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.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
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.

WD also encourages you to just line up your toy soldiers, take some pictures of them, and then write a story about it. They openly admit that they aren't really playing a game (re-rolling any events that aren't dramatic enough, etc), but I don't see many people arguing that, say, the IG player should just re-roll their "explodes" result against a Land Raider because no mere anonymous guardsman should be able to destroy such a mighty war machine of the sacred space marines.

rigeld2 wrote:

 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.

And would ensure that these rules are followed in their official magazine to reinforce how important they are, and also reinforce how important they are in their core rulebook. Oh. Wait.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
And would ensure that these rules are followed in their official magazine to reinforce how important they are, and also reinforce how important they are in their core rulebook. Oh. Wait.

You're assuming that WD is a serious magazine rather than a glorified catalog that you have to pay money for. WD "battle reports" aren't about real gameplay and strategy, they're about presenting you with cool ideas about what could happen in a game so that you rush out and buy the newest models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

Then why is it so important that you get as close as possible to the point limit and never be significantly under it? If the point limits aren't meant to be important then why are you so reluctant to play a 1200 point army in a 1500 point game?

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 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.

And would ensure that these rules are followed in their official magazine to reinforce how important they are, and also reinforce how important they are in their core rulebook. Oh. Wait.

Considering White Dwarf battle reports do what's cinematic significantly more often than they follow the rules, no - no they wouldn't.

Is there really any difference between going over points (deliberately) and moving a unit an extra inch?
I don't see one.

rigeld2 wrote:
Is there really any difference between going over points (deliberately) and moving a unit an extra inch?

And note that moving an extra inch to get into range is something that the WD "battle report" authors wouldn't even hesitate to do if they thought it would be "cinematic" for the unit to get to shoot/charge that turn instead of being idle out of range.

(Needless to say, if it's the big new release for that month it will probably get much more than an extra inch if it needs it.)

 Peregrine wrote:

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
And would ensure that these rules are followed in their official magazine to reinforce how important they are, and also reinforce how important they are in their core rulebook. Oh. Wait.

You're assuming that WD is a serious magazine rather than a glorified catalog that you have to pay money for. WD "battle reports" aren't about real gameplay and strategy, they're about presenting you with cool ideas about what could happen in a game so that you rush out and buy the newest models.

Entirely your own opinion about White Dwarf. As the official magazine of Games Workshop, for me it represents their approach to gaming and how they feel their customers should approach the game. They wouldn't allow anything that contradicts this to appear in their official magazine.

 Peregrine wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

Then why is it so important that you get as close as possible to the point limit and never be significantly under it? If the point limits aren't meant to be important then why are you so reluctant to play a 1200 point army in a 1500 point game?

If you read my original reply I stated that I personally would always go under rather than over the points limit. However I would have a small amount of flexibility in regard to my opponent.

My point is that I completely understand if players have a loose attitude towards both points limits and FOCs because Games Workshop encourages this in its publications. Yet to hear a convincing argument that it doesn't have this attitude.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
Entirely your own opinion about White Dwarf. As the official magazine of Games Workshop, for me it represents their approach to gaming and how they feel their customers should approach the game. They wouldn't allow anything that contradicts this to appear in their official magazine.

You're assuming that GW have any overall "approach to gaming" beyond "buy lots of our products". They don't.

My point is that I completely understand if players have a loose attitude towards both points limits and FOCs because Games Workshop encourages this in its publications. Yet to hear a convincing argument that it doesn't have this attitude.

I have no doubt that they do have this attitude. GW doesn't care if you break the rules because the rules only exist to sell models. GW know perfectly well that most of their customers never play the game and all they really need to sell the models is the idea of a game. Emphasizing "do whatever you want" just makes it less likely that people will question why they're paying so much money for such poor rules and stop buying.

Of course none of that has anything to do with the published rules of the game, which are quite clear about point limits.

