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.

 Chopper Greg wrote:
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.

This is probably another factor that gave me my opinion - in my group we all seem to have list protocols - we already know what we want to put into a list with almost any given 250 pts increments. Even when caught unexpected, we tend to be able to throw together a reasonable list in under 15 mins.

I realize this won't be the same for everybody, ofc, but that's where my gaming experience has been since 2007.

@EVIL INC Sure that would be annoying, but if you accepted his point proposal, it would still be a perfectly RAW legal game. The dude could even show up at the table, having agreed on the 1505 points on the phone with you not 5 minutes ago AND bring an eldar titan and while saying "yeah, so I know you likely didnt bring 3000 pts, but I did. And this titan is super sweet, can we play escalation instead?" If you were to agree (which you shoulndt imho) it would still be a perfectly legal RAW game (and maybe the last one with that guy).

@Peregrine Sure I could build a list staying on/under the agreed points limit, but if I end up above that limit, even if it was to purely gain an advantage, it would still be a legal game, if the opponent agreed to it. The second he agrees to my 1525 points list (lets say it was 1500 sharp, but in the last minute I decided to give my deffkopta a buzzsaw) my point limit changes to 1525 (as both players agreed on that, even though one of them did it reluctantly ) and I am no longer "above the limit". I could whine all I wanted, like the opponent in the original post, if he sighed and said "yeah, sure you baby go ahead with that buzzsaw" it would be a RAW legal game. As even games with whining WAAC gamers can be legal.

@Tamwulf If you showed up with 3000pts to a 1500 pts game, and I somehow agreed on that, then yes it would be perfectly legal, if I didnt agree on it, then no you couldnt use those extra 1500. Bad sportsmanship? doesnt prevent the game from being legal, neither would it, if I had a horrible body odour and you couldnt concentrate on your strategy.

My understanding of the rules:
If on the other hand, both players had agreed on 1500 points, and I got turned down on my extra Buzzsaw, I wouldnt be allowed to take it.
Nor would the game be legal if we had agreed on 1500, but I neglect to inform and ask for acceptance of playing a list above 1500. Be it 1501 or 1525.

Ps: I dont condone that tactic myself, but this is YMDC and we are discussing the legality of "going over the agreed point limit" and I say yes you can, if opponent agrees

What I want to know is: How is it that people can take the time to surf a game's forum, keep up with an 8 page thread, pick out quotes that they'd like to rebut from multiple posts, but can't find the time to build a list that adhere's to a point limit?

 Chopper Greg wrote:

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.

I have page 108 open in front of me right now. at no point on there does it say that you are free to break the rules by agreeing with your opponent on a points level and then showing up with an illegal army whose points are as far above as you like.
As a matter of fact, it is VERY specific in saying that the points value is the "Maximum" you may spend. So I call BS on your statement. And dont givie us the malarky about some aside commentary from an editor that have no bearing on the actual rules in order to fill up page space as it has no bearing. Cite something inthe ACTUAL rules making your point. We have.
Of course, if YOU dont like it, you are free to take up the issue with GW in the way they write the rules. You also have yet to tell us why you are fighting SO hard to justify breaking the rules ad cheating and why you think actually following the rules is such a bad thing to do.

I find it hilarious how boldface hypocritical people who are defending their points over advantage are...


*Points over is 'minimal impact' but 'points under' is the fine line between life and being tabled.
*They are 'casual' but take hours to compile a list and modifying that list takes even more hours.
*They seem to play nothing but unoptimized 500 point fictional games to justify thier going over in real games which are 1500+ where this idea of 'I can't take anything smaller' doesn't apply.
*They choose one line out of context to follow but ignore the line right next to it.
*The goalposts move constantly... Some are trying to defend a 100 point advantage, and then it shrinks down to 1 point as they get called out, and then they move the goal posts again because they apparently play a codex which has a 41 point model as the minimum troop so removing a single model means they go from 1 point over to 40 points under.

If it is 'so minor' then why go over? If it is a drastic disadvantage to have a point disparity, then how does your opponent feel when you show up and say 'yeah, too bad, I went over... you are a TFG if you question it.'

Which is it?
*Not a Big deal: So being under by a few points is not a big deal.
*It is unfair to have a point disparity: so going over the point limit is unfair to your opponent.

