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.

 vipoid wrote:
There seems to be a certain amount of hypocrisy going on with several of the people advocating live and let live with extra points.

There's this constant argument that a few points don't matter and that you should be more laid back about that sort of thing. However, if those few points don't matter, then why don't you be the 'laid back' one and take them out of your list? According to you, they don't matter - hence you have no attachment to them or any need to keep them. So, why not do the polite thing and remove them? Then you can congratulate yourself for being laid back, and never have to trouble your opponent at all.

At least Crowsplat was honest and said that the extra few points was important and let him take an army that wouldn't be possible without them.

Doesn't make it more acceptable but it's less annoying than "the extra few points don't matter".

Most of the time I'm 1 or 2 points over and I ask to keep them it's because I made the list on the spot and it's easier to have 1 point over than rewrite the list and people would rather play the game. It seems much easier to say "sure 2 points is ok" than "no change the list".

 Ubl1k wrote:
OK cool thanks guys just wanted to get an idea on the rest of the community, from now on all games will be 0 points or under.

Why? Who cares what other people say. It's YOU and YOUR FRIEND who is playing. What is next? All your minis need to be painted with over 3 colours and based? You can't play Unbound and have to have restriction when you play? Oh look your army is not WYSIWYG, it's not legal you can't play it. Oh your Ultramarines are the wrong blue, they are not Ultramarines so you can't use UM rules now.

Play how you will. If you and your friends say 3 points over is no big deal then WHO CARES how others play.

*edit* didn't realize there was 4 pages finally read them all. I am curious for all the people who can't go over zero points, filed formations that give free units or units that don't cost anything when coming back from the dead. This is more than 3 points. So do you guys refuse to play formations that do this?

My Dark Angels have free transports but I do not use them, nothing comes back from the dead in my army, and I don't summon Daemons. I still don't like when people go over but sometimes will let it slide for others, I never go over myself.

I do have a Tervigon in my Tyranids, but I don't really use it ever(because I don' want to paint more gaunts).

 TheAvengingKnee wrote:
My Dark Angels have free transports but I do not use them, nothing comes back from the dead in my army, and I don't summon Daemons.

Nothing comes back from the dead? Is that... unusual?

 vipoid wrote:

 TheAvengingKnee wrote:
My Dark Angels have free transports but I do not use them, nothing comes back from the dead in my army, and I don't summon Daemons.

Nothing comes back from the dead? Is that... unusual?

I believe he knew what I ment. Like Tyranids Without Number rule. Units removed/dead have a 50/50 chance of coming back next turn. So hence more free units

I got what you were saying, I think there is also that spore field formation for Tyrnaids that keeps re-spawning thee different spore units when they die on a 4+

Ah, okay.

Davor wrote:
*edit* didn't realize there was 4 pages finally read them all. I am curious for all the people who can't go over zero points, filed formations that give free units or units that don't cost anything when coming back from the dead. This is more than 3 points. So do you guys refuse to play formations that do this?

No, formations are fine. People ignoring both the rules and the agreed points between the two players to take something extra for themselves is completely different.

The formations actually make it worse - if those few points are the difference between taking that extra minimal squad in order to qualify for the formation bonuses and not taking it and not getting the bonuses then it's a huge deal.

I don't know why it's such a problem for some people to put together a legal army list. I've seen people quit events because after multiple attempts they couldn't put together an army list that didn't violate the rules of army construction in some way (over points, didn't fit the force org, not following codex unit restrictions (e.g. IG SWS without PCS and PIS, etc.) best one was the guy that subtracted the cost of character's standard equipment before adding the cost of the upgrade equipment...). Baffles me. I can only assume that they were completely used to building lists outside the rules and trusting that no-one would verify it.

CrowSplat wrote:

Quotes rulebook without giving citation.... Color me unimpressed.

My bad. Was posting from my phone, which makes posting quotes awkward.

Ghaz has posted the page reference. It's (rather unsurprisingly) from the section of the book that covers putting together your army.

So you are honestly telling me that if Joe Newbro shoes up to wherever you game with a 1851 point list and asks to play a friendly game at 1850 you would refuse?

So long as he pointed out up front that his list was 1851, no, I would have no problem with that... because we wouldn't be agreeing to play an 1850-point game. We would be agreeing to play an 1851-point game.