 Crimson wrote:

 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!
Was that an aside note that was added by the editor or was it part of the actual rules that are to be followed? No need to answer, we both already know the answer.

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.
"Your army is at 1500? thats the agreed upon limit that we had right? Ok, I think I will just add another 35 points to my limit". That is not applying t same rules to each other at all.

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.
Reasoning is irrelevant. Cheating is cheating. Period. There is no excuse for it. It is JUST as easy to stay at the limit as to go over it.

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.
No, That is a straweman argument. i am saying that there are rules and they are there for a reason. No grey area at all. A far far better way to follow the spirit of the game is to actually follow the rules, not cheat and treat your opponent with respect. Tossing the rules out the window and cheating is just not the way to do that. Going by YOUR reasoning, a few points arent going to make that big a difference. if that is the case, why add in a bunch of points to purposely go over the limit (cheat) when you simply do not have to and have a perfectly competative list (going by your own statement) without going to those lengths.

 Crimson wrote:

 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.
I based my statement on the fact that in this (and every other thred i have seen online about it over the years) has far more people supporting the rules than advocating breaking them. there is also the fact that i have never EVER spoken to a player that advocated someone cheating against them. There may be some out there, i just have not found them. you may find it hilarious to think that people mind being cheated against. I disagree and feel that it is not funny at all. Different viewpoints on that.

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.
then you redo the whole thing. You have plenty of time to build lists in advance. as a matter of fact, Lets do a little math here (forgive my horrible math as i dont have a PHD but even I can do this lol). How many hours over the last few days alone have you spend reading, editing and posting on this very thread? Ignore any other threads, just this one. If it was even one hour, that is more than enough time to build 2 1500 point lists. A good start towards your supply-o pre-made army lists.

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.)
again reasoning is irrelevent. Cheating is cheating. period.

 Elric Greywolf wrote:

 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.
From the looks of it, Allowing the cheat would fall under "how would you play it" while following the rules wouldbe closer to RAW. Hope that helps you out with whatever your question was.

 extremefreak17 wrote:

Example 1:

Spoiler:

500 pts game.

One guy plays an ABG, takes a CCT with a couple of upgrades (200 pts), and 2 LRBT's (150 each) totalling a clean 500 pts.
The other guy plays CSM and brings:

Abaddon (265 pts)
Chaos Cultists (50 pts)
Chaos Cultists (50 pts)
Predator Annihilator (140 pts)

Which is 505 pts.

Both players have only just met in a GW store, and the CSM player only has these models on him, and has all the wargear glued on and in WYSIWYG condition.

Is the CSM player being a WAAC cheat, or is the +5 pts acceptable?

Cheat. Why would you make the choice bring only the right combination models to play a 505 list in the first place?

He could have been there painting, or had only just bought into the game.
Not all cases of being over the limit are cases of cheating.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Selym wrote:
Is the CSM player being a WAAC cheat, or is the +5 pts acceptable?

Cheating. Drop Abaddon to a generic HQ with the same equipment to keep it WYSIWYG.

You can't with the abby model. There's no such wargear in the codex.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

I think this is probably where I get my opinion from.

We've always gone with "Let's play 1500 points" as meaning "get as close to 1500 points as possible, because that's more balanced than 1475 vs 1500".

 Selym wrote:

 extremefreak17 wrote:

Example 1:

Spoiler:

500 pts game.

One guy plays an ABG, takes a CCT with a couple of upgrades (200 pts), and 2 LRBT's (150 each) totalling a clean 500 pts.
The other guy plays CSM and brings:

Abaddon (265 pts)
Chaos Cultists (50 pts)
Chaos Cultists (50 pts)
Predator Annihilator (140 pts)

Which is 505 pts.

Both players have only just met in a GW store, and the CSM player only has these models on him, and has all the wargear glued on and in WYSIWYG condition.

Is the CSM player being a WAAC cheat, or is the +5 pts acceptable?

