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 find the difference in attitude here fascinating.

The self-described "casual" players are the least flexible about their lists. This upgrade is necessary for fluff, this upgrade is vital for having fun, etc, until the entire list is a 100% essential no-compromises part that can't possibly be changed to comply with a point limit. And, simultaneously, these extra upgrades aren't a big deal and nobody should complain about breaking the point limit to take them.

The competitive players have no problem with flexibility and understand that you can't always fit everything you want. They'd never even think of asking to break the point limit so they could take an extra upgrade, they just bring a legal list for whatever point limit is set.

Now who is the real "casual" player?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nou wrote:
And yet entire fairness of the game apparently hinges on those 4 points. In all seriousness, that must be the biggest compliment about the quality of GWs point balance I have ever seen written on this board

Of course the entire balance doesn't hinge on it, but it does say a lot about a player's attitude towards the game. Do they accept the rules even when it means not getting what they want, or do they act like they're entitled to break the rules for an advantage, however small? There's never a situation where you must break the point limit, it's just a question of how selfish you are. And if you are the kind of person who feels entitled to break one rule what else are you going to take? A little careless movement to your advantage, because it's only an inch or two and it wouldn't be fun for you if you failed your charge roll? Rounding every measurement in your favor because it isn't fun to be 0.5" out of range and not get to shoot?

 Peregrine wrote:
I find the difference in attitude here fascinating.

The self-described "casual" players are the least flexible about their lists. This upgrade is necessary for fluff, this upgrade is vital for having fun, etc, until the entire list is a 100% essential no-compromises part that can't possibly be changed to comply with a point limit. And, simultaneously, these extra upgrades aren't a big deal and nobody should complain about breaking the point limit to take them.

The competitive players have no problem with flexibility and understand that you can't always fit everything you want. They'd never even think of asking to break the point limit so they could take an extra upgrade, they just bring a legal list for whatever point limit is set.

Now who is the real "casual" player?

The casual player is the person willing to ask for the minor allowance, and equally as casual as the opponent realising it is not going to break the game and allowing it.... If you happen to keep a win/loss record in mind all the time, you are not a casual player.

No, the casual player is the person who says "it's not a big deal if I don't get that power fist" and doesn't even ask for extra points.

And yet you don't seem to see why anyone would ever want such a thing and use that as your whole "CAAC" argument, and the "casual at all cost" person thinks they "should bend the rules"

Wayniac wrote:
And yet you don't seem to see why anyone would ever want such a thing and use that as your whole "CAAC" argument, and the "casual at all cost" person thinks they "should bend the rules"

Why do you need that power fist? Or, if it is so essential, why do you need to take a plasma gun on your tactical squad? Why is every single part of your list so no-compromises essential that you need to go over the point limit to take it?

In answering this remember that the competitive players just shrug and drop the least essential upgrade, even though going over the limit to take it gives a better chance of winning.

 Peregrine wrote:
I find the difference in attitude here fascinating.

The self-described "casual" players are the least flexible about their lists. This upgrade is necessary for fluff, this upgrade is vital for having fun, etc, until the entire list is a 100% essential no-compromises part that can't possibly be changed to comply with a point limit. And, simultaneously, these extra upgrades aren't a big deal and nobody should complain about breaking the point limit to take them.

The competitive players have no problem with flexibility and understand that you can't always fit everything you want. They'd never even think of asking to break the point limit so they could take an extra upgrade, they just bring a legal list for whatever point limit is set.

Now who is the real "casual" player?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nou wrote:
And yet entire fairness of the game apparently hinges on those 4 points. In all seriousness, that must be the biggest compliment about the quality of GWs point balance I have ever seen written on this board

Of course the entire balance doesn't hinge on it, but it does say a lot about a player's attitude towards the game. Do they accept the rules even when it means not getting what they want, or do they act like they're entitled to break the rules for an advantage, however small? There's never a situation where you must break the point limit, it's just a question of how selfish you are. And if you are the kind of person who feels entitled to break one rule what else are you going to take? A little careless movement to your advantage, because it's only an inch or two and it wouldn't be fun for you if you failed your charge roll? Rounding every measurement in your favor because it isn't fun to be 0.5" out of range and not get to shoot?

