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.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: And is that in the rules, or is that one of your little house rules? Sorry, but there's absolutely NOTHING that even expects I should have that. Dice, tape measure, codex - yeah, those WILL be needed, but an army list, in all my years of experience, has never been one of those things.
There's nothing in the rules that requires you to bring dice either, by strict RAW it's just fine to leave yours at home and expect your opponent to have (or buy) some dice for you to use. Bringing a written list is just basic courtesy. It saves setup time, and it makes it clear what each player has on the table.
Sorry, asking my opponent to wait a few minutes is rude?
If it's going to bother you that much, then you surely should be a fan of Power Level. After all, it's faster to make a PL list than a point list.
It is rude when the alternative is to come prepared not waste their time. And PL is not a shorter wait because if you're doing it right you made your list at home and pulling either out of your stash of lists takes zero time.
Hey, SHUPPET? Told you.
Yeah, you correctly read the obvious words I said. Narrative play being a joke is a fact. The word "narrative" has a definition, and GW's so-called narrative mode does not fit any sane version of that definition.
The 2004 game experience IS inherently better because it's going to be more fun for me.
Why? Because your list is stronger and more likely to win? Because the stat line for your model is more powerful?
Look, could you get it out of your head that any attempt to go over the limit ISN'T just trying to get more power?
No, because all I hear is excuses. If it is purely about WYSIWYG then you don't need to break the point limit to be WYSIWYG. Nor do you need to break it to have fluff. If power and winning aren't important then complying with the point limit should be effortless. Just remove stuff until you have a legal list, and it doesn't matter if that makes your list less powerful because winning isn't the goal..
Well, yeah. I don't have magnetised models, I don't have redundant ones, and I take my armies in what I see to be the most lore-friendly formations as possible. That means ten man Tactical Squads, Assault Squads and taking no captain but Captain Sicarius when I play Ultramarines.
You honestly have zero extra models? Not a single generic bolter marine that you can swap for a heavy/special weapon to cut some points? You can only play one list ever and the only possible way it can be done is at 2004 points? I highly doubt this.
Why should I have to swap models when I can ask you if me being slightly over should be fine? If you don't like that, then I'd drop a unit, and ask you to do the same, or simply decline the game, depending on your attitude.
Why should I be obligated to drop a unit when I brought a legal list? And you're hardly just "asking" when you're backing it up by a threat to refuse to play unless I accept it (or cut stuff out of my own list to suit your demands).
My definition of casual is "I don't care about competitive play".
That's not what the word means. "Casual" is not a synonym for "anti-competitive", so please stop appropriating it. If your attitude towards the game is that your fluff is absolute and can not be compromised in even the slightest detail then you are not a casual player, you are an obsessively serious player.
I said I wouldn't play them if their attitude was poor.
And you've defined "poor attitude" as including "no, I'd rather just play a normal 2000 point game, please make a legal list". Anything that doesn't either give you your free upgrades or require your opponent to change their list to match yours is unacceptable.
Who says there needs to be conflict in a game? There doesn't need to be conflict aside from the little plastic models running towards eachother. The game isn't about conflict*. It's about FUN*. If the rules inhibit fun for myself and my opponents, you bet I'm throwing them right out the window.
You're the one claiming that there's conflict between fun and balance, and that GW is choosing fun over balance. There is no such conflict. Improving balance does not remove fun.
Asking to take a power fist on Sergeant Octavian and being a fraction over the points limit guideline, in my opinion, is absolutely more fun than Sergeant Barebones Johnson in a flavourless, puerile competitive list.
Then drop something else, if Sergeant Octavian is so absolutely important. Or have Sergeant Octavius and his power sword take command of the squad. Nobody is requiring you to take naked sergeants, there are plenty of ways to have sergeants with upgrades (and even sergeants with power fists!) in a 2000 point list.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/17 10:33:02
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Nice assumption, but wrong. I go to the club to show off my conversions and fully painted army on the table. I refuse to put an unpainted model on the table. I am a big fan of narrative play, including board games and supplements, and Kill Team too as of late. I love admiring other people's hobbying and the setting, and often spend time just watching two awesomely painted armies fight, and contributing to the narrative and the positive atmosphere. I love engaging in lore discussions in the club, as I read a lot of the books, and what I haven't read I love learning about. Other times, I also play competitively too, and when I do I expect to play by the competitive ruleset, so if asked an open question, "hey can I go over the points limit", if both answers are genuinely an option, the one I will pick is "no".
You can call me a jerk in response to that, but I'll have to disagree with you on it, as while I will agree one of us is being pretty TFG in this hypothetical scenario, I'm quite sure that it's not me.
If you bring a competitive list and you're clearly superior than that SM list, would you play against him if he cuts that power fist? Just curious.
Well, apparently they should just build a better list. Even if it's a bad list, that's apparently their fault and doesn't excuse the fact they're slightly over the limit.
I find that attitude genuinely baffling. In one breath, one argues that the points limit is there to promote balance and a "fair" game, but they also tacitly admit that the points system is flawed, and that two armies of even the same size can be vastly mismatched to one another. Furthermore, they advocate dropping entire units and being even further apart in terms of points difference, thereby surely INCREASING the mismatch, just so someone isn't over the limit, and justify it by saying "git gud".
If balance is the thing of importance here, then surely it's not guaranteed that simply being over the points limit would jeopardise that. Unless it's more the principle of being overpointed (which I believe it is), which throws the whole "but muh balance" aspect out of the window.
It's not about balance, or fun. It's about the rules.
Blackie wrote: People have fun in different ways. For someone could be more fun to play with his actual models, without screwing a unit, even if it means to be slightly above the budget. Allowing a few more points above the budget is an house rule that is actually followed in some groups. Like any other house rules it must be approved by both players, but it's quite common in 40k to play with custom house rules of any kinds.
Why do you need to break the point limit to play with your actual models? Is there something that I missed in the rules that says playing a 2000 point game with a list that is at or below 2000 points means that your models suddenly turn into a bunch of unpainted legs glued to bases?
Again, it's entirely subjective. I have more fun in playing a balanced match even if a player bended some rules that playing against someone that is clearly inferior or superior, even if completely legal. I have less fun playing with someone that shows up at the club with a tournament list in a place where no one can compete with that list and he could still tone down it having the models in his collection to do it.
Why are you forcing a choice between these things? Why can't those "fun" players bring legal lists? Why are you acting as if following the point limit is only done by TFGs?
He can play with 1995 or 2004 points maybe.
There you go. Play with 1995 points, done. That's a legal 2000 point list.
And, again, I find it interesting that it's the competitive players saying "just play 1995 points, of course I'd never ask for more" while it's the so-called casual players making up all kinds of excuses for why they're entitled to break the point limit and why anyone who won't let them isn't "fun" enough.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Nice assumption, but wrong. I go to the club to show off my conversions and fully painted army on the table. I refuse to put an unpainted model on the table. I am a big fan of narrative play, including board games and supplements, and Kill Team too as of late. I love admiring other people's hobbying and the setting, and often spend time just watching two awesomely painted armies fight, and contributing to the narrative and the positive atmosphere. I love engaging in lore discussions in the club, as I read a lot of the books, and what I haven't read I love learning about. Other times, I also play competitively too, and when I do I expect to play by the competitive ruleset, so if asked an open question, "hey can I go over the points limit", if both answers are genuinely an option, the one I will pick is "no".
You can call me a jerk in response to that, but I'll have to disagree with you on it, as while I will agree one of us is being pretty TFG in this hypothetical scenario, I'm quite sure that it's not me.
If you bring a competitive list and you're clearly superior than that SM list, would you play against him if he cuts that power fist? Just curious.
If I note that I'm clearly superior not only I'd let him take the PF anyway, but I'd probably tone down my list before starting to play.
It's an interesting question. I can't honestly say right now. I want to learn from my games and I don't feel I learn much from lists that don't follow the same standard of play. I think even 1 point can make a significant difference when it's the one that turns something like an Acid Spray Tyrannofex + 4 Hormagants, or a Rupture Cannon Tyrannofex. There's no way of knowing what would have been taken had they just followed the rules for standard play, and I don't think it's at all unreasonable to state that I'd prefer it if we just followed the rules for standard play. It's not about being worried about losing as a result of those points or anything similar, it's just cheapens the integrity of the experience for me. I could be 20 objective pts up with an catchable lead, I'm not going to just let my opponent start double moving and double shooting his Tactical Squads either, even if it's not going to affect the overall outcome of the game. If you want a narrative game, hey let's just arrange to do that instead! Otherwise, drop a single scout from a squad or something. I'm not entirely sure what I'd personally say in response to this, but at the very least I want to be clear, saying "no" doesn't mean you have a problem.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2018/12/17 11:01:39
P.S.A. I won't read your posts if you break it into a million separate quotes and make an eyesore of it.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: And is that in the rules, or is that one of your little house rules? Sorry, but there's absolutely NOTHING that even expects I should have that. Dice, tape measure, codex - yeah, those WILL be needed, but an army list, in all my years of experience, has never been one of those things.
