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 have no problem with going over the limit as long as both players know about it and agree to allow it. If my friend goes over by 5 points I am ok with that as long as he tells me and let's me add 5 points to my list. I would have no problem doing that with anyone.

Zero points over is the limit. Why is it so hard to build a legal list?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pouncey wrote:
To be fair, I blatantly break the game's rules every time I bring an Exorcist to the tabletop. Because according to the proper rules regarding vehicle weapon firing arcs and line of sight, the Exorcist is only allowed to shoot at targets in a 45 degree cone straight up. Everyone who lets it shoot at targets in any other direction are, at best, playing with a house rule, and at worst, blatantly cheating to gain a huge in-game advantage. Also there's a large number of 40k players who are completely unaware of this, including numerous Sisters of Battle players who regularly use Exorcists. Even GW, when this was brought up in an FAQ some years ago, didn't quite seem to grasp the fact that RAW prevented the Exorcist from shooting at anything at all unless Titans or Flyers were involved at point-blank range, as the response to the question effectively confirmed that yes, that is the case, in a way that suggested that GW was unaware of the actual question being asked.

The difference is that the Exorcist situation was a clear case of RAW being stupid and unplayable, much like the old "models with helmets have no eyes to draw LOS from and can't shoot or charge" RAW stupidity. So technically it's a house rule by RAW, but it's one that everyone understands is necessary and merely a case of fixing GW's mistakes. But there's no such justification for breaking the point limit rule. There's nothing inherently absurd about playing a 1500 point game that needs to be fixed, it just might not let you bring all of the units and upgrades you want to take. Nor is there any compelling reason to accept a "I want to bring extra points" house rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
For me, it's not a big deal to be over by 5 or fewer points - sometimes it's hard to cut that down.

No, it's never hard to cut it down. Remove an upgrade, or remove an entire unit if you have to. What you actually mean is that sometimes it's difficult to make a legal list without sacrificing anything you want to take or making your army less powerful than you want it to be. And that's an argument I have no sympathy at all for.

I'm fine with being over up to 5 points, even in as low as 500 points. This is because I know a lot of codexes have that dreaded "not a multiple of 5 in points, and starts in units not a multiple of 5". Units like that leads you into doing tax-evasion style number crunching to get them in line with the points, and can often deny you the use of another unit simply because of a 2 point shortage (and I'm talking about the difference of having 33 extra points but the cheapest thing you can buy is a 35 point model).

And for those that think that the opponent might simply get a huge amount of bonuses for those 2 points due to formations and whatnot, I see it the other way; the weird-ass point system instead screwed them out of what should have been a viable formation build in that points allotment. Especially when some unit has an extra point tacked on for no apparent reason. Chaos Terminators being one; I don't see much of a difference for them to cost 30 points instead of 31, but they do, and it's maddenly difficult because they ALSO come in squads of 3 that DOES add up to 95 points, so a normal squad of 5 ends up being 157. And that's not even getting into upgrades...

HuskyWarhammer wrote:
I say just ask. It gets the topic open and the persons playing against you might've assumed 3-5 over is fine also. 99% of the time asking means people won't care much (as long as you're not tfg) and it'll build trust for your honesty.

The other side of that is that there's social pressure to be the nice guy and say "oh, sure, it's no big deal" instead of starting an argument over it. By bringing the extra points and asking your opponent to decline them you put them in an awkward position where they're likely to concede the extra points just to avoid having you complain about how much of a WAAC TFG they are. The right thing to do is to bring a legal list and avoid the situation entirely.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
(and I'm talking about the difference of having 33 extra points but the cheapest thing you can buy is a 35 point model)

I fail to see the problem with this. If there's genuinely nothing else you can add to your list then you play the game at 33 points below the limit.

And for those that think that the opponent might simply get a huge amount of bonuses for those 2 points due to formations and whatnot, I see it the other way; the weird-ass point system instead screwed them out of what should have been a viable formation build in that points allotment. Especially when some unit has an extra point tacked on for no apparent reason. Chaos Terminators being one; I don't see much of a difference for them to cost 30 points instead of 31, but they do, and it's maddenly difficult because they ALSO come in squads of 3 that DOES add up to 95 points, so a normal squad of 5 ends up being 157. And that's not even getting into upgrades...