Cheat. Why would you make the choice bring only the right combination models to play a 505 list in the first place?

He could have been there painting, or had only just bought into the game.
Not all cases of being over the limit are cases of cheating.
It is usually fairly easy to tell the newcomers. heck, they will usually flat outtell you. i treat this as a teaching moment to guage their grasp of the mechanics and so forth as well as further encourage them about the hobby. if it is all they have, You explain list building and possible ways to help them out or solidify the concept of the limits. For example, if their wysiwyg list is 5 over and they have a plasma gun. i would explain tha as that is all they have, I wold give them the suggestion to proxy the plasma gun as a melta gun since my list is tank heavy. it would work for them better and get them back to the points. That way, when their marines pop out of a drop pod next to my russ, they would have a greater chance of popping it. Making me more likely to lose but teaching him more aboutthe game and the points limits not to mention giving him the ego boost of popping my russ on turn one before i get to even fire it. you'll notice though that rookies are an exception I make and this is one of the ways i address those exceptions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Selym wrote:
Is the CSM player being a WAAC cheat, or is the +5 pts acceptable?

Cheating. Drop Abaddon to a generic HQ with the same equipment to keep it WYSIWYG.

You can't with the abby model. There's no such wargear in the codex.
it may not be possible to exactly match the abbaddon wargear, but you can come fairly close and use the extra points to boost him with something elseor boost one of the other squads. personally, if I HAVE to choose between points limits and WYSIWYG, I choose the to follow the points limits first.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

I think this is probably where I get my opinion from.

We've always gone with "Let's play 1500 points" as meaning "get as close to 1500 points as possible, because that's more balanced than 1475 vs 1500"
That I can understand. if your going into it with that attitude and understanding from the start.You can do that in a close knit group of players where you have spent years developing trust. Wewould do that in my 3 player group I grew up with although even then, even if they werent spot on, i always was. Over the decades, i have found that going out into the "real world" and meeting and playing with strangers, it is ALWAYS best to strictly folow the rules and the 'around 1500' kinda goes outthe window. Especially when you play in tournaments and come across more competative players.
This might not be a great comparison, but to me its kinda like when I used to tell day care centers that i would inspect (along with all the other establishments. I would find violations and they would complain because DHHR didnt find everything I found as a violation as one and some of the stuff DHHR would find as a violation, i wouldnt. I would tell them to hold themselves to the strictest standards of BOTH ofus. that way, they would be covered no matter which of us showed up to inspect. This is how I do myself. I hold myself to the strictest to be SURE i am "correct and legal", that way, I am "ready' fr either a strict or a lax gaming environment.
.

Lists should never exceed the point level being played, period.

 toxic_wisdom wrote:
Lists should never exceed the point level being played, period.

So you're saying that it is totally unacceptable for my group to agree to play a 1500 pts game and then for one of our group to go over by any amount?

 Selym wrote:

You can't with the abby model. There's no such wargear in the codex.

Then don't take Abbadon, use him as a standard chaos lord for less points. Almost all Special characters can be used as a less powerful/expensive version of themselves. In a 500pt battle, it is unreasonable to even take abbadon. If you take cheaper HQs, you can deal with the points issue easier. Again.. if it is casual, then why is there all this fiercely defending an advantage like taking a grossly overpowered SC in a low point game or being 5 points over? Boys before Toys...

There simply is no excuse, if the eprson claiming to go over is using 'casualness' or 'it doesn't impact anything' as justification, then why can't they simply go under? Why are you trying to find fictional situations like your 505 chaos list to justify all points going over? 'If one player can go over due to abbadon, then everyone can go over, it is ok! advantage mine!'

C.H.E.A.T.I.N.G. Period.

 Selym wrote:

 extremefreak17 wrote:

Example 1:

Spoiler:

500 pts game.

