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.

Henrythesecond wrote:
My regular gaming buddy and I have hardly EVER gone over the agreed points limit, and with good reason. Our house rule states that if you absolutely must bring an unwieldy and bloated army list (but never more than the cost of a removable upgrade), then your opponent gains a re-roll to either the Deployment Zone or First Turn roll. That keeps us 'honest'.

That said, I simply can't conceive of any of my friends turning up 35pts over the limit..."I couldn't afford to give these guys a transport, do you mind if I just give 'em a Rhino anyway?" Errr...

How about this house rule: For every full 5pts over an agreed limit, your opponent gets a 'free' re-roll to be taken at any point during the game? That should cure 'points creep' pretty swiftly.

Works for me.

Those rolls on Be'lakor become very important very quickly.

Henrythesecond wrote:
How about this house rule: For every full 5pts over an agreed limit, your opponent gets a 'free' re-roll to be taken at any point during the game? That should cure 'points creep' pretty swiftly.

I'd make it one re-roll for every point over, not for every five points. And I'd make the re-roll apply to any number of dice rolled at the same time. So, if you go over the point limit by one point I can make one unit's shooting effectively twin-linked for a turn. Harsh? Sure, but if you're over the point limit you're lucky I'm willing to play against you at all.

 Overread wrote:
b) Ask to allow yourself to be taken up to the same value as the other army; this is a great option for casual games and its really just having minor adjustment to the games points limit in the match you're playing.

Just picking this one out as it is an often heard solution. I never got how it would be fair to be given the same additional points, as those few points over were especially important otherwise why are you over. So how is me spending some points on a useless upgrade a fair resolution?
To me if you insist on coming to a game we agreed on to be a set points limit by a list that is over, than the fair option would be to allow me to add something useful to my list as well. So if you are 3 points over I could add +X points to add a special/heavy weapon, or +X points to add another member to a squad.
Still I prefer to have my opponent stay within the agreed points limit as like any game the rules governing the game determine the enjoyability (unless copious amounts of alcohol are involved). And starting the game by breaking the only rule you set before beginning does not bode well for the coming game.

If your opponent is going to just toss that rule out the window, why tiptoe on that slippery slope, Just stomp on it and just toss out whatever rules you dont like.

Frankly, if people are going to quibble about fairness over even 1 point, how is it fair for anyone, that both armies are not starting with the exact same number of points ( regardless of agreed limit )?

Seriously though, maybe it's just me, but if you are not talking to your opponent, well before the game, to settle any point overage issues, you almost deserve what you get.

Cheating? You have to be kidding me.
Cheating is bringing loaded dice to he game or intentionally trying to SNEAK stuff in, that wasn't accounted for in the points - in other words being deceptive.

Being openly over points is no more cheating, than flapping your arms makes you a bird. Sloppy in accounting, forgetful even, relaxed attitude to the game is very likely.


I am less concerned about people being a little over, than I am about people who are going to quibble about 1 point.

Why?

Because people who are quibbling about 1 point have obviously gone over their army and the rules with a fine tooth comb, looking for every single advantage they can get, and those are the same types of people that don't have the time of day for a beginner ( that doesn't understand the all rules for every single army ) and will go out of their way to make use of every single mistake that the beginner makes, without teaching him/her - sure they will TELL the beginner he did this wrong and that wrong, but it's not teaching.

And that isn't fun for the beginner ( personal experience ).


Come on - there is absolutely no difference between starting with one army at 1488 pts and the other at 1499 pts and starting with one army at 1498 and the other at 1509 ( or for that matter armies at 1511 and 1522, even if the point value of the game was originally set at 1500 ).


Just spend a little more time talking to your opponent - decide what maximum point difference between armies is going to be, and stop worrying about a stupid concrete ceiling that some people think is so shrouded in holiness that it can supposedly never be violated.

People seam to have a hard time remembering that most games is not a high stakes tournament game - so you should never treat all games like they were.

 Chopper Greg wrote:

Spoiler:

Frankly, if people are going to quibble about fairness over even 1 point, how is it fair for anyone, that both armies are not starting with the exact same number of points ( regardless of agreed limit )?

Seriously though, maybe it's just me, but if you are not talking to your opponent, well before the game, to settle any point overage issues, you almost deserve what you get.

Cheating? You have to be kidding me.
Cheating is bringing loaded dice to he game or intentionally trying to SNEAK stuff in, that wasn't accounted for in the points - in other words being deceptive.

Being openly over points is no more cheating, than flapping your arms makes you a bird. Sloppy in accounting, forgetful even, relaxed attitude to the game is very likely.


I am less concerned about people being a little over, than I am about people who are going to quibble about 1 point.

Why?

