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.

 Thairne wrote:
In my meta, it's accepted, since noone does it with the intend of cheating or gaining an advantage.

I really don't see how you can say this, given your example. You just, very clearly, explained how the DA player should be allowed to exceed the point limit because their other options for spending their remaining 80 points are not as powerful as a squad of bikes, or because he might have to cut a plasma gun. This is a textbook example of gaining an advantage by exceeding the point limit: the DA player can bring a legal 1000 point list, it just won't be as powerful as a 1001 point list.

 grrrfranky wrote:
This is such a weird issue, and remarkably specific to 40k. If you're playing historicals or similar, you probably aren't sticking rigidly to a points structure anyway, and in any other game (warmachine, malifaux, infinity etc) going over the points limit is a big no-no regardless of how casual the game is.

I was just about to bring up this tangential point. Why is this problem (and a host of others, such as (in a fit of irony) where it is considered bad form to even contemplate trying to be victorious in the game) unique to 40k?

What has shifted in the community (as this certainly was not as much of a topic when I last played in 5th ed.) to make is this topic keep coming up?

Add my voice to the chorus saying that zero points is the number. A limit is a limit. As another poster stated, if it is such an insignificant number that you are over, you likely can find something to cut. If you modeled your army in such a way that this is literally impossible, congratulations, you failed at being able to plan an army properly.

 Peregrine wrote:

I really don't see how you can say this, given your example. You just, very clearly, explained how the DA player should be allowed to exceed the point limit because their other options for spending their remaining 80 points are not as powerful as a squad of bikes, or because he might have to cut a plasma gun. This is a textbook example of gaining an advantage by exceeding the point limit: the DA player can bring a legal 1000 point list, it just won't be as powerful as a 1001 point list.

That is the point. I also said that he might not have another way to fill those points due to model restrictions and idiotic point costs.
I rather play someone with 1 point over than 9 or 80 points under.

With points cost like 27ppm you cannot get an even number anyway reasonable. So you will always end with numbers like 998 or 1003 and nothing can be done about it.
With the new dex, they cost 25ppm - even GW saw that this specific cost was bad. Now? Take 3 bikes, slap on a melta bomb, you're set. In that case there is no NEED to go over the limit.

I'm fine with it, some are not - everyone is right because there is no specific "wrong" in my eyes.

 Grimtuff wrote:

I was just about to bring up this tangential point. Why is this problem (and a host of others, such as (in a fit of irony) where it is considered bad form to even contemplate trying to be victorious in the game) unique to 40k?

40K has always had a bit of a problem with the scrub mentality but is getting worse. I think it's a combination of things - the variety of units in 40K means that it's very easy to put together an army that will find it extremely difficult to compete in some matchups because of the many different threat types that you need to be able to deal with (GEQ, MEQ, 2+ infantry, light vehicles, heavy vehicles, flyers, MC/GC, etc.) The last couple of editions with their increased freedom in army building plus the introduction of formations, flyers, GCs, super heavies, etc. has significantly increased the power gap between a good army and a poor one (just look at the people that still refuse to accept/embrace allies for example). Combine this with the time/cost/effort it takes to prepare an army and you have in some people an unwillingness to accept that their poor army selection is contributing heavily to why they lose. This is then compounded because players that lack that self awareness rarely plan well or think hard about their in game decisions. Unless you can accept that you lost because of your decisions before and/or during the game improvement is impossible.

These folks then tend to fall into a number of types:
The ones that just give up on being good at the game and push toy soldiers around the board.
The ones that decide it's all the fault of their dice.
The ones that get all defensive about how their army is fluffy and it's the mean players that take good armies that are the problem.
The ones that decide certain types of army or unit are cheese/OP/WAAC and shouldn't be allowed.
The ones that learn to win by only playing new players or by list tailoring (or both).
The ones that learn to cheat (illegible army lists so that upgrades can move around, sneaking in extra units, sneaky movement, sneaky dice rolling, etc.).

 Peregrine wrote:

 Thairne wrote:
In my meta, it's accepted, since noone does it with the intend of cheating or gaining an advantage.

