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.

 Horst wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 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.

I don't view listbuilding like that, exactly. There's not "one piece of wargear" that I would buy that goes over - that would be fairly trivial to fix. Usually it's that the sum total of the list goes over once the person adds everything they want to bring up, and it's not really clear even to them what the "one thing" was that put it over. Take the following hypothetical Slaanesh Daemons list, which is similar to what I have been considering running:

Supreme Command Detachment:
Keeper of Secrets ("Anchyche") 165
Keeper of Secrets ("Volorianwe") 165
Daemon Prince with Wings and Hellforged Sword ("Lissara") 180
Zarakynel ("Czumneth Ereshkigal) 666

Battalion Detachment
Masque of Slaanesh, 65
Herald of Slaanesh, 60
Herald of Slaanesh 60
5 Fiends of Slaanesh 210
3x 20 Daemonettes, Icon + Musician for each (145 x3)
2006 points. Which upgrade would you say put me over? And keep in mind, the Hellforged Sword is the cheapest option for the Daemon Prince with Wings.

Was it one of the Icons, which are 15 points? Or one of the Musicians which was 10? Any specific one? Or just roll a d3 to figure out which squad loses one to put me at 1996?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


I don't view listbuilding like that, exactly. There's not "one piece of wargear" that I would buy that goes over - that would be fairly trivial to fix. Usually it's that the sum total of the list goes over once the person adds everything they want to bring up, and it's not really clear even to them what the "one thing" was that put it over. Take the following hypothetical Slaanesh Daemons list, which is similar to what I have been considering running:

Supreme Command Detachment:
Keeper of Secrets ("Anchyche") 165
Keeper of Secrets ("Volorianwe") 165
Daemon Prince with Wings and Hellforged Sword ("Lissara") 180
Zarakynel ("Czumneth Ereshkigal) 666

Battalion Detachment
Masque of Slaanesh, 65
Herald of Slaanesh, 60
Herald of Slaanesh 60
5 Fiends of Slaanesh 210
3x 20 Daemonettes, Icon + Musician for each (145 x3)
2006 points. Which upgrade would you say put me over? And keep in mind, the Hellforged Sword is the cheapest option for the Daemon Prince with Wings.

Was it one of the Icons, which are 15 points? Or one of the Musicians which was 10? Any specific one? Or just roll a d3 to figure out which squad loses one to put me at 1996?

Well in your case it would just be to use 1 unit of 19 Daemonettes instead of 20, and the issue is easily fixed. Unless there's a reason you can't do that that I'm missing, I don't know enough about Daemons to say.

 Horst wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


I don't view listbuilding like that, exactly. There's not "one piece of wargear" that I would buy that goes over - that would be fairly trivial to fix. Usually it's that the sum total of the list goes over once the person adds everything they want to bring up, and it's not really clear even to them what the "one thing" was that put it over. Take the following hypothetical Slaanesh Daemons list, which is similar to what I have been considering running:

Supreme Command Detachment:
Keeper of Secrets ("Anchyche") 165
Keeper of Secrets ("Volorianwe") 165
Daemon Prince with Wings and Hellforged Sword ("Lissara") 180
Zarakynel ("Czumneth Ereshkigal) 666

Battalion Detachment
Masque of Slaanesh, 65
Herald of Slaanesh, 60
Herald of Slaanesh 60
5 Fiends of Slaanesh 210
3x 20 Daemonettes, Icon + Musician for each (145 x3)
2006 points. Which upgrade would you say put me over? And keep in mind, the Hellforged Sword is the cheapest option for the Daemon Prince with Wings.

Was it one of the Icons, which are 15 points? Or one of the Musicians which was 10? Any specific one? Or just roll a d3 to figure out which squad loses one to put me at 1996?

Well in your case it would just be to use 1 unit of 19 Daemonettes instead of 20, and the issue is easily fixed. Unless there's a reason you can't do that that I'm missing, I don't know enough about Daemons to say.

Outside it bothering me that the Daemonette units wouldn't be symmetrical, dropping a single Daemonette is probably what would be the correct move.

