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.

The same can be said of people forcing the exact point amount point. Nobody is arguing to shift the game points, let alone repeatedly, so please drop the strawman. In fact, the only person whining about "our fun is the only fun" are the detractors to people not worrying about one or two points, calling the players and groups cheaters and liars as a third party. You don't like the extra points? Well once you are involved in a game I'm sure the other player will be open to being exact in the pt lists. There has been no person here saying they would go over regardless of their opponents wishes, and any perceived pressure is in their head and therefore their own problem.

Sadly this is the internet, where the only form of communication is sass and insults

You're intentionally not following the rules of the game, what else would you call it?

It was a joke, hence the winky orkmoticon.

I am all in favour of "draw the line at the actual line", in reality. Otherwise I don't see much point in having a line.

autumnlotus wrote:
In 40k or fantasy there are hundreds of options, with many units with oddball costs that make a rounded number harder to do

I doesn't make it any harder to stay under the limit.

autumnlotus wrote:
The same can be said of people forcing the exact point amount point. Nobody is arguing to shift the game points, let alone repeatedly, so please drop the strawman. In fact, the only person whining about "our fun is the only fun" are the detractors to people not worrying about one or two points, calling the players and groups cheaters and liars as a third party. You don't like the extra points? Well once you are involved in a game I'm sure the other player will be open to being exact in the pt lists. There has been no person here saying they would go over regardless of their opponents wishes, and any perceived pressure is in their head and therefore their own problem.

Why not just stay within the agreed upon points limit in the first place? (you agreed to the limit, remember) Everything else sounds like excuses and attempts at justification.

 Ian Sturrock wrote:
I am all in favour of "draw the line at the actual line", in reality. Otherwise I don't see much point in having a line.

Well said.

I still don't get how people are okay with house rules for blasts against levels, TLoS, area cover saves, Invisibility, but not for allowing the extra few points.

So as long as I'm at/under my list, I can bring 2 WKs and act like a donkey cave? I'm not cheating because I'm following the rules.

 jreilly89 wrote:
I still don't get how people are okay with house rules for blasts against levels, TLoS, area cover saves, Invisibility, but not for allowing the extra few points.

What problem with the rules is solved by allowing the points limit to be exceeded by a non-specific number of points?

 jreilly89 wrote:
I still don't get how people are okay with house rules for blasts against levels, TLoS, area cover saves, Invisibility, but not for allowing the extra few points.

If it's agreed ahead of time then it doesn't really matter... it just means instead of playing a 1500pt game you're playing a 1505pt game

Showing up with more than the agreed points is just rude, it's not a house rule.

So as long as I'm at/under my list, I can bring 2 WKs and act like a donkey cave? I'm not cheating because I'm following the rules.

Do whatever the hell you want.... but if you're acting like an arse expect to be treated as such.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
I still don't get how people are okay with house rules for blasts against levels, TLoS, area cover saves, Invisibility, but not for allowing the extra few points.

What problem with the rules is solved by allowing the points limit to be exceeded by a non-specific number of points?

It's not, but house ruling TLoS is cheating in as much as asking for a few extra points is cheating. You're not playing by the rules, you're bending them.

If someone's being called a cheater for asking for a few points, then I think the same kindness should be extended to people who want to houserule 40k.

in my opinion, it's situational. In a tournament, 0 points, however, in friendly games, if you let the other person know, I'd say that 5 points over is nearing the top.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
I still don't get how people are okay with house rules for blasts against levels, TLoS, area cover saves, Invisibility, but not for allowing the extra few points.

What problem with the rules is solved by allowing the points limit to be exceeded by a non-specific number of points?

It's not, but house ruling TLoS is cheating in as much as asking for a few extra points is cheating. You're not playing by the rules, you're bending them.

If someone's being called a cheater for asking for a few points, then I think the same kindness should be extended to people who want to houserule 40k.

Big difference between pre-arranged house rules and players simply not abiding by the limit that they both agreed to.

It does raise the question though - if your house rule is +5 points is acceptable then why not just make the limit 1505 points instead of 1500 but with a hard limit? And if that works then why not just reduce the limit back to 1500....?

 jreilly89 wrote:
So as long as I'm at/under my list, I can bring 2 WKs and act like a donkey cave? I'm not cheating because I'm following the rules.