So is it ok for me to move my models an extra 1"? After all, I think they should be faster than what GW printed, so let's just play it that way because it makes it easier for me.

In a game as poorly pointed as 40k I don't really care if you're a point or 5 over. If a Land Raider with some upgrades is "'worth" nearly as much as a Wraithknight who gives a gak?

 Eldarain wrote:
In a game as poorly pointed as 40k I don't really care if you're a point or 5 over. If a Land Raider with some upgrades is "'worth" nearly as much as a Wraithknight who gives a gak?

I care because it says a lot about your attitude towards the game. If you're willing to cheat and bring an illegal list then I can pretty reasonably expect you to rules lawyer every possible ambiguous rule to your advantage, move your models extra distance if I'm not watching carefully, etc. After all, who gives a if you just take your extra 5% wherever you can?

Peregrine wrote:I fail to see the problem with this. If there's genuinely nothing else you can add to your list then you play the game at 33 points below the limit.

The purpose of the points system is to effect equality between starting forces. A 33 point difference is greater than a 2 point difference.

I don't think that he should take his 2 additional points without asking. That said, if he legitimately has no other options, he should ask his opponent for the additional 2 points. 2 points is less than half of a melta bomb.

You'll likely disagree with me on this, of course.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:
In a game as poorly pointed as 40k I don't really care if you're a point or 5 over. If a Land Raider with some upgrades is "'worth" nearly as much as a Wraithknight who gives a gak?

I care because it says a lot about your attitude towards the game. If you're willing to cheat and bring an illegal list then I can pretty reasonably expect you to rules lawyer every possible ambiguous rule to your advantage, move your models extra distance if I'm not watching carefully, etc. After all, who gives a if you just take your extra 5% wherever you can?

Let's see if I remember that quote correctly. What was it again...

"Just bring the most powerful options in the codex, paint it well and then make up the fluff to suit your needs."

Something like that?

Is that about right?

A leniency of 2-5 points would not cause me to suspect that someone is a rules lawyer who will garner every possible advantage for himself.

The above mentioned quote would, however.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:
In a game as poorly pointed as 40k I don't really care if you're a point or 5 over. If a Land Raider with some upgrades is "'worth" nearly as much as a Wraithknight who gives a gak?

I care because it says a lot about your attitude towards the game. If you're willing to cheat and bring an illegal list then I can pretty reasonably expect you to rules lawyer every possible ambiguous rule to your advantage, move your models extra distance if I'm not watching carefully, etc. After all, who gives a if you just take your extra 5% wherever you can?

I agree it reflects on my attitude toward the game, though I reach a far different conclusion than you have leapt to (Though something tells me from your attention to your models and your less antagonistic posts that Peregrine at the table is a far different fellow than Peregrine sparing on Dakka) I feel 40k is in such dire shape that most of my games look far more like P&P RPG with minis than a competitive event between two equally matched forces. I am far more likely to argue for you to get some unheralded free reinforcements than any kind of rules lawyering for my own advantage. But again I don't see the value in the current ruleset as a test of skill and generalship.

Eldarain wrote:(Though something tells me from your attention to your models and your less antagonistic posts that Peregrine at the table is a far different fellow than Peregrine sparing on Dakka)

"Bring the most powerful options in your codex, paint them well and then make up the fluff to suit your needs."

If that's not an exact quote, it's close.

Want to guess who said it?

 Peregrine wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pouncey wrote:
To be fair, I blatantly break the game's rules every time I bring an Exorcist to the tabletop. Because according to the proper rules regarding vehicle weapon firing arcs and line of sight, the Exorcist is only allowed to shoot at targets in a 45 degree cone straight up. Everyone who lets it shoot at targets in any other direction are, at best, playing with a house rule, and at worst, blatantly cheating to gain a huge in-game advantage. Also there's a large number of 40k players who are completely unaware of this, including numerous Sisters of Battle players who regularly use Exorcists. Even GW, when this was brought up in an FAQ some years ago, didn't quite seem to grasp the fact that RAW prevented the Exorcist from shooting at anything at all unless Titans or Flyers were involved at point-blank range, as the response to the question effectively confirmed that yes, that is the case, in a way that suggested that GW was unaware of the actual question being asked.