Seriously Peregrine, this entire CAAC player you build your argument upon is just a figment of your imagination... Especially this "packet" approach to personal virtues - I would expect substantially less stereotypical approach from such a woken and all knowing, all considerating person as yourself

But what do I know, ultimately I'm just one of the original CAAC players you coined this term to have an easy label for.

Yeah, CAAC players don't exist, I just imagined the guy talking about "GW concentration camps" in an effort to attack people for wanting to play by the rules.

The 'couple of points over' thing happens in an environment where the point limit is considered to be an approximation; it is a 2000ish point game. So bit like a power level, really. Of course if the same person constantly brings lists that are over and never under, then that person might be misusing the trust of the others.

 Peregrine wrote:
Yeah, CAAC players don't exist, I just imagined the guy talking about "GW concentration camps" in an effort to attack people for wanting to play by the rules.

You seriously did not saw mocking your "serious attitude" in that very post?

nou wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Yeah, CAAC players don't exist, I just imagined the guy talking about "GW concentration camps" in an effort to attack people for wanting to play by the rules.

You seriously did not saw mocking your "serious attitude" in that very post?

I saw someone going way too far and making a joke about something that should not be joked about.

 Peregrine wrote:

nou wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Yeah, CAAC players don't exist, I just imagined the guy talking about "GW concentration camps" in an effort to attack people for wanting to play by the rules.

You seriously did not saw mocking your "serious attitude" in that very post?

I saw someone going way too far and making a joke about something that should not be joked about.

Being English we invented concentration camps so we own rights to the jokes about them.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
That extra 4 points means you fit in a Plasma Gun.

But I've not taken a plasma gun.

Besides, I don't really know how many points a plasma gun costs any more.

If you want your Tactical Marine squad at 10 dudes, you should've built your list to include that at the limit of the game.

Or, if my opponent is okay with it, I don't have to.

It isn't my fault you lack even basic list making skills I had when I was as young as 12.

Look, I think you fail to understand something about me. I've played 40k for years. I played all through entire editions trying to fit into the attitude that yourself, Peregrine, and others embody have. I built all my lists to the limit, I cut where I had to, and sacrificed my personal "fun" to comply with the ubercompetitive-"if an option isn't the best one, you're nerfing yourself and that's all that matters"-approach. And I don't like that any more.

It's not a case of I can't cut things from my list. It's a case of why should I sacrifice me having fun with aesthetic and cool fluffy models and armies just to fit into an arbitrary limit? If my opponent doesn't want to change that arbitrary limit, or thinks that the single storm bolter in an army of Whirlwinds, ten man Tactical Squads and Terminators is just too OP and would make my list unplayably better against his Castellan/Slamguinius/Cadian army, then I wouldn't play them.
Simple as.

You can't handle 4 points? Cool, play against someone else who can play the game how you want to. I'll stick with my way.

You completely miss the point on purpose. Like I expected.

It isn't JUST a Plasma Gun that brought you over 4 points. There's the Flamer, the two Storm Bolters, etc.

If you can't build the list to the agreed level, you're a cheater. Simple as that. You can dress it up all you want by saying "look how fluffy my list is though!!!!1!". If someone in Yugioh was using a crummy Starter Deck and they were shuffling the deck so they had a better opening, that would be cheating, yes?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
And yet you don't seem to see why anyone would ever want such a thing and use that as your whole "CAAC" argument, and the "casual at all cost" person thinks they "should bend the rules"

Why do you need that power fist? Or, if it is so essential, why do you need to take a plasma gun on your tactical squad? Why is every single part of your list so no-compromises essential that you need to go over the point limit to take it?

In answering this remember that the competitive players just shrug and drop the least essential upgrade, even though going over the limit to take it gives a better chance of winning.

Bingo.

If you were actually casual, the upgrade that brought you over can be seen as non-essential. So what's the harm in dropping it for a fair game in the agreed point level?

Or you can learn to actually build a list in the agreed point level, or play bigger games to fit in more models.

Can peeps at least agree that WAAC is not exclusively a tournament issue?

I mean, if I chopped off 8 of my fingers, I could still count the number of tournaments I’ve taken part in on one hand.