One guy plays an ABG, takes a CCT with a couple of upgrades (200 pts), and 2 LRBT's (150 each) totalling a clean 500 pts.
The other guy plays CSM and brings:

Abaddon (265 pts)
Chaos Cultists (50 pts)
Chaos Cultists (50 pts)
Predator Annihilator (140 pts)

Which is 505 pts.

Both players have only just met in a GW store, and the CSM player only has these models on him, and has all the wargear glued on and in WYSIWYG condition.

Is the CSM player being a WAAC cheat, or is the +5 pts acceptable?

Cheat. Why would you make the choice bring only the right combination models to play a 505 list in the first place?

He could have been there painting, or had only just bought into the game.
Not all cases of being over the limit are cases of cheating.

They are. Instead, this person should play a 505 point game or proxy Abby as a Lord with a lightning claw, terminator armor, and the murder sword and spend the leftover points on other things.

You can't with the abby model. There's no such wargear in the codex.

Lightning Claw, Murder Sword, Terminator Armor.
That wasn't so hard, was it?

If my buddy let me play 1501 points, when we initially agreed upon 1500 points game, and I get called a Waac and TFG on this forum, because I broke a rule. What would the person be calling himself, when he found out it was against the rules on this forum to call people names? I might be a TFG for breaking a rule, but no one on this forum is allowed to call me that, even if they are right.

Britneyfan12 wrote:
If my buddy let me play 1501 points, when we initially agreed upon 1500 points game, and I get called a Waac and TFG on this forum, because I broke a rule. What would the person be calling himself, when he found out it was against the rules on this forum to call people names? I might be a TFG for breaking a rule, but no one on this forum is allowed to call me that, even if they are right.

You make an interesting point, one which I had not figured out how to put into words until now. (Not about name calling though).
Let's say I allow my opponent to play a 1500 pts game with a 1501 army. Would you consider this unacceptable? Is there a fundamental law that says that I must reject the 1501 army? Are we in the wron for playing like this?

And lets say that the position is reversed the next day, and I end up being the player with the 1501 army, and my opponent from the previous game had brought a 1500 army. Is this also unaccetable? Are we being WAAC cheaters?

I say no.

Being slightly over the point limit in no way ever means that that player is "WAAC" or "TFG" or "cheating". I and my regular opponents often play matches where one playeer or another is over the limit, and we've never had a problem.
The bending and/or breaking of one rule (and it's a debatable one at that) noes not have to foreshadow the breaking of subsequent rules - such as is show in our legal system in the UK, where all defendants are innocent until proven guilty regardless of previous offences.
In casual games it should matter not if one player is over the limit, as long as both are able to have fun. Bending and/or breaking a rule does not preclude the havings of the fun.

There are, however, times where someone has intentionally gone over the limit, such as finding his army at the 1500 level, and then adding in a CSM unit for +75 pts. That is cheating. But being 12 pts under, and then adding a 13 point CSM model is not TFG/WAAC/Cheating behaviour. If anything, it adds to the balance.

Even though i think overspending is wrong i let newer players do it during their early small games, the models they have to choose from are so limited that they can't usually finagle the list to fit properly.

Whenever this discussion comes up it never ceases to amaze me. If its a small tight knit gaming group, then the decision should be made regarding points limits among those players. If this was the scenario the OP was describing (playing with a friend) then they need to sit down and have a discussion regarding where they would like to go from that point. The game is a social contract and if one person is upset by what is going on they need to figure it out together. Personally, I have of the same opinion as a lot of players, that is to keep your list under or at the points limit. If your gaming group is ok with 1-2 point overages, no one has a right to say that you are playing wrong, and I do not think that people in the no overages are arguing that (I cannot speak for everyone, but I know I am not saying that).