That's ultimately the crux of it - If you agree to a specific points limit, then that is the points limit.

Frankly, I've never really understood why so many people seem to think that expecting an opponent to stick to that limit is unreasonable. If I've agreed to a 1500-point game, I wouldn't dream of showing up with a list that has more than 1500 points, any more than I would expect to be able to move my infantry more than 6", or fire my bolters further than 24".

CrowSplat wrote:

 Orock wrote:
Crow splat I played in all of third and fourth. There is zero armies where you would have had to be that under. You MAY have had to drop a 25 point power fist or some such that you really wanted, but there was never a situation like your describing. I played hundreds of games I'm 3rd back in my college free time, and not on person ever had to go below 30, which was never game breaking. And this was a GW where you saw every army regularly, even sisters.

One should be wary of making definitive statements like never. But using your logic, it would be impossible to ever go over points because if you went over points and had to remove a 200 point unit then didn't NEED that unit because you could have chosen a cheaper unit or added a few guys to another squad.

Hell, we don't even NEED to play the game so let's just stop posting and shut this site down because we don't NEED it. We just want it.

The point is that it is possible to make a list where you can not remove anything without compromising the integrity of the list, where any change would result in some pretty significant changes in gameplay.

Nah I'm confident never applies here. There has NEVER been a situation where you are playing any army that existed in 3rd or 4th where if you doesn't get to play at 1505, you would have to drop 200 points minimum to make it under. That no other possible changes could be made that MIGHT leave you 30 under. Please feel free to prove me wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You COULD show up with only the models you built your army with, thus intending to cheat from the beginning. Or you might only own 1505 points and can't build it any other way. But in that case both players should compromise if they really want to play and maybe... I dunno.... Drop down to 1250? Then no cheating occurs! And the points can be fair.

Again in my war convocation with no warfare Costs to deduct, the difference between 1500 and 1505 is upgrading my knight to the battlecanon, a HUGE benefit not many would dispute as overall superior.

So far there seem to be two broad categories of opinions:

1. People who value the rules more than a fair game.

2. People who value a fair game more than the rules.

People in category 1 are totally okay with playing against people whose armies get hundreds of points worth of extra potency without paying the points one would normally pay for that power, when the rules explicitly allow it. But they're not okay with anyone getting even one percent of that extra potency when the rules don't allow it.

People in category 2 are okay with people getting a few points worth of extra potency, when those few points imbalance the game by less than half of a percent. They're more concerned that the rules allow a very large imbalance via formations than they are with a relatively tiny deviation that the rule don't allow. They also generally seem to acknowledge that in a competitive environment like a tournament, they would never expect or allow that tiny deviation.

Zero.

Its quite simple really. Show some respect to your opponent and meet your end of the deal. If its no big deal to play over, then its no big deal to play under.

There's no good argument to play over the agreed upon limit.

 Pouncey wrote:
People in category 2 are okay with people getting a few points worth of extra potency, when those few points imbalance the game by less than half of a percent. They're more concerned that the rules allow a very large imbalance via formations than they are with a relatively tiny deviation that the rule don't allow. They also generally seem to acknowledge that in a competitive environment like a tournament, they would never expect or allow that tiny deviation.

If those extra points imbalance the game by less than half of a percent then why is it so important to be allowed to include them? Just take that extra 0.5% out of your list and play a legal list.

 Pouncey wrote:
So far there seem to be two broad categories of opinions:

1. People who value the rules more than a fair game.

2. People who value a fair game more than the rules.

People in category 1 are totally okay with playing against people whose armies get hundreds of points worth of extra potency without paying the points one would normally pay for that power, when the rules explicitly allow it. But they're not okay with anyone getting even one percent of that extra potency when the rules don't allow it.

People in category 2 are okay with people getting a few points worth of extra potency, when those few points imbalance the game by less than half of a percent. They're more concerned that the rules allow a very large imbalance via formations than they are with a relatively tiny deviation that the rule don't allow. They also generally seem to acknowledge that in a competitive environment like a tournament, they would never expect or allow that tiny deviation.

Speaking personally, I'm most certainly not "totally okay" with people getting hundreds of free points from formations or other such nonsense.

The difference is, if I object to that, then *I'm* the one going against the rules, since my opponent is doing nothing illegal. I'd rather not face crap like that, but (unlike going over the agreed point limit) I have no leg to stand on rulewise.