Can't have it both ways and only be 'unfair' when you are under the limit but ok when you are over. That is 'baby tantrum on the ground' levels of absurdity.

nkelsch wrote:
I find it hilarious how boldface hypocritical people who are defending their points over advantage are...


*Points over is 'minimal impact' but 'points under' is the fine line between life and being tabled.
No. Part of the argument is whether it is acceptable to be over. One side claims it is WAAC cheating, the other claims that it is not. nobody has been going so far as that yet.

*They are 'casual' but take hours to compile a list and modifying that list takes even more hours.
Where did you get this from?

*They seem to play nothing but unoptimized 500 point fictional games to justify thier going over in real games which are 1500+ where this idea of 'I can't take anything smaller' doesn't apply.
I used a 500 point game as an example, because it's awkward to construct a 1500 point list that gets my point across. Low point games are also where a single point matters more, as it's 1/500th of the limit, rather than 1/1500th of the limit. So, really, the 500 point examples are more efficient.

*They choose one line out of context to follow but ignore the line right next to it.
The sidee that argues that the points limit is acceptable has recognized the entire entry, and has not been going out of context. Rather, that side has been taking even more things into account, such as GW's publicized attitude towards how they believe 40k should be played.

*The goalposts move constantly... Some are trying to defend a 100 point advantage, and then it shrinks down to 1 point as they get called out, and then they move the goal posts again because they apparently play a codex which has a 41 point model as the minimum troop so removing a single model means they go from 1 point over to 40 points under.
Lol nope. The original argument was for a 35 pts overage, which most of us held the belief was rather pushing the whole concept of a points leeway. Then when the argument got a bit more intensive, we began arguing over an overage of 1 point, as that is where the crux of the matter lies. One person then extended the reasoning of allowing an overage to say that by our logic, he could bring a 3000 pts army to a 1500 pts game. This was them pretty much shown as not an acceptable overage margin unless the other player decided it would either be fun, or would just double his limit too. The only mention of a 100 points overage was mine, which I was using as an example of how little the points values actually matter.

If it is 'so minor' then why go over? If it is a drastic disadvantage to have a point disparity, then how does your opponent feel when you show up and say 'yeah, too bad, I went over... you are a TFG if you question it.'Because, like in my "Example 1", sometimes you're just stuck with it. Especially when there are WYSIWYG enforcements. I and a few others, I'm sure, would much rather allow a small overage than having to play a proxy/counts-as army.

Which is it?
*Not a Big deal: So being under by a few points is not a big deal.
*It is unfair to have a point disparity: so going over the point limit is unfair to your opponent.
Both. These points are not mutually exclusive. The main argument, however, seems to have evolved into "It is never socially acceptable to bring an overage" vs "It is acceptable, as long as either there is an agreement, or there is a concession to the other player."

Can't have it both ways and only be 'unfair' when you are under the limit but ok when you are over. That is 'baby tantrum on the ground' levels of absurdity.
Le wut?

It seems like the "it's okay" side are treating the point value for a game as "the minimum" instead of "the maximum".

But isn't the problem here not that the two agreed to change the pts by consent but what actually happened to the OP was that some guy spends way* over his allocated points valuie AND then gets upset when asked not to - not consent just someone trying to cheat it seems to me.

I thnk the natural assumption - as we play at our club, is that you set a points value and abide by it - you might say do you mind if I go a point over but there should be no pressure for the other person to say yes as seems to be the case here.

* and i am sorry but 35 points over is huge,

 Mr Morden wrote:
But isn't the problem here not that the two agreed to change the pts by consent but what actually happened to the OP was that some guy spends way* over his allocated points valuie AND then gets upset when asked not to - not consent just someone trying to cheat it seems to me.

I thnk the natural assumption - as we play at our club, is that you set a points value and abide by it - you might say do you mind if I go a point over but there should be no pressure for the other person to say yes as seems to be the case here.

* and i am sorry but 35 points over is huge,

Well, the original argument was that, yes. Really, anyone who ends up with being 35 points over and then isn't willing to allow any adaption one way or another probably is trying to cheat.

Around where I am, the points limit is taken as a goal, rather than a maximum as we don't see any fairness in one army being a good number of points over the other. We aim to get as close to it as we can with the models we have, so we'll see games of:

1497 vs 1502

1500 vs 1503

1510 vs 1511

And we never really see it as a big deal as long as both sides state their points total, and allow a few minutes for last minute list edits. So hardly cheating there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:
It seems like the "it's okay" side are treating the point value for a game as "the minimum" instead of "the maximum".

