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.

My compatriots and I borrow a rule from another game (can't remember which one.. Warzone maybe?) which was that you could go over by up to half the value of the cheapest model in the army.

I'm open to going over because GW was fine with it when I got into gaming, the first game I was really into was Space Marine 1st edition which had a rule that you could go over, but you had to dice for it to potentially lose a unit.

 Gashrog wrote:
My compatriots and I borrow a rule from another game (can't remember which one.. Warzone maybe?) which was that you could go over by up to half the value of the cheapest model in the army.

Sounds like an awesome rule for Knights players...

I'm surprised so many people are hardline about this, given how relaxed my local meta is.

Personally I'm totally comfortable with 9 points over, 10 would be where I slap an upgrade on somewhere to even it.

Marginally higher personal standards: I'll go about 3 points under to 5 points over unless one of my upgrades actually costs 5 points. Most Necron ones don't.

An exception was actually only two weeks ago when I said to a Grey Knights player "Hang on a sec, I'm stripping down from a 2000 point list to 1500 and working out where to cut the last 25 points" and he replied "Just roll with it, this is my tournament list and the guy I was going to play didn't show up, something you've just tossed together will be weaker anyway and I'd rather just get started."

He won massively. Dang invisible Paladins...

Its not about being hardlines, or hardcore, or demanding, or anything.

Really, its just courtesy. Don't force your opponent to have to make a call if your inability to meet the limit is acceptable or not.

I don't mind if it takes a little longer to work out a list, but do everyone a favour and clock in at or below the limit. If its not a big deal to be over, it likewise shouldn't be a big deal to be under.

 Blacksails wrote:
If its not a big deal to be over, it likewise shouldn't be a big deal to be under.

And if it being trivial cuts both ways, it being trivial cuts both ways.

The points values are an extremely rough guideline in the first place anyhow. Every codex has things that are blatantly under or overcosted, and things that work better or worse in synergy than they do in a vacuum. I figure that in the stores and clubs I've been to, the reason nobody cares about pinpointing it is because they know all that.

It's only at a tournament where half the players are trying to win before they hit the table with fine-tuned broken lists that it makes sense to cull potential arguments by setting it in stone. (Though even then, it would honestly make more sense to make a narrow error margin bracket such as 1997-2003 you're not above or below than a cutoff, if it's about ensuring everyone has the same value).

The difference with the 'cuts both ways' argument is that being under the limit is holding on to an agreement. Its being courteous and polite. Neither you nor your opponent has to have a discussion about how many points over are acceptable.

Being over means you've made some sort of conscious decision to exceed the limit due to whatever list building reason you come up with. Now you've placed a burden on your opponent to either let it slide, or ask you to rejig your list to make it legal according to the agreed upon limit. At that point, your action is not a little rude. If its not a big deal to be over, it shouldn't be a big deal to be under, which oddly enough, happens to fit the agreed upon limit.

A limit is just that. If you and your opponent have agreed to it, make the effort to stick to it.

 Blacksails wrote:
The difference with the 'cuts both ways' argument is that being under the limit is holding on to an agreement. Its being courteous and polite. Neither you nor your opponent has to have a discussion about how many points over are acceptable.

Being over means you've made some sort of conscious decision to exceed the limit due to whatever list building reason you come up with. Now you've placed a burden on your opponent to either let it slide, or ask you to rejig your list to make it legal according to the agreed upon limit. At that point, your action is not a little rude. If its not a big deal to be over, it shouldn't be a big deal to be under, which oddly enough, happens to fit the agreed upon limit.

A limit is just that. If you and your opponent have agreed to it, make the effort to stick to it.

Or the area has a relaxed, unspoken agreement that it really doesn't matter all that much, and nobody is being rude.

And I'm quite serious about not being able to use the cuts both ways thing to cut only one way. If you were just saying "A limit is a limit", that's one thing. But by going to the length of making a statment to the effect of "It doesn't matter if you're a little off, except that it actually does and I don't actually mean that.", then you should drop the pretence of superficial agreement and be ensuring that both armies must be exactly identical in points.