 Pouncey wrote:
So far there seem to be two broad categories of opinions:

1. People who value the rules more than a fair game.

2. People who value a fair game more than the rules.

People in category 1 are totally okay with playing against people whose armies get hundreds of points worth of extra potency without paying the points one would normally pay for that power, when the rules explicitly allow it. But they're not okay with anyone getting even one percent of that extra potency when the rules don't allow it.

People in category 2 are okay with people getting a few points worth of extra potency, when those few points imbalance the game by less than half of a percent. They're more concerned that the rules allow a very large imbalance via formations than they are with a relatively tiny deviation that the rule don't allow. They also generally seem to acknowledge that in a competitive environment like a tournament, they would never expect or allow that tiny deviation.

Well that's just complete and utterly misreading the opinions then...


What did I say?

 Grimtuff wrote:


Now for the same old tired debate about people who actually want to follow the rules of the game being WAAC cheesers or something.

Yup.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
People in category 2 are okay with people getting a few points worth of extra potency, when those few points imbalance the game by less than half of a percent. They're more concerned that the rules allow a very large imbalance via formations than they are with a relatively tiny deviation that the rule don't allow. They also generally seem to acknowledge that in a competitive environment like a tournament, they would never expect or allow that tiny deviation.

If those extra points imbalance the game by less than half of a percent then why is it so important to be allowed to include them? Just take that extra 0.5% out of your list and play a legal list.

I was more observing the general opinions in the hope of bringing understanding to both sides than taking a stance myself, particularly since I often fall on both sides myself - sometimes I want to take a list exactly within the specified points limit, other times I find myself at 1503 points after getting my list together and in order to make the points fit I'd have to do something like swap a Superior's Power Weapon to a Stormbolter or drop a Flamer or change a Heavy Flamer to a Flamer, or drop a Superior's Melta Bombs, which annoys me since I prefer to have my squads fairly consistent with each other (and in the case of the Melta Bombs would make it hard to tell which squad leader does not have melta bombs and which does).

But, I do think that it's up to each gaming group to figure out which way they want to do things themselves, because house rules are a thing and even Chess has a number of variant rules which are either used or ignored as the players prefer. If all parties directly involved have agreed that a few points over are okay, then that's fine for them. If not all parties have agreed that that house rule is okay, then it's not okay.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
So far there seem to be two broad categories of opinions:

1. People who value the rules more than a fair game.

2. People who value a fair game more than the rules.

People in category 1 are totally okay with playing against people whose armies get hundreds of points worth of extra potency without paying the points one would normally pay for that power, when the rules explicitly allow it. But they're not okay with anyone getting even one percent of that extra potency when the rules don't allow it.

People in category 2 are okay with people getting a few points worth of extra potency, when those few points imbalance the game by less than half of a percent. They're more concerned that the rules allow a very large imbalance via formations than they are with a relatively tiny deviation that the rule don't allow. They also generally seem to acknowledge that in a competitive environment like a tournament, they would never expect or allow that tiny deviation.

Well that's just complete and utterly misreading the opinions then...


What did I say?

 Grimtuff wrote:


Now for the same old tired debate about people who actually want to follow the rules of the game being WAAC cheesers or something.

Yup.

I never called you a "Win-At-All-Costs Cheeser."

 Pouncey wrote:
So far there seem to be two broad categories of opinions:

1. People who value the rules more than a fair game.

2. People who value a fair game more than the rules.

People in category 1 are totally okay with playing against people whose armies get hundreds of points worth of extra potency without paying the points one would normally pay for that power, when the rules explicitly allow it. But they're not okay with anyone getting even one percent of that extra potency when the rules don't allow it.

People in category 2 are okay with people getting a few points worth of extra potency, when those few points imbalance the game by less than half of a percent. They're more concerned that the rules allow a very large imbalance via formations than they are with a relatively tiny deviation that the rule don't allow. They also generally seem to acknowledge that in a competitive environment like a tournament, they would never expect or allow that tiny deviation.

Way to generalize. Maybe people are OK with "free points" formations because many come with weaker unit choice lists than could have been optamized with the same points.

Because let me tell you something. You would BEG to only play say war convocation in a game if it meant the alternative list was 9 flesh tearer drop pods with 90 vanguard, 50 of them coming in turn one with plasma and arc weapons, all at BS 7.