There's nothing in the rules that requires you to bring dice either, by strict RAW it's just fine to leave yours at home and expect your opponent to have (or buy) some dice for you to use. Bringing a written list is just basic courtesy. It saves setup time, and it makes it clear what each player has on the table.
You know what else saves setup time? Power Level.
Also, I don't understand the last part. Why do you need to know what each player has on the table until the game starts? I mean, for a casual game, that would be good to know, seeing as one person might not have brought a casual list, but for the kinds of games you seem to want to play? Why do you care what's on the table until the game starts?
Sorry, asking my opponent to wait a few minutes is rude? If it's going to bother you that much, then you surely should be a fan of Power Level. After all, it's faster to make a PL list than a point list.
It is rude when the alternative is to come prepared not waste their time. And PL is not a shorter wait because if you're doing it right you made your list at home and pulling either out of your stash of lists takes zero time.
It's also rude to tell someone that their entire attitude to playing is "pathetic", but I don't see you calling Slayer out on that.
I've already debated with you about Power Level. Simply put, it IS faster (even if marginally) to calculate it because you don't need to worry about how many models in a unit, what upgrades, or anything beyond that. Figure out what units you have, and how many of them you can fit into the limit. Then play WYSIWYG.
You're still relying on the opinion that you should have a list ready. Nothing requires it, nor "should" I have to do that at all. In your gaming group, maybe, but not in mine.
Hey, SHUPPET? Told you.
Yeah, you correctly read the obvious words I said. Narrative play being a joke is a fact. The word "narrative" has a definition, and GW's so-called narrative mode does not fit any sane version of that definition.
Not a fact. An opinion.
Funnily enough, "polite" also has a definition (showing behaviour that is respectful), but some people freely admit that respect is beyond them.
The 2004 game experience IS inherently better because it's going to be more fun for me.
Why? Because your list is stronger and more likely to win? Because the stat line for your model is more powerful?
No. I've told you this. More fun because I'm not being told that the way I modeled a guy to look cool means I can't him, even though balance clearly isn't in question.
I know all you can think about is "powerpowerpowerpower", but not all of us think like that.
Look, could you get it out of your head that any attempt to go over the limit ISN'T just trying to get more power?
No, because all I hear is excuses. If it is purely about WYSIWYG then you don't need to break the point limit to be WYSIWYG. Nor do you need to break it to have fluff. If power and winning aren't important then complying with the point limit should be effortless. Just remove stuff until you have a legal list, and it doesn't matter if that makes your list less powerful because winning isn't the goal..
You're right. Winning isn't the goal. Fun is. And having to remove something like a tenth of my army because I like that power fist isn't fun either. I wrote that list because I liked it, and wanted to take it. If I can't take it, then it's not as fun.
But hey, seeing as you'd be all about not winning - if I removed part of my army, would you drop a similar amount? After all, surely you're after a balanced game, a "fair" game, right? Totally not about winning, at all costs.
Well, yeah. I don't have magnetised models, I don't have redundant ones, and I take my armies in what I see to be the most lore-friendly formations as possible. That means ten man Tactical Squads, Assault Squads and taking no captain but Captain Sicarius when I play Ultramarines.
You honestly have zero extra models? Not a single generic bolter marine that you can swap for a heavy/special weapon to cut some points? You can only play one list ever and the only possible way it can be done is at 2004 points? I highly doubt this.
You can doubt all you want, but no - I simply don't. I don't have any extra bolter marines than the ones I already have on the table. And why is this? Because I've done exactly what you've said - I've prewritten my list, and I've only taken the models on that list.
Wouldn't want to be rude and waste your precious time now, would I?*
*but no, seriously, I don't have extra men than what I put into my lists. There is no leeway in the matter. If I'm taking Tactical Squad Vorolanus, then I'm taking a missile launcher, flamer and bolt pistol/chainsword sergeant alongside 7 bolter boys. No swaps, no spares.
Why should I have to swap models when I can ask you if me being slightly over should be fine? If you don't like that, then I'd drop a unit, and ask you to do the same, or simply decline the game, depending on your attitude.
Why should I be obligated to drop a unit when I brought a legal list? And you're hardly just "asking" when you're backing it up by a threat to refuse to play unless I accept it (or cut stuff out of my own list to suit your demands).
B-b-but... I thought you wanted balance? I thought you wanted to play the game fairly and have a balanced game that challenged your vast strategic intellect? If you're playing against someone with significantly less points than you, how does that game pleasure you in any way?
Unless, of course, you don't care about balance, or having a fair game, and just care about winning. But that would be wrong, surely.
And, how is that a threat? I can decline to play all I want. You can't force me into playing.
My definition of casual is "I don't care about competitive play".
That's not what the word means. "Casual" is not a synonym for "anti-competitive", so please stop appropriating it. If your attitude towards the game is that your fluff is absolute and can not be compromised in even the slightest detail then you are not a casual player, you are an obsessively serious player.
> "stop appropriating" Irony, thy name is Peregrine.
You appropriated the idea of "casual" so hard that you said that CAAC players only cared about their social image. You seriously claimed that anyone who identified as a casual gamer only did so to make themselves look good.
I said I wouldn't play them if their attitude was poor.
And you've defined "poor attitude" as including "no, I'd rather just play a normal 2000 point game, please make a legal list". Anything that doesn't either give you your free upgrades or require your opponent to change their list to match yours is unacceptable.
Where did I define it as that? I clearly said on multiple occasions that wanting to play a 2000 point game was fine, and that I could work around that.
Poor attitude, as I actually defined, are ones like yours and Slayer's, who seem to lack any respect or tolerance for anyone who doesn't share your views on the game.
Who says there needs to be conflict in a game? There doesn't need to be conflict aside from the little plastic models running towards eachother. The game isn't about conflict*. It's about FUN*. If the rules inhibit fun for myself and my opponents, you bet I'm throwing them right out the window.
You're the one claiming that there's conflict between fun and balance, and that GW is choosing fun over balance. There is no such conflict. Improving balance does not remove fun.
Not inherently, but improving balance also doesn't make it more fun.
I'm not saying there's conflict between fun and balance. They're not mutually exclusive. You can have (but not limited to): A perfectly balanced game, and quite fun. A super fun game, but poorly balanced. A well balanced game, but no fun at all. A game which is neither fun or balanced.
I'm just saying that I'd always pick the second option there, because it's the MOST fun.
Asking to take a power fist on Sergeant Octavian and being a fraction over the points limit guideline, in my opinion, is absolutely more fun than Sergeant Barebones Johnson in a flavourless, puerile competitive list.
Then drop something else, if Sergeant Octavian is so absolutely important. Or have Sergeant Octavius and his power sword take command of the squad. Nobody is requiring you to take naked sergeants, there are plenty of ways to have sergeants with upgrades (and even sergeants with power fists!) in a 2000 point list.
But the whole list is important. That's why I took it. The only thing I could drop would be entire squads - and that jeopardizes the balance you love so dearly.
I couldn't do Sergeant Octavius with his power sword, because he doesn't exist. I know nobody requires me to have naked Sergeants - but if I don't have any other Sergeants in the first place, I can't replace them, can I?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SHUPPET wrote: It's an interesting question. I can't honestly say right now. I want to learn from my games and I don't feel I learn much from lists that don't follow the same standard of play. I think even 1 point can make a significant difference when it's the one that turns something like an Acid Spray Tyrannofex + 4 Hormagants, or a Rupture Cannon Tyrannofex. There's no way of knowing what would have been taken had they just followed the rules for standard play, and I don't think it's at all unreasonable to state that I'd prefer it if we just followed the rules for standard play. It's not about being worried about losing as a result of those points or anything similar, it's just cheapens the integrity of the experience for me. I could be 20 objective pts up with an catchable lead, I'm not going to just let my opponent start double moving and double shooting his Tactical Squads either, even if it's not going to affect the overall outcome of the game. If you want a narrative game, hey let's just arrange to do that instead! Otherwise, drop a single scout from a squad or something. I'm not entirely sure what I'd personally say in response to this, but at the very least I want to be clear, saying "no" doesn't mean you have a problem.
It's absolutely not unreasonable. At the same time, I don't see what's unreasonable about a clearly sub-par list (and I am emphasizing in this hypothetical scenario that this list clearly IS sub-par, however that may be) asking for a small bit of leeway over the limit because of an aesthetic upgrade.