By saying you think Points are that critical but that you don't care if the opponent is under, you send the message "I don't care if the fight is fair or not as long as it's unfair in my favour". Again, it's not so much the insistence on the limit as the added rhetoric sending the wrong signals.

 Blacksails wrote:
The difference with the 'cuts both ways' argument is that being under the limit is holding on to an agreement. Its being courteous and polite. Neither you nor your opponent has to have a discussion about how many points over are acceptable.

Being over means you've made some sort of conscious decision to exceed the limit due to whatever list building reason you come up with. Now you've placed a burden on your opponent to either let it slide, or ask you to rejig your list to make it legal according to the agreed upon limit. At that point, your action is not a little rude. If its not a big deal to be over, it shouldn't be a big deal to be under, which oddly enough, happens to fit the agreed upon limit.

A limit is just that. If you and your opponent have agreed to it, make the effort to stick to it.

The cuts both ways argument is true though. Often times, one picks a few upgrades for no reason other than to fill up points. Maybe it will come in handy, maybe not, but it's unlikely to be game-deciding -- this is why I don't really care if someone is reasonably close.

Now, this is not to say that I disagree with anything you say, Blacksails -- I do agree that 1,850 does not mean 1,865 or 1,851, and fundamentally, there I can't think of any good reason to purposely go over. There's gotta be an upgrade that you can sacrifice, right? It's unlikely to be game-deciding, but isn't very courteous as you put it, and may possibly cause squabbling which is a massive waste of time.

I suppose the only time I would really understand it is if someone wanted to play themetic "all death company" squads or something, a the difference between a few points was a whole squad (because each squad is to be identical) or a major unit.

changemod wrote:


Or the area has a relaxed, unspoken agreement that it really doesn't matter all that much, and nobody is being rude.

And I'm quite serious about not being able to use the cuts both ways thing to cut only one way. If you were just saying "A limit is a limit", that's one thing. But by going to the length of making a statment to the effect of "It doesn't matter if you're a little off, except that it actually does and I don't actually mean that.", then you should drop the pretence of superficial agreement and be ensuring that both armies must be exactly identical in points.

By saying you think Points are that critical but that you don't care if the opponent is under, you send the message "I don't care if the fight is fair or not as long as it's unfair in my favour". Again, it's not so much the insistence on the limit as the added rhetoric sending the wrong signals.

If your group is that relaxed and those are the expectations set for everyone, then who am I to tell you otherwise.

In a purely theoretical discussion though, there are very few good reasons to enforce anything other than a strict limit. The exceptions would include things like beginners, last minute changes with WYSIWYG armies, and other rarities. Otherwise, showing up to an agreed upon game with anything over the limit strikes me as being rude. When you show up with a list exceeding the limit, you're telling me I'm not important enough to follow the rules.

By expecting my opponent to be at or under the limits does not in any way send a message about whether or not its fair or in my favour. Its entirely to do with being a polite opponent who respects your opponent. Being at or under the limit was the agreement when you set the point level; being over was not apart of that unless it was already agreed upon. In which case it begs the question of why not set the point value at whatever limit you can both build exactly to.

The point I'm trying to make is that it should be courtesy to build your list up to the point limit, but never over. Don't put your opponent in the less than desirable situation of having to either agree to your illegal list, or asking you to re-do it to fit within the agreed upon limit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Talys wrote:


The cuts both ways argument is true though. Often times, one picks a few upgrades for no reason other than to fill up points. Maybe it will come in handy, maybe not, but it's unlikely to be game-deciding -- this is why I don't really care if someone is reasonably close.

Now, this is not to say that I disagree with anything you say, Blacksails -- I do agree that 1,850 does not mean 1,865 or 1,851, and fundamentally, there I can't think of any good reason to purposely go over. There's gotta be an upgrade that you can sacrifice, right? It's unlikely to be game-deciding, but isn't very courteous as you put it, and may possibly cause squabbling which is a massive waste of time.

I suppose the only time I would really understand it is if someone wanted to play themetic "all death company" squads or something, a the difference between a few points was a whole squad (because each squad is to be identical) or a major unit.