Yet, I’ve met quite a few WAAC goons. None of whom I ever chose to play again. From moronic micro-measuring, constant reshuffling of model position, shonky rule interpretations, temper tantrums when I demonstrated lucky dice rolling, demands to re-roll because ‘they didn’t see me roll’.

As I said earlier, it’s an attitude, not an approach to list writing.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Can peeps at least agree that WAAC is not exclusively a tournament issue?

I mean, if I chopped off 8 of my fingers, I could still count the number of tournaments I’ve taken part in on one hand.

Yet, I’ve met quite a few WAAC goons. None of whom I ever chose to play again. From moronic micro-measuring, constant reshuffling of model position, shonky rule interpretations, temper tantrums when I demonstrated lucky dice rolling, demands to re-roll because ‘they didn’t see me roll’.

As I said earlier, it’s an attitude, not an approach to list writing.

Very true. Most WAAC players are also competitive, but not all competitive players are WAAC players.

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

To be honest, it's impossible to use all the actual football rules if you play with friends, and no one uses offside unless it's an official game. You'd need a referee.

You'd need more than just a referee, you need at least 3x officials, but I'm being pedantic here as I completely agree with the point made. In fact, offside does not exist in most formats of football below 11 a side.

My points exactly, both of you! There's a difference between a competitive league game and a quick kick around with your mates. Apparently 40k can't be done like that.

Peregrine wrote:The self-described "casual" players are the least flexible about their lists.

No more inflexible than yourself, who refuses to budge an inch from some points limit.

Look, if both players AGREED that they'd stick strictly to 2000, then fair enough. However, for myself, my opponents and I do not treat points limits as this sancrosant line that can't be crossed. We all actively say "hey, I'm over by this amount, is that cool?" and we all say "yeah, sure dude" because we KNOW that it's not going to be a big deal.
Can I promise that this works for everyone, and can't be abused? No, because people like Peregrine, as you yourself have admitted in this thread, would use it to gain power and strength, instead of doing it for other reasons.

This is the simple crux of why, Peregrine, I believe you disagree so strongly with me. Because you are so ingrained, so utterly consumed by the attitude you have to 40k (that you see it as something to be gamed, to be beaten, a system to be hacked into and mercilessly broken to win it) that you are incapable to see that other people don't think that way too. To you, the idea that someone would ask for extra points is a sign that they're trying to gain an advantage over everyone else. You think that anyone who plays Power Level is obsessed with trying to "better their image to others".

The reason we won't find common ground is because you simply seem that you can't understand that I think differently to you. I'm sorry.

This upgrade is necessary for fluff, this upgrade is vital for having fun, etc, until the entire list is a 100% essential no-compromises part that can't possibly be changed to comply with a point limit. And, simultaneously, these extra upgrades aren't a big deal and nobody should complain about breaking the point limit to take them.

And of course, you take things to the extreme. Please, could you address my point - is it actually the effect of me going over that's the problem (ie, are you threatened by a storm bolter), or is it what me going over represents?

The competitive players have no problem with flexibility and understand that you can't always fit everything you want. They'd never even think of asking to break the point limit so they could take an extra upgrade, they just bring a legal list for whatever point limit is set.

And that legal list is nearly always devoid of fun, in my personal experience. If legality comes at the price of fun, then I'm sorry, but I wouldn't pay that price. Now, luckily for me, there is a system that lets me have fun and still use a system of calculating the level of power in my army, but of course, that's only for the most tryhardiest of players.

Now who is the real "casual" player?

The one who just gets on and realises that the storm bolter probably won't affect the game at the end of the day?
Yes, if in your example, the player who's over the limit is trying to maximise all the possible options they can and do it to win, then they're clearly NOT a casual player. But the player who sees that an obviously sub-par list is slightly over points because the player modelled a storm bolter on his Lieutenant and still refuses to let them have it, because the mere principle of going over the limit is anathema to them, I'd say they're clearly not casual either.

I'd say the most casual players are the ones who just get on with it and roll some dice. Of course, that's not foolproof, and relies on trust, but if I can't trust my opponent, why am I playing with them?

