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.

Bad math at GW? Now I have heard it all. I knew young people today were wordless and never took responsibility for their own actions but "GW is bad at math" is one of the more ignorant, self-serving excuses I have ever heard.

Nothing done by GW and the points they set per unit and weapon option forces you to build an illegal list. To try to justify an advantage and refusal to drop below the legal limit because "gw is bad at math" is patronizing bullcrap.

- Edited by insaniak -

SRSFACE wrote:
Would you rather simply have no one to play against, or a guy who built a list that's a single point or two over because some of the math in building army lists is wonky?

I would rather not play the person who is too lazy to make a legal list for a pre-arranged game, no matter how many people that means I don't play against.

You can apply that to pretty much any situation - if you chose to come to something that you helped in arranging unprepared, that's on you. You should not expect the other person to just be a nice guy about everything. He's politely made sure that he has everything he needs to show up and play, while you - through your choice, remember - have delayed the game for up to an hour (apparently that's how long it takes to make a list) because you couldn't be bothered to make your list beforehand.

And how is it GWs fault that you failed to make a legal list? I'd love to hear this.

rigeld2 wrote:

SRSFACE wrote:
Would you rather simply have no one to play against, or a guy who built a list that's a single point or two over because some of the math in building army lists is wonky?

I would rather not play the person who is too lazy to make a legal list for a pre-arranged game, no matter how many people that means I don't play against.

If that's your stance on this matter, fine. But don't expect other people to have to do as you do. Some of us do not find it particularly bothersome if a player is slightly over the limit, and see no reason to get so worked up about it.


EDIT: And the next time I see someone accusing another of being a "cheat" or "WAAC" or "TFG" just for thinking that a margin of error is acceptable, I'll be clicking that report button.

 Selym wrote:
If that's your stance on this matter, fine. But don't expect other people to have to do as you do. Some of us do not find it particularly bothersome if a player is slightly over the limit, and see no reason to get so worked up about it.

So no more justification for laziness?

EDIT: And the next time I see someone accusing another of being a "cheat" or "WAAC" or "TFG" just for thinking that a margin of error is acceptable, I'll be clicking that report button.

Irony...

 Selym wrote:
At this point, you sound like a TFG.

I'd just bulk up to what his points are.

SRSFACE wrote:
I am just going to post this here, from the sticky thread:

"5. Stick to discussing the rules, not the poster. Phrases like "Rules Lawyer", "Cheater" and "TFG" have no place in rules discussions. Don't depart from rules discussions by attaching value judgments to different interpretations. "

I did wrong by responding the way I did earlier, but in my own defense, I was called a cheater first, simply for offering my opinion on the topic at hand.

And now to not forget to click the ignore button before logging off. Because just wow. At least I know DakkaDakka is a place where you're not allowed to have opinions without being called a cheat. Thanks for letting a new guy know that sooner rather than later.

SRSFACE, you need to realize you walked into a thread consisting of 9 pages of bickering, verbal abuse, overly beating a dead horse (on both sides) and basically just playing "ring around the ridiculous." You probably wouldn't have gotten such a harsh criticism of your reply if you'd have thrown those 2cents in on the first page, but at this point, peoples panties are in a BUNCH.

(Also, the ignore button....really??)

Having said all that, if you're telling us that your friends have had to make a special house rule to allow you to do something....anything....maybe you should re-evaluate what it is you're doing. At the very least, you should concede that if house rules are being formed to allow you to do something, you may not be playing by the edicts most others play by.

As for the now 10 pages of what this thread has become. Everyone who keeps saying that they don't have the time, resources, or will to make a list that adhere's to a given point limit: Just stop already. The fact that you're posting on a 40k forum shows us that you're interested enough in the game to take it seriously. Stop telling everyone that legal lists are hard to come by or conceive. It's a ridiculous stance to take when the forum you're debating on has a ARMY LIST section where you could be inspired (or just copy a list completely if you'd like).

 Voidwraith wrote:
Everyone who keeps saying that they don't have the time, resources, or will to make a list that adhere's to a given point limit: Just stop already. The fact that you're posting on a 40k forum shows us that you're interested enough in the game to take it seriously. Stop telling everyone that legal lists are hard to come by or conceive. It's a ridiculous stance to take when the forum you're debating on has a ARMY LIST section where you could be inspired (or just copy a list completely if you'd like).