 Pouncey wrote:
So far there seem to be two broad categories of opinions:

1. People who value the rules more than a fair game.

2. People who value a fair game more than the rules..

You missed out 3. People who value following the rules as the best way to ensure a fair game.

An extra 5 points in a 1500 point list is, in most cases, going to have a minimal effect on the balance of the two armies.

The reason people object to 1505 points being fielded when the agreement was for 1500 points isn't because they're worried about having to play a fairer game. It's because the agreement was for a 1500 point game, and if one player sticks to the points limit, the fair thing is for their opponent to do the same.

 Pouncey wrote:

1. People who value the rules more than a fair game.
2. People who value a fair game more than the rules..

Violating the agreed upon points limit is fair?
And having everyone abide by the agreed upon points limit is unfair?

 Pouncey wrote:

People in category 1 are totally okay with playing against people whose armies get hundreds of points worth of extra potency without paying the points one would normally pay for that power, when the rules explicitly allow it. But they're not okay with anyone getting even one percent of that extra potency when the rules don't allow it.

I'm really not sure what you're trying to say with this. Some formation and some units give you more for the points than others. Does that entitle players to take more points than agreed upon because they feel that the opponent's army is too good / too points efficient / cheese / whatever?

 Pouncey wrote:

I was more observing the general opinions

Except that you didn't do anything of the sort. You just concocted a ridiculous strawman argument against everyone who said people should stick to the point limit.

 vipoid wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

I was more observing the general opinions

Except that you didn't do anything of the sort. You just concocted a ridiculous strawman argument against everyone who said people should stick to the point limit.

Which is exactly what I said would happen in this thread.

You did indeed inform us thusly.

A lot of opinions are going on the idea that everyone prepares their army in advance, rather than coming to the store and coming up with a list on the spot. Two players agree on a a point amount to create an army, and they both create their lists accordingly. However in come cases they may end up wanting something in their army that puts their points just above the limit.

They then speak with the other player and try to agree. Instead of having 1000 points in my army, may I have 1012 points in my army? I can say no sure, whatever. But I want to be a nice guy and let the other guy/gal take the thing they want to make it 1012 points. We have made an agreement. Nobody is like, cheating or anything it's a mutual thing. If I wanted to I could quickly add an upgrade to something to bring my points closer to 1012. We just like, agree on that on the spot. Nobody says the points agreement can't just, change. I don't know where anyone gets this wild idea that we must stick to strict points brackets.

I could say no, could you please remove a section of your army to make the points at or below the limit we agreed upon before. Sure. But that takes more time and the guy/gal needs to work out what they want to remove. and this disappoints them because I am making them take away a thing they want. It's not that big of a deal to me and letting them keep it means they're happier and they think I am a more reasonable, fun person to play with.

With the game as broken as it is anyway, I personally don't care about these 12 points. You guys can sure. It's all about making an agreement with the other player. The rules are as strict as you make them. It's all about having a fun game and making agreements with other players okay.

Some people seem to joke about letting guys move more than 6 inches or whatever. In my last game I let someone's dreadnought go through a wall. An entire squad of guys got destroyed as a result. But I thought "It's a stone wall. I think that Dreadnought could just, walk through it. I'll let that happen." Because that's what we mutually decided made the game better for both of us. The rules are just a framework and we agree on what's okay and what's not okay outside of these rules.

There's even sections in the rulebook about this, but I suppose they're often ignored.

 insaniak wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
So far there seem to be two broad categories of opinions:

1. People who value the rules more than a fair game.

2. People who value a fair game more than the rules..

You missed out 3. People who value following the rules as the best way to ensure a fair game.

An extra 5 points in a 1500 point list is, in most cases, going to have a minimal effect on the balance of the two armies.

The reason people object to 1505 points being fielded when the agreement was for 1500 points isn't because they're worried about having to play a fairer game. It's because the agreement was for a 1500 point game, and if one player sticks to the points limit, the fair thing is for their opponent to do the same.

Going by that, how is it a fair game now when formations give out free points out? Either by having units return once they are killed/removed from the board or get extra free unit for example not paying for vehicles.

