it. A more honest and "casual" player never asks in the first place. And it's hardly a case of legitimate consent when the "request" is backed up by a threat that you won't play against that person if they don't let you have the extra points, and the social pressure that you (and people like you) are going to label them a TFG if they want to play by the rules.

I don't think it's a mistake that GW seem to value people having fun over if their game is watertight and finely balanced.

If GW sees it this way then it's another demonstration of their incompetence. There is no conflict between fun and a watertight balanced game. Demanding to take a free power fist is not more "fun", it's just making your list more powerful.

 Blackie wrote:


I also don't get why allowing that +4points is heresy as it's bending the rules while the same people always play with house rules, which means they're bending the rules themselves and they're ok with that. Like using the ITC format but non only that.

It's not heresy, nor are house rules, I never said that, so let's step away from this strawman. If both players are okay with it, then it's of course fine. However, it's also fine for someone to say "nope, I'd rather play by the rules that I built my list to, thanks for asking". You are the one accusing people of having a problem if they DON'T consent, in which case you're not really just asking an open question, you are making a demand with an expectation that if someone doesn't concede to allowing you to go over the points limit then they "have a problem".

 Blackie wrote:
I understand how you feel, you probably have the typical mentality of those guys that go to the club eager to prove how skillful they are on the battlefield. Not everyone (thankfully) has this kind of approach in the game.

Nice assumption, but wrong. I go to the club to show off my conversions and fully painted army on the table. I refuse to put an unpainted model on the table. I am a big fan of narrative play, including board games and supplements, and Kill Team too as of late. I love admiring other people's hobbying and the setting, and often spend time just watching two awesomely painted armies fight, and contributing to the narrative and the positive atmosphere. I love engaging in lore discussions in the club, as I read a lot of the books, and what I haven't read I love learning about. Other times, I also play competitively too, and when I do I expect to play by the competitive ruleset, so if asked an open question, "hey can I go over the points limit", if both answers are genuinely an option, the one I will pick is "no".

You can call me a jerk in response to that, but I'll have to disagree with you on it, as while I will agree one of us is being pretty TFG in this hypothetical scenario, I'm quite sure that it's not me.

 Blackie wrote:
That single power fist doesn't have a real impact on the game but it's more fun to play.

Why is it more fun to play? Because it has a better stat line and is more likely to kill stuff than a basic melee attack? And if that power fist is so much fun why can't you cut something else from your list?

That's why the poster asked permission.

That doesn't justify it, just like asking permission to add 1" of free movement to your models because you don't want to fail your charge roll doesn't become ok just because you threaten to refuse to play against your opponent if they don't allow it.

And what's the problem in that?

The problem is the attitude of acting like they're entitled to break the rules for their own benefit. Take a little extra in list construction, take a little extra in the movement phase, maybe re-roll that 1 because missing an attack "isn't fun", etc. The player with the knight list might have a stronger list, but at least they're honest about it and aren't trying to weasel their way into free advantages.

There's nothing to prove, it's just a game with toy soldiers between two adults, nothing more actually.

If there's nothing to prove then why can't you follow the point limit? Why do you need to have those free points added to your list?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
So very close! You're absolutely right, save for three little words at the end - "in my opinion".

There, fixed!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gu8u2SxarEE

It doesn't need to be stated at the end of every sentence that it's his opinion. When weighing in on a subjective topic, the implication is that it's an opinion. He would have to state that what he's saying is an objective fact for the opposite to be the case.

To be fair, "you're still wrong" sounds a lot like stating an objective fact in that context.
While I'd like to agree with you, and know that any rational person would have said that and known it was just their opinion, Peregrine has explicitly stated that it's more than just their opinion, it IS fact.

So yes, I absolutely agree with you - it shouldn't need to be stated that it's his opinion, because it should be clear it's an opinion. However, this is Peregrine, who believes this isn't just an opinion, but fact instead.

Unless of course, Peregrine, if you'd like to prove me wrong, as I know you enjoy to do - is that your opinion, or is it a fact?

After Peregrine's response here, I concede that you are absolutely right, and hilariously so too. SMH Peregrine. Truly oblivious to how you come across.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SHUPPET wrote:
Well, you're wrong, because that's exactly what some people are doing. First example right here, there's more too if you care to go through it:

 Blackie wrote:
People that wouldn't allow that +4pts on a non optimized SM list in a casual friendly game have some problems IMHO.

Let's be honest - is that anywhere close to the kind of things people have been saying about the inverse? To me?

Because I can tell you, some people (not all) on one side of this discussion has been consistently rude, disrespectful, and far more explicit than the example you've given there. Two wrongs don't make right, but surely you can see that there's a very big difference between that and:
"That's honestly pathetic"
"You'd be a terrible person to even play a boardgame with if that's your attitude towards life."
"I'm not respecting any Flat Earther coming from this forum" (this one is doubly strange in the fact that Flat Earther comes out of simply nowhere, so I can't even add context in to that)
"You're still wrong"
"You really need to be ashamed of yourself."