The difference with the 'cuts both ways' argument is that being under is still within the agreed upon limit; being over is not. Therefore, given the two scenarios, the former is significantly preferred over the latter.

The entire point of list building is trying to fit all you can within the limit. Being over by 1 points may mean the difference between what kind of Leman Russ you brought, or if your vets have plasma guns or melta guns. These things matter, and its part of the challenge.

 Blacksails wrote:

changemod wrote:


Or the area has a relaxed, unspoken agreement that it really doesn't matter all that much, and nobody is being rude.

And I'm quite serious about not being able to use the cuts both ways thing to cut only one way. If you were just saying "A limit is a limit", that's one thing. But by going to the length of making a statment to the effect of "It doesn't matter if you're a little off, except that it actually does and I don't actually mean that.", then you should drop the pretence of superficial agreement and be ensuring that both armies must be exactly identical in points.

By saying you think Points are that critical but that you don't care if the opponent is under, you send the message "I don't care if the fight is fair or not as long as it's unfair in my favour". Again, it's not so much the insistence on the limit as the added rhetoric sending the wrong signals.

If your group is that relaxed and those are the expectations set for everyone, then who am I to tell you otherwise.

In a purely theoretical discussion though, there are very few good reasons to enforce anything other than a strict limit. The exceptions would include things like beginners, last minute changes with WYSIWYG armies, and other rarities. Otherwise, showing up to an agreed upon game with anything over the limit strikes me as being rude. When you show up with a list exceeding the limit, you're telling me I'm not important enough to follow the rules.

By expecting my opponent to be at or under the limits does not in any way send a message about whether or not its fair or in my favour. Its entirely to do with being a polite opponent who respects your opponent. Being at or under the limit was the agreement when you set the point level; being over was not apart of that unless it was already agreed upon. In which case it begs the question of why not set the point value at whatever limit you can both build exactly to.

The point I'm trying to make is that it should be courtesy to build your list up to the point limit, but never over. Don't put your opponent in the less than desirable situation of having to either agree to your illegal list, or asking you to re-do it to fit within the agreed upon limit.

I tried to make the core point of my reply as clear as I could, but since you haven't directly adressed it I'll assume it was missed.

In your initial reply to me, you used a specific point of rhetoric that sends entirely the wrong signals, and since your own core point is an opinion on politeness, it should probably be brought to your attention.

You said, direct quote: "If its not a big deal to be over, it likewise shouldn't be a big deal to be under."

This sends the signal "I think that this standard of fairness is of critical importance, and should not be violated. However, if you choose to violate it in my favour, I no longer care."

I don't read this to be your actual intention, but it is actually a bit rude in and of itself to declase something to be important when it happens to be out of your favour then immediately say they can go the other way if they like. Regardless of the underlying intent.

Therefore, whilst it's fine to defend something you consider an inviolable standard, you should phrase your arguments in favour of the standard itself, not in terms of turning your oponent's logic against them without considering the full implications of what that just made you say.

Right, and the whole point of that being that if its seen to be not a big deal either way, why be over when being under is the much more amicable solution for all involved?

 Blacksails wrote:
Right, and the whole point of that being that if its seen to be not a big deal either way, why be over when being under is the much more amicable solution for all involved?

This is looking worryingly close to the sentiment being more sincere than I realised.

I'll try again: "As you have the more relaxed attitude, wouldn't things be easier if you immediately capitulated to my demands?", is an easily percieved undertone to what you just said there. That is less likely to get someone to agree than just saying "This standard is important to me and I'd prefer if we observed it as the rules suggest."

You say it's a matter of politeness, then use subtly insulting rhetoric. It doesn't really make sense.

There's nothing insulting about it, nor is it about capitulating to demands.

Do you honestly think its in anyway unreasonable to expect someone to show up with a list that meets the expectations set earlier? I find it hard to believe you're twisting this into something it really isn't.

We agree on a 1500pts game. You have up to and including 1500pts to make a list. Not a point more. If you can't make a specific army with that point allocation, it isn't meant for that game. Simple.