Correct.

Of course, you might see a lot of refused games in the future, but you're no cheating, no.

As far as I am concerned, the players determine the points limit.

Therefore, if they agree to have different points limits for each side, that's their prerogative.

I will not judge them based on whatever they agree to play.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
I still don't get how people are okay with house rules for blasts against levels, TLoS, area cover saves, Invisibility, but not for allowing the extra few points.

What problem with the rules is solved by allowing the points limit to be exceeded by a non-specific number of points?

It's not, but house ruling TLoS is cheating in as much as asking for a few extra points is cheating. You're not playing by the rules, you're bending them.

If someone's being called a cheater for asking for a few points, then I think the same kindness should be extended to people who want to houserule 40k.

Big difference between pre-arranged house rules and players simply not abiding by the limit that they both agreed to.

It does raise the question though - if your house rule is +5 points is acceptable then why not just make the limit 1505 points instead of 1500 but with a hard limit? And if that works then why not just reduce the limit back to 1500....?

Is it? To have a house rule in the first place, you have to ask your opponent if they accept it, same thing with those 5 points. I'd let my opponent go up a few points, I'd share my dice, I even let my opponent borrow my templates or measuring tape or rulebook. In a friendly game, 5 points ain't the end of the world.

 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.

Yes. As I stated, I have 16 points to spend in one of my Decurion lists, and I won't go even a point over to field another Immortal.

To enjoy a game, in order for it to have at least some amount of competition to it, all participants agree to a set of rules.
I like my games to have evolved past the stage of "pew-pew: your dead! Answer: Nah-ah! You missed!..." except I guess those statements are interspersed with rolling of dice.
Rules lead to defined outcomes rather than an opinion or wish expressed by the players.
It just seems maddening that if we cannot agree to sticking to the rule of not exceeding the army points limit, what hope is there in agreeing on anything else?
Until 40k it never entered my mind to exceed points limits... it was the rules for heavens sake!

I have a hard enough time convincing my son that deciding to change the rules on the fly to suit yourself is cheating, poor sportsmanship and just plain rude.
I constantly see him trying to "reinterpret" things to his advantage to his brother's detriment.
This is what I think of when people push for changes to a game when we are about to have one.

I AM used to competitive play and so the #1 rule is to follow the rules to the bleeding edge.
Going past that point you become a WAAC player.

 jreilly89 wrote:
I still don't get how people are okay with house rules for blasts against levels, TLoS, area cover saves, Invisibility, but not for allowing the extra few points.

I already answered this earlier: changing rules like that is very different because it's an attempt to fix something wrong with the game in a way that applies equally to all players, not to gain an advantage for yourself. If people suggest, say, bringing back the old rules for levels in ruins then it applies to their blast weapons, their opponent's blast weapons, everyone's blast weapons in the next game they play, etc. That's not at all the same as asking to break the point limit just so you can have a more powerful list.

Now, you'd have a point if there was a player who suggested rule changes like this when it benefits then and mysteriously forgets about those house rules when it doesn't, but they are not the majority.

So as long as I'm at/under my list, I can bring 2 WKs and act like a donkey cave? I'm not cheating because I'm following the rules.

I have no idea how you could possibly conclude "any TFG behavior is ok" from "don't break the point limit". The point limit is just one of many rules that should be followed.

As many people have noted-if its so hard for you to fit just right into the point limit-why not just be a bit under rather than a bit over?

If you want to be a bit over X, why not set the limit to X+(a bit) to begin with? why meddle with these "well, we said X, but I want just a little bit more..."

There is no rational reason to put yourself into that scenario to begin with, if you can't even follow your own point limit agreement, how can you play a friendly game properly? are you going to go over the charge distance a bit, because its "almost there"? or ignore cover because you "almost have a clear shot"?

We have plenty of friendly games with the points not being fully set until we know what sort of game we want to play, so ur logic of it being impossible is dead from the start. Granted the sort of person being pointed out countless times thats the strawman, rude guy who pops up before you start asking to have free points and refusing to change their list, is someone to be avoided and should be put in their place if the negative behavior becomes a pattern. But who here is advocating that sort of behavior? I'm not, and have yet to see a poster saying anything similar

 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.