It's all down to personal taste and values, neither of which I will say are wrong. However, it should never be considered underhanded, or cheating, to simply ASK about this, if purely done for aesthetic purposes.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/12/17 11:11:57
Sweet Emperor's TEETH this thread got Peregrined in a hurry.
I sincerely doubt anyone advocating leniency on their lists in PUG's has this issue in a tourney or a game planned in advance. The SECOND you have time to think about your list, most gamers lock themselves away with pen and codex/army book to hammer out about a dozen lists to see what "sticks". Perhaps a PUG doesn't have that sort of luxury.
SHUPPET wrote: It's an interesting question. I can't honestly say right now. I want to learn from my games and I don't feel I learn much from lists that don't follow the same standard of play. I think even 1 point can make a significant difference when it's the one that turns something like an Acid Spray Tyrannofex + 4 Hormagants, or a Rupture Cannon Tyrannofex. There's no way of knowing what would have been taken had they just followed the rules for standard play, and I don't think it's at all unreasonable to state that I'd prefer it if we just followed the rules for standard play. It's not about being worried about losing as a result of those points or anything similar, it's just cheapens the integrity of the experience for me. I could be 20 objective pts up with an catchable lead, I'm not going to just let my opponent start double moving and double shooting his Tactical Squads either, even if it's not going to affect the overall outcome of the game. If you want a narrative game, hey let's just arrange to do that instead! Otherwise, drop a single scout from a squad or something. I'm not entirely sure what I'd personally say in response to this, but at the very least I want to be clear, saying "no" doesn't mean you have a problem.
It's absolutely not unreasonable. At the same time, I don't see what's unreasonable about a clearly sub-par list (and I am emphasizing in this hypothetical scenario that this list clearly IS sub-par, however that may be) asking for a small bit of leeway over the limit because of an aesthetic upgrade.
It's all down to personal taste and values, neither of which I will say are wrong. However, it should never be considered underhanded, or cheating, to simply ASK about this, if purely done for aesthetic purposes.
Hmmm your post make it sound like I'm disagreeing with that, but not only do I agree, I've outright stated the same thing myself. There's nothing unreasonable about asking. You can ask to change the point limit and they can refuse, nobody is TFG in any scenario there until you starting stating people have "a problem" for their gameplay choice.
Also slight nitpick, t's not an aesthetic upgrade, it's a gameplay change. I'm cool with them taking the exact same model and just playing it without the whatever upgrade. Aesthetics are exactly the same. Otherwise, let's play by the same limitations, I don't want to have to come to games and analyse how strong my opponent's list might be before playing and whether they are justified in asking to take more etc. It's easy, just stick to the agreed limit.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/17 11:20:31
P.S.A. I won't read your posts if you break it into a million separate quotes and make an eyesore of it.
Not if you're meeting basic expectations, since pulling out a pre-written PL list is no faster than pulling out a pre-written list with normal points.
Also, I don't understand the last part. Why do you need to know what each player has on the table until the game starts? I mean, for a casual game, that would be good to know, seeing as one person might not have brought a casual list, but for the kinds of games you seem to want to play? Why do you care what's on the table until the game starts?
You need to know during the game. If there's any question about a unit's rules or upgrades or whatever you can consult the written list. If you're going over stuff immediately before the game to make sure each player knows what their opponent's list is having a written list is helpful. I don't know about you, but I always start off the game by exchanging lists and asking if my opponent has any questions about it.
It's also rude to tell someone that their entire attitude to playing is "pathetic", but I don't see you calling Slayer out on that.
Because it isn't even slightly related to the subject of this thread. There are a lot of things I could say that I don't
Not a fact. An opinion.
A fact. Words have meanings and are not just subjective opinion. GW's version of "narrative" play fails to meet any reasonable definition of "narrative", as it lacks any of the qualities that one would expect to find in a narrative game.
More fun because I'm not being told that the way I modeled a guy to look cool means I can't him, even though balance clearly isn't in question.
You can take that model just fine. I mean, are you seriously trying to argue that it's impossible to build a 2000 point list with that particular character included? Because that's nonsense.
You're right. Winning isn't the goal. Fun is. And having to remove something like a tenth of my army because I like that power fist isn't fun either. I wrote that list because I liked it, and wanted to take it. If I can't take it, then it's not as fun.
Then remove a heavy weapon. Or have a 9-man tactical squad. You're the one with the anti-casual attitude that every single piece of your fluff, no matter how tiny, must be treated as absolute law and can not be changed.
But hey, seeing as you'd be all about not winning - if I removed part of my army, would you drop a similar amount? After all, surely you're after a balanced game, a "fair" game, right? Totally not about winning, at all costs.
A fair game is one where we each have an equal amount of points to spend. You get 2000 points, I get 2000 points. The fact that you feel that a 1830 point list is better than an alternative 2000 point list is not my problem, just like I wouldn't expect you to drop something just because I ended up at 1980 points.
You can doubt all you want, but no - I simply don't. I don't have any extra bolter marines than the ones I already have on the table. And why is this? Because I've done exactly what you've said - I've prewritten my list, and I've only taken the models on that list.
You seriously don't have a single additional bolter marine in your entire collection? In every game you are using every single model you own, without any spares of your most basic troops? I find this extremely hard to believe.
B-b-but... I thought you wanted balance? I thought you wanted to play the game fairly and have a balanced game that challenged your vast strategic intellect? If you're playing against someone with significantly less points than you, how does that game pleasure you in any way?
I said I want respect for the rules. If the only way you can find to follow the rules is to drop an entire unit from your army then that's your choice, not mine. Anyone else would just drop a single model or upgrade to make a legal list.
Unless, of course, you don't care about balance, or having a fair game, and just care about winning.
As I said, it's amusing how the tournament players supposedly only care about winning instead of fun, but I would never even think about asking to go over the point limit because the alternative is to play at less than 2000 points. Funny how you think I only care about winning yet you're the one expecting free upgrades.
You seriously claimed that anyone who identified as a casual gamer only did so to make themselves look good.
I claimed no such thing. There are plenty of casual players who are legitimately casual, and who would even say "I'm casual" if someone asked. But you don't generally find these casual players getting involved in long arguments about the details of how people should play their game. That's something that requires a level of dedication entirely out of line with any reasonable definition of 'casual'.
I couldn't do Sergeant Octavius with his power sword, because he doesn't exist.
And this is why you are not a casual player. You are so obsessively dedicated to the game that you have created every conceivable detail of fluff, and treat that fluff as a no-compromises absolute law. A casual player says "shrug, whatever, sergeant whoever now has a power sword" because strict adherence to fluff doesn't matter (just like winning doesn't matter, painting well doesn't matter, etc).
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
SHUPPET wrote: Hmmm your post make it sound like I'm disagreeing with that, but not only do I agree, I've outright stated the same thing myself. There's nothing unreasonable about asking. You can ask to change the point limit and they can refuse, nobody is TFG in any scenario there until you starting stating people have "a problem" for their gameplay choice.
Also slight nitpick, t's not an aesthetic upgrade, it's a gameplay change. I'm cool with them taking the exact same model and just playing it without the whatever upgrade. Aesthetics are exactly the same. Otherwise, let's play by the same limitations, I don't want to have to come to games and analyse how strong my opponent's list might be before playing and whether they are justified in asking to take more etc. It's easy, just stick to the agreed limit.
Nah, I know you agree. I'm more using your post as a springboard to repeat that idea.
If I'd agreed to that limit beforehand and then asked to change, I'd have no issues with you saying "no, you agreed to this", and that would be fine. What I'm more pointing out would be "hey, fancy a game?" "Sure, let's say 2000 points?" "Well, let me come up with a list first...*a few minutes later* hey, I've got a 2004 point list here - is that cool?"
Nowhere is 2000 points agreed on, it's just treated as an estimate. Again, this isn't something that could be applied to tournaments, but I'm not advocating it should be.
Not if you're meeting basic expectations, since pulling out a pre-written PL list is no faster than pulling out a pre-written list with normal points.
Again - who's expectations are these? Just yours? You say basic - where is it "expected" I do this?
You're expecting me to stick to a set of social rules that not everyone actually follows. Don't you see why that's a problem?
Also, I don't understand the last part. Why do you need to know what each player has on the table until the game starts? I mean, for a casual game, that would be good to know, seeing as one person might not have brought a casual list, but for the kinds of games you seem to want to play? Why do you care what's on the table until the game starts?