What? No.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I like this quote from another thread:

 Bull0 wrote:

MadmanMSU wrote:
As far as I can tell, GW are actively trying to create a system that does not use rules. Like, at all. We're moving closer and closer to a hardcore RPG game every edition. Armies? Pah, use Allies and mix-n-match everything. FOC? Merely a suggestion. Forging a narrative is more important!

The rules are a framework for a mutually enjoyable game rather than an absolute - that's been the case for a long time, it's nothing new.

 Selym wrote:

And we never really see it as a big deal as long as both sides state their points total, and allow a few minutes for last minute list edits. So hardly cheating there.

And if you say "Hi, I have 1510 points" and your opponent is "I have 1497 because I followed the rules and would rather you not exceed the point limit"

Any response other than "ok, not a problem, I will reduce my list immediately." is cheating. If you try to argue, quanitfy, jjustify, brow-beat, complain, anything to defend your advantage and why rules do not or should not apply to you, then you are cheating.

If it is not a big deal, why not simply follow the rules? If it is a big deal, then why do you deserve a 10 point advantage?

I have never cared for a handful of points, say up to 5. More than that and it's a bit much but if you are at let's say 1502 points, it's not a big deal to me. If it's something you can easily drop to get at or below the points value then do that (e.g drop melta bombs from a character) but if you can't easily drop something and are a handful of points over, no biggie IMO.

nkelsch wrote:

 Selym wrote:

And we never really see it as a big deal as long as both sides state their points total, and allow a few minutes for last minute list edits. So hardly cheating there.

And if you say "Hi, I have 1510 points" and your opponent is "I have 1497 because I followed the rules and would rather you not exceed the point limit"

Any response other than "ok, not a problem, I will reduce my list immediately." is cheating. If you try to argue, quanitfy, jjustify, brow-beat, complain, anything to defend your advantage and why rules do not or should not apply to you, then you are cheating.

If it is not a big deal, why not simply follow the rules? If it is a big deal, then why do you deserve a 10 point advantage?

 Selym wrote:
and allow a few minutes for last minute list edits.

I assume no one going over has a problem with their opponent taking a few minutes to add the same to their list if they agree?

 Mr Morden wrote:
I assume no one going over has a problem with their opponent taking a few minutes to add the same to their list if they agree?

No problem at all.

I'd even have no problem with them being allowed a number of points over my list that I had over the initial limit.

So if the game was at 1500 pts, and I took 1505, I'd happily allow my opponent to take 1510 pts.

WayneTheGame wrote:
I have never cared for a handful of points, say up to 5. More than that and it's a bit much but if you are at let's say 1502 points, it's not a big deal to me. If it's something you can easily drop to get at or below the points value then do that (e.g drop melta bombs from a character) but if you can't easily drop something and are a handful of points over, no biggie IMO.

There is a difference between:

"I don't care if opponents <X>" and "Opponents shouldn't care and allow me to <X>"

One is you allowing someone to do something, the other is burdening and demanding that they let you do something. At all times, to be a good sport, you should try to hold yourself within the rules. If you are constantly demanding exceptions or placing burdens on your opponents, then you will find you are someone people do not wish to play against. 100% of the games I play, I will never be the burden. If I choose to let my opponent burden me, so be it, but it is my choice, if I do not agree to the burden, it is the person asking for the exception or placing the burden who is the root of the issue.

nkelsch wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
I have never cared for a handful of points, say up to 5. More than that and it's a bit much but if you are at let's say 1502 points, it's not a big deal to me. If it's something you can easily drop to get at or below the points value then do that (e.g drop melta bombs from a character) but if you can't easily drop something and are a handful of points over, no biggie IMO.

There is a difference between:

"I don't care if opponents <X>" and "Opponents shouldn't care and allow me to <X>"

One is you allowing someone to do something, the other is burdening and demanding that they let you do something. At all times, to be a good sport, you should try to hold yourself within the rules. If you are constantly demanding exceptions or placing burdens on your opponents, then you will find you are someone people do not wish to play against. 100% of the games I play, I will never be the burden. If I choose to let my opponent burden me, so be it, but it is my choice, if I do not agree to the burden, it is the person asking for the exception or placing the burden who is the root of the issue.

