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.

autumnlotus wrote:
Mostly because I don't do pre-established lists and game ideas. I pop over to the store, talk to my friends and family, and see what they want to play. Someone says 2000 points? Okay cool, I make a list at 1998 and my friend makes 2003. I see this and I either a) add a dumb lil item to balance it, b) ask them to drop a model or upgrade to fit my count, or c) play it as is. Nobody is upset, nobody is quoting rules at me like its a sermon, and nobody is being rude. Is that hard to understand? Being zero points over is the goal but it isn't required to have a fun time. I will take 100 fights with slightly unbalanced games over 1 fight where I'm talked down to and rules lawyered by a angry neckbeard.

I think the problem here is that you're imbuing the responses in this thread with a lot more emotion than is actually there.

People saying that they would expect an opponent to stay under the points limit aren't frothing at the mouth and dragging people out to the parking lot over it. In the vast majority of cases, they're just going to point out that the list isn't legal, and ask the prospective opponent to alter it.

No sermonising. No 'angry neckbeards'. Just two gamers putting together a game at an agreed-upon points limit.

This discussion reminds of the joke with two people discussing how much money it would take for them to sleep with a stranger. So it's not a discussion of their character, it's merely haggling on their price.

In other words, being over on agreed upon points is wrong no matter the amount. If both sides are amenable to it that's fine, but don't put the onus the player who is wronged.

The moment you bring up ",illegal" and "cheating", it becomes uncivil. It's the same logic as going to a barbeque and someone says they will bring x amount if food, but only comes with x-2 amount. They said one thing and brought another. Does that warrent calling them a liar? To call them out and be a mean spirited person? No not really, and people will look at you funny for treating another person like that.

So if you asked me to take off those extra points I would, but if you say I'm a cheater, liar, thief, etc I will drop the game and call you out on the behavior

autumnlotus wrote:
The moment you bring up ",illegal" and "cheating", it becomes uncivil.

Sorry if the truth hurts. If you break a rule to give yourself a benefit then it's cheating.

 insaniak wrote:

autumnlotus wrote:
Mostly because I don't do pre-established lists and game ideas. I pop over to the store, talk to my friends and family, and see what they want to play. Someone says 2000 points? Okay cool, I make a list at 1998 and my friend makes 2003. I see this and I either a) add a dumb lil item to balance it, b) ask them to drop a model or upgrade to fit my count, or c) play it as is. Nobody is upset, nobody is quoting rules at me like its a sermon, and nobody is being rude. Is that hard to understand? Being zero points over is the goal but it isn't required to have a fun time. I will take 100 fights with slightly unbalanced games over 1 fight where I'm talked down to and rules lawyered by a angry neckbeard.

I think the problem here is that you're imbuing the responses in this thread with a lot more emotion than is actually there.

People saying that they would expect an opponent to stay under the points limit aren't frothing at the mouth and dragging people out to the parking lot over it. In the vast majority of cases, they're just going to point out that the list isn't legal, and ask the prospective opponent to alter it.

No sermonising. No 'angry neckbeards'. Just two gamers putting together a game at an agreed-upon points limit.

The main reason its a big deal to me is the use of the word "cheater". It's a very imflamitory word that is more often then not an open insult. So when someone calls someone that over asking openly if something is okay, then the accusor comes off as a antisocial, angry individual. It's like if someone was playing chess and added an additional pawn to the table after asking if it is okay. If they gave consent its not cheating, and if its not allowed its not cheating to have asked in the first place

autumnlotus wrote:
It's a very imflamitory word that is more often then not an open insult.

And in this case it's accurate. If the rules allow you to bring 1500 points then bringing 1501 points is cheating. The fact that you ask for permission to cheat does not change the fact that it's cheating.

It's like if someone was playing chess and added an additional pawn to the table after asking if it is okay.

And you shouldn't do that. You know it's against the rules of the game, and you're blatantly hoping that your opponent will feel social pressure to not be "TFG" and let you get away with it. This is really bad behavior.

 Peregrine wrote:
The fact that you ask for permission to cheat does not change the fact that it's cheating.

Er... yes it does.

The moment you enter a dialogue with the other player, it becomes a discussion about changing the rules, rather than cheating.

Cheating is something done without the opponent's consent.

 insaniak wrote:
The moment you enter a dialogue with the other player, it becomes a discussion about changing the rules, rather than cheating.