Where am I stating that I don't make legal lists?

I know this is a general comment, and not just specific to me, but I'm going to try to get this point across anyway.

At least two of us, including me, are arguing not just to allow us to be a small amount over the limit, but to try to make you lot see reason when it comes to all the other players in 40k who end up with a slightly over pointed list. I'm arguing to try to make you realise that just because a player is slightly over, it does not mean that they are being intentionally rude or cheating, or any of the other accusations your side have made.
You lot are being yourselves rude and unfair on a great many casual players and groups who do not see any reason to get angry over a spare couple of points.

Side 1: It's respectful to come prepared with a legal list.

Side 2: It's not a big deal to have a few points over the list.

Any questions? Since some aren't even debating the other person's points any more in favour of ad hominem personal comments and repetition of the only relevant points which were raised about 9-10 pages ago now.


In short, this is the rule:

Neorealist wrote:from the Size of Game rules on page 108: "...if you decide to play a 2,000-point game, then neither player can spend more than 2,000 points on their army..." that said, it also indicates: "...sometimes it's just impossible to spend every last point. Indeed, to get around this, most players are happy to let their opponent go a few points over the agreed total - after all, a few points here or there are unlikely to upset the battle's course..."

Given the above, GW clearly indicates that you should not go over by a single point, but also recommends not sweating the small stuff because of the often-times awkward point costs associated with certain things.

What this means is to have a legal list you need to play under the points agreed upon: regardless of how awkward you may personally find the point values or how difficult you think it is to create a list on the fly.

That said, it is not worth getting emotionally involved in another players decision to not do so. If you think you will still have fun even with that? play on. If not? don't.

Try to be excellent to each other folks, not snide.

 Selym wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

SRSFACE wrote:
Would you rather simply have no one to play against, or a guy who built a list that's a single point or two over because some of the math in building army lists is wonky?

I would rather not play the person who is too lazy to make a legal list for a pre-arranged game, no matter how many people that means I don't play against.

If that's your stance on this matter, fine. But don't expect other people to have to do as you do. Some of us do not find it particularly bothersome if a player is slightly over the limit, and see no reason to get so worked up about it.
"But don't expect other people to have to do as you do", Likewise, if your tight close knit group allows whatever points overages you like you games within that circle, dont expect total strangers to do as you do. Give them the same respect and show up to play them with a legal list. it is actually easier to do this.

EDIT: And the next time I see someone accusing another of being a "cheat" or "WAAC" or "TFG" just for thinking that a margin of error is acceptable, I'll be clicking that report button
You will notice that many of us do not actually call the other person TFG, we say it is the behavior is a TFG, saying someone is cheating is not calling someone a cheater and WAAC is an attitude to call someone a WAAC does not eve make sense. To say they are a WAAC player is different from saying they are acting like a WAAC player or behavior of a person. addressing these behaviors is not insulting it is pointing out an issue. Now, if we were to say the words 'you are a cheater, you are TFG, THEN it may actually be a direct insult and thus report-able. These are VERY important things to know when addressing such things. That is why we have not clicked the report button on you for doing the exact same thing you are threatening to report others for. you have not come right out and called us those names. You might also note a slight difference here in something else.. Look at the top of this post where i agreed with you 100%. That was a direct insult directed at a specific peron. It was calling that person in particular that To make a generalization of lets say for example...... "Someone who is going above the limits is a cheater" (although, you will notice we dont say that, we say they are cheating, two totally separate statements), is a generalization that is not calling any specific person a cheater. Thus not an insult or being rude to anyone in particular at all. If you feel it is an insult, then it would not be because the poster intended it as one, it would be you yourself having a guilty conscience and feeling that you were one on your own accord.

.

There's a reason why I don't often post on these forums, and I think this thread exemplifies it.
Posters who I had previously thought were modest, intelligent and overall nice are now..well...less so.

but eh, opinions, whatya gonna do about them.

My personal opinion is: I don't play the game to win, I play it to have fun and waste the fleeting hours of my life. If someone came to me for a casual, friendly game I would have no problem if they were an odd number of points over the limit. Getting bogged down on stuff like TFG and WAAC cheater, from both sides of the argument just makes it a bit less fun for all involved.