Who's up in arms? You keep saying people are losing their gak on this topic, and i'm just not seeing it.

 Torga_DW 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.

Who's up in arms? You keep saying people are losing their gak on this topic, and i'm just not seeing it.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:
If your opponent is ok with it in a friendly game, I don't see why it would be a problem.

Because its obviously not a 'friendly' game or else your opponent would keep to the agreed points limit.

 Peregrine wrote:

autumnlotus wrote:
So the rules are more important then both players enjoyment and their option to work out a pt amount as they build their lists?

No, the rule protects both players' enjoyment of the game. By respecting the original point limit you don't put your opponent into an awkward position where they feel pressured to let you cheat a bit just to keep you from getting upset about it. Constantly re-negotiating the point limit as you're building your lists does nothing to improve the game for both players, it just allows one player to gain an advantage.

This sounds less about rules, and more about you demanding that players play your way or not play at all

Yeah, what horrible demands we make, expecting people to refrain from bending/breaking the rules in their favor...

 Ghaz wrote:

Colehkxix 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 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.

The time to negotiate points values is past and it is rude to go back on your agreements. If I can't trust you to keep to your agreements in something as inconsequential as a game, how can I trust you to keep your agreements when it matters?

*cough cough*

Need I go back and find more? Or is the part where they call negotiating with your opponent flat out cheating enough?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BoomWolf wrote:
As many people have noted-if its so hard for you to fit just right into the point limit-why not just be a bit under rather than a bit over?

If you want to be a bit over X, why not set the limit to X+(a bit) to begin with? why meddle with these "well, we said X, but I want just a little bit more..."

There is no rational reason to put yourself into that scenario to begin with, if you can't even follow your own point limit agreement, how can you play a friendly game properly? are you going to go over the charge distance a bit, because its "almost there"? or ignore cover because you "almost have a clear shot"?

Depends. If its against some of the people I've seen here on Dakka, I may just throw the table.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
I still don't get how people are okay with house rules for blasts against levels, TLoS, area cover saves, Invisibility, but not for allowing the extra few points.

I already answered this earlier: changing rules like that is very different because it's an attempt to fix something wrong with the game in a way that applies equally to all players, not to gain an advantage for yourself. If people suggest, say, bringing back the old rules for levels in ruins then it applies to their blast weapons, their opponent's blast weapons, everyone's blast weapons in the next game they play, etc. That's not at all the same as asking to break the point limit just so you can have a more powerful list.

Now, you'd have a point if there was a player who suggested rule changes like this when it benefits then and mysteriously forgets about those house rules when it doesn't, but they are not the majority.

So as long as I'm at/under my list, I can bring 2 WKs and act like a donkey cave? I'm not cheating because I'm following the rules.

I have no idea how you could possibly conclude "any TFG behavior is ok" from "don't break the point limit". The point limit is just one of many rules that should be followed.

Because you guys claim that even though it's mentioned for a friendly game, I have to follow the rules to the T, no exceptions, or else I'm WAAC. My point is that there's plenty of completely legal things I can do to be TFG without cheating.

 jreilly89 wrote:
*cough cough*

Need I go back and find more? Or is the part where they call negotiating with your opponent flat out cheating enough?

I think your definition of gak is very different to mine.

 Torga_DW wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
*cough cough*

Need I go back and find more? Or is the part where they call negotiating with your opponent flat out cheating enough?

I think your definition of gak is very different to mine.

That is possible and entirely okay.

 Scott-S6 wrote:
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.

Well, yes and no.

You can't just compare individual units in a vaccuum, for sure. However, the whole (ahem) point of the points system is to allow players to assemble more-or-less equal armies to play a fair game. So ideally, while a 200 point gretchin unit may not be 1-for-1 equivalent to a 200-point Terminator unit, each army should be more or less balanced at the points level at which the game is designed to play. Those 200 point gretchin and terminator units would be balanced out by the remainder of the armys' compositions.

The problem is that 40K has always done this balancing quite badly, and this has only gotten worse as army composition rules became more 'loose' in the last two editions. Once you reach a point where you can literally build armies out of any combination of units you want, any idea of balance just goes straight out the window. An army made up entirely of Gretchin would stand no chance against an army composed entirely of Knights... in which case, those armies shouldn't be showing up on the same table in the first place, outside of specific scenarios.