You need to know during the game. If there's any question about a unit's rules or upgrades or whatever you can consult the written list. If you're going over stuff immediately before the game to make sure each player knows what their opponent's list is having a written list is helpful. I don't know about you, but I always start off the game by exchanging lists and asking if my opponent has any questions about it.
Yes, during. Which is why I'm writing the list. Sure, I might not have it pre-written, but I'll have it when the game's being played.
I think you're missing what I mean about having a pre-written list. I don't know what you mean, but I mean that a pre-written list is one that's been made hours, possibly days beforehand. I don't do that. If I'm going for a pickup game, then I'll just hammer out a list there and then, based on what models I might have on me. Then, before the models have even hit the table, I have a list.
Why is that a problem? You know what I have, and before the game starts, you can question it. You'll just have to wait a minute or so for me to write it.
It's also rude to tell someone that their entire attitude to playing is "pathetic", but I don't see you calling Slayer out on that.
Because it isn't even slightly related to the subject of this thread. There are a lot of things I could say that I don't
IOW it's convenient for me not to call Slayer out.
It's absolutely related to this thread. In a thread about attitudes to playing the game, someone calls someone's way of playing the game "pathetic". How is that NOT related?
Not a fact. An opinion.
A fact. Words have meanings and are not just subjective opinion. GW's version of "narrative" play fails to meet any reasonable definition of "narrative", as it lacks any of the qualities that one would expect to find in a narrative game.
If I can have a narrative with it, it's not a fact.
Plus, GW's use of it is as a proper noun. Not the "standard" definition of narrative.
More fun because I'm not being told that the way I modeled a guy to look cool means I can't him, even though balance clearly isn't in question.
You can take that model just fine. I mean, are you seriously trying to argue that it's impossible to build a 2000 point list with that particular character included? Because that's nonsense.
I'm not arguing it in all cases. I'm arguing that in this hypothetical, yes, it is, because it could quite easily happen with how I approach the game.
You're right. Winning isn't the goal. Fun is. And having to remove something like a tenth of my army because I like that power fist isn't fun either. I wrote that list because I liked it, and wanted to take it. If I can't take it, then it's not as fun.
Then remove a heavy weapon. Or have a 9-man tactical squad. You're the one with the anti-casual attitude that every single piece of your fluff, no matter how tiny, must be treated as absolute law and can not be changed.
And will that be fun for me? No.
You mistake what I am. If that's the definition of "casual" you're using, then I'm not casual. I'm just non-competitive. I play for fun.
If your idea of a casual player is someone who acquiesces to all your demands, because "if you're really casual, you won't complain", then I'm sorry, but I'm not your idea of "casual".
But hey, seeing as you'd be all about not winning - if I removed part of my army, would you drop a similar amount? After all, surely you're after a balanced game, a "fair" game, right? Totally not about winning, at all costs.
A fair game is one where we each have an equal amount of points to spend. You get 2000 points, I get 2000 points. The fact that you feel that a 1830 point list is better than an alternative 2000 point list is not my problem, just like I wouldn't expect you to drop something just because I ended up at 1980 points.
So your idea of a "fair" game is one where both sides happen to have the same arbitrary level of points? Despite you freely ADMITTING that the points aren't actually balanced or costed right?
How on earth is that a "fair" game?
You can doubt all you want, but no - I simply don't. I don't have any extra bolter marines than the ones I already have on the table. And why is this? Because I've done exactly what you've said - I've prewritten my list, and I've only taken the models on that list.
You seriously don't have a single additional bolter marine in your entire collection? In every game you are using every single model you own, without any spares of your most basic troops? I find this extremely hard to believe.
How much do you want to bet on that? Seriously, you're so sure that there's no possible way you could be wrong?
B-b-but... I thought you wanted balance? I thought you wanted to play the game fairly and have a balanced game that challenged your vast strategic intellect? If you're playing against someone with significantly less points than you, how does that game pleasure you in any way?
I said I want respect for the rules. If the only way you can find to follow the rules is to drop an entire unit from your army then that's your choice, not mine. Anyone else would just drop a single model or upgrade to make a legal list.
Respect for the rules? The rules which say that the most important rule is having fun?
I think you mean "respect for Matched Play". Which isn't all there is to the game.
Unless, of course, you don't care about balance, or having a fair game, and just care about winning.
As I said, it's amusing how the tournament players supposedly only care about winning instead of fun, but I would never even think about asking to go over the point limit because the alternative is to play at less than 2000 points. Funny how you think I only care about winning yet you're the one expecting free upgrades.
Those free upgrades aren't there to help me win? You're so locked into your own "winning" mindset* that you simply can't compute that someone else might not have it, can you?
*and I'm not saying that's inherently bad. It's the attitude that's the cause for problems, not simply wanting to win.
You seriously claimed that anyone who identified as a casual gamer only did so to make themselves look good.
I claimed no such thing. There are plenty of casual players who are legitimately casual, and who would even say "I'm casual" if someone asked. But you don't generally find these casual players getting involved in long arguments about the details of how people should play their game. That's something that requires a level of dedication entirely out of line with any reasonable definition of 'casual'.
Yes you have. In the power level thread.
The reason I'm getting into debate with you is because you misrepresent all my points, simply because your own mindset is so closed off you can't understand them. I'm trying to get through to you how there's more to the hobby than just your own views on it, but as usual, you seem to be completely deaf to it. I'm not saying how anyone "should" play the game. In fact, the only people who've actually mentioned the word "should" have been Slayer and yourself!
I couldn't do Sergeant Octavius with his power sword, because he doesn't exist.
And this is why you are not a casual player. You are so obsessively dedicated to the game that you have created every conceivable detail of fluff, and treat that fluff as a no-compromises absolute law. A casual player says "shrug, whatever, sergeant whoever now has a power sword" because strict adherence to fluff doesn't matter (just like winning doesn't matter, painting well doesn't matter, etc).
Again, I've not identified as "casual" here. Certainly not by your definition.
You and Slayer both have tried to pin your own definitions of "casual" upon me. Sorry, but if that's what being "casual" is, then that's not me.
Also, it's pretty hilarious that the example of fluff that can not possibly be modified is a tactical squad's choice of weapons. You'd think that a person with such devotion to the fluff would know that the whole point of a tactical squad is flexibility and that the squad should be capable of carrying whatever weapon is appropriate for the mission. A tactical squad that can only carry a missile launcher and flamer is an utter failure, and the squad's leadership should probably be sent on a suicidal penance mission to atone for their sins. If you really cared about the fluff you'd have alternate models for every special and heavy weapon option (or magnets, but you already rejected those) so that the squad has the weapon flexibility that its fluff dictates. And in that case complying with the point limit is easy, just trade the missile launcher for a heavy bolter and your list is legal.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Peregrine wrote: Also, it's pretty hilarious that the example of fluff that can not possibly be modified is a tactical squad's choice of weapons. You'd think that a person with such devotion to the fluff would know that the whole point of a tactical squad is flexibility and that the squad should be capable of carrying whatever weapon is appropriate for the mission. A tactical squad that can only carry a missile launcher and flamer is an utter failure, and the squad's leadership should probably be sent on a suicidal penance mission to atone for their sins. If you really cared about the fluff you'd have alternate models for every special and heavy weapon option (or magnets, but you already rejected those) so that the squad has the weapon flexibility that its fluff dictates. And in that case complying with the point limit is easy, just trade the missile launcher for a heavy bolter and your list is legal.
Yes, I'm aware of the fluff. That's not the problem.
I'm saying I don't have the models to do that. Now, unless you want to donate to the Sgt_Smudge Trust Fund and buy me models, I'm afraid you'll have to settle for what I've got. I'll be awaiting either a cheque or some lascannon marines via post.
Savvy?
(Again, I find it hilarious that you think that fluffy players should have an infinite supply of models, because if you don't have every model available at all times, you're clearly not a fluffy player).
Why do you need to break the point limit to play with your actual models? Is there something that I missed in the rules that says playing a 2000 point game with a list that is at or below 2000 points means that your models suddenly turn into a bunch of unpainted legs glued to bases?
Why do people use the ITC format? It's breaking the actual rules. Is there something I missed in the rules that makes playing with pure GW rules impossible or no fun at all? In my area no one plays with the ITC rules because we feel like we don't need them.
Of course there's no need to break the point limit, it's just a favor that may be granted or not in a friendly game. Some groups of gaming actually accept a tolerance in the points budget as a local house rule. I don't see any difference in adopting a local set of house rules or a more common and shared one, like the ITC format.
Why are you forcing a choice between these things? Why can't those "fun" players bring legal lists? Why are you acting as if following the point limit is only done by TFGs?
What is the real problem in facing a list that is slightly illegal? Is it because those 4pts make it overpowered? Or just by principle?