Where the thread has gone however, is into the realm of playing strangers (or acquaintances). This is where I agree with the camp of 1 point over is bad form. If you organize a pick up game with someone in advance, and still come over the points limit then you need to realize the imposition you may have now put the other player in. I say may as some players may not be bothered. The issue is that no one likes to be thought of as difficult. If you just assume that it is ok to come in at 1 or 2 points over (as opposed to a little under) and the other person is bothered by this, then the person who created this situation is the person who brought the list that was 1-2 points over. You cannot assume the person you will be playing will be ok with 1-2 points and then get upset if they are not ok with it. The sheer number of players on this forum and other forums that are on the side of the camp of no overage should tell you that alone.

I have had to cut things from my lists many times when playing as they did not fit into the limit. Other times I have simply asked to play a larger game (larger points then what I wanted to field and I will make up the difference with other models) just so I could test out the units I wanted. Players need to take responsibility for themselves first and foremost.

Well, for friendly games with my friends, we try not to exceed the points values of possible, I never go over, but I'd allow up to 5 points over if there's some expensive upgrade (NOT a 5 point upgrade, though) or because points costs for Necron warriors and immortals are pretty awkward. I wouldn't let 10 points over slide, I'd say just remove a warrior and let's get to the game.

My philosophy is that if we're already playing with a bunch of plastic soldiers, we shouldn't make it worse by arguing over them .

 Selym wrote:

 toxic_wisdom wrote:
Lists should never exceed the point level being played, period.

So you're saying that it is totally unacceptable for my group to agree to play a 1500 pts game and then for one of our group to go over by any amount?

Yes

If you're going to allow people to go over the limit, then just set the limit higher so they won't go over the limit in the first place

 Lehnsherr wrote:
Whenever this discussion comes up it never ceases to amaze me. If its a small tight knit gaming group, then the decision should be made regarding points limits among those players. If this was the scenario the OP was describing (playing with a friend) then they need to sit down and have a discussion regarding where they would like to go from that point. The game is a social contract and if one person is upset by what is going on they need to figure it out together. Personally, I have of the same opinion as a lot of players, that is to keep your list under or at the points limit. If your gaming group is ok with 1-2 point overages, no one has a right to say that you are playing wrong, and I do not think that people in the no overages are arguing that (I cannot speak for everyone, but I know I am not saying that).

Where the thread has gone however, is into the realm of playing strangers (or acquaintances). This is where I agree with the camp of 1 point over is bad form. If you organize a pick up game with someone in advance, and still come over the points limit then you need to realize the imposition you may have now put the other player in. I say may as some players may not be bothered. The issue is that no one likes to be thought of as difficult. If you just assume that it is ok to come in at 1 or 2 points over (as opposed to a little under) and the other person is bothered by this, then the person who created this situation is the person who brought the list that was 1-2 points over. You cannot assume the person you will be playing will be ok with 1-2 points and then get upset if they are not ok with it. The sheer number of players on this forum and other forums that are on the side of the camp of no overage should tell you that alone.

I have had to cut things from my lists many times when playing as they did not fit into the limit. Other times I have simply asked to play a larger game (larger points then what I wanted to field and I will make up the difference with other models) just so I could test out the units I wanted. Players need to take responsibility for themselves first and foremost.

Exactly this. If I let my buddy bum a smoke off of me every time we take a smoke break it doesn't mean I want every stranger passing by to ask if they can bum one.

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Selym wrote:

 toxic_wisdom wrote:
Lists should never exceed the point level being played, period.

So you're saying that it is totally unacceptable for my group to agree to play a 1500 pts game and then for one of our group to go over by any amount?

Yes

If you're going to allow people to go over the limit, then just set the limit higher so they won't go over the limit in the first place

Looks like my group is going to have a good laugh when we next play

 EVIL INC wrote:

Was that an aside note that was added by the editor or was it part of the actual rules that are to be followed? No need to answer, we both already know the answer.

Yes, we all know what the rule is. I'm just wondering why you trust the BRB with rules if you don't trust it with the spirit of the game.

"Your army is at 1500? thats the agreed upon limit that we had right? Ok, I think I will just add another 35 points to my limit". That is not applying t same rules to each other at all.

