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.

I am fairly new to the game and I was playing a match with a friend who was helping me figure out the rules. He told me that there is a 5 point "padding" as he called it so that you can, for example, have 2005 in a 2000 point list, I was just curious if he was right because I cant find anything about that in the rule book.

That is not true. Your group may have a houserule which allows it, but IMO, it is a bad practice.

sykl wrote:
I am fairly new to the game and I was playing a match with a friend who was helping me figure out the rules. He told me that there is a 5 point "padding" as he called it so that you can, for example, have 2005 in a 2000 point list, I was just curious if he was right because I cant find anything about that in the rule book.

There is no such rule in the rulebook

A lot of gaming groups give you allowance during friendly games, especially if youre just throwing something together quickly, however it is a bad habit to get into.

The 5 point padding is not a rule, but is suggested behavior in the rule book. You'll want to read pg 108 "Size of the Game".

Falling within a set limit of points can be one of the most difficult choices you make as a player. Whether you sergeant has menta bombs to tackle that land raider or how to downgrade from a power weapon to a combi-weapon can have a huge impact on the game.

That said, the limit is there for a reason and there is no exception to it.

That is why there is a point limit, because it makes you be selective. That is why I became a fan of the smaller games, but watching people squirm using double FOC is always comical.

Rapture wrote:Falling within a set limit of points can be one of the most difficult choices you make as a player. Whether you sergeant has menta bombs to tackle that land raider or how to downgrade from a power weapon to a combi-weapon can have a huge impact on the game.

That said, the limit is there for a reason and there is no exception to it.

Dastrike wrote:That is why there is a point limit, because it makes you be selective. That is why I became a fan of the smaller games, but watching people squirm using double FOC is always comical.

Except that the rulebook actually states that allowing someone to go over is Okay. Even though I don't go over myself, I have had to scrap several armies because I don't use upgrades on a lot of things. So that point difference is more along the lines of do I not take a unit because I can't make minimum size, or do I remove that one heavy weapon that I actually took, or maybe even no weapons on my commander. There are lots of ways to build an army, not all of which are upgrading everything, and anything that has an option. Many of my issues have left me with a 12 point deficit, which I won't play either.


Which is better, three more Firewarriors, or upgrading 1 to a Sas'ui with a Markerlight? Six more firewarriors or 2 squads that are bonded, and have a Shas'ui with a Markerlight? It is all subjective, as such for me more boots on the ground is better.

The rulebook also mentions that changing any of the game rules to suit yourselves is perfectly acceptable... And that statement is equally unnecessary.

The rulebook doesn't needed to grant permission for players to change the rules or alter the points limit of the game... Players will do that when it suits them anyway.

That doesn't change the fact that an agreed limit is a limit.

 insaniak wrote:
The rulebook also mentions that changing any of the game rules to suit yourselves is perfectly acceptable... And that statement is equally unnecessary.

The rulebook doesn't needed to grant permission for players to change the rules or alter the points limit of the game... Players will do that when it suits them anyway.

That doesn't change the fact that an agreed limit is a limit.

But the "no exception" part actually has an "exception" that is in the core rulebook.

It really falls down to how your opponent feels about it, ask before putting your army on the table if you are over. For tournaments....Most are limit or below, your area may differ so talk to the Tournament Organizer, then build your army.

Obviously, I don't have a problem with you going over, while many others do. I have played several other people who don't mind if you go over a bit either, so there is no true consensus on the overage. However, if you plan to play others outside of your usual group try to be below, or at least ask them if a couple points over is okay before setting down to play.

megatrons2nd wrote:
Except that the rulebook actually states that allowing someone to go over is Okay.

Please provide quote.

You'll find that the rulebook doesn't actually say this is okay, it says most players are happy to allow it. I don't know how the rulebook writer was able to poll all the players and determine that a majority (most) think this is okay, because in my experience (in the real world, not the internet), zero players think it is okay. It is better to be under by 5 points than to be over by 1.

It's a limit. If you want to play 2005 points, tell your opponent you want to play 2005, don't tell him 2000 and then show up with 2005.

The chances of 5pts changing the Outcome of the game would be so small It would be near neglibable.

 sing your life wrote:
The chances of 5pts changing the Outcome of the game would be so small It would be near neglibable.

I've had it happen quite often. Melta Bombs are my bane.

