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.

 Crimson wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
Breaking the rules is breaking the rules. GW produced a rulebook for a reason.

Yes, they probably also put those sentences that inform you about the spirit of a game there for a reason.
the editor put those sentances in as an aside for how he would play it. Most players would rather the rule just be followed.

To toss it out the window because you dont want to follow the rules that are in it and still apply those rules to your opponent is not acceptable to me.

Absolutely no one is doing that. Obviously anyone who thinks that it is OK to go few points over extend that same courtesy to their opponent as well.
Each and every person posting that it is ok to break the rules by taking illegal lists is doing JUST that.

To pick and choose what rules you want to apply to which player based on what you think is more likely to get you a win is also not acceptable.

Luckily no one is doing that.
Each and every person posting that it is ok to break the rules by taking illegal lists is doing JUST that.

The rules are there for a reason, to be followed.This particuler rule is one of the ones that is plain and simple without the need for a FAQ at all.

The rule is clear. So is the spirit of the game. Why you care about one but not about the other?
Actually, the spiret of the game is to have fun and treat one another with respect and enjoy the hobby. Following the rules is showing and demonstrating that the spiret of the game is being followed. It is not until someone decides to break the rules, disrespect their opponant and outright cheat to get an advantage over the other player that the spirit of the game is being broken. We are not breaking the spirt of the game by asking you to follow the rules. you are breaking the spirit of the game by asking us to ignore the rules so that you can get an edge.

To the point limit and not a single point over.

Crimson wrote:
The rule is clear. So is the spirit of the game. Why you care about one but not about the other?

Surely it would be in the spirit of the game to stick to the points limit that you previously agreed to, no?

Particularly when your opponent has already done so.

 megatrons2nd wrote:
So why are people so adamant about being 1 point over being so evil?

Because it reveals the player's attitude. A player that is so obsessed with winning that they're willing to take a blatantly illegal list and try to badger me into accepting it is likely to try to badger their way into other advantages later.

It is no more unfair for me to ask for 1 point than it is for you to ask me to play at -8 points.

I'm not asking you to play at -8 points, you are making a choice that a list that is at -8 points is better than one that reaches the limit exactly. All I'm refusing to allow is a list that goes over the limit.

It appears that many people on here have quite a bit of free time to go over a list. I don't, and all my lists are made on the fly so to speak, as I never know when I will get a game in.

Actually making up lists in advance saves time. If you invest a bit of effort up front in making lists for standard point values you can show up on game night and get straight to playing instead of having to come up with a new list. And once you've made those lists you can keep them around indefinitely, saving you time every time you want to play.

Yes, you can make those lists while watching a tv show you have already seen before (come on, we ALL do it lol). We have seen in a different thread that there are some who have hours of free time a day to do nothing but numbers crunching or math to min/max their armies while at work. heck, you can put spare lists together while between games at a shop or even while your "dropping the kids off at the pool". Just put these lists in a folder or notebook and save them. if your really into it, get page protecters for them so they last better.

 EVIL INC wrote:

the editor put those sentances in as an aside for how he would play it. Most players would rather the rule just be followed.

That can't be right. The rulebook told me that most players are OK with going few point over and the rulebook is always right!

Each and every person posting that it is ok to break the rules by taking illegal lists is doing JUST that.

No, they apply the same rules to each player.

Each and every person posting that it is ok to break the rules by taking illegal lists is doing JUST that.

No, now you're assuming their reasons, while you can't know them. Probably it is not because they are trying to win. It is more likely building a list by eayeballing, coming two points over, and instead of spending half an hour rewriting the list, they just ask their opponents whether they mind those two extra points.

Actually, the spiret of the game is to have fun and treat one another with respect and enjoy the hobby. Following the rules is showing and demonstrating that the spiret of the game is being followed. It is not until someone decides to break the rules, disrespect their opponant and outright cheat to get an advantage over the other player that the spirit of the game is being broken. We are not breaking the spirt of the game by asking you to follow the rules. you are breaking the spirit of the game by asking us to ignore the rules so that you can get an edge.

So are you saying that the writers of the rulebook have misunderstood the spirit of the game, or perhaps they're trolling the players by including intentionally misleading verbiage? It is absolutely possible to follow the rules to the letter and still break the spirit of the game. Look, I'm not advocating going over the limit, but I absolutely don't understand why some people react so strongly. The people who wrote the rulebook didn't think it's a big deal and I agree with them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

Surely it would be in the spirit of the game to stick to the points limit that you previously agreed to, no?