The thing that WayneTheGame proves, however is that it is not always seen as a "burden" by other players.

nkelsch wrote:

There is a difference between:

"I don't care if opponents <X>" and "Opponents shouldn't care and allow me to <X>"

True.

One is you allowing someone to do something, the other is burdening and demanding that they let you do something. At all times, to be a good sport, you should try to hold yourself within the rules. If you are constantly demanding exceptions or placing burdens on your opponents, then you will find you are someone people do not wish to play against. 100% of the games I play, I will never be the burden. If I choose to let my opponent burden me, so be it, but it is my choice, if I do not agree to the burden, it is the person asking for the exception or placing the burden who is the root of the issue.

Agreed, however, many people really don't see the opponent being few points over as a burden and that's really what we are discussing here. I'm pretty sure that last time I went over the limit was when 3rd edition was current, so it is not like I have a habit of doing it. I just don't understand why some people are so adamant about it. If a friend said "Sorry, I made the list in hurry and it's two points over, do you mind?" I cannot fathom the sort of mentality that would find that insulting or to be any kind of a burden.

 Crimson wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

There is a difference between:

"I don't care if opponents <X>" and "Opponents shouldn't care and allow me to <X>"

True.

One is you allowing someone to do something, the other is burdening and demanding that they let you do something. At all times, to be a good sport, you should try to hold yourself within the rules. If you are constantly demanding exceptions or placing burdens on your opponents, then you will find you are someone people do not wish to play against. 100% of the games I play, I will never be the burden. If I choose to let my opponent burden me, so be it, but it is my choice, if I do not agree to the burden, it is the person asking for the exception or placing the burden who is the root of the issue.

Agreed, however, many people really don't see the opponent being few points over as a burden and that's really what we are discussing here. I'm pretty sure that last time I went over the limit was when 3rd edition was current, so it is not like I have a habit of doing it. I just don't understand why some people are so adamant about it. If a friend said "Sorry, I made the list in hurry and it's two points over, do you mind?" I cannot fathom the sort of mentality that would find that insulting or to be any kind of a burden.

+1
Pretty much my view too.

 Selym wrote:

The thing that WayneTheGame proves, however is that it is not always seen as a "burden" by other players.

But you don't get to decide if it is a burden or not. Same with Proxies, paper stand-ins, coke-can carnifex. You may not mind but you don't get to decide for opponents. You come to a game unprepared and can ask for an exception but should not get angry or demand your opponent do anything if they do not agree.

If you never want to have an issue, follow the rules, never ask for exceptions, never burden opponents. Don't insult, berate and trivialize them in order to secure your advantage at their expense.

nkelsch wrote:

 Selym wrote:

The thing that WayneTheGame proves, however is that it is not always seen as a "burden" by other players.

But you don't get to decide if it is a burden or not. Same with Proxies, paper stand-ins, coke-can carnifex. You may not mind but you don't get to decide for opponents. You come to a game unprepared and can ask for an exception but should not get angry or demand your opponent do anything if they do not agree.

If you never want to have an issue, follow the rules, never ask for exceptions, never burden opponents. Don't insult, berate and trivialize them in order to secure your advantage at their expense.

What advantage am I getting if I hold this opinion true for all players, not just myself?
I don't build lists with an intentional overage, I build lists in an attempt to get to the limit. If a rushed attempt happens to go over by a few, what does it matter?

 Selym wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

 Selym wrote:

The thing that WayneTheGame proves, however is that it is not always seen as a "burden" by other players.

But you don't get to decide if it is a burden or not. Same with Proxies, paper stand-ins, coke-can carnifex. You may not mind but you don't get to decide for opponents. You come to a game unprepared and can ask for an exception but should not get angry or demand your opponent do anything if they do not agree.

If you never want to have an issue, follow the rules, never ask for exceptions, never burden opponents. Don't insult, berate and trivialize them in order to secure your advantage at their expense.

What advantage am I getting if I hold this opinion true for all players, not just myself?
I don't build lists with an intentional overage, I build lists in an attempt to get to the limit. If a rushed attempt happens to go over by a few, what does it matter?

If it doesn't matter, then why not drop something to be within the limit?