 Horst wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


I don't view listbuilding like that, exactly. There's not "one piece of wargear" that I would buy that goes over - that would be fairly trivial to fix. Usually it's that the sum total of the list goes over once the person adds everything they want to bring up, and it's not really clear even to them what the "one thing" was that put it over. Take the following hypothetical Slaanesh Daemons list, which is similar to what I have been considering running:

Supreme Command Detachment:
Keeper of Secrets ("Anchyche") 165
Keeper of Secrets ("Volorianwe") 165
Daemon Prince with Wings and Hellforged Sword ("Lissara") 180
Zarakynel ("Czumneth Ereshkigal) 666

Battalion Detachment
Masque of Slaanesh, 65
Herald of Slaanesh, 60
Herald of Slaanesh 60
5 Fiends of Slaanesh 210
3x 20 Daemonettes, Icon + Musician for each (145 x3)
2006 points. Which upgrade would you say put me over? And keep in mind, the Hellforged Sword is the cheapest option for the Daemon Prince with Wings.

Was it one of the Icons, which are 15 points? Or one of the Musicians which was 10? Any specific one? Or just roll a d3 to figure out which squad loses one to put me at 1996?

Well in your case it would just be to use 1 unit of 19 Daemonettes instead of 20, and the issue is easily fixed. Unless there's a reason you can't do that that I'm missing, I don't know enough about Daemons to say.

You can, but you lose the extra attack per girl for having 19 models, and it's a fairly drastic change in the way the list plays. It goes from "reliable assault unit with 3 attacks per girl and 4 on the sergeant" to having something like 50% fewer attacks, all for 6 points.

I'd almost rather turn the Daemon Prince into a Keeper of Secrets and be something like 10 points under but that's actually a worse imbalance, and losing the re-roll 1s from anywhere also dramatically changes how the list plays (ironically by removing the need to have everyone crowd the DP for re-rolls).

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Outside it bothering me that the Daemonette units wouldn't be symmetrical, dropping a single Daemonette is probably what would be the correct move.

As I mentioned, that's actually a fairly significant change in the unit, and it would very much bother my aesthetic sense. I guess it's just a question of "is the balance of 40k so finely tuned that it's worth violating this aesthetic sense and gameplay over 1 daemonette" lol.

You know I could understand playing something odd like 1700pts,then playing an army that gets units in chunks that mean you either get a 1900pts army or a 1500pts army. Then taking option, if ally don't exist, that goes some points over , maybe make sense. But not taking the proper number of points, while being able to run a legal army, just to get a plasma gun or some buff, is a very big no-no. the whole thing about list building and stuff having point costs is that you have to mange them. Otherwise we could as well be playing open. Because first someone takes 10pts over, army size shifts to 2010 and a month or two later someone wants to take 2020 etc.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Horst wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


I don't view listbuilding like that, exactly. There's not "one piece of wargear" that I would buy that goes over - that would be fairly trivial to fix. Usually it's that the sum total of the list goes over once the person adds everything they want to bring up, and it's not really clear even to them what the "one thing" was that put it over. Take the following hypothetical Slaanesh Daemons list, which is similar to what I have been considering running:

Supreme Command Detachment:
Keeper of Secrets ("Anchyche") 165
Keeper of Secrets ("Volorianwe") 165
Daemon Prince with Wings and Hellforged Sword ("Lissara") 180
Zarakynel ("Czumneth Ereshkigal) 666

Battalion Detachment
Masque of Slaanesh, 65
Herald of Slaanesh, 60
Herald of Slaanesh 60
5 Fiends of Slaanesh 210
3x 20 Daemonettes, Icon + Musician for each (145 x3)
2006 points. Which upgrade would you say put me over? And keep in mind, the Hellforged Sword is the cheapest option for the Daemon Prince with Wings.

Was it one of the Icons, which are 15 points? Or one of the Musicians which was 10? Any specific one? Or just roll a d3 to figure out which squad loses one to put me at 1996?

Well in your case it would just be to use 1 unit of 19 Daemonettes instead of 20, and the issue is easily fixed. Unless there's a reason you can't do that that I'm missing, I don't know enough about Daemons to say.