Of course the entire balance doesn't hinge on it, but it does say a lot about a player's attitude towards the game. Do they accept the rules even when it means not getting what they want, or do they act like they're entitled to break the rules for an advantage, however small? There's never a situation where you must break the point limit, it's just a question of how selfish you are. And if you are the kind of person who feels entitled to break one rule what else are you going to take? A little careless movement to your advantage, because it's only an inch or two and it wouldn't be fun for you if you failed your charge roll? Rounding every measurement in your favor because it isn't fun to be 0.5" out of range and not get to shoot?

And it says a lot about someone's attitude when they ask you to change your list because you liked the look of a certain weapon. Do they let it go and realise there's more important things than a list being perfectly accurate (especially when we all know the points themselves aren't accurate), or do they stick unflinchingly to some rules and demand the other person change for them, despite the infraction being so small?

You can look at it either way you want - either the person over is being unreasonable because they broke the contract of which the game was agreed upon (which is fine), or the person not letting them go over is unreasonable because they can't let go of a minor and frankly insignificant part of the other person's army (which is also fine).

If I were really to have this issue, I'd probably say to the other person "okay, we'll do it your way, and on the next game, we'll do it my way" or vice versa. Or, just not play them. It wouldn't be exactly fair for one person to get their way all the time.

Peregrine wrote:No, the casual player is the person who says "it's not a big deal if I don't get that power fist" and doesn't even ask for extra points.

I disagree, mostly because that always benefits you. If this is to be taken in context, this means that you believe that the casual player should always submit themselves to you. Why? What's wrong with either taking things in turns, or just getting on with the game?

Peregrine wrote:Why do you need that power fist? Or, if it is so essential, why do you need to take a plasma gun on your tactical squad? Why is every single part of your list so no-compromises essential that you need to go over the point limit to take it?

Because that's how my guys are modeled.

Say I've taken a bunch of Infantry Squads, all with grenade launchers and vox casters, with power swords on the Sergeants, with barebones Leman Russes (idk what the cheapest variant is, but assume it's that) and Lord Commissars leading them. I can't drop equipment, because my models are armed with them. I can't drop models, because then the squads wouldn't be legal. I can't drop units, because then the gap between you and I would be even further, meaning that any issue you had with balance wasn't that the game was unbalanced, it was because you had less than me.

And clearly, as my hypothetical list shows, it's not

What do?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:You completely miss the point on purpose. Like I expected.

It isn't JUST a Plasma Gun that brought you over 4 points. There's the Flamer, the two Storm Bolters, etc.

If you can't build the list to the agreed level, you're a cheater. Simple as that. You can dress it up all you want by saying "look how fluffy my list is though!!!!1!". If someone in Yugioh was using a crummy Starter Deck and they were shuffling the deck so they had a better opening, that would be cheating, yes?

Wouldn't know, I don't play Yu-Gi-Oh.

Again, if I'd AGREED that I'd stick to that points limit, then I would. But I wouldn't say that - I'd say "hey, want to play around 2000 points?", and then when I've made my list "oh, I'm three points over? We cool?". And the answer is overwhelmingly usually "yeah, that's fine".
That's not cheating. Mostly because my experiences are completely different to yours.

Peregrine wrote:Why do you need that power fist? Or, if it is so essential, why do you need to take a plasma gun on your tactical squad? Why is every single part of your list so no-compromises essential that you need to go over the point limit to take it?

In answering this remember that the competitive players just shrug and drop the least essential upgrade, even though going over the limit to take it gives a better chance of winning.

Bingo.

If you were actually casual, the upgrade that brought you over can be seen as non-essential. So what's the harm in dropping it for a fair game in the agreed point level?

Well, even IF the points limit was reached and agreed upon, there's still no guarantee of it being fair. So, let's leave "fairness" out of this, because we both know that there's a BIG difference between two armies being the same points, and the same armies being evenly matched and a fair game.

Or you can learn to actually build a list in the agreed point level, or play bigger games to fit in more models.

Or the competitive player can shrug off the minuscule difference between the two, and just get on with it.

Yes, I'm aware that one party "suffers". That's why if both parties agree instead to alternate approaches, then everyone is satisfied, yes? Does that approach appeal to anyone?

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Can peeps at least agree that WAAC is not exclusively a tournament issue?

I mean, if I chopped off 8 of my fingers, I could still count the number of tournaments I’ve taken part in on one hand.