Showing up with up to and including the agreed upon point value should be seen and understood as the correct and polite way to participate in a game. Going over should be reserved for rare circumstances where that isn't feasible given time and model restraints at that moment. Otherwise, given sufficient time, I fully expect my opponent to bring a list at or under the given point value.

I know I'm going to do that, and I expect the same.

Super simple stuff. I don't know what's insulting about any of that. It'd be like asking your mate to show up at a certain time to eat at a restaurant, or watch a movie. I expect my friend to arrive at or before the given time, unless some unforeseen circumstance holds them up. Same goes for a point limit in 40k. Be at or below the value unless some other circumstance prevents that within reason.

I don't think any of that is unreasonable or rude or insulting. Part of the challenge of building a list is doing it within constraints. Otherwise I could just build a 1500pts list up to 1515 in order to get that last plasma gun to round out my vet squad.

 Blacksails wrote:
There's nothing insulting about it, nor is it about capitulating to demands.

It's entirely a demand to do things your way by appealing to it being "simpler" and "better for both parties" in a context where it could easily reverse the 1-4 point advantage, that you just indicated you consider important, in your favour.

Do you honestly think its in anyway unreasonable to expect someone to show up with a list that meets the expectations set earlier? I find it hard to believe you're twisting this into something it really isn't.

We agree on a 1500pts game. You have up to and including 1500pts to make a list. Not a point more. If you can't make a specific army with that point allocation, it isn't meant for that game. Simple.

Showing up with up to and including the agreed upon point value should be seen and understood as the correct and polite way to participate in a game. Going over should be reserved for rare circumstances where that isn't feasible given time and model restraints at that moment. Otherwise, given sufficient time, I fully expect my opponent to bring a list at or under the given point value.

I know I'm going to do that, and I expect the same.

This is neither relevant to what I was saying, nor is it objectionable. I might not agree entirely, but I don't consider your tone or expectations in this regard unreasonable, merely not entirely necessary.

Super simple stuff. I don't know what's insulting about any of that. It'd be like asking your mate to show up at a certain time to eat at a restaurant, or watch a movie. I expect my friend to arrive at or before the given time, unless some unforeseen circumstance holds them up. Same goes for a point limit in 40k. Be at or below the value unless some other circumstance prevents that within reason.I don't think any of that is unreasonable or rude or insulting. Part of the challenge of building a list is doing it within constraints. Otherwise I could just build a 1500pts list up to 1515 in order to get that last plasma gun to round out my vet squad.

And it's fine that you're this rigorous, (regardless of the fact that I'd consider it to not matter in the slightest that my friend was within five minutes or so late in the same position.)

But again, not actually relevant. You're just padding out the argument here by assuming I'm trying to prove you wrong on a point purely because I don't agree with you.

I singled out part of your reply as having a mildly condescending tone, which mattered to me becuase you mentioned at length the importance of politeness and failed to apply it consistently, regardless of whether doing so was accidental. If politeness is important to you, then pointing out where you would accidentally lapse were you to say that ought to be something you would encourage.

Consider the following if we were to play a game:

I might say something to the effect of: "Okay, I put together my list. It's three points over, but that shouldn't be a problem." Likely, as I don't normally play the same list twice in a row.

You would then point out you consider the guideline important.

I'd explain that I don't have any upgrades cheaper than ten points or models cheaper than 15 points in my list, and there's no point in me holding things up by taking time to micromanage a closer value.

If you followed up by saying that if it doesn't matter, it shouldn't matter I'm under... I'll probably not manage to entirely hide my annoyance at your phrasing, but will give up anyway.

Does that matter much? Not really, but I'm going to view your following actions in a more negativive light and if this kind of thing comes up enough times, be considerably less interested in playing you again.

Aaaaand that's all. If I haven't managed to make you see what I'm saying by this stage, I'm clearly not going to manage at all. This'll be my last word on the subject.

changemod wrote:


It's entirely a demand to do things your way by appealing to it being "simpler" and "better for both parties" in a context where it could easily reverse the 1-4 point advantage, that you just indicated you consider important, in your favour.