I really don't see how you can say this, given your example. You just, very clearly, explained how the DA player should be allowed to exceed the point limit because their other options for spending their remaining 80 points are not as powerful as a squad of bikes, or because he might have to cut a plasma gun. This is a textbook example of gaining an advantage by exceeding the point limit: the DA player can bring a legal 1000 point list, it just won't be as powerful as a 1001 point list.

But theoretically their list, including that extra unit of bikes they might not be able to fit in ordinarily, is still only 1 point more powerful than it would be if they'd found a different option to take to reach the points limit without exceeding it. The purpose of the points system is to ensure balance by assigning each option a points value that reflects its power in the game. 1001 points against 1000 points is such a small difference that the players' difference in skill, errors in judgment, the differences between the units that both sides took, and even the luck of the dice should outweigh it massively.

Yes, they do get to take that bike unit that they wouldn't have normally, but 80 out of the 81 points that bike unit costs is power in their list that they'd've had anyways. It's not like they get a full 1000 point list and then an extra bike squad on top of that.

Of course, the problem with what I just said is that GW's interest in balancing units and points cost is focused more on manipulating it in ways that increase sales of model kits they want to sell more of, rather than an interest in making a well-balanced game. Also that WH40k in general is such a poor game from a balance perspective that when I read the article about how GW and Chessex dice are unfair and roll more 1s than normal, and I went to my local gaming store to order some better dice, the grizzled hobby veteran manning the counter asked if it was for WH40k (after I brought up what I'd read in the article) and then dissuaded me from ordering straight-edge dice because WH40k isn't a balanced enough game to justify spending money on good dice just for it.

 Pouncey wrote:

Yes, they do get to take that bike unit that they wouldn't have normally, but 80 out of the 81 points that bike unit costs is power in their list that they'd've had anyways. It's not like they get a full 1000 point list and then an extra bike squad on top of that.

This is a common argument but it's simply not true. The difference between an 81 point bike unit and 80 points of something else that doesn't fit with the rest of the army could be huge.

An 80 point unit and an 81 point unit could be radically different in the effectiveness that they contribute to the army. Replacing an 81 point anti-tank unit with an 80 point anti-infantry unit in an army that's short of anti-tank is a massive change. Replacing 81 points of bikes in an all bike army with an 80 point tank means that tank is going to immediately die (because your opponent has no other targets for his anti-tank weapons).

Fitting in alternative unit could require significant changes to other units. Maybe the army no longer fits into a formation because of those changes.

These are the tough decisions you need to make when building an army list and often those few points can be a very big deal.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
Add my voice to the chorus saying that zero points is the number. A limit is a limit. As another poster stated, if it is such an insignificant number that you are over, you likely can find something to cut. If you modeled your army in such a way that this is literally impossible, congratulations, you failed at being able to plan an army properly.

I face Orks more often than anything else in my "local meta" (can 2 people form a meta by themselves?), and I'm the only one who brings Sisters or Marines these days. Yet for some really dumb reason, I keep equipping my models with power swords. Even when the character those models are meant to represent is armed with a power axe in her artwork. : /

This should give you an idea of my ability to plan an army around making it powerful or even viable.

 Ruberu wrote:
In 40k a 1850 point list can beat another 1850 point list with the right tactics.

That sentence is so false and wrong. 1850 points of one army DOES NOT equal 1850 of another army. Right tactics or not, some armies are just not equal and other armies have a so much easier time than others.

 Pouncey wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
Add my voice to the chorus saying that zero points is the number. A limit is a limit. As another poster stated, if it is such an insignificant number that you are over, you likely can find something to cut. If you modeled your army in such a way that this is literally impossible, congratulations, you failed at being able to plan an army properly.

I face Orks more often than anything else in my "local meta" (can 2 people form a meta by themselves?), and I'm the only one who brings Sisters or Marines these days. Yet for some really dumb reason, I keep equipping my models with power swords. Even when the character those models are meant to represent is armed with a power axe in her artwork. : /

This should give you an idea of my ability to plan an army around making it powerful or even viable.

