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.

ValentineGames wrote:
You'd think in this age of ever reducing space to actually play people would just be thankful to get a game and not cry like a spoiled brat over half a dozen points.

Exactly. So bring a legal list and don't cry about how you need extra points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
So if we think we're going to play a 1k game, then realize we have all afternoon, so decide to play a 2k game, did we both just cheat?

Again, because people stubbornly refuse to get it:

Asking to go from 1000 points (a standard point level) to 2000 points (a standard point level) because you have more time is not cheating because the intent is not personal gain, and the thing you're asking for is player-neutral and doesn't give either player an advantage.

Asking to go from 2000 points (a standard point level) to 2005 points (a non-standard point level chosen specifically to match the extra thing you want to bring) because your 2000 point list isn't legal and you don't want to remove anything to make it legal is, if not cheating, at least incredibly poor behavior because it is asking for personal benefit and is not player-neutral. It becomes TFG behavior if you follow up a denial by complaining about how it "isn't fun" or people are "too competitive" or whatever because they won't let you change the rules to benefit yourself.

Thus, it's impossible - by it's very definition - to 'cheat with permission'.

Nonsense. If you have a unit with a 6" movement distance and move it 7" it's cheating, even if you asked for permission to move 7" and your opponent gave it to you because they knew you'd start crying WAAC and quit the game if they didn't.

I'm sorry, I have neither the time nor inclination to douse my VoidWeaver in gasoline, light it up, watch it burn, assemble, and paint a few more Troupers. I know of noone who does that in 5 minutes.

Which is of course not hyperbole at all. Removing a model/unit from your list obviously requires destroying that model and building a new one on the spot to replace it. You can't possibly just put that model back in your case if you aren't going to use it in the current game.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:1. It's cheating due to breaking the original army sizes and then asking if it's okay. Cheating with permission is cheating still. It also isn't my fault you can't even build an army in 5 minutes for a particular point limit. Learn to add.
It also begs the question of why not play a bigger game if your REAL concern is fitting in all the models you like. I have several models I like, but I already know I can't bring every single one of them into a 2000 point game. I accept that because I'm not a child that asks to break rules to make it easier for myself.

Where in any ruleboook does it say that you cannot change the point limit before the game starts? If you cannot provide the rule, then it isn't cheating.

So long as the game hasn't started, the entire structure of the game is in question and up to negotiation. I would even agree that once you start rolling for deployment, you've past the point negotiation point, but that is still not cheating. I would even agree that for some people it is purposefully being dickish. But being a jerk doesn't necessarily make you a cheat. Exceeding the point limit without discussing it with your opponent would be cheating. Asking to change it is not.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:2. I used Draft Format as an example for MtG for that reason. It's the same concept of this bizarro world you created where you need to create an army list instead of having several ready. When I'm ready to go into a shop, I'll have enough models to do 1000, 1250, 1500, 1850, and 2000, all standard numbers, ready to go. They all have different constructions because you don't just ADD points to an army unless you're doing Escalation (in which case you have to be strict with your points anyway).

What bizarro realm? This happens a lot with people who are not tournament regulars and come in for any size of game they can get their hands on. It happens even more with players new to the game.

That doesn't change the fact that you literally compared adding cards to a deck and hand AFTER THE GAME STARTS to asking to change the point value BEFORE the game starts. Note the two different time stamps being applied here, "after" and "before". "After" would be cheating, "before" not so much. Also note the courtesy of actually ASKING to do so rather than just doing it without discussing it with the opponent at all. Discussion, especially before the game, changes "cheating" to "modifying". Not all changes are "cheating", after all.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:3. Both numbers are advantage. Even 1 point over is you looking for an advantage. If list construction is too hard for you in this case, start net listing if you don't have the skill yet.

Not everyone has access to models for net lists. And how is being UNDER the point value looking for an advantage?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:There's nothing to talk about besides mission and point values. Simple as that.

With several different tournament styles around, between local, national, and international realms, along with Narrative Play and base Matched Play around, you have a very odd view of "nothing".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

ValentineGames wrote:
You'd think in this age of ever reducing space to actually play people would just be thankful to get a game and not cry like a spoiled brat over half a dozen points.

Exactly. So bring a legal list and don't cry about how you need extra points.

Or, you know, don't cry because someone asked to have a few extra points.

 Peregrine wrote:

Bharring wrote:
So if we think we're going to play a 1k game, then realize we have all afternoon, so decide to play a 2k game, did we both just cheat?

Again, because people stubbornly refuse to get it:

Asking to go from 1000 points (a standard point level) to 2000 points (a standard point level) because you have more time is not cheating because the intent is not personal gain, and the thing you're asking for is player-neutral and doesn't give either player an advantage.

Asking to go from 2000 points (a standard point level) to 2005 points (a non-standard point level chosen specifically to match the extra thing you want to bring) because your 2000 point list isn't legal and you don't want to remove anything to make it legal is, if not cheating, at least incredibly poor behavior because it is asking for personal benefit and is not player-neutral. It becomes TFG behavior if you follow up a denial by complaining about how it "isn't fun" or people are "too competitive" or whatever because they won't let you change the rules to benefit yourself.