IMO that depends greatly on what you're asking for. If you're saying "let's play 1750 instead of 1500" then that's a rule discussion that is fair for both players. Asking "can we give me a free advantage" isn't really the same thing, especially when this is apparently a group where there's a ton of social pressure to agree to the request or be shunned from the group.

The point is, its rude to ask your opponent if its okay to cheat. Would you be okay if your opponent asked if he could move all of his infantry squads 7 inches after he has already done so and expect you to only move yours 6 inches?

 Ghaz wrote:
The point is, its rude to ask your opponent if its okay to cheat. Would you be okay if your opponent asked if he could move all of his infantry squads 7 inches and expect you to only move yours 6 inches?

I would be totally ok with him asking. So long as he's totally ok with me saying no.

It's a game, after all. Asking to change the rules really isn't a big deal.

 insaniak wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
The point is, its rude to ask your opponent if its okay to cheat. Would you be okay if your opponent asked if he could move all of his infantry squads 7 inches and expect you to only move yours 6 inches?

I would be totally ok with him asking. So long as he's totally ok with me saying no.

It's a game, after all. Asking to change the rules really isn't a big deal.

See my edited post above.

 insaniak wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
The point is, its rude to ask your opponent if its okay to cheat. Would you be okay if your opponent asked if he could move all of his infantry squads 7 inches and expect you to only move yours 6 inches?

I would be totally ok with him asking. So long as he's totally ok with me saying no.

It's a game, after all. Asking to change the rules really isn't a big deal.

Exactly what I have been (trying to) say. We don't hate on people for not giving us our way here, its the feelings behind some of these comments that causes that action. If someone is rude once or twice I'll talk to them about it, if its a pattern I tell the manager and they talk to them. Continue the problem and you get booted

If it's a case that 5 or 10 points were stopping someone using a desired formation or certain units, I'd just tell them to go ahead. The disparity of 10 points in 1000 is fiarly inconsequential considering the imbalances the disparity in the effectiveness:points ratios across various units. But if it was a case of a player being competitive and trying to get the most bang for their buck, I'd tell them to get rid of a few combi-weapons, vehicle upgrades or other cheap things to balance their points.

Say no to "extra points".
Or it becomes this:

Sounds picky but if you do not follow rules or try your best you are playing an entirely different game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I have to add it is precisely being that couple points short that forces hard decisions, I see no real benefit of allowing an overdraft on points... would your opponent get access to double what you needed?

autumnlotus wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
The point is, its rude to ask your opponent if its okay to cheat. Would you be okay if your opponent asked if he could move all of his infantry squads 7 inches and expect you to only move yours 6 inches?

I would be totally ok with him asking. So long as he's totally ok with me saying no.

It's a game, after all. Asking to change the rules really isn't a big deal.

Exactly what I have been (trying to) say. We don't hate on people for not giving us our way here, its the feelings behind some of these comments that causes that action. If someone is rude once or twice I'll talk to them about it, if its a pattern I tell the manager and they talk to them. Continue the problem and you get booted

No. The problem is you made an agreement, and when it comes time to keep that agreement you don't want to. Instead of taking responsibility because you couldn't keep your agreement, you're trying to blame the other person who's holding you to your word.

 Ghaz wrote:

See my edited post above.

 Ghaz wrote:
The point is, its rude to ask your opponent if its okay to cheat. Would you be okay if your opponent asked if he could move all of his infantry squads 7 inches after he has already done so and expect you to only move yours 6 inches?

Unless you're not finding out about the extra points until after the game, that's not really what's happening, though.

An opponent asking you pre-game if you mind them being a few points over is no different to them asking pre-game if you would agree to change any other rule.

 insaniak wrote:
An opponent asking you pre-game if you mind them being a few points over is no different to them asking pre-game if you would agree to change any other rule.

I think there's a significant difference between asking to change a rule that applies to everyone and asking to change a rule in a way that is blatantly to your advantage, especially in the context of a group where there's significant pressure to grant the change or be shunned from the group.

 insaniak wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

See my edited post above.

 Ghaz wrote:
The point is, its rude to ask your opponent if its okay to cheat. Would you be okay if your opponent asked if he could move all of his infantry squads 7 inches after he has already done so and expect you to only move yours 6 inches?

Unless you're not finding out about the extra points until after the game, that's not really what's happening, though.

An opponent asking you pre-game if you mind them being a few points over is no different to them asking pre-game if you would agree to change any other rule.