I kid you not, I have a Sternguard that went into a game with a bare plastic bolter due to a math error necessitating a field removal of his Combi-Melta. Now I equip the squad that way all the time.

Davor wrote:

 Ruberu wrote:
In 40k a 1850 point list can beat another 1850 point list with the right tactics.

That sentence is so false and wrong. 1850 points of one army DOES NOT equal 1850 of another army. Right tactics or not, some armies are just not equal and other armies have a so much easier time than others.

But... That's the entire purpose of the points system...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
Add my voice to the chorus saying that zero points is the number. A limit is a limit. As another poster stated, if it is such an insignificant number that you are over, you likely can find something to cut. If you modeled your army in such a way that this is literally impossible, congratulations, you failed at being able to plan an army properly.

I face Orks more often than anything else in my "local meta" (can 2 people form a meta by themselves?), and I'm the only one who brings Sisters or Marines these days. Yet for some really dumb reason, I keep equipping my models with power swords. Even when the character those models are meant to represent is armed with a power axe in her artwork. : /

This should give you an idea of my ability to plan an army around making it powerful or even viable.

I kid you not, I have a Sternguard that went into a game with a bare plastic bolter due to a math error necessitating a field removal of his Combi-Melta. Now I equip the squad that way all the time.

S'okay, more than half my models are bare plastic or bare primer.

 Pouncey wrote:

Davor wrote:

 Ruberu wrote:
In 40k a 1850 point list can beat another 1850 point list with the right tactics.

That sentence is so false and wrong. 1850 points of one army DOES NOT equal 1850 of another army. Right tactics or not, some armies are just not equal and other armies have a so much easier time than others.

But... That's the entire purpose of the points system...

No it's not and this is a huge misconception that many people struggle with.

200 points of gretchin is not equal to a landraider. In fact, they can't even hurt the landraider. 1500 points of vanguards in drop pods is much more effective than 1500 points of servo skulls. A 2000 point army with no anti-tank or anti-air weapons is going to be much weaker than the vast majority of "normal" 2000 point armies.

Even if the points are perfectly balanced where every unit of x points is worth the same in a vacuum that does not mean that every combination of units is equally effective. Consider the typical marine drop-pod army. If you remove the pods and replace them with predators (or whatever) of the same points is the power level of the army unchanged?

You can't simply select units at random to the points level and expect it to compete against the same points of carefully selected units - especially in 40K where many units/weapons are extremely poor at killing certain types of enemies.


This goes right back to people exceeding the points limits. If you replace a 105 point unit that contributes something your army badly needs with a 100 point unit that contributes something you already have plenty of then the value difference between those units is MUCH more than 5 points.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

Davor wrote:

 Ruberu wrote:
In 40k a 1850 point list can beat another 1850 point list with the right tactics.

That sentence is so false and wrong. 1850 points of one army DOES NOT equal 1850 of another army. Right tactics or not, some armies are just not equal and other armies have a so much easier time than others.

But... That's the entire purpose of the points system...

No it's not and this is a huge misconception that many people struggle with.

200 points of gretchin is not equal to a landraider. In fact, they can't even hurt the landraider. 1500 points of vanguards in drop pods is much more effective than 1500 points of servo skulls. A 2000 point army with no anti-tank or anti-air weapons is going to be much weaker than the vast majority of 2000 point armies.

Even if the points are perfectly balanced where every unit of x points is worth the same in a vacuum that does not mean that every combination of units is equally effective.

You can't simply select units at random to the points level and expect it to compete against the same points of carefully selected units - especially in 40K where many units/weapons are extremely poor at killing certain types of enemies.


This goes right back to people exceeding the points limits. If you replace a 105 point unit that contributes something your army badly needs with a 100 point unit that contributes something you already have plenty of then the value difference between those units is MUCH more than 5 points.

So then the points values to potency only matches up when both lists are well-rounded with a variety of units, designed to take on a wide variety of opponents?

 Pouncey wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

Davor wrote:

 Ruberu wrote:
In 40k a 1850 point list can beat another 1850 point list with the right tactics.

That sentence is so false and wrong. 1850 points of one army DOES NOT equal 1850 of another army. Right tactics or not, some armies are just not equal and other armies have a so much easier time than others.

