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.

"Why won't you let me cheat? Are you afraid of losing? Stop being such a TFG and just let me cheat."

I would ask whats the point of having army-specific rules in the first place? But 7th edition.

changemod wrote:

 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.

I don't begrudge your right to an opinion, but in the above scenario, don't pretend that I'd be the one introducing a problem. How hard is it to come up with a list at or under 1500 points?

 Grimtuff wrote:

 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.

Hah wow "deathly afraid"... did I say all that? Wait, no, I didn't. What are you getting so bent out of shape for? The question was do 'you' allow...; I do. This stuff isn't life or death it's a game,
there's no reason to be "deathly afraid" of your opponent having 2 extra points.

If it means that much to you, when the two of us play we can use exact points ok?

Does a football game go 60 minutes and 3 seconds when a team is trying to come back and runs out of time outs? Does a race last an extra lap because one of the drivers had a bad pit stop? The points limit is there for a reason and I can't think of a codex that doesn't have a common 5-10 point upgrade that could be eliminated to get under the points LIMIT. To those of you making the argument "what if it would change the whole complexion of a unit to remove a few points?" That's a piss poor excuse. These are things you need to consider when making a list. You aren't special and you don't get to ignore the most basic rule of the game just because you can't build a proper list that actually sticks to the point limit. I have lists from 500 to 2500 saved in battle scribe. A lot of them are 1-4 points under the limit. Would I like another melta or melta bomb? Of course, but that would put me over the points limit so I had to drop it. Plenty of tournaments have been won with 1846-1849 point lists so stop acting like it's some giant handicap that would cripple your army if you weren't allowed to go 5 points over. Trying to squeeze in as many points as possible without going over and taking everything you need is the majority of the strategy of the game. If you're going to ignore that you might as well dice off to see who wins.

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.

You can replace some weapon option or equipment piece with a cheaper one. Better be 3 points under the limit than 2 above (difference of 5 points). If that breaks your army, you're doing it wrong. As marines you can replace that relic blade with a power weapon. Or get a melta instead of plasma(5 points saving). There really -are- ways to cut down on points by taking different options. If it means downgrading your fancy 1003pt list, then it means that this particular list is not meant for this point bracket, as simple as that. If you can't fit in 1000, try 1200 or 1250 and so on.

Noone is stupid enough to be unable to make a valid list that fits in the agreed bracket. It can all be worked around. :-)

I understand that some people like to defend stuff in a way of countering the vile dogpiles, but there's a limit as to how much you can defend someone's stubbornness in sticking to a list that goes over the limit rather than actually honouring the agreed terms of battle. Just remember that some armies have 2-5 point options, so grace points can be used for outright cheating, no matter how little the change.

 Klerych wrote:
You can replace some weapon option or equipment piece with a cheaper one. Better be 3 points under the limit than 2 above (difference of 5 points). If that breaks your army, you're doing it wrong. As marines you can replace that relic blade with a power weapon. Or get a melta instead of plasma(5 points saving). There really -are- ways to cut down on points by taking different options. If it means downgrading your fancy 1003pt list, then it means that this particular list is not meant for this point bracket, as simple as that. If you can't fit in 1000, try 1200 or 1250 and so on.

You misunderstood there. He wasn't saying it's hard to cut stuff, he was saying that "just add 2 points to your list to match" is a pretty weak offer to your opponent because they very often won't have anything useful to add with those "extra" points. So what the offer really means is that one player gets to play the 1502 point list they wanted, while the other player is stuck with a 1500 point list that happens to have a couple points wasted on upgrades they didn't want to take.

Yeah, I agree.

However, I wish that GW would stop producing codexes with units that have weird points values that never exactly hit a points limit, unless you play 2,5 boxes of them (like Beasts of Nurgle).

In my casual games though, I allow a 1% variation, as long as both players agree (As most armies (like, virtually all imperial armies) can always do something with 5pts).

As a question, to those who are fine with going over the limit, why not just change the limit?

I mean, if you're allowing 5pts over the limit, when why not just play 1505pts?

Some of the comments in this thread have really wound me up about how inflexible people are. I play the game for fun and if someone is a couple of points over I don't care. It's not ruining my day. If it's a tournament then fair enough, stick to the points limit, don't go over. A friendly game being point or so over who cares. What if it is someone who wants to try out that unit for the first time in a game and puts it at a few points over? Friendly games are for friendly attitude and a lot of people here are not showing that. Suck it up.