(Personally, I play crons and greenwing, so i'm never really over the limit with those lovely flat 5s and 10s at the end of every unit)

 Selym wrote:

 Voidwraith wrote:
Everyone who keeps saying that they don't have the time, resources, or will to make a list that adhere's to a given point limit: Just stop already. The fact that you're posting on a 40k forum shows us that you're interested enough in the game to take it seriously. Stop telling everyone that legal lists are hard to come by or conceive. It's a ridiculous stance to take when the forum you're debating on has a ARMY LIST section where you could be inspired (or just copy a list completely if you'd like).

Where am I stating that I don't make legal lists?

I know this is a general comment, and not just specific to me, but I'm going to try to get this point across anyway.

At least two of us, including me, are arguing not just to allow us to be a small amount over the limit, but to try to make you lot see reason when it comes to all the other players in 40k who end up with a slightly over pointed list. I'm arguing to try to make you realise that just because a player is slightly over, it does not mean that they are being intentionally rude or cheating, or any of the other accusations your side have made.
You lot are being yourselves rude and unfair on a great many casual players and groups who do not see any reason to get angry over a spare couple of points.

And I'm trying to say - even if you don't think it's rude (I absolutely do) - there's still no justification for it.
1-2 points don't matter? Then why do you need them?
It takes too long? Do you throw your lists away after every game? Why are you preparing them at the table?

There's a rule with a maximum point value. You're arguing for intentionally breaking it. Correct?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Inky wrote:
If someone came to me for a casual, friendly game I would have no problem if they were an odd number of points over the limit.

But an even number would make you ragequit? :-)

 Neorealist wrote:
Side 1: It's respectful to come prepared with a legal list.

Side 2: It's not a big deal to have a few points over the list.

Any questions? Since some aren't even debating the other person's points any more in favour of ad hominem personal comments and repetition of the only relevant points which were raised about 9-10 pages ago now.


In short, this is the rule:

Neorealist wrote:from the Size of Game rules on page 108: "...if you decide to play a 2,000-point game, then neither player can spend more than 2,000 points on their army..." that said, it also indicates: "...sometimes it's just impossible to spend every last point. Indeed, to get around this, most players are happy to let their opponent go a few points over the agreed total - after all, a few points here or there are unlikely to upset the battle's course..."

Given the above, GW clearly indicates that you should not go over by a single point, but also recommends not sweating the small stuff because of the often-times awkward point costs associated with certain things.

What this means is to have a legal list you need to play under the points agreed upon: regardless of how awkward you may personally find the point values or how difficult you think it is to create a list on the fly.

That said, it is not worth getting emotionally involved in another players decision to not do so. If you think you will still have fun even with that? play on. If not? don't.

Try to be excellent to each other folks, not snide.

I agree with you, and I feel that this post kinda settles the entire argument for me.
I'll be unsubscribing from this thread, in the interest of not becoming overly stressed for something so small.

For me personally, I am strict about over-limit: 3 points. Nothing more. Unless, however, both my opponent and I can agree to simply set the limit higher; then we usually go with that instead because it's almost never more than 50 points anyway and with the armies usually played at our store this is seldomly more than a few models.

Just to throw one more comment on a dying fire...

I think on pg1 of this thread I said that when I first started, I let a friend come in a few points over the point limit, but now I have no issues telling someone they should stick to the limit, as I always do. (Don't get hung up on if you think this is right or wrong...just please let me finish)

Well, that friend is the guy that got me started playing 40k. We used to play AD&D (2nd edition ftw) back in the day and as soon as he started buying his ork models, he pulled me into the 40k circle. That was 4ish years ago, I believe. Fast Forward to now, and 40k is the only real hobby I have left (kids) and that buddy barely plays anymore. When he does play, he almost never has a list made at game time and quickly (or sometimes not so quickly) cobbles something together with the models he has on hand. It almost always comes out 3ish points over the limit.

Because I know his 40k mentality (he doesn't really play or think about it anymore) and he's one of my old gaming buddies, I let it slide. However, I don't like it. I'd never let him know that, but...I just do not like it one bit. We play. We have fun. Those points may or may not have been a factor, but I just do not like the idea that he knew we were going to play (usually days in advance) and couldn't force himself to spend the 15 minutes required to make a list at the agreed upon point limit prior to me arriving on his doorstep. I consider it rude and poor etiquette. Either way, he's a dear old friend, so I just internalize it and we go upon our merry way.