I spent a bit of time on Quarter Master last night, getting together 500, 750, 1000 and 1500pts worth of Eldar lists (with only one Wraithknight, in the 1500pt one!)

Outside of the the 500pt list, I found I was usually going about 3 to 5 points over without any shiny extras.

Usually I'd just think "Ho hum" but having read the earlier portions of this thread and recently deciding I want to get playing more, and a bit more 'seriously', I re-tweaked and shuffled around and now I'm a good few points under on the bigger lists (14 - 26 or so).

It might mean one fewer Fire Dragon, but HE could make the difference and that wouldn't be fair.

I suppose it leaves room for a bit of wargear for my Farseer or Autarch, too, which is nice.

So yes, I can see both sides of the arguments. Under or equal on points for pick ups, at events etc are absolutely necessary. Against mates at home I'd say bring what you want and lets have a laugh.

*edit* Early morning spellings.

 jreilly89 wrote:
Because you guys claim that even though it's mentioned for a friendly game, I have to follow the rules to the T, no exceptions, or else I'm WAAC. My point is that there's plenty of completely legal things I can do to be TFG without cheating.

No, and I've explained this multiple times already: there is a huge difference between "follow every rule, no exceptions" and "don't try to bend/break the rules to give yourself an advantage". Fixing a bad rule is not at all the same thing as taking a few extra points for yourself or nudging your models a bit when your opponent isn't looking. And nobody here has tried to claim that the only way to be a TFG is to cheat, so please stop bringing up this ridiculous straw man.

This thread has been a bit of an eye-opener for me if I'm honest and it has changed my attitude significantly. Apologies if this has already been said (I haven't been able to read the entire thread yet) but I used to be of the mindset that one or two points over didn't really matter too much. I'd always mention it to my opponents up front and they'd always say 'yeah, no problem'.

However, having read some of the (more measured) comments on here I think it's a really important point to note that it's not the 1 or 2 points over that make the difference, it the other 8 or 9 or whatever for that particular buff or upgrade that make the crucial difference, and we have to be mindful of what's "under the surface". It's made me revisit my list and take out entire squads sometimes and replace with different units. It's made the list-building process more of a challenge, but I think more satisfying too when you nail the target points limit.

0.

 insaniak wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:
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.

Well, yes and no.

You can't just compare individual units in a vaccuum, for sure. However, the whole (ahem) point of the points system is to allow players to assemble more-or-less equal armies to play a fair game. So ideally, while a 200 point gretchin unit may not be 1-for-1 equivalent to a 200-point Terminator unit, each army should be more or less balanced at the points level at which the game is designed to play. Those 200 point gretchin and terminator units would be balanced out by the remainder of the armys' compositions.

The problem is that 40K has always done this balancing quite badly, and this has only gotten worse as army composition rules became more 'loose' in the last two editions. Once you reach a point where you can literally build armies out of any combination of units you want, any idea of balance just goes straight out the window. An army made up entirely of Gretchin would stand no chance against an army composed entirely of Knights... in which case, those armies shouldn't be showing up on the same table in the first place, outside of specific scenarios.

Absolutely and this bears directly on the points issue. The unit that is taking you slightly over the points limit may be much more valuable in the context of the rest of the army than the unit that fits within the limit so it isn't "just 3 points".

Yeah the the 3-5 pts can be the difference between runing 2 grav bike units and 3 grav bike units. Which technicly is fewer bodies but more grav guns.

I've already said 0 points over, but I don't understand the kerfuffle people are still having.

Rules are rules. You don't measure out a Bolter to 25" and go "close enough" do you?

Do you go into a shop, go to buy something for £2, give the shop keeper £1.50, and say "It's close enough to the asking price so shut up"?

I personally, do not deal in "ish's". The limit is not 1500-ish. Bolters are not 24"-ish and the price was not £2-ish.
You are gaining some semblance of advantage whether you recognise it or not, to say otherwise is ignorance.

If I run a list at 1500 points, but go over by 5 pts because I included a 375 pt Imperial Knight, how is that fair to my opponent?