Redbeard wrote:

megatrons2nd wrote:
Except that the rulebook actually states that allowing someone to go over is Okay.

Please provide quote.

You'll find that the rulebook doesn't actually say this is okay, it says most players are happy to allow it. I don't know how the rulebook writer was able to poll all the players and determine that a majority (most) think this is okay, because in my experience (in the real world, not the internet), zero players think it is okay. It is better to be under by 5 points than to be over by 1.

It's a limit. If you want to play 2005 points, tell your opponent you want to play 2005, don't tell him 2000 and then show up with 2005.

You've already referenced the requested quote. If the BRB says most players are happy to allow it, then allowing it is OK.

sing your life wrote:The chances of 5pts changing the Outcome of the game would be so small It would be near neglibable.

Its impossible to know if 5 points will make a difference. 5 points could mean my heavy weapon in my tactical squad was a plasma cannon instead of a heavy bolter. That means my squad was able to kill the enemy assault terminators before they were charged and my squad wasn't wiped out, and I scored 1st blood instead of my opponent, and my squad was free to fire on his warlord, and they killed his warlord instead of his warlord killing my 2nd tactical squad and both my squads are sitting on objectives in a crusade match with 3 objectives. Right there 5 points was worth a 8 victory point spread in a game that only has 14 victory points. That totally effected the win. Butterfly effect.

 DJGietzen wrote:

Redbeard wrote:

megatrons2nd wrote:
Except that the rulebook actually states that allowing someone to go over is Okay.

Please provide quote.

You've already referenced the requested quote. If the BRB says most players are happy to allow it, then allowing it is OK.

I'm not sure I follow that leap in logic. If most people are happy to drive drunk, should I allow that? I think this is one of the traditional small-child versus competent adult argument that every kid tries at one point. "But all my friends are doing it" - so what, it's still a bad idea.

The point is, the rulebook does not actually say it is acceptable to go over in points, hence my requesting the text of the rule. The rulebook states that "most" (again, I was never polled) players wouldn't have an issue with it. Which, in my actual experience, is flat out wrong. In my actual experience, most players do mind.

 sing your life wrote:
The chances of 5pts changing the Outcome of the game would be so small It would be near neglibable.

Then let's have a 2005 point game since neither of our five points will make a difference.

His friend is probably just being helpful as the OP is new to the game. So his friend isn't quibbling about 5pts.

if we are talking strict RAW 2k is just 2k no more, no less. then any tourny at 1999+1 is a 2k tourny and I can bring a double force org army. RAW.

*peers into the future rebuttal*

you mean TO's can blatantly change rules against RAW, but friends can't?

It's a game, play it as agreed upon by the people playing the game.

2k would be a cap, your under no obligation to fill out every point.

Generally that whole '5 points over' house rule only comes into effect if you have no way to easily cut a certain number of points from your list without going seriously under. If you have some little piece of wargear like a meltabomb that could be cut to bring yourself under the points limit, then cut the dang thing out.

 megatrons2nd wrote:
But the "no exception" part actually has an "exception" that is in the core rulebook.

No it doesn't. The rulebook doesn't say you can go over the point limit. It says that 'most' players are happy to allow it.

Why it says that, I have no idea, but I suspect it's just more proof of just how out of touch GW are with their own customers and the way their game is played.


Some players are happy to allow you to go slightly over the points limit. Others (most, from my experience) will prefer you to stick to the limit. Because it's a limit, and it's there for a reason.

If you're going to allow 5 points over by default, then you're not playing a 1500 point game. You're playing a 1505 point game. So just make that the limit, and stick to that instead, if you really need those extra 5 points in there...

 insaniak wrote:

 megatrons2nd wrote:
But the "no exception" part actually has an "exception" that is in the core rulebook.

No it doesn't. The rulebook doesn't say you can go over the point limit. It says that 'most' players are happy to allow it.

Why it says that, I have no idea, but I suspect it's just more proof of just how out of touch GW are with their own customers and the way their game is played.


Some players are happy to allow you to go slightly over the points limit. Others (most, from my experience) will prefer you to stick to the limit. Because it's a limit, and it's there for a reason.

If you're going to allow 5 points over by default, then you're not playing a 1500 point game. You're playing a 1505 point game. So just make that the limit, and stick to that instead, if you really need those extra 5 points in there...