Particularly when your opponent has already done so.

Thing is, the rulebook contains this sentence: "...sometimes it's just 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..."

So the writers of the rulebook don't seem to think that the exact point limit is a big deal. Personally I'd prefer if my opponent informed me beforehand if they were going to go over the limit (and I would certainly do so myself), but realistically, if it is just few points, I'm not going to care.

 Crimson wrote:
That can't be right. The rulebook told me that most players are OK with going few point over and the rulebook is always right!

You know there's a difference between rules and commentary, right?

It is more likely building a list by eayeballing, coming two points over, and instead of spending half an hour rewriting the list, they just ask their opponents whether they mind those two extra points.

It doesn't take half an hour to remove a few points from a list. It only takes that long if you're determined to optimize every possible advantage from your list, which pretty well disproves the idea that these are just "casual" players who don't take the game seriously enough to make a legal list.

So are you saying that the writers of the rulebook have misunderstood the spirit of the game

Even if the spirit of the game is "it's no big deal" it is certainly not the spirit of the game if you're deliberately using that casualness to gain an advantage for yourself. It's like showing up to a newbie tournament with a screamerstar list. Do you really care so much about winning that you have to do it?

 Peregrine wrote:

You know there's a difference between rules and commentary, right?

Yes, I just found it hilarious that Evil Inc claimed exactly the opposite about what 'most players' think as the rulebook does. I don't believe either has done an extensive survey on the matter.

It doesn't take half an hour to remove a few points from a list. It only takes that long if you're determined to optimize every possible advantage from your list, which pretty well disproves the idea that these are just "casual" players who don't take the game seriously enough to make a legal list.

It depends on how extensive your collection is. Sometimes there's a simple upgrade you can drop, sometimes you have to rethink the whole thing.

Even if the spirit of the game is "it's no big deal" it is certainly not the spirit of the game if you're deliberately using that casualness to gain an advantage for yourself.

And here I actually agree. I just don't think that most players who go over the limit do it to gain an advantage (but then again, I haven't done an extensive survey either.)

 Crimson wrote:
I just don't think that most players who go over the limit do it to gain an advantage

But yet, 100% of the players who go over the limit *are* gaining an advantage.

If it wasn't an advantage, there would be no reason to go over the point limit and being under would be equally acceptable as going over in the impact it has to the game.

You only go over for the advantage, there is no other reason for it and that is the result of going over regardless how you twist your intentions.

megatrons2nd wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
By 'worth' I simply meant 'what it costs to take it'. Whether or not those costs are accurately balanced is a separate can of worms entirely.

Than why bother with points at all? The points are obviously wrong. So why are people so adamant about being 1 point over being so evil? Obviously, a point has a margin of error in it.

It is no more unfair for me to ask for 1 point than it is for you to ask me to play at -8 points.

It appears that many people on here have quite a bit of free time to go over a list. I don't, and all my lists are made on the fly so to speak, as I never know when I will get a game in.

Luckily every person I've asked has allowed a couple points.

No one is asking you to play 8 points under, that is a self imposed condition and no one else is at fault for it. I'm at times 5-10 points under myself and there's always another cheap upgrade I could take but don't and I would never beg for 'charity points' from my opponent. I spend time on my lists, optimizing and streamlining them. Entire lists I make get scrapped or shelved until a higher point game because I can't get to or under the point limit with the essential components of the idea. I'll sometimes spend hours deliberating over it making sure everything is just right.

Then we meet to play...

If my opponent where at that point to say 'Oh, by the way, I couldn't get my list down to 1500 points, it's a 1510 point army. Is that okay?'
I would know:
-he is lying, he could have and simply did not.
-that he is not very considerate.
-that he is either to lazy to make a proper list or is seeking advantage.
-that he is not overly concerned about keeping his end of a deal or agreement.

Essentially, they didn't care to honer the agreement. That is why it is disrespectful. If they have shown up to a gathering with set point limits whether it's official, casual or otherwise they have also not shown respect for the proprietors of the event.
A 10 point difference when deciding on your last unit, say 190pts vs 200pts, is the difference between Trygon and no Trygon. Which can make a pretty big difference. Or 120 vs 130 points, which could mean Doom of Malatai in a pod or no Doom of Malatai in a pod. 10 points cannot simply be taken at face value as it can change the overall capabilities of the list.