OF COURSE it is for personal benefit. They want a longer, bigger game, so there is a personal benefit.

Now, it CAN be TFG behavior (no one actually said it wasn't), but it depends on past experience, the approach, and how their reaction to your response is. I know plenty of TFG that would have yelled at a person for even asking it and called them a cheater.

"Asking to go from 2000 points (a standard point level) to 2005 points (a non-standard point level chosen specifically to match the extra thing you want to bring) because your 2000 point list isn't legal and you don't want to remove anything to make it legal is, if not cheating, at least incredibly poor behavior because it is asking for personal benefit and is not player-neutral."
That depends on the reason for the question. if it's "I've got this really cool idea for a scenario and theme" or "There's this story...", then it's reasonable. If it's because you think you can beat the other player by adding (or failing to remove) an extra Power Sword, then I agree we're in TFG territory.

"It becomes TFG behavior if you follow up a denial by complaining about how it "isn't fun" or people are "too competitive" or whatever because they won't let you change the rules to benefit yourself. ""
Certainly. Just like an other bullying or asshattery.

"Nonsense. If you have a unit with a 6" movement distance and move it 7" it's cheating, even if you asked for permission to move 7" and your opponent gave it to you because they knew you'd start crying WAAC and quit the game if they didn't. "
1. Let's start by agreeing that bullying your opponent into rules changes to benefit you is TFG at the very least.
2. The 6" vs 7" might be considered cheating, because the rules are it moves 6". The 2000 vs 2006 is not because the rules specify that you discuss points with your opponent. Even with the 6" vs 7" scenario, though, anything done specifically for advantage in this vein is clearly TFG, regardless of whether it's cheating. I could see a potential narrative reason for that change, but that's stretching it.

"Which is of course not hyperbole at all. Removing a model/unit from your list obviously requires destroying that model and building a new one on the spot to replace it. You can't possibly just put that model back in your case if you aren't going to use it in the current game."
There's missing context here. That context is that my opponent and I would rather play all my Harlies vs what he was bringing, even if it went over 1k points. For it to be all my Harlies, and also be under 1k points, I'd need to remove some Harlie model(s) from my collection. The point of that statement was to remind the reader that one case where we changed the points was because of the two concerns we couldn't reconcile - 1k points vs all my harlies - we preferred the latter. As I've already pointed out, there's no real way that dropping some Index Harlie options for some Codex CWE options was avoided because I was looking for *advantage*.

I could have put the VoidWeaver back in the box for the game, but then I'm not playing "all my Harlies". If my opponent preferred to stick to 1k over me using "all my Harlies", I was certainly ready and willing.

Just scanned a couple pages. Some nice posts. Some posts that brings to mind that my age and life experience have given me the ability to move past the limited scope of some.

I have lost more than most games I think in life. But when you play multiplayer games like Risk or Axis and Allies or online War Games with dozens of players....getting a 50/50 is difficult.
With that said I was a well traveled Heroclix player and would wint 2 out of 3 tournaments easily.
My last year online WW2 game has an 80% win rate with a kill rate over 2 and almost 3. The best players have a 1.21 kill rate over their life time. I generally win 50%+ in 40k.

I love to win....but even when I don't I still can 'win' smaller victories. Having your army wiped, but some character or such fighting off impossible odds and staying alive. Or holding Berlin no matter how huge the Soviet and Allied assaults are and you only have a 1 in 6 chance to hold out....and you do....Those are the crazy things that make for an awesome time....even if you lost.

Also, a fun story with:
"After" would be cheating, "before" not so much.
One game we had was a bunch of Eldar vs a bunch of Marines. Towards the end of T1, a couple other players showed up, and there was no table space for another game.

We had each pull a couple hundred points together (we gave a number, not just random), and they allied in, coming in as reserves (6E).

So we added points *mid game*.

The world didn't end. Everyone had a fun time. And there was a lot of thematic action.

Bharring wrote:
That depends on the reason for the question. if it's "I've got this really cool idea for a scenario and theme" or "There's this story...", then it's reasonable.

I can not imagine a scenario/theme idea that requires units/upgrades to be picked with such exact precision that making a legal list without going over the limit is not possible. This sounds like a flimsy excuse to take some free stuff.

There's missing context here. That context is that my opponent and I would rather play all my Harlies vs what he was bringing, even if it went over 1k points. For it to be all my Harlies, and also be under 1k points, I'd need to remove some Harlie model(s) from my collection. The point of that statement was to remind the reader that one case where we changed the points was because of the two concerns we couldn't reconcile - 1k points vs all my harlies - we preferred the latter. As I've already pointed out, there's no real way that dropping some Index Harlie options for some Codex CWE options was avoided because I was looking for *advantage*.