Because people who are quibbling about 1 point have obviously gone over their army and the rules with a fine tooth comb, looking for every single advantage they can get, and those are the same types of people that don't have the time of day for a beginner ( that doesn't understand the all rules for every single army ) and will go out of their way to make use of every single mistake that the beginner makes, without teaching him/her - sure they will TELL the beginner he did this wrong and that wrong, but it's not teaching.

And that isn't fun for the beginner ( personal experience ).


Come on - there is absolutely no difference between starting with one army at 1488 pts and the other at 1499 pts and starting with one army at 1498 and the other at 1509 ( or for that matter armies at 1511 and 1522, even if the point value of the game was originally set at 1500 ).


Just spend a little more time talking to your opponent - decide what maximum point difference between armies is going to be, and stop worrying about a stupid concrete ceiling that some people think is so shrouded in holiness that it can supposedly never be violated.

People seam to have a hard time remembering that most games is not a high stakes tournament game - so you should never treat all games like they were.

Exalted.

it is not a atter of fairness. You can have 2 armies made to the exact same point value where one is maxcheesed to the limit and one is just random stuff tossed together the randomly tossed together list given to a 3 year old to use and the maxcheesed list given to a tournament circuit pro to use against them.. Yes, this is an extreme example but an example of how perfectly pointed armies can not be "fair" against one another.
However, Since the issue is not about fairness, it therefore has to be about SOMETHING. Lets see what it could be about.
1. The rues. As a few others pointed out, t is in the rulebook in black and white. as vorn said, if your going to scrap that rule, why not whatever other rules you like. Bottom of last turn of the game and my squad is 20 inches from an objective that would win me the game. I think I'll just nudge my guys to winin 3 inches to claim it anyway.after all, the points allowance rule is to be ignored, why quibble over a few extra inches of movement?
2. Self respect. Since playing rogue trader, I have no once EVER gone over the amount. I pride myself on following the rules. To think that I would give myself even a minuscule of extra advantage over someone else by not following the rules is anathema to me. In fact, it would be by definition, dishonest. I cant remember what movie it was in but there is a quote I like. it goes something along the lines of " Honor is a gift a man gives himself and which no one can take from him but himself".
3. Respect for your opponent- If I thought so little of my opponent that i could totallyignore any feelings towards honesty or fairness or thier feelings towards what is right and wrong or following the rules, then breaking the rules by going over the limit would not bother me. However, I have respect for my opponents. Gamers are often looked down upon and made fun of by non-gamers. We have to live with that. Some of us old timers come from a time when it was more than just that. Growing up in the 80s when painting zombies and skeleton and chaos marines for our armies, playing D&D and listening to rock and roll music , we were usually branded as satanists and outright reviled in our communities to the point where finding jobs was almost impossible as employers were afraid to hire us. I have more respect for a fellow gamer than that.
4. it is "only a game". Winning is not so important that I will die if i lose so why quibble with an opponent to allow me to break the rules and take extra stuff or go over the limit? It is not THAT important so I'll just take enough to meet the limit and not go for the extra killy power that costs 35 points more.
After all. Look at the codices nowadays. Numbers of models and so forth are now set you to make it easier to stay within the limits. At one time, you had to uy the 10 model tactical squad whole or not at all. Now, you buy the first five and add as many as you want up to 10.

Like I said before, against a roookie, I will likely let it slide and explain the situation to them to prevent it from happening again and coach them on how to avoid it and others have provided a lot of very creative and fair house rules to address it. Some of which I will be sure to remember.

However. The OP DID post the question in YMDC. In this particular forum section, the answer always boils down the RAW, the law of the rules. How we would play it, thoughts of fairness and so forth are irrelevent here. You will notice that this exact same question posted in the 40k general forum got answers that were not based on the rules near so much but which were more opinion based. here is a link that may help us to address the OPs question and should be kept in mind when replying to it.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253892.page

I think you missed my point.

The odds of any two people with two different armies coming up with the exact same point value, are off the scale, unless they sit down together and cooperate ( even then it is unlikely to be exactly the same, because different armies have different point values ).

No one is going to make much of a fuss, if there is a 35 point difference between armies, if both are below the so called sacred point limit, but to hear many people here, the second that either army goes above that point limit, someone is cheating, and all sorts of concessions have to be made on the part of one person.

I have either seen or been a part of plenty of games, where it was a matter of either being well under or slightly over the so called limit - I remember one of mine that I was going to be 38 under or 26 over, when my opponents was within +/- 15 points, and the alternative to being over by 26 points was take a bunch of useless stuff to make up about 30 odd points of difference. Sure I could have taken that stuff to raise the points of my army, but as far as usefulness is concerned, it would have been the same as playing the game 38 points short. So what happened? I sat down with my opponents about a week earlier, we talked about it for a couple of minutes and raised the so called point limit by 50 points - that let most everyone take an extra item of two that they had already trimmed out of their lists ( one person got an idea from that the extra 50 points, totally revamped their list ), while it was enough for me to drop one model from three squads, and picked up a short squad in return, and all 6 players was within a 10 point window of the new "limit".