The reason I bring this up is that just because you and your friends may have come to some sort of understanding when it comes to points limits doesn't mean everyone is happy about it. They are your friends, or at least the group of people you play with, so it's more than possible that they're just giving in to something they don't like just to get past it and get on with having fun.

If you're willing, here's a test for those who have been saying their gaming group is fine with points levels being over the target limit: The next game night, set the point level to a lesser number than what you would otherwise be used to playing (for example, if you normally play 1850, tell everyone to bring 1750). The lower number will force your mates to make a new list, but will not require them to purchase or add units that may otherwise not be built or painted. When everyone shows up, take note of their point levels. If everyone is at or below the agreed upon point total, then maybe, just MAYBE they're not as interested in playing above the agreed upon limits as you think. If they all show up and a decent number of them are a few points over, then I guess you've found a group of like minded individuals and good games will be had by all. Huzzah!

Farseer Pef wrote:
I believe this belongs in YMDC. This is a HYWPI question.

The scenario: About to play a 1500 point game with a friend. He says his list is 1535 points. I ask him to trim it down a bit since 35 points over can be a few models. He gets upset by this.

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?

Appreciate any feedback (and hope it remains civil ).

That guy would have pissed me off for being upset that he had that many points over. In casual games we usually give 7 points over as the lee way. In tournaments its nothing over max points you can be under if you want and you need to have your list written out and if you do cheat you get disqualified.

I already tried to explain what I meant by bad math, so I guess I'll try again.

I've long been of the opinion the guys at GW don't actually make a good game. I define good game as something that is fair and balanced for all sides, and all the rules are well thought out to go toward that end.

One of the core tenants of that is simply points costs are standard across the board. If a unit costs 14 points in one codex, and another codex has access to that literal exact same unit, that unit in the other codex should also be 14 points. Likewise, if you already have a way to include units in your army, it should always cost the same amount of points to include that many more of that unit. Therefore if it costs 80 points to take 3 bikers, it should not cost 81 points to add 3 more bikers. Hence, bad math.

I get that a lot of people disagree, and I'm aware I'm in the minority in my opinion. However, I am still entitled to that as an opinion, and calling me a cheater (fyi telling someone they are cheating is the exact same thing as calling them a cheater) for offering what our personal group does AND AGAIN MIND YOU only for casual play, well that's exceptionally rude. Then taking offense a guy tells you to just not be that guy when YOU'RE THE ONE TELLING A GUY OFFERING AN OPINION HE'S A CHEATER, that's... I don't have words, man. That is not acceptable behavior where I am from.

The reason we all agreed on 4 points is precisely to avoid bicker fests like this thread has degenerated into. And again, the reason why 4 points is because just about every codex in the game has some sort of upgrade for just 5 points. I should also throw in, if you have the capabilities of removing just 5 points to get down to, say, 1499 in a 1500 game, that's encouraged. If you can fit a whole 'nother model in for 4 points (like say an unmarked Chaos Cultist) then obviously, you pull one out. It's not like we tell people to bring points over. It's just that we're cool if someone is just barely over because 40k has some points idiosyncrasies. I know I'd rather play an opponent who's 1 point over than 5 points under, but maybe that IS just me and I'm okay with that.

I stand by my opinion 40k is an ill-conceived and poorly-ruled game. That's why I mostly just stick to modeling and painting. I play games to have fun, and I don't think it's terribly fun when there are rules in place that don't make sense. If GW is lazy with their rules constructions, sorry, I do not feel guilty about being kind of lazy with my list building. If someone doesn't want to play that list and feels it's rude I even deigned to bring it, I have already said, several times, that I always bring a back up list.

As Neorealist said, try to be excellent to each other.

But that's not balanced. A unit in one codex is not worth exactly the same in another codex.
Termagants in the Space Marine codex would be worthless at 6 points.

And that doesn't change the fact that "GW being bad at math" isn't an excuse to ignore the rules - which you're demonstrably doing.

SRSFACE wrote:
I already tried to explain what I meant by bad math, so I guess I'll try again.

I've long been of the opinion the guys at GW don't actually make a good game. I define good game as something that is fair and balanced for all sides, and all the rules are well thought out to go toward that end.