But... That's the entire purpose of the points system...

No it's not and this is a huge misconception that many people struggle with.

200 points of gretchin is not equal to a landraider. In fact, they can't even hurt the landraider. 1500 points of vanguards in drop pods is much more effective than 1500 points of servo skulls. A 2000 point army with no anti-tank or anti-air weapons is going to be much weaker than the vast majority of 2000 point armies.

Even if the points are perfectly balanced where every unit of x points is worth the same in a vacuum that does not mean that every combination of units is equally effective.

You can't simply select units at random to the points level and expect it to compete against the same points of carefully selected units - especially in 40K where many units/weapons are extremely poor at killing certain types of enemies.


This goes right back to people exceeding the points limits. If you replace a 105 point unit that contributes something your army badly needs with a 100 point unit that contributes something you already have plenty of then the value difference between those units is MUCH more than 5 points.

So then the points values to potency only matches up when both lists are well-rounded with a variety of units, designed to take on a wide variety of opponents?

Thats why the argument for this 1850 = that 1850 army falls a little flat. Even so you should still be able to make a good performing army within the bounds of the points limit set and agreed upon.

 Vash108 wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

Davor wrote:

 Ruberu wrote:
In 40k a 1850 point list can beat another 1850 point list with the right tactics.

That sentence is so false and wrong. 1850 points of one army DOES NOT equal 1850 of another army. Right tactics or not, some armies are just not equal and other armies have a so much easier time than others.

But... That's the entire purpose of the points system...

No it's not and this is a huge misconception that many people struggle with.

200 points of gretchin is not equal to a landraider. In fact, they can't even hurt the landraider. 1500 points of vanguards in drop pods is much more effective than 1500 points of servo skulls. A 2000 point army with no anti-tank or anti-air weapons is going to be much weaker than the vast majority of 2000 point armies.

Even if the points are perfectly balanced where every unit of x points is worth the same in a vacuum that does not mean that every combination of units is equally effective.

You can't simply select units at random to the points level and expect it to compete against the same points of carefully selected units - especially in 40K where many units/weapons are extremely poor at killing certain types of enemies.


This goes right back to people exceeding the points limits. If you replace a 105 point unit that contributes something your army badly needs with a 100 point unit that contributes something you already have plenty of then the value difference between those units is MUCH more than 5 points.

So then the points values to potency only matches up when both lists are well-rounded with a variety of units, designed to take on a wide variety of opponents?

Thats why the argument for this 1850 = that 1850 army. Even so you should still be able to make a good performing army within the bounds of the points limit set and agreed upon.

Neat.

Also explains the popularity of Take-All-Comers lists, beyond the natural desire to not list tailor.

 Pouncey wrote:

So then the points values to potency only matches up when both lists are well-rounded with a variety of units, designed to take on a wide variety of opponents?

Exactly. The value of an army can be much more or less than the sum of it's units. (and that's without getting into codexes that have under/over costed stuff)

This is something that some players have a huge blind spot to as I discussed a few posts up.

You'll never have a well rounded army without acknowledging that your choices produced an army that was less effective than it could have been. Some people would rather blame this on dice or the other player or decide that their opponent's (much more effective) army is unfair/WAAC/etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pouncey wrote:

Neat.

Also explains the popularity of Take-All-Comers lists, beyond the natural desire to not list tailor.

Absolutely. You've got to think about all of the different things that you might need to kill and come up with something that has all of those capabilities. It's tough and some armies have units that are more versatile which makes packing more capability into your army easier.

 Pouncey wrote:


Also explains the popularity of Take-All-Comers lists, beyond the natural desire to not list tailor.

Yeah if you play in a tourney and bring a tailored list, You will crush that one army but you will be blown out of the water by the next one. GW points system is far from perfect, but you can at least build something with some semblance of balance. I feel 30k does a bit better job of this than 40k, as well as other games, naturally. But as long as you aren't constantly playing WAAC guy you should still have fun.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

So then the points values to potency only matches up when both lists are well-rounded with a variety of units, designed to take on a wide variety of opponents?