I could have put the VoidWeaver back in the box for the game, but then I'm not playing "all my Harlies". If my opponent preferred to stick to 1k over me using "all my Harlies", I was certainly ready and willing.

That seems like an utterly bizarre game, but I guess if your opponent is saying "please break the rules" and insisting on a 1000 point limit even though the army will be more than 1000 points instead of just saying "let's play a 1250 game" it's on them. But that's not the same as you asking to go over the 1000 point limit so you can take something you want to add to your list. Your opponent is the one initiating the request, not you.

"I can not imagine a scenario/theme idea that requires units/upgrades to be picked with such exact precision that making a legal list without going over the limit is not possible. This sounds like a flimsy excuse to take some free stuff."
Once again, I harken back to my Index Harlies list I played that one time.
The units and upgrades picked were WYSIWYG. Every model equipped as modelled. Every unit in the collection included.

What steps could be taken to make it not go over 1k and still meet WYSIWYG and All Mah Harlies?

Further, it wasn't free. I got a few extra points. He got an extra power fist. He went over by more than I did, to compensate.

(I think that's important when playing for fun: if you have some cause to go over, ensure that the person who *didn't* ask for it gets the better end of the deal. So you go over by 2 points? Make sure they go over by 4 or more.)

Bharring wrote:
2. The 6" vs 7" might be considered cheating, because the rules are it moves 6". The 2000 vs 2006 is not because the rules specify that you discuss points with your opponent. Even with the 6" vs 7" scenario, though, anything done specifically for advantage in this vein is clearly TFG, regardless of whether it's cheating. I could see a potential narrative reason for that change, but that's stretching it.

But what is the difference between the two? Asking for 2006 points vs. 2000 points is done specifically for advantage, just like asking to move 6" instead of 7". It's not like there's any argument that a 2006 point game is better than a 2000 point game or a 1994 point game for all players and all games of roughly 2000 points, the 2006 point number is chosen purely to grant one player an advantage in a single game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
(I think that's important when playing for fun: if you have some cause to go over, ensure that the person who *didn't* ask for it gets the better end of the deal. So you go over by 2 points? Make sure they go over by 4 or more.)

This is a reasonable proposal. I'd allow modifying the point limit if I get 100 points for every 1 point they add. Want to take that extra power fist? Cool, I get to bring an extra Shadowsword.

Yes, fun can be a lot of things.

If you need a pacer to practice your sprint running...you don't want an inept runner or someone giving it 80%

If your practicing your ITC tournament list you don't want some slapped together list with a player who is just casual.

That is understandable. NOT everyone wants to spend the few hours they have doing that. Sometimes I like to take my girl out shopping. I don't necessarily want to go shopping....a competitive game would be great...but at that moment hanging out with her and giving her a great time is more important to me.

Same with the people at your FLGS. Don't be rude. Don't destroy the 12 year old. Don't Chestbeat. Don't force others into your world view on whatever (painted minis, OOP models, underwear, etc) DO be a human and keep the selfish points in line no matter how you feel so that others can live their moments too.

"That seems like an utterly bizarre game, but I guess if your opponent is saying "please break the rules" and insisting on a 1000 point limit even though the army will be more than 1000 points instead of just saying "let's play a 1250 game" it's on them. But that's not the same as you asking to go over the 1000 point limit so you can take something you want to add to your list. Your opponent is the one initiating the request, not you."
What rules were broken?

There was an initial agreement on 1000. Something came up that made a slightly higher number better than 1000. We agreed on a higher number.

We effectively did the "lets play a 1250 game", but not with those exact points. My Harlies would have been down over 20% points if we had. Instead, we went to a number slightly above 1000.

Because I was the one who asked, the effective number was slightly higher than what I was at. As I said, he added a Power Fist, which brought him above me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Well, one of the differences is asking for 2006 points doesn't necessarily mean asking for 2006 vs 2000. Doing so is TFG. If you have some awesome reason to go to 2006 points, but won't let your opponent take another Guardsman, then you're doing it for advantage.

The situation I'm defending is when you want to play 2006 points, where you're typically fine if the opponent adds a Tac Marine or Power Fist to compensate. In other words, you want a higher number for both players.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"This is a reasonable proposal. I'd allow modifying the point limit if I get 100 points for every 1 point they add. Want to take that extra power fist? Cool, I get to bring an extra Shadowsword."
THen it comes down to arbitrage with you. Why 100 extra points? Why not 50?

That's why I keep saying "a Marine" or "a Powerfist". You shouldn't be doing this where preceision is important (such as competitive play).

 Peregrine wrote:


Asking to go from 1000 points (a standard point level) to 2000 points (a standard point level) because you have more time is not cheating because the intent is not personal gain, and the thing you're asking for is player-neutral and doesn't give either player an advantage.

Asking to go from 2000 points (a standard point level) to 2005 points (a non-standard point level chosen specifically to match the extra thing you want to bring) because your 2000 point list isn't legal and you don't want to remove anything to make it legal is, if not cheating, at least incredibly poor behavior because it is asking for personal benefit and is not player-neutral. It becomes TFG behavior if you follow up a denial by complaining about how it "isn't fun" or people are "too competitive" or whatever because they won't let you change the rules to benefit yourself.