Its not really that different. Its still a part of the rules, even if its pre-game. The points value for the game has already been set and agreed to by both players. If he wanted to, he could have agreed to a ballpark figure rather than an exact points value. He's still going back on his agreement and is trying to make his opponent out as the bad guy if he won't let him when it is entirely his own fault.

 Ghaz wrote:
He's still going back on his agreement and is trying to make his opponent out as the bad guy if he won't let him when it is entirely his own fault.

At which point, you discover before the game even starts that you're probably not going to enjoy playing this guy because you have very different viewpoints on what the game should be, and can go and find a more suitable opponent, rather than finding out 2 turns in and having a far less enjoyable couple of hours pushing models around a board against someone you'd rather not be playing against. Win/win.

 Orock wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
So far there seem to be two broad categories of opinions:

1. People who value the rules more than a fair game.

2. People who value a fair game more than the rules.

People in category 1 are totally okay with playing against people whose armies get hundreds of points worth of extra potency without paying the points one would normally pay for that power, when the rules explicitly allow it. But they're not okay with anyone getting even one percent of that extra potency when the rules don't allow it.

People in category 2 are okay with people getting a few points worth of extra potency, when those few points imbalance the game by less than half of a percent. They're more concerned that the rules allow a very large imbalance via formations than they are with a relatively tiny deviation that the rule don't allow. They also generally seem to acknowledge that in a competitive environment like a tournament, they would never expect or allow that tiny deviation.

Way to generalize. Maybe people are OK with "free points" formations because many come with weaker unit choice lists than could have been optamized with the same points.

Because let me tell you something. You would BEG to only play say war convocation in a game if it meant the alternative list was 9 flesh tearer drop pods with 90 vanguard, 50 of them coming in turn one with plasma and arc weapons, all at BS 7.

I'll take your word for it, because I don't know what a war convocation is and last time I heard about vanguard veterans they were considered underpowered and overpriced.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

I was more observing the general opinions

Except that you didn't do anything of the sort. You just concocted a ridiculous strawman argument against everyone who said people should stick to the point limit.

Well, then it appears I failed to make both options sound reasonable. For that, I apologize and I'll stop pushing it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

1. People who value the rules more than a fair game.
2. People who value a fair game more than the rules..

Violating the agreed upon points limit is fair?
And having everyone abide by the agreed upon points limit is unfair?

 Pouncey wrote:

People in category 1 are totally okay with playing against people whose armies get hundreds of points worth of extra potency without paying the points one would normally pay for that power, when the rules explicitly allow it. But they're not okay with anyone getting even one percent of that extra potency when the rules don't allow it.

I'm really not sure what you're trying to say with this. Some formation and some units give you more for the points than others. Does that entitle players to take more points than agreed upon because they feel that the opponent's army is too good / too points efficient / cheese / whatever?

I'd noticed that the side argument about formations offering extra stuff for no cost generally had the people who don't allow any extra points saying that it's okay because it's legal, and the people who allow extra points were generally the ones saying that formations allowing extra points is worse, if you were wondering where that came from.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
The moment you enter a dialogue with the other player, it becomes a discussion about changing the rules, rather than cheating.

IMO that depends greatly on what you're asking for. If you're saying "let's play 1750 instead of 1500" then that's a rule discussion that is fair for both players. Asking "can we give me a free advantage" isn't really the same thing, especially when this is apparently a group where there's a ton of social pressure to agree to the request or be shunned from the group.

So what if, instead of saying, "Is if okay if I'm 5 points over?" they said, "Is it okay if we play 1505pts instead of 1500pts?"

I ask because generally the people arguing in favor of allowing a few points, seem to also be okay with their opponent adding something to their list to make it equal.

I haven't seen one halfway decent defense for being even three points over knowingly. You can remove SOMETHING. All I have seen are dudebros saying "come on man. Everyone is doing it. Your a nerd if you won't let us. My dad runs this game store. Keep up the poor attitude and you ain't coming back. " Good. Stores that kick players out for unreasonable reasons like "failing to let my homies run it like they wanna " soon get a rep and fail. And wanting to follow the rules is not rude. Why don't you go up and say "hey bro, wanna play a 1505 point game Tuesday? I have a specific list in mind and points are super tight" just don't be a dingus and show up with 1508.

 Pouncey wrote:
So what if, instead of saying, "Is if okay if I'm 5 points over?" they said, "Is it okay if we play 1505pts instead of 1500pts?"