You can, but you lose the extra attack per girl for having 19 models, and it's a fairly drastic change in the way the list plays. It goes from "reliable assault unit with 3 attacks per girl and 4 on the sergeant" to having something like 50% fewer attacks, all for 6 points.

I'd almost rather turn the Daemon Prince into a Keeper of Secrets and be something like 10 points under but that's actually a worse imbalance, and losing the re-roll 1s from anywhere also dramatically changes how the list plays (ironically by removing the need to have everyone crowd the DP for re-rolls).

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Outside it bothering me that the Daemonette units wouldn't be symmetrical, dropping a single Daemonette is probably what would be the correct move.

As I mentioned, that's actually a fairly significant change in the unit, and it would very much bother my aesthetic sense. I guess it's just a question of "is the balance of 40k so finely tuned that it's worth violating this aesthetic sense and gameplay over 1 daemonette" lol.

So it sounds like you have a lot of buffs you want to get, and you cannot fit them into a 2000 point list.... so asking if you can take 6 extra points would be explicitly so your list can be more powerful. I mean I get it, I'm taking Sentinels with Plasma Cannons instead of Lascannons in my 2000 point list because I can't fit the Lascannons in, even though they'd serve the role I want them to fill better. I'm also taking a Leman Russ without Sponson Heavy Bolters but instead a Hull Heavy Flamer because again, I'm like 10 points short.

So instead of taking these things I want, which would increase my list's power, I take lesser options to fit into the generally agreed limit. I don't even ask if I can exceed the limit, because I would consider that poor sportsmanship. I simply take the less powerful options to fit in.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
You can, but you lose the extra attack per girl for having 19 models, and it's a fairly drastic change in the way the list plays. It goes from "reliable assault unit with 3 attacks per girl and 4 on the sergeant" to having something like 50% fewer attacks, all for 6 points.

I'd almost rather turn the Daemon Prince into a Keeper of Secrets and be something like 10 points under but that's actually a worse imbalance, and losing the re-roll 1s from anywhere also dramatically changes how the list plays (ironically by removing the need to have everyone crowd the DP for re-rolls).

Well yes, that's how list building works. You have to choose what is important, you don't get to break the point limit just because it means you could get extra attacks or an aura buff or whatever. And thanks for proving my point about it being about winning. None of this is about fluff or anything even remotely deserving of sympathy, your reasoning for breaking the point limit is entirely based on having a more powerful list.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
You can, but you lose the extra attack per girl for having 19 models, and it's a fairly drastic change in the way the list plays. It goes from "reliable assault unit with 3 attacks per girl and 4 on the sergeant" to having something like 50% fewer attacks, all for 6 points.

I'd almost rather turn the Daemon Prince into a Keeper of Secrets and be something like 10 points under but that's actually a worse imbalance, and losing the re-roll 1s from anywhere also dramatically changes how the list plays (ironically by removing the need to have everyone crowd the DP for re-rolls).

Well yes, that's how list building works. You have to choose what is important, you don't get to break the point limit just because it means you could get extra attacks or an aura buff or whatever. And thanks for proving my point about it being about winning. None of this is about fluff or anything even remotely deserving of sympathy, your reasoning for breaking the point limit is entirely based on having a more powerful list.

Right...

The purpose was to illustrate. If that person asked me (if I asked myself?) I wouldn't have a problem, even if the reason is explicitly my army doesn't function as well if you deny me it.

Some people would say no to it, and that's alright too, for all the good reasons outlined above.

The most important point: I still think I could destroy the list with my Steel Fury company. It's really not that great of a list. 6 points over 2000 won't actually make the list function well enough to beat IG/Smashcaptain/Castellan or whathave you. Its value in competitive play is unrelated to how many points it costs, which is perhaps an important note (if the argument is that equal points is equal play).

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Once again, this is called cheating with permission,

That's an oxymoron, there literally is no such thing. It is a sure sign that your argument is weak if you have to rely on lies based on nonsense to defend it.

Sorry, didnt read back far enough and missed the context there.