'Standard point level' is not a rule, it is a convention which may wary depending on the area. In some places the convention is that point levels are approximations, and small variance is allowed. 2005 point list is perfectly legal in a 2005 point game (or in a 2000ish point game.)
And of course demanding 2000 points exact can be done to favour one player. If the player demanding that exact point total is a person who often plays tournaments of that size and the other is not, then it obviously favour the first player.

Nonsense. If you have a unit with a 6" movement distance and move it 7" it's cheating, even if you asked for permission to move 7" and your opponent gave it to you

No. That would be adopting a really weird houserule. Obviously a bigger deal than asking for a perfectly legal game with a point total that triggers your OCD, but still not cheating.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
Also, a fun story with:
"After" would be cheating, "before" not so much.
One game we had was a bunch of Eldar vs a bunch of Marines. Towards the end of T1, a couple other players showed up, and there was no table space for another game.

We had each pull a couple hundred points together (we gave a number, not just random), and they allied in, coming in as reserves (6E).

So we added points *mid game*.

The world didn't end. Everyone had a fun time. And there was a lot of thematic action.

That is awesome!

It was an epic game. A Chapter Master held the Avatar, a Wraithlord, and two surviving Banshees for three turns.

 Peregrine wrote:

Bharring wrote:
(I think that's important when playing for fun: if you have some cause to go over, ensure that the person who *didn't* ask for it gets the better end of the deal. So you go over by 2 points? Make sure they go over by 4 or more.)

This is a reasonable proposal. I'd allow modifying the point limit if I get 100 points for every 1 point they add. Want to take that extra power fist? Cool, I get to bring an extra Shadowsword.

So, you try to out-TFG someone you think is being TFG? No wonder you have issues.

Bharring wrote:
"It's cheating due to breaking the original army sizes and then asking if it's okay."
So if we think we're going to play a 1k game, then realize we have all afternoon, so decide to play a 2k game, did we both just cheat?

"Cheating with permission is cheating still."
Cheating is explicitly doing something against the rules. The rules are that the points value is what is agreed upon. Permission to use a certain number of points is agreement on that points value. Thus, it's impossible - by it's very definition - to 'cheat with permission'.

"It also isn't my fault you can't even build an army in 5 minutes for a particular point limit. Learn to add. "
I'm sorry, I have neither the time nor inclination to douse my VoidWeaver in gasoline, light it up, watch it burn, assemble, and paint a few more Troupers. I know of noone who does that in 5 minutes.

" I used Draft Format as an example for MtG for that reason. It's the same concept of this bizarro world you created where you need to create an army list instead of having several ready. When I'm ready to go into a shop, I'll have enough models to do 1000, 1250, 1500, 1850, and 2000, all standard numbers, ready to go. They all have different constructions because you don't just ADD points to an army unless you're doing Escalation (in which case you have to be strict with your points anyway). "
So if I bring my Harlies to go along with my CWE for a 1500 list, and someone suddenly wants to play 1000, but still face my Harlies, I shouldn't juggle my list on the spot? As the example given, fitting 1000 was easy - it just involved using some CWE and not some of my Harlies. In that case, we both liked the idea of going straight Harlies was more fun (and good luck arguing I chose mono Index Harlies over Codex CWE to gain an advantage...).

"Both numbers are advantage. Even 1 point over is you looking for an advantage. If list construction is too hard for you in this case, start net listing if you don't have the skill yet."
In what world is being 6 points over an arbitrary number that your opponent is 10 points over also considered an advantage? It's a 4 point disadvantage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"With the new Ork codex there are several ways to get into melee. No excuses."
So my experiences over my history with the game could not have happened and must be discounted because they now have different rules?

1. Are you really so dense you can't see getting an in-game advantage vs playing a bigger game as DIFFERENT? Like, is this on purpose or something?
2. It is against the rules. You agreed to a point value, and now you want to say that point value doesn't apply to you, because fun. That's cheating.
3. Now being able to construct differing armies accurately is being compared to burning models. Unbelievable. Go in with prepared lists for various values. Seriously. It isn't hard.
4. You don't have to cater to your opponent wanting to face Harlequins, so that's your own problem. That's stupid. I would NEVER tell someone I want to face Army X, so do it. I simply want to face a well constructed list following the rules. Rules are good.
5. Which means you gotta add another 4 points to be even. If you can't you go over that limit and now your opponent needs to reach the same level. It is an endless cycle.
OR you can make a darn army properly. You know why I have constructed lists and why SEVERAL people do the same? It saves time, hassle, and those nearly laid out lists can be checked if there's anything fishy. That also means more games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
There isn't necessarily one winner and one loser, even discounting draws.

In some games, if one player didn't have fun, both players lost. Even the one who got more VP.