The rules do not say, that the players can not decide on a new point total, yet to hear many people here, it sounds like people are saying that 1500 points are 1500 points and you are going to stick to it - no if's, and's, or but's, about it.


How is it that an 11 or 15 point difference in Army's are acceptable if everyone is below the agreed cap, but some how that same 11-15 point difference is changing the rules and cheating, if one of them is over the cap, by even a single point?

If the point difference between the army's is not going to make any difference if everyone was below the cap, how the heck is it going to make any difference if one or both players are above it?

Good grief! Move the cap from 1500 to 1508 or even 1525 and get on with the game.

That's the funny thing about the point cap rule - when you think about it, it's about the most flexible rule in the book ( especially in a game where there is almost always some kind of exception to all the other rules ).

The most important rule in the rule book comes from Pg 4 BRB ( oddly enough from the section "The Most Important Rule" ), "....be prepared to interpret a rule or come up with a suitable solution for yourselves", and the discussion about point limits are most applicable here as I can't think about a single absolute set rule about them. Even pg 108 says, " ... most armies are actually a shade smaller than the agreed limit - sometimes it's impossible to spend every last point. Indeed to get around this, most players are happy, to let their opponent go a few points over the agreed total - after all, a few points here or there are unlikely to upset the battle's course. " ( italics mine ).

So if anyone wants a rule, that covers this situation, there it is. Not a single word, about how a point limit can not ever be broken ( or moved ), and can even be read as giving tact approval for allowing a player to go over, if it's not carried to absurdity.

Which has been my entire point about not worrying about a point limit set in a stone ceiling ( that is never supposed to be broken ), and just build army's to near parity in points.

 Chopper Greg wrote:
How is it that an 11 or 15 point difference in Army's are acceptable if everyone is below the agreed cap, but some how that same 11-15 point difference is changing the rules and cheating, if one of them is over the cap, by even a single point?

Because the rules say "you may spend up to X points". If you voluntarily spend fewer points then that's your choice to make. If you deliberately make a list that spends more points then you are cheating.

I remember one of mine that I was going to be 38 under or 26 over, when my opponents was within +/- 15 points, and the alternative to being over by 26 points was take a bunch of useless stuff to make up about 30 odd points of difference.

Why are you so obsessed with winning that you have to change the point value of the game so that your list gets a little more efficient? Why can't you just play the game within the rules that you agreed to and accept that you might not always have the perfect list?

Frankly, if people are going to quibble about fairness over even 1 point, how is it fair for anyone, that both armies are not starting with the exact same number of points ( regardless of agreed limit )?

It's fair because both players have the same resources available (the agreed-on number of points) to use. If one player doesn't use all of those resources it's still a fair game because failing to do so is their voluntary choice. Perhaps playing a 1495 point list is actually better than changing some upgrades just to spend that extra point (for example, they want a melta gun instead of the more expensive plasma gun).

Because people who are quibbling about 1 point have obviously gone over their army and the rules with a fine tooth comb, looking for every single advantage they can get, and those are the same types of people that don't have the time of day for a beginner ( that doesn't understand the all rules for every single army ) and will go out of their way to make use of every single mistake that the beginner makes, without teaching him/her - sure they will TELL the beginner he did this wrong and that wrong, but it's not teaching.

I can make ridiculous stereotypes too! Everyone who insists on being entitled to go over the agreed-on point limit is a WAAC TFG who is so obsessed with winning that they pressure other people into "being casual about it" so they can take an illegal list and gain a better chance of winning. A game against a player who has followed the point limit (or even spent fewer points because it's not worth obsessing over spending the last few points) will likely involve the TFG badgering them about some other rules issues, like insisting that it's ok when their models move an extra 1" because "only TFGs insist on perfect measuring, that extra 1" won't make any difference".

I understand your point. a single point or two may not be a gaming winning or losing matter. However, there is always the chance that that 1 point searchlight you bought taking your amy from the agreed upon 1500 limit to 1501 could allow you to destroy an entire unit on your first turn before i get to fire it when otherwise you might not have been able to.

my point is this, the rule is concrete, black and white in the rulebook. When you start breaking rules because you personally dont agree with them, you set a precedent for breaking others. It is a game designed for fun. In a for fun game, it is a matter of respect (and the rules) to not cheat by breaking the rules. In a competative game, it is a matte of just being turned away at the door because you did not meet the requirements.

In this particular section of the forum, the letter of the rules are what matters.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253892.page
if you want to discuss it in other other means like why or what would you do, try posting in the thread in the general section of the forums. In this particular section however, anything other than the actual rules and the interpretation of them is considered irrelevant and spam according to the as posted.