(No, my armies are all under or on the points limit. Just in case someone is thinking here is one of those guys who always want a few points over.)

 Azza007 wrote:
Some of the comments in this thread have really wound me up about how inflexible people are.

Indeed - like those people who refuse to cut anything from their list.

 Azza007 wrote:
A friendly game being point or so over who cares. What if it is someone who wants to try out that unit for the first time in a game and puts it at a few points over?

Well, here's an idea - if they want to try a unit for the first time, how about adding it *first* and building their army around that. That seems more sensible than trying to cram it into a list, and calling everyone TFG because they can't be bothered cutting anything to actually keep to the limit.

Yes.

I use points as a ~ guide to the size of game I wanna play. I wouldn't be too anal about the exact, specific value.

I hope GW's next edition of the game gives "no specific points" a bit more official recognition, just as unbound did for "no FOC", to get more people to think about these sort of restrictions as "tools to be used/adapted/experimented with" and less as "scripture written in stone".

Wonderwolf wrote:
I hope GW's next edition of the game gives "no specific points" a bit more official recognition, just as unbound did for "no FOC", to get more people to think about these sort of restrictions as "tools to be used/adapted/experimented with" and less as "scripture written in stone".

Making that legal seems... dubious, to say the least. I mean, we'd basically throwing away the last remnant of the game's failing attempts at balance.

If they were going to do that, it seems like it would be easier to just remove point costs from units and call it a day. Just tell players to 'bring whatever they think is reasonable'.

Honestly, I'd much prefer some 'uneven' missions - along the lines of the ones in the 3rd edition rulebook. Where the players have different missions, and (where necessary) different point limits to account for this.

I'm fine with people gong under or over by whatever they see fit. Points are just a general guideline as far as I'm concerned.

 vipoid wrote:

 Azza007 wrote:
Some of the comments in this thread have really wound me up about how inflexible people are.

Indeed - like those people who refuse to cut anything from their list.

 Azza007 wrote:
A friendly game being point or so over who cares. What if it is someone who wants to try out that unit for the first time in a game and puts it at a few points over?

Well, here's an idea - if they want to try a unit for the first time, how about adding it *first* and building their army around that. That seems more sensible than trying to cram it into a list, and calling everyone TFG because they can't be bothered cutting anything to actually keep to the limit.

Quoted for truth. Why do we have to endorse and help the development of bad habits when we (as those who discourage/disallow that) are called the inflexible while it's those people who would argue to be able to exceed the agreed points who are inflexible. Let's look at the available options:

- If you want just an army list, you can make something else. Most armies can swap out a unit or weapon for another without being rendered unplayable;
- If you want to try out some particular unit setup you can start with it AND THEN build the rest of the army while respecting the agreed amount of points;
- You can just agree to raise the limit by those few points, but then you can't exceed it too;
- You can both agree to play on bigger points if your conception of army doesn't fit it (Imho bigger army proxies are better than grace points).

But yeah, my main argument is that it really is a bad habit and calling someone inflexible for not letting one exceed the limit is very bad of that person - that should never be encouraged. It's pretty much expecting someone to agree for you to abuse it while making him feel bad for just sticking to agreed rules. It is worse of that player that he doesn't feel like cutting the points, even if it makes his army a little bit less powerful. As I said - it's expected of people to play with few points under the limit rather than a few over, especially that it's easy to add/remove one weapon/equipment option to meet the point bracket requirement.

I'm really understanding, but I am still sure that it can be worked with. It's sad that some people are just too lazy to think harder on a proper list and expect others to just deal with it.

I never said it was very bad, I said I thought it inflexible how people wouldn't let that one or two points go in a FRIENDLY game. I did point out that a competitive setting then be within the points limit, no excuse.

The way people are coming across, to me, is inflexible, and the whole not giving a point or two in friendly games is laughable. It seems to make the spirit of the game disappear as people are getting upset over something so small. Again I stress this is in my opinion. I am not going to begrudge someone a couple of points in a friendly setting. Am I really supposed to be turning someone down for a game because they are over by 3pts. Such a big rule break. If they do that then they are obviously going to cheat and break loads of rules in the game...

 Klerych wrote:

Quoted for truth. Why do we have to endorse and help the development of bad habits when we (as those who discourage/disallow that) are called the inflexible while it's those people who would argue to be able to exceed the agreed points who are inflexible. Let's look at the available options:

Being cool and getting on with playing the game isn't a bad habit.