Why is it acceptable then to be over the limit? Why would consider yourself more important that you deem it acceptable to be over the limit agreed upon?

Once more, being at or under the point limit ensures neither party is more important than the other. Going over shows a disregard to that agreement.

This is neither relevant to what I was saying, nor is it objectionable. I might not agree entirely, but I don't consider your tone or expectations in this regard unreasonable, merely not entirely necessary.

I honestly don't know what about my tone is bothering you. Text based medium always has some sort of problems, as the sublteties of conversation often don't show through, like tone. In this case, I'd encourage you to read everything I'm saying as though I'm six beers deep.

Because I am.

And it's fine that you're this rigorous, (regardless of the fact that I'd consider it to not matter in the slightest that my friend was within five minutes or so late in the same position.)

But again, not actually relevant. You're just padding out the argument here by assuming I'm trying to prove you wrong on a point purely because I don't agree with you.

I singled out part of your reply as having a mildly condescending tone, which mattered to me becuase you mentioned at length the importance of politeness and failed to apply it consistently, regardless of whether doing so was accidental. If politeness is important to you, then pointing out where you would accidentally lapse were you to say that ought to be something you would encourage.

Consider the following if we were to play a game:

I might say something to the effect of: "Okay, I put together my list. It's three points over, but that shouldn't be a problem." Likely, as I don't normally play the same list twice in a row.

You would then point out you consider the guideline important.

I'd explain that I don't have any upgrades cheaper than ten points or models cheaper than 15 points in my list, and there's no point in me holding things up by taking time to micromanage a closer value.

If you followed up by saying that if it doesn't matter, it shouldn't matter I'm under... I'll probably not manage to entirely hide my annoyance at your phrasing, but will give up anyway.

Does that matter much? Not really, but I'm going to view your following actions in a more negativive light and if this kind of thing comes up enough times, be considerably less interested in playing you again.

Aaaaand that's all. If I haven't managed to make you see what I'm saying by this stage, I'm clearly not going to manage at all. This'll be my last word on the subject.

I believe I already covered scenarios in which is may be considered acceptable to break the limit. In all other scenarios, especially given ample time, there's no real reason why anyone should knowingly build a list in excess of the agreed upon point value.

Once more, if you feel I've been condescending, it hasn't been my intention. Understand also that you may not be equally faultless and a degree of leeway should be given in internet discussions.

I agree with Blacksails. The limit is the limit. If you go over that limit, you are making an imposition on your opponent.

If you have 1501, and your cheapest thing on the board is 50 points, suck it up and play with 1451.

 Blacksails wrote:
Why is it acceptable then to be over the limit? Why would consider yourself more important that you deem it acceptable to be over the limit agreed upon?

Once more, being at or under the point limit ensures neither party is more important than the other. Going over shows a disregard to that agreement.

Well, the assumption you draw here is that the person is considering themselves more important than their opponent, rather than merely considering the points value a target value with a narrow error margin. Seems more like a difference in attitude, similar to a group of friends considering a meetup at 6pm to be a target value time they can be five minutes late or early for whilst you and your friends would apparently consider it an fixed appointment to be early for.

Neither attitude is outright wrong, merely conflicting when they clash into one another.

Once more, if you feel I've been condescending, it hasn't been my intention. Understand also that you may not be equally faultless and a degree of leeway should be given in internet discussions.

Well, I haven't claimed to be faultless. If you see a contradiction between my stated worldview and specific points I've made, feel free to point it out and ideally I'll welcome the correction to my flawed reasoning.

As I've said before, my read of your intentions didn't find a problem, I just felt that you had accidentally used wording that implied it was okay to flip the tables on a problem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:
I agree with Blacksails. The limit is the limit. If you go over that limit, you are making an imposition on your opponent.

If you have 1501, and your cheapest thing on the board is 50 points, suck it up and play with 1451.

This though, I'd outright disagree with. Far too extreme an example.

So long as you understand your assumption is that a point limit is anything other than a limit. As I stated earlier, if you and your friends all agree on a way of handling these things, who am I to tell you otherwise?