But that's not really not what anyone is arguing for. We are talking about a situation where a person ask their opponent if they mind two points extra, and would allow same leniency to their opponent if the situation was reversed.

Reasoning is irrelevant. Cheating is cheating. Period. There is no excuse for it. It is JUST as easy to stay at the limit as to go over it.

It is not cheating if the opponent is okay with it. I'm just wondering why you're not. You don't need to be, it's your right, but I'm not understanding why.

I based my statement on the fact that in this (and every other thred i have seen online about it over the years) has far more people supporting the rules than advocating breaking them. there is also the fact that i have never EVER spoken to a player that advocated someone cheating against them. There may be some out there, i just have not found them. you may find it hilarious to think that people mind being cheated against. I disagree and feel that it is not funny at all. Different viewpoints on that.

No one likes cheating. But it is not cheating if the opponent approves.

then you redo the whole thing. You have plenty of time to build lists in advance. as a matter of fact, Lets do a little math here (forgive my horrible math as i dont have a PHD but even I can do this lol). How many hours over the last few days alone have you spend reading, editing and posting on this very thread? Ignore any other threads, just this one. If it was even one hour, that is more than enough time to build 2 1500 point lists. A good start towards your supply-o pre-made army lists.

I'm quite capable of making legal lists, thank you very much.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 EVIL INC wrote:
For example, if their wysiwyg list is 5 over and they have a plasma gun. i would explain tha as that is all they have, I wold give them the suggestion to proxy the plasma gun as a melta gun since my list is tank heavy.[/b]

Oh god, please no, don't teach the newbies to proxy; it is way more annoying than being few points over!


PS. Please learn to use quotes properly, your posts are rather annoying to read.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Selym wrote:

So you're saying that it is totally unacceptable for my group to agree to play a 1500 pts game and then for one of our group to go over by any amount?

Yes

If you're going to allow people to go over the limit, then just set the limit higher so they won't go over the limit in the first place

But this is absurd. Saying OK to a 1502 point list is effectively agreeing that the point limit is now 1502 instead of 1500, even though it was done five minutes before the game begins.

 Selym wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Selym wrote:

 toxic_wisdom wrote:
Lists should never exceed the point level being played, period.

So you're saying that it is totally unacceptable for my group to agree to play a 1500 pts game and then for one of our group to go over by any amount?

Yes

If you're going to allow people to go over the limit, then just set the limit higher so they won't go over the limit in the first place

Looks like my group is going to have a good laugh when we next play

Your group is your group, you are free to set your own house rules. However, this is a rules discussion forum, debating the answer to the question: "is going over the point limit legal?" This was answered on page 1, with a simple, "no, it is not legal per the BRB."

Since that point, a debate has started concerning whether or not a few points over justifies the label: CHEATER.

Personally, I'm in the camp that believes knowingly going over a set limit does break both the rules and the social contract agreed upon by the respective parties involved. But that's just me; your mileage may very, and if your group plays it a different way, well the is HYWPI, not RAW.

SJ

I think the subject is quite clear to me:

If i play someone and agree 1500, but they draft up an army to have 1510, that's ok. Because we just drafted it.
If the same player, on the next game, gets to 1512, i will probably ask kindly for him to remove some points.

Now, and this is what the OP wrote: If my opponent now Refuses and "is offended" by the reducing of points, then we indeed have an issue, and the whole "cheating" idea starts to pop up.


Most of the people i play with would take down those points and i've never had an issue.

 marv335 wrote:

Last time, it was 1 kill point for every point over.

That would solve it pretty quick. For me personally I don't mind if they are a little over within reason. Anything above say 10 pts over I wouldn't allow but I'm laid back when it comes to that aspect.