The difference is that the Exorcist situation was a clear case of RAW being stupid and unplayable, much like the old "models with helmets have no eyes to draw LOS from and can't shoot or charge" RAW stupidity. So technically it's a house rule by RAW, but it's one that everyone understands is necessary and merely a case of fixing GW's mistakes. But there's no such justification for breaking the point limit rule. There's nothing inherently absurd about playing a 1500 point game that needs to be fixed, it just might not let you bring all of the units and upgrades you want to take. Nor is there any compelling reason to accept a "I want to bring extra points" house rule.

You make a good point, and I absolutely don't think your opponents should be allowed to go any points over the limit if you don't explicitly agree.

Some people don't care about strict adherence to points limits though, especially now that numerous formations exist that grant hundreds of points of free units and rules for zero extra point cost. They view the damage to the point-balancing system done by those formations as being far, far worse than their opponent taking three points extra to upgrade a flamer to a meltagun, and find it absurd that people would disallow the latter but completely accept the former and then complain about a few extra points being able to fit in an extra unit or model. And if two of those people get together to play a game, and they both don't care if one or the other or both is over by a few points, why shouldn't they be allowed to do it?

If my opponent is a few points over on his list then I generally won't care all that much. I'm not going to refuse a game because my opponent is a few points over. If you can drop an upgrade to get you below the points limit, then I'd ask you to do so. If; however, such a thing is not really possible (for whatever reason) I won't sweat it too much. I'd much rather play 40k with that slight points disparity then refuse a game to satisfy my desire to have an "equal" game in regards to points.

Under, never over.

To me it smacks of laziness. There is a minor points reduction you were too lazy to find, or you thought up your list without considering points ahead of time and it just came out a few points over and you were again lazy and just said "sure, whatever". I think it's good gamesmanship to abide by the limit and if you can't create a perfect list at that points cost, you should be under the limit and not over (even if this means going under by 10-15-20 points).

 Traditio wrote:
The purpose of the points system is to effect equality between starting forces.

No, the purpose of the point system is to give both players equal resources to build their forces from. If we play a 1500 point game we each have 1500 points to spend as we like, including not spending some of those points. If I feel that taking a list of stuff that adds up to 1450 points is a better strategy than an alternative list that adds up to 1495 then that's the choice I've made. I don't get to say I'm going to take the stronger list but also ask for an extra 5 points so I can throw in 50 points more. We're no longer playing an equal game if I have to make sacrifices to fit everything within the 1500 point limit while you get to treat the point limit as a rough approximation that can be bent whenever you feel like adding more stuff to your army.

And I'll also point out that this seems to be an issue that only comes up in 40k and its toxic "casual at all costs" community. X-Wing, for example, is a game where fitting awkward point costs together within the point limit is even harder than in 40k and yet I've never heard of anyone asking to take extra points. It's universally understood that if you aren't under the point limit you just don't get to take that combination of ships and upgrades. I can't even count the number of times I've thrown out potential list ideas because they were significantly under the point limit but not quite by enough to bring an additional ship, or where I can't quite fit the upgrades I want.

 Peregrine wrote:

HuskyWarhammer wrote:
I say just ask. It gets the topic open and the persons playing against you might've assumed 3-5 over is fine also. 99% of the time asking means people won't care much (as long as you're not tfg) and it'll build trust for your honesty.

The other side of that is that there's social pressure to be the nice guy and say "oh, sure, it's no big deal" instead of starting an argument over it. By bringing the extra points and asking your opponent to decline them you put them in an awkward position where they're likely to concede the extra points just to avoid having you complain about how much of a WAAC TFG they are. The right thing to do is to bring a legal list and avoid the situation entirely.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
(and I'm talking about the difference of having 33 extra points but the cheapest thing you can buy is a 35 point model)

I fail to see the problem with this. If there's genuinely nothing else you can add to your list then you play the game at 33 points below the limit.