In any other situation, the most reasonable and sensible option is simply to build a list under or up to the agreed upon limit. That way, there's no misunderstanding or grey area of what constitutes an acceptable amount over the limit. Is 5 okay? What about 10? How about 15? Perhaps 20? The advantage of a limit is that it's definable and clearly understood by all involved. There's no ambiguity to saying 1500 post limit when everyone understands there's no going over.

Once more, if my posts have struck you as being condescending, it hasn't been my intention and I ask you to read it another way. Personally I feel like nothing I've said is noteworthy of being read that way, but I'll let others decide.

 Blacksails wrote:
So long as you understand your assumption is that a point limit is anything other than a limit. As I stated earlier, if you and your friends all agree on a way of handling these things, who am I to tell you otherwise?

In any other situation, the most reasonable and sensible option is simply to build a list under or up to the agreed upon limit. That way, there's no misunderstanding or grey area of what constitutes an acceptable amount over the limit. Is 5 okay? What about 10? How about 15? Perhaps 20? The advantage of a limit is that it's definable and clearly understood by all involved. There's no ambiguity to saying 1500 post limit when everyone understands there's no going over.

I think I see the difference here, and it roots back to my local GW's attitude when introducing the game to people, I think.

See: It was introduced to me as a guideline rather than a literal and precise limit. And it will have been introduced to everyone else who got their starter kits or first army box at the same GW store in the same way, over the past few years at least. The manager has a statue indicating he's been an employee for over a decade on display, so I suspect at least that long.

So yes, the climate in this town in general doesn't see it as all that important because nobody ever said to us it should be.

Once more, if my posts have struck you as being condescending, it hasn't been my intention and I ask you to read it another way. Personally I feel like nothing I've said is noteworthy of being read that way, but I'll let others decide.

Ah, sorry if I gave you the impression you had to apologise. I did type the post where I resolved to stop explaining the inconsistency between a single point and your overall tone whilst a little annoyed, but all that pushed me to do was to make the resolution to drop it. No harm.

I keep my list at or under that limit, but I don't care if someones a couple points over (cap at about 5)

changemod wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
Why is it acceptable then to be over the limit? Why would consider yourself more important that you deem it acceptable to be over the limit agreed upon?

Once more, being at or under the point limit ensures neither party is more important than the other. Going over shows a disregard to that agreement.

Well, the assumption you draw here is that the person is considering themselves more important than their opponent, rather than merely considering the points value a target value with a narrow error margin.

What you have is someone who's considering the game more important than the agreement he made with the other player. There's no good reason that a game is more important than an agreement that you've made with your opponent.

JubbJubbz wrote:
I can't see getting bent out of shape over a few points, especially if you're ok with your opponent being under by a much larger margin than you're ok with them being over. You're not worried about playing a game where both are on equal ground. You're just worried about yourself being at a disadvantage, no matter how slight. It seems symptomatic of an individual overly concerned with winning and whom I'd not enjoy playing against anyway. If you think you really need that extra 3 points to make your list work, go right ahead. I can't imagine that someone could think that less than a half of one percent disadvantage in points would make or break a game which has many random factors and isn't super balanced anyway.

This is TFG logic that basically shames people for disallowing soft cheating.

If points aren't a big deal, then abide by the rules that we decide upon when we decide to play a game at X points.

changemod wrote:
See: It was introduced to me as a guideline rather than a literal and precise limit. And it will have been introduced to everyone else who got their starter kits or first army box at the same GW store in the same way, over the past few years at least. The manager has a statue indicating he's been an employee for over a decade on display, so I suspect at least that long.

The thing is, there is no such reference to it merely being a 'guideline' in the actual rules. Nor should there need to be. If you agree to a limit, then you shouldn't expect to be able to break that limit.


A lot of it, from my experience, is simply down to people's approach. If you show up for a pick up game and you have a 1505 point list, and you say to someone 'Hey, I have a 1505 point list, wanna game?' nobody is going to have a problem with it.

