nou wrote:
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!

 Peregrine wrote:

nou wrote:
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!

I dislike and criticize the rules. I do not break them for personal gain and declare that my opponent is not someone I want to play against if they won't let me do it.

 Peregrine wrote:

nou wrote:
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!

I dislike and criticize the rules. I do not break them for personal gain and declare that my opponent is not someone I want to play against if they won't let me do it.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

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.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:1. Under that logic, someone should be allowed to ask to start with their best card if they're running a bad deck.

No. They need rebuild their deck with better focus. YOU need to write your army with better focus.

2. You then say it isn't cheating with the opponent's permission to cheat. Which is silly, because it's all cheating regardless of permission or not. THEN you say that you wouldn't want to play an opponent that wouldn't let you do that. That's obviously because you don't have to play by the rules of the game as long as you're "casual" with a "sub-par list".
That's honestly pathetic. Learn to list build better.

3. Then also own up to it. Either go in with the bad list with the conditions of the game and accept you might lose, or just build a better army.

4. Peregrine sounds like the person that builds a good army within the point parameters. Would I rather face a good army or a bad army that can't even be pointed correctly and then I'm accused of being against fun if I went play with a cheater?

Peregrine and I have some differences here and there but they're genuinely a person I respect due to their attitude and model building skills.

Wayniac wrote:I think what is being missed here is the key point that this is a question, not a statement. It's not black and white.

"Hey, I'm at 2004 points is that okay?"

There's essentially two answers here:

1) "Sure, no problem"

2) "No, I'd rather play by the rules we agreed on. You'll need to drop something to be at 2000 or under"

To which either way the proper response is to accept the response and either continue or say you'll need a minute or two to drop something from your list.

That's it. Neither is more right than the other. The act of asking doesn't insinuate anything. There are people who will answer #1 (several of us in this thread) and people who will answer #2 (Peregrine, among others). It's really not as big an argument as it seems to be made out to be where it's some cardinal sin to even dare ask. The main "rule" of this game is that you can and should modify the rules to make sure you have the most enjoyment. For some people, that means deviating as little as possible from the rules as written. For some, that means adjusting them entirely from allowing a few points over, to custom scenarios, to asking if you can take a unit you normally wouldn't be able to for some thematic purpose.

All of these are equally valid ways to play the game. Asking to "bend the rules" isn't inherently bad and you shouldn't feel ashamed for asking it. Chances are you'll know before you ask if the person you're playing is okay with it or not.

I think what's causing so much strife here is the notion that even having the gall to ask in the first place means you're a horrible person, a cheater and should be ashamed of yourself for even thinking to deviate from the rules.

Wayniac wrote:
I think what is being missed here is the key point that this is a question, not a statement. It's not black and white.

"Hey, I'm at 2004 points is that okay?"

There's essentially two answers here:

1) "Sure, no problem"

2) "No, I'd rather play by the rules we agreed on. You'll need to drop something to be at 2000 or under"

To which either way the proper response is to accept the response and either continue or say you'll need a minute or two to drop something from your list.

That's it. Neither is more right than the other. The act of asking doesn't insinuate anything. There are people who will answer #1 (several of us in this thread) and people who will answer #2 (Peregrine, among others). It's really not as big an argument as it seems to be made out to be where it's some cardinal sin to even dare ask. The main "rule" of this game is that you can and should modify the rules to make sure you have the most enjoyment. For some people, that means deviating as little as possible from the rules as written. For some, that means adjusting them entirely from allowing a few points over, to custom scenarios, to asking if you can take a unit you normally wouldn't be able to for some thematic purpose.

All of these are equally valid ways to play the game. Asking to "bend the rules" isn't inherently bad and you shouldn't feel ashamed for asking it. Chances are you'll know before you ask if the person you're playing is okay with it or not.

I think what's causing so much strife here is the notion that even having the gall to ask in the first place means you're a horrible person, a cheater and should be ashamed of yourself for even thinking to deviate from the rules.

Wayniac wrote:


I think what's causing so much strife here is the notion that even having the gall to ask in the first place means you're a horrible person, a cheater and should be ashamed of yourself for even thinking to deviate from the rules.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:1. Under that logic, someone should be allowed to ask to start with their best card if they're running a bad deck.

