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.

I don't think the problem lies with one page stating that the 'limit' is only an agreement between the two players, and therefore it is possible to go over this limit if both players are informed and give content. I think the problem clearly lies in the reaction that comes to the next part: What happens when the opponent says 'No.' It is clear from the results from this thread that this consent is not guaranteed to be forth coming, it isn't even a good probability if you face the majority of this site, so that is far more a pressing question then getting permission in the first place. What do you do next when you are told that you must reduce your list to under the agreed limit before you are allowed to field it?

From the responses here I do not have high hopes that, in such a situation, it won't end in an argument of 'you have to allow me/no I don't' before the two players refusing to face each other ever again....

 megatrons2nd wrote:
...Especially when said limit, as noted by the writers, is not a hard limit. (and yes it is noted in the rulebook that this overage is allowable with opponents consent)

Any change to the rules is allowable with your opponent's consent.

Issues arise, though, when you expect your opponent to consent to your proposed rules change. By all means ask, but be prepared to play the game by the actual rules, rather than just assuming your opponent is some sort of horible person for not wanting to allow your rules change.

 insaniak wrote:

 megatrons2nd wrote:
...Especially when said limit, as noted by the writers, is not a hard limit. (and yes it is noted in the rulebook that this overage is allowable with opponents consent)

Any change to the rules is allowable with your opponent's consent.

Issues arise, though, when you expect your opponent to consent to your proposed rules change. By all means ask, but be prepared to play the game by the actual rules, rather than just assuming your opponent is some sort of horible person for not wanting to allow your rules change.

I expect to receive a response of either "sure go for it" or "no try to trim something" or "let me look and see what we can do to make it fit" or even "sure let me add something to match but I might end up more than you went over". Not "no you are a cheater" or "Kiss off you rule breaker" or "You can never go over ever" or "your disrespecting me for even asking that stupid question, learn the rules".

As to assuming my opponent is a horrible person for not allowing the change, I have never thought that about anyone, but as someone who doesn't see the issue with a point or two over, being called a cheater simply because I've asked about it, and being watched more closely because I cheated with the points so obviously will add movement, or range or botch dice rolls, because I am cheating because I asked is a bit much. And being told I'm disrespecting someone because I've asked is also a bit much.

The opposition to my stance has used all of these in their responses to a couple points over, so I felt the need to put the overzealous rules lawyer as a counter which is just as plausible, and would make for just as much of an unpleasant game.

And Finally "Actual Rules" are still a bit subjective, as since I have changed playing areas do to moving geographically, there are some rules that are played differently here than they were there. All based on what has been read in the rulebook, so anybody playing by the "Actual Rules" is likely to be playing one of the writers.

 megatrons2nd wrote:
And Finally "Actual Rules" are still a bit subjective, as since I have changed playing areas do to moving geographically, there are some rules that are played differently here than they were there. All based on what has been read in the rulebook, so anybody playing by the "Actual Rules" is likely to be playing one of the writers.

I'm sorry. no. just... no. The 'Actual Rules' in this case are almost astonishingly clear. There is nothing subjective at all about: "...if you decide to play a 2,000-point game, then neither player can spend more than 2,000 points on their army..."

megatrons2nd wrote:...Because I can see all the rules arguing coming a mile away because I interpreted a rule differently than you did, and you won't ever back down because you are always right when it comes to the rules. A bit of a facetious argument to go along with the I'm going to cheat on other rules bits I've read on here about those who go over, and don't respect the rules that way. Just as much of a gimme both ways.

Hey...YOUR side of this stupidity is saying thing such as...

xruslanx wrote: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

So please forgive us if we fail to think of you as less than boy-scouts at first glance. Remember, this ISN'T about friends who know one another playing over the limit (though it's still rude). If I barely know you, and you immediately break what I'm crazy-in-the-head to think are the RULES, then I'm going to immediately think less of you. You have the 2+ hours we'll be playing to show me your true colors, but just know you'll be starting with a black mark...

 megatrons2nd wrote:
As to assuming my opponent is a horrible person for not allowing the change, I have never thought that about anyone, but as someone who doesn't see the issue with a point or two over, being called a cheater simply because I've asked about it, and being watched more closely because I cheated with the points so obviously will add movement, or range or botch dice rolls, because I am cheating because I asked is a bit much. And being told I'm disrespecting someone because I've asked is also a bit much.