There are lots of undercosted stuff in 40k, absolutely legal. But a full legal list can be vastly unbalanced for many armies. I don't need to prove anything when I play, only seek balanced games, competive ones or not, it doesn't really matter. If that means heavy list tailoring, adopting house rules or letting some player bend the rules I can live with that. Not everytime maybe but I honestly don't see any difference if I allow +4pts in a list that is clearly far from cheesy levels. I only play WYSIWYG and strictly respect the budget but if the opponent asks for a favor and the overall quality of the game isn't affected I don't see any reason to refuse.
There you go. Play with 1995 points, done. That's a legal 2000 point list.
And, again, I find it interesting that it's the competitive players saying "just play 1995 points, of course I'd never ask for more" while it's the so-called casual players making up all kinds of excuses for why they're entitled to break the point limit and why anyone who won't let them isn't "fun" enough.
I'm a competitive player and I'd totally accept to play against a 2004 points list if we're basically on the same level.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: If I can have a narrative with it, it's not a fact.
That applies to literally anything. You can have narrative with the most hardcore tournament game, but I doubt you'd consider that a narrative game. For the word "narrative play" to have any meaning the game has to be well designed for story-focused play and support it with rules. GW's version doesn't do any of that, GW just declares "figure out how to tell a story I guess" and calls it good enough. It amazes me that narrative players are willing to tolerate being treated like that and don't demand a proper narrative expansion.
You mistake what I am. If that's the definition of "casual" you're using, then I'm not casual. I'm just non-competitive. I play for fun.
Great. Then I hope I won't ever see you calling yourself a casual player. But please don't try to appropriate the term "fun" as a replacement. You play for fun, I play for fun, everyone plays for fun.
If your idea of a casual player is someone who acquiesces to all your demands, because "if you're really casual, you won't complain", then I'm sorry, but I'm not your idea of "casual".
No, my definition of "casual" is the dictionary one: a relaxed and low-effort attitude towards the game. A casual player doesn't write elaborate fluff, doesn't care if their list is a bit weaker than it could be because they don't want to spend another 15 minutes trying to figure out how to go from 1980 points to the full 2000 points, probably doesn't paint many of their models, etc. A casual player would never even think about asking for extra points because they don't care enough about not having whatever it is they can't afford. The idea that a power fist could be so important that they have to ask for extra points so they can take it is completely opposed to the casual mindset.
So your idea of a "fair" game is one where both sides happen to have the same arbitrary level of points? Despite you freely ADMITTING that the points aren't actually balanced or costed right?
How on earth is that a "fair" game?
It's fair because both sides have the same 2000 points to spend, and equal access to all units/upgrades/etc. If you think something is overpowered you're free to take it. It's a concept that people in other games don't seem to have any problems with. For example, in X-Wing I've never seen anyone try to ask for extra points in a game because they don't want to drop an upgrade, they just bring a legal list chosen however they feel is best. And you don't get nearly as many complaints that it "isn't fair" that their list is weak, if they're flying a weak list they take responsibility for the choice to do so.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/17 12:02:08
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
A fair game is one where we each have an equal amount of points to spend. You get 2000 points, I get 2000 points. The fact that you feel that a 1830 point list is better than an alternative 2000 point list is not my problem, just like I wouldn't expect you to drop something just because I ended up at 1980 points.
This is where we basically disagree the most I think. A pick up game with the same amount of points can be totally unfair in 40k.
A fair game is one where the two armies are basically on a similar level, not necessary with the same points budget. By your logic GK or even SM, which probably don't have any chance against AM, drukhari, eldar or soups, will still play "fair games" because they are built with the same budget.
No, my definition of "casual" is the dictionary one: a relaxed and low-effort attitude towards the game. A casual player doesn't write elaborate fluff, doesn't care if their list is a bit weaker than it could be because they don't want to spend another 15 minutes trying to figure out how to go from 1980 points to the full 2000 points, probably doesn't paint many of their models, etc. A casual player would never even think about asking for extra points because they don't care enough about not having whatever it is they can't afford. The idea that a power fist could be so important that they have to ask for extra points so they can take it is completely opposed to the casual mindset.
I was wrong, we strongly disagree also on this point. A casual game IMHO is a game bewteen armies that don't chase the flavor of the months. That doesn't mean that the game is relaxed and with low-effort attitude towards the game. Trying to play at someone's best with non optimized army is a significant challenge, more than copy pasting tournament winning lists from the internet.
It takes me way more time when I field non competitive lists than competitive ones since I have to think to synergies and ways to field the less common models that are not the usual auto-takes.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2018/12/17 12:12:12
Sgt_Smudge wrote: If I can have a narrative with it, it's not a fact.
That applies to literally anything. You can have narrative with the most hardcore tournament game, but I doubt you'd consider that a narrative game. For the word "narrative play" to have any meaning the game has to be well designed for story-focused play and support it with rules. GW's version doesn't do any of that, GW just declares "figure out how to tell a story I guess" and calls it good enough. It amazes me that narrative players are willing to tolerate being treated like that and don't demand a proper narrative expansion.
Cool. You don't think it's good. I do. Settled.
You play for fun, I play for fun, everyone plays for fun.
Then why don't you seem to recognize that my idea of fun is just as valid as yours?
If your idea of a casual player is someone who acquiesces to all your demands, because "if you're really casual, you won't complain", then I'm sorry, but I'm not your idea of "casual".
No, my definition of "casual" is the dictionary one: a relaxed and low-effort attitude towards the game. A casual player doesn't write elaborate fluff, doesn't care if their list is a bit weaker than it could be because they don't want to spend another 15 minutes trying to figure out how to go from 1980 points to the full 2000 points, probably doesn't paint many of their models, etc. A casual player would never even think about asking for extra points because they don't care enough about not having whatever it is they can't afford. The idea that a power fist could be so important that they have to ask for extra points so they can take it is completely opposed to the casual mindset.
I think we have very different ideas about what a casual player is.
How on earth is that a "fair" game?
It's fair because both sides have the same 2000 points to spend, and equal access to all units/upgrades/etc. If you think something is overpowered you're free to take it. It's a concept that people in other games don't seem to have any problems with. For example, in X-Wing I've never seen anyone try to ask for extra points in a game because they don't want to drop an upgrade, they just bring a legal list chosen however they feel is best. And you don't get nearly as many complaints that it "isn't fair" that their list is weak, if they're flying a weak list they take responsibility for the choice to do so.
IOW "git gud".
And that's why I don't play competitive. I don't care about taking what will help me win. I care about being able to take the units and models I like. Now, this whole points thing is moot for me, because I don't use them (because they restrict what I can take), but I'd take what I liked when using them rather than trying to focus on trying to win. But seriously, you STILL think that a list of GK versus Castellan/Cadian/Slamguinius (or whatever the flavour of the week is) is a fair game? I wish I had your optimism.
Also, "it's a concept people in other games don't seem to have a problem with" - in which case, I'm glad 40k exists. The idea of a hobby which focuses solely on what's "legal", what's "overpowered", what helps you "win" sounds like one I wouldn't want to be part of, personally.
The fact that there's an avenue in 40k that cuts out all of that is something I've very thankful for, especially in the wake of this thread.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blackie wrote: I was wrong, we strongly disagree also on this point. A casual game IMHO is a game bewteen armies that don't chase the flavor of the months. That doesn't mean that the game is relaxed and with low-effort attitude towards the game. Trying to play at someone's best with non optimized army is a significant challenge, more than copy pasting tournament winning lists from the internet.
It takes me way more time when I field non competitive lists than competitive ones since I have to think to synergies and ways to field the less common models that are not the usual auto-takes.
I don't think I fully agree with this, but only in the "trying to play at someone's best" part.
The rest I think is pretty near what I think "casual" in 40k means. It doesn't mean "I don't care, you can walk all over me" like Peregrine seems to think. It's "I don't care about needing to play to the best, my end goal isn't to win, it's to enjoy myself without needing to play competitively".
The closest thing I can compare it to that Peregrine might understand is football or basketball down at the local park with your mates. You're not playing to win. You're playing for the sake of playing, with people you like, with an attitude you find fun, to have a good time. If something there means you won't have a good time, then it's not a game I want to be playing.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/12/17 12:18:08
[DCM]
Chief Deputy Sub Assistant Trainee Squig Handling Intern
There are also varying levels of Casual Play.
For instance?
1. Pick up game in a shop. To me, these should be matched points or power level. No house rules.
2. Games between a circle of gaming buddies. House rules and points tolerances have a place there.
3. Taking your usual list to a Tournament, as a way to meet and play others you wouldn't normally get the chance to.
4. Pre-arranged one off games and campaigns, possibly involving narrative scenarios, where the players aren't just going for VPs.