And for those that think that the opponent might simply get a huge amount of bonuses for those 2 points due to formations and whatnot, I see it the other way; the weird-ass point system instead screwed them out of what should have been a viable formation build in that points allotment. Especially when some unit has an extra point tacked on for no apparent reason. Chaos Terminators being one; I don't see much of a difference for them to cost 30 points instead of 31, but they do, and it's maddenly difficult because they ALSO come in squads of 3 that DOES add up to 95 points, so a normal squad of 5 ends up being 157. And that's not even getting into upgrades...

So is it ok for me to move my models an extra 1"? After all, I think they should be faster than what GW printed, so let's just play it that way because it makes it easier for me.

To the first one addressing me: It's either coming in 33 points under or buying 30 points of useless upgrades (like Power Weapons on a few champions) that might as well never get used. This means your opponent is playing with a 33 point advantage over you, which diminishes his victory as much as it diminishes your fun. I can't speak for anyone else but I personally feel like I'm the cheating one if I forced someone into a 33 point handicap just because the codex didn't let him add up his numbers nicely (which a well designed codex should, I mean it's not hard, even GW and Ward did it for a full edition).

To the second one: If a sarcastic hyperbole is your only rebuttal then there will be no meaningful discussion. At the end of the day, it's still a game, and like my point above I refuse to force anyone into a handicap worse than one I would experience because of something trivial. Plus, I specifically said 5 points or under for a reason; I have never heard of a match won by an extra melta bomb or a Storm Bolter turned into a combi-melta. If someone is so nitpicky about a meager 5 point difference (which even in a 500 point game is only a 1% difference, in a game system where you stand to lose 20% of your entire army just because you went second) then I shudder at what kind of rule lawyering would be pulled in the actual game.

Note that I would never come in with a list over the points limit; there's a difference between allowing someone to do so and doing so yourself with the expectation that others would accept you. If I would go over (which I never have) then I would always ask the opponent if he's ok, and accept any handicap if he is not.

 Traditio wrote:
"Just bring the most powerful options in the codex, paint it well and then make up the fluff to suit your needs."

...

A leniency of 2-5 points would not cause me to suspect that someone is a rules lawyer who will garner every possible advantage for himself.

The above mentioned quote would, however.

Do you understand the difference between "take a legal list with good strategic choices" and "break the rules to your advantage", and why the latter is much more of a sign of a dishonest player than the former?

 Peregrine wrote:
So is it ok for me to move my models an extra 1"? After all, I think they should be faster than what GW printed, so let's just play it that way because it makes it easier for me.

If you want to extend all movement speeds by 1" and your opponent agrees, then yes, absolutely. Play it that way.

Frankly, many of your opponents will be getting extra movement and range anyways because the human eye is imperfect, terrain exists, and getting a bird's eye view while leaning over three feet of table you can't actually lean on is not particularly feasible. Also if you use Games Workshop or Chessex dice you're going to be rolling a lot more 1s than you really should be, because those dice are terribly-balanced but generally roll a lot more 1s than they should. Sometimes up to double the number of 1s they should.

Peregrine wrote:No, the purpose of the point system is to give both players equal resources to build their forces from.

I disagree. The italicized only has instrumental value to the goal that I set (i.e., equality of starting forces).

And I'll also point out that this seems to be an issue that only comes up in 40k and its toxic "casual at all costs" community.

There you have it, Eldarain! Games shouldn't be casual. That's just heresy.

I can be one point over in my own lists and not bat an eye... I definitely try to avoid it though. 1 point under is preferred. Even Steven is always a keeper list for me.

List building is a part of the game too. So I would expect the same back. 1 pt. 2 pt. Or just write a bigger list.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
To the first one addressing me: It's either coming in 33 points under or buying 30 points of useless upgrades (like Power Weapons on a few champions) that might as well never get used. This means your opponent is playing with a 33 point advantage over you, which diminishes his victory as much as it diminishes your fun. I can't speak for anyone else but I personally feel like I'm the cheating one if I forced someone into a 33 point handicap just because the codex didn't let him add up his numbers nicely (which a well designed codex should, I mean it's not hard, even GW and Ward did it for a full edition).