The point is that you shouldn't be asking for it in the first place. It's exactly like asking to move extra distance to be in range: you know perfectly well what the rules are, and the only reason to break the rules is to give yourself an advantage that you wouldn't otherwise have. You should respect your opponent enough to just take a legal list and not put them into the awkward situation of having to say no to your request.

And you might not explicitly say that you think your opponent is a horrible person, but you talk about being over points as if it's just about "playing casually", which implies that anyone who doesn't allow you to be over the limit cares too much about winning. And that's an accusation that usually turns into "WAAC TFG" or similar offensive stereotypes.

 Peregrine wrote:

 megatrons2nd wrote:
As to assuming my opponent is a horrible person for not allowing the change, I have never thought that about anyone, but as someone who doesn't see the issue with a point or two over, being called a cheater simply because I've asked about it, and being watched more closely because I cheated with the points so obviously will add movement, or range or botch dice rolls, because I am cheating because I asked is a bit much. And being told I'm disrespecting someone because I've asked is also a bit much.

The point is that you shouldn't be asking for it in the first place. It's exactly like asking to move extra distance to be in range: you know perfectly well what the rules are, and the only reason to break the rules is to give yourself an advantage that you wouldn't otherwise have. You should respect your opponent enough to just take a legal list and not put them into the awkward situation of having to say no to your request.
And you might not explicitly say that you think your opponent is a horrible person, but you talk about being over points as if it's just about "playing casually", which implies that anyone who doesn't allow you to be over the limit cares too much about winning. And that's an accusation that usually turns into "WAAC TFG" or similar offensive stereotypes.

A limit is set.
We have the option to remove items to stay in the limit.
It is our problem not our opponent's.
It is a rule no different than the rest of them, we do not ask for special allowances for other rules to be ignored as well.

I have to say I agree with Peregrine completely because people seem more than willing to fight for "what is the big deal of a couple of points??"
I say "what gives you the right to be entitled to them, contrary to the rules, if it is not "a big deal" and sets me at a disadvantage?"

If asked to accept the point overspending I would say: "Remove a model or piece of wargear from your list to meet the points limit just like I did, it is not hard to do.".

If a person is not striving to have as evenly matched a game as possible what is the true motivation for playing a game?

 megatrons2nd wrote:

I expect to receive a response of either "sure go for it" or "no try to trim something" or "let me look and see what we can do to make it fit" or even "sure let me add something to match but I might end up more than you went over". Not "no you are a cheater" or "Kiss off you rule breaker" or "You can never go over ever" or "your disrespecting me for even asking that stupid question, learn the rules".

QFT. I wish I could exalt your post more than once.

Sometimes people on the internet forget what even they would do in an actual situation and are more keen on being THE INFINITE GOD-KING OF ALL RULES FOREVER on the internet.

Fun thing about human psychology is when people go into a siege mentality. There's factual scientific evidence people are more likely to dig in and hold on to beliefs even when they are shown to be false than to actually relent and change their views.

Considering the mudslinging in this thread, and it's gone on for 11 pages now, AND moderators are involved, I am legitimately curious why this thread is even still open. By my estimation it should have been locked awhile ago. Clearly the issue is never going to be resolved on the internet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talizvar wrote:

I have to say I agree with Peregrine completely because people seem more than willing to fight for "what is the big deal of a couple of points??"
I say "what gives you the right to be entitled to them, contrary to the rules, if it is not "a big deal" and sets me at a disadvantage?"

I already gave an example several times of points being wonky.

Let's say we've got a 750 point game.

Both players are Dark Angels. Both players brought completely identical number of models to the field. Player A's list comes out to 751 points because he brought an entire maxed out Ravenwing Biker Squad. Player B's list comes out to 750 points because he brought two individual 3 man Ravenwing biker squads and a separate Ravenwing Support squad consisting of a lone individual land speeder.

Both players are fielding the exact same army, model for model. One player is over, the other is not. One of these lists is "legal" and the other is not.

Doesn't this seem strange to you? Would you really go on and on for 11 freakin' internet pages calling the other person a cheat for having the gall to ask you if you cared he was 1 point over and showed a legal army list that was exactly the same and was not over the limit? Really?

My general rule of thumb on this is that for a tournament, the army point size is static and must be adhered to.