You are following the rules, but how is that a fair game? This is even worse than going over by 5 points.

its easy ernought o drop a minor upgrade, melta bomb, maybe a storm bolter or something.

that or just give the other side some extra like the same above and leave it at that.

decent people can sort things out without having to argue. everyone makes mistakes, and you just come up with a quick fix.

 jhe90 wrote:
its easy ernought o drop a minor upgrade, melta bomb, maybe a storm bolter or something.

that or just give the other side some extra like the same above and leave it at that.

decent people can sort things out without having to argue. everyone makes mistakes, and you just come up with a quick fix.

So what is the quick fix against formations that give out free points? Again I find it funny people think it's so easy, people say drop this or that, but it's ok to get 100s of points for free just because you field a formation and either get units for free or abilities for free without paying for them.

So again, going 5 points over in 7th edition is not a big deal anymore. Unless the person who says don't go over ZERO points over the limit and doesn't field these free points formations are would be correct, but if you say not to go over the point limit but do field these formations is nothing but a hypocrite.

Davor wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
its easy ernought o drop a minor upgrade, melta bomb, maybe a storm bolter or something.

that or just give the other side some extra like the same above and leave it at that.

decent people can sort things out without having to argue. everyone makes mistakes, and you just come up with a quick fix.

So what is the quick fix against formations that give out free points? Again I find it funny people think it's so easy, people say drop this or that, but it's ok to get 100s of points for free just because you field a formation and either get units for free or abilities for free without paying for them.

So again, going 5 points over in 7th edition is not a big deal anymore. Unless the person who says don't go over ZERO points over the limit and doesn't field these free points formations are would be correct, but if you say not to go over the point limit but do field these formations is nothing but a hypocrite.

That is a far bigger problem, but some people don't have time for you to sit and rewrite a entire list and re plan your entire army round to a new organisation.

sometimes you just have to level it off, quick bodge and get playing.

again a game of agreement, don't like free razorbacks, don't play them, its a two person situation, thats a game design issue, and a player issue. but no ones forcing you to play them,. there is no quick fix for formations, there part of the game, and like it or not there there. you don't have to play them if you do not want but there not going away.
back to topic, a few points out is easy to fix and most armies carry many little upgrades you can adjust.

Davor wrote:

So what is the quick fix against formations that give out free points?

You tell us.

Davor wrote:
Again I find it funny people think it's so easy, people say drop this or that, but it's ok to get 100s of points for free just because you field a formation and either get units for free or abilities for free without paying for them.

I've yet to see a single person in the '0pts over the limit' camp say that these formations that give free points are okay. Please either quote someone who has and direct your complaint specifically to them, or else sod off and stop putting words in our mouths.

Davor wrote:
Unless the person who says don't go over ZERO points over the limit and doesn't field these free points formations are would be correct

Many of us don't even have the option of fielding those formations, let alone the inclination to do so.

Colehkxix wrote:
A lot of opinions are going on the idea that everyone prepares their army in advance, rather than coming to the store and coming up with a list on the spot. Two players agree on a a point amount to create an army, and they both create their lists accordingly. However in come cases they may end up wanting something in their army that puts their points just above the limit.

Well, yeah actually. Most people should have list(s) available. If you've been playing there long enough you should know what the common points costs are in your local meta. It even does not have to be local as the sizes of games that are preferred to play (1000, 1500, 1750, 1850, 2000) are pretty much the same globally.

The only time this changes really is if you have someone new to the area and either their meta was different (so things have to be trimmed down from what they have on them) or they've got a brand new army and/or are a complete newbie and that is literally all they have and just want to take it for a spin. In both of those cases (though in the latter you would just be agreeing to a weird-pointed game. "Hey! Who wants a 823pt game?") you let off a little slack but I'd expect them (newbie excepted) to have a proper list for next time.

 vipoid wrote:

Davor wrote:
Again I find it funny people think it's so easy, people say drop this or that, but it's ok to get 100s of points for free just because you field a formation and either get units for free or abilities for free without paying for them.

I've yet to see a single person in the '0pts over the limit' camp say that these formations that give free points are okay. Please either quote someone who has and direct your complaint specifically to them, or else sod off and stop putting words in our mouths.

Yup. I think the formations in their current, erm... form are daft. They should have been handled like the old Apocalypse ones that had a points cost on top of the contents of the formation. But that there is a whole 'nother topic.