Now what about 1 point over? Same principles apply. Expecting people not to stand on principles is expressing that you think they have none. Honer the agreed limit and don't debase yourself by expecting charity. Victory without honer meaningless.

nkelsch wrote:

But yet, 100% of the players who go over the limit *are* gaining an advantage.

Negligible one, yes.

If it wasn't an advantage, there would be no reason to go over the point limit and being under would be equally acceptable as going over in the impact it has to the game.

You only go over for the advantage, there is no other reason for it and that is the result of going over regardless how you twist your intentions.

Most people rather go under than over. Going under is preferable and you should aim for that. But sometimes it is a choice between going 12 points under or two over. I wouldn't force my opponent to go twelve points under.

 Crimson wrote:

Most people rather go under than over. Going under is preferable and you should aim for that. But sometimes it is a choice between going 12 points under or two over. I wouldn't force my opponent to go twelve points under.

You are not forcing them, they should be a good sport and choose to go 12 points under or revise their list. There are always choices which can be made. I am going to start including a deffkopta and say 'Gee willkaers, if you don't let me add a whole deffkopa, you are forcing me to go 12 points under and that is unfair! And a 35+ point model is my only choice!

Every codex has options, it is not hard to figure out. Showing up with your points over is not your opponents problem, it is yours. Resolve your issues and don't burden others with your issues. Figure out how to build lists which maximize your codex without going over.

 Crimson wrote:
So the writers of the rulebook don't seem to think that the exact point limit is a big deal.

More specifically, that quote suggests that the writers of the rulebook think that most players don't think that the exact points limit is a big deal.

Why they think that is anybody's guess.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
But sometimes it is a choice between going 12 points under or two over.

At which point, they are not 'forced' to go 12 points under... they can choose instead to change something else in their list to squeeze in those extra two points.

 Crimson wrote:

Most people rather go under than over. Going under is preferable and you should aim for that. But sometimes it is a choice between going 12 points under or two over. I wouldn't force my opponent to go twelve points under.

You shouldn't need to force your opponent to be 12 points under. Every army is more then capable of writing lists that is at worse 3-4 points under a point limit (sometimes it just takes some more work then just dropping an upgrade).

That why going over the point limit is stupid in my opinion. If you can't write a list that doesn't go over the point value and is very close to the limit then you just aren't trying to write one that does

I'd probably start to question my opponent at around 20+ points over the limit. Up to that point is fine by me. Going way over does take the piss, but saying that going a few points over is 'disrespectful' to your opponent or cheating is just silly. It's a game!

Having said that, personally I always go under rather than over. One of the most enjoyable parts of the game for me is trying to squeeze as much as I can out of the points limit. I almost prefer list building to actually playing

I agree there is a conflicting message from GW - as already stated the BRB says that a few points either way is fine. Also, the battle reports in White Dwarf often encourage players to ignore the FOC and also to not focus too much on how many points are on each side [I'm thinking the Dark Angel vs. Chaos 'battle report' off the top of my head]. I can understand how someone who reads White Dwarf would have a somewhat cavalier approach to list building.

Lastly, just make it easy on yourself and get the Quartermaster app. Truly amazing.

 insaniak wrote:

More specifically, that quote suggests that the writers of the rulebook think that most players don't think that the exact points limit is a big deal.

Why they think that is anybody's guess.

I think it is pretty safe assumption that it is because they themselves play like that.

At which point, they are not 'forced' to go 12 points under... they can choose instead to change something else in their list to squeeze in those extra two points.

Yes, they could. Or we could just play the game game with those extra points on the list. As I said earlier, I myself try to stay within the agreed limit, but if someone is few points over, I just couldn't care less.

 EVIL INC wrote:

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

This opinion goes against the very tenants that you link to in your post! Click on the link, and read #4. Then stop saying that YMDC is only for RAW. It is not. The OP asked for HIWPI, and that's what people should (mostly) give him.

 CrownAxe wrote:

You shouldn't need to force your opponent to be 12 points under. Every army is more then capable of writing lists that is at worse 3-4 points under a point limit (sometimes it just takes some more work then just dropping an upgrade).
That why going over the point limit is stupid in my opinion. If you can't write a list that doesn't go over the point value and is very close to the limit then you just aren't trying to write one that does

Yes, and for tournaments and such you absolutely need to do that. But sometimes people just want to try certain units or just can't be arsed to trim their lists to perfection. And I think that in a casual game that's absolutely fine.