In a 1500pts tournament, you can spend at max, 1500pts. (Can always spend less, but why would you?)

In friendly games, I'm somewhat lenient, I usually allow my opponents to go over the points cost but never by more than 5-10pts, also provided I am allowed to match up to their points when I'm done.

Example, one of my good friends who plays Tau, always has the same list and it comes out to 1505pts, my favourite list for my DA always comes out at 1500pts bang on. I'll allow him to use his list on me, but I have that additional 5pts to spend to match him. (I usually buy melta-bombs or a combi or something.) Although most of the time I don't bother unless I really feel I can get something out of it.

If someone came up to me at a pre-arranged friendly 1500pts game and said 'Oh my list is 1535pts.' I'd have them adjust it down to at least a reasonable margin, in some armies that could get you a significant number of model or a significant piece of wargear.

I tend to be cool with about 1-3 points over if it is agreed upon before hand or you let me know about it. If you go over for a meltabomb, come on let it go lol but if you are guna be short by a lot then i can let a few points slide.

SRSFACE wrote:

Let's say we've got a 750 point game.

Both players are Dark Angels. Both players brought completely identical number of models to the field. Player A's list comes out to 751 points because he brought an entire maxed out Ravenwing Biker Squad. Player B's list comes out to 750 points because he brought two individual 3 man Ravenwing biker squads and a separate Ravenwing Support squad consisting of a lone individual land speeder.

Both players are fielding the exact same army, model for model. One player is over, the other is not. One of these lists is "legal" and the other is not.

Doesn't this seem strange to you? Would you really go on and on for 11 freakin' internet pages calling the other person a cheat for having the gall to ask you if you cared he was 1 point over and showed a legal army list that was exactly the same and was not over the limit? Really?

And if the game is kill points and both players kill 4 bikes and the speeder, assuming player A chooses not to combat squad his 6 bikes he wins 2-1. Had he stayed under the points limit it would have been a draw. Is that fair?

SRSFACE wrote:
Sometimes people on the internet forget what even they would do in an actual situation and are more keen on being THE INFINITE GOD-KING OF ALL RULES FOREVER on the internet.

Not really. My position in real life is the same as my position online: if you show up with a list that is even one point over the limit then I will not play against you until you fix it.

Both players are fielding the exact same army, model for model. One player is over, the other is not. One of these lists is "legal" and the other is not.

Except they are NOT the same list. One list contains two separate squads of 3 models, one contains a single squad of 6 models. In a game where you have things like morale tests for casualties that depend on losing 25% of the models in the unit these things make a difference.

Would you really go on and on for 11 freakin' internet pages calling the other person a cheat for having the gall to ask you if you cared he was 1 point over and showed a legal army list that was exactly the same and was not over the limit?

No, I wouldn't go on for 11 pages (or the real-life equivalent), I'd just refuse to play them until they changed the illegal list to make it legal. And I'd expect them to fix it without complaining, or I'd just add them to my "don't play" list and move on. If the two armies are really the same then they should have no problem with playing the legal version.

ItsPug wrote:

SRSFACE wrote:

Let's say we've got a 750 point game.

Both players are Dark Angels. Both players brought completely identical number of models to the field. Player A's list comes out to 751 points because he brought an entire maxed out Ravenwing Biker Squad. Player B's list comes out to 750 points because he brought two individual 3 man Ravenwing biker squads and a separate Ravenwing Support squad consisting of a lone individual land speeder.

Both players are fielding the exact same army, model for model. One player is over, the other is not. One of these lists is "legal" and the other is not.

Doesn't this seem strange to you? Would you really go on and on for 11 freakin' internet pages calling the other person a cheat for having the gall to ask you if you cared he was 1 point over and showed a legal army list that was exactly the same and was not over the limit? Really?

And if the game is kill points and both players kill 4 bikes and the speeder, assuming player A chooses not to combat squad his 6 bikes he wins 2-1. Had he stayed under the points limit it would have been a draw. Is that fair?

Is a Triptide fair?

I agree with SRSFACE here. GW makes no sense whatsoever. Nor does anything in 40k.
Really, we should all just shut up and go home, and enjoy our opinions in private.

ItsPug wrote:
And if the game is kill points and both players kill 4 bikes and the speeder, assuming player A chooses not to combat squad his 6 bikes he wins 2-1. Had he stayed under the points limit it would have been a draw. Is that fair?