Sounds like one player needs to get better at making armies. Luckily there's a lot of advice out there so one player doesn't have to dumb themselves down!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MalfunctBot wrote:

3Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
With the new Ork codex there are several ways to get into melee. No excuses.

The entirety of that post just flew over your head. Out of six paragraphs/lines of points and discussion you saw one throw away example of slightly unoptimised play (or maybe the Ork player just rolls nothing but ones, how the feth do you know?) and went "Nope opinion bad argument discarded". I'd say you've simply realised you have no leg to stand on anymore in this discussion and are simply trying to avoid arguments as a result, but even as an outside observer I doubt that's actually the case and think you are just simply THAT stuck into your own mindset.

This thread should seriously get locked. Its obvious at this point that nothing is coming out of this thread other than infinitely repeating circular arguments only designed to make people angry.

Dice even out over time, but that's clearly a case of an Ork player whining they can't make it to combat because they're not trying hard enough.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

2. It is against the rules.

Changing your mind is not against the rules. That is just bonkers. If I agree to play a game on Saturday, but my cat gets sick so I can't make it (I'd notify the opponent of course) am I then cheating too?

 Crimson wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

2. It is against the rules.

Changing your mind is not against the rules. That is just bonkers. If I agree to play a game on Saturday, but my cat gets sick so I can't make it (I'd notify the opponent of course) am I then cheating too?

Yes, Obviously.

Changing your mind is not against the rules. That is just bonkers. If I agree to play a game on Saturday, but my cat gets sick so I can't make it (I'd notify the opponent of course) am I then cheating too?

Clearly your cat cheated.


In all seriousness in terms of building out armies I always follow "Why the helk not?" Mentality. I run fun units and sometimes they work sometimes they don't. I learn from that and build my army lists according to my opponents. Or what store I am at as they will sometimes have a completely different meta.

"Are you really so dense you can't see getting an in-game advantage vs playing a bigger game as DIFFERENT? Like, is this on purpose or something?"
I certainly can see the difference. Such as, playing a larger game of 2006 pts vs 2010 pts is *not* an advantage to the 2006pt player.

You are assuming that the player that wants to bring 2006 points is not OK with the other player bringing 2010. Please reread the last two pages for that discussion.

2. You agreed to a points level. Then you discussed changing the points level. If (and only if) the other player agreed to the change in venue, then you've both now agreed to a new points level. How is that different from agreeing to play on one table, then when someone else started setting up on it, agreeing to play on a different table? You don't decide that the points level don't apply to you; you decide that, between the two of you, you might agree to a different points level. That's a very different thing. And in no way against the rules.

3. Lets say I go in with prepared lists. 1k, 1250, 1500, 1750, 1850, and 2k. SM demicompany, SM with lots of armor, CWE Aspect Host, CWE Guardian Host, CWE skimmer-heavy, CWE wraith-heavy, T'au Hunter Cadre, T'au British Line infantry. Harlies. Corsairs. Harlies + Corsairs. CWE + Corsairs. Harlies + CWE + Corsairs. CWE + Exodites. That's 84 lists right there for me to always keep handy. Why? It doesn't take long to make a list. And it preempts off-the-cuff narrative lists. I wouldn't say it's hard, but I would say that's a lot of wasted effort.

4. I don't have to "cater". But I want to "cater". You don't have to "cater" to an opponent wanting a game either. We *both* loved the idea of it being "all mah Harlies". He didnt' demand it. I didn't demand it. Sometimes, decisions are pushed for by 2+ participants.

As for your "I simply want to face a well constructed list following the rules", you're asserting that "well constructed" means competitive. There are many other valid definitions for that term.

5. No. If one person wants to go to 2004, so they let the other person wind up at 2008, the first person doesn't, again, add 4 points. Specifiying a specific non-standard points value that matches what your list comes out to is actually a minor advantage competitively. The intention is to offset that by allowing the requestee add more than the requestor. Please reread the last two pages, as it got discussed at length.

As for "you can make a darn army properly", once again, you assert that it "isn't proper" or "well constructed", because it isn't the way you want it built or constructed. But not everyone has the same preferences as you do.

"Sounds like one player needs to get better at making armies."
Good luck getting better at building lists when all you have is a couple SM units and I have a wide array of CWE units.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"Dice even out over time, but that's clearly a case of an Ork player whining they can't make it to combat because they're not trying hard enough."
I think you're even *further* from the point than when you posted the comment that poster quoted.

 Charistoph wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:1. It's cheating due to breaking the original army sizes and then asking if it's okay. Cheating with permission is cheating still. It also isn't my fault you can't even build an army in 5 minutes for a particular point limit. Learn to add.
It also begs the question of why not play a bigger game if your REAL concern is fitting in all the models you like. I have several models I like, but I already know I can't bring every single one of them into a 2000 point game. I accept that because I'm not a child that asks to break rules to make it easier for myself.

Where in any ruleboook does it say that you cannot change the point limit before the game starts? If you cannot provide the rule, then it isn't cheating.