No. They need rebuild their deck with better focus. YOU need to write your army with better focus.

That's not true.

I don't need to do that, unless I want to play you. If I want to play someone else, I don't need to do that at all, if they're fine with me being over.

2. You then say it isn't cheating with the opponent's permission to cheat. Which is silly, because it's all cheating regardless of permission or not. THEN you say that you wouldn't want to play an opponent that wouldn't let you do that. That's obviously because you don't have to play by the rules of the game as long as you're "casual" with a "sub-par list".
That's honestly pathetic. Learn to list build better.

Pathetic because I value different things in the game?

Since when did you lose all ability to respect other people's preferences?

3. Then also own up to it. Either go in with the bad list with the conditions of the game and accept you might lose, or just build a better army.

Why should I have to play 40k with a better army? Why should the quality of my army be the factor here, and not the quality of the time I've going to have playing it?

Seriously, are you just being obtuse, or are you simply incapable of understanding that NOT EVERYONE LIKES THE WAY YOU PLAY?

4. Peregrine sounds like the person that builds a good army within the point parameters. Would I rather face a good army or a bad army that can't even be pointed correctly and then I'm accused of being against fun if I went play with a cheater?

Peregrine and I have some differences here and there but they're genuinely a person I respect due to their attitude and model building skills.

I respect Peregrine too. Doesn't mean I like what they say, but I respect they can say it, and I respect that they're entitled to their values. Hell, I think the same for you.

Unfortunately, you seem to lack respect. I'm genuinely sorry for your lack thereof.

Wayniac wrote:I think what is being missed here is the key point that this is a question, not a statement. It's not black and white.

"Hey, I'm at 2004 points is that okay?"

There's essentially two answers here:

1) "Sure, no problem"

2) "No, I'd rather play by the rules we agreed on. You'll need to drop something to be at 2000 or under"

To which either way the proper response is to accept the response and either continue or say you'll need a minute or two to drop something from your list.

That's it. Neither is more right than the other. The act of asking doesn't insinuate anything. There are people who will answer #1 (several of us in this thread) and people who will answer #2 (Peregrine, among others). It's really not as big an argument as it seems to be made out to be where it's some cardinal sin to even dare ask. The main "rule" of this game is that you can and should modify the rules to make sure you have the most enjoyment. For some people, that means deviating as little as possible from the rules as written. For some, that means adjusting them entirely from allowing a few points over, to custom scenarios, to asking if you can take a unit you normally wouldn't be able to for some thematic purpose.

All of these are equally valid ways to play the game. Asking to "bend the rules" isn't inherently bad and you shouldn't feel ashamed for asking it. Chances are you'll know before you ask if the person you're playing is okay with it or not.

I think what's causing so much strife here is the notion that even having the gall to ask in the first place means you're a horrible person, a cheater and should be ashamed of yourself for even thinking to deviate from the rules.

Thank you. You hit the nail on the head. Both ways are valid, just not valid for everyone. That doesn't mean either way is wrong, they're just different. Can we all agree on that?

nou wrote:

Wayniac wrote:


I think what's causing so much strife here is the notion that even having the gall to ask in the first place means you're a horrible person, a cheater and should be ashamed of yourself for even thinking to deviate from the rules.

I would add to that daring to ask playing anything but the Matched Play, even if it is strictly adhering to rules as published by GW. Cardinal sin! Repent, filthy CAAC! Oh, I forgot, Peregrine is obviously a narrative player. I wonder, how exactly does one calculate who is an attacker and who is defender, both using points and not breaking RAW Narrative rules which are written solely in PLs?

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
If I may propose a reasonable solution? It's reasonable so i'm not surprised one person here couldn't see it and instead got his feathers all ruffled up

Say player A and B agree on 2000 points but player A is running something like ultra marines which have obscene amounts of wargear and stuff so are pretty easy to customize to the last point.

Player b has an army with far less options and customizability, so maybe his army ends up at say, 2020 points, a whopping 1% over the limit.

Instead of player A getting madder than a wet hen and screeching abut it, why not let player B suggest payer A add some 20 point thing to his army?