And this. Maybe we've just discovered why taking the single squad of 6 models costs more than the two squads of 3? You get the flexibility of being able to take two separate units, but also have the ability to keep them as a single unit when it matters. So effectively by insisting on taking the 751 point list in a 750 point game you're saying that you are entitled to break the rules to give yourself an advantage in kill point games. Sure sounds like cheating to me.

I'm not sure why this is in YMDC. If you agreed to a point limit, you only bring the point limit. It's common courtesy.

If you show up at a tournament over on points, you should get bounced out of the tournament.

I guess I'm not getting the problem here.

 kronk wrote:
I'm not sure why this is in YMDC. If you agreed to a point limit, you only bring the point limit. It's common courtesy.

If you show up at a tournament over on points, you should get bounced out of the tournament.

I guess I'm not getting the problem here.

The problem is the location of the thread. The OP put a thread that has a clear cut rule in YMDC asking for our opinions on whether it is ok or not to purposely and knowingly break it and many of the posters are treating it as though it is posted in the general forum.

As many gaming groups have their own house rules to cover the issue when it arises within their group, they see it as and ok practice to do anywhere and anytime.

Their house rules work within their group because all members of their group had input in the creation of these house rules and bought into them from the start. To be honest, some of them are actually pretty good. However, they forget that peopleoutside their group did not crate or buy into their house rules. they may have a different set of house rules or beliefs.

The other aspect of this is that we seem to be having two different conversations. For example, I myself am perfectly will to let someone go slightly over in a non competitive game within my own gaming group so long as i'm able to use a set of house rules like me toss in something extra or next game I go over that amount or whatnot. I am also perfectly willing to let a rookie I am teaching go over slightly and use it as a teaching experience to press home that issue with them.
Now, in a tournament setting, My limit is zero over. Likewise against a stranger or someone outside my group because then it becomes a matter of respect and lack of knowledge of the other person. There is no excuse for it.
The posters who are having the different conversation treat every game as though it was a game within their personal gaming group and are trying to force their house rules on everyone else and use social or what SOME would call bullying tactics (note I am NOT saying that they are bullies) to pressure their opponents to accept whatever overages they want to bring. ....*This said in front of a store full of onlookers* " I'm only over a point of two. You dont MIND do you!?!?!? OTHERWISE, i'll hafta go over there and sit for a few hours and redo my ENTIRE list to satisfy some WAAC whim. you have to get an advntage over me" *the actual overage being 35 points and the game was set up a week in advance with the points limit specifically set.

Your not the first to ask why it was posted in YMDC, I brought it up many pages ago and it was edited out for me.They were right to do so because it is their call, not ours. I'm pretty sure thi conversation will go on for a good while till it gets closed for tempers flaring. lol
Considering the location though, regardless of who gets in the last word or when it gets cut off, those who advocate following the rules have already 'won" and those who advocate breaking them are just tossing out useless justifications.

ItsPug wrote:


And if the game is kill points and both players kill 4 bikes and the speeder, assuming player A chooses not to combat squad his 6 bikes he wins 2-1. Had he stayed under the points limit it would have been a draw. Is that fair?

Absolutely, because both people are bringing the same amount of models. The relative power difference is nil.

In fact if there are points left over, the guy who took both squads separately is at an advantage because he now has two more bikes to add special weapons to.

SRSFACE wrote:

ItsPug wrote:


And if the game is kill points and both players kill 4 bikes and the speeder, assuming player A chooses not to combat squad his 6 bikes he wins 2-1. Had he stayed under the points limit it would have been a draw. Is that fair?

Absolutely, because both people are bringing the same amount of models. The relative power difference is nil.

In fact if there are points left over, the guy who took both squads separately is at an advantage because he now has two more bikes to add special weapons to.

Not really, the two lists are set up for different tactics and usages of the models. In game, the two armies play differently and each can have advantages or disadvantages.
It also does not negate the fact that one is legal and one is not.
Can you cite where the actual rules say that it is legal to bring an army that is above the agreed upon maximum points limit? at any number because whether it is one or a thousand points, over the limit is over the limit.

SRSFACE wrote:

ItsPug wrote:


And if the game is kill points and both players kill 4 bikes and the speeder, assuming player A chooses not to combat squad his 6 bikes he wins 2-1. Had he stayed under the points limit it would have been a draw. Is that fair?