 Selym wrote:
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)

Let me ask you this- let's say we agree on a 1500 point game, and I show up with a 3000 point army. Is that OK? I know I'll have a ton of fun wiping you off the table. I'd probably giggle like a little school girl the entire time. Oh, you mean the point is for BOTH of us to have fun? So at what limit do you start not having fun over a game of little toy soldiers? When your opponent is 10 points over? 20? 50? 100? You both agreed to play a 1500 point game, but he/she/it has decided that 1500 isn't good enough, and so they go over the limit rather then under. It's just as easy to be under the points value than go over the points value. A conscious decision was made to violate the contract made between you and your opponent to go over the points value. At what point does the social contract of this hobby and game break down and one or the other players stop having fun?

Isn't it more fun to abide by the "Golden Rule" and play the game at the agreed upon points value?

 Tamwulf wrote:

 Selym wrote:
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)

Let me ask you this- let's say we agree on a 1500 point game, and I show up with a 3000 point army. Is that OK? I know I'll have a ton of fun wiping you off the table. I'd probably giggle like a little school girl the entire time. Oh, you mean the point is for BOTH of us to have fun? So at what limit do you start not having fun over a game of little toy soldiers? When your opponent is 10 points over? 20? 50? 100? You both agreed to play a 1500 point game, but he/she/it has decided that 1500 isn't good enough, and so they go over the limit rather then under. It's just as easy to be under the points value than go over the points value. A conscious decision was made to violate the contract made between you and your opponent to go over the points value. At what point does the social contract of this hobby and game break down and one or the other players stop having fun?

Isn't it more fun to abide by the "Golden Rule" and play the game at the agreed upon points value?

Golden rule: Do on to others as you want they do on to you.

I play by the rules and do not go over the limit, and I do not want others to go over the limit against me.

I wasn't aware playing by the rules or calling someone out on trying to break the rules "verbally or physically beat them down"... And if it is such a 'meaningless thing' then why not be under the point limit? Why must you (or they) insist on defending such a worthless advantage when we can simply both play by the limit and have an equal playing field?

Basically you condone cheating and pre-emptively calling anyone who calls you out on cheating a TFG.

Britneyfan12 wrote:
If my buddy let me play 1501 points, when we initially agreed upon 1500 points game, and I get called a Waac and TFG on this forum, because I broke a rule. What would the person be calling himself, when he found out it was against the rules on this forum to call people names? I might be a TFG for breaking a rule, but no one on this forum is allowed to call me that, even if they are right.

You have a point. As a counselor, i learned early on to address behaviors rather than the person exhibiting them. You will notice that any time i address a person here, I address the behavior instead of the person. This way, thereis no name calling or rudeness. some may call it rules lawyering or some other nonsense but it is one of the basics that you learn right off. it demonstrates no ill will or judgement of the person and thus treats them with the utmost respect and dignity.
However, if you feel someone is outright calling you names, let the admins and mods deal with it. I have been called all sorts of names since being here and each time, I just let the mods hande it as it is their duty to address it, not mine.

Selym, You will notice that I agreed with you. If your group has that understanding, then it is not cheating while playing amongst your group. It does not become cheating until you do it to someone outside of your group that is not part of that understanding. At that point the situation has changed considerably.

 Crimson wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:

Was that an aside note that was added by the editor or was it part of the actual rules that are to be followed? No need to answer, we both already know the answer.

Yes, we all know what the rule is. I'm just wondering why you trust the BRB with rules if you don't trust it with the spirit of the game.
Side commentary of how the editor himself does it is not the spirit of the game. To "some' the spirit of the game is win at all costs even if it means adding an extra 35 points to your army for an advantage. To blatantly break any rule they like at whim and totally be rude and disrespectful to anyone else involved in the hobby. Personally, I feel that the spirit of the game is to enjoy yourself in a friendly atmosphere, following the rules and treating one another wth dignity and respect. i fail to understan why so many here are purposely advocating the former and claiming the book told them to do it.