I would be very skeptical of this because asking for a non-standard point total usually means "I have this perfect combo that I want to win with, and you'll probably just throw a meaningless upgrade into your 1500 point list". You know that you're going to get more out of the non-standard point total than your opponent, and that's kind of bending the rules a bit even if it's technically fair. Just make a normal 1500 point list like everyone else.

 Orock wrote:
I haven't seen one halfway decent defense for being even three points over knowingly. You can remove SOMETHING. All I have seen are dudebros saying "come on man. Everyone is doing it. Your a nerd if you won't let us. My dad runs this game store. Keep up the poor attitude and you ain't coming back. " Good. Stores that kick players out for unreasonable reasons like "failing to let my homies run it like they wanna " soon get a rep and fail. And wanting to follow the rules is not rude. Why don't you go up and say "hey bro, wanna play a 1505 point game Tuesday? I have a specific list in mind and points are super tight" just don't be a dingus and show up with 1508.

Because there is no defence possible. The rules say that both players must agree to a points limit, which is a finite maximum that must be met exactly or less.

What people are arguing is that it's possible to modify the rules if both parties agree it's okay. I've heard one such modification (or cheating, as you prefer) this edition is almost universally-accepted - that objective cards which are impossible to fulfill are discarded and another is drawn.

And yes, following the rules is not rude. But there's a difference between saying, "No, you can't go above the agreed points limit," and saying, "What? You want to go above the agreed points limit? You cheater. I'll bet you also try to break every rule in the game to your advantage." Most people don't enjoy being called a cheater, and it's a rather heavily-charged word in gaming.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
So what if, instead of saying, "Is if okay if I'm 5 points over?" they said, "Is it okay if we play 1505pts instead of 1500pts?"

I would be very skeptical of this because asking for a non-standard point total usually means "I have this perfect combo that I want to win with, and you'll probably just throw a meaningless upgrade into your 1500 point list". You know that you're going to get more out of the non-standard point total than your opponent, and that's kind of bending the rules a bit even if it's technically fair. Just make a normal 1500 point list like everyone else.

The points exist to keep things balanced and fair, in theory.

So their 1505 points should theoretically be just as potent as the opponent's 1505 points, barring absurd situations like one person taking no anti-vehicle stuff and their opponent bringing an IG tank list.

 Pouncey wrote:
I've heard one such modification (or cheating, as you prefer) this edition is almost universally-accepted - that objective cards which are impossible to fulfill are discarded and another is drawn.

The difference is that this is a change that is meant to apply to every player and every army, and improve the game universally. Changing the point limit to make your special snowflake list work without removing anything is an attempt to gain an advantage for yourself.

So their 1505 points should theoretically be just as potent as the opponent's 1505 points, barring absurd situations like one person taking no anti-vehicle stuff and their opponent bringing an IG tank list.

Yes, but most people have standard 1250/1500/1750/etc lists created already and aren't going to spend time trying to make an efficient 1505 point list. They're just going to take their 1500 point list and throw in a melta bomb or something that they'll probably never use. And they might not even bother to do that.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
I've heard one such modification (or cheating, as you prefer) this edition is almost universally-accepted - that objective cards which are impossible to fulfill are discarded and another is drawn.

The difference is that this is a change that is meant to apply to every player and every army, and improve the game universally. Changing the point limit to make your special snowflake list work without removing anything is an attempt to gain an advantage for yourself.

So their 1505 points should theoretically be just as potent as the opponent's 1505 points, barring absurd situations like one person taking no anti-vehicle stuff and their opponent bringing an IG tank list.

Yes, but most people have standard 1250/1500/1750/etc lists created already and aren't going to spend time trying to make an efficient 1505 point list. They're just going to take their 1500 point list and throw in a melta bomb or something that they'll probably never use. And they might not even bother to do that.

After trying and failing to come up with a counter-argument for a bit, I happened to read your signature.

Have you really played hundreds of thousands of WH40k games? O.o

 Ghaz wrote:
The point is, its rude to ask your opponent if its okay to cheat. Would you be okay if your opponent asked if he could move all of his infantry squads 7 inches after he has already done so and expect you to only move yours 6 inches?

I.. it isn't rude to try and negotiate with another player and calling it 'cheating' is rather unreasonable.

 Peregrine wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
An opponent asking you pre-game if you mind them being a few points over is no different to them asking pre-game if you would agree to change any other rule.

I think there's a significant difference between asking to change a rule that applies to everyone and asking to change a rule in a way that is blatantly to your advantage, especially in the context of a group where there's significant pressure to grant the change or be shunned from the group.