Absolutely, because both people are bringing the same amount of models. The relative power difference is nil.

In fact if there are points left over, the guy who took both squads separately is at an advantage because he now has two more bikes to add special weapons to.

See, this is not true... Three 10-man ork units don't have the same power as one 30-man ork unit. They play different and have different advantages and disadvantages because the rules interact differently. This is VERY true for Deffkoptas where it is sometimes better to take three 1 copter unit vs one 3 copter unit.

Saying they are the same models so they should be the same points is not always true and frankly, not a decision you get to make. GW made the call, you don;t have the right to go vigilante justice and either repoint your models, lie about going over, or just go over simply because you have an axe to grind.

I feel that Flash Gitz cost too much compared to Nobz, can I simply repoint them? MANZ are super cheap compared to their NOB counterparts because a NOB with a Pk and heavy armor is 50 points but a MANZ with a pk, TL shoota and 2+ is 40 points. When you begin breaking down why stuff costs what it does then believing you have the right to change the point values or 'go over the limit' in the name of correcting the point value, you have crossed the line.

If you want to make house rules, fine. Then you say 'I have adjusted these points in this codex to make the game play better, do you mind?' opposed to 'Oh I am going to ignore the limit because the point values are unfair.'

 Selym wrote:

Is a Triptide fair?

I agree with SRSFACE here. GW makes no sense whatsoever. Nor does anything in 40k.
Really, we should all just shut up and go home, and enjoy our opinions in private.

Hahaha yes, this, exactly. How is it fair a Dark Angels player has to pay 140 points for a simple landspeeder that has a 3 shot or large blast plasma gun on it, and Eldar can bring a DEDICATED TRANSPORT that hits harder, has more armor, and is more durable? The points system in 40k is not even remotely balanced and pretending like this is an uber competitive tournament-deserving game is hilarious.

When 90% of all tournament lists are running 3 very, very specific lists, how is that "fair"? There's 15 armies. There should be more than 3 of them played in tournament settings if this game was even remotely balanced and fair.

Wizards of the Coast rapidly responds to power levels of their cards when they release new blocks by gathering statistics of their players. If they see any non-land card played in 70% of tournament decks, they ban it from tournament play and acknowledge to their player base they made a mistake. Valve tweaks Dota 2 in a similar manner, using player statistics and tournament level strategies to determine what is in fact overpowered, and respond with game balance patches to 1) keep the meta evolving and 2) keep a semblance of balance in the game to keep it fun for all players at all levels.

GW does none of these things and it takes them years and in some cases decades to address balancing issues. I am not going to be so upset I whine and whinge about it for 12 freakin' internet pages that people do/do not agree with me. IN A THREAD THAT IS AND ALWAYS WAS POSED SIMPLY AS HOW WOULD YOU PLAY IT, the only people who are wrong are the ones calling other people cheaters for not strictly adhering to a game system they view as flawed. THAT is the only rude thing going on here. Would you really throw a tantrum if a guy was a point over and explained where that floating extra point came from?

The funniest part is that I have yet to meet a player who isn't reasonable about this stuff in person. Ever. I've met a lot of players from 3 different states now in my travels. If there is someone a couple points over, you know what the other player says even when they don't really care about it, like me? To a man, they always say "Let me see your list and we'll try to figure out a way to bring it closer to points." Go fetching figure. People in the real world are genuinely respectful to each other.

Try to do that to each other online, please. That's all I'm asking. That's the only reason I'm angry. I couldn't care less if you don't agree with me. That doesn't mean you should call me or people who think like me cheaters. That is namecalling, and rude. Even if you really think that person is cheating, there are respectful ways to bring that up. That's why I called that guy I ignored earlier TFG: the very definition of TFG behavior is being rude and namecalling someone you don't agree with rather than coming to an understanding of one another.

And now I am officially done with this thread because it's been nothing but abhorrently rude behavior that serves no purpose for like 8 pages now. We've learned there are two camps who don't see eye to eye. It's not worth getting in a huff about because people are treating each other like 12 year olds.

SRSFACE wrote:

 megatrons2nd wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:

I have to say I agree with Peregrine completely because people seem more than willing to fight for "what is the big deal of a couple of points??"
I say "what gives you the right to be entitled to them, contrary to the rules, if it is not "a big deal" and sets me at a disadvantage?"