So long as the game hasn't started, the entire structure of the game is in question and up to negotiation. I would even agree that once you start rolling for deployment, you've past the point negotiation point, but that is still not cheating. I would even agree that for some people it is purposefully being dickish. But being a jerk doesn't necessarily make you a cheat. Exceeding the point limit without discussing it with your opponent would be cheating. Asking to change it is not.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:2. I used Draft Format as an example for MtG for that reason. It's the same concept of this bizarro world you created where you need to create an army list instead of having several ready. When I'm ready to go into a shop, I'll have enough models to do 1000, 1250, 1500, 1850, and 2000, all standard numbers, ready to go. They all have different constructions because you don't just ADD points to an army unless you're doing Escalation (in which case you have to be strict with your points anyway).

What bizarro realm? This happens a lot with people who are not tournament regulars and come in for any size of game they can get their hands on. It happens even more with players new to the game.

That doesn't change the fact that you literally compared adding cards to a deck and hand AFTER THE GAME STARTS to asking to change the point value BEFORE the game starts. Note the two different time stamps being applied here, "after" and "before". "After" would be cheating, "before" not so much. Also note the courtesy of actually ASKING to do so rather than just doing it without discussing it with the opponent at all. Discussion, especially before the game, changes "cheating" to "modifying". Not all changes are "cheating", after all.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:3. Both numbers are advantage. Even 1 point over is you looking for an advantage. If list construction is too hard for you in this case, start net listing if you don't have the skill yet.

Not everyone has access to models for net lists. And how is being UNDER the point value looking for an advantage?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:There's nothing to talk about besides mission and point values. Simple as that.

With several different tournament styles around, between local, national, and international realms, along with Narrative Play and base Matched Play around, you have a very odd view of "nothing".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

ValentineGames wrote:
You'd think in this age of ever reducing space to actually play people would just be thankful to get a game and not cry like a spoiled brat over half a dozen points.

Exactly. So bring a legal list and don't cry about how you need extra points.

Or, you know, don't cry because someone asked to have a few extra points.

 Peregrine wrote:

Bharring wrote:
So if we think we're going to play a 1k game, then realize we have all afternoon, so decide to play a 2k game, did we both just cheat?

Again, because people stubbornly refuse to get it:

Asking to go from 1000 points (a standard point level) to 2000 points (a standard point level) because you have more time is not cheating because the intent is not personal gain, and the thing you're asking for is player-neutral and doesn't give either player an advantage.

Asking to go from 2000 points (a standard point level) to 2005 points (a non-standard point level chosen specifically to match the extra thing you want to bring) because your 2000 point list isn't legal and you don't want to remove anything to make it legal is, if not cheating, at least incredibly poor behavior because it is asking for personal benefit and is not player-neutral. It becomes TFG behavior if you follow up a denial by complaining about how it "isn't fun" or people are "too competitive" or whatever because they won't let you change the rules to benefit yourself.

OF COURSE it is for personal benefit. They want a longer, bigger game, so there is a personal benefit.

Now, it CAN be TFG behavior (no one actually said it wasn't), but it depends on past experience, the approach, and how their reaction to your response is. I know plenty of TFG that would have yelled at a person for even asking it and called them a cheater.

1. The game starts basically the moment army lists are created for the mission. You deciding you want extra points for that fact is therefore cheating and done for an in-game advantage. No excuses.
2. EVERY new player I've met (and that's several) has been more prepared with their lists than the people in this thread defending cheating. In fact that's my main accommodation: I already have a list for those points. New kid brings in 1000 points? Yep I already have something to use, so let's get started.
In fact that's why I always recommend new players ask to see what point levels typically come up in particular shops so they can be prepared.
3. Research your product purchases or man up and accept your army doesn't get everything you want at specific point levels. Either one works. I mean, you think I have every model ever? Of course not. I'm still prepared though.
Also I'm not trying to say you need to netlist, but if making a list at 2000 points is so hard for you maybe you should look to them for guidance? I won't judge.
4. Tournament styles are house rules and typically means those tournaments are organized. I'd like to see you go to an ITC and ask if you can make your list real quick. Ya know, when the other bunch of people came prepared. If locals use those tournament rules, they will adhere to a same point level.
Not hard to adjust to at all.
5. Why should we make special permissions for people who can't make a list properly? Why do we need to cater to them instead of teaching them they can't always get their way?

Somebody earlier mentioned the social contract between two gamers. I think that's important. There are many ways to play 40k even without altering the core rules. None are wrong as long as both players have agreed to the parameters and are up front about it. Communication before e game makes all the difference.

My assumptions/expectations will vary with the type of game I am playing. At a tournament I assume that my opponent's list will be at or under the points limit. I expect that he would be sanctioned by the TO if it turned out he was 4 points over. It's a tournament.

If it's a game in my basement where I asked my friend to "bring all his Necrons so we could try a cool narrative scenario I thought up" then points aren't an issue. It's still 40K.