Just because you will allow everyone to go over doesn't mean that view is supported by everyone, and it shows that the game will be fraught with peril as you are someone who doesn't follow rules you don't like or you apply rules loosely for personal advantage, that says a lot about you. If you were a few points over and playing Necron air, I can almost guarantee we would be heading for a liberally applied vertical arc of fire with the argument of 'why does it matter? it is not a big deal'?

If it doesn't matter... why not follow the rules?

From what you have posted, this is how playing a game with you would go down:

You: "Sorry, I am 10 points over, that is not a big deal right?"
me: "Sorry, I would rather play with the point limit agreed upon."
You: "I can't drop anything! It would take 45 minutes to figure out what to do! It was an accident, How can you not agree? Everyone I ever playw ith knows it is not a big deal.
me: "Ok, then my list is 1498, I am going to add 5 more grots to this unit so my list totals 1513, No big deal?"
You: "You did that on purpose which makes it unacceptable, I did it by accident so I deserve my 10 points. You should play with your 1498 and just accept it is not a big deal."

nkelsch wrote:

 Selym wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

 Selym wrote:

The thing that WayneTheGame proves, however is that it is not always seen as a "burden" by other players.

But you don't get to decide if it is a burden or not. Same with Proxies, paper stand-ins, coke-can carnifex. You may not mind but you don't get to decide for opponents. You come to a game unprepared and can ask for an exception but should not get angry or demand your opponent do anything if they do not agree.

If you never want to have an issue, follow the rules, never ask for exceptions, never burden opponents. Don't insult, berate and trivialize them in order to secure your advantage at their expense.

What advantage am I getting if I hold this opinion true for all players, not just myself?
I don't build lists with an intentional overage, I build lists in an attempt to get to the limit. If a rushed attempt happens to go over by a few, what does it matter?

If it doesn't matter, then why not drop something to be within the limit?

Just because you will allow everyone to go over doesn't mean that view is supported by everyone, and it shows that the game will be fraught with peril as you are someone who doesn't follow rules you don't like or you apply rules loosely for personal advantage, that says a lot about you. If you were a few points over and playing Necron air, I can almost guarantee we would be heading for a liberally applied vertical arc of fire with the argument of 'why does it matter? it is not a big deal'?

If it doesn't matter... why not follow the rules?

From what you have posted, this is how playing a game with you would go down:

You: "Sorry, I am 10 points over, that is not a big deal right?"
me: "Sorry, I would rather play with the point limit agreed upon."
You: "I can't drop anything! It would take 45 minutes to figure out what to do! It was an accident, How can you not agree? Everyone I ever playw ith knows it is not a big deal.
me: "Ok, then my list is 1498, I am going to add 5 more grots to this unit so my list totals 1513, No big deal?"
You: "You did that on purpose which makes it unacceptable, I did it by accident so I deserve my 10 points. You should play with your 1498 and just accept it is not a big deal."

That is nowhere near my attitude.
I'm arguing for the sake of the attitude, not the conceived advantage.

How on earth would my posts make you think that that is how I would act?
Let's review, shall we?

 Selym wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

* and i am sorry but 35 points over is huge,

Really, anyone who ends up with being 35 points over and then isn't willing to allow any adaption one way or another probably is trying to cheat.

And we never really see it as a big deal as long as both sides state their points total, and allow a few minutes for last minute list edits.

 Crimson wrote:
If a friend said "Sorry, I made the list in hurry and it's two points over, do you mind?" I cannot fathom the sort of mentality that would find that insulting or to be any kind of a burden.

99% of this is about scheduled games. Making a list in a hurry isn't an excuse when you knew in advance what the limit was.
Yes, I mind. I might allow to get the game going, but that doesn't mean it's okay. It's rude to agree to something in advance, then procrastinate until you have to "make the list in a hurry" and then beg for exceptions to what you agreed to.
I can't fathom the sort if mentality that finds that okay.

Your friends birthday party. You put off buying a gift or card until you're on the way there. Because of that you can't wrap the gift. It's "okay" to just show up and hand him the unwrapped gift (with the price tag still on it) because you were in a hurry?

rigeld2 wrote:

Your friends birthday party. You put off buying a gift or card until you're on the way there. Because of that you can't wrap the gift. It's "okay" to just show up and hand him the unwrapped gift (with the price tag still on it) because you were in a hurry?