Again, I fail to see the problem here. We both had the same points to spend, so why is it a problem if you feel like the list 33 points below the limit is better than an alternative which is closer to the limit? Part of list building skill is deciding when to scrap a list and start over, and when to accept that falling short of the limit is better than the alternative. Complaining about playing at a 33 point disadvantage because you didn't spend all of your points makes no more sense than complaining about playing at a 1" movement speed disadvantage because you only move your infantry 5" each turn.

And no, I don't see why you think that the numbers should add up nicely. Point costs should accurately reflect the power of the unit or upgrade, not a rough approximation that is biased in one direction or the other for the sake of making stuff add up to even numbers. Would you really be happier if that 33 point model cost 35 points instead?

To the second one: If a sarcastic hyperbole is your only rebuttal then there will be no meaningful discussion.

There is no hyperbole at all. Taking extra points is cheating, just like moving your models extra distance. The rule is perfectly clear, you just feel entitled to break it and give yourself an advantage that you want.

Plus, I specifically said 5 points or under for a reason; I have never heard of a match won by an extra melta bomb or a Storm Bolter turned into a combi-melta.

Perhaps you haven't heard of that, but it's pretty dishonest of you to pretend that an extra melta bomb is the only thing we're talking about when you've already said this:

Units like that leads you into doing tax-evasion style number crunching to get them in line with the points, and can often deny you the use of another unit simply because of a 2 point shortage (and I'm talking about the difference of having 33 extra points but the cheapest thing you can buy is a 35 point model).

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
I can be one point over in my own lists and not bat an eye... I definitely try to avoid it though. 1 point under is preferred. Even Steven is always a keeper list for me.

List building is a part of the game too. So I would expect the same back. 1 pt. 2 pt. Or just write a bigger list.

No.

No.

No.

If you haven't asked your opponent for the additional 1 point, you are cheating, and you should bat an eye at that.

 Traditio wrote:
I disagree. The italicized only has instrumental value to the goal that I set (i.e., equality of starting forces).

No, because I reject your principle of equality of starting forces entirely. If you spend your points badly then you do not have an equal starting force, and that's exactly how it should be. Building your force out of the points you are given to spend is part of being good at the game.

There you have it, Eldarain! Games shouldn't be casual. That's just heresy.

Are you incapable of participating in a discussion without posting ridiculous straw man arguments? "Casual at all costs" has nothing at all to do with any conventional concept of "casual". It's stuff like the CAAC player screaming at their opponent for spamming too many copies of an overpowered unit and being a WAAC TFG. Or, relevant to this thread, people cheating by taking illegal lists and using "play casually" as a weapon to pressure their opponent into letting them get away with it.

Peregrine wrote:Do you understand the difference between "take a legal list with good strategic choices" and "break the rules to your advantage", and why the latter is much more of a sign of a dishonest player than the former?

You say "with good strategic choices." I say "that exploits a poorly balanced game system."

At any rate, no, you, Peregrine, not the person who brings the additional point, are the one that I'm going to be expecting to rules lawyer up a storm. You are the one that I'm going to be expecting to try to use preferred enemy (orks) to allow you to reroll gets hot on your plasma cannons (prior to the FAQ), even though I'm playing marines. You are the one that I'm going to expect to be using BS 5 to reroll scatter dice. You are the one that I'm going to expect to exploit every ambiguous rule to your advantage.

Not the ork player with the extra point in his army.

Wow, a lot of hard asses on here when it comes to this eh? When I used to play LoTR a lot it was never taken as an issue to show up to a 500pt game with 501. Happened to me and my opponents loads of times and it was never an issue with any of us.

Admittedly I've never had it come up in 40K, but these days how much do the points matter anyway? Is 1500 points worth of CSM equivalent to 1500 points of Eldar Jetbikes and Wraith Knights? On paper, sure. On the table?

1 point over the limit is too far. That is why it is a limit. There is ALWAYS something that can be removed to fit under the points limit. If that means taking one less Marine in a squad to fit, then so be it.

5 points over may not seem like much, but as a somewhat extreme example what if they were pushed 5 points over the total to stuff in a second wraithknight or something like that. Playing to a point limit is an agreement to try to give the game at least some aspect of balance between both sides.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
I disagree. The italicized only has instrumental value to the goal that I set (i.e., equality of starting forces).