Yet, I’ve met quite a few WAAC goons. None of whom I ever chose to play again. From moronic micro-measuring, constant reshuffling of model position, shonky rule interpretations, temper tantrums when I demonstrated lucky dice rolling, demands to re-roll because ‘they didn’t see me roll’.

As I said earlier, it’s an attitude, not an approach to list writing.

Exactly.

I see we're now at the point of ridiculous examples involving IG players who are using every single model in their collection and can't trade a vox model for a basic lasgun model.

And wait, I thought this was a casual player? If winning isn't important then drop a commissar, who cares if you're 50 points under? Or are you caring about winning after all, and unwilling to follow the point limit if if means hurting your chances of winning too much?

 Peregrine wrote:
I see we're now at the point of ridiculous examples involving IG players who are using every single model in their collection and can't trade a vox model for a basic lasgun model.

And wait, I thought this was a casual player? If winning isn't important then drop a commissar, who cares if you're 50 points under? Or are you caring about winning after all, and unwilling to follow the point limit if if means hurting your chances of winning too much?

You are arguing BS to keep your narrative of the "CAAC" person. You don't seem to get it through your head it's not about chances of winning at all, you just keep harping on that point because it fits what you're trying to "prove", that the person asking for it to be no big deal is somehow less right than the person like yourself who want rules to be followed.

You just don't seem to get it and continue to argue your point against everything people are saying to somehow show that you're right and they are wrong.

This thread has become a poo flinging contest, I'm surprised the mods didn't get involved long ago.

If it "isn't about winning" then following the point limit is easy.

Peregrine wrote:I see we're now at the point of ridiculous examples involving IG players who are using every single model in their collection and can't trade a vox model for a basic lasgun model.

Do they have any spare lasgunners? Because if not...

And wait, I thought this was a casual player? If winning isn't important then drop a commissar, who cares if you're 50 points under? Or are you caring about winning after all, and unwilling to follow the point limit if if means hurting your chances of winning too much?

But I thought that balance was important to you? If one player is under by 50 points, then that's not a balanced game, is it?

Look, I see what you're doing, and I see your point. Your point is that "if you're so casual, why don't you just always submit to me, who cares about balance when it's favouring me". However, just because they might be a casual player, it shouldn't mean they're a pushover.
I'm sorry, but if someone (not you, of course) came up to me in this situation, and said what you're saying now, I'd just quit playing them. That kind of person really IS someone I'd find incredibly toxic - the fact that they clearly don't care about balance at all, and more about gatekeeping more relaxed players from "their" hobby. The fact that they wouldn't be able to handle a clearly non-competitive Guard list if it was a tiny amount of points over speaks volumes.

But, of course, that wouldn't be you. This is all hypothetical, isn't it?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
If it "isn't about winning" then following the point limit is easy.

If it's about being balanced, then telling someone to drop more points than which they were over should be even worse.

It isn't about balance, it's about respecting the rules. The limit is 2000 points, you bring 2000 points or less however you can do it. Competitive players understand this, and would be perfectly fine going to a tournament 50 points short if spending those 50 points would mean making compromises they don't want. And they sure as hell wouldn't show up with a list over the limit and ask to break the rules because it would be "more balanced".


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And yes, every IG player has spare lasgunners. I refuse to accept your absurd example that one exact 2005/2000 point list is the only possible list that player can bring, without a single alternate model for their most basic troops.

 Peregrine wrote:
It isn't about balance, it's about respecting the rules. The limit is 2000 points, you bring 2000 points or less however you can do it. Competitive players understand this, and would be perfectly fine going to a tournament 50 points short if spending those 50 points would mean making compromises they don't want. And they sure as hell wouldn't show up with a list over the limit and ask to break the rules because it would be "more balanced".


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And yes, every IG player has spare lasgunners. I refuse to accept your absurd example that one exact 2005/2000 point list is the only possible list that player can bring, without a single alternate model for their most basic troops.

It's about respecting the very same rules you are so eager to disrespect in nearly every post about 40K ruleset and rule writers?
Come on... you are not even trying hard enough here to sustain an argument... You can do better!

Again I like a necron army, but people are like "U R the st00p1d!!! Necrons can't w1n in 8e! U n33d 2 pl4y armies that can do the w1ns! "

Well, I xxxxing like necrons, OK? Maybe I don't like "the w1nn33" armies. I have no desire to run Orks, eldar, blood angels, etc.