These are not exhaustive, only demonstrative.
Just as there are multiple levels of Competitive Play.
1. Going to a Tournament with a list you've honed over a few weeks, intending to give your best.
2. Bringing that same list to a store for pick-up games, utilising the same restrictions on your list that your next Tournament levies.
3. Going to a Narrative Tournament within the spirit of that specific Narrative Tournament.
Again, demonstrative, not exhaustive.
WAAC? WAAC will do any of those, and still be precisely no fun whatsoever to play, because their Win is placed above and beyond mutual enjoyment. Indeed, I'd argue WAAC is more prevalent in casual type play, because it's easier to get those ego massaging wins if your opponent isn't primed for a tougher opponent.
Yes. That's right. WAAC may be problematic in a Tournament, again because it's a set of behaviours. But it's a far, far bigger problem in Casual Play, and probably more prevalent, because those so interested in winning at all costs are likely to find opponents least able to counter them.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/17 12:22:18
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
It's fair because both sides have the same 2000 points to spend, and equal access to all units/upgrades/etc. If you think something is overpowered you're free to take it. It's a concept that people in other games don't seem to have any problems with. For example, in X-Wing I've never seen anyone try to ask for extra points in a game because they don't want to drop an upgrade, they just bring a legal list chosen however they feel is best. And you don't get nearly as many complaints that it "isn't fair" that their list is weak, if they're flying a weak list they take responsibility for the choice to do so.
So just that i understand what you are saying: Equal pts = Fair.
Now for most players that invovles also a balanced match that can go both sides with as equal chance for a win and loss no?
Now your answer is both sides have equal oppurtunities, right? What if they don't? Your answer is summarized as before as "Git Gud " attitude.
What would you do if you play an army that atm does not perform up to the par? R&H/ GK/ Mono non guilliman marines? etc. Vs i don't know, DE, Eldar, etc the top dogs?
Is that Still also fair since both sides field equal pts Peregrine?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/17 12:42:38
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
Peregrine wrote: Cheating does not cease to be cheating just because you persuade your opponent to accept it.
Stop lying. If both players agree to change the point level, it is not cheating to change it.
A more honest and "casual" player never asks in the first place. And it's hardly a case of legitimate consent when the "request" is backed up by a threat that you won't play against that person if they don't let you have the extra points, and the social pressure that you (and people like you) are going to label them a TFG if they want to play by the rules.
You may think doing this is impolite. That's far. It is still not cheating and repeating that lie doesn't make you seem any smarter. Also, please understand that some people have fiends and are capable of cordial interconnections with other human beings. This 'couple of points over' thing happens in circles where it is commonly seen as acceptable. The person who now had an even list but agreed that their opponent can be couple of point over had point over in a previous game. No one is pressured to do anything.
The only thing this thread has revealed is that the definition of "casual player" is too subjective and opaque to ever be a useful term.
I mean, if you've spent a good mount of money on Warhammer, have made hundreds of comments on Dakkadakka, and/or care deeply about some aspect of the hobby you are by definition a hardcore player/hobbyist Maybe not a competitive one, but a hard core Warhammer aficionado nonetheless.
Eldarsif wrote: The only thing this thread has revealed is that the definition of "casual player" is too subjective and opaque to ever be a useful term.
I mean, if you've spent a good mount of money on Warhammer, have made hundreds of comments on Dakkadakka, and/or care deeply about some aspect of the hobby you are by definition a hardcore player/hobbyist Maybe not a competitive one, but a hard core Warhammer aficionado nonetheless.
I’d call this a pretty accurate view. Jim the 750 point garage player probably doesn’t know what Dakka Dakka or frontline gaming etc even are, and is likely totally unaware for months when an errata changed his rules. That’s what I would call a casual.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: And is that in the rules, or is that one of your little house rules? Sorry, but there's absolutely NOTHING that even expects I should have that. Dice, tape measure, codex - yeah, those WILL be needed, but an army list, in all my years of experience, has never been one of those things.
There's nothing in the rules that requires you to bring dice either, by strict RAW it's just fine to leave yours at home and expect your opponent to have (or buy) some dice for you to use. Bringing a written list is just basic courtesy. It saves setup time, and it makes it clear what each player has on the table.
You know what else saves setup time?
Power Level.
Also, I don't understand the last part. Why do you need to know what each player has on the table until the game starts? I mean, for a casual game, that would be good to know, seeing as one person might not have brought a casual list, but for the kinds of games you seem to want to play? Why do you care what's on the table until the game starts?
Sorry, asking my opponent to wait a few minutes is rude?
If it's going to bother you that much, then you surely should be a fan of Power Level. After all, it's faster to make a PL list than a point list.
It is rude when the alternative is to come prepared not waste their time. And PL is not a shorter wait because if you're doing it right you made your list at home and pulling either out of your stash of lists takes zero time.
It's also rude to tell someone that their entire attitude to playing is "pathetic", but I don't see you calling Slayer out on that.
I've already debated with you about Power Level. Simply put, it IS faster (even if marginally) to calculate it because you don't need to worry about how many models in a unit, what upgrades, or anything beyond that. Figure out what units you have, and how many of them you can fit into the limit. Then play WYSIWYG.
You're still relying on the opinion that you should have a list ready. Nothing requires it, nor "should" I have to do that at all. In your gaming group, maybe, but not in mine.
Hey, SHUPPET? Told you.
Yeah, you correctly read the obvious words I said. Narrative play being a joke is a fact. The word "narrative" has a definition, and GW's so-called narrative mode does not fit any sane version of that definition.
Not a fact. An opinion.
Funnily enough, "polite" also has a definition (showing behaviour that is respectful), but some people freely admit that respect is beyond them.
The 2004 game experience IS inherently better because it's going to be more fun for me.
Why? Because your list is stronger and more likely to win? Because the stat line for your model is more powerful?
No. I've told you this.
More fun because I'm not being told that the way I modeled a guy to look cool means I can't him, even though balance clearly isn't in question.
I know all you can think about is "powerpowerpowerpower", but not all of us think like that.
Look, could you get it out of your head that any attempt to go over the limit ISN'T just trying to get more power?
No, because all I hear is excuses. If it is purely about WYSIWYG then you don't need to break the point limit to be WYSIWYG. Nor do you need to break it to have fluff. If power and winning aren't important then complying with the point limit should be effortless. Just remove stuff until you have a legal list, and it doesn't matter if that makes your list less powerful because winning isn't the goal..
You're right. Winning isn't the goal. Fun is. And having to remove something like a tenth of my army because I like that power fist isn't fun either. I wrote that list because I liked it, and wanted to take it. If I can't take it, then it's not as fun.
But hey, seeing as you'd be all about not winning - if I removed part of my army, would you drop a similar amount? After all, surely you're after a balanced game, a "fair" game, right? Totally not about winning, at all costs.
Well, yeah. I don't have magnetised models, I don't have redundant ones, and I take my armies in what I see to be the most lore-friendly formations as possible. That means ten man Tactical Squads, Assault Squads and taking no captain but Captain Sicarius when I play Ultramarines.
You honestly have zero extra models? Not a single generic bolter marine that you can swap for a heavy/special weapon to cut some points? You can only play one list ever and the only possible way it can be done is at 2004 points? I highly doubt this.
You can doubt all you want, but no - I simply don't. I don't have any extra bolter marines than the ones I already have on the table. And why is this? Because I've done exactly what you've said - I've prewritten my list, and I've only taken the models on that list.
Wouldn't want to be rude and waste your precious time now, would I?*
*but no, seriously, I don't have extra men than what I put into my lists. There is no leeway in the matter. If I'm taking Tactical Squad Vorolanus, then I'm taking a missile launcher, flamer and bolt pistol/chainsword sergeant alongside 7 bolter boys. No swaps, no spares.
Why should I have to swap models when I can ask you if me being slightly over should be fine? If you don't like that, then I'd drop a unit, and ask you to do the same, or simply decline the game, depending on your attitude.
Why should I be obligated to drop a unit when I brought a legal list? And you're hardly just "asking" when you're backing it up by a threat to refuse to play unless I accept it (or cut stuff out of my own list to suit your demands).
B-b-but... I thought you wanted balance? I thought you wanted to play the game fairly and have a balanced game that challenged your vast strategic intellect? If you're playing against someone with significantly less points than you, how does that game pleasure you in any way?
Unless, of course, you don't care about balance, or having a fair game, and just care about winning.
But that would be wrong, surely.
And, how is that a threat? I can decline to play all I want. You can't force me into playing.
My definition of casual is "I don't care about competitive play".