Mike walks up to the table and explains to Bob that his list is a little over the target points limit. The way Mike casually talks about the infraction, it's clear he doesn't think it's a big deal and expects Bob to fall in line. Bob blinks, thinks a moment, and blurts out:

A) "Sure...that's fine. Whatever, man. A few points isn't going to matter that much." (a nice guy and a potential push-over)

or

B) "No can do. I fit my list under the points limit, you need to do the same." (not sure what type of guy he is, but he'll stand up for himself)

No matter the response, Mike has shown bad table etiquette for putting Bob in that situation.

It's pretty much as simple as that. I don't think we need to drag rules or list-building into this...

 Chopper Greg wrote:
Frankly, if people are going to quibble about fairness over even 1 point, how is it fair for anyone, that both armies are not starting with the exact same number of points ( regardless of agreed limit )?

It's fair because both armies have the ability to spend up to the same number of points. If you write a list that is under the agreed limit, that's your choice, not a limitation of the game.

Because people who are quibbling about 1 point have obviously gone over their army and the rules with a fine tooth comb, looking for every single advantage they can get, and those are the same types of people that don't have the time of day for a beginner ( that doesn't understand the all rules for every single army ) and will go out of their way to make use of every single mistake that the beginner makes, without teaching him/her - sure they will TELL the beginner he did this wrong and that wrong, but it's not teaching.

This is a ridiculous generalisation.

I've lost count of the number of new players I have helped along in this hobby in the last 20 years. But I 'quibble' over over-point lists for the same reason I 'quibble' over people measuring extra movement or range... because a limit is a limit, and the limits imposed by the rules are the framework around which the game works.

Come on - there is absolutely no difference between starting with one army at 1488 pts and the other at 1499 pts and starting with one army at 1498 and the other at 1509

Sure there is. If the agreed limit is 1500 points, then in the latter example one of those armies is illegal.

People seam to have a hard time remembering that most games is not a high stakes tournament game - so you should never treat all games like they were.

It never ceases to amaze me how many people present this as something that only applies to those arguing for sticking to the limit...

If you agree to play a 1500 point list, and you show up with a list that is 10 points over, how is it that your opponent expecting you to follow the rules is unreasonable, while your refusal to correct your list to fit within the agreed upon limit is not?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Chopper Greg wrote:
I think you missed my point.

The odds of any two people with two different armies coming up with the exact same point value, are off the scale, unless they sit down together and cooperate ( even then it is unlikely to be exactly the same, because different armies have different point values ).

Really?

I have nine 40K armies. Many of those have had multiple codexes over the last 5 editions that I have played the game... in for many of the games I have played in that time, both my and my opponent's list have been exactly on the points limit.

If I'm bucking the odds that impressively, it must be time to go buy a lotto ticket...

No one is going to make much of a fuss, if there is a 35 point difference between armies, if both are below the so called sacred point limit, but to hear many people here, the second that either army goes above that point limit, someone is cheating, and all sorts of concessions have to be made on the part of one person.

Yes, that's how it works when you have an agreed limit.

Just like if one players is moving his guys 6 inches, and the other guy is moving his guys seven inches, one of them is cheating, and the other is not.

So what happened? I sat down with my opponents about a week earlier, we talked about it for a couple of minutes and raised the so called point limit by 50 points

In which case you now had a new agreed points limit, and everything was rosy.

That's not the issue. You and your opponent are free to play at whatever points limit you both agree to. It's showing up to a game with an agreed points limit and just expecting to be allowed to use an illegal list that people take exception to.

If you have agreed to a 1500 point game, and your opponent wants to play a 1500 point game, they're not the unreasonable one for expecting you to use a 1500 point army.

 Peregrine wrote:

Because the rules say "you may spend up to X points". If you voluntarily spend fewer points then that's your choice to make. If you deliberately make a list that spends more points then you are cheating.

If the rules say it is allowed, it's not cheating. If the rule did not allow it, it would go out of it's way to say so, but it doesn't do that. Instead, it goes out of it's way to allow minor overages.

 Peregrine wrote:


Why are you so obsessed with winning that you have to change the point value of the game so that your list gets a little more efficient? Why can't you just play the game within the rules that you agreed to and accept that you might not always have the perfect list?

That is so absurd that doesn't even amount to a very poor joke. Even with the revised point total, that brought the army's closer to parity, I didn't even have a chance. That being said, if others come to me, for the same thing it's still not an issue. High point games, it's not going to happen so often, but with low point games it can happen fairly frequently simply because some army's can't be made to work very well at lower point totals ( even more so if the selection of available models is somewhat limited as it is in my case ).

 Peregrine wrote:

Frankly, if people are going to quibble about fairness over even 1 point, how is it fair for anyone, that both armies are not starting with the exact same number of points ( regardless of agreed limit )?

It's fair because both players have the same resources available (the agreed-on number of points) to use. If one player doesn't use all of those resources it's still a fair game because failing to do so is their voluntary choice. Perhaps playing a 1495 point list is actually better than changing some upgrades just to spend that extra point (for example, they want a melta gun instead of the more expensive plasma gun).