 Crimson wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Once again, this is called cheating with permission,

That's an oxymoron, there literally is no such thing. It is a sure sign that your argument is weak if you have to rely on lies based on nonsense to defend it.

Are you saying that one can't openly know if their opponent is cheating? It goes right hand in hand, essentially.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Once again, this is called cheating with permission,

That's an oxymoron, there literally is no such thing. It is a sure sign that your argument is weak if you have to rely on lies based on nonsense to defend it.

Are you saying that one can't openly know if their opponent is cheating? It goes right hand in hand, essentially.

If the opponent knowingly beforehand agreed to play in a certain way, then it cannot be cheating. Cheating is intentionally breaking the rules agreed upon, which is not the case here. Do you usually have this much trouble understanding what commonly used words mean?

The correct answer in a tournament is being DQ'ed Because tournament. But I'm fairly confident nobody is arguing against that.

The correct answer in a PuG or other non-tournament game is "Hey, do you have another model? Or some cheap ~6pt upgrade you can add? I really want to play 2006 points". Which I've seen done. And I've done, when the list worked out perfectly.

I've had someone ask if it's OK if they're over by a few points. I typically see if there's something I can add to match, but if not, whatever. The important thing is that, when the rule didn't work, they asked if it's OK. At that point, I can either say no (and they can modify their list or not play), or yes (and then I can modify my list or down a couple points). No harm.

There's no such thing as 'cheating with permission'. The rules are an agreement between players involved. Any accepted variant of the rules involved is, by definition, not cheating.

(Except playing CWE. Our rulebook says we can cheat.)

 Crimson wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Once again, this is called cheating with permission,

That's an oxymoron, there literally is no such thing. It is a sure sign that your argument is weak if you have to rely on lies based on nonsense to defend it.

Are you saying that one can't openly know if their opponent is cheating? It goes right hand in hand, essentially.

If the opponent knowingly beforehand agreed to play in a certain way, then it cannot be cheating. Cheating is intentionally breaking the rules agreed upon, which is not the case here. Do you usually have this much trouble understanding what commonly used words mean?

You did intentionally break the rules though. You agree to a point limit, and then all the sudden one player wants to go over. Whether or not there's permission, it is cheating, regardless of strength of list.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:

(Except playing CWE. Our rulebook says we can cheat.)

Lord Phil Kelley sends you blessings.

"You did intentionally break the rules though. You agree to a point limit, and then all the sudden one player wants to go over. Whether or not there's permission, it is cheating, regardless of strength of list."

Am I cheating on my taxes when I claim a deduction? The rules say X%. But the rules also allow for variance such as standard deductions.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You did intentionally break the rules though. You agree to a point limit, and then all the sudden one player wants to go over. Whether or not there's permission, it is cheating, regardless of strength of list.

Wait, are you saying that once you agree upon a points limit, you can never change that agreement?

Just yesterday I went into a store to play 2k points, but the guy had to leave early so we dropped it to 1k, despite our agreement the night before...

Poor man is a cheater... I'll have to let him know, he'll be devastated.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

You did intentionally break the rules though. You agree to a point limit, and then all the sudden one player wants to go over. Whether or not there's permission, it is cheating, regardless of strength of list.

*Sigh* I really have hard time tangling with this level of inability to understand either language or basic human interaction. If both players agree to alter the previously agreed upon point limit, then that is the new point limit. No cheating has happened. The end.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Wait, are you saying that once you agree upon a points limit, you can never change that agreement?

Just yesterday I went into a store to play 2k points, but the guy had to leave early so we dropped it to 1k, despite our agreement the night before...

Poor man is a cheater... I'll have to let him know, he'll be devastated.

Yep. That's literally what they're saying. It is blatantly crazy.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You did intentionally break the rules though. You agree to a point limit, and then all the sudden one player wants to go over. Whether or not there's permission, it is cheating, regardless of strength of list.

Wait, are you saying that once you agree upon a points limit, you can never change that agreement?

Just yesterday I went into a store to play 2k points, but the guy had to leave early so we dropped it to 1k, despite our agreement the night before...

Poor man is a cheater... I'll have to let him know, he'll be devastated.