That's not what the word means. "Casual" is not a synonym for "anti-competitive", so please stop appropriating it. If your attitude towards the game is that your fluff is absolute and can not be compromised in even the slightest detail then you are not a casual player, you are an obsessively serious player.
> "stop appropriating"
Irony, thy name is Peregrine.
You appropriated the idea of "casual" so hard that you said that CAAC players only cared about their social image. You seriously claimed that anyone who identified as a casual gamer only did so to make themselves look good.
I said I wouldn't play them if their attitude was poor.
And you've defined "poor attitude" as including "no, I'd rather just play a normal 2000 point game, please make a legal list". Anything that doesn't either give you your free upgrades or require your opponent to change their list to match yours is unacceptable.
Where did I define it as that? I clearly said on multiple occasions that wanting to play a 2000 point game was fine, and that I could work around that.
Poor attitude, as I actually defined, are ones like yours and Slayer's, who seem to lack any respect or tolerance for anyone who doesn't share your views on the game.
Who says there needs to be conflict in a game? There doesn't need to be conflict aside from the little plastic models running towards eachother. The game isn't about conflict*. It's about FUN*. If the rules inhibit fun for myself and my opponents, you bet I'm throwing them right out the window.
You're the one claiming that there's conflict between fun and balance, and that GW is choosing fun over balance. There is no such conflict. Improving balance does not remove fun.
Not inherently, but improving balance also doesn't make it more fun.
I'm not saying there's conflict between fun and balance. They're not mutually exclusive. You can have (but not limited to):
A perfectly balanced game, and quite fun.
A super fun game, but poorly balanced.
A well balanced game, but no fun at all.
A game which is neither fun or balanced.
I'm just saying that I'd always pick the second option there, because it's the MOST fun.
Asking to take a power fist on Sergeant Octavian and being a fraction over the points limit guideline, in my opinion, is absolutely more fun than Sergeant Barebones Johnson in a flavourless, puerile competitive list.
Then drop something else, if Sergeant Octavian is so absolutely important. Or have Sergeant Octavius and his power sword take command of the squad. Nobody is requiring you to take naked sergeants, there are plenty of ways to have sergeants with upgrades (and even sergeants with power fists!) in a 2000 point list.
But the whole list is important. That's why I took it. The only thing I could drop would be entire squads - and that jeopardizes the balance you love so dearly.
I couldn't do Sergeant Octavius with his power sword, because he doesn't exist. I know nobody requires me to have naked Sergeants - but if I don't have any other Sergeants in the first place, I can't replace them, can I?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SHUPPET wrote: It's an interesting question. I can't honestly say right now. I want to learn from my games and I don't feel I learn much from lists that don't follow the same standard of play. I think even 1 point can make a significant difference when it's the one that turns something like an Acid Spray Tyrannofex + 4 Hormagants, or a Rupture Cannon Tyrannofex. There's no way of knowing what would have been taken had they just followed the rules for standard play, and I don't think it's at all unreasonable to state that I'd prefer it if we just followed the rules for standard play. It's not about being worried about losing as a result of those points or anything similar, it's just cheapens the integrity of the experience for me. I could be 20 objective pts up with an catchable lead, I'm not going to just let my opponent start double moving and double shooting his Tactical Squads either, even if it's not going to affect the overall outcome of the game. If you want a narrative game, hey let's just arrange to do that instead! Otherwise, drop a single scout from a squad or something. I'm not entirely sure what I'd personally say in response to this, but at the very least I want to be clear, saying "no" doesn't mean you have a problem.
It's absolutely not unreasonable. At the same time, I don't see what's unreasonable about a clearly sub-par list (and I am emphasizing in this hypothetical scenario that this list clearly IS sub-par, however that may be) asking for a small bit of leeway over the limit because of an aesthetic upgrade.
It's all down to personal taste and values, neither of which I will say are wrong. However, it should never be considered underhanded, or cheating, to simply ASK about this, if purely done for aesthetic purposes.
It's not an aesthetic upgrade. It's a frickin weapon upgrade. Make it just count as a Chainsword then and set a marker next to it so I remember.
Why do you need to break the point limit to play with your actual models? Is there something that I missed in the rules that says playing a 2000 point game with a list that is at or below 2000 points means that your models suddenly turn into a bunch of unpainted legs glued to bases?
Why do people use the ITC format? It's breaking the actual rules. Is there something I missed in the rules that makes playing with pure GW rules impossible or no fun at all? In my area no one plays with the ITC rules because we feel like we don't need them.
Of course there's no need to break the point limit, it's just a favor that may be granted or not in a friendly game. Some groups of gaming actually accept a tolerance in the points budget as a local house rule. I don't see any difference in adopting a local set of house rules or a more common and shared one, like the ITC format.
Why are you forcing a choice between these things? Why can't those "fun" players bring legal lists? Why are you acting as if following the point limit is only done by TFGs?
What is the real problem in facing a list that is slightly illegal? Is it because those 4pts make it overpowered? Or just by principle?
There are lots of undercosted stuff in 40k, absolutely legal. But a full legal list can be vastly unbalanced for many armies. I don't need to prove anything when I play, only seek balanced games, competive ones or not, it doesn't really matter. If that means heavy list tailoring, adopting house rules or letting some player bend the rules I can live with that. Not everytime maybe but I honestly don't see any difference if I allow +4pts in a list that is clearly far from cheesy levels. I only play WYSIWYG and strictly respect the budget but if the opponent asks for a favor and the overall quality of the game isn't affected I don't see any reason to refuse.
There you go. Play with 1995 points, done. That's a legal 2000 point list.
And, again, I find it interesting that it's the competitive players saying "just play 1995 points, of course I'd never ask for more" while it's the so-called casual players making up all kinds of excuses for why they're entitled to break the point limit and why anyone who won't let them isn't "fun" enough.
I'm a competitive player and I'd totally accept to play against a 2004 points list if we're basically on the same level.
You are definitely not a competitive player based on several of the posts you've made regarding evaluating codices and units. So that's a lie.
Peregrine wrote: Cheating does not cease to be cheating just because you persuade your opponent to accept it.
Stop lying. If both players agree to change the point level, it is not cheating to change it.
A more honest and "casual" player never asks in the first place. And it's hardly a case of legitimate consent when the "request" is backed up by a threat that you won't play against that person if they don't let you have the extra points, and the social pressure that you (and people like you) are going to label them a TFG if they want to play by the rules.
You may think doing this is impolite. That's far. It is still not cheating and repeating that lie doesn't make you seem any smarter. Also, please understand that some people have fiends and are capable of cordial interconnections with other human beings. This 'couple of points over' thing happens in circles where it is commonly seen as acceptable. The person who now had an even list but agreed that their opponent can be couple of point over had point over in a previous game. No one is pressured to do anything.
Once again, this is called cheating with permission, especially when you have to go out of your way to make the person feel bad for wanting a regular game instead of one where you're incapable of making a list within limits because math is hard.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/12/17 15:42:52
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
I gotta admit there’s some truth to the “pressure” point.
Go on one of the big 40k fb groups and post “my opponent asked right before the game if he could go over X points and I said no.”
You will be absolutely demonized. There is a significant portion of the playerbase that acts like you have no right to turn down any request no matter how sudden or inconvenient. I’ve even seen a fair number of people claim that showing up with points over and not asking or saying anything about it is just fine. (And of course, that having a problem with said circumstance happening across the table means you’re a bad person.)
There are people that will use that perceived pressure to their advantage. Just like scam artists with empty gas cans that approach you in a store parking lot, they want to put you in a lose-lose situation: Either you give them something they want or you feel bad.
Personally, if I wanted to go over on points, I would contact my opponent well before the game, and instead of asking to go exactly to my most efficient point value, I’d ask them what value they’d like to go up to so that they can fit in something else that they want, while also making it clear that I will take no offense whatsoever if they just want to stick to the earlier agreed point value.
Eldarsif wrote: The only thing this thread has revealed is that the definition of "casual player" is too subjective and opaque to ever be a useful term.
I mean, if you've spent a good mount of money on Warhammer, have made hundreds of comments on Dakkadakka, and/or care deeply about some aspect of the hobby you are by definition a hardcore player/hobbyist Maybe not a competitive one, but a hard core Warhammer aficionado nonetheless.
I’d call this a pretty accurate view. Jim the 750 point garage player probably doesn’t know what Dakka Dakka or frontline gaming etc even are, and is likely totally unaware for months when an errata changed his rules. That’s what I would call a casual.
I love my games and post accordingly.
I really want others to enjoy the games I choose to play since out of brutal selfishness I want a thriving opponent base for me to play with.