You are making an unwarranted assumption, that everyone has the same resources access available. Even if player skill was not a factor, if someone is limited in their access to models ( which can be rather expensive ), then their options they have for their army are also limited ( regardless of point total ) - thus limits what models they are able to field. If you then limit their options even further, by not allowing a minor overage as allowed by the rules, it goes back to an issue of being fun for only one player.

Are you then going to make the game exclusive only to people, that have enough money to field all options as allowed in the codex?

 Peregrine wrote:


I can make ridiculous stereotypes too! Everyone who insists on being entitled to go over the agreed-on point limit is a WAAC TFG who is so obsessed with winning that they pressure other people into "being casual about it" so they can take an illegal list and gain a better chance of winning. A game against a player who has followed the point limit (or even spent fewer points because it's not worth obsessing over spending the last few points) will likely involve the TFG badgering them about some other rules issues, like insisting that it's ok when their models move an extra 1" because "only TFGs insist on perfect measuring, that extra 1" won't make any difference".

It would be one thing if someone was 75-100 points over, but given that we are talking about a few points as allowed per the BRB, it only comes down to whether or not the game is in fact a tourney game or not. If it isn't, and you are not allowing something that is useable in the rules then the shoe ( the one about needing to win at any cost ) is on your foot now. Does someone need to win so badly, that they are going to quibble about someone being a single point over?

 EVIL INC wrote:
I understand your point. a single point or two may not be a gaming winning or losing matter. However, there is always the chance that that 1 point searchlight you bought taking your amy from the agreed upon 1500 limit to 1501 could allow you to destroy an entire unit on your first turn before i get to fire it when otherwise you might not have been able to.

my point is this, the rule is concrete, black and white in the rulebook. When you start breaking rules because you personally dont agree with them, you set a precedent for breaking others. It is a game designed for fun. In a for fun game, it is a matter of respect (and the rules) to not cheat by breaking the rules. In a competative game, it is a matte of just being turned away at the door because you did not meet the requirements.

Lets think about your example a bit. Say you and I set up a1500 point game for what we are going to play next week.

You use up 1500 points, and want to take a 1 point searchlight - wait a minute, you already used all of those 1500 points, there is not any justification to take 1 more point simply because you have already used the 1500 points.
Now, if you have built a 1490 pt army, and for some reason searchlights cost 15 points, I'm not going to have a problem with it, as long as you haven't also given 2 point offensive and 4 point defensive grenades to all six of your squads. You are either going to have to get rid of some of those grenades to get that searchlight or you are going to have to get my agreement, that the new cap is 1510 or so, and I can now use that extra points how ever I feel like ( within the codex I'm running ) - heck there is a fair chance that I may tell you that you can take it anyway and not make any changes to my list in return.

You call me 3-4 days ahead of time and tell me you want to run a 1550 pt game instead of a 1500 pt game, I'm fine with that too.

As for the rest, about the rule being black and white.....

The very same moment that GW added the allowance to go a little over the point limit to the rest of the rules, they changed it from black and white, to shades of grey. If it's going to be black and white, with no possibility of allowing some limited overage, then they need to out right remove the part about most players allowing it and explicitly state that no overage what so ever is allowed - because otherwise it gives people the wrong idea.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Voidwraith wrote:
Mike walks up to the table and explains to Bob that his list is a little over the target points limit. The way Mike casually talks about the infraction, it's clear he doesn't think it's a big deal and expects Bob to fall in line. Bob blinks, thinks a moment, and blurts out:

A) "Sure...that's fine. Whatever, man. A few points isn't going to matter that much." (a nice guy and a potential push-over)

or

B) "No can do. I fit my list under the points limit, you need to do the same." (not sure what type of guy he is, but he'll stand up for himself)

No matter the response, Mike has shown bad table etiquette for putting Bob in that situation.

That's the entire point about talking to each other about any overage issues before you come to the game table - so it doesn't happen after everyone is otherwise ready to play.

The rules are the rules. if you want to discuss 'what ifs" or "how would you play its" or whatever other excuses or justifications for blatantly breaking the rules, there is a 40k general section to discuss it with a threaalready started.
As this section is for discussing the actual rules, I will address the rule s written in the rulebook where it is wrttn in black and white with no grey areas.

 Chopper Greg wrote:
If the rules say it is allowed, it's not cheating. If the rule did not allow it, it would go out of it's way to say so, but it doesn't do that. Instead, it goes out of it's way to allow minor overages.

The rules do NOT allow you to go over, they merely state that if you do break the rule by going over the point limit then some people don't think it's worth worrying about it.

Even with the revised point total, that brought the army's closer to parity, I didn't even have a chance.

Then why did you need to change the point limit to accommodate the more efficient list you wanted to bring? Why couldn't you just play within the point limit with a less-efficient list? If you don't have a chance anyway then why was it so important to make the change?