I don't want to run an IG army even if it's "the w1nn13st! " army

I run necrons, un aligned CSM and maybe blood ravens. I just kinda like those armies.

I love you completely just ignored what I said by saying you wouldn't know because you don't play Yugioh.

I got a spoiler for you: the logic can be applied to any TCG. If the ultra casual deck is being used by someone planning to cheat by shuffling their deck in a manner to give them a better hand, it is cheating. It doesn't matter HOW unoptimized what you're facing is. Cheating is cheating.

You bringing an extra upgrade means you cheat. Either take something out to make that one fit, or realize you're using this attitude of "I'm casual, guys!" as some bizarre way to live out your fantasy of using badly constructed armies better via, well, cheating.

You really need to be ashamed of yourself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
I see we're now at the point of ridiculous examples involving IG players who are using every single model in their collection and can't trade a vox model for a basic lasgun model.

And wait, I thought this was a casual player? If winning isn't important then drop a commissar, who cares if you're 50 points under? Or are you caring about winning after all, and unwilling to follow the point limit if if means hurting your chances of winning too much?

You are arguing BS to keep your narrative of the "CAAC" person. You don't seem to get it through your head it's not about chances of winning at all, you just keep harping on that point because it fits what you're trying to "prove", that the person asking for it to be no big deal is somehow less right than the person like yourself who want rules to be followed.

You just don't seem to get it and continue to argue your point against everything people are saying to somehow show that you're right and they are wrong.

Well the person they're quoting is the ultimate proof of the CAAC player existing.

This is not a TCG. it is a social hobby where the theme and entertainment of the game is just as important, if not more so, than having things as balanced as possible for matched play. That's what seems to be the disconnect here. Some people can't fathom wanting to play loose with the rules, others enjoy it.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Peregrine wrote:I see we're now at the point of ridiculous examples involving IG players who are using every single model in their collection and can't trade a vox model for a basic lasgun model.

Do they have any spare lasgunners? Because if not...

And wait, I thought this was a casual player? If winning isn't important then drop a commissar, who cares if you're 50 points under? Or are you caring about winning after all, and unwilling to follow the point limit if if means hurting your chances of winning too much?

But I thought that balance was important to you? If one player is under by 50 points, then that's not a balanced game, is it?

Look, I see what you're doing, and I see your point. Your point is that "if you're so casual, why don't you just always submit to me, who cares about balance when it's favouring me". However, just because they might be a casual player, it shouldn't mean they're a pushover.
I'm sorry, but if someone (not you, of course) came up to me in this situation, and said what you're saying now, I'd just quit playing them. That kind of person really IS someone I'd find incredibly toxic - the fact that they clearly don't care about balance at all, and more about gatekeeping more relaxed players from "their" hobby. The fact that they wouldn't be able to handle a clearly non-competitive Guard list if it was a tiny amount of points over speaks volumes.

But, of course, that wouldn't be you. This is all hypothetical, isn't it?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
If it "isn't about winning" then following the point limit is easy.

If it's about being balanced, then telling someone to drop more points than which they were over should be even worse.

Once again, cheating is cheating, regardless of the source. You're literally supporting a cheating attitude.

Peregrine wrote:It isn't about balance, it's about respecting the rules.

You mean, the rules which say that Power Level is a valid part of the game? The rules which have a paragraph in them called the "Most Important Rule" which goes as follows: Emphases mine. The rules seem to prioritize for fun over nearly all else, and agreeing with your opponent. If there's a disagreement, then it comes down to a quick discussion or a dice-off. It wouldn't be hard for both sides to agree on doing it player A's way in one game, and player B's way in another game.

The limit is 2000 points, you bring 2000 points or less however you can do it. Competitive players understand this, and would be perfectly fine going to a tournament 50 points short if spending those 50 points would mean making compromises they don't want. And they sure as hell wouldn't show up with a list over the limit and ask to break the rules because it would be "more balanced".

But I'm not playing a tournament game. I know that if I went to a tournament, the expectation is to play by the rules of that tournament, else I can't play. That's fine. However, at a more relaxed and casual encounter, being a few points over is hardly a faux pas.