Games are 100% defined by their rules that the players agree to abide by.
This is our precious free time, some of us have less than others.
"Courtesy" is to respect that time and not to go contrary to any agreed rules unless you came to some agreement prior to seeing each other across the table.
My son once went to play with unsleeved MTG cards (I did not get to see before-hand) and saw the vast majority of players cringe seeing it.
It is a form of culture that has certain observances like a handshake after a game.
The 2001 points list is like a form of "blackmail" when you think about it:
Q: I went a few points over on my list, I hope this is ok?
A1) No, it was a 2000 point list requirement, could you not have removed some items and upgraded others till it was equal to or below? Why not 1999 for that matter? Fix it please. (Seen this happen very rarely but a guy I know is quite firm about abiding by the points).
A2) Good! I was at 2025 and was wondering on how to bring that up, I am sure you will approve since it is a "casual game". (I have been sorely tempted to make two lists, one with some 10 points over just for giggles)
A3) I am sorry to hear you could not follow the rules (picks up stuff and finds other opponent). (I have seen this actually happen... it felt odd, both good and bad).
A4) Okay... (person now wonders what else is considered "close enough" in opponent's favor). (I have seen this as the typical answer but there is usually some loss of "goodwill" no matter how "casual" all claim to be, especially if the guy with more points wins).
I too see that people who like to "win at all costs" are usually the first to claim casual play: it is easier to find victims that do not know their rules "cold" and can be pushed around with bogus rules stated as fact with a loud voice.
I would say I am more of a "competitive" player almost out of self-defense because it has allowed me to meet fantastic people who are willing to put more effort into the games that I love (not necessarily money!).
BUT! I will tone the heck down anything I have for a brand new player, the #1 thing with them is to teach them the rules and make it as fun as possible even if they brought a rubber knife to a gun fight.
We all have our reasons and focus in games and at times despite best intentions they may be as incompatible as the rules we fight over (or with).
A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets.
Napoleon Bonaparte
Charistoph wrote: False. Points limits are always set by the game organizers. There is no point limit that can be the only set amount taken no matter what format you are playing in. A tournament can be played at 4000 points or 500 points, nothing is set in stone that they are all at 2000 points (only when they announce the specific tournament's rules). This is even less when you are NOT playing at a tournament. If you initially agree to 2000 points, but then they come back and say that their model collection only works with 2004 or 1980 (for whatever reason), then you can modify your agreement to adjust accordingly.
There is a huge difference between saying "let's play at 1000 points instead of 2000, I don't have much time today" and "let's play at 2004 points instead of 2000 points, I want to take an extra power fist that I can't afford in a normal 2000 point game". One is using the standard point levels that are player-neutral and chosen because they're round numbers, once is lobbying for a point level specifically tailored to be effectively the same as a standard point level except that it gives one player an extra advantage they want. It may not technically be cheating by the strictest definition of RAW, but if you're response to having a 1980 point list in a 2000 point game is "can we make it 2004 points so I can bring more stuff" instead of accepting that you have a legal 2000 point list and playing the game then you should be asking some questions about your motives.
False. There is absolutely zero difference between saying "let's play 1000 points" and "let's play 2004 points". Setting a point value for the game is a negotiation between the game organizers, not cheating. It can be an odd number or a product of ten, there are zero rules specifically setting any number for any pickup game. When there are no specific rules on a subject, it cannot be cheating.
What is cheating is paying for a Chainsword on a model and using a Power Fist for that model in the game. Note the actual difference here?
Peregrine wrote:PS: the average competitive tournament player's response to being at 1980 out of 2000 would be to shrug and play the legal 2000 point list even though it's 20 points short, they wouldn't even consider asking to change the rules so they could add more stuff to their list. So who exactly is the "casual" player here?
And I've seen the same type of people shrug at a 2004 point list. Part of the reason is to get in a game to experiment with their army. Sometimes working at a handicap (even a small one) actually helps you refine your techniques, and most of the competitive players in my area recognize that.
ValentineGames wrote:
Charistoph wrote: It seems to me that some people equate modifying the game to being cheaters.
But isn't modifying, adding, creating one of games workshops main guiding principles?
It was always in the books written somewhere.
Pretty much, and every game is like that from WMH to 40K to freakin Monopoly. Peregrine can't seem to get it inside his head that asking permission to make a modification, even to the point level you play, is not cheating. Cheating happens when you operate a change to the game without getting the informed consent of the other party. The difference between modifying and cheating is all about communication and agreement, not anything else.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/17 16:26:02
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
I think my opponent asking me to go 4 pts over 2000 before the game starts is not cheating, especially compared to them, say, dropping one Guardsman squad to 9 men.
One is illegal but doesn't matter (Dropping the guardsman) and one is legal but doesn't matter (so long as it occurs before the battle, it's following the rules - "Agreed upon points limit" doesn't mean it has to be a round number).
... an opponent asking to go over by a few points is obviously not cheating, but it's also obviously being a poor sportsman. Nobody plays normally at 2004 points. The only reason you'd play at that points value is if you have a piece of war gear you want to fit in, but otherwise can't.
Part of the challenge of this game is building a list.Making sure it fits within your points limit is part of that. My "super optimized competitive lists" will be within a point or two of that limit, but if I'm at a FLGS and want to get a game in and someone asks for 1000 points, I will go as close to it as possible without going over. Sure, I'd rather take another squad of guardsmen instead of a Lord Commissar, but one is 40 points and the other is 35 points, and if I'm going to go over by a point or two if I take the guardsmen, I'll bring the Commissar instead.
So while I'll probably still play you, I will have a lower opinion of your respect for the rules. I will wonder "what else" you're willing to flub, or not pay attention to.
Horst wrote: ... an opponent asking to go over by a few points is obviously not cheating, but it's also obviously being a poor sportsman. Nobody plays normally at 2004 points. The only reason you'd play at that points value is if you have a piece of war gear you want to fit in, but otherwise can't.
Part of the challenge of this game is building a list.Making sure it fits within your points limit is part of that. My "super optimized competitive lists" will be within a point or two of that limit, but if I'm at a FLGS and want to get a game in and someone asks for 1000 points, I will go as close to it as possible without going over. Sure, I'd rather take another squad of guardsmen instead of a Lord Commissar, but one is 40 points and the other is 35 points, and if I'm going to go over by a point or two if I take the guardsmen, I'll bring the Commissar instead.
So while I'll probably still play you, I will have a lower opinion of your respect for the rules. I will wonder "what else" you're willing to flub, or not pay attention to.
I'd've rather you said no, to be honest. I think being paranoid about people's attention to the rules, when they were open and morally straight in asking you up front, is just going to make the game less enjoyable.
It's really not a problem to say "no" if someone asks if they can go over. That's not a problem. It's fine. The problem comes from then saying "No, and you should feel bad for even asking you horrible powergamer. How dare you try to get such an ADVANTAGE over me? HAVE YOU NO RESPECT FOR THE RULES, KNAVE?"
Horst wrote: ... an opponent asking to go over by a few points is obviously not cheating, but it's also obviously being a poor sportsman. Nobody plays normally at 2004 points. The only reason you'd play at that points value is if you have a piece of war gear you want to fit in, but otherwise can't.
Part of the challenge of this game is building a list.Making sure it fits within your points limit is part of that. My "super optimized competitive lists" will be within a point or two of that limit, but if I'm at a FLGS and want to get a game in and someone asks for 1000 points, I will go as close to it as possible without going over. Sure, I'd rather take another squad of guardsmen instead of a Lord Commissar, but one is 40 points and the other is 35 points, and if I'm going to go over by a point or two if I take the guardsmen, I'll bring the Commissar instead.
So while I'll probably still play you, I will have a lower opinion of your respect for the rules. I will wonder "what else" you're willing to flub, or not pay attention to.
I'd've rather you said no, to be honest. I think being paranoid about people's attention to the rules, when they were open and morally straight in asking you up front, is just going to make the game less enjoyable.
It's really not a problem to say "no" if someone asks if they can go over. That's not a problem. It's fine. The problem comes from then saying "No, and you should feel bad for even asking you horrible powergamer. How dare you try to get such an ADVANTAGE over me? HAVE YOU NO RESPECT FOR THE RULES, KNAVE?"
Eh, I'd probably say a "soft" no, like, "Is there any way you can get under 2000 points?" and if they say no, I'd probably still play anyway since I don't particularly care, but each and every time they do something I'd wonder, "Is this the illegal piece of equipment that killed me?" Like, if they fire a Lascannon at me and kill a tank, I'll think, "Hmm, is THIS the piece of wargear they added that goes over the limit?"
I'd rather not have that thought in the back of my head.
20000+ points