If it's a Saturday afternoon pickup game at the store then I assume my opponents will be at or under the points level that we agree on. Having said that, if they say before the game "I just realized that I had my wargear points wrong and I'm 4 points over" then I would say "let's get playing." Not a big deal and certainly no cheating going on. We communicated clearly and agreed on the terms of the match.

Communicate honestly up front about the type of match and you avoid most of the potential drama of what is meant to be a hobby.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
1. The game starts basically the moment army lists are created for the mission. You deciding you want extra points for that fact is therefore cheating and done for an in-game advantage. No excuses.
2. EVERY new player I've met (and that's several) has been more prepared with their lists than the people in this thread defending cheating. In fact that's my main accommodation: I already have a list for those points. New kid brings in 1000 points? Yep I already have something to use, so let's get started.

So by your logic a game with you starts before your opponent even knows that they're playing against you...

 Crimson wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
1. The game starts basically the moment army lists are created for the mission. You deciding you want extra points for that fact is therefore cheating and done for an in-game advantage. No excuses.
2. EVERY new player I've met (and that's several) has been more prepared with their lists than the people in this thread defending cheating. In fact that's my main accommodation: I already have a list for those points. New kid brings in 1000 points? Yep I already have something to use, so let's get started.

So by your logic a game with you starts before your opponent even knows that they're playing against you...

All games with him have already started

nou wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
1. The game starts basically the moment army lists are created for the mission. You deciding you want extra points for that fact is therefore cheating and done for an in-game advantage. No excuses.
2. EVERY new player I've met (and that's several) has been more prepared with their lists than the people in this thread defending cheating. In fact that's my main accommodation: I already have a list for those points. New kid brings in 1000 points? Yep I already have something to use, so let's get started.

So by your logic a game with you starts before your opponent even knows that they're playing against you...

All games with him have already started

Every game he's never played yet!

 Charistoph wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Bharring wrote:
(I think that's important when playing for fun: if you have some cause to go over, ensure that the person who *didn't* ask for it gets the better end of the deal. So you go over by 2 points? Make sure they go over by 4 or more.)

This is a reasonable proposal. I'd allow modifying the point limit if I get 100 points for every 1 point they add. Want to take that extra power fist? Cool, I get to bring an extra Shadowsword.

So, you try to out-TFG someone you think is being TFG? No wonder you have issues.

The point is to have a rule that discourages breaking the rules. If you want me to endorse your cheating then you get to play the game at a huge disadvantage, and you have to ask yourself if breaking the rules to have an extra power fist or whatever is really that important. The hope is that you realize no, it isn't, and we play a normal game within the standard point limit.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Bharring wrote:
(I think that's important when playing for fun: if you have some cause to go over, ensure that the person who *didn't* ask for it gets the better end of the deal. So you go over by 2 points? Make sure they go over by 4 or more.)

This is a reasonable proposal. I'd allow modifying the point limit if I get 100 points for every 1 point they add. Want to take that extra power fist? Cool, I get to bring an extra Shadowsword.

So, you try to out-TFG someone you think is being TFG? No wonder you have issues.

The point is to have a rule that discourages breaking the rules. If you want me to endorse your cheating then you get to play the game at a huge disadvantage, and you have to ask yourself if breaking the rules to have an extra power fist or whatever is really that important. The hope is that you realize no, it isn't, and we play a normal game within the standard point limit.

You are aware, that you have absolutely zero authority and you just ridicule yourself by thinking you could enforce such a rule on anyone? The only result your proposition would yield is walking away from game with you and never look back.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:1. The game starts basically the moment army lists are created for the mission. You deciding you want extra points for that fact is therefore cheating and done for an in-game advantage. No excuses.

No rule quote or even referenced so you are full of crap. It's not like I haven't asked for rules similar to this already. So, this is 100% a House Rule.

You are even more full of crap because you leave home with your lists pre-constructed, which means you start the game possibly months before you even know the game exists.

Even more hilariously is there is a MtG version of the game where you don't come in with a deck and you build with a set of packs you obtain and open that day. It was played quite regularly at my old LGS. Apparently, that would be cheating to you.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:2. EVERY new player I've met (and that's several) has been more prepared with their lists than the people in this thread defending cheating. In fact that's my main accommodation: I already have a list for those points. New kid brings in 1000 points? Yep I already have something to use, so let's get started.
In fact that's why I always recommend new players ask to see what point levels typically come up in particular shops so they can be prepared.

Considering how your local meta works, I'm not surprised they come with prepared lists. Your group is so anal-retentive that they start games before they even show up to the table's location. No new player would dare consider showing up with a completed list. Are they also equally anal about painting to Golden Daemon standards, too, or do you allow them to get by with minimal tournament standards?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:3. Research your product purchases or man up and accept your army doesn't get everything you want at specific point levels. Either one works. I mean, you think I have every model ever? Of course not. I'm still prepared though.
Also I'm not trying to say you need to netlist, but if making a list at 2000 points is so hard for you maybe you should look to them for guidance? I won't judge.