Advantage how. Are you assuming that the other player would not then check to see if they can add something to their army to bring them closer to the renegotiated points limit? (Furthermore: Do you think that the points system in this game is perfectly balanced? The game feels pretty broken as it is, without players using a miniscule difference of points.)

If there's significant pressure and you can be shunned from the group. Is that really the group of people you'd even want to be hanging out with.

Colehkxix wrote:
Advantage how. Are you assuming that the other player would not then check to see if they can add something to their army to bring them closer to the renegotiated points limit?

It's an advantage because you very often don't have a simple +5 point change to make. If I've built a 1500 point list it probably has all of its units configured the way I want them. So, either I make a useless change just to spend the points (a melta bomb on a random sergeant, for example) or I spend a bunch of time re-configuring my list to see if I can make a significant change. And I may or may not have the models available to make that change. My opponent, on the other hand, is getting access to something important with those extra points. So that's an advantage in their favor.

(Furthermore: Do you think that the points system in this game is perfectly balanced? The game feels pretty broken as it is, without players using a miniscule difference of points.)

No, of course the game isn't perfectly balanced, but that's not the point. The issue is not the uneven points, it's the lack of respect for the rules. Trying to break the point limit says that you're the kind of person who is willing to bend or even break the rules in your favor, and I can expect more of the same once we start playing the game. If you can't even respect the integrity of the game enough to bring a legal army then how can I trust you not to grab an extra 1" of movement when you need to get into range and think I'm not looking?

If there's significant pressure and you can be shunned from the group. Is that really the group of people you'd even want to be hanging out with.

No, but "those people suck and I don't want to spend time with them" is hardly a compelling defense of the policy.

I have a 1850 point Decurion that has 16 points left to spare. Due to WYSIWYG, I cannot lose a Shadowloom on one of my Tomb Blades.
So you're telling me you'd be perfectly fine with me bringing another Immortal, putting me at 1851?

 Peregrine wrote:

Colehkxix wrote:
Advantage how. Are you assuming that the other player would not then check to see if they can add something to their army to bring them closer to the renegotiated points limit?

It's an advantage because you very often don't have a simple +5 point change to make. If I've built a 1500 point list it probably has all of its units configured the way I want them. So, either I make a useless change just to spend the points (a melta bomb on a random sergeant, for example) or I spend a bunch of time re-configuring my list to see if I can make a significant change. And I may or may not have the models available to make that change. My opponent, on the other hand, is getting access to something important with those extra points. So that's an advantage in their favor.

(Furthermore: Do you think that the points system in this game is perfectly balanced? The game feels pretty broken as it is, without players using a miniscule difference of points.)

No, of course the game isn't perfectly balanced, but that's not the point. The issue is not the uneven points, it's the lack of respect for the rules. Trying to break the point limit says that you're the kind of person who is willing to bend or even break the rules in your favor, and I can expect more of the same once we start playing the game. If you can't even respect the integrity of the game enough to bring a legal army then how can I trust you not to grab an extra 1" of movement when you need to get into range and think I'm not looking?

If there's significant pressure and you can be shunned from the group. Is that really the group of people you'd even want to be hanging out with.

No, but "those people suck and I don't want to spend time with them" is hardly a compelling defense of the policy.

Very often I have found that people are able to make those changes. I have my units configured how I want, and removing a melta bomb from one of them would be pretty sad. I have to remember which one didn't have the melta bomb.

I don't see how attempting to renegotiate the rules amount is disrespecting the rules, or trying to 'break' anything. It's not reasonable to assume that, if someone wants to do that, they are the kind of player who will cheat.

I'm not necessarily saying they're bad people. Just not the kind of players for you?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I have a 1850 point Decurion that has 16 points left to spare. Due to WYSIWYG, I cannot lose a Shadowloom on one of my Tomb Blades.
So you're telling me you'd be perfectly fine with me bringing another Immortal, putting me at 1851?

Yes.

Colehkxix wrote:

I have my units configured how I want, and removing a melta bomb from one of them would be pretty sad. I have to remember which one didn't have the melta bomb.

Hmm, what was it I said yesterday? Oh yes:

 vipoid wrote:
The other aspect is that 99% of the time it's not a matter of 'can't' it's a matter of 'don't want to'. As in, the person has a lot of gear or other stuff that they could easily drop, but don't want to drop *any* of it.

And, they'd much rather just play with too many points than actually have to make a hard decision.

Grimtuff, can I borrow your 'I informed you thusly' meme?