Getting your panties in a twist over a few points here and there, however, is. So I'd recommend you start working on losing that bad habit and not encourage other to follow your bad example by being an old miser about point values. online or at the table.

I don't think people are going to turn down games over a few points over. I imagine they'll politely ask their opponent to remove something to bring it under the limit.

I don't find that to be inflexible. If its inflexible to not accept going over, surely it must be inflexible to not remove something to come under the limit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wonderwolf wrote:


Getting your panties in a twist over a few points here and there, however, is. So I'd recommend you start working on losing that bad habit and not encourage other to follow your bad example by being an old miser about point values. online or at the table.

Firstly, I don't think anyone is getting any panties in a twist.

Secondly, why is it a bad habit to ask that your opponent comes under or at the point limit? Why is it a bad example? Wouldn't it be the best example to meet the agreement two people agreed upon?

If it is possible to do it then go ahead, however I would rather play someone a couple of points over if they can't than play someone who has had to go under a lot more points (10-15 say) .

 Blacksails wrote:


Secondly, why is it a bad habit to ask that your opponent comes under or at the point limit? Why is it a bad example? Wouldn't it be the best example to meet the agreement two people agreed upon?

Why is it a bad habit to not care? Why is it a bad habit to just briefly ask of your opponent is fine with 5 points extra, rather than making him (or her) wait unnecessarily and bore yourself with the most stupid part of playing the game, the list, instead of throwing down some dice and getting the most out of your free-time?

Also, if I agree to the extra points, two people did agree on it. What's the problem?

I encourage people to use the right number of points, but I'm not so anal about it that I can't accept people going slightly over-- unless they make a habit of it.

Wonderwolf wrote:

Why is it a bad habit to not care? Why is it a bad habit to just briefly ask of your opponent is fine with 5 points extra, rather than making him (or her) wait unnecessarily and bore yourself with the most stupid part of playing the game, the list, instead of throwing down some dice and getting the most out of your free-time?

Which all begs the question of why bother showing up with a list over the original agreed upon limit? Why put your opponent in the less than desirable situation of either having to agree or ask to change the list?

Also, if I agree to the extra points, two people did agree on it. What's the problem?

Because that wasn't the original agreement. If they both agree to any changes, fine. However, that's not the issue being discussed here.

I will allow up to 5 points extra, but only if removing the smallest amount possible brings them more than 30 points under.

I'm usually within 5 points. If I can't make it work for 1 or 2 points over I'll be under by 5-8 points. I should probably juts suck it up and stay under the limit.

 Blacksails wrote:


Which all begs the question of why bother showing up with a list over the original agreed upon limit?

To be fair, I usually don't. I just bring my models and deploy what I guesstimate would be around the size of game we're playing. ~1000 pts,, 1500 pts, etc..

Are you saying you don't bring a list? At all? With points, wargear options, and other details?

If that's how you play, then I completely understand where you're coming from.

Wonderwolf wrote:


To be fair, I usually don't. I just bring my models and deploy what I guesstimate would be around the size of game we're playing. ~1000 pts,, 1500 pts, etc..

I....

I... have no words.

If I build an army to a specific amount of points, I expect my opponent to do the same. I have in the past had games which were specified as "2000-2010 pts". Though that obviously just shifts the hard limit from 2000pts to 2010pts, so I'm not really sure what the point was (maybe they felt by specifying a range instead of a single limit it'd stop people from going over?)

If my opponent does show up with an army that's a bit over, I have been known to offer to simply up the limit by say 100 or 200pts so I can just take the extra unit I wanted to take but didn't because I was sticking to the limit.

 Azza007 wrote:
Some of the comments in this thread have really wound me up about how inflexible people are. I play the game for fun and if someone is a couple of points over I don't care.

Obviously your opponent doesn't share your sentiments, because if he was just playing the game for fun he would stick to the agreed points limit.

From 'Army Selection Method' in the Warhammer 40,000 7th edition rulebook:

To use points limits, you will need to reference each unit's points value, which you can find in its Army List Entry. Simply add up the points values of all the units in your army, and make sure that the total does not exceed the limit agreed upon for the game.

 Azza007 wrote:
Am I really supposed to be turning someone down for a game because they are over by 3pts.

No. Ideally, they would have the courtesy to bring a list within the agreed points limit so as to not put you in that position to begin with.