"Your army is at 1500? thats the agreed upon limit that we had right? Ok, I think I will just add another 35 points to my limit". That is not applying t same rules to each other at all.

But that's not really not what anyone is arguing for. We are talking about a situation where a person ask their opponent if they mind two points extra, and would allow same leniency to their opponent if the situation was reversed.
That is EXACTLY what is being argued for. if you are instead, advocating a house rule where you trade back and forth and o on, that is a totally different and unrelated question. Maybe start a seperate thread on it so it does not become confused with the topic we are actually talking about here.

Reasoning is irrelevant. Cheating is cheating. Period. There is no excuse for it. It is JUST as easy to stay at the limit as to go over it.

It is not cheating if the opponent is okay with it. I'm just wondering why you're not. You don't need to be, it's your right, but I'm not understanding why.
Bullying or putting pressure on an opponent to agree with something that may notbe is indeed cheatig. Making the assumption beforehand that they will and showing up and saying "this is what i have, take it or leave it"is indeed cheating It is against the spirit of the game to force opponents to make the decision to let "you" cheat or not play at all. this is especially so when it is so EASY for you to just follow the rules to begin with.

I based my statement on the fact that in this (and every other thred i have seen online about it over the years) has far more people supporting the rules than advocating breaking them. there is also the fact that i have never EVER spoken to a player that advocated someone cheating against them. There may be some out there, i just have not found them. you may find it hilarious to think that people mind being cheated against. I disagree and feel that it is not funny at all. Different viewpoints on that.

No one likes cheating. But it is not cheating if the opponent approves.
See above. it is indeed cheatng if that 'approval" is coerced or pressured against their wishes. again, when it is just as easy to play a legal list to begin with. They teated you with enough respect to bring a legal list after all.

then you redo the whole thing. You have plenty of time to build lists in advance. as a matter of fact, Lets do a little math here (forgive my horrible math as i dont have a PHD but even I can do this lol). How many hours over the last few days alone have you spend reading, editing and posting on this very thread? Ignore any other threads, just this one. If it was even one hour, that is more than enough time to build 2 1500 point lists. A good start towards your supply-o pre-made army lists.

I'm quite capable of making legal lists, thank you very much.
If you are going above the agreed upon points they are not legal.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 EVIL INC wrote:
For example, if their wysiwyg list is 5 over and they have a plasma gun. i would explain tha as that is all they have, I wold give them the suggestion to proxy the plasma gun as a melta gun since my list is tank heavy.[/b]

Oh god, please no, don't teach the newbies to proxy; it is way more annoying than being few points over!
having an opponent who actually follows the rules, plays by the spirit of the game where fun is had by BOTH players and treating others with respect and dignity be 'annoying to a player says much more about the "annoyed player' than it does about the players doing it correctly.

PS. Please learn to use quotes properly, your posts are rather annoying to read.
Then dont read them.

 BlackTalos wrote:
I think the subject is quite clear to me:

If i play someone and agree 1500, but they draft up an army to have 1510, that's ok. Because we just drafted it.
If the same player, on the next game, gets to 1512, i will probably ask kindly for him to remove some points.

Now, and this is what the OP wrote: If my opponent now Refuses and "is offended" by the reducing of points, then we indeed have an issue, and the whole "cheating" idea starts to pop up.


Most of the people i play with would take down those points and i've never had an issue.
thats where we are in this thread. We have one side "refusing' to make a legal list.

 Selym wrote:
Let's say I allow my opponent to play a 1500 pts game with a 1501 army. Would you consider this unacceptable? Is there a fundamental law that says that I must reject the 1501 army? Are we in the wron for playing like this?

Why would what you choose to allow an opponent to do in your games matter in the slightest to anyone else?

If you allow you opponent to field an illegal list, then of course that's acceptable. Just as it's acceptable if you allow your opponent to give a model a weapon it shouldn't have, or allow them to move extra distance, or any other rule that you and your opponent agree to change or ignore.

That's not the issue here.