One of the core tenants of that is simply points costs are standard across the board. If a unit costs 14 points in one codex, and another codex has access to that literal exact same unit, that unit in the other codex should also be 14 points. Likewise, if you already have a way to include units in your army, it should always cost the same amount of points to include that many more of that unit. Therefore if it costs 80 points to take 3 bikers, it should not cost 81 points to add 3 more bikers. Hence, bad math.

That's not bad math. That's you disagreeing with the way GW assign points costs.

Points costs in 40K are not solely a product of the unit's statline. The type of army that the unit fits into affects how powerful the unit is on the table (an assault-oriented unit has a different level of usefulness in an army designed primarily for gunlines than in one designed to get in close, for a really basic example). Unit size can also affect how powerful the individual models in it are. It's not as simple as 'this model costs 'x', so another otherwise identical model should also cost 'x'.

How good GW is at considering all of the relevant variables is certainly a matter of debate, and if you think that the balance of the game is sufficiently out of whack that points costs shouldn't be taken too seriously, then that's a valid point of view. But you would have been better of presenting it like that from the start, rather than just dismissing it as 'GW suck at maths'...

SRSFACE wrote:
herefore if it costs 80 points to take 3 bikers, it should not cost 81 points to add 3 more bikers. Hence, bad math.

But what does this have to do with going over the point limit? If GW had made biker squads cost 81 points for the first three then your 1501 point list would be over the limit by even more points. So I really don't see how the fact that you're benefiting from GW rounding down the point cost of the initial three bikers to 80 points means that you're now entitled to take even more advantages by exceeding the point limit.

The reason we all agreed on 4 points is precisely to avoid bicker fests like this thread has degenerated into.

You know what also avoids "bicker fests"? Following the rules of the game, including the point limit. You only have a "bicker fest" if someone insists that they're entitled to break the rules just because they want to take a more powerful list.

I should also throw in, if you have the capabilities of removing just 5 points to get down to, say, 1499 in a 1500 game, that's encouraged.

But why only 5 points? Why not 10? Or 20? You can always remove something to get below the point limit, and if it's a casual game you shouldn't be obsessing over not being able to take the perfect list.

I know I'd rather play an opponent who's 1 point over than 5 points under, but maybe that IS just me and I'm okay with that.

I'd rather play the opponent who is 5 points under, because it's a sign that they respect the rules of the game and aren't as likely to try to badger me into accepting more rule violations later in the game.

If GW is lazy with their rules constructions, sorry, I do not feel guilty about being kind of lazy with my list building.

You're not being lazy with your list building, you're being greedy with your list building. Making a legal list isn't any more difficult than making an illegal one, the only reason you insist on taking the illegal one is that you don't want to give up that extra upgrade/model/whatever that you want to have.

If it was 35 over Id tell him to go ahead he might as well take 135. If he refuses to take the extra points would drop 100 out of my list. Either way he feels guilty if wins because hes way over the point limit and if he loses he feels like an idiot because he can't even win with a pointed up list. I've only had to do this once. He brings legal lists now.

I don't think this happens often with experienced players just the new ones that don't quite understand the term LIMIT yet.

I kind of agree with SRSFACE on one point, I don't think GW always gets the individual model cost to extra model cost correct.

Not sure about any other armies, but Chaos Daemons are spot on for individual model/extra model cost for everything EXCEPT Chaos Furies. It's weird, Furies are 35pts for the first five, but extras cost 6pts.

I did the math: Bloodletters, Pink Horrors, Plaguebearers, Daemonettes, Nurglings, Bloodcrushers, Flamers, Beasts, Fiends, Flesh Hounds, Screamers, Plague Drones and Seekers are all fine, individual model vs extra model match perfectly. Furies are -1 point.

Which means the initial unit cost should be 30pts, or extras should be 7pts.

Needless to say, I've contacted the President.

No going over, no argument. If people can't agree to this, the most fundamental of rules, the whole game breaks down.

Think of it this way; if you win a game of 40K while being over points, you didn't really win. You handicapped your opponent.

Also, this goes for Apocalypse as well. The designers suggest points are more arbitrary in Apocalypse, but I have played a lot of Apoc and completely disagree.

The points are what they are and should be absolutely respected. You can always remove something from your list to get at points or below.