Yes, that's their interpretation of agreement. And not only that, there is apparently something like standard, "default" point level that is nearly sacrosanct "nice round number". Any deviation is heresy, cheating and you are person not worthy of their respect (just read few last pages...).

Is it really a "they"? I'm not seeing many posters espouse that nonsense.

After this thread I'm really wondering if those two actually read the rules and are aware, that it is perfectly legal (explicitly allowed by BRB) to agree on a Matched Play game, including Battle Forged benefits, utilizing such methods of establishing size of a game as total wound number, units count or those dreadfull PLs...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
Is it really a "they"? I'm not seeing many posters espouse that nonsense.

Two is enough to warrant use of "they"...

nou wrote:

Yes, that's their interpretation of agreement. And not only that, there is apparently something like standard, "default" point level that is nearly sacrosanct "nice round number". Any deviation is heresy, cheating and you are person not worthy of their respect (just read few last pages...).

You're obviously blowing what was said out of proportion, but it is definitely poor sportsmanship to ask for an extension over a specific points limit just so you can fit in an extra model or upgrade you want.

And I'm not sure what experience you guys have had in stores, but there ARE "standard" points values this game is played at, at least by me. 1000, 1500, 1750, 1850, 2000, 2500. Yes, I know it's not in the BRB... but I've played quite a few games of this back in 6th and am just starting again, and I have literally never had a match where a guy asked if we could play "2006 points". Either your local meta is very different from mine, or you are just playing with friends in a basement or something. Which is fine, but it's not my experience at all.

Our metas are very different.

I'm surprised such a move ("Would you mind if we played a 2006 point game?") is considered bad sportsmanship in your meta. I suppose the social contract varies even more than I expected.

That said, Horst calling it "poor sportsmanship" is still a far cry from calling it "cheating".

New Idea:
The points limit of every played PUG must be the current year.

But I liiiike my 1500 pt games.

To hell with anyone who suggests 1503! Cursed cheaters! Probably even a Dark Angles player!

Bharring wrote:
Is it really a "they"? I'm not seeing many posters espouse that nonsense.

It can be a gender-neutral singular 'they', I don't know, nor will I remember, everyone's gender on the internet.

Bharring wrote:
Our metas are very different.

I'm surprised such a move ("Would you mind if we played a 2006 point game?") is considered bad sportsmanship in your meta. I suppose the social contract varies even more than I expected.

That said, Horst calling it "poor sportsmanship" is still a far cry from calling it "cheating".

Well, if the person asking for the game asked for a 2006 point match, then it's weird but not a problem. If I ask you for a 2000 point game, you say sure, we go to a table, I start taking out my stuff, then you ask if we can do 2006 points, That's more what I'd consider poor sportsmanship. We've already agreed on something, and you're trying to change it, presumably because you don't want to give up a unit or upgrade that will help you.

It's still all hypothetical to me though, because like I said I've literally never played a game outside what would be considered a "standard" nice round number, and if my opponents have then they didn't bother to tell me or ask.

@Horst,
That makes sense to me. I see it as a minor issue. It also depends on the framing. Like this:
-P1: Lets play- I have a 2000pt list!
-P2: OK
-<P2 makes a 2k list>
-P1: Actually, it's a 2006pt list, are you OK with that? Lets get started!
That's a little not-so-great. Why didn't he tell you up front?

But this:
-P1: Up for a game?
-P2: How many points?
-P1: How does 2k sound?
-P2: Sure
<Both players build their list>
-P1: My list came out to 2006. Is that OK?
-P1: [Sure | No |Can you drop something | I guess I'll add X]
<Both players finish their lists>
<Game starts>
I wouldn't consider that bad sportsmanship - the player brought up the variance as they realized they wanted to, and there's plenty of room for further debate or for P2 to change their list.

What do you think of those situations, Horst?

 Horst wrote:

nou wrote:

Yes, that's their interpretation of agreement. And not only that, there is apparently something like standard, "default" point level that is nearly sacrosanct "nice round number". Any deviation is heresy, cheating and you are person not worthy of their respect (just read few last pages...).