It's only if you agree to a specific limit and then decide to break it, and just assume that your opponent should be ok with it, that you run into problems. He built his list within the agreed points limit, why the hell shouldn't you have to as well?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

changemod wrote:
By saying you think Points are that critical but that you don't care if the opponent is under, you send the message "I don't care if the fight is fair or not as long as it's unfair in my favour". .

Except that's not it at all.

If you choose to make the battle an 'unfair' one, you only have the right to do so by handicapping your own force. It's unreasonable for you to just expect that your opponent won't have a problem with you making your force larger than it should be within the agreed limit.

40k games are rarely played between exactly matched forces. Most of my lists come in 1-3 points under the limit, some more. It's not at all uncommon for an opponent to not have exactly the same points count. That's not the issue, though, no matter how much you try to make it so.

The issue is simply that if you agree to a points limit, then that is the points limit.

While it's certainly not a problem for you to ask your opponent if he minds you going over, it shouldn't be an issue if he says no. Because you agreed to a specific limit.

Usually I don't allow any grace points because past 5pts -something- can be cut to make the proper count. Some equipment option, one model, a weapon, whatever - it can be made to work, so no reason to let someone give himself extra option for free.

I'm not sure if I understand how two people agree to a certain points limit, and then one thinks it's okay to go over, even by one point.

I mean, if you agree to 'about 1850', then sure, but if you have agreed to an 1850 points limit, I don't see how you can NOT be violating the agreement with 1851.

If I agree to pay you $5.00, and hand you $4.99, it might be trivial to you, but it seems like a violation of the agreement on my part.

Now, if "everybody in your group always agrees to a few points over", then that's your agreement. But, if, as people keep on saying, you agree to a points limit, then that's the points limit you just agreed to. It might not matter in any way, shape, or form. It might be totally irrelevant to the actual game outcome. But it's what you agreed on.

If you're not planning on ensuring you don't violate the points limit, that should have been part of the 'agreement process'.

"Let's play 1850, give or take a few points, okay?".

Agreeing to a specific points limit, then indicating later that your agreement actually meant something else, isn't cool. Let me illustrate:

We agree to 1850.

You show up with an 1850 list. I inform you that I meant that we would not go to 1850 in points. Thus, your list is now 1 point over, and you need to cut something from your list.

I'm assuming that you won't get worked up over a 1 point difference between what we agreed upon and what we are actually doing, right? It's the same one point that I was assuming by showing up with an 1851 point list to our 1850 point game. I sure seem like a jerk, though, don't I?

We agreed to something specific. We could have agreed to something less specific, but we didn't.

Is this cool? The dispute is still just about one point.

I think tournaments need to stick to exact points or below... but for friendly games with humans that can actually speak and communicate to each other it works like this:

"I'm 2 points over, do you want to add 2 points to yours or should I change my list, or just leave it?" ..."nah who cares / sure I'll add 2 / just fix it dude".

What if you army doesn't have a 2 pts upgrade or has no 2 pts upgrade you want and for your opponent going over points ment and extra melta or plasm. Making his army work better by breaking the points limit , while yours even with the 2 extra points won't.

Makumba wrote:
What if you army doesn't have a 2 pts upgrade or has no 2 pts upgrade you want and for your opponent going over points ment and extra melta or plasm. Making his army work better by breaking the points limit , while yours even with the 2 extra points won't.

Hah well that's not a problem for me, neither is *gasp* occasionally loosing a game. I was just answering the question, "Do you allow extra grace points?".

0 grace points. The limit is already an arbitrary number set by both players. If you're going to go over it then you should have just set the points limit higher in the first place so that you don't have to go over.

Also it says a lot about a player who isn't willing to take the time or effort to follow a simple agreement between both players.

 Gunzhard wrote:

Makumba wrote:
What if you army doesn't have a 2 pts upgrade or has no 2 pts upgrade you want and for your opponent going over points ment and extra melta or plasm. Making his army work better by breaking the points limit , while yours even with the 2 extra points won't.

Hah well that's not a problem for me, neither is *gasp* occasionally loosing a game. I was just answering the question, "Do you allow extra grace points?".

I like the part where you think people who do not allow their opponent to go over the points LIMIT are deathly afraid of losing.