Two very different environments. If someone doesn't like one of them, I'd suggest they stay away from them and stick to their own niche.

And yes, every IG player has spare lasgunners. I refuse to accept your absurd example that one exact 2005/2000 point list is the only possible list that player can bring, without a single alternate model for their most basic troops.

Hi. I have all my Infantry Squads labelled and marked with specific iconography. Even if I played a game where I didn't take all my Infantry Squads, I wouldn't be able to switch out a man from one into another purely because they'd be from the wrong units. If you couldn't bear to break your rules obligation, I couldn't break my aesthetic obligation.

Besides, it's a moot point to me seeing as I don't play points anyways.

Techpriestsupport wrote:Again I like a necron army, but people are like "U R the st00p1d!!! Necrons can't w1n in 8e! U n33d 2 pl4y armies that can do the w1ns! "

Well, I xxxxing like necrons, OK? Maybe I don't like "the w1nn33" armies. I have no desire to run Orks, eldar, blood angels, etc.

I don't want to run an IG army even if it's "the w1nn13st! " army

I run necrons, un aligned CSM and maybe blood ravens. I just kinda like those armies.

I like your attitude. How do you run your Ravens? Do you have a Chapter tactic you always use, or do you switch out every so often?

I have barely did cider to start a blood ravens army, icmm working on my necron. I will likely pick a regular marine army I like and given them their rules. Maybe raven guard.

Wayniac wrote:
This is not a TCG. it is a social hobby where the theme and entertainment of the game is just as important, if not more so, than having things as balanced as possible for matched play. That's what seems to be the disconnect here. Some people can't fathom wanting to play loose with the rules, others enjoy it.

Sure it would be more fun to face a crummy deck if they always opened with their drawing cards, but if they're using slight of hand to do it every opening hand to cheat, it is, well, cheating.

Same thing applies here. You go in with conditions that the lists are a certain point number. You gaining your extra upgrade isn't my concern. If you wanted it that badly, you actually would've tried harder to fit it in the limit instead.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:I love you completely just ignored what I said by saying you wouldn't know because you don't play Yugioh.

I still addressed your point. I just tackled the Yu-Gi-Oh part first. Sorry if that threw you off.

I got a spoiler for you: the logic can be applied to any TCG. If the ultra casual deck is being used by someone planning to cheat by shuffling their deck in a manner to give them a better hand, it is cheating. It doesn't matter HOW unoptimized what you're facing is. Cheating is cheating.

40k isn't a TCG. It's a game played by both competitive and casual players. Sometimes casual players don't have the same virtues as competitive ones. They're still playing the same game, but focusing on different values. You value the rules and their integrity. I value fun.

It's only cheating if my opponent disagrees with it, or isn't aware of it. If my opponent KNOWS, and explicitly accepts me being over the points limit, then I'm not over the points limit, and not cheating. You seem to have in your head that I would do this to a player I didn't already clear this with. You seem to think that I'd show up with a list over the limit and not tell them. That's clearly not the case. Yes, I'd hope my opponent could see that I wasn't doing it to claim an advantage, but I wouldn't ever take an over-pointed list to a game unannounced, and certainly wouldn't do it behind someone's back.

If they give consent, then it's not cheating. If they don't then I either change my list, or I don't play them. Simple as.

You bringing an extra upgrade means you cheat. Either take something out to make that one fit, or realize you're using this attitude of "I'm casual, guys!" as some bizarre way to live out your fantasy of using badly constructed armies better via, well, cheating.

Or, being over points is just an effect of having an interest in the hobby outside of ultra-competitive rule stickling. If my opponents are okay with it, then it's no foul.

Again, you miss one thing - I'd do all this with my opponent's permission. If they don't give it, and can't handle a sub-par list being a few points over, then they're not someone I want to play.

You really need to be ashamed of yourself.

Likewise, if you can't handle a sub-par list being four points over.

Well the person they're quoting is the ultimate proof of the CAAC player existing.

Honestly, I'd rather be that than whatever you and Peregrine are. And if Peregrine's definition of that (which I find grossly insulting, if you're now going to call me that - rule 1?) is true, that must really speak to your attitude.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Once again, cheating is cheating, regardless of the source. You're literally supporting a cheating attitude.

Cheating is only cheating when done without your opponent's consent.