I already gave an example several times of points being wonky.
Let's say we've got a 750 point game.
Both players are Dark Angels. Both players brought completely identical number of models to the field. Player A's list comes out to 751 points because he brought an entire maxed out Ravenwing Biker Squad. Player B's list comes out to 750 points because he brought two individual 3 man Ravenwing biker squads and a separate Ravenwing Support squad consisting of a lone individual land speeder.
Both players are fielding the exact same army, model for model. One player is over, the other is not. One of these lists is "legal" and the other is not.
Doesn't this seem strange to you? Would you really go on and on for 11 freakin' internet pages calling the other person a cheat for having the gall to ask you if you cared he was 1 point over and showed a legal army list that was exactly the same and was not over the limit? Really?

They are NOT "fielding the exact same army" they are grouped differently which has advantages and disadvantages = not strange at all that the points may differ.
One has decided to have a big nasty blob of models, the other has decided to have 3 individual squads.
You cannot tell me that this does not have a direct impact on how they play.
Part of points limits is that sometimes hard decisions have to be made.

I personally would not "go on and on for 11 freakin' internet pages" since this is a bunch of people throwing in their 2 cents so it can get to be a ton of text.
I am sure many cases can be made either way but I find your example all the more reason to be firm on points limits: it actually DOES matter.

Calling someone a "cheat" is only when they go over in points and intend to not tell anyone which is not the main issue.
Going over in points and choosing to not sharpen their pencil is lazy.
Going over in points and expecting your opponent to accept it is rude and assumes much as evident in this forum since there are some 11 pages of differing opinion.

As pointed out, house rules governing overspending is the only way to go or not at all rather than springing it on your opponent as you are about to play.

and dont assume to pressure your house rules onto total strangers or players outside of your private group.

SRSFACE wrote:

ItsPug wrote:


And if the game is kill points and both players kill 4 bikes and the speeder, assuming player A chooses not to combat squad his 6 bikes he wins 2-1. Had he stayed under the points limit it would have been a draw. Is that fair?

Absolutely, because both people are bringing the same amount of models. The relative power difference is nil.

In fact if there are points left over, the guy who took both squads separately is at an advantage because he now has two more bikes to add special weapons to.

Same amount of models does not mean they're equal. If you have two small units you have the ability to split fire amongst more enemy units, but you also suffer more from casualties in so far as you take morale checks quicker, and lose special weapon models sooner.

Sure, could player B not take more special weapons anyway, whether there's points left over or not, I mean, player A has already gone over right? So surely you'll let player B take the extra plasma gun? You're not gonna act like a WAAC TFG to deny player B what you're allowing player A?

Basically from what I see is that it is a slippery slope on when to draw the line so please just stick with the first one.

I must have a poor imagination, I see no advantage to allowing overspending since it opens the door to too many other factors to manage. If allowed 3% more spending then that is my NEW limit but we could push it further later...

Guess what? I can show up with a legal army list and 100% of opponents will be accepting of it.

The same cannot be said about:
*Re-pointing units
*House rules
*Illegally going over
*Lying about point totals.

Sometimes being prepared and just doing the right thing can save time and problems opposed to expecting people to make accommodations or asking to impose or burden someone.

SRSFACE wrote:
People in the real world are genuinely respectful to each other.

Indeed. However, from my experience, that generally involves people showing up to games with lists already made up, and within the limit.

The only times I have ever had an opponent ask to go over points, it was because they were creating a list on the fly and it was quicker to just go with it than to go back and tweak it.

yes, part of the definition of being respectful to on another is showing up prepared and always having a legal list.

The old house rule my friend and I had back in the day is 3-4 points over. I played Tyranids so if I was going a few points over then I had to make sure it wasnt some little 2 point biomorph.

House rules are great. So long as they are kept "in-house". This is because all involved had a part in designing them, have bought into them and expect them at the outset. Not saying you in particuler, just saying you in general, can expect and try to pressure the rest of the world to abide by your house rules.

 Peregrine wrote:

The point is that you shouldn't be asking for it in the first place.

Look, whether you like it or not, the rulebook clearly says that most players are fine with lists being few points over. So it is not at all unreasonable, nor rude, for a player to ask whether their opponent might be one of those "most players". Getting upset if the opponent is not fine with it is obviously rude, as is cheating by using an over-the-limit list without the opponent's permission.