You are making an unwarranted assumption, that everyone has the same resources access available.

No I am not. If it's a 1500 point game then both players have 1500 points to spend. You don't get to insist on getting extra points just because a legal list wouldn't be as effective at winning.

Are you then going to make the game exclusive only to people, that have enough money to field all options as allowed in the codex?

This is absolute nonsense. People with limited budgets can still play by the rules.

Does someone need to win so badly, that they are going to quibble about someone being a single point over?

This is exactly my point: why do you need to win so badly that you're going to insist on being allowed to have that extra point instead of just making your list fit within the point limit that you agreed to?

If it's going to be black and white, with no possibility of allowing some limited overage, then they need to out right remove the part about most players allowing it and explicitly state that no overage what so ever is allowed - because otherwise it gives people the wrong idea.

Or you just need to understand that "some people don't think it's a big deal" does not mean you get to act entitled about those extra points and accuse your opponent of TFG behavior if they won't let you have them.

That's the entire point about talking to each other about any overage issues before you come to the game table - so it doesn't happen after everyone is otherwise ready to play.

There is no "overage issue" to talk about. If you have enough advance warning about an upcoming game that you can negotiate with your future opponent then you have enough time to make a legal list. Whether or not you talk to them in advance or not you're still putting your opponent in the position of having to choose between letting you cheat and having an awkward situation where they have to tell you to stop cheating.

 Chopper Greg wrote:
If the rules say it is allowed, it's not cheating. If the rule did not allow it, it would go out of it's way to say so, but it doesn't do that. Instead, it goes out of it's way to allow minor overages.

You have that backwards. The rules don't have to say that something isn't allowed for it to be illegal. They have to explicitly allow it for that to be something you can do.

The rules don't allow you to go over the points limit. They rather explicitly state that the points limit is the maximum amount that you can spend.

Even if player skill was not a factor, if someone is limited in their access to models ( which can be rather expensive ), then their options they have for their army are also limited ( regardless of point total ) - thus limits what models they are able to field.

Then they have the option of fielding an understrength army until they can obtain more models, or they can play at a different points limit. It's not an excuse for ignoring an agreed-to limit.

The very same moment that GW added the allowance to go a little over the point limit to the rest of the rules,...

Except that they didn't. They added a comment that 'most players' don't mind if you go over. There is no allowance within the rules to do so... it's purely up to the players.


But the salient point once again is really this:

Does someone need to win so badly, that they are going to quibble about someone being a single point over?

Because, again - this works both ways. Do you need to win so badly that you have to use a list that is a single point over?

 Chopper Greg wrote:
Frankly, if people are going to quibble about fairness over even 1 point, how is it fair for anyone, that both armies are not starting with the exact same number of points ( regardless of agreed limit )?

Seriously though, maybe it's just me, but if you are not talking to your opponent, well before the game, to settle any point overage issues, you almost deserve what you get.

Cheating? You have to be kidding me.
Cheating is bringing loaded dice to he game or intentionally trying to SNEAK stuff in, that wasn't accounted for in the points - in other words being deceptive.

Being openly over points is no more cheating, than flapping your arms makes you a bird. Sloppy in accounting, forgetful even, relaxed attitude to the game is very likely.


I am less concerned about people being a little over, than I am about people who are going to quibble about 1 point.

Why?

Because people who are quibbling about 1 point have obviously gone over their army and the rules with a fine tooth comb, looking for every single advantage they can get, and those are the same types of people that don't have the time of day for a beginner ( that doesn't understand the all rules for every single army ) and will go out of their way to make use of every single mistake that the beginner makes, without teaching him/her - sure they will TELL the beginner he did this wrong and that wrong, but it's not teaching.

And that isn't fun for the beginner ( personal experience ).


Come on - there is absolutely no difference between starting with one army at 1488 pts and the other at 1499 pts and starting with one army at 1498 and the other at 1509 ( or for that matter armies at 1511 and 1522, even if the point value of the game was originally set at 1500 ).


Just spend a little more time talking to your opponent - decide what maximum point difference between armies is going to be, and stop worrying about a stupid concrete ceiling that some people think is so shrouded in holiness that it can supposedly never be violated.

People seam to have a hard time remembering that most games is not a high stakes tournament game - so you should never treat all games like they were.

If you've read the entire thread you'd realize you share the viewpoint of the minority.

After reading this thread, I am glad I don't play against most of you. 1-2 points over is not going to do much. There are many armies that I have built, for fun, that do this and don't use much in the way of upgrades, but I would have to play 8 points under and with an illegal squad as it is now under minimum size due to this "no overage ever" mentality. Are you so hard up for a win that you have to be 8 points more than your opponent? The 35 points over in the op is a bit over the top, but this "oh no you have to completely redo your entire army if you ever want to play against me" stuff is as well. In a tournament, yes no overage, unless the TO allows for one, but a pick up game come on play the game, have some fun, and maybe help the guy tweak his list to play the way he intends while staying under the points cap next time.