Some armies are much easier to customize to the last pont that others because thanks to the curse of Ward they got a massive amount of wargear, options, upgrades, etc. Others have far more limited lists to choose from.

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
If I may propose a reasonable solution? It's reasonable so i'm not surprised one person here couldn't see it and instead got his feathers all ruffled up

Say player A and B agree on 2000 points but player A is running something like ultra marines which have obscene amounts of wargear and stuff so are pretty easy to customize to the last point.

Player b has an army with far less options and customizability, so maybe his army ends up at say, 2020 points, a whopping 1% over the limit.

Instead of player A getting madder than a wet hen and screeching abut it, why not let player B suggest payer A add some 20 point thing to his army?

Some armies are much easier to customize to the last pont that others because thanks to the curse of Ward they got a massive amount of wargear, options, upgrades, etc. Others have far more limited lists to choose from.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

nou wrote:

Wayniac wrote:


I think what's causing so much strife here is the notion that even having the gall to ask in the first place means you're a horrible person, a cheater and should be ashamed of yourself for even thinking to deviate from the rules.

I would add to that daring to ask playing anything but the Matched Play, even if it is strictly adhering to rules as published by GW. Cardinal sin! Repent, filthy CAAC! Oh, I forgot, Peregrine is obviously a narrative player. I wonder, how exactly does one calculate who is an attacker and who is defender, both using points and not breaking RAW Narrative rules which are written solely in PLs?

Seeing as GW's "Narrative Play" is basically a joke and has nothing going for it, I don't blame Peregrine for not respecting it.

nou wrote:

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
If I may propose a reasonable solution? It's reasonable so i'm not surprised one person here couldn't see it and instead got his feathers all ruffled up

Say player A and B agree on 2000 points but player A is running something like ultra marines which have obscene amounts of wargear and stuff so are pretty easy to customize to the last point.

Player b has an army with far less options and customizability, so maybe his army ends up at say, 2020 points, a whopping 1% over the limit.

Instead of player A getting madder than a wet hen and screeching abut it, why not let player B suggest payer A add some 20 point thing to his army?

Some armies are much easier to customize to the last pont that others because thanks to the curse of Ward they got a massive amount of wargear, options, upgrades, etc. Others have far more limited lists to choose from.

This has been answered in previous thread like this one. Obviously, player's B 20 points are meticulously engineered for maximum advantage (see Peregrine's CAAC virtues packet list), while player A is only allowed to add some random 20 points last minute, which will obviously not cover the whooping imbalance in power of those two lists...

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:You should always have a few pick-up lists ready to go for any point value. There's no excuse to let someone not play by the rules.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:1. You'd be a terrible person to even play a boardgame with if that's your attitude towards life.

2. People don't just GET respect. People earn respect. I can polite all I want, but I don't show respect to people that don't deserve it.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Seeing as GW's "Narrative Play" is basically a joke and has nothing going for it, I don't blame Peregrine for not respecting it.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Seeing as GW's "Narrative Play" is basically a joke and has nothing going for it, I don't blame Peregrine for not respecting it.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

2. People don't just GET respect. People earn respect. I can polite all I want, but I don't show respect to people that don't deserve it.

Strange. I seem to remember the Dakka forum rules saying "Be polite" and "Dakka should be a welcoming place for everyone to enjoy".

 Peregrine wrote:

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.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
If I may propose a reasonable solution? It's reasonable so i'm not surprised one person here couldn't see it and instead got his feathers all ruffled up

Say player A and B agree on 2000 points but player A is running something like ultra marines which have obscene amounts of wargear and stuff so are pretty easy to customize to the last point.

Player b has an army with far less options and customizability, so maybe his army ends up at say, 2020 points, a whopping 1% over the limit.

Instead of player A getting madder than a wet hen and screeching abut it, why not let player B suggest payer A add some 20 point thing to his army?

Some armies are much easier to customize to the last pont that others because thanks to the curse of Ward they got a massive amount of wargear, options, upgrades, etc. Others have far more limited lists to choose from.

Name one army besides Knights that will have this issue. Even Custodes don't have this magical issue you made mention of.

ValentineGames wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Seeing as GW's "Narrative Play" is basically a joke and has nothing going for it, I don't blame Peregrine for not respecting it.