When I play with my friends, we usually make lists on the fly before we play. As such we allow (points limit) + 1%, with the understanding that the 1% is to allow us to play faster by not having to completely redo a list that is 1503 points. Since as I have said they are friends and do not abuse it, it works for us. Our lists are just as often under by 10 points or so.

If I were playing Little Johnny I Don't Know You, then I would not allow extra points; or would bulk my list to match (or more accurately, to reach the new point limit) - whichever was faster. I'd consider it in poor taste though.

If you turn up at a tournament with a list that is over, I would consider you to have forfeited the game.

Well, it IS one of THE most basic and important parts of the rules. One that comes into play before movements and ranges or any rollings of any dice. One that is so basic and simple, it does not even need a FAQ on it.
The book specifically states that that is the maximum amount of points you can spend. there is no grey areas or ambiguity on that.

this does not mean that gaming groups cant come up with house rules to alter the game to suit their preferences.
it does not also mean that under very specific circumstances you cant use a mistake to teach or give a handicap to yourself when playing a rookie.

What it DOES mean is that by showing up to a game over the limit against someone who does not have a preset agreement with you beforehand in terms of overages, it is one of the absolute most rude and insulting things you can do to them. Cheating on the most blatant and basic level. To some, this is not a big deal, but to others, undermining every facet of the game and game play along with all rules of social etiquette can ruin a gaming experience.

SRSFACE wrote:
Thanks for being TFG and calling me a cheater, Peregrine. Welcome to my ignore list. I didn't think I'd have to add someone to it this fast, but I guess the internet never ceases to amaze me.
...
But seriously, though, you should be ashamed of yourself for calling me a cheater for presenting a point of view you disagree with. Seriously, dude. That is shameful. Grow up.

Think of this as an etiquette thing: you should not put your opponent into the position where he has to accept you running over in points.

Paragrine gets quite upset when people "ignore the rules" because the 40k rule set is loosy goosy as it is, it does not need further "stretching" of rules.
Really by specifically ignoring a rule, it is cheating, Marriam-Webster:" to break a rule or law usually to gain an advantage at something."
Come up with house rules with your buddies and all is well, but asking for forgiveness rather than permission is a bit of disrespect.

Part of the "fun" is to take that extra melta bomb for a sgt or something to use up those last couple points and actually seeing if the guy uses it.

It is the idea of the "slippery slope" of how many things can you bend the rules on until it is an irritant and you then cross the line of being TFG

Farseer Pef wrote:
I believe this belongs in YMDC. This is a HYWPI question.

The scenario: About to play a 1500 point game with a friend. He says his list is 1535 points. I ask him to trim it down a bit since 35 points over can be a few models. He gets upset by this.

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?

Appreciate any feedback (and hope it remains civil ).

As you've hopefully gathered by now, civility and YMDC don't mix.... at all.

HIWPI: 1 to 2 points in a non-tourney game? No issues. 35 points? Well, we've gone way past the 1500 point limit. If I had about 35 points of models or stuff I could easily add to my list then I'd do that and even it up. If not, then I'd ask my opponent to trim his. If he didn't want to then I'd find a new opponent.

Tournament game? No way I'd allow even a single point over.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
However, you did say this was a friend. Presumably you play then pretty often. Maybe instead of trying to force them into a "standard" 1500 point game you guys just agree to play your games at 1535. That would certainly be a far easier approach.

2-3 points over and not having any easy upgrades or such that can put him on the mark, no biggie for a friendly game. 10+ points over, will ask them nicely to trim down. Find out that they were over and hid/lied about it, get some extra use out of my old metal Dreadnought.

i don't understand how people can take point limits so seriously. I'm pretty easy around 5 points over, i'd probably be easy above that as long as my opponent told me before time and i could add something to my army to make up the points. Honestly if i was, say, 5 points over in my list and i was playing someone who took it seriously, i'd probably just lie and say i was spot on

xruslanx wrote:
i don't understand how people can take point limits so seriously. I'm pretty easy around 5 points over, i'd probably be easy above that as long as my opponent told me before time and i could add something to my army to make up the points. Honestly if i was, say, 5 points over in my list and i was playing someone who took it seriously, i'd probably just lie and say i was spot on

Sounds like a good way to run out of opponents quickly.

Bad enough you disrespect other players by not sticking to the agreed points limit, but lying about it is akin to a slap in the face.