Since I have gained more experience with the game, I tend to not go over, but when I play test lists for tournaments I may start with a point over, and then tweak the list to a correct level and ask my opponent what changes he would have made, keeping within my play style/army design, that would be more efficient or might have worked better.

Even still, I have no problem with my opponent being over by a couple points.

 megatrons2nd wrote:
After reading this thread, I am glad I don't play against most of you. 1-2 points over is not going to do much. There are many armies that I have built, for fun, that do this and don't use much in the way of upgrades, but I would have to play 8 points under and with an illegal squad as it is now under minimum size due to this "no overage ever" mentality. Are you so hard up for a win that you have to be 8 points more than your opponent?

You're telling me that these lists have only the minimum squad size with no upgrades whatsoever on any unit in the list?
I'll call BS on that. You're free to have your viewpoint but don't exaggerate.

I like to take them out back and beat the $%#! out of them for going over. Even by one point. The limit is the limit. Why do people think it's OK to go over the limit? Now, if I said "Let's play about1500 points"- that would imply that it's OK to go over the points limit. How much? That's up to each set of players to decide.

Every army has options for a player to lose 1, 2, 5, 10, 15, 25+ points on models/units, not to mention just dropping a model to get under the points.

 megatrons2nd wrote:
After reading this thread, I am glad I don't play against most of you.

IF you are so adamant that you absolutely have to cheat by breaking the rules written in black and white in the rulebook (for whatever reason). Rules that are so plain and understandable that there is no need to FAQ them as there is no other way to interpret them but how it says exactly, That it is us who are glad to not play against you. The rules are there for a reason. breaking them willy nilly as is convenient is simply not a good thing.

This is the YMDC section dedicated to defining and working out the rules of the game. The rule is simple. You dont go over the limit. If one player plays by the rules and makes a legal list, why should the other player get special privilages to ignore the rules and make an illegal list? cheating is cheating whatever color bow you want to tie onto it.

 EVIL INC wrote:

 megatrons2nd wrote:
After reading this thread, I am glad I don't play against most of you.

IF you are so adamant that you absolutely have to cheat by breaking the rules written in black and white in the rulebook (for whatever reason). Rules that are so plain and understandable that there is no need to FAQ them as there is no other way to interpret them but how it says exactly, That it is us who are glad to not play against you. The rules are there for a reason. breaking them willy nilly as is convenient is simply not a good thing.

This is the YMDC section dedicated to defining and working out the rules of the game. The rule is simple. You dont go over the limit. If one player plays by the rules and makes a legal list, why should the other player get special privilages to ignore the rules
and make an illegal list? cheating is cheating whatever color bow you want to tie onto it.

It goes beyond cheating though. When he agreed to play at a certain points limit and can't be bothered to keep his word for something as trivial as a game, why should someone trust him to keep his word on something that really matters?

very true. thats what we have been saying all along.....snipped from an earlier post...

"2. Self respect. Since playing rogue trader, I have no once EVER gone over the amount. I pride myself on following the rules. To think that I would give myself even a minuscule of extra advantage over someone else by not following the rules is anathema to me. In fact, it would be by definition, dishonest. I cant remember what movie it was in but there is a quote I like. it goes something along the lines of " Honor is a gift a man gives himself and which no one can take from him but himself".
3. Respect for your opponent- If I thought so little of my opponent that i could totallyignore any feelings towards honesty or fairness or thier feelings towards what is right and wrong or following the rules, then breaking the rules by going over the limit would not bother me. However, I have respect for my opponents. Gamers are often looked down upon and made fun of by non-gamers. We have to live with that. Some of us old timers come from a time when it was more than just that. Growing up in the 80s when painting zombies and skeleton and chaos marines for our armies, playing D&D and listening to rock and roll music , we were usually branded as satanists and outright reviled in our communities to the point where finding jobs was almost impossible as employers were afraid to hire us. I have more respect for a fellow gamer than that. "

 Tamwulf wrote:

Even by one point. The limit is the limit. Why do people think it's OK to go over the limit?.

Maybe because GW explicitly told them that most players are OK with it?

I don't usually go over the limit, and if I ever do I discuss about it with my opponent beforehand (so they have time to adjust their list/decline to play/agree upon new point total) and not just show up in a game with an illegal list with an assumption that it would be OK. However, I really don't understand why people are always so adamant in these threads. Players with limited model collections that want to adhere to WYSIWYG may have hard time dropping few points. And I, for one, would rather have my opponent to go few points over that to break WYSIWYG.

The question is not "is most players ok withit" (obviously most players are NOT ok with cheating if the replies here are anything to go by. The question is "what is the rule?" that is fairly straightfoward and simple.

Oh dear god.