Exactly. The value of an army can be much more or less than the sum of it's units. (and that's without getting into codexes that have under/over costed stuff)

This is something that some players have a huge blind spot to as I discussed a few posts up.

You'll never have a well rounded army without acknowledging that your choices produced an army that was less effective than it could have been. Some people would rather blame this on dice or the other player though...

In my case, I value aesthetics a lot, so I tend to take units I like the look or theme of, rather than what makes a good army on the field.

I also tire easily of the same thing, and I like to tinker, which means that I rarely field the same list twice, and modify my list several times between games.

My mom, on the other hand, sticks to roughly the same list every time, and occasionally tries something new.

Which means that she's been learning how to use her forces better each time, and I've been swapping things around too much to learn how to play my army well.

Explains why she's been winning more often and more soundly each time...

 Pouncey wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

So then the points values to potency only matches up when both lists are well-rounded with a variety of units, designed to take on a wide variety of opponents?

Exactly. The value of an army can be much more or less than the sum of it's units. (and that's without getting into codexes that have under/over costed stuff)

This is something that some players have a huge blind spot to as I discussed a few posts up.

You'll never have a well rounded army without acknowledging that your choices produced an army that was less effective than it could have been. Some people would rather blame this on dice or the other player though...

In my case, I value aesthetics a lot, so I tend to take units I like the look or theme of, rather than what makes a good army on the field.

I also tire easily of the same thing, and I like to tinker, which means that I rarely field the same list twice, and modify my list several times between games.

My mom, on the other hand, sticks to roughly the same list every time, and occasionally tries something new.

Which means that she's been learning how to use her forces better each time, and I've been swapping things around too much to learn how to play my army well.

Explains why she's been winning more often and more soundly each time...

I would try to stick to one build for a few games then change out one unit at a time to gauge performance and play style. I had your exact problem when I started.

 Pouncey wrote:

In my case, I value aesthetics a lot, so I tend to take units I like the look or theme of, rather than what makes a good army on the field.
I also tire easily of the same thing, and I like to tinker, which means that I rarely field the same list twice, and modify my list several times between games.
My mom, on the other hand, sticks to roughly the same list every time, and occasionally tries something new.
Which means that she's been learning how to use her forces better each time, and I've been swapping things around too much to learn how to play my army well.
Explains why she's been winning more often and more soundly each time...

Asthetics and fluff add additional dimensions to list building.

Personally, I try to build armies that are effective and fluffy and which don't use any models that I don't like.

The extra restrictions do make it more challenging but there is no reason that the result needs to be weaker.


Do be wary of changing your list too often. You need to use a list quite a few times before you have a firm grasp on how to use it so that you can determine what's good and bad about it.

Changing too often can leave you unable to determine if the problem is the list or your employment of the list and without being able to tell the two apart you've made it much harder to learn and improve.

My friends and I will usually allow some poor maths in the name of putting a game together quickly. We are a group that plays for the fun of doing so, not the victory. There's only one of us remotely cares who wins.
Furthest anyone went was 50pts over in the past, but she was new and a whole 150pts more wouldn't have changed much. When you're learning, you're unlikely to be utilising every point.

Any other time, with folk we don't know, we'll print or write lists and show them before starting, accurate to the point. It's just respectful to them.

 Vash108 wrote:
I would try to stick to one build for a few games then change out one unit at a time to gauge performance and play style. I had your exact problem when I started.

Ah-heh... this is kinda embarrassing, but I've been playing WH40k off and on since 2001.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

In my case, I value aesthetics a lot, so I tend to take units I like the look or theme of, rather than what makes a good army on the field.
I also tire easily of the same thing, and I like to tinker, which means that I rarely field the same list twice, and modify my list several times between games.
My mom, on the other hand, sticks to roughly the same list every time, and occasionally tries something new.
Which means that she's been learning how to use her forces better each time, and I've been swapping things around too much to learn how to play my army well.
Explains why she's been winning more often and more soundly each time...

Asthetics and fluff add additional dimensions to list building.

Personally, I try to build armies that are effective and fluffy and which don't use any models that I don't like.