And that's just from two pages.

 SHUPPET wrote:

Nice assumption, but wrong. I go to the club to show off my conversions and fully painted army on the table. I refuse to put an unpainted model on the table. I am a big fan of narrative play, including board games and supplements, and Kill Team too as of late. I love admiring other people's hobbying and the setting, and often spend time just watching two awesomely painted armies fight, and contributing to the narrative and the positive atmosphere. I love engaging in lore discussions in the club, as I read a lot of the books, and what I haven't read I love learning about. Other times, I also play competitively too, and when I do I expect to play by the competitive ruleset, so if asked an open question, "hey can I go over the points limit", if both answers are genuinely an option, the one I will pick is "no".

You can call me a jerk in response to that, but I'll have to disagree with you on it, as while I will agree one of us is being pretty TFG in this hypothetical scenario, I'm quite sure that it's not me.

If you bring a competitive list and you're clearly superior than that SM list, would you play against him if he cuts that power fist? Just curious.

If I note that I'm clearly superior not only I'd let him take the PF anyway, but I'd probably tone down my list before starting to play.

 SHUPPET wrote:
SMH Peregrine. Truly oblivious to how you come across.

Irony, thy name is SHUPPET.

Was this not in response to people saying that its problematic not to let your opponent take free points for upgrades beyond the limit? If so, then I somewhat agree, using less animated language. I'll be honest, I don't spend too much time reading Peregrine's posts, for obvious reasons. Even if it wasn't said in response to that however, that doesn't invalidate what I accurately had just said was happening, which you inaccurately claimed was not. As you said, other wrongs don't make it any less disappointing, just more so.

I just want to note that most of those are not quotes by me.

Peregrine wrote:You clearly have low standards then. Being prepared and having a list ready is on the level of having dice, it's a basic expectation and there's really no good reason for failing to do it.

And is that in the rules, or is that one of your little house rules? Sorry, but there's absolutely NOTHING that even expects I should have that. Dice, tape measure, codex - yeah, those WILL be needed, but an army list, in all my years of experience, has never been one of those things.

It's extremely rude to make your opponent sit there waiting while you do something you should have done at home.

Sorry, asking my opponent to wait a few minutes is rude?
If it's going to bother you that much, then you surely should be a fan of Power Level. After all, it's faster to make a PL list than a point list.

The very fact that you seem to think that not having respect and courtesy for your opponent is fine, but wasting a few minutes is rude?

Priorities, eh?

So very close! You're absolutely right, save for three little words at the end - "in my opinion".

There, fixed!

It's not my opinion, it's fact. Narrative play as presented by GW is a joke. It has very very few story elements involved, and the primary difference between "narrative" and normal games is that in "narrative" games you use a less-accurate point system. And "the game is less balanced" is not a reasonable definition of focusing on the story. FFS, it took us until the second CA book to get something as basic as having rules for creating characters.

Hey, SHUPPET? Told you.

If both players agree to it, then it's not just to one person's benefit, is it?

Of course it is. One player is getting the extra thing they want, the other player is probably using their standard list and getting nothing*. At best maybe they get a weak upgrade, like a melta bomb on a random sergeant that will probably never get to use it, that they already considered and didn't believe was valuable enough to take. And the motive for making the request is 100% selfish. A 2004 point game is not inherently a better experience than a 2000 point game, the sole reason for asking to play a 2004 point game is to get to add an extra thing to your list.

The 2004 game experience IS inherently better because it's going to be more fun for me. I would like to hope that my opponent would realise that my request was not for WAAC reasons, but genuinely for simply enjoyment and fun, and in the best interest of fun, understand my request.

Look, could you get it out of your head that any attempt to go over the limit ISN'T just trying to get more power? If power is all you can understand, that must say a lot about the kinds of things that are going on in your head.

*For example, someone with your level of obsessive adherence to their fluff probably wouldn't be able to change anything since all of their units have a fixed configuration and any model swaps are unacceptable.

Well, yeah. I don't have magnetised models, I don't have redundant ones, and I take my armies in what I see to be the most lore-friendly formations as possible. That means ten man Tactical Squads, Assault Squads and taking no captain but Captain Sicarius when I play Ultramarines.

Why should I have to swap models when I can ask you if me being slightly over should be fine? If you don't like that, then I'd drop a unit, and ask you to do the same, or simply decline the game, depending on your attitude.

Id absolutely agree that going over the points limit is cheating - when done without the consent of your opponent. If they consent, then you're essentially just changing the points limit.

Cheating does not cease to be cheating just because you persuade your opponent to accept it. A more honest and "casual" player never asks in the first place. And it's hardly a case of legitimate consent when the "request" is backed up by a threat that you won't play against that person if they don't let you have the extra points, and the social pressure that you (and people like you) are going to label them a TFG if they want to play by the rules.

Again, your definition of casual is "I don't care at all". My definition of casual is "I don't care about competitive play". There's a distinct difference.