Yes it absolutely is! Sometimes people actually have more important stuff to do than micromanage warhammer lists or wrap gifts, and I can respect that.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
If a friend said "Sorry, I made the list in hurry and it's two points over, do you mind?" I cannot fathom the sort of mentality that would find that insulting or to be any kind of a burden.

99% of this is about scheduled games.

I was under the impression it was both.

What with GW store games being debated 'n' all...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:
Your friends birthday party. You put off buying a gift or card until you're on the way there. Because of that you can't wrap the gift. It's "okay" to just show up and hand him the unwrapped gift (with the price tag still on it) because you were in a hurry?

Yes. Happened to me plenty of times.

And on that subject, these things are a privilege not a right. (Presents and points limits). Just be thankful that either exist at all.

Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Your friends birthday party. You put off buying a gift or card until you're on the way there. Because of that you can't wrap the gift. It's "okay" to just show up and hand him the unwrapped gift (with the price tag still on it) because you were in a hurry?

Yes it absolutely is! Sometimes people actually have more important stuff to do than micromanage warhammer lists or wrap gifts, and I can respect that.

Selym wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
If a friend said "Sorry, I made the list in hurry and it's two points over, do you mind?" I cannot fathom the sort of mentality that would find that insulting or to be any kind of a burden.

99% of this is about scheduled games.

I was under the impression it was both.

What with GW store games being debated 'n' all...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:
Your friends birthday party. You put off buying a gift or card until you're on the way there. Because of that you can't wrap the gift. It's "okay" to just show up and hand him the unwrapped gift (with the price tag still on it) because you were in a hurry?

Yes. Happened to me plenty of times.

It's happened to you plenty of times that you failed to prepare for something you knew about well in advance and you expected - or demanded - for the person you made plans with to just be okay with your procrastination?
You don't consider that rude?

I'm not asking to be insulting - did you also do a lot of last minute papers in school?

rigeld2 wrote:

Yes, I mind. I might allow to get the game going, but that doesn't mean it's okay. It's rude to agree to something in advance, then procrastinate until you have to "make the list in a hurry" and then beg for exceptions to what you agreed to.
I can't fathom the sort if mentality that finds that okay.

A selfish mentality which doesn't think about how their actions impact others (or doesn't care). It shows a general lack of respect to opponents and exposes an attitude which will probably mean an unenjoyable game fraught with issues.

 Selym wrote:

And on that subject, these things are a privilege not a right. (Presents and points limits). Just be thankful that either exist at all.

Yes, they're a privilege. (Although points would be debated) a privilege that carries certain social obligations - that if you know about something in advance, you prepare yourself for it.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Selym wrote:

And on that subject, these things are a privilege not a right. (Presents and points limits). Just be thankful that either exist at all.

Yes, they're a privilege. (Although points would be debated) a privilege that carries certain social obligations - that if you know about something in advance, you prepare yourself for it.

Ha... So for the privilege of playing a game of 40k with some people, I am obligated to let them bend or break rules or be unprepared out of gratitude that I get the privilege of playing them?

That is a new one.

I agree with you Rigeld2, this is about not being a rude ass and showing respect to opponents by being prepared. Not having to ask to use an illegal list is the best thing you can do.

rigeld2 wrote:

It's happened to you plenty of times that you failed to prepare for something you knew about well in advance and you expected - or demanded - for the person you made plans with to just be okay with your procrastination?
You don't consider that rude?

I'm not asking to be insulting - did you also do a lot of last minute papers in school?

I have never demanded anything of the other player. That is an assumption you have made yourself,
And yes, I've had some preparation failures, as have you, most probably.

By "Happened to me" I meant receiving a last minute gift. The way you're reacting makes it seem like you're the kind of person who would receive such a gift, and then get angry at the giver for not having had the time to get you a better one.

At this point, you sound like a TFG.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Selym wrote:

And on that subject, these things are a privilege not a right. (Presents and points limits). Just be thankful that either exist at all.

Yes, they're a privilege. (Although points would be debated) a privilege that carries certain social obligations - that if you know about something in advance, you prepare yourself for it.

Actually, privileges rarely need to have social implications. There are entire religions that do not give presents on birthdays. Even I find the concept of a birthday somewhat strange.

And not everybody can be bothered to waste all day trying to perfect a list. You're lucky I even bothered to think one up for a game at all, let alone one which is at or below the limit.