You're obviously blowing what was said out of proportion, but it is definitely poor sportsmanship to ask for an extension over a specific points limit just so you can fit in an extra model or upgrade you want.

And I'm not sure what experience you guys have had in stores, but there ARE "standard" points values this game is played at, at least by me. 1000, 1500, 1750, 1850, 2000, 2500. Yes, I know it's not in the BRB... but I've played quite a few games of this back in 6th and am just starting again, and I have literally never had a match where a guy asked if we could play "2006 points". Either your local meta is very different from mine, or you are just playing with friends in a basement or something. Which is fine, but it's not my experience at all.

During 7th I've played a lot of 1100pts games, because it was substantially better experience than 1000pts. I've played a lot of odd sized games, dictated by all various narrative reasons, model availability reasons, aesthetics of army composition (yes, such thing do exist), terrain limitations, you name it. But I admit - I have a luxury of a group that is very open minded and we basically do whatever we fancy with 40K because we are all skilled in the rare arts of verbal communication and do not treat this game as a serious sport or a tool to measure of our worth as human beings...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
@Horst,
That makes sense to me. I see it as a minor issue. It also depends on the framing. Like this:
-P1: Lets play- I have a 2000pt list!
-P2: OK
-<P2 makes a 2k list>
-P1: Actually, it's a 2006pt list, are you OK with that? Lets get started!
That's a little not-so-great. Why didn't he tell you up front?

But this:
-P1: Up for a game?
-P2: How many points?
-P1: How does 2k sound?
-P2: Sure
<Both players build their list>
-P1: My list came out to 2006. Is that OK?
-P1: [Sure | No |Can you drop something | I guess I'll add X]
<Both players finish their lists>
<Game starts>
I wouldn't consider that bad sportsmanship - the player brought up the variance as they realized they wanted to, and there's plenty of room for further debate or for P2 to change their list.

What do you think of those situations, Horst?

The first variant is most certainly odd if it isn't some honest mistake.

The second one is pretty much a summary of how my group does it, you would have to include a little brainstorming of scenario/narrative theme to be played and coming up with the idea of unique terrain arrangement, that often drives theme/list ideas, and in turn a point level we are comfortable with.

If you agree to a 2000 point game, get there and then ask "Hey, can I have another 6 points to make one of my units considerably more powerful?" I'm gonna think things that aren't so great. You may be called a cheese roll as a result, but I would haggle with you a bit, and probably replace a unit with a heavy weapons team of mortars into my army that would then bombard those units in the hopes of killing exactly one per squad. Particularly if I could get the points to match yours exactly. As I'd see that as roughly the same level of sportsmanship.

Now, if you brought up the list prior and said you wanted to try it specifically and gave me some heads up, I'd probably be far less of a dick about it and my focus would be beating that army rather than specifically beating those units. Or hell, even just 'around 2000 points' is fine, that gives me the idea that you're up to something so I see what stupid tricks I can fit in real close to that number.

That said, the entirely different question of actually different points levels that folks are conflating with asking for a direct improvement to your army over an agreed limitation, sure, 500, 1000, 1500, plan to have lists for the lot of them. Probably a number of them. A heads up and I'll play a value, without warning I'll need a minute to put a list together.

The annoying thing that's being done here is asking for a very specific number of points to give your self a significant advantage you cannot obtain within the original limitations. That's the unsportsmanlike thing people are riding here, not "Hey let's play a different point level game".

If you're both building a list, then that's fine. Normally though I bring pre-prepared lists at the points value I'm looking for a game at, that are generally modular enough to break into smaller point value lists. If I asked a guy for a game, and he didn't have a pre-made list at that points value, and started to build one, and asked if he could use more points, then right that is not poor sportsmanship.

Because I only use common points values though, usually when I'm looking for a game people will have those lists pre-prepared. At least where I play anyway. So asking for an exception for extra points would be very rare, and like I said it's never happened. Which is probably why I'd consider it poor sportsmanship if you brought a pre-prepared 2006 point list.... because nobody considers that to be a standard points level, so why bother pre-making a list like that?