Insaniak is right, the book does not give you permission to go over. It says that you should ask your opponent, and makes the claim that they will probably give you permission to go over.

That being said, most of the opponents that I play are happy to allow it. I've never seen anyone object to 5 points.

 Jimsolo wrote:

That being said, most of the opponents that I play are happy to allow it. I've never seen anyone object to 5 points.

How about 7?

10?

25?

Where do you draw the line? And, given that whatever answer you give is going to be completely arbitrary, why not draw the line at 0 points over...

 sing your life wrote:
The chances of 5pts changing the Outcome of the game would be so small It would be near neglibable.

5 points is the difference as to whether my 900+ point ovesastar has initiative 5 hit&run, IMO the chances of THAT changing the outcome of the game is massive.

The only time having 'flex points' was ok for me in my entire gaming experience was when i first started playing and it was me and two friends in their parents basement. Every other group I've ever played in has adhered to strict points limits, and in my experience that has been much better than allowing an extra upgrade which could be inconsequential OR completely make the game for you. If you're a newbie, and none of your friends care, fine. Just understand that the majority of the community has a different expectation.

In my gaming group, it often occurs that one of our lists accidentally goes over the limit by a small amount. What we do in these situations is just make that the new points limit, and allow the other player a chance to stick on some upgrades to his units to make the difference (melta bombs etc)

I always like the argument of "5 points don't matter". If it doesn't matter then you should have no problem finding 5 points to cut from your list.

Among friends, nearly anything is ok. But, I'm comfortable taking my opponents beer, farting, and making fun of his mom when he's my friend. I wouldn't do that during a pick up game or at a tournament.

(the best was when I played a guy I knew with a long trailer park pony tail. I asked if the haircut came with a camaro, or vice versa. Turns out he actually drove a thunderbird.)

Outside of friends? Cut that army down to size. As has been pointed out ad nauseum, if five points doesn't matter, then you won't miss it.

I think the difficulty stems from a cultural divide between Brits and Americans. American culture teaches that books are absolute and typically right. The RAW argument is usually someone trying very hard to adhere to something flawed (or manipulate errors to their advantage). I find the irrational belief that certain obviously wrong or erroneous rules are treated like Gospel (wolf guard termies with cannons and whirlwinds?) to be very frustrating.

But for many people, this is the only way they can play, so I always make sure I'm under. 5 or 10 points shouldn't make that big a deal, but whining is terrible to endure.

 3orangewhips wrote:
I think the difficulty stems from a cultural divide between Brits and Americans. American culture teaches that books are absolute and typically right. The RAW argument is usually someone trying very hard to adhere to something flawed (or manipulate errors to their advantage). I find the irrational belief that certain obviously wrong or erroneous rules are treated like Gospel (wolf guard termies with cannons and whirlwinds?) to be very frustrating.

But for many people, this is the only way they can play, so I always make sure I'm under. 5 or 10 points shouldn't make that big a deal, but whining is terrible to endure.

Let's NOT try to make this into a national issue, okay?

 3orangewhips wrote:
...(wolf guard termies with cannons and whirlwinds?)....

Err.... what?

I think they meant 2nd ed termies, with Ass. Cannons and Cyclones.

 3orangewhips wrote:
I think the difficulty stems from a cultural divide between Brits and Americans. American culture teaches that books are absolute and typically right. The RAW argument is usually someone trying very hard to adhere to something flawed (or manipulate errors to their advantage). I find the irrational belief that certain obviously wrong or erroneous rules are treated like Gospel (wolf guard termies with cannons and whirlwinds?) to be very frustrating.

But for many people, this is the only way they can play, so I always make sure I'm under. 5 or 10 points shouldn't make that big a deal, but whining is terrible to endure.

I agree, I always find it terribly annoying when some whiny guy tries to get away with blatantly disregarding the initial agreement we both made for a game (see what I did there ).
It always amazes me that people argue over adhering to an agreed points total. I've never seen this in other games. Can you imagine trying to convince your opponent during Risk you should be allowed 5 more armies at the start? or have your team be with 12 guys at soccer?

Most players allow it, but that does not mean they are happy about it.
Also to those saying just let the opponent get an upgrade for the points the other player is over why not just let them get another unit/model instead. Hey it's only 40 points more to get that terminator so shouldn't matter right?

However this is why you check with the people you play with instead of on the internet, as some groups don't mind and others do .