I've also not said at all that I'd call someone a TFG if they didn't amend the points limit. I said I wouldn't play them if their attitude was poor. If they were pleasant, or more empathetic than you are, then I'd be far more inclined to remove a unit, and ask they do the same - if balance is so important.

I don't think it's a mistake that GW seem to value people having fun over if their game is watertight and finely balanced.

If GW sees it this way then it's another demonstration of their incompetence. There is no conflict between fun and a watertight balanced game. Demanding to take a free power fist is not more "fun", it's just making your list more powerful.

Who says there needs to be conflict in a game? There doesn't need to be conflict aside from the little plastic models running towards eachother. The game isn't about conflict*. It's about FUN*. If the rules inhibit fun for myself and my opponents, you bet I'm throwing them right out the window.

Asking to take a power fist on Sergeant Octavian and being a fraction over the points limit guideline, in my opinion, is absolutely more fun than Sergeant Barebones Johnson in a flavourless, puerile competitive list.

*But of course, that's just my opinion.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

SHUPPET wrote:After Peregrine's response here, I concede that you are absolutely right, and hilariously so too. SMH Peregrine. Truly oblivious to how you come across.

Its cool. I wouldn't have added it if I hadn't known Peregrine absolutely believes that way.

I don't blame you for expecting someone to know the difference between their opinion and fact, but here we are.

"That's honestly pathetic"
"You'd be a terrible person to even play a boardgame with if that's your attitude towards life."
"I'm not respecting any Flat Earther coming from this forum" (this one is doubly strange in the fact that Flat Earther comes out of simply nowhere, so I can't even add context in to that)
"You're still wrong"
"You really need to be ashamed of yourself."

And that's just from two pages.

Was this not in response to people saying that its problematic not to let your opponent take free points for upgrades beyond the limit? If so, then I somewhat agree, using less animated language. I'll be honest, I don't spend too much time reading Peregrine's posts, for obvious reasons. Even if it wasn't said in response to that however, that doesn't invalidate what I accurately had just said was happening, which you inaccurately claimed was not. As you said, other wrongs don't make it any less disappointing, just more so.

Not all of them. Quite a lot of them were just about having a relaxed attitude to the game, and not caring all about winning, and focusing on fun instead.

And as Peregrine says, they're not all from them. So, credit where credit is due, while Peregrine is interesting to discuss with, they don't often use animated language quite so directly.

Peregrine wrote:I just want to note that most of those are not quotes by me.

Which is true. I'm not calling out any one person to these - just more as "hey, I'm pretty sure certain individuals have said a lot worse more consistently than Blackie's quoted instance".

 Peregrine wrote:

Why is it more fun to play? Because it has a better stat line and is more likely to kill stuff than a basic melee attack? And if that power fist is so much fun why can't you cut something else from your list?

People have fun in different ways. For someone could be more fun to play with his actual models, without screwing a unit, even if it means to be slightly above the budget. Allowing a few more points above the budget is an house rule that is actually followed in some groups. Like any other house rules it must be approved by both players, but it's quite common in 40k to play with custom house rules of any kinds.

 Peregrine wrote:

That doesn't justify it, just like asking permission to add 1" of free movement to your models because you don't want to fail your charge roll doesn't become ok just because you threaten to refuse to play against your opponent if they don't allow it.

Asking permisson doesn't grant a positive answer. You are completely entitled to refuse to play against him. Just like me that I refuse to play against armies full of proxies just to chase the flavours of the month.

 Peregrine wrote:

The problem is the attitude of acting like they're entitled to break the rules for their own benefit. Take a little extra in list construction, take a little extra in the movement phase, maybe re-roll that 1 because missing an attack "isn't fun", etc. The player with the knight list might have a stronger list, but at least they're honest about it and aren't trying to weasel their way into free advantages.

Again, it's entirely subjective. I have more fun in playing a balanced match even if a player bended some rules that playing against someone that is clearly inferior or superior, even if completely legal. I have less fun playing with someone that shows up at the club with a tournament list in a place where no one can compete with that list and he could still tone down it having the models in his collection to do it but refuses to do it because he keeps record of his win/losses and doesn't want to lower his ratio.

 Peregrine wrote:

If there's nothing to prove then why can't you follow the point limit? Why do you need to have those free points added to your list?

I've explained that before. Because maybe the dude doesn't have the models to fit exactly the budget. He can play with 1995 or 2004 points maybe. Since we're talking about non competitive lists in friendly casual games it doesn't look like a way to get some real advantage by bending the rules. I think it's better to allow him playing at 2004 points that at 1991 because that's what you get by cutting one tac dude. Allowing a few more points above the budget in order to make one unit a bit more optimized in a non very optimized list doesn't sound that tragic IMHO. Generally speaking I prefer playing a list that is +4 points rather than -9 or even 2000 points sharp but with proxies like that PF dude that counts like not having the weapon because otherwise it would slightly break the budget.