If 'going over' is no big deal (and up to 20 points is no big deal) then why not simply 'go under'?

If it really has such little impact and is no big deal, then why not go under and call it a day?

Oh... because these people who hide behind the shield of 'casual gamer' want an advantage... And will spend more time defending that advantage than just making their list equal or under the limit. If 'a little over' is not a big deal, why not 'a little under'? If you are so casual, why do you feel the need to demand an exception and an undeserved advantage?

If you don't want to adhere to limits then do not set them. Say about 1500 points not up to 1500 points.

 Crimson wrote:
But sometimes people just want to try certain units or just can't be arsed to trim their lists to perfection.

Great, then this shouldn't be an issue at all. If you just want to try some stuff then you will have no problem following the rules. There's only an "issue" if you're taking the game so seriously that you have to build the perfect list and the thought of playing with anything less than a perfectly optimized list is just too horrible to face. If you're really playing a casual game then you'll just cut some random stuff until you're under the point limit, and play the game.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
...as already stated the BRB says that a few points either way is fine

Again, the rulebook doesn't say this at all.

My friends and i just go "want a game around 800 points?" The we set up and play. Always good fun and we have about a 100 points over tops ish limit. for example the nids guy can go over if he wants but the necron guy we tend to make sure he is closer to the limit. We just trust each other to make lists that will work despite balance and points etc.

Its only a big deal if you make it one really. Otherwise you will probably hardly notice.

 insaniak wrote:

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
...as already stated the BRB says that a few points either way is fine

Again, the rulebook doesn't say this at all.

CBA to check it, took the word of other posters tbh. What I am certain of is that White Dwarf, the 'voice' of Games Workshop, actively encourages people to have a very loose approach to, or entirely ignore, both points limits and the FOC.

Therefore I completely understand why some gamers might have a loose approach to points limits based upon the instruction they are given by GW.

 Crimson wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

You shouldn't need to force your opponent to be 12 points under. Every army is more then capable of writing lists that is at worse 3-4 points under a point limit (sometimes it just takes some more work then just dropping an upgrade).
That why going over the point limit is stupid in my opinion. If you can't write a list that doesn't go over the point value and is very close to the limit then you just aren't trying to write one that does

Yes, and for tournaments and such you absolutely need to do that. But sometimes people just want to try certain units or just can't be arsed to trim their lists to perfection. And I think that in a casual game that's absolutely fine.

If its a casual game, why can't you just drop a single model or upgrade to be a few point under?

 CrownAxe wrote:

If its a casual game, why can't you just drop a single model or upgrade to be a few point under?

Because it is an approach entirely inconsistent with GW's advice/instruction to its playerbase.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

If its a casual game, why can't you just drop a single model or upgrade to be a few point under?

Because it is an approach entirely inconsistent with GW's advice/instruction to its playerbase.

That line about being a few point over is neither advice, an instruction, or a rule. It is merely a comment about what some players may do

 CrownAxe wrote:

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

If its a casual game, why can't you just drop a single model or upgrade to be a few point under?

Because it is an approach entirely inconsistent with GW's advice/instruction to its playerbase.

That line about being a few point over is neither advice, an instruction, or a rule. It is merely a comment about what some players may do

I'm not just talking about the line in the rule book, I'm also talking about the approach to battles espoused in White Dwarf. They frequently ignore FOC and points limits in favour of fun and cinematic games. In fact I can't remember the last battle report that actually rigidly stuck to a points limit.

You might rigidly follow points limits and FOC, Games Workshop doesn't think they are important.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

If its a casual game, why can't you just drop a single model or upgrade to be a few point under?

Because it is an approach entirely inconsistent with GW's advice/instruction to its playerbase.

That line about being a few point over is neither advice, an instruction, or a rule. It is merely a comment about what some players may do

I'm not just talking about the line in the rule book, I'm also talking about the approach to battles espoused in White Dwarf. They frequently ignore FOC and points limits in favour of fun and cinematic games. In fact I can't remember the last battle report that actually rigidly stuck to a points limit.

You might rigidly follow points limits and FOC, Games Workshop doesn't think they are important.

The battle reports in white dwarf aren't them playing a game of warhammer, is them selling you an army.

If GW actually didn't think points limit were important, they wouldn't have made a rule for it

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
You might rigidly follow points limits and FOC, Games Workshop doesn't think they are important.

Totally unimportant. If they thought it was important they'd have written rules surrounding them.
Oh. Wait.