It's only because people with such a stupid attitude says it's a joke.
That's not actually fact. Just poor opinion for the sake of creating conflict.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

2. People don't just GET respect. People earn respect. I can polite all I want, but I don't show respect to people that don't deserve it.

Strange. I seem to remember the Dakka forum rules saying "Be polite" and "Dakka should be a welcoming place for everyone to enjoy".

It depends on the individual and their popularity.
The rules don't apply across the board to everyone.
That's the impression I get. I'm constantly getting mods moaning at me for not having a high speechcraft value.
But when I report posts making personal attacks...ignored

 Peregrine wrote:
Narrative play is a joke.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Please, by all means, create a thread to defend the "Narrative Play" GW laid out for us. I could use a laugh.

 Blndmage wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
If I may propose a reasonable solution? It's reasonable so i'm not surprised one person here couldn't see it and instead got his feathers all ruffled up

Say player A and B agree on 2000 points but player A is running something like ultra marines which have obscene amounts of wargear and stuff so are pretty easy to customize to the last point.

Player b has an army with far less options and customizability, so maybe his army ends up at say, 2020 points, a whopping 1% over the limit.

Instead of player A getting madder than a wet hen and screeching abut it, why not let player B suggest payer A add some 20 point thing to his army?

Some armies are much easier to customize to the last pont that others because thanks to the curse of Ward they got a massive amount of wargear, options, upgrades, etc. Others have far more limited lists to choose from.

Name one army besides Knights that will have this issue. Even Custodes don't have this magical issue you made mention of.

Necrons.
We have very very minimal unit customization.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:You should always have a few pick-up lists ready to go for any point value. There's no excuse to let someone not play by the rules.

Should I? By what kind of authority should I?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:1. You'd be a terrible person to even play a boardgame with if that's your attitude towards life.

I mean, that's like, your opinion.

2. People don't just GET respect. People earn respect. I can polite all I want, but I don't show respect to people that don't deserve it.

Strange. I seem to remember the Dakka forum rules saying "Be polite" and "Dakka should be a welcoming place for everyone to enjoy".

Seems to imply respect, or at the very least, tolerance of people and their ideas, is expected.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Seeing as GW's "Narrative Play" is basically a joke and has nothing going for it, I don't blame Peregrine for not respecting it.

So, I say again, are GW's rules something to be followed, or are they just as malleable as some of us here are saying?

Look, you can either stand and say "yes, GW's rules should be followed exactly", or you can say "I dislike some of GW's rules, and ignore them when they would compromise my gameplay". Which is it?

Also, again, I'm not asking for you, Peregrine, or anyone to respect GW's rules. I'm asking you to respect other people, and their entitlement to value what they want to value, even if you don't agree with it. I'm not asking you to like PL, or casual gaming. I'm asking you to not shun anyone because they do.
Is that too hard for you?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:1. Are you really asking by which authority you need to play by the darn rules? OR are you asking by which you should have lists laid out?
The former I won't dignify with a response, but the latter is incredibly easy to do as you could simply modify on your next game if you think the math is that hard of an issue. I haven't had any issues seeing as I do everything on paper and Battlescribe and a calculator to make sure I haven't missed anything. I don't expect that much effort from most of the population, but I do expect at least a modicum of effort on the opponent's end to be able to create a list.

2. No, it says to be polite. I'm not respecting any Flat Earther coming from this forum, and I'm gonna pretend your superstitions are valid in any sense.

3. The whole "Narrative" and "Open Play" modes are simply jokes compared to the main system the game has used for several years for its games. There's no depth to anything in the Narrative section, and even the Open Play/Narrative stuff from Chapter Approved doesn't offer a lot.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Why SHOULD I have lists ready to play?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Why SHOULD I have lists ready to play?

Because it saves a lot of setup time before the game. Having lists ready to go is just basic courtesy.

And yes, you're entitled to be wrong about narrative play. We wont throw you in jail over it. But you're still wrong

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

3. The whole "Narrative" and "Open Play" modes are simply jokes compared to the main system the game has used for several years for its games. There's no depth to anything in the Narrative section, and even the Open Play/Narrative stuff from Chapter Approved doesn't offer a lot.

 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.