No, because I reject your principle of equality of starting forces entirely. If you spend your points badly then you do not have an equal starting force, and that's exactly how it should be. Building your force out of the points you are given to spend is part of being good at the game.

There you have it, Eldarain! Games shouldn't be casual. That's just heresy.

Are you incapable of participating in a discussion without posting ridiculous straw man arguments? "Casual at all costs" has nothing at all to do with any conventional concept of "casual". It's stuff like the CAAC player screaming at their opponent for spamming too many copies of an overpowered unit and being a WAAC TFG. Or, relevant to this thread, people cheating by taking illegal lists and using "play casually" as a weapon to pressure their opponent into letting them get away with it.

I think the problem is more that you're saying nobody should be allowed to go over even if both parties agree and already know they agree that it's fine.

Also most of us who don't particularly care about a few points do agree that games against people who you're not already sure are on-board with a few extra points should be kept within the limits, period, because no one likes social pressure to do something you're not comfortable with and it's best to avoid that situation entirely.

The OP in particular is talking about a friendly game that he seems to be arranging with one of his friends.

Also, just, consider this. You're worried about social pressure making you feel the need to agree to a few extra points so you don't seem like the bad guy. Yet I don't think you'd worry about feeling like the bad guy if you said no to your opponent asking if infantry can move 7 inches in open terrain instead of 6, before the game actually starts, or if they wanted their lascannons to be strength 10 instead of 9. Doesn't the difference there kinda tell you that a few points are such a minor problem in 40k, even to you, as to be nearly insignificant?

 Traditio wrote:
You say "with good strategic choices." I say "that exploits a poorly balanced game system."

Yes, we all know that you think anyone who brings an army that can consistently beat yours (along with every Tau player) is a WAAC TFG exploiting bad rules and should be ashamed of your behavior. But you're pretty much alone in that absurd belief.

At any rate, no, you, Peregrine, not the person who brings the additional point, are the one that I'm going to be expecting to rules lawyer up a storm. You are the one that I'm going to be expecting to try to use preferred enemy (orks) to allow you to reroll gets hot on your plasma cannons (prior to the FAQ), even though I'm playing marines. You are the one that I'm going to expect to be using BS 5 to reroll scatter dice. You are the one that I'm going to expect to exploit every ambiguous rule to your advantage.

Man, it must really suck to play against straw-Peregrine. You should play against the real Peregrine instead, who pretty clearly believes that both of those things do not work that way. And you should certainly stop using straw-Peregrine to back up your arguments about how people can be expected to rules lawyer stuff.

But really, it says a lot that you expect people who bring legal lists that beat yours to be rules lawyers, while people who openly cheat are not suspicious at all.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
I disagree. The italicized only has instrumental value to the goal that I set (i.e., equality of starting forces).

No, because I reject your principle of equality of starting forces entirely. If you spend your points badly then you do not have an equal starting force, and that's exactly how it should be. Building your force out of the points you are given to spend is part of being good at the game.

There you have it, Eldarain! Games shouldn't be casual. That's just heresy.

Are you incapable of participating in a discussion without posting ridiculous straw man arguments? "Casual at all costs" has nothing at all to do with any conventional concept of "casual". It's stuff like the CAAC player screaming at their opponent for spamming too many copies of an overpowered unit and being a WAAC TFG. Or, relevant to this thread, people cheating by taking illegal lists and using "play casually" as a weapon to pressure their opponent into letting them get away with it.

Some people just seem to subscribe to the idea that more wheels make the bike faster so refuse to remove the training wheels for anything.

 Pouncey wrote:
I think the problem is more that you're saying nobody should be allowed to go over even if both parties agree and already know they agree that it's fine.

Obviously if both players agree they can do it. But it's pretty bad behavior if you ask for the extra points, unless you know before you ask that your opponent shares your "a few extra is fine" belief.

Also most of us who don't particularly care about a few points do agree that games against people who you're not already sure are on-board with a few extra points should be kept within the limits, period, because no one likes social pressure to do something you're not comfortable with and it's best to avoid that situation entirely.