Man up yourself. You've accused people of cheating on a rule that only exists in your tiny little club and get seriously bent out of shape when someone suggests violating it by a very minor amount. Honestly, if your group really is this anal about this, I probably would start coming in with very odd lists and accuse people of cheating for not meeting the point value of the list I've prepared just to watch some heads explode.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:4. Tournament styles are house rules and typically means those tournaments are organized. I'd like to see you go to an ITC and ask if you can make your list real quick. Ya know, when the other bunch of people came prepared. If locals use those tournament rules, they will adhere to a same point level.
Not hard to adjust to at all.

Aside from local tournaments, most tournaments require submitting your list in advance of the day it happens. Those are also in the rules of those tournaments. If you did show up writing your list to a convention tournament, you'd be bared entry and/or disqualified.

You know what is NOT in the rules for a pick-up game?
Having a list before you show up at the club.
Not renegotiating a point list.
Only having lists that are a factor of 10 or 250.
Playing by a tournament's ruleset.
Playing Matched Play.
Playing Narrative Play.
Playing Space Marines.
NOT playing Space Marines.

The only rules in a pick-up game are the base rules of the game and the ones the units come with, and whatever else you and your opponent agree on. And that's the whole freaking point of my responses in this thread, and seems to be completely beyond the paradigm that you can conceive.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:5. Why should we make special permissions for people who can't make a list properly? Why do we need to cater to them instead of teaching them they can't always get their way?

Why does it have to be catering? You can say no, in fact, that was one of the options I stated earlier. What I have been saying is that it is not cheating to suggest a different point value for the game, but you and Peregrine have. Can you understand the difference?

Peregrine wrote:The point is to have a rule that discourages breaking the rules. If you want me to endorse your cheating then you get to play the game at a huge disadvantage, and you have to ask yourself if breaking the rules to have an extra power fist or whatever is really that important. The hope is that you realize no, it isn't, and we play a normal game within the standard point limit.

So where is this rule on point values? Are you suggesting a House Rule? Because that is all that you are trying to enforce here. It is not cheating to renegotiate the point levels. It is not cheating to break a rule that doesn't exist. If you believe there is a rule otherwise, I ask again, please provide it or properly reference it. If you can't, you can either concede the point or just shut up about it.

If all the super macho alphas on here , looking at you peregrine and slayer fan, were so good and amazing and inspiring at designing a list of their toys to use you would think they would welcome the challenge of destroying some lily livered cry baby who HAS to cheat and use 6, yes 6! , more points to even be worthy of standing in the shadows of such prime examples of greatness. U think it would help their fragile egos to show the world how much better they are.

Meanwhile the rest of us just go on enjoying our hobby playing games with toy soldiers and telling stories.

Andykp wrote:
If all the super macho alphas on here , looking at you peregrine and slayer fan, were so good and amazing and inspiring at designing a list of their toys to use you would think they would welcome the challenge of destroying some lily livered cry baby who HAS to cheat and use 6, yes 6! , more points to even be worthy of standing in the shadows of such prime examples of greatness. U think it would help their fragile egos to show the world how much better they are.

Meanwhile the rest of us just go on enjoying our hobby playing games with toy soldiers and telling stories.

Alternatively, I don't feel like playing with someone whose attitude towards the game is "how can I weasel my way into extra advantages". Even if I win that sort of person is not an enjoyable opponent.

 Peregrine wrote:

Andykp wrote:
If all the super macho alphas on here , looking at you peregrine and slayer fan, were so good and amazing and inspiring at designing a list of their toys to use you would think they would welcome the challenge of destroying some lily livered cry baby who HAS to cheat and use 6, yes 6! , more points to even be worthy of standing in the shadows of such prime examples of greatness. U think it would help their fragile egos to show the world how much better they are.

Meanwhile the rest of us just go on enjoying our hobby playing games with toy soldiers and telling stories.

Alternatively, I don't feel like playing with someone whose attitude towards the game is "how can I weasel my way into extra advantages". Even if I win that sort of person is not an enjoyable opponent.

How is asking to raise the point level "an extra advantage" when the other person can, too?

And to be honest, I've seen people who were just as anal about point values be the same ones to weasel extra advantages on the table by... creative interpretations of the rules.

 Peregrine wrote:

Andykp wrote:
If all the super macho alphas on here , looking at you peregrine and slayer fan, were so good and amazing and inspiring at designing a list of their toys to use you would think they would welcome the challenge of destroying some lily livered cry baby who HAS to cheat and use 6, yes 6! , more points to even be worthy of standing in the shadows of such prime examples of greatness. U think it would help their fragile egos to show the world how much better they are.

Meanwhile the rest of us just go on enjoying our hobby playing games with toy soldiers and telling stories.

Alternatively, I don't feel like playing with someone whose attitude towards the game is "how can I weasel my way into extra advantages". Even if I win that sort of person is not an enjoyable opponent.

That’s what you got from my comment there? This is why power levels are best. Stops any shenanigans. No weasling allowed. U should write an article on list building and maybe I could get as good at it as you one day.