The extra restrictions do make it more challenging but there is no reason that the result needs to be weaker.


Do be wary of changing your list too often. You need to use a list quite a few times before you have a firm grasp on how to use it so that you can determine what's good and bad about it.

Changing too often can leave you unable to determine if the problem is the list or your employment of the list and without being able to tell the two apart you've made it much harder to learn and improve.

Makes sense.

I have an honest question, not trying to attack anyone here.

To those of you who responded.....vehemently against being any points over, do you actually still play 40k? I've seen a lot of these passionate responses from users who've stated that they've quit 40k and I find it a bit ironic that they're so up in arms over being a few points over.

I am one of the ones who said I am not too bothered if my opponent does it, and I don't really play it any more because interest around here.

So there's that.

 jreilly89 wrote:
I have an honest question, not trying to attack anyone here.

To those of you who responded.....vehemently against being any points over, do you actually still play 40k? I've seen a lot of these passionate responses from users who've stated that they've quit 40k and I find it a bit ironic that they're so up in arms over being a few points over.

I haven't responded yet, but I still play 40k and I don't like the idea of going over.

 jreilly89 wrote:
I have an honest question, not trying to attack anyone here.

To those of you who responded.....vehemently against being any points over, do you actually still play 40k? I've seen a lot of these passionate responses from users who've stated that they've quit 40k and I find it a bit ironic that they're so up in arms over being a few points over.

What if I told you more games than 40k use points? If someone has this attitude in one game they'll have it in any system they play.

 jreilly89 wrote:
I have an honest question, not trying to attack anyone here.

To those of you who responded.....vehemently against being any points over, do you actually still play 40k? I've seen a lot of these passionate responses from users who've stated that they've quit 40k and I find it a bit ironic that they're so up in arms over being a few points over.

I still play 40K and I expect in any game(not just 40K) that you don't go over just because you agreed on a point level with an opponent and should stick to it.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
I have an honest question, not trying to attack anyone here.

To those of you who responded.....vehemently against being any points over, do you actually still play 40k? I've seen a lot of these passionate responses from users who've stated that they've quit 40k and I find it a bit ironic that they're so up in arms over being a few points over.

What if I told you more games than 40k use points? If someone has this attitude in one game they'll have it in any system they play.

I still play 40k, although not as often as WMH, and I would be very upset to learn you went a few points over knowingly. If some sort of army builder app messed up that's fine, these things happen, and some armies have lists that are a mess to organize on your own.

That being said, Grimtuff brings up a good point. 1-2 points out of 1500-1800 isn't a big deal in the grand scheme of things (1 extra PG or something I'd expect is what is usually happening I'd imagine).
However, in games like WMH, where the games are 50 points, 2 points over can be a solo that shuts down a jack or allows my caster to get another attack (and with eCaine, each attack confers a +1 to hit/dmg stackable buff on feat turn). It could be something that grants tough, or allows everyone to recover from knockdown, or makes them undead, or some other really powerful ability.
So in most games, 1-2 points over is a bigger deal than in 40k, since the point values are often a lot smaller and 2 points can buy you quite a bit. Going 2 points over in WMH can see you disqualified from a competitive events (I believe this happened to a muse on minis podcaster...John?)

All I can say about other games is that most, such as Malifaux and Infinity and Warmachine, have much more simplified point systems with no real room for error. If a game is 15pts rather then 1500, or in blood bowl esque games 200000pts, then its very simple to make that limit and not go over. In infinity there is very little customizatiom in a model, so it usually equates to placing models and that is that. In 40k or fantasy there are hundreds of options, with many units with oddball costs that make a rounded number harder to do

For me the only real fair option here is to allow people to go over a bit, perhaps to the tune of 1% recurring?

So in a standard 1850 pt game you could have 1868.5 pts, except that it's recurring so if you bring 1868 (no going to 1869 THAT WOULD BE CHEATING), my limit becomes 1887, at which point your limit becomes 1906, and so on, until we both say "awh let's just play Unbound and no points limits, where is my beer".

That is clearly the only correct way of playing, both mathematically and logically, and anyone who argues is having the wrong kind of fun.