I'm not really convinced of this, given how many people seem to treat those few extra points as something they should be entitled to by default and think that anyone who won't let them have the extra points is a bad person. I think a lot of people do ask for extra points in pickup games against strangers, and don't care one bit about the social pressure issue (if they're even aware that it could be a thing).

Also, just, consider this. You're worried about social pressure making you feel the need to agree to a few extra points so you don't seem like the bad guy. Yet I don't think you'd worry about feeling like the bad guy if you said no to your opponent asking if infantry can move 7 inches in open terrain instead of 6, before the game actually starts, or if they wanted their lascannons to be strength 10 instead of 9. Doesn't the difference there kinda tell you that a few points are such a minor problem in 40k, even to you, as to be nearly insignificant?

It's different, but not in that way. The main difference between the those examples is that things like "my lascannons are STR 10" don't have support from the toxic "CASUAL AT ALL COSTS" element of the community, so it's much more likely that anyone asking for STR 10 lascannons is going to find themselves completely lacking in support if they get upset about having their request denied. And it's a lot less believable that such an argument would happen at all.

 Peregrine wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
To the first one addressing me: It's either coming in 33 points under or buying 30 points of useless upgrades (like Power Weapons on a few champions) that might as well never get used. This means your opponent is playing with a 33 point advantage over you, which diminishes his victory as much as it diminishes your fun. I can't speak for anyone else but I personally feel like I'm the cheating one if I forced someone into a 33 point handicap just because the codex didn't let him add up his numbers nicely (which a well designed codex should, I mean it's not hard, even GW and Ward did it for a full edition).

Again, I fail to see the problem here. We both had the same points to spend, so why is it a problem if you feel like the list 33 points below the limit is better than an alternative which is closer to the limit? Part of list building skill is deciding when to scrap a list and start over, and when to accept that falling short of the limit is better than the alternative. Complaining about playing at a 33 point disadvantage because you didn't spend all of your points makes no more sense than complaining about playing at a 1" movement speed disadvantage because you only move your infantry 5" each turn.

And no, I don't see why you think that the numbers should add up nicely. Point costs should accurately reflect the power of the unit or upgrade, not a rough approximation that is biased in one direction or the other for the sake of making stuff add up to even numbers. Would you really be happier if that 33 point model cost 35 points instead?

To the second one: If a sarcastic hyperbole is your only rebuttal then there will be no meaningful discussion.

There is no hyperbole at all. Taking extra points is cheating, just like moving your models extra distance. The rule is perfectly clear, you just feel entitled to break it and give yourself an advantage that you want.

Plus, I specifically said 5 points or under for a reason; I have never heard of a match won by an extra melta bomb or a Storm Bolter turned into a combi-melta.

Perhaps you haven't heard of that, but it's pretty dishonest of you to pretend that an extra melta bomb is the only thing we're talking about when you've already said this:

Units like that leads you into doing tax-evasion style number crunching to get them in line with the points, and can often deny you the use of another unit simply because of a 2 point shortage (and I'm talking about the difference of having 33 extra points but the cheapest thing you can buy is a 35 point model).

Like I said, there can be no meaningful discussion as you are cherry picking my quotes apart to demonize me. You've accused me of cheating when I said that I simply allow my opponent to go over, even after stating I have never done so and never will do so. It is no longer cheating for him if I simply agree to change the points from 2000 to 2005, which is exactly what you suggested, and then come in 5 points short of the new limit myself. And the Melta Bomb reference is a reference to what MY list would be missing; the 35 point example is the one referring to limiting my opponent. And yes, I would be happy if the 33 point model cost 35 points, just as I would be more than happy to have someone (functionally) change a SINGLE 35 point model into a 33 point one to fit the game. I would be even more happy if all point costs in the book ended up ending in 5 or 0, making listbuilding a lot easier so this wouldn't be an issue anymore (which sadly isn't at all likely, due to the way the points system works).

Note that in all cases, I expect my opponent to come up to me and ask me of this with dignity; if he had concealed it THEN it would be no different than cheating, an exceptionally stupid way of cheating as well considering all he had to do was ask.

I simply want to advocate a more understanding and accepting atmosphere.