The amount of adamancy here is despicable.

It. Is. A. Game.

A game wherein it is both rude and acceptable to spam the cheesiest thing possible, but the second anyone goes even one point above the limit, the rule nazis start raging.

 Tamwulf wrote:
I like to take them out back and beat the $%#! out of them for going over. Even by one point.

When a friend calls you up for a friendly game and accidentally ends up a couple of points over the limit, do you really think it's a good thing to just verbally or physically beat them down over such a small thing in a meaningless game?

Really?

Does any one of you remember The Golden Rule?

(It's to have fun, btw)

It depends on the situation for me.
In campaigns/tournaments everyone should be at the agreed point limit or below.
In normal games Id usually let the other guy go over the limit by a few points. But then again that depends on who he is, I know some people that would specifically build their list to 2005 points, if they knew the other one tends to have a 5 point leniency in 2000 pts games. Those guys have to be on/below the limit.
Younger/non-powerful-fluffy/ less-experienced players are allowed to overspent a bit more.
But, I do fully expect the opponent to request and inform me of his points before game start. And I do overspent sometimes myself, but only when playing against someone I know is ok with it beforehand.

I do believe its in the spirit of the game to be able to overspend: Page 108 in the rulebook. "Choosing Your Army" chapter, explains "size of game" and "points limits" etc and specifically says: ...most players are happy to let their opponent go a few points over the agreed total...

I dont see it as cheating, loss of self respect, dishonesty, disrespecting my opponent, going beyond cheating so much that I cant be trusted with important real life matters, deserving of getting my $%#! getting beaten out of me, WAAC TFG, etc. And dont worry, if I were to play against any of you guys that is against going over the point limit, I wouldnt ask you if it was ok or not, but just stay on/under the limit.

But seriously, treat people with respect. Megatronds2nd has a different view than you, so be it. Dont be TFG and threaten him(and like minded people) with violence etc you are not babies, nor gangstas!


Regarding the OP: I do believe 35 pts was too much, and he had no right whatsoever to complain about your request. I hope you won the game

Players need to remember it is a 'game". to be so adamant about cheating to get even a little extra advantage is appalling. I it honestly not hard at all to build an army that is legal and actually follow the rules. Remember the golden rule, going to those lengths to outright cheat for an advantage not only breaks it but takes a crap all over it (figuratively speaking).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Re-reading through the thread, I'm seeing a pattern. It is something like this...
Side A.- It is ok to cheat and you are ruining my fun and disrespecting me if you dont let me.
Side B- The rules are there for a reason. To insist upon cheating ruins the game and disrespects me.
Side A.- It is ok to cheat and you are ruining my fun and disrespecting me if you dont let me.
Side B- The rules are there for a reason. To insist upon cheating ruins the game and disrespects me.
Side A.- It is ok to cheat and you are ruining my fun and disrespecting me if you dont let me.
Side B- The rules are there for a reason. To insist upon cheating ruins the game and disrespects me.
and so on and so forth, each time using different words but saying the same thing..

It seems one side is forgetting the tenets of this forum.

If I know of the game size in advance, I make sure I'm not over (which is relatively easy as I run minimal upgrades). If I'm making a list spur of the moment (which is normal on pick up nights), I occasionally go over. Before playing I check with my opponent on whether or not a few points over will be a problem. Friendly games, a few points over...whatever. Tournaments, no.

I'm not sure why people who expect others to stay AT or BELOW the designated point level are considered WAAC players, but it is a running theme from those who are much more lax about the point totals. I suppose it runs parallel with the narrative they've forged about people who expect everyone to play by the rules, but it's an overall weak generalization.

I can only speak for myself when I say this, but when I play 40k, the game mechanics are very important to me. I would like them to be followed as closely as possible, as it's the map we all follow that makes list planning and the things we think about during non-game-time mean anything. Having said all that, I also want the game to be enjoyable for all included, so if there's something I can do to make sure my opponent has a good time (such as allow him to fire a shot from a unit that he forgot about even though it's now the assault phase or allow a Necron player to roll reanimation protocols that he forgot about even though it's 15minutes later) I will. If something SHOULD have taken place and it's not going to impact the current game-state in a super-negative way, I'm down for things to be made right.

What I do not like is when I give the player the benefit of the doubt on something (for example, I let him shoot at a model of mine that may be out of sight) but later in the game he does not give me a similar courtesy. That, to me, is bush league and easily erases whatever good-will that player had built up with me. A number of such actions will make me shy away from games with that player, as he has now led me to believe that he is not out for the same thing I am....a good time rolling dice and killing one another.

Bringing it back to the topic at hand: A player asking me to allow him to play over the point limit is just an early indication that he may not be a good time to play against. THAT could be a gross generalization, but it is what it is...I wouldn't ask someone to allow me extra points, so I immediately find it rude for someone to expect me to allow them to do so. That may just be me...