Point Limits and Dealing with Those Who Overspend

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.

**toxic_wisdom**

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?

I was answering the OP's question = The question: What sort of overspending limits do you play with? How would you handle it if your opponent was over or asked you to trim your list? Being that I have no tournament experience, how do tournaments handle it?

**Chopper Greg**

Peregrine wrote:

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?

It wasn't a matter of making a more efficent list, it was a matter of 6 players representing 5 armies, with skill levels ranging from first time player to one person playing for a couple of decades. To assist the new people, it was decided that every played army lists, should be within a 20 pt window, and it would be stricly WYSIWYG. I was playing Necrons ( at the time the only army that I knew anything about ), which was totally barrowed from a collection that amounted to ~900 points, and were glued. The others were using armies that came from collections that went over 2500, a couple of the armies came from collections of over 3500 pts, and as such the other players had much more flexibility in building their lists from the available models.

Peregrine wrote:

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.

As shown above, just because something is available in a codex, it doesn't follow that it's available as a resourse to draw on - especially when dealing with WYSIWYG and a fairly limited model availability.

Britneyfan12 wrote:
So if both players have agreed on a 1500 pts game, and one of them asks the other one, 15 min before gamestart: hey, Cornelius. can we agree on a 1501 pts game instead? as thats what my list is now, I´ll let you have a bite of my snickers then.

If Cornelius agrees, they are both going 100% RAW and noone is cheating or deserving of a beating out back. right?
If no, is a player always a cheater if he kindly requests another point limit for the upcoming game? what if he said: Dude, I like totally forgot my tanks at home, can we make it a 1000 pts game instead of 1500?
Or: Yeah I know we agreed on 1500 on the phone, but I just got this sweet deal on 3 fully painted Mega-dreads, would you mind we upped the game to 2K?

How long time in advance is a player allowed to kindly request a different point level than the original agreed upon, without being branded cheater and TFG? 3 days? 15min? after the other guy has deployed ½ his army?

Some of it is going to depend on the player who is being asked to do changing and how many points are involved.

For me, if it's just 5-10 points, 5 or 10 minutes should be plenty of time - heck I might even say, "Fine with me, let's start the game".
If it's ~100 points, I would like an hour to think about my options - if it's more than 150 or 200 points, I would like at least a couple of days.
Essentially the more points, the more time.

That being said, I have a buddy that can deal with a 300 point change in about 20-30 minutes, simply because he has been playing for a couple of decades ( and it seams like he lives, eats, and breaths 40K ). Sure, he might spend another 2-3 hours to fine tune his new list, but it's not something he has to do.

insaniak wrote:

Infantry models in 40K can move up to 6". Is it as fair for me to move my guys 7" on my turn as for you to choose to only move 3" on yours?

No one is saying that if someone wants an extra 3-4 or even 15 points of overage, you can't have the same number of points - but that is exactly what you are implying with your example.

Let's flip your example around to show you what we are trying to say.
You want to move your guys 7" - as long as I can also move my guys 7" that is fine.

insaniak wrote:

It doesn't take that long to write up a list... and if you do it in an army builder program or excel, it's even quicker to take an existing list and tweak it. When I'm going somewhere for a pick up game, it's then just a matter of printing off a couple of different lists at the most commonly played points limits.

Not everyone has those programs or knows how to use them, I still do not know of any that are actually worth the money that are being asked for them. I have tried one of those army building apps for my phone, it's not very good, in fact it's so poor that sitting down with a piece of paper and the codex is more accurate, even if it takes much much longer.

Tamwulf wrote:

Let me ask you this- let's say we agree on a 1500 point game, and I show up with a 3000 point army.

If you are showing up to a 1500 pt game with a 3000 pt army, your not even trying to keep it down to 1500 pts. Up to about 10-15 points over, not to much of an issue - above that is another issue, but in either case, as long as I am allowed those same points, it's nothing to worry about it.

**insaniak**

Chopper Greg wrote:
insaniak wrote:

Infantry models in 40K can move up to 6". Is it as fair for me to move my guys 7" on my turn as for you to choose to only move 3" on yours?

No one is saying that if someone wants an extra 3-4 or even 15 points of overage, you can't have the same number of points - but that is exactly what you are implying with your example.

No, that's not what I'm implying at all. You claimed that being under the points limit is no different to being over it. My point in response was that choosing to not utilise the full potential available to you, and choosing to exceed your allowed limit are not at all the thing.

**Peregrine**

Chopper Greg wrote:
It wasn't a matter of making a more efficent list

No, that's exactly what it was. The only reason you didn't just play at 450 out of 500 points (or even lower) is that you wanted a better chance of winning.

As shown above, just because something is available in a codex, it doesn't follow that it's available as a resourse to draw on - especially when dealing with WYSIWYG and a fairly limited model availability.

But those are factors outside of the game. Why should you get extra points just because you don't have the perfect list available?

For me, if it's just 5-10 points, 5 or 10 minutes should be plenty of time - heck I might even say, "Fine with me, let's start the game".
If it's ~100 points, I would like an hour to think about my options - if it's more than 150 or 200 points, I would like at least a couple of days.

Sorry, but this is just ridiculous and thoroughly disproves your claim that going over the point limit is all about "playing casually". If you're playing a casual game you shouldn't need more than a minute or two to change a list. Take something expensive out and replace it with a cheaper alternative, drop a heavy weapon from a squad, etc. If you need an hour to think about a 100 point modification then you're clearly taking winning very seriously, probably more seriously than the average "competitive" player in that situation.

Let's flip your example around to show you what we are trying to say.
You want to move your guys 7" - as long as I can also move my guys 7" that is fine.

Except that's not what you're doing. You aren't just agreeing on a new rule, you're pressuring your opponent to accept your new rule by accusing them of WAAC behavior if they don't let you cheat. It's the equivalent of moving your assault army an extra 1" to get into range and forcing your gunline opponent to accept it because they know that if they don't you'll whine and cry about how unfair it all is until they give you what you want.

If you are showing up to a 1500 pt game with a 3000 pt army, your not even trying to keep it down to 1500 pts.

And the same is true about showing up with a 1501 point army. If you are over the point limit in a game that you arranged in advance then you are not even trying to make a legal list.

**EVIL INC**

Chopper Greg wrote:
Peregrine wrote:

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?

It wasn't a matter of making a more efficent list, it was a matter of 6 players representing 5 armies, with skill levels ranging from first time player to one person playing for a couple of decades. To assist the new people, it was decided that every played army lists, should be within a 20 pt window, and it would be stricly WYSIWYG. I was playing Necrons ( at the time the only army that I knew anything about ), which was totally barrowed from a collection that amounted to ~900 points, and were glued. The others were using armies that came from collections that went over 2500, a couple of the armies came from collections of over 3500 pts, and as such the other players had much more flexibility in building their lists from the available models.
now, you are purposely throwing in additional aspects that change the story about. You are comparing apples to oranges. However, even in your sceneareo, the players with the larger collections can "loan" the odd one extra models or even overlook WYSIWYG for that game. till VERY easy to have all players have competative and legal lists.

Peregrine wrote:

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.

As shown above, just because something is available in a codex, it doesn't follow that it's available as a resourse to draw on - especially when dealing with WYSIWYG and a fairly limited model availability.
So what you are saying is that not a single codex has representation of models? I call BS on this. Give any one of the available codices and i can create a list ranging from 500, 1000,1500,1850, 2000, 3000 points and go to the GW website and show you models that are available. if I want to use units that do not have current models, I can show you ways to convert them or point you to websites (like this very one"gasp"), that can give ideas on converting.

Britneyfan12 wrote:
So if both players have agreed on a 1500 pts game, and one of them asks the other one, 15 min before gamestart: hey, Cornelius. can we agree on a 1501 pts game instead? as thats what my list is now, I´ll let you have a bite of my snickers then.

If Cornelius agrees, they are both going 100% RAW and noone is cheating or deserving of a beating out back. right?
If no, is a player always a cheater if he kindly requests another point limit for the upcoming game? what if he said: Dude, I like totally forgot my tanks at home, can we make it a 1000 pts game instead of 1500?
Or: Yeah I know we agreed on 1500 on the phone, but I just got this sweet deal on 3 fully painted Mega-dreads, would you mind we upped the game to 2K?

How long time in advance is a player allowed to kindly request a different point level than the original agreed upon, without being branded cheater and TFG? 3 days? 15min? after the other guy has deployed ½ his army?

Some of it is going to depend on the player who is being asked to do changing and how many points are involved.

For me, if it's just 5-10 points, 5 or 10 minutes should be plenty of time - heck I might even say, "Fine with me, let's start the game".
If it's ~100 points, I would like an hour to think about my options - if it's more than 150 or 200 points, I would like at least a couple of days.
Essentially the more points, the more time.

That being said, I have a buddy that can deal with a 300 point change in about 20-30 minutes, simply because he has been playing for a couple of decades ( and it seams like he lives, eats, and breaths 40K ). Sure, he might spend another 2-3 hours to fine tune his new list, but it's not something he has to do.
Of course, they could just bring a legal list to begin with instead of assuming they would be able to bulldoze their opponent into letting them cheat.

insaniak wrote:

Infantry models in 40K can move up to 6". Is it as fair for me to move my guys 7" on my turn as for you to choose to only move 3" on yours?

No one is saying that if someone wants an extra 3-4 or even 15 points of overage, you can't have the same number of points - but that is exactly what you are implying with your example.

Let's flip your example around to show you what we are trying to say.
You want to move your guys 7" - as long as I can also move my guys 7" that is fine.
That is exactly what you are not only implying but outright saying. If I show up with the agreed on amount of points and you show up over the limit. You are first and formost, assuming I will let you cheat and just go ahead and play. Secondarily, you might say somthing like "yeah, toss on a few extra points forcing me to search my codex to just toss something in while you stand there tapping your foot impatiently forcing me to make a fast brab at something useless while yourown list is still maxed out cheese where there are no useless items. Besides saying 'you can cheat as well if you let me first" is not considered a valid argument. Especially when it was actually easier for everyone for you to just bring a legal list to begin with.

insaniak wrote:

It doesn't take that long to write up a list... and if you do it in an army builder program or excel, it's even quicker to take an existing list and tweak it. When I'm going somewhere for a pick up game, it's then just a matter of printing off a couple of different lists at the most commonly played points limits.

Not everyone has those programs or knows how to use them, I still do not know of any that are actually worth the money that are being asked for them. I have tried one of those army building apps for my phone, it's not very good, in fact it's so poor that sitting down with a piece of paper and the codex is more accurate, even if it takes much much longer.
I use paper and pen and a codex myself. I have no problem showing up with a legal list. I also have no problem maintaining a notebokk full of lists at different points levels. You dont need a program to follow the rules.

Tamwulf wrote:

Let me ask you this- let's say we agree on a 1500 point game, and I show up with a 3000 point army.

If you are showing up to a 1500 pt game with a 3000 pt army, your not even trying to keep it down to 1500 pts. Up to about 10-15 points over, not to much of an issue - above that is another issue, but in either case, as long as I am allowed those same points, it's nothing to worry about it.
Already debunked

**Chopper Greg**

Messed up posting.

Retyping original reply.

**Abandon**

Changing the point limit at the last minute undermines the effort the other player put into fine tuning their list. Consider this:

Player A and player B have agreed to play with a 1500 point limit.

Player A has a family and a full time job and does not have much in the way of free time. He has an idea for a really fun list but after several attempts to create, rearrange, recreate, etc he realizes the minimum essentials for his idea are going to add up to at least 1510 points. He sleeps on it and the next day realizes how he could cut some points with only a slight change and goes back to it. After several other revisions though he realizes it's not going to help like he thought it would. It's now game day and he still can't get it to work and so he scraps it and puts together a fairly standard list and then spends another half hour fine tuning it. It ends up at 1495 points. He then gathers the required models for his army, prints out the list and heads out.

They meet at the usual place (friends garage, gaming store, where ever) and player B shortly informs him he brought a list and the models for a 1510 point army, that he could not get it lower then that and requests a 10 point leeway. Player A who was looking forward to a fun game even if he thinks his list is boring is now understandably offended as he would have gladly agreed to change the limit in advance but now has only the models for his current list. Player A expresses as much but player B refuses to acknowledge any cause for offense or imposition and says, 'hey it's just a casual game, no reason to get all WAAC on me, it's just 10 points'... Player A rages inside...

Player A went out of his way to show respect to the agreed limit.
Player B did not and in so doing showed no regard for the other players efforts and wasted his valuable time.

Please do this to you friend. If your group plays with estimates instead of limits, fine. However, if you agree to a limit then that's it, do not go over it. The other player my very well have put forth an effort, even sacrificing things from the list he just couldn't squeeze in under the limit. Showing complete disregard for the other players efforts is disrespectful. In a casual game, it is casually disrespectful which is honestly even more offensive IMO.

**Chopper Greg**

EVIL INC wrote:
Chopper Greg wrote:

It wasn't a matter of making a more efficent list, it was a matter of 6 players representing 5 armies, with skill levels ranging from first time player to one person playing for a couple of decades. To assist the new people, it was decided that every played army lists, should be within a 20 pt window, and it would be stricly WYSIWYG. I was playing Necrons ( at the time the only army that I knew anything about ), which was totally barrowed from a collection that amounted to ~900 points, and were glued. The others were using armies that came from collections that went over 2500, a couple of the armies came from collections of over 3500 pts, and as such the other players had much more flexibility in building their lists from the available models.

now, you are purposely throwing in additional aspects that change the story about. You are comparing apples to oranges. However, even in your sceneareo, the players with the larger collections can "loan" the odd one extra models or even overlook WYSIWYG for that game. till VERY easy to have all players have competative and legal lists.

Not changing - simply expanding on and clarifying the situation for someone who wasn't there.

Two of the players ( including myself ) played on nothing but barrowed models. We considered overlooking the WYSIWYG, and had it just been 1 vs. 1 ( or even the 2 vs. 2, 1 HQ and 1 squad training game, that was originally intended ) we would have done just that, but in the 3 vs. 3 it became, it would have quickly devolved into " What is that? It's a......., Wait, I thought it was a ....., If I have remembered that, I wouldn't have done ...... " situation, and things had already gotten confusing enough.

For clarification - is " counts as" in the BRB?

**tyrannosaurus**

Why is player A getting offended? If going 10 points over the limit would be enough to offend a friend or otherwise I'm not sure I would want to play with them.

Also, would you prefer proxies or WYSIWYG? I ran an Inquisition list yesterday but didn't have acolyte models so used Vostroyans. Acolytes come with laspistols, Vostroyans have lasguns. Making them lasguns would have taken me over the limit. I can imagine it's quite hard to get a list on/just under if your opponent insists on WYSIWYG.

Finally, still no-one has addressed the fact that Game Workshop, in White Dwarf [it's official magazine], encourages players to ignore points limits and FOCs and instead focus on the 'narrative'. It also mentions that this might be an approach in rulebooks. I completely understand why a fairly new player who reads White Dwarf and the main rulebooks [but doesn't spend their time trawling thorough internet forums] would approach the game with a very loose implementation of points limits and FOCs. Those who think points limits are important are in opposition to the way that GW wants you to play.

I personally think sticking close to agreed points limits is important [+20 is ok], but that is not consistent with the message that GW is sending to its playerbase.

**Chopper Greg**

Abandon wrote:
Changing the point limit at the last minute undermines the effort the other player put into fine tuning their list. Consider this:

Player A and player B have agreed to play with a 1500 point limit.

Player A has a family and a full time job and does not have much in the way of free time. He has an idea for a really fun list but after several attempts to create, rearrange, recreate, etc he realizes the minimum essentials for his idea are going to add up to at least 1510 points. He sleeps on it and the next day realizes how he could cut some points with only a slight change and goes back to it. After several other revisions though he realizes it's not going to help like he thought it would. It's now game day and he still can't get it to work and so he scraps it and puts together a fairly standard list and then spends another half hour fine tuning it. It ends up at 1495 points. He then gathers the required models for his army, prints out the list and heads out.

They meet at the usual place (friends garage, gaming store, where ever) and player B shortly informs him he brought a list and the models for a 1510 point army, that he could not get it lower then that and requests a 10 point leeway. Player A who was looking forward to a fun game even if he thinks his list is boring is now understandably offended as he would have gladly agreed to change the limit in advance but now has only the models for his current list. Player A expresses as much but player B refuses to acknowledge any cause for offense or imposition and says, 'hey it's just a casual game, no reason to get all WAAC on me, it's just 10 points'... Player A rages inside...

Player A went out of his way to show respect to the agreed limit.
Player B did not and in so doing showed no regard for the other players efforts and wasted his valuable time.

Please do this to you friend. If your group plays with estimates instead of limits, fine. However, if you agree to a limit then that's it, do not go over it. The other player my very well have put forth an effort, even sacrificing things from the list he just couldn't squeeze in under the limit. Showing complete disregard for the other players efforts is disrespectful. In a casual game, it is casually disrespectful which is honestly even more offensive IMO.

That's why I keep saying to talk to the other player ( or players ) in the days before the game. That way, Player A, wouldn't have had to worry about staying under 1500 points, and saved himself a day and half of effort and could still play his original list.

We live in a world of technology, pick up a phone, send a text or e-mail - no real reason not to talk to your opponent.

**Peregrine**

tyrannosaurus wrote:
Why is player A getting offended?

Because player B is acting disrespectful and entitled by bringing a list they know perfectly well is illegal and trying to pressure player A into accepting it.

Also, would you prefer proxies or WYSIWYG? I ran an Inquisition list yesterday but didn't have acolyte models so used Vostroyans. Acolytes come with laspistols, Vostroyans have lasguns. Making them lasguns would have taken me over the limit. I can imagine it's quite hard to get a list on/just under if your opponent insists on WYSIWYG.

I prefer a legal list that is also WYSIWYG. Pay the points for lasguns, take fewer acolytes.

Finally, still no-one has addressed the fact that Game Workshop, in White Dwarf [it's official magazine], encourages players to ignore points limits and FOCs and instead focus on the 'narrative'.

Actually we did address it. WD "battle reports" are awful, and they openly admit that they just make stuff up and re-roll anything that isn't "interesting enough" if they bother to play a game at all. That isn't a game, it's some catalog pictures with a "story" attached so you can imagine how cool the new releases will be in your own games.

It also mentions that this might be an approach in rulebooks.

It does, however it is incredibly poor sportsmanship to deliberately exploit that approach to increase your chances of winning. The intent of the statement is that if you're both trying to make new lists before a game some people may prefer to just get roughly the right number of points and start playing instead of spending extra time making a legal list, not that you should deliberately add extra points to your list and demand that your opponent let you have them.

**Abandon**

Chopper Greg wrote:

That's why I keep saying to talk to the other player ( or players ) in the days before the game. That way, Player A, wouldn't have had to worry about staying under 1500 points, and saved himself a day and half of effort and could still play his original list.

We live in a world of technology, pick up a phone, send a text or e-mail - no real reason not to talk to your opponent.

On this we agree. Revising the agreed limit in advance is not a problem.

I'm just pointing out that 10 points might mean more than just a 10 point change in the list. Adding on a cheap upgrade at the last minute is generally of small consequence but removing a unit of two zoanthropes and adding the DoM in a spore pod (10 point difference) changes the tactical situation your list creates. Ideally you would then need to re-examine the rest of your list and tailor it, if needed, to take advantage of the new situation. You might in fact end up with a entirely different list.

Also demonstrating the impertinence of breaking an agreement and then trying to make the other person seem rude if they're not ok with it.

**EVIL INC**

Chopper Greg wrote:
EVIL INC wrote:
Chopper Greg wrote:

It wasn't a matter of making a more efficent list, it was a matter of 6 players representing 5 armies, with skill levels ranging from first time player to one person playing for a couple of decades. To assist the new people, it was decided that every played army lists, should be within a 20 pt window, and it would be stricly WYSIWYG. I was playing Necrons ( at the time the only army that I knew anything about ), which was totally barrowed from a collection that amounted to ~900 points, and were glued. The others were using armies that came from collections that went over 2500, a couple of the armies came from collections of over 3500 pts, and as such the other players had much more flexibility in building their lists from the available models.

now, you are purposely throwing in additional aspects that change the story about. You are comparing apples to oranges. However, even in your sceneareo, the players with the larger collections can "loan" the odd one extra models or even overlook WYSIWYG for that game. till VERY easy to have all players have competative and legal lists.

Not changing - simply expanding on and clarifying the situation for someone who wasn't there.

Two of the players ( including myself ) played on nothing but barrowed models. We considered overlooking the WYSIWYG, and had it just been 1 vs. 1 ( or even the 2 vs. 2, 1 HQ and 1 squad training game, that was originally intended ) we would have done just that, but in the 3 vs. 3 it became, it would have quickly devolved into " What is that? It's a......., Wait, I thought it was a ....., If I have remembered that, I wouldn't have done ...... " situation, and things had already gotten confusing enough.

For clarification - is " counts as" in the BRB?

If you have all previously agreed upon points limit, there is not a single thing stopping you from sticking to it. We are not talking about counts as thats a different thread discussion. We are talking about points limits and sticking to them.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chopper Greg wrote:
Abandon wrote:
Changing the point limit at the last minute undermines the effort the other player put into fine tuning their list. Consider this:

Player A and player B have agreed to play with a 1500 point limit.

Player A has a family and a full time job and does not have much in the way of free time. He has an idea for a really fun list but after several attempts to create, rearrange, recreate, etc he realizes the minimum essentials for his idea are going to add up to at least 1510 points. He sleeps on it and the next day realizes how he could cut some points with only a slight change and goes back to it. After several other revisions though he realizes it's not going to help like he thought it would. It's now game day and he still can't get it to work and so he scraps it and puts together a fairly standard list and then spends another half hour fine tuning it. It ends up at 1495 points. He then gathers the required models for his army, prints out the list and heads out.

They meet at the usual place (friends garage, gaming store, where ever) and player B shortly informs him he brought a list and the models for a 1510 point army, that he could not get it lower then that and requests a 10 point leeway. Player A who was looking forward to a fun game even if he thinks his list is boring is now understandably offended as he would have gladly agreed to change the limit in advance but now has only the models for his current list. Player A expresses as much but player B refuses to acknowledge any cause for offense or imposition and says, 'hey it's just a casual game, no reason to get all WAAC on me, it's just 10 points'... Player A rages inside...

Player A went out of his way to show respect to the agreed limit.
Player B did not and in so doing showed no regard for the other players efforts and wasted his valuable time.

Please do this to you friend. If your group plays with estimates instead of limits, fine. However, if you agree to a limit then that's it, do not go over it. The other player my very well have put forth an effort, even sacrificing things from the list he just couldn't squeeze in under the limit. Showing complete disregard for the other players efforts is disrespectful. In a casual game, it is casually disrespectful which is honestly even more offensive IMO.

That's why I keep saying to talk to the other player ( or players ) in the days before the game. That way, Player A, wouldn't have had to worry about staying under 1500 points, and saved himself a day and half of effort and could still play his original list.

We live in a world of technology, pick up a phone, send a text or e-mail - no real reason not to talk to your opponent.

It is a matter of personal honor. If I agreed upon a limit, I am sticking to the limit. I'm not going to blow up my opponents phone (provided I even have their number) trying to change the game after the original agreement. neither do I want an opponent blowing up my phone saying can we go to 1510?, then an hour later "how bout 1515"?, Then an hour before the game while I'm packing "never mind, im cool with 1505".

**Frank&Stein**

Chopper Greg wrote:

That's why I keep saying to talk to the other player ( or players ) in the days before the game. That way, Player A, wouldn't have had to worry about staying under 1500 points, and saved himself a day and half of effort and could still play his original list.

We live in a world of technology, pick up a phone, send a text or e-mail - no real reason not to talk to your opponent.

I'm guessing you don't play a lot of pick up games.

Point limit at out FLGS is set at 1750. You never now who will turn up so you can't make those kind of arrangements in advance.
Where do you stand on going over under these circumstances?

Personally I'm very easy when it comes to rules. For instance: If an opponent needs 7" to make it to cover I'll let him move 7".
The only rule I strictly enforce is the point limit, because going over it is something that a player decides by himself without consulting his opponent and that's just bad etiquete.

**Chopper Greg**

For what ever reason, my original reply was messed up when it posted, so I have retyped it.

Peregrine wrote:
Chopper Greg wrote:
It wasn't a matter of making a more efficent list

No, that's exactly what it was. The only reason you didn't just play at 450 out of 500 points (or even lower) is that you wanted a better chance of winning.

As shown above, just because something is available in a codex, it doesn't follow that it's available as a resourse to draw on - especially when dealing with WYSIWYG and a fairly limited model availability.

But those are factors outside of the game. Why should you get extra points just because you don't have the perfect list available?

That is where you are dreaming.

Those were not factors outside the game, but the factors that the game was based on, without them there would have been no game.

Peregrine wrote:
Chopper Greg wrote:

For me, if it's just 5-10 points, 5 or 10 minutes should be plenty of time - heck I might even say, "Fine with me, let's start the game".
If it's ~100 points, I would like an hour to think about my options - if it's more than 150 or 200 points, I would like at least a couple of days.

Sorry, but this is just ridiculous and thoroughly disproves your claim that going over the point limit is all about "playing casually". If you're playing a casual game you shouldn't need more than a minute or two to change a list. Take something expensive out and replace it with a cheaper alternative, drop a heavy weapon from a squad, etc. If you need an hour to think about a 100 point modification then you're clearly taking winning very seriously, probably more seriously than the average "competitive" player in that situation.

You are assuming that I have the same amount of game experience and understanding of the rules as you do - and nothing could be further than the truth.

Contrary to the fact that your claim that it "disproves my claim", it does the exact opposite - it simply proves that I do not eat, breath, or sleep 40K ( I know that some will claim this as heresy ). I have played less than 100 games, and as such, unlike my buddy ( and apparently you as well ), who can deal with a 300 point change in 30 min ( because he has been playing for a couple of decades ), I still have to refer back to the codex and BRB, to find out which weapons/abilities/models do what, and to figure out if it is going to conflict with any of the other weapon/abilities/models I already have on the list.

If it's something as simple as adding a single model to each of my squads, no problem, I'll be done in 5-10 minutes - but if it's adding a new model or special power, or it's an army that I'm not familiar with, it going to take longer just to make sure it's not in conflict with the other thing on my list.

How is it that it didn't occur to you that inexperience would be the reason, it might take so long?

As it was, my inexperience and 3 very seasoned players, is the reason I said that I didn't have a chance even with the point boost - heck they could have spotted me 150 points, and it wouldn't have made any difference, even if I had 3 years to tweak my list to the Nth degree.

Peregrine wrote:
Chopper Greg wrote:

Let's flip your example around to show you what we are trying to say.
You want to move your guys 7" - as long as I can also move my guys 7" that is fine.

Except that's not what you're doing. You aren't just agreeing on a new rule, you're pressuring your opponent to accept your new rule by accusing them of WAAC behavior if they don't let you cheat. It's the equivalent of moving your assault army an extra 1" to get into range and forcing your gunline opponent to accept it because they know that if they don't you'll whine and cry about how unfair it all is until they give you what you want.

Now, you are not just dreaming, you are grasping at straws as well.

You are so wrapped up in, denying even a 1 pt overage, that you are not even paying attention to what was said.

I very specifically pointed out that I was told to go ahead as take the 26 pt overage, and not worry about it. I also pointed out that I made it clear that we should stick to the near parity in points of the various armies.

In case it is not clear to you, what this means is that despite your claim, I pressured no one - quite the opposite I asked for help. The point increase came about when I sat down with the other players ( as that point we didn't know who was going to be on the teams ) and showed them the hard time I was having, matching up the available models with the available points. Ideas were tossed back and forth ( like my taking the 26 pt overage ), and someone suggested a point increase.

The points couldn't match the available models - what else was to be done?

**EVIL INC**

I am just curious. as you are fighting SO hard. scraping at every possible twist and turn in a herculean effort to convince us all that breaking the rules is perfectly ok. why is it so hard to understand that adhering to the rules is just as ok (even more so), especially when it is actually EASIER to stick to the rules.
nothing personal or against you. i just find it hard to understand why someone would fight so hard to justify cheating with no concept of playing honestly even being an option.

**Peregrine**

Chopper Greg wrote:
Those were not factors outside the game, but the factors that the game was based on, without them there would have been no game.

No, there would be a game where you'd have fewer than the maximum available points. The fact that you don't have the models to make a perfectly optimized 1500 point list doesn't mean that you're entitled to play a 1505 point list, it just means that you play a legal list that might not be quite as good. And if that means playing a 1490 point list then that's just what you have to do.

Contrary to the fact that your claim that it "disproves my claim", it does the exact opposite - it simply proves that I do not eat, breath, or sleep 40K ( I know that some will claim this as heresy ).

Sorry, but that's just nonsense. It's not about dedicating your entire life to 40k, it's about having basic math skills. You have a written list of everything in your army, including its point costs, in front of you and a codex with point costs of any new additions you might want to make. Fixing a list should never take you more than a minute or two, drop a heavy/special weapon from a squad, flip through the codex to see if there's a cheaper option you might want to take, and play the game.

I still have to refer back to the codex and BRB, to find out which weapons/abilities/models do what, and to figure out if it is going to conflict with any of the other weapon/abilities/models I already have on the list.

And this is the proof that it's not about "play casual", it's about gaining an advantage for yourself. You claim to "need" extra time to fine-tune your new list/strategy, which shows that you care about winning. If it was really all about "being casual" you'd just cut a random unit or upgrade and play the game without worrying about whether you have the perfect strategy or not.

The points couldn't match the available models - what else was to be done?

Play the game at or below the point limit, even significantly below the point limit if that's all you can do with the available models. You don't get to go over the point limit just because the alternative is playing a 450 point army in a 500 point game. Unless you're playing some kind of ridiculous low-point game where the point limit is set to less than the minimum legal army you can play (and in that case you shouldn't be playing 200 point games) you can always bring a legal army with the models you have available.

This is entirely separate from the question of your opponents offering you extra points to balance out a difference in player skill. If that's really what your example was about then it isn't at all relevant to this discussion and you shouldn't include it anymore.

**Chopper Greg**

EVIL INC wrote: If you have all previously agreed upon points limit, there is not a single thing stopping you from sticking to it. We are not talking about counts as thats a different thread discussion. We are talking about points limits and sticking to them.

The group I play with, doesn't worry about a point ceiling that can never be violated - if we say 300, 750, or 1000, it's a general target, if you are under that's fine, if you are over ( and not being absurd about it ) that's fine too. We just try to keep less than 30 points ( or so ), of disparity between the highest and lowest point army.

If we are talking about breaking or not breaking rules, and what is / is not cheating, then the "counts as" issue is a factor, if "counts as" is being held up as 'a way' to avoid breaking any point limit rule.

In the BRB, GW makes some allowance for some overages of the point limit. I have yet to see any allowance permitted with WYSIWYG, thus any suggestion that you can use 'counts as' ( as a way to get around any overage when dealing with a strictly limited model supply ), is by definition breaking a rule that has no allowance do to so. Thus to keep from breaking the rule with flexibility, we are told to break the other rule, that doesn't have flexibility? DNC.

Frank&Stein wrote:
Chopper Greg wrote:

That's why I keep saying to talk to the other player ( or players ) in the days before the game. That way, Player A, wouldn't have had to worry about staying under 1500 points, and saved himself a day and half of effort and could still play his original list.

We live in a world of technology, pick up a phone, send a text or e-mail - no real reason not to talk to your opponent.

I'm guessing you don't play a lot of pick up games.

Point limit at out FLGS is set at 1750. You never now who will turn up so you can't make those kind of arrangements in advance.
Where do you stand on going over under these circumstances?

Few, and almost none at the local store.

For me, with one car for the family, games have to be planned out in advance.

My buddy's place is 5 minutes away, and the FLGS is probably 4 times that - not exactly local. Add in larger game tables, food, and lack of 'closing time' and my buddy's place beats the GS.

**EVIL INC**

You avoided answering the question.Exactly why are you adamant about cheating or not following the rules. Instead of giving us page after page of justifications and excuses for breaking them. give us just one explaining why you think following them is so bad. i am sure that we are all curious about that.

**Peregrine**

Chopper Greg wrote:
If we are talking about breaking or not breaking rules, and what is / is not cheating, then the "counts as" issue is a factor, if "counts as" is being held up as 'a way' to avoid breaking any point limit rule.

No, it's completely irrelevant. A group of players can have house rules that allow counts-as/proxy models but not have house rules about allowing you to exceed the point limit. If you want to argue about the legality of non-WYSIWYG models then please start a separate thread about it.

For me, with one car for the family, games have to be planned out in advance.

Great, so you should have absolutely no problem making a list that is at or under the agreed-on point limit, and you shouldn't need to ask to play at some weird non-standard point level so you can get "permission" to break the point limit. If that's your situation then you certainly don't have the excuse of hurrying to make a list because you didn't know what game you were going to be playing until you got to the store.

**Chopper Greg**

Peregrine wrote:

No, there would be a game where you'd have fewer than the maximum available points. The fact that you don't have the models to make a perfectly optimized 1500 point list doesn't mean that you're entitled to play a 1505 point list, it just means that you play a legal list that might not be quite as good. And if that means playing a 1490 point list then that's just what you have to do.

Sorry, but that's just nonsense. It's not about dedicating your entire life to 40k, it's about having basic math skills. You have a written list of everything in your army, including its point costs, in front of you and a codex with point costs of any new additions you might want to make. Fixing a list should never take you more than a minute or two, drop a heavy/special weapon from a squad, flip through the codex to see if there's a cheaper option you might want to take, and play the game.

And this is the proof that it's not about "play casual", it's about gaining an advantage for yourself. You claim to "need" extra time to fine-tune your new list/strategy, which shows that you care about winning. If it was really all about "being casual" you'd just cut a random unit or upgrade and play the game without worrying about whether you have the perfect strategy or not.

Play the game at or below the point limit, even significantly below the point limit if that's all you can do with the available models. You don't get to go over the point limit just because the alternative is playing a 450 point army in a 500 point game. Unless you're playing some kind of ridiculous low-point game where the point limit is set to less than the minimum legal army you can play (and in that case you shouldn't be playing 200 point games) you can always bring a legal army with the models you have available.

You prove that you don't care to pay attention to the basic setup of the game that was played, but only about mixing and matching bits and pieces of someone's post to make your own point.

That game did not allow for a parity of greater than 20 points of difference between the army's - if one person is 38 points low, and everyone else is within 15 points +/- of the target, and all you have to choose from is a limited set of a WYSIWYG models, something has to change.

Any other alternative, means that everyone else has to now revamp their lists, because the new point target has effectively been dropped, simply because there was an inadequate model supply.

I asked for help, and after WE talked about the alternatives, it was suggested that WE raise to target point, and that was what WE chose to do.

I do not understand how you are failing to grasp those parts.

Conditions of the game as decided by the entire group (even before the point target was decided on ):

- A parity of no greater than 20 points of difference between the lists.
- A limited set of a WYSIWYG models.

Thus if someone can't meet those two conditions, there would have been no game.

I fail to see, what part of that, you can't understand.

You say play at -38 points, yet you have never bothered to explain how ( or why ) anyone would want to play at both -40 points and inexperience handicap and call it fun - - - heck how is anyone even supposed to actually learn how to play, when such a combined disadvantage means that you don't even last to round 3. Ether one alone would be enough to deal with, but both? That goes well past wanting to eat, breath, and sleep the game, that kind of play at all costs, mind set is fanatical - likely even psychologically insane.

Again I did not force anyone into anything, I just asked for some help with my list, when I ran into an issue with the limited model supply, and the others figured that raising the point target by 50 would be easier than everyone else revising their lists to a lower point target. If you don't like it, to bad, you were not there and was not a part of the group that was, nor were you playing under the same game limitations.

EVIL INC wrote:
You avoided answering the question.Exactly why are you adamant about cheating or not following the rules. Instead of giving us page after page of justifications and excuses for breaking them. give us just one explaining why you think following them is so bad. i am sure that we are all curious about that.

And as I have explained before, Pg 108, allows an overage of a few points, thus it is not cheating to allow someone a minor overage. If you don't agree, take it up with GW for putting it in the BRB.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Peregrine wrote:
No, it's completely irrelevant. A group of players can have house rules that allow counts-as/proxy models but not have house rules about allowing you to exceed the point limit.

Pg. 108 of the BRB says you are wrong. Overage of a few points is allowable - it might not be desirable, but it's not precluded.

If you don't like it, take the issue up with GW for the way they print and edit their books.

**Peregrine**

Chopper Greg wrote:
- A parity of no greater than 20 points of difference between the lists.

So why are we even talking about this then? The "problem" is entirely caused by this house rule. Get rid of it and just play a 1470 point list in a 1500 point game and you don't have anymore problems.

You say play at -38 points, yet you have never bothered to explain how ( or why ) anyone would want to play at both -40 points and inexperience handicap and call it fun

I thought we were talking about "casual" games? Why should playing a 1462 point list in a 1500 point game be a problem? Sure, it hurts your chances of winning, but I thought this is a "casual" game where winning isn't a big deal?

heck how is anyone even supposed to actually learn how to play, when such a combined disadvantage means that you don't even last to round 3.

Let's not exaggerate here. Playing 40 points down is a disadvantage, it doesn't mean that you're going to be tabled before the third turn.

And I would ask you a similar question: how is anyone supposed to learn how to play when they are never required to learn all the fine-tuning required to make a good list without breaking the rules?

That goes well past wanting to eat, breath, and sleep the game, that kind of play at all costs, mind set is fanatical - likely even psychologically insane.

Yeah, let's just lose all perspective here. I'm sure that "no, you can't have that extra lascannon/squad member/whatever because it puts you over the point limit" is really a case of being insane...

And as I have explained before, Pg 108, allows an overage of a few points, thus it is not cheating to allow someone a minor overage. If you don't agree, take it up with GW for putting it in the BRB.

And as we've explained before, that is commentary, not rules. The fact that GW (probably correctly) states that many people don't care about going a few points over doesn't mean that it isn't against the rules, or that you should deliberately take advantage of that trend and accuse your opponent of WAAC behavior if they don't let you have those extra points.

**Chopper Greg**

May I remind you that was a low point game?

40 pts was about 10% of the point target for each army, and just slightly less than a 5 man squad of Warriors.

Please don't tell me that no one is ever going to be tabled before turn 3 - even with the revision of the point target by 50 points, by the end of turn 2, I was toast.

During setup, both of my teammates kind of boxed me in the middle, Both the CSM and NID players ( 2 of the 3 experienced players at the game ), rushed across together and took me out. Just as guess, I would say perhaps 1/2 of the entire opposing team, rushed 3 of my Necron squads, while the semi-experienced player played dealt with the totally green player on my team, and remainder of the Nids and CSM's just played a slow holding action against the only experienced player on my team. I kid you not when I say that in that round, each of my models took at least 3 hits each from a minimum of 8 attacks each.

By the start of turn 3, all I had left was 4 models from one squad that I had sent swinging wide to try and support the totally green Tau player that the opposing SM had brought into HtH, and they were sandwiched between the Nid / CSM horde and some of the SM's - I couldn't even move them, as they were pinned between the proverbial 'rock and a hard place'. Quite simply, by the end my second turn, I had ceased to exist as a player, and had become just an observer ( oh ..... loads of fun

).

The rules about WYSIWYG and near parity of each of the lists, was to help the new people, so they wouldn't have to try and remember what each of the weapons across 6 different army's were and didn't have to worry about fine tuning their list to the Nth degree.

There is a very real difference between taking everything you can get, up to the point target ( and then asking for quite a bit more ) and coming up 10 points short and asking to add a single model to a squad - with Necrons the first case would amount to an extra 30 points for a Praetorian and in the second case it would amount to an overage of 3 points for a Warrior and 7 points for an Immortal, and where a single Praetorian could be a game changer, an extra Warrior or Immortal is not even going to be noticed.

As to whether the part on Pg 108 is commentary, there is nothing that I see that says it is not a rule or an exception to a rule.

**Peregrine**

Chopper Greg wrote:
40 pts was about 10% of the point target for each army, and just slightly less than a 5 man squad of Warriors.

Again, what's your point? A 10% difference shouldn't matter if this is all about being "casual", just play the game. That difference only matters if you start worrying about your chances of winning, which proves what I said originally: this is really about getting extra points to improve your chances of winning.

Please don't tell me that no one is ever going to be tabled before turn 3 - even with the revision of the point target by 50 points, by the end of turn 2, I was toast.

That's not what I said. I said that a 40 point difference isn't an automatic tabling, not that you can never be tabled that fast. If you don't even make it to the third turn there's something a lot bigger than a 40 point difference happening.

During setup, both of my teammates kind of boxed me in the middle, Both the CSM and NID players ( 2 of the 3 experienced players at the game ), rushed across together and took me out.

Oh, I see, so this was a team game, which has nothing to do with the normal rules of the game. Maybe the problem here is playing a 3v3 with the most experienced players on one side and nothing to prevent them from focusing on one player and taking them out ASAP, not whether or not you got a few extra points.

There is a very real difference between taking everything you can get, up to the point target ( and then asking for quite a bit more ) and coming up 10 points short and asking to add a single model to a squad

No there isn't. If you want to add an extra model to a squad then you are taking more than you're allowed to have, and that's cheating. I can't think of any reason why you need that extra model so badly that you have to cheat to get it, and the fact that you even mention it proves that this isn't about "playing casually". If it was you'd just play 10 points short and not having the extra model wouldn't matter.

an extra Warrior or Immortal is not even going to be noticed.

So why is it so important that you have it? This is the fundamental problem here, you keep insisting simultaneously that the extra points are too trivial to matter, but that you also really need them and it's TFG behavior to refuse to let you take them.

As to whether the part on Pg 108 is commentary, there is nothing that I see that says it is not a rule or an exception to a rule.

You can tell it isn't a rule because it says "most people don't care", not "you can exceed the point limit by X amount".

**j31c3n**

I love how this has devolved into "if you don't let your poor opponent go a few points over what is obviously an arbitrary and silly limit based on a gentleman's agreement, you're a monstrous WAAC player" versus "if you go a single point over our previously agreed limit - THAT WE AGREED TO - you're a liar and a cheat and you might even smash my models."

**Peregrine**

j31c3n wrote:
I love how this has devolved into "if you don't let your poor opponent go a few points over what is obviously an arbitrary and silly limit based on a gentleman's agreement, you're a monstrous WAAC player" versus "if you go a single point over our previously agreed limit - THAT WE AGREED TO - you're a liar and a cheat and you might even smash my models."

I love how you can come into this thread and make such a non-constructive post.

**j31c3n**

Peregrine wrote:
j31c3n wrote:
I love how this has devolved into "if you don't let your poor opponent go a few points over what is obviously an arbitrary and silly limit based on a gentleman's agreement, you're a monstrous WAAC player" versus "if you go a single point over our previously agreed limit - THAT WE AGREED TO - you're a liar and a cheat and you might even smash my models."

I love how you can come into this thread and make such a non-constructive post.

Hey, I'm just trying to stay on-topic and in line with the rest of the responses. Each side is accusing the other of being rules-lawyering WAAC TFG monsters. There are no constructive posts here.

**Mr. Burning**

This thread has moved beyond YMDC as well. I think the answer the Op can take away is.

Work this out with your butt hurt opponent and look at sticking to an agreement regarding points and overspend.

Everything else since page 4 or so is just mudslinging for the sake of it.

.

**aliusexalio**

I am just amazed how games in general can bring out the unreasonable douche in people. You agree on 1500 points, not on 1535 or 1501, it is that easy. You show up at work on time, not 5 minutes late.
You measure your charge range and you don't add an inch so you make your charge. How hard is that stuff?

**Crimson**

EVIL INC wrote:

It is a matter of personal honor. If I agreed upon a limit, I am sticking to the limit. I'm not going to blow up my opponents phone (provided I even have their number) trying to change the game after the original agreement. neither do I want an opponent blowing up my phone saying can we go to 1510?, then an hour later "how bout 1515"?, Then an hour before the game while I'm packing "never mind, im cool with 1505".

With random people you don't know well it is obviously better to just stick to the limit, but with a friend you know well you might as well change the point limit. It was arbitrary number you decided on anyway, there is no reason you cannot decide on another arbitrary